Commanding the same respect and reverence. The post Why David Byrne thought of Talking Heads as “fine art” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

"I love music that takes me someplace else." The post The David Bowie song that “floored” St. Vincent first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

"A beautiful musician." The post The key man in Led Zeppelin, according to Pete Townshend first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

"All he fucking does is go out with models!" The post Why Michael Hutchence was Robert Smith’s “most hated person of the moment” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

American poets pioneered free-form verse. Though Walt Whitman did write sometimes in traditional rhyme and meter, he is most famous for his stunning free-form poetry. It was controversial not only for its form but for his candor about the natural world of individual human experience. Critics derided him as lacking the seriousness that comes from religious discipline, understood by the measure of the day.  The light of God is endless, but in our world, it is concealed. We feel the sting, the exile of meaninglessness. But Whitman himself consistently understood his writing to be religious, and supremely so, as he dared to see the fullness of human life in a joyous way that felt to him prophetic. Speaking of those who criticized his Leaves of Grass as irreligious, he said:  That is not my view of the book — and I ought to know. I think the Leaves the most religious book among books: crammed full of faith. What would the Leaves be without faith? An empty vessel: faith is its very substance, balance — its one article of assent — its one item of assurance. The Beat writers and poets of the Forties, Fifties, and Sixties saw themselves as heirs of Whitman. Poet Allen Ginsberg wrote: Whitman warned that unless American materialism were to be enlightened by some spiritual influence, the United States would turn into “the fabled damned of nations.” Ginsberg and other Beats saw themselves as trying to bring some spiritual influence. Ginsberg wrote of how Beat author Jack Kerouac explained the word “Beat”:  “Beat” as beatific, as in “dark night of the soul,” or “cloud of unknowing,” the necessary beatness of darkness that proceeds opening up to light, egolessness, giving room for religious illumination. Yet this was a form of religiosity that was so embedded in its own culture of excess that to most, their religiosity seemed either a bluff or, if genuine, cultish. Over the years, the excesses of the Beats are not so uncommon. Nor in retrospect was their religiosity mere words. But it was directed primarily towards the East. Gary Snyder went to Japan and sat among traditional Zen practitioners as a student, and Ginsberg famously wore white robes and chanted Harry Kushner [not Jared’s brother] with the hippies in Golden Gate Park. Clearly, in their art and often in their lives, their connections to Buddhist and Hindu thought and practice were stronger than to Western religion. The Free Verse of Yehosua November All of this should frame the accomplishment of poet Yehoshua November as evidenced in his third book, The Concealment of Endless Light. Its free verse has the ease of expression and forthright communication of the Whitman tradition. Its emotions are identifiable beyond the confines of a well-defined religious tradition. It holds itself to an immediateness of place and time. It sees and lives within the particularity of person and of things, so that the world is not just a blur of passing insignificances but a place where revelations are the very substance of the everyday. The poet’s New Jersey is the New Jersey of William Carlos Williams and November, like Williams, finds his revelations within the givenness of this particular place. (READ MORE from Shmuel Klatzkin: Biblical Insights Into Immigration) What is stunningly new is the constant reference to Western religion, in the form of the Chabad school of Chassidic thought. Chabad originated in George Washington’s day, and consciously holding itself in the 3300-year frame of reference of the entire Jewish tradition. It is heir to the kabbalistic tradition that during the Renaissance, leapt the bounds between Christianity and Judaism and inspired the thought of such crucial thinkers as philosopher Pico della Mirandola and religious humanist Johann Reuchlin. In this great tradition, November is no dilettante. Like Milton, November is deeply learned in tradition and actively practices his faith. His poems show that the disciplines of his art and of his faith. Together, they embrace a constant devotion, which accepts as necessary both the truth of this ancient heritage and the necessity of precise and loving response to a the world as it is. November lives not in a ghetto but in 2024 America, where he writes in English, teaches writing at Rutgers University, and publishes through Orison Books for an audience not limited to those of his creed. His work is as committed