The Morning Jolt

Politics & Policy

Inauguration Week Continues: Stink Bombs and Lincoln’s Bible

Inauguration Week Continues: Stink Bombs and Lincoln’s Bible

There’s a group called the “Anti-Fascist Coalition”… and they apparently believe the best way to fight fascism is to prevent other people from freely assembling in a private location by throwing butyric acid bombs.

Quick, guys, I think I spotted another fascist in your mirror!

An undercover investigation by Project Veritas has exposed the D.C. Anti-Fascist Coalition’s plans to attack the inauguration of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence. Rather than allow Trump-Pence supporters and others to celebrate the peaceful transition of power between the 44th and 45th presidents of the United States, leaders of the DCA-FC are conspiring to sabotage the pro-Trump DeploraBall, scheduled for Thursday, January 19, at the National Press Club.

“If you had . . . a pint of butyric acid, I don’t care how big the building is, it’s closing,” DCA-FC conspirator Luke Kuhn said at another planning session at Comet Ping Pong, a D.C. pizzeria. “All you got to do is pull the pin, press the plunger, and the whole can discharges.”

The DeploraBall may be filled with genuinely deplorable people, but genuinely deplorable people have the same right as anyone else to pay the rental fee and throw their own inaugural ball. The rights in the Constitution – including the right to “peaceably assemble” – aren’t just guaranteed to the people we like; they’re guaranteed for everybody.

The Anti-Fascist Coalition claims that they knew the James O’Keefe plant was a plant all along, and so they just acted like a bunch of maniacal hooligans in order to fool him. Uh-huh. Yes, what better way to show the world that you would never do such a thing as throw stink bombs than saying out loud that you want to throw stink bombs in front of a hidden camera that you claim to know is recording you. I guess they’re an Anti-Logic Coalition, too.

The general public isn’t quite filled with warm and fuzzy thoughts towards President-elect Trump right now, I can’t think of anything that would stir public sympathy for the incoming administration more than radicals attacking other people for having different beliefs. But then again, groups like this don’t really care about persuasion or winning over public opinion. They just want the emotional catharsis that comes from hurting people who have different beliefs. You know… kind-of fascist.

In other news, Trump will use two Bibles for his swearing-in ceremony. From the Presidential Inaugural Committee:

President-elect Donald J. Trump will be sworn-in on January 20, 2017 using his Bible, as well as the same Bible that President Lincoln used at his first inauguration. The oath of office will be administered by the Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts.

“In his first inaugural address, President Lincoln appealed to the ‘better angels of our nature,’” said PIC Chairman Tom Barrack. “As he takes the same oath of office 156 years later, President-elect Trump is humbled to place his hand on Bibles that hold special meaning both to his family and to our country.”

President-elect Trump’s Bible was presented to him by his mother upon his graduation of Sunday Church Primary School at First Presbyterian Church, Jamaica, New York, on Children’s Day, June 12, 1955. The Bible is a revised standard version published by Thomas Nelson and Sons in New York in 1953 and is embossed with his name on the lower portion of the front cover. The inside cover is signed by church officials and is inscribed with his name and the details of when it was presented.

The Lincoln Bible was purchased for the first inauguration of President Abraham Lincoln by William Thomas Carroll, Clerk of the Supreme Court. The Bible is bound in burgundy velvet with a gold-washed white metal rim along the edges of the covers. It is part of the collections of the Library of Congress and has been used at three inaugurals: 1861, 2009, and 2013.

A Half-Brexit Isn’t a Plan; It’s the Hokey-Pokey.

Over in the United Kingdom, Brexit is more or less full speed ahead:

Prime Minister Theresa May emphasized Britain’s determination to regain control of migration from the European Union and rejected the supremacy of the European Court of Justice, even at the risk of losing unfettered access to the single market and its nearly 500 million consumers.

“Let me be clear,” she said, adding that any agreement would be sent to both houses of Parliament for approval, “What I am proposing cannot mean remaining in the single market.”

Mrs. May struck a diplomatic note, including an appeal for a new partnership with Continental Europe, but she made clear that controlling its borders and setting its own laws were Britain’s priority.

“We seek a new and equal partnership — between an independent, self-governing, global Britain and our friends and allies in the E.U.,” Mrs. May was to say, according to excerpts from her speech released by her office.

“Not partial membership of the European Union, associate membership of the European Union, or anything that leaves us half in, half out,” she said.

Our Andrew Stuttaford has a nuanced view of Brexit – he supports it, but wants it done slowly and deliberately: “detaching the UK from the EU is best achieved carefully, surgically, and with a recognition that some compromises may have to be made. Storming out and slamming the door is a tantrum, not a plan.”

Still, when push came to shove, the leaders of the European Union believed they had the right to… well, push and shove, regardless of the perspective of the governed. And that lack of choice, Stuttaford concludes, left the people of Great Britain no choice:

Yes, the Continent’s elites, at least in Western Europe, remain wedded to the idea of ‘ever closer Europe’. But voters don’t seem so sure. They don’t want the EU to break up, but, on the rare occasions they are given the chance to vote against deeper integration, they tend do so. Then they are ignored. And that, in the end, is why Britain has to leave: It’s the post-democracy stupid. But that’s no reason for Brexiteers to make Brexit any more difficult than it already will be. 

GM: Look, We’re Hiring, We’re Hiring, Stop Nagging Already!

The playbook is now clear. If you’re a big company, the kind that could end up on President-elect Trump’s radar screen and a target of his morning Tweets, you look at any preexisting expansion plans and leak them or announce them, making it look like you’re suddenly newly optimistic about the economy, eager to expand hiring, and happy to credit the president-elect. A few weeks ago, Trump tweeted about General Motors selling about 4,500 Mexican-manufactured Chevy Cruzes in the United States. Now GM is about to announce it will invest $1 billion in U.S. plants over several years.

The largest U.S. automaker expects to add or retain 1,000 jobs at several existing facilities, said the person, who asked not to be identified because the matter is private. The investment announcement, which is being accelerated amid pressure from the president-elect, is related to building products that were in the works and approved before Trump won the election in November, the person said.

When you get a headline like this one from Bloomberg news, I don’t think the president-elect minds that the “add or retain” detail sounds an awful lot like the stimulus’ “jobs saved or created” statistic.

Has the election of Trump spurred U.S. corporations to hire more workers? We’ll know soon from the job and wage statistics. But Trump’s election sure has spurred U.S. corporations to look like they’re hiring more workers.

Once again… remember back in 2014 when everyone hated General Motors?

ADDENDA: You might think the Clintons would keep the Clinton Global Initiative going for another year, just to dispel the perception that it was a backdoor way for wealthy foreign citizens and foreign governments to buy access and goodwill. You would be wrong.


The Latest

Rat Patrol

Rat Patrol

Illegal leaks of classified information should be treated as a serious offense. But they would be easier to prevent if less information were classified.