An artificial intelligence-generated photograph of the president was posted on his Truth Social page Friday night, appearing days before cardinals head to their conclave in Rome to select a successor to Pope Francis, who died on April 21, one day after Easter.
The photograph, appearing just shy of a week after the Pope’s funeral — which Trump and first lady Melania Trump attended — was posted without further explanation but sparked backlash, praise, and jokes on social media.
It shows him in a white cassock and pointed miter, or bishop’s hat, and wearing a large crucifix. The New York State Catholic Conference, representing the state’s bishops, condemned the post, reports MSNBC.
“There is nothing clever or funny about this image, Mr. President. We just buried our beloved Pope Francis and the cardinals are about to enter a solemn conclave to elect a new successor of St. Peter. Do not mock us,” the conference posted on X.
Days after returning from the Pope’s funeral, Trump joked to reporters outside the White House that his becoming the pope would be his “number one choice” when asked whom he preferred to be picked, but followed up by saying he has “no preference” over who is ultimately selected.
“I must say, we have a cardinal that happens to be out of a place called New York, who’s very good,” Trump said of Cardinal Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York since 2009.
Pope Francis died from complications related to a stroke and heart failure. Earlier this year, he had been hospitalized in critical condition for several weeks.
Media reports in Italy and Spain criticized the post, calling it offensive as the period of official mourning for Pope Francis is continuing.
But the reaction has also been mixed, Newsweek reported Saturday.
Pope Trump… Lol our President just posted this,” comedian Terrance K. Williams posted on X Friday. “He’s trolling because he knows the media is going to flip out. Love it Actually I love the sound of King Trump, the first of his name.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Thursday, while talking about the next pope, said, “You don’t have to be a priest. People don’t know that. Any unmarried Catholic male can be pope. But I got married and I’m happily married, so I guess I’ll miss out on that one.”
That would also eliminate Trump from the running, as he has been married three times and is not a Catholic.
Vice President JD Vance also joked about Rubio being the pope, posting on X, “I think he could take on a bit more. If only there was a job opening for a devout Catholic…”
Vance, a Catholic, was one of the last foreign officials to meet with Pope Francis before his death.
Earlier this week, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., joked about Trump being “open to the idea of being the next Pope.”
“This would truly be a dark horse candidate, but I would ask the papal conclave and Catholic faithful to keep an open mind about this possibility! The first Pope-U.S. President combination has many upsides. Watching for white smoke…. Trump MMXXVIII!,” he posted on X.
But the Republicans Against Trump account on X called the president’s papal post “full-on lunacy at this point.”
The MAGA Voice account, though, praised the photo, stating that “Donald Trump would be one of the BEST Popes to ever live,” followed by an emoji of praying hands.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressional Democrats sounded an alarm Friday, warning that cutting funding for state-sponsored propaganda programs would lead to fascism.
In a swift executive action, President Donald Trump ended government funding of both PBS and NPR over concerns of reporting bias and leftist propaganda, which Democrats say will undoubtedly cause fascist ideologies to spread unimpeded across the nation.
“In Normandy, brave men and men identifying as women invaded German-occupied France to preserve our way of life,” said Senator Chuck Schumer in a passionate speech on Capitol Hill. “Now President Trump has carelessly thrown away everything they died for by ending the funding of propaganda programs, thus facilitating the return of the Nazi Party.”
“This is classic fascism,” he continued. “Only a Nazi would prevent the government from spreading false information as a means to manipulate the people it pretends to serve.”
According to sources, Republicans strongly disagreed with Schumer’s remarks, even going so far as to say he is “the one being a real fascist.” But this claim is false, said fact-checkers.
“If I can’t control the means of information so that people will believe the lies I tell them, America is lost,” said official fact checker Benji Woolcrest, a registered Democrat. “What could be fascist about that?”
At publishing time, Capitol insiders said Democrats were concerned that eliminating state-sponsored media could set the dangerous precedent of people being told the truth and being able to form their own opinions. The USA undeniably trumps our neighbors to the north.
The book argues that the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Federal Income Tax which it enabled, are together the worst of economic disincentives to human flourishing and productivity. Additionally, the book makes the moral case for why the Federal Income tax is the greatest infringement on human happiness and wellbeing.