as the Beats to being alive, conversational, intimate, and engaging and as committed as Milton to the constant awareness of the God of the great shared biblical tradition. It is a marvelous marriage. His own marriage is often his subject, seen simultaneously as fully present in this world and as heavenly luminous. Here is his poem “Impossibly”: The way, the mystics say, the higher parts of the soul transcend the body, hover above, you sit at the dinner table in turquoise skirt and dark blouse surrounded by five children. Potato flakes on the floor, fish sticks and ketchup smears on the tablecloth, you read a book about sharing. Your voice—calm, measured—floats above the disorder after a morning three daughters hollered in the upstairs hallway, an afternoon two sons pierced a park’s peace until a Chinese stranger slid the younger one’s bike chain back on track. Your voice rises above the dining room, flows from your dark body into the air for five young faces rapt, impossibly, in attention         and wonderment. November deals with events out of the headlines as markers of eternal meaning. He wrote these lines about the mass murder at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life Synagogue long before the horrors of last October 7: 3. Now it is night. Half a block from the apartment where, seventeen years earlier, my wife and I lived when first wed, Jews of Pittsburgh stand in the rain, holding candles. Eleven souls ascend to the region of mystery then swoop down to hover, incandescently, over their former lives. Away from the cameras and fanfare, eleven bodies are ushered through burial rituals— pottery shards placed over twenty-two eyes, eleven mouths. Water poured to purify physical forms that had, until recently, housed souls whose last act on Earth was to whisper a prayer. 4. There is only one story, say the mystics: The souls of the Jewish people throughout Jewish history form one larger body. The body bears more wounds than we want to recall. No one can explain how it limps forward         but has not faltered. Only truth and beauty so powerfully fused can set the horrors of our own day in the light we need to proceed. Our religious life needs poetry. Without it, its words shrivel into cliché and we lose the core that of its gifts — the presence of the eternal in the actual, day-to-day life that is always the test of experienced reality. More than anything, poetry brings out that most essential element of religion, its invitational core. And nothing could be more American than that, where religion has thrived because of religious freedom in a way that it has not in places where it is still joined with coercion. Given the choice, we will choose life, though the road may be long and difficult. The light of God is endless, but in our world, it is concealed. We feel the sting, the exile of meaninglessness. But, the poet sings, this darkness is for the sake of something greater, an illumination beyond our previous ability to conceive, borne of our struggle to be who we are in full truth. It yields our redemption. (READ MORE: Civilization Means Power Used in Service to the Public) In this book’s final poem, November speaks of a teacher withdrawing into himself, taking a long pause with his eyes closed, and then finally returning to share his discovery with his students. Let it be the last word here. [This] is the way, the mystics say, God, seemingly, recedes back into Himself until, suddenly, after centuries, redemption comes, and a Divine light— more radiant than the world has ever known— illuminates the universe         that thought it had been forsaken. The post A New American Rebirth of Religious Poetry appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

At long last, “pride month” is coming to a close. Come Monday, a broad swath of corporations and companies will return to normal merchandising and normal advertising aimed at normal people. The corporate celebration of “pride month” makes some degree of sense: it is the state-mandated month of worshipping the decadent cultural zeitgeist’s favored sin. These corporations and companies look at polling numbers and survey results and seek to ingratiate themselves with those who have money to spend. What makes far less sense is when Catholic organizations buy into the LGBT brouhaha. In an age so captive to the diabolical zeitgeist of the world … it is the responsibility of every baptized Catholic to be a “soldier of God.” This year, more than half of Jesuit universities in the U.S. offered worship in the pagan’s temple, celebrating “pride month.” According to a report from The College Fix, 15 out of 27 American Jesuit universities publicly celebrated LGBT-themed sin on their social media pages. Other Jesuit universities hosted “pride month” events. It will no doubt come as little surprise that Jesuit schools have so blatantly celebrated the sins of sodomy and pride. Prominent Jesuits such as James Martin and Thomas Reese have spoken well of homosexual relations for years and