There was rare unity on the Army parade, even more agreement that nobody wants a king
By Gary Abernathy
The Army parade had some unlikely admirers, while ‘No Kings’ protesters found a cause we actually all agree on
You know that President Trump’s Washington D.C. parade honoring the U.S. Army’s 250th birthday was a success when even the far-left (formerly mainstream) media expresses admiration for it.
Oh sure, there were the predictable, pre-written criticisms coming from many on the radical left. But others who at least waited to witness the event expressed at least grudging admiration.
A Washington Post opinion team of Karen Tumulty, Molly Roberts and Erik Wemple (who attended the parade) — not a Trump fan among them — had an online conversation after the parade. Here are some excerpts featuring some praise, which was buried among the typical snarky-ness from the far-left media regarding anything involving Trump. You can read the comments in full, snark and all, by checking out the full article if you want.
Karen Tumulty: The parade struck me as a pretty effective recruiting tool. … My dad was career Air Force, and I spent much of my childhood on bases, so I gotta admit: I love a flyover. … Trump told me that he would “display our military” to convince the country that it was “great again.” If that was the measure, I think it does help remind us that we are a country of great people, some of whom are willing to put their own lives on the line for the rest of us.
Molly Roberts: Honestly, I didn’t hate the history lesson either. I expected a lot more fanfare and a lot fewer facts. … If you take what he said to you all those years ago at face value, in my view the parade did better than I’d expected — the display itself really did seem to be about the U.S. Army, not the special birthday boy. … Yeah, it’s my lifetime in the liberal D.C. bubble that has blinded me to the extent of people’s connection to, and affection for, the military! So maybe that’s what Trump hoped for … to teach people like me a little something about the country. … He also could have been trying to demonstrate that military might to the rest of the world, as a deterrent or a negotiating card. … Maybe it helped convince people that America is great … but, as usual with Trump, I’m stuck on the “again” part.
Erik Wemple: I had a blast just interviewing people. They were incredibly open, though one guy gave me quite the brush off when he learned that I was with The Post. … There was a huge throng waiting to filter through security checkpoints and many people were still waiting well after it had started. … Following on that point from Molly: You just cannot overestimate how many people in this country have connections of one sort or another to the military. Either they served or their parents did or they worked as a contractor.
In addition, Post columnist Max Boot — a leading sufferer of Trump Derangement Syndrome — wrote a pretty glowing column about the parade, albeit with the usual sideswipes at Trump and MAGA, including his worry when he saw MAGA apparel adorning many spectators (oh my!).
But my apprehension began to melt away as soon as the music started to play and the soldiers began to march. Dear reader, I hope you do not think I am going soft on Trump if I tell you that I thoroughly enjoyed the entire parade.
As a military history nerd, I loved to see the soldiers marching by in period uniforms from the American Revolution, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Gulf War. I thrilled to the flybys from historic aircraft — including a C-47 transport, P-51 fighter aircraft and a Huey helicopter — and the daring skydiving of the Army’s Golden Knights Parachute Team. I thought it was cool to see some soldiers going by on horseback, while others drove historic vehicles such as Jeeps and M4 Sherman tanks. Near the end, the Army even showcased its weapons of the future with a drone flyby and a walk-by from drones resembling dogs. …
… I think it was a good thing for Americans to be reminded of the glorious history of their army — a force for freedom that has defeated some of the most monstrous evils of the past two centuries, including the Confederacy, Imperial and Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet empire. Granted, the Army has also engaged in reprehensible conduct over the centuries, from the American Indian Wars to Abu Ghraib, but it makes sense on a day like this to celebrate, rather than criticize, the soldiers who put their lives on the line to defend us.
Several commentators from other liberal outlets also offered grudging praise. Most far-left news media, of course, insisted on juxtaposing the parade with the “No Kings” protests that took place around the country the same day.
A few comments from yours truly about those protests.
This was a protest with hardly any dissent. Absolutely no one wants the U.S. to be ruled by a king, and — good news — it’s not! Democrats don’t want a king. Republicans don’t want a king. Neither the left nor the right wants a king. And Trump is not a king, couldn’t be a king if he wanted to be, and doesn’t think he’s a king. The president smartly joked about such a suggestion when asked about it last week.
And so, these were protests without opposition, rebels without a cause. Good news, America. For once, we’re all in agreement. We don’t have a king, and we don’t want a king. No kings!
Many media outlets reported “large crowds” at the protests, parroting those who arranged the events. Organizers of “No Kings” claimed that about 5 million people participated in about 2,100 protests. The media was happy to spread those numbers with little verification. When you’re part of a leftwing cause, it’s great to know the media is there to do your bidding. Both those figures are undoubtedly inflated, but let’s take the claimed turnout at face value for a minute.