Contents
he book opens with a foreword from United States governor from Utah J. Bracken Lee who says, “…the principal argument for the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment is that only in that way can freedom from an interventionist government be restored to the American people.”[1]
Chodorov continues with an opening argument section written from Washington, D.C. in February 1954 stating:
When you examine any species of government intervention you find that it is made possible by revenues. A government is as strong as its income. Contrariwise, the independence of the people is in direct proportion to the amount of their wealth they can enjoy. We cannot restore traditional American freedom unless we limit the government’s power to tax. No tinkering with this, that, or the other law will stop the trend toward socialism. We must repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
The book is organized into the following chapters:
Solomon’s Yoke – This chapter explores the ancient origins of “income tax” and its evils[1]
Politically speaking, what is evil? – This chapter explores how if income tax is “evil”, there must be an opposite “good”, Chodorov explains in this chapter how that “good” is natural rights, and income tax is the greatest violation of natural rights.[1]
Yours is not your own – Chodorov explains the difference between direct and indirect taxes in this chapter and further outlines how direct taxes are unavoidable, unlike indirect taxes. As a result, they are compulsory and therefore have intrinsic violence embedded in their origin. The “evil root.[1]
How it came upon us – This chapter opens with the line, “The Constitution of 1789 barred the income tax. The [Founding] Fathers could not have put it in, even if they had a mind to, and there is no evidence that they had. A century later, when Americans were flirting with this invasion of property rights, legal minds tried to twist the language of the Constitution to their support. Whatever crumbs of comfort they got out of word juggling, the fact is that the Americans of 1789 would have none of this income tax. They were not that kind of people.”[1]
The revolution of 1913 – Chodorov explains how it was clearly unconstitutional to impose an income tax during the Civil War, but that due to war conditions people ignored this fact. However, it became increasingly difficult to torture the meaning of words after the war, and so the tax died, until 1913 with the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment and the end of the income tax free era which allowed for America to become the wealthiest and freest country in the world.[1]
Soak the poor – This chapter has Chodorov explaining that the left-wing, socialist, and populist elements that called for an income tax only ever felt that it would “soak the rich”, and that it would not ever really apply to the “poor”, Chodorov states in this chapter, “To be sure, the original Populists, and the aping Democrats and Republicans, to say nothing of the conscious Socialists, little thought that their income-tax gadget would ever be used to ‘soak the poor.’ It was an instrument, they thought, that could lend itself to no other purpose than to expropriate the rich in favor of the poor. How the poor would benefit from the expropriation, they did not explain; their intense hatred of the rich conveniently filled this vacuum in their argument. Their passion blinded them to the fact that this ‘soak the rich’ law would enable the government to filch the pay envelope [of the working class].”[1]
Corruption and corruption – This chapter opens with a quote from January 26, 1894, spoken by Representative Robert Adams, ” The imposition of the [income] tax will corrupt the people. It will bring in its train the spy and the informer. It will necessitate a swarm of officials with inquisitorial powers. It will be a step toward centralization…. It breaks another canon of taxation in that it is expensive in its collection and cannot be fairly imposed; … and, finally, it is contrary to the traditions and principles of republican government.”[1]
A possible way out – This chapter opens with the line, “The American brand of socialism known as the New Deal was made possible by the income tax. But with the advent of income taxation, socialism was unavoidable.” And then continues to emphasize this point later in the chapter, “If it had not been Mr. Roosevelt and his horde of self-seeking visionaries, it would have been somebody else. The New Deal, or something like it, was planted when the Sixteenth Amendment was put into the Constitution.” The chapter continues to have a bleak outlook for America with the rise of socialism in its many institutions post-New Deal, except then in the end of the chapter Chodorov states, “It so happens that when this country was organized, the Founding Fathers, either by design or as a matter of necessity, effected an arrangement that is a road block to complete socialization. That is the division of authority between the several states and the federal government. This separation gave rise to the doctrine of States’ Rights… Of course, the doctrine will have to be implemented with a will to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment; but that will can be generated, simply because it is to the interests of the forty-eight political establishments that this Amendment be repealed.”[1]
Competition in government – This chapter argues that the dual loyalties inherent in the American system is key to independence and the strength of individualism in combatting collectivist encroachment. Chodorov writes, “No political authority ever achieved absolutism until the people were deprived of a choice of loyalties. It was because the early Christians put God above Caesar that they were persecuted, even though they paid homage and taxes to the established political establishment. Stalin’s liquidation of the religious and fraternal orders followed from his basic premise that the Soviet was the only deity. Mussolini was always bothered by the hold the Catholic Church had on the people, and Stalin would never have been Stalin if he had not brought the orthodox church to foot. And so, if the Californian thinks of himself as a Californian as well as an American, and has two flags to support his contention, the central authority rests on shifting ground. In no country where centralism got going did the regime have to contend with divided authority such as our Constitution provides.”[1]
Union forever – With a mention of secession and nullification being effectively eliminated by force during the American Civil War, Chodorov then mentions how the major changes resulting from the Sixteenth Amendment post-1913.[1] Chodorov also writes, “Repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment would amount to secession of the forty-eight states from Washington—and restoration of the Union.”[1] Chodorov also demonstrates in this chapter that as of 1951 each and every state paid more in federal income tax receipts than it received back from the federal government in benefits, subsidies, or other payments or goods or services in kind.[1]
After 1913, however, and without either a war or a change in the law of the land, the states were gradually and almost imperceptibly rid of their sovereign position and reduced in importance to dependent subdivisions of the nation. It was done by the subtle arts of bribery and blackmail, made possible by the Sixteenth Amendment.