have (both implicitly and explicitly) endorsed the contraceptive and abortive agendas of the world. But it should be a surprise — in fact, it should be appalling. The Jesuits were once the “soldiers of God,” going to the ends of the earth to preach the Gospel and, in many cases, give their lives for love of God. Jean de Brébeuf, Edmund Campion, Alfred Delp, Isaac Jogues, Wojciech Męciński, Miguel Pro, and so many others of the Society of Jesus chose death — excruciating, torturous death, in most cases — rather than betray the sacred tenets of the Catholic Faith. (READ MORE from S.A. McCarthy: Archbishop Viganò and the Schismatic’s Pride) When the Elizabethan persecutions swept through England and Ireland in the 16th century, Edmund Campion and his brethren did not give in to the cultural zeitgeist but boldly faced the gallows singing the ancient Te Deum. When Jean de Brébeuf and Isaac Jogues arrived in the New World to preach the eternal truths of the Catholic Faith, they did not cower before terms like “diversity,” but preached until their heads were split open and their hearts eaten out of their chests. When Wojciech Męciński brought the Christian faith to Japan, no torture would dissuade him. When Miguel Pro faced the firing squad in Mexico City, he did not beg for another chance to accept the government’s anti-Catholic screeds, but loudly cried out, “Viva Cristo Rey!” When Alfred Delp was imprisoned in Berlin by the Nazi regime, he did not cede to political power but secretly celebrated Mass for his fellow inmates until his execution. It has become instead commonplace to find James Martin as a guest of honor at the Democratic National Convention, to read Thomas Reese’s latest op-ed on female deacons or the necessity of condoms, to hear Karl Rahner exhort his fellow Jesuits to obey not the current pope but some future pope of a decidedly modernist bent. In a 2002 article, Jesuit Paul Shaughnessy wrote: Roughly half of the Society under the age of fifty shuffles on the borderline between declared and undeclared gayness. In 1999 the American Jesuits decided to give priority to the recruitment of gays (under the rubric of “men comfortable with their sexuality”), and the majority of American formatores, Jesuits in charge of training, are homosexual as well. There is a good deal of dissembling among superiors here: some denying the accusation of the gay influx, some admitting it but insisting that it is a boon, most perhaps shifting from one stance to the other depending on the sympathies of their audience and the exigencies of the moment. Overall, superiors have cautiously abetted the transformation of the gay subculture into the dominant culture within Jesuit houses. The website of the California Province portrays its novitiate in frankly camp terms (a photo showing two novices in Mardi Gras masks was captioned “Pretty Boy and Jabba the Slut”). On the other coast, Boston Magazine recognized the downtown Jesuit parish as the “best place to meet a mate — gay” in its “Best of Boston” awards. It is devastating that the Jesuit embrace of the LGBT agenda has occurred at all, and even more devastating that it is no surprise, that it is, in some sense, simply “par for the course.” “Jesuit Universities that support homosexual conduct are proclaiming that the teachings of the Catholic Church are irrelevant and need not be taken seriously,” Ethics and Public Policy Center fellow Nathanael Blake told The College Fix. “These universities want to fit in with the world, and are shedding what is left of their Catholic identity to do so, thereby abandoning their mission of forming students through a Christian education.” Tradition, Family, and Property (TFP) Student Action Director John Ritchie agreed, saying to The College Fix, “Jesuit universities that favor homosexual sin lead souls away from God. Celebrating the sin of pride offends the Sacred Heart of Jesus, destroys Catholic education, and undermines basic moral values.” He added, “Since June is dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, it is with great sorrow that we see the sin of pride.… Sin disguised as diversity.” It is thus, in the face of Jesuit apostasy, emboldening and encouraging to see Catholics remember that June is dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. According to a CatholicVote report, billboards have been erected across the U.S. honoring the Sacred Heart — from Kenosha, Wisconsin and Grand Rapids, Michigan to Omaha, Nebraska and Times Square in New York City! Across the Atlantic Ocean in Ireland, a reported 1,000 flags and banners honoring the Sacred Heart have sprung up this month — outside churches, adorning houses, implanted in front lawns. (READ MORE: Cardinal Castigates ‘Cafeteria Catholic’ Joe Biden) In an age so captive to the diabolical zeitgeist of the world, when even the age-old centers of Catholic thought have succumbed to degeneracy, it is the responsibility of every baptized Catholic to be a “soldier of God.” The post The Apostasy of the Jesuits appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