There are roughly 258 million adults (18 and older) in the U.S. That means that if 5 million showed up, that’s less than 2 percent of the population participating in the protests. In other words 98 percent of the population of the U.S. did NOT participate in the “No Kings” protests. Why? Because there was nothing to protest.
Holding “No Kings” protests in the U.S. was the biggest example of going to battle against an imaginary foe since Don Quixote squared off against windmills.
Elizabeth Warren frighteningly suggests that a Pelosi-Milley style reaction to Trump is what we should have
This week, the Washington Post reported on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifying before a Senate committee where Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) actually asked “how far he would allow President Donald Trump to go in deploying troops to Democratic-run cities,” as the Post paraphrased it.
First, the notion that Trump is targeting cities that are “Democratic-run” has lately become a favorite line from the media when, in fact, Trump is targeting cities that are either “sanctuary cities” or are otherwise resisting legal raids by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. The fact that they are cities run mostly by Democrats is notable, perhaps, but that’s different than saying Trump is targeting them for that reason. There is little doubt that if a Republican-led city was prohibiting ICE from doing its job and had erupted in protests or riots, it would be added to Trump’s list.
But back to Warren’s question. She assumes that at some point, Hegseth would stop Trump’s plans to deploy troops to certain cities. It’s reminiscent of cabinet members from Trump’s first term, along with a military general or two, who have acknowledged that they resisted carrying out some of Trump’s directives. They were, of course, lauded by Democrats and called “brave” for “standing up” to Trump.
In fact, for those who worry about a constitutional crisis, there are fewer issues more worrisome than a cabinet member — particularly one involved in military operations — refusing to carry out an order from the president of the United States involving the military. When the military begins to refuse orders from the civilian commander-in-chief, it’s a crisis indeed. It’s often been the stuff of fiction, such as “Seven Days in May,” the book and movie about members of the military plotting to take over the country from a president whose actions they don’t agree with.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) admitted in January 2021 that she talked to Gen. Mark Milley, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about ignoring Trump if he gave orders for a nuclear strike.
According to CNN, “After speaking with Milley Friday, Pelosi told her caucus that she has gotten assurances there are safeguards in place in the event Trump wants to launch a nuclear weapon, according to multiple sources on a caucus call.”
Pelosi — apparently an amateur psychiatrist on the side — called Trump “an unstable president.” This “unstable president” was re-elected four years later by the American people. The truth is, Pelosi and Milley colluding to ignore an order from Trump is much more concerning than any “constitutional crisis” scenario suggested so far about anything Trump might do.
Suggesting that Hegseth should, at some point, step in to overrule the president of the United States regarding the deployment of troops reflects the belief among some Democrats that a Pelosi-Milley mindset — just ignore a constitutional presidential order if you don’t agree with it — is perfectly acceptable. It explains a lot about the attitude of the far left and the crisis we’re experiencing with ICE being prevented from enforcing the law.
By the way, the fact that Milley assured Pelosi that “there are safeguards in place in the event Trump wants to launch a nuclear weapon” completely contradicts a new WaPo story headlined, “Only one American can start a nuclear war: The president,” and subheadlined, “The American president has the sole authority to order a nuclear strike, even if every adviser in the room is against it.”
The opinion article is by Mackenzie Knight-Boyle, a senior research associate for the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists.
She writes, “In the United States, the president is the only person in the country who can legally order the use of nuclear weapons, a power referred to as ‘sole authority.’ The president may choose to consult with advisers but is not required to do so. He can order nuclear use despite the objections of every adviser in the room.”
It would be interesting to know what “safeguards” Milley had put in place in 2020 or 2021 to ignore a nuclear launch ordered by Trump. Whatever it was, the legality of it didn’t seem important to Milley, Pelosi or the much of the media reporting on it. The implications of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — with the support and approval of the speaker of the House of Representatives — ignoring an order from the civilian commander-in-chief is chilling.
When anyone on the left expresses worry about Trump igniting a constitutional crisis, just remind them of the Pelosi-Milley doctrine.
In other news, the Middle East is unstable again
In fact, the typical condition of the Middle East is unstable. The current conflict between Israel and Iran is just a cyclical escalation of an ongoing conflict.
President Trump and his administration are to be commended for recognizing our special relationship with Israel, which is based on geopolitical realities but, frankly, even more deeply rooted in America’s Christian-Judeo heritage and our spiritual relationship with Israel.