Frank Chodorov, Chapter 10, p. 92, The Income Tax: Root of All Evil
For freedom’s sake – The final chapter of the book opens with the following, “Repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment would not be a reform; it would be a revolution. A reform is a procedural change, an alteration in the legal ritual that does not affect the center of political power. A revolution, on the other hand, whether it is effected by violence or in an orderly fashion, is a transference of power from one group to another. An election is in effect a revolution… The American Revolution was unique in history, not because it kicked out a foreign rulership, which had been done before, but because it made possible the establishment of a government based on a new and untried principle, namely, that the government has no power except what the governed have granted it. That was a shift in power that had never occurred before.”[1] But then Chodorov changes tone from optimistic to dour, “A new American revolution was initiated in 1913, when the government was invested with the power to confiscate private property. The Amendment was not heralded as a revolution, and very few recognized it as such, but the fact is, as events have shown, that this power over the economy of the country put into the hands of the American government a means of liquidating the sovereignty of the citizenry.”[1] Chodorov closes the book out by saying that a lack of leadership is what is keeping the Sixteenth Amendment in place, and that only with a courageous and heroic capitalist leader, could such a task [of repealing the Sixteenth Amendment and ending the Federal Income tax in the United States] come about, “There is no accounting for the emergence of these superior men, these ‘sports of nature,’ who sporadically shape the course of mankind. They come, as it were, from nowhere, and nobody has yet conclusively explained their advent. But, they come. When in her own time and her own pleasure Nature deems America ready for and worthy of them, she will give us the men who will make the good fight.”[1]
The book has served as an important and influential work among libertarians[2][3][4] and Georgists[5] in the United States, influencing key economic thinkers including Murray Rothbard.[5] Forbes wrote about Chodorov’s lasting impact in an article from 2017 which quoted from the book as follows: Revenue-neutral tax reform implies that the government has a claim to a certain percentage of every American’s income. That is true even if tax reform actually includes the across-the-board lowering of tax rates. As Frank Chodorov explains in his book The Income Tax: Root of All Evil (1954), the income tax means that the state says to its citizens, “Your earnings are not exclusively your own; we have a claim on them, and our claim precedes yours; we will allow you to keep some of it, because we recognize your need, not your right; but whatever we grant you for yourself is for us to decide…. The amount of your earnings that you may retain for yourself is determined by the needs of government, and you have nothing to say about it.”[6] February 25 is the day in 1913 that the Sixteenth Amendment took effect. As a result, some groups such as the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) have written about Chodorov’s book on that date.[7] Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF) quoted heavily from the book in a post from 1990.[8] Writing for Anchorage Daily News, Tim Shine wrote in 2019, “In his treatise ‘The income tax: Root of all evil,’ Libertarian intellectual Frank Chodorov laid out the case for why Alaskans should be proud to have shed the yoke of this insidious tax. By substituting resource taxes for the confiscated personal wealth of its citizens in the funding of services, Alaska’s state government chose a better path than the federal government. It is disturbing, therefore, to hear recent clamor for a return. The book is presently still printed on demand by the Mises Institute.
“Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS) refers to an unhinged hatred of Donald Trump and all things connected to him. To me, the fascinating question about TDS is not what those who succumb to it hate — but what they love. What they hate is obvious. But what do they love?
From my observation, people with TDS do not really love anything. What they suffer from is anxiety, of the deepest and most metaphysical kind. They must relieve their anxiety; and one thing — epitomized by MAGA — stands in their way. Their anxiety is a profound terror of reality. The reality they dread includes, but is not limited to, a world in which they must stand on their own two feet, think, judge and conclude for themselves. Donald Trump is like an oncoming Mack truck, set to collide with the nursery school delusion that one need not think in order to survive and flourish. At no time was this more evident than during the COVID era. It was THE defining moment which separated those with self-esteem from those without. Trump, especially his third run for President in 2024, became their touchstone of liberation from the ethically putrid, psychologically comatose universe represented by the competing dystopian universe of Fauci, Biden and the billionaire, state-connected totalitarians who pulled their strings.
Consider two facts about Donald Trump. One, he absolutely always speaks with confidence and certainty. Fifty years in the public limelight and he has never blinked. NEVER. Two, he’s nearly always right. In the end, if not always at the time, he wins. His business and political careers are stories for the ages; and something tells me we have not yet reached the climax of his story. In our current era of subjectivity, meandering uncertainty and toxic femininity (yes, I mean that), Donald Trump stands as the antithesis of everything we are all commanded to hold dear — and he overcomes it. Often with a single Tweet. It all gives Trump the nearly superhuman aura of a mythical figure capable of doing the one thing that nobody can truly do, and that actually isn’t even necessary: saving us from ourselves.
In the end, after all the dust settles on our intellectually and emotionally explosive era, Donald Trump’s greatest contribution will be: to have shown the experts were wrong. About everything: economics, politics, ethics, gender, philosophy, trade, climate change, the Federal Reserve, socialism, wokeism, everything. The Donald Trump era is “The Emporer Has No Clothes” fable on steroids, if not on crystal meth.