WASHINGTON — Over the four years I covered the Trump White House, I kept waiting for Donald Trump to change — to grow, really — and moderate his behavior to meet the awesome responsibilities that awaited him every morning at the Resolute Desk. It turns out, Trump needed to lose an election for that to happen, but as the world saw Thursday night, it has happened. Trump has learned to listen. Trump’s willingness to shake up the foreign-policy establishment also has a huge plus side — most notably in his decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. As for President Joe Biden, it was clear during CNN’s presidential debate Thursday night that he has declined. Now it is Biden who clearly is not heeding solid advice from people who know that, at age 81, he is not up for the race. Biden won the 2020 Democratic primary saying he was the only Democrat who could beat Trump. Four years later, he may be the only Democrat who could lose to Trump, 78. The pressure for Biden to announce his withdrawal from the race will be unrelenting. (READ MORE from Debra J. Saunders: Two Big Media Mistakes This Week Already) For months, I’ve been part of the chorus saying that if Biden steps aside, Vice President Kamala Harris, 59, also would have to make way for a replacement because she, too, doesn’t do well in polls. But, really, Harris looks a lot better today. Back to Trump. He did a lot of things right on the Atlanta stage. His approach to immigration meshes better with voters than Biden’s open-border bent. (According to the U.S. Border Patrol, there were nearly 250,000 encounters with migrants at the Southwest border in December 2023 alone.) Trump recognized the grim realities for American families who have to pay more for groceries and housing since he left office. He curbed his name-calling urge and found a softer way to point out Biden’s mental decline, without his infamous mean streak. After Biden uttered word-salad remarks about the border, Trump responded mildly, “I really don’t know what he said at the end of that sentence. I don’t think he knows what he said, either.” Biden was his worst self when he defended his immigration record by faulting Republicans in Congress for the recent failure to pass a bipartisan immigration bill after Trump slammed it. “It’s nonsensical for him to say he can’t do anything without Congress,” Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies reacted. And after millions of migrants have been released into communities: “It is infuriating because he’s had these tools at his disposal but only now in June decided to implement them.” For me, Biden was best when he hit Trump’s hostility to NATO, a vital partner in a chaotic world. The president’s warnings about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s designs on Ukraine were grounded and chilling. “Putin is a war criminal,” Biden warned. “He’s killed thousands and thousands of people. And he has made one thing clear: He wants to re-establish what was part of the Soviet empire, not just a piece, he wants all of Ukraine.” Sure, Trump got NATO countries to spend more on defense — a huge plus, but not because of the money so much as members’ ownership of their own defense. Trump’s willingness to shake up the foreign-policy establishment also has a huge plus side — most notably in his decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. He went bold and the world’s bad actors took notice. There are times you are right to listen to your inner voice, and times when it is better to heed the advice of people who care about your place in the world. The fact that he has not bowed out shows that Biden isn’t listening. I’m 69, an age when a good deal of my thoughts are on how to age well, how to adapt to the changes in my body and how to squeeze the most out of life. (READ MORE: This Porkbelly Pig Says Just Say No To Pork) Another big question in my future and yours if we live long enough: When do you surrender the keys to the car? I’m guessing a lot of Democrats are telling Biden that moment has come. But in this case, the worst that can happen isn’t a fender bender or a serious car accident. It is a steep decline in America’s leadership role on this planet. What were Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping thinking when they watched the debate? I guarantee you, they weren’t thinking about a golf game. Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post Not Debatable: Biden Fumbled in Faceoff With Trump appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