There was a recent dustup between professional smirker and nervous laugher Tucker Carlson (Trump recently called him “kooky Tucker Carlson”) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), with Carlson apparently arguing for near total isolationism by the U.S. Cruz got the best of Carlson in the exchange, because Cruz was implementing logic and common sense, not strong qualities for Carlson. Carlson trying to trip up Cruz on issues like the population of Iran was just silly.
It’s true that “America First” is good foreign policy, meaning we try our best to avoid intervening in other countries’ conflicts. But Trump (and Cruz) are right to insist that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. And if the only way to guarantee that is for the U.S. to intervene, well, that’s the way it has to be.
3 projects highlight how our energy nightmare is ending
In my latest column for The Empowerment Alliance, I highlight three big natural gas projects that are leading the way in restoring affordable, reliable and increasingly clean energy to the U.S. and the world.
I wrote:
A few short months ago, much of the world seemed doomed to a bleak energy future, with unreliable, taxpayer-subsidized “renewables” being foisted upon homes and businesses by governments kneeling at the altar of the climate cult. The result was nation after nation winning plaudits from the extreme environmental movement, but increasingly incapable of meeting the energy demands of the 21st Century.
Thanks to radical policies of the recent past, the U.S. and much of the world seemed hell-bent on phasing out natural gas and other reliable energy sources, racing instead toward endless cycles of brownouts, blackouts, and complete grid failures brought on by the inadequacies of “alternatives.”
In the nick of time, thanks to President Trump and other forward-thinking leaders, the turnaround has begun – and natural gas is leading the way.
You can read the column in its entirety at this link.
Random thoughts on this and that …
More belittling of GOP women. I wrote recently of two consecutive attacks on Republican women from the New York Times, each article filled with condescension and insults about the hair, makeup and clothing choices of GOP women in ways they would never insult Democrat women. Not to be outdone, the Washington Post just published an article, “MAGA and the single girl,” describing a gathering of conservative women at a Turning Point USA conference. The story describes women “as they flitted around the Gaylord Texan Resort and Convention Center in a smear of pastels and florals — ruffles on their dresses, cowboy boots on their feet, bows on their curls. The aesthetic could be summed up as Laura Ingalls Wilder-core, like if the little house on the prairie had been down the street from a Sephora.” “Flitted around?” A “smear” of colors? “Laura Ingalls Wilder-core?” The far-left (formerly mainstream) media should stop pretending they respect women.
When a senator seeks attention. When Sen. Alex Padilla crashed a press conference in progress held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and was understandably tackled after rushing toward the podium without visible I.D. and no one recognizing him, he got exactly what he wanted — five minutes of fame and a setup for him to deliver a tearful speech on the Senate floor. It should be embarrassing to Padilla to “get emotional,” as ABC put it, talking about the result of his stunt, but it’s not. He got exactly what he hoped to get out of the encounter — not difficult when a compliant far-left media is there to follow the script page by page.
Sorry WaPo, 6-3 is not very divided. Might as well pick on the Washington Post one more time today. In its coverage of the Supreme Court’s decision saying that states have a right to limit or deny sex-change treatment for minors, the Post wrote that “a divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in a landmark decision on a polarizing issue the Trump administration has seized on as it targets transgender rights.” Sorry, WaPo. A 5-4 ruling might qualify as divided, but 6-3 is pretty decisive. Six out of 9 is nearly 67 percent. Of course, coverage across the far-left (formerly mainstream) media was similarly aghast at the decision, further proof of how out of touch most of the legacy media is with mainstream America. The far-left (formerly mainstream) media continues to produce a brand of journalism designed only for a far-left audience.
‘MAGA Republicans Are Already Normal’ — for yourself or for that friend or loved one who can’t fathom Trump
“MAGA Republicans Are Already Normal — And Other Shocking Notions” is a great addition to the library of MAGA Trump supporters, or the perfect gift for non-MAGA friends and loved ones to help them make sense of the 2024 election results. It’s available on Amazon. Buy it here.
The book (actually much thicker than the illustrations above indicate — the hardcover and paperback are each 453 pages) is a compilation of many of the nearly 200 columns I wrote for the Washington Post from 2017 to 2023 (and a handful of columns I wrote about Trump for The (Hillsboro) Times-Gazette from 2015 to 2017). The columns cover a variety of topics, but they particularly focus on Trump’s rise to political prominence and help explain his appeal.
Here’s a link to a website dedicated to the book.
Sign up or share this newsletter
Please sign up to receive this newsletter directly into your inbox or, if you are already a subscriber and reading this by email, share with a friend using the convenient button below. Thank you!