What do TDS types love? People who loathe Trump do not love Communism. Communism is destruction, and it’s impossible to love Communism any more than a person contemplating suicide loves his noose, his gun or his poison. Nor do they love freedom. That’s a lie they tell us, and many of them lie to themselves. What they detest more than they can express is the idea that someone can be free of the pack, in the deepest, widest sense of that term. In our era, Donald Trump is the utterly improbable white knight on horseback coming to rescue us from the falsehoods (woke, Pollyana, p.c., psychobabble, feminism, secular subjectivism, all of it) that have defined the last few generations, since the post-World War II era. Starting with the Baby Boomers right through the millennials and Gen Z. We were ALL exposed to the crap. Either we succumbed; or we voted for Donald Trump.
It’s the biggest sociological reboot in American history, or perhaps human history: For this, the conformists among us will never forgive Donald Trump. For the rest of us, it’s a liberation of far deeper and lasting significance than the merely political.
Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. There’s been a lot of media hysteria, some ambiguous and some negative polls. We have talked about that before, that they seem to be not so disinterested as we might imagine. It’s in line with previous prejudicial polls. But here’s the main course of action that we’re all looking at.
It’s 100 days and we’re right in the middle of everything. And yet, people are already talking about President Donald Trump as if he’s failed or there’s an obituary. Nothing could be further from the truth. Don’t listen to the libertarian right or the “Never Trump” right or the hard left. What’s happening is we’re watching the most dramatic counterrevolution in our history.
This is more fundamentally changing than even the Reagan revolution that rebooted the American economy and won the Cold War. And it’s even more—I don’t know—more fundamentally transformative than the Roosevelt first 100 days when he took the country hard left with the New Deal.
And what do I mean by that? Everything is in play and we have no idea how it’s gonna happen—it’s going to turn out or what will happen. But it could be what Donald Trump called “a golden age.”
Let’s look at foreign policy very quickly. Iran is not the Iran of 2015-16 when former President Barack Obama did the deal. It’s not even the Iran that we got out of the deal under Trump’s first administration. This is Iran that has no air defenses to speak of. Anytime the United States or Israel wants to penetrate the air shield of Iran, it can.
There is no Hezbollah as we knew it. There is no Hamas as we knew it. The Houthis have been completely neutered. We spent a billion dollars but Trump hit them with almost everything we’ve had. The Red Sea is opening up to navigation.
And so, my point is that if Donald Trump wants to cut a deal, it will be on terms that get rid of the nuclear program. And if they do not want to get rid of the nuclear program, they have no more surrogates. There’s no Bashar al-Assad in Syria. And these other terrorist appendages that I just said are defunct.
So he’ll either get a nuclear deal or he’ll either outsource to Israel or we will take out that nuclear threat that Iran may possess. So there’s going to be, one way or another, a solution to the Iran problem.
In Ukraine, we’re beyond give them whatever it takes, whatever it takes. The Joe Biden strategy of—it’s a non-strategy—just feed that Stalingrad carnage house.
From liberal to conservative have already outlined the parameters of a ceasefire and peace. A DMC. A commercial corridor. Institutionalized Crimea and Donbas in the possession of Russian President Vladimir Putin, unfortunately, which he took those two territories in 2014. No NATO membership for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, but a lot of arms so that he can deter Putin and probably EU membership. If that piece is settled, Donald Trump will soar.
Former President Joe Biden allowed that war to break out because he did not arm Ukraine in an offensive way, in the way that Trump had. The Afghanistan pullout lost his deterrence. And then he had a non-strategy. And we had something worse than Stalingrad in World War II.
Back home, we are on a renaissance of foreign investment, $4 or $5 trillion. Our tech lords are building huge factories. All that’s gonna kick in very soon.
In addition to that, we’re on an energy renaissance. There is no prohibition about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or Keystone. Whatever we want to do, in terms of natural gas, nuclear, clean coal, oil production—it’s gonna happen. And it’s going to lower energy prices. And it’s gonna be very important for Europe. And that’s gonna change our strategic relationship when we start in full mode supplying them with liquid natural gas and maybe even oil.
When we look at the universities, there’s gonna be a fundamental change in the universities, whether they like it or not. There may be a tax on their endowment. There may be some conditions on student loans—this $1.6 trillion student loan program that’s in shambles. They’re gonna have to get rid of DEI and trying to avoid the Supreme Court decisions. They’ve taken so many billions of dollars and not told us about it from China. I could go on. But there’s gonna be fundamental reform of the university that’ll be positive.
And most importantly, and finally, there’s about five or six entities with whom we run the trade deficit that account in aggregate for about 90% of the $1.2 trillion that we are in deficit. And if Donald Trump gets a deal—and I think there’s a 50-50 chance in the next month he will—with the EU, with Canada, with Mexico, with the ASEAN or the Southeast Asian nations, with Germany, part of the EU, with South Korea—there’s not a lot of them.