David Brooks is the regular alternative voice discussing politics and public affairs for the government-supported Public Broadcasting Service’s News Hour. He is a regular columnist for the New York Times, a former editor for the Weekly Standard (from its inception), and a contributing editor to progressive Newsweek and the Atlantic Monthly. Wikipedia noted that Brooks has been described ideologically as a moderate, a centrist, a conservative, and a moderate conservative. He has been a professor at Duke University, taught at Yale University, and was elected to the University of Chicago Board of Trustees. (READ MORE from Donald Devine: It’s Time to End the Anti-Democracy Myth: Trump Must Reform the Insurrection Act) But it also reported that Brooks describes himself as a “moderate.” So why do PBS News and the rest treat him somehow as a voice for conservativism when he does not do so himself? Let’s try to understand. Brooks has written a piece for the Times that was reprinted even in my little hometown newspaper and which perhaps explains his presumed conservativism. He begins with what he has “always thought”: That our country’s people have believed in what he calls “American exceptionalism.” The “bulk of the evidence” to demonstrate this is that the U.S. has historically been the world’s “champion of democracy.” It has been a nation that “welcomes immigrants,” and whose national “faith” has been in “the American dream.” But Brooks has recently read a world study of 28 nations that demonstrates that America is merely in the middle of the pack in supporting these supposed features of the dream! Brooks interprets this data as demonstrating a worldwide move of people to right-wing populism, even in Europe — the Netherlands! — much less India, Indonesia, Mexico, and the rest. And, of course, the U.S. has become even more populist than they by supporting Donald Trump for President! The shock to Brooks is the movement of the world so far away from the historic 1848 revolutions that began the modern worldwide swing toward liberal democracy. This turn had been completed by the time of Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” 1989 fall of communism that turned all Europe and much of the world into democracies. But now these are in “retreat” everywhere. To meet this threat, Brooks’ solution is for “liberals” everywhere to support change — but now in a more “comprehensive and constructive way.” Ah, “comprehensive;” with no sense that comprehensive might just be the problem. Conservatives might conclude that the reason the world is so upset with the status quo is that experts have transformed American exceptionalism into comprehensive plans to manage their lives from the top. From Woodrow Wilson and John Dewey and the rest, progressives have passed their “experts govern” logic along to the world, especially to the democracies. American progressives have by now imposed a woke “democracy” on them that seems almost planned to alienate as many non-woke subgroups as possible in the process. Populism and Conservatism Progressivism’s promises have now become due. In fact, most of the 1848 revolutions failed to achieve real democracy; but they all did adopt the progressive’s centralized expert power model. Even in the U.S., a true conservative opposition to progressivism did not arise until post-WWII with F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom and politically by popularizers William F. Buckley Jr., Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and the rest. Reagan was somewhat successful preparing the way for the 1989 revolutions but his message was not a comprehensive government approach, but to “curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or the people.” Although Reagan’s economic reforms lasted right up to the 2008 Great Recession, comprehensive progressivism has exploded ever since. And all nations are now reaping the whirlwind.  In fact, what Americans “always thought,” was not belief in an arrogant “exceptionalism,” or to be the world “champion of democracy,” or be a nation that “welcomes immigrants,” or to have faith in a dream. As Reagan insisted, America’s faith was from a higher authority; and it was republican and federalist, not “democratic.” Its people were to build America, not the world; from the “bottom to the top,” not at the whim of the those at the top. The authoritative U.S. Gallup poll recently asked the American people, “how much trust and confidence do you have in government.” Regarding the Federal government handling domestic problems, 63 percent of Americans said they had “not very much trust” in it, or “none at all.” Only 6 percent had a “great deal” of confidence. For local governments, however, 67 percent said they had a “great deal” or “fair degree” of trust. Only 11 percent said, “no trust at all.” For state governments it was 59 percent having a great or fair degree of trust and confidence against 17 percent with no trust at all. It is no secret why populism is booming worldwide. The centralized, comprehensive progressive welfare state has the power, but it simply does not work. The solution to populism is not more comprehensive plans but to loosen up, to get out of the way, not to force all to become progressive scolds demanding rights without accepting any near-home obligations. (READ MORE: New Ways of War and Meeting the Human Challenge) The real American dream was the federalist, decentralized and limited Constitution, moving decisions away from centralized comprehensive bureaucracies and towards communities and individuals. That is the solution for populism, not “comprehensive and constructive” plans by big government moderate-progressives. Let people have some say in how they are ruled, and even moderate dreamers might be surprised how well a Constitutional populism might work. Donald Devine is a senior scholar at the Fund for American Studies in Washington, D.C. He served as President Ronald Reagan’s civil service director during his first term in office. A former professor, he is the author of 11 books, including his most recent, The Enduring Tension: Capitalism and the Moral Order, and Ronald Reagan’s Enduring Principles and is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator. The post The Media Is Clueless About Shift Toward ‘Populism’ appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Democrats refuse to engage Donald J. Trump on substance. He is running on border security, law and order, tax relief, energy dominance, and Peace through Strength — essentially to restore the general welfare that prevailed before Joe Biden wrecked it. Trump left Hillary in peace, so she could blame everyone but herself for botching a presidential race that was hers to lose. Rather than present an alternative vision, Democrats tried to bar Trump from state ballots (until a unanimous Supreme Court slapped them down). They have trapped Trump in local, state, and federal court, largely blocked him from the campaign trail for six weeks, and leeched him via legal expenses. (READ MORE from Deroy Murdoch: Tim Scott for Veep!) Democrats run from real issues. “I don’t want to talk about policy. We can talk about policy all day long, but it’s irrelevant,” my congressman, Representative Dan Goldman (D – New York), told CNN on June 18. “Donald Trump [is] trying to destroy the country that we know.” Trump’s foes now shriek that he will become Kommandant-in-chief and supervise concentration camps worthy of the Third Reich. Unhinged? Democrats sound as if the door remained uninvented. MSNBC presidential historian Michael Beschloss forecast that, if re-elected, Trump would plunge America into “dictatorship and anarchy at the same time” — magically, total government and no government, all at once. “Because depending on what happens in November,” MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace nearly wept on air, “I might not be sitting here.” Wallace further whimpered, “There might not be a White House Correspondents’ Dinner or a free press.” Wallace warned that, “the real threat looms larger: A candidate with outward disdain, not just for a free press but for all of our freedoms. And for the rule of law itself.” “It is unequivocal that if Donald Trump wins, we are looking at the potential dissolution of democracy in the United States of America,” said Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D – New York). “I mean, it sounds nuts, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this guy threw me in jail.” She added: “I take him at his word when he says that he’s going to round up people.” “They’re trying to end the American system of government,” MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow ranted on June 18. “They’re trying to bring about a revolution against the American system of government and against the United States of America.” Maddow told CNN on June 11 that she fears that Trump would throw her behind barbed wire. “What convinces you that these massive camps he’s planning are only for migrants? So, yes, I’m worried about me — but only as much as I’m worried about all of us.” Predictions of a mega-MAGA Holocaust are insufficiently paranoid for the Hate Trump crowd. They now visualize thermonuclear war. “The 45th president is a disturbed person,” Tom Nichols declared June 12 in The Atlantic. “He cannot be trusted with any position of responsibility — and especially not with an [sic] nuclear arsenal of more than 1,500 weapons. One wrong move could lead to global incineration.” These horrifying premonitions would be slightly less outlandish if Trump were a political newcomer with no record. In that situation, some might wonder, “Could Trump really be an American Hitler?” As luck would have it, Trump already served four years as president, and they looked nothing like Nazi Germany. Trump enjoyed a Republican Congress for his first two years. That would have been the time to establish an American Reich. Oddly enough, that never happened. Did Trump lock up senators? Congressmen? Journalists? No, no, and no. Trump could have thrown Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer into the White House basement after legislative negotiations. Instead, he allowed them to leave the West Wing, denounce him in front of waiting news cameras, and then return to Capitol Hill — unharmed. Trump never locked up Hillary Clinton, despite her blatant violations of the Espionage Act, destruction of evidence, and obstruction of justice