And once one deal starts to unfold, the others will follow. And because the fundamental economic indicators of job growth, inflation, corporate profits, energy prices are sound, there’ll be a little bit of disruption as we reboot with these trade deals. But they’re going to do two things: They’re gonna bring in a lot of foreign investment of these countries that wanna avoid another trade war, and they’ll find it’s—I don’t know—useful. And there’s efficacy in putting plants in the United States. That’s already happening. And more importantly, we will not be sending out $1.2 trillion.
What am I getting at? All of the hysteria I think is prompted or fueled by—I’ll say it—I think it’s fueled by fear. I really think they have no alternative to addressing the debt, the budget deficit, the trade deficit. And there’s only one pathway.
And whether you like Donald Trump or not, or you think he’s crude, he is embracing policies that in bygone days both Democrats and Republicans saw was the solution. And the Democrats are terrified that it is not only the viable solution, but it’s gonna work.
It’s amazing what goes on in the middle of the night when most of us are sound asleep. After a unfortunate encounter with a Brown Recluse Spider crawling over my bed, and my misguided attempts to kill it with a slipper and then chemicals, I had to abandon my bedroom. So I turned on the radio, unable to get but 3 stations, 2 of them in Spanish, and Coast to Coast Am.
I ordinarily don’t listen to conspiracy theories and worries of boogymen I can do nothing about, because as our patriot friend, Terry Anderson says, we have obvious threats in our face every day to deal with and little time to do it. On his radio show, he reminds us,
“If you ain’t mad, you ain’t payin’ attention!”
Gerald Celente, economist and Trends Forecaster was a guest. The conversation fell on the facts of what made America great. We have lost our morality and most of us have fallen into the ‘bailout game’ being handed us by our current leaders, from the poor to Wall Street, leaving the few middle class Americans to support both. As Alexis de Tocqueville stated,
“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
Celente went on to explain the severe economic downturn he, and many of us, had long predicted and the true, much higher figures for unemployment. History shows, as he said, our greatest times were when we didn’t subscribe to “Too big to fail bailouts” of GM, international bankers, the production killing fiasco of ‘Cap and Trade’ and on and on being financed by the over burdened taxpayers. NAFTA, and other cheap labor ‘trade’ agreements that promised more jobs, more prosperity for all Americans, which brought along the devastation of unlimited legal and illegal immigration and outsourcing of jobs. How’s that workin’ out for ya these days? The only candidate worth considering in 2008, Duncan Hunter, was right and the only one addressing such issues!
What made us great was…..
…Not Wall Street but MAIN STREET
….Not international agribusiness, poison food imported from China or Mexico, but FAMILY FARMS
….Not WalMart, but MOM and POP small business
Celente discussed the recent TEA party protests , believing they are the beginning of a new era of citizen enlightenment, a return to the principals and morality that elevated the USA above all other nations, much to the dismay of what Obama thinks of such Citizen activism.
Many of us warned that Barak Obama and his ilk were ‘socialists’. Celente believes the situation is far worse. He calls where our government has dared to venture, ‘Fascism ’ to describe the Democrat congress and Obama globalist regime, with much help from far too many pay-to-play Republicans.
And to our determent, it describes the current governing climate.
fascist n.- A totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life.
From banking and mortgages to auto manufacturing and health care, the government is running the show that should be left to the American private sector. If you can’t or won’t pay your mortgage, Obama even wants to be your landlord.
Celente, agreeing with many conservatives, spoke to the fact that we must break the two party globalist/media juggernaut controlling our elections, preventing good candidates a voice, and allow another party to rise to combat those powers leading us into tyranny and anarchy.
Some useful idiots scream, “Throw ALL the incumbents out!”…..but these misguided citizens, like the ones I wrote about in yesterday’s TownCrier article, can’t name their own representatives, much less be aware of how they vote on vital issues. They want a revolution! They NEED enlightenment and a lesson in history, some real education the schools won’t provide, to escape from their ignorance. While I agree that the great percentage of our elected officials do not represent us, but rather moneyed special interest groups, there are a handful who actually want to see the survival of America. We better learn who they are.
But the night was not all economic or political gloom and doom. As I gazed out the window into my yard in the moonlight, I saw a bird gently glide onto a trellis. He bobbed and postured, encouraging his clan of Screech Owls to join him in my bird bath. They seemed to not have a care in the world, realizing they had found safe sanctuary and relief from the 100 degree heat of Northern California of the previous day. I always wondered what happened to the water in that bath every night!
So go outside, lean against a tree, touch the earth, let the sun shine on your soul. And thank whatever God you worship for the gift of being one of the small percentage of the people on this earth lucky enough to be born an American.
The Democrat sponsor of an unprecedented third impeachment attempt of President Donald Trump has a big problem – his own party.
Just when liberals finally felt like they were gaining some political momentum after sweeping Republican victories last November, any progress may have already been washed away. On April 28, Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-MI) officially introduced articles of impeachment against Trump, instantly sending the Washington media into a frenzy and the House Democrat caucus into chaos.
While Democrats’ first two impeachment cases were thin, bordering on nonexistent, they at least revolved around specific allegations against Trump. This time, however, Thanedar couldn’t come up with anything more than vague, wildly hyperbolic claims about the president “obstructing justice,” “violating the Constitution,” and engaging in “tyrannical overreach.”
The move is clearly an effort to appease Democrats’ left-wing base – the articles stand virtually zero chance of ever even coming to a vote in the House. It’s also likely no coincidence that Thanedar announced the impeachment effort the same day news broke that Justice Democrats, the left-wing group that fueled Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s upset victory in 2018, had launched a primary challenge against him.
Even Democrat House leaders recognize what most Americans do – that this impeachment effort will go nowhere and will only serve as a massive distraction that will further divide the party. For swing-district Democrat incumbents, refusing to support an impeachment effort against Trump, no matter how ridiculous it is, puts them in the crosshairs of groups like Justice Democrats. But if they choose to back impeachment, which is clearly just a personal political vendetta against Trump, that likely won’t sit well with independent and moderate Democrat voters.
This predicament that Thanedar has placed his vulnerable colleagues in perhaps helps explain reports coming out of the Capitol detailing “internal furor” within the caucus – furor that is now leaking out into full public view.
One anonymous Democrat told Axios that Thanedar’s actions were “a self-own that… fundamentally undermines our capacity to continue to have a conversation with people we need to win over.” Another asked, “Why would we do something that has failed twice as a strategy and yielded no electoral win? The guy got impeached twice, how did it work out for us?” A third said, “It seems self-serving and not a genuine effort to rein in the president.”
But Thanedar didn’t appear to get the message from his disgruntled colleagues. The congressman’s office allegedly added one fellow Democrat as a co-sponsor “based on a vague one-on-one conversation without notifying their staff.”
At least four House Democrats initially listed as cosponsors have since withdrawn their names, including Res. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Robin Kelly (D-IL), Kweisi Mfume (D-MD), and Janice Schakowsky (D-IL). There are currently no active cosponsors of the impeachment resolution.
Nonetheless, this PR debacle highlights persistent divides within the party and underscores Democrats’ desperation to find any sort of footing in their opposition to Trump.
By weaponizing impeachment as a political messaging stunt, Thanedar has said the quiet part out loud: if Democrats win back the House majority in 2026, they will spend all their time reviving the left’s crusade to “get Trump” rather than delivering anything substantive for the American people. It’s a gift Republicans will unwrap next year in attack ads — proof Democrats are obsessed with ousting Trump, not governing.
While Thanedar’s impeachment push hasn’t gained much support among Democrat Party leadership (yet) it has been immensely popular with the liberal activist class, once again revealing that the left’s primary goal is revenge. After all, impeachment theater is easier than winning elections on actual ideas that will improve lives.
But the fallout goes deeper, shining a harsh spotlight on Democrats’ internal civil war. In the wake of last year’s drubbing, a wing of the party pleaded for moderation — urging focus on pocketbook issues, swing-district outreach, a return to the center. Instead, the progressives doubled down, insisting the problem was that the party was not far enough left.
The resulting image is of a ship without a captain – or rather, a ship with two captains working against one another. When one freshman congressman can spring an impeachment ambush without looping in party leaders, you know the chain of command is broken. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, supposedly the helmsman of the House Democrats, is reduced to scrambling to contain the firestorm – he hadn’t even spoken with Thanedar by the time reporters asked him about it.
The mainstream narrative is that this incident is just a political sideshow in Washington. But it may be something more than that. In addition to Jeffries being unable to corral his own members, the Democrat Party now appears so consumed by internecine feuds that it may undermine voters’ confidence in their ability to effectively legislate.
If they don’t course-correct fast, Democrats will find their Trump Derangement Syndrome has cost them more than political capital — it may well cost them seats. And after this debacle, convincing voters that they’re serious about anything else will require a miracle far more impressive than a third impeachment.
Shane Harris is the Editor-in-Chief of AMAC Newsline. You can follow him on X @shaneharris513.
Life can be a masquerade. We all wear masks at one point or another, hiding our true selves. But, there are certain situations where the mask slips, revealing our genuine colors.
These moments, they say, show us who we truly are, not just what we pretend to be.
In my forthcoming list, I’ll share with you eight scenarios in life when a person’s true colors come out.
So, get ready to unmask the pretense and delve deeper into human nature. This is about to get real interesting.
1) Times of crisis
Crisis, they say, is the litmus test of character.
When life throws curveballs, the mask of social conditioning and pretense falls away. It’s in these critical moments that a person’s true colors are revealed.
The way someone behaves under pressure, during a crisis, or in the face of adversity can tell you a lot about their real self. Are they calm and composed, or do they crumble under stress? Do they step up and take responsibility, or do they look for someone else to blame?
Insight into a person’s character can be gathered not just from their actions, but also from their reactions. And there’s no better situation to observe this than in times of crisis.
Remember, true character is not about being perfect. It’s about how you handle your imperfections in the face of adversity. So watch closely when the chips are down – that’s when true colors come out.
2) When they’re faced with loss
Loss is a part of life. We lose relationships, opportunities, loved ones, and sometimes, even ourselves. It’s in these moments of loss that we get to see who we, or others, truly are.
Let me share a personal example. A few years back, I lost a close friend of mine. It was a sudden and devastating event that shook me to my core. But it was also in this moment of loss that I discovered a strength within me that I never knew existed.
I found myself stepping into roles I never thought I could fill – supporting others who were grieving, organizing memorial events, and more. I realized then that loss didn’t just mean an end, it could also be a starting point for growth and self-discovery.
Similarly, watching how others handle loss can give you profound insights into their character. Do they retreat into themselves or do they rise to the occasion? Do they let grief consume them or do they use it as a catalyst for change?
Remember, how someone handles loss is a clear window into their true character.
3) When given power
It’s been said that power doesn’t corrupt people, it simply reveals who they truly are. There’s a lot of truth to this statement.
When individuals are placed in positions of authority or given power, their true selves often come to the fore. They can either use this power to serve and uplift others or to manipulate and control.
A study conducted at Stanford University, famously known as the Stanford Prison Experiment, demonstrated this concept quite vividly. Ordinary students were divided into ‘prisoners’ and ‘guards’ in a mock prison setting. Within days, the ‘guards’ began to abuse their power and the ‘prisoners’ became submissive. This experiment showed how people can change when given power.
So, it’s essential to observe how someone behaves when they are handed the reins of control. It can give you a glimpse into their core personality traits – be they benevolent or malevolent.
4) When they think no one is watching
You’ve probably heard the saying, “Character is what you do when no one is watching.” It’s a simple yet profound statement that holds a lot of truth.
The things people do when they believe they’re not being observed can reveal their true character. It’s in these unguarded moments, when there’s no audience to impress or judge, that people often show their genuine selves.
For instance, how does someone treat service staff when they’re dining alone? What about the way they behave towards animals or nature when there’s no one else around?
The way people act when they think they’re not under scrutiny can give you a window into their true colors. So pay attention to these moments—they can be incredibly telling.
5) When they are asked to make a sacrifice
Sacrifice is a word that holds a lot of weight. It signifies the act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important or worthy.
When people are faced with the prospect of making a sacrifice, their true colors often surface. It’s in these situations that you see whether they’re selfless or selfish, generous or greedy.
For instance, would they give up their comfort for the well-being of others? Would they be willing to let go of their dreams so someone else can realize theirs?
Asking someone to make a sacrifice is like holding up a mirror to their soul. Their response can tell you a lot about who they really are at heart. So pay attention when sacrifice comes into play—it’s an opportunity to see someone’s true character.
6) When faced with failure
Failure is a universal experience. It’s something we all face at one point or another. But how we handle failure, that’s what truly defines us.
I remember a time when I was passed over for a promotion that I had worked tirelessly to earn. I felt defeated, demoralized, and ready to throw in the towel. But instead of giving up, I chose to use this failure as fuel. I took it as an opportunity to learn, grow, and come back stronger.
Observing how someone reacts to failure can offer valuable insights into their character. Do they see it as the end of the road, or do they take it as a stepping stone? Do they blame others for their failures, or do they seek lessons in them?
Failure can strip away the facade and lay bare a person’s true character. So keep an eye out for those moments—they can be quite revealing.
7) When they’re dealing with success
Just as failure can reveal a person’s true colors, so can success. How people handle their victories can say a lot about their character.
Do they become arrogant and boastful, or do they remain humble and gracious? Do they use their success to help others, or do they use it to belittle the?
Success can act as a magnifying glass, amplifying a person’s true qualities for all to see. It can either bring out the best in people or highlight their worst attributes.
8) When they have the opportunity to help others
The ultimate test of character is how people treat those who can do nothing for them in return. When individuals have the chance to assist others without any personal gain, their true colors often shine through.
Do they step up and extend a helping hand or do they turn a blind eye? Do they offer support freely or do they expect something in return?
The way someone behaves when given the opportunity to help others can reveal a lot about their true character. It shows whether kindness, empathy, and generosity are a part of their core values.
Remember, actions speak louder than words, especially when it comes to revealing one’s true colors.
Final thoughts: The art of observing
Understanding human behavior and character is no easy task. It’s a complex tapestry woven with threads of experiences, environments, and innate disposition.
The eight situations we’ve discussed are potentially pivotal moments that can reveal a person’s true colors. Yet, it’s crucial to remember that humans are not static. We evolve, grow, and change.
As famed psychologist Carl Rogers once said, “The only person who is educated is the one who has learned how to learn and change.” This quote underlines the fluidity and dynamism of human nature.
Observing someone in these specific scenarios can offer insights into their character, but it’s just as important to understand that people can change. They can learn from their mistakes, grow from their experiences, and evolve into better versions of themselves.
So the next time you observe someone in one of these situations, remember: it’s a glimpse into their character at that moment, not a permanent label.
Subscribe to to receive our latest articles!
Get updates on the latest posts and more from Global English Editing straight to your inbox.Subscribe
We use your personal data for interest-based advertising, as outlined in our Privacy Notice.
In this journey of understanding people’s true colors, let empathy be your compass and patience your guide. After all, unraveling the mystery of human nature is an art in itself.
The ultimate test of character is how people treat those who can do nothing for them in return. When individuals have the chance to assist others without any personal gain, their true colors often shine through.
Do they step up and extend a helping hand or do they turn a blind eye? Do they offer support freely or do they expect something in return?
The way someone behaves when given the opportunity to help others can reveal a lot about their true character. It shows whether kindness, empathy, and generosity are a part of their core values.
null
Remember, actions speak louder than words, especially when it comes to revealing one’s true colors.
Final thoughts: The art of observing
Understanding human behavior and character is no easy task. It’s a complex tapestry woven with threads of experiences, environments, and innate disposition.
The eight situations we’ve discussed are potentially pivotal moments that can reveal a person’s true colors. Yet, it’s crucial to remember that humans are not static. We evolve, grow, and change.
As famed psychologist Carl Rogers once said, “The only person who is educated is the one who has learned how to learn and change.” This quote underlines the fluidity and dynamism of human nature.
Observing someone in these specific scenarios can offer insights into their character, but it’s just as important to understand that people can change. They can learn from their mistakes, grow from their experiences, and evolve into better versions of themselves.
So the next time you observe someone in one of these situations, remember: it’s a glimpse into their character at that moment, not a permanent label.
In this journey of understanding people’s true colors, let empathy be your compass and patience your guide. After all, unraveling the mystery of human nature is an art in itself.
Just as failure can reveal a person’s true colors, so can success. How people handle their victories can say a lot about their character.
Do they become arrogant and boastful, or do they remain humble and gracious? Do they use their success to help others, or do they use it to belittle them?
Success can act as a magnifying glass, amplifying a person’s true qualities for all to see. It can either bring out the best in people or highlight their worst attributes.7) When they’re dealing with success Just as failure can reveal a person’s true colors, so can success. How people handle their victories can say a lot about their character. Do they become arrogant and boastful, or do they remain humble and gracious? Do they use their success to help others, or do they use it to belittle them? Success can act as a magnifying glass, amplifying a person’s true qualities for all to see. It can either bring out the best in people or highlight their worst attributes.
These people are communist. They’re not democrat… They’re not liberals… They are communists.
What we’re seeing is a judicial coup d’état by the Democrat party/Permanent Washington. Using their only remaining lever of power… their judges.
They’re creating a constitutional crisis and daring Trump to defy their judges, so their media can SCREAM “See! Trump is an authoritarian who thinks he’s a king!”
There’s actually a lot of historical precedent between the office of the president and the judiciary— Abraham Lincoln really threw down. Stay Tuned..
I don’t know how it’s gonna turn out, but I would not bet against Donald J Trump.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Friday that Germany should reverse its course after the country’s spy agency classified the far-right Alternative for Germany as “extremist,” a move that gives it new powers to surveil the nation’s biggest opposition party.
The Alternative for Germany (AfD) party placed second in national elections in February.
“Germany just gave its spy agency new powers to surveil the opposition. That’s not democracy—it’s tyranny in disguise,” Rubio posted on X.
What is truly extremist is not the popular AfD—which took second in the recent election—but rather the establishment’s deadly open border immigration policies that the AfD opposes.
“Germany should reverse course.”
Elon Musk agreed with Rubio, even referring to AfD as “centrist.”
“Banning the centrist AfD, Germany’s, most popular party, would be an extreme attack on democracy,” Musk posted on X with a story about AfD.
“I’m very excited for the AfD, and I think you’re really the best hope for Germany,” the Tesla and SpaceX CEO told the enthusiastic crowd. “I think something that’s very important is that people take pride in Germany and being German. This is very important.”
Friedrich Merz, who’ll become chancellor on May 6, said Musk will face consequences for meddling in Germany’s election campaign.
On Friday, Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution cited the “extremist character” of AfD, and said it “disregards human dignity” — in particular by taking aim at those who moved to Germany from mostly Muslim countries.
“As of today … [the agency] has classified the Alternative for Germany (AfD) as a confirmed right-wing extremist effort due to the extremist character of the entire party that disregards human dignity,” it said.
The AfD has already been under enhanced surveillance by authorities in some regions, but the announcement by the domestic spy agency means the agency’s officials can use informants and other tools such as audio and video recordings to monitor the party’s activities nationwide.
The office, which has warned of growing extremism in Germany, cited court decisions in two German regions in recent years that detailed party efforts to undermine a free and democratic order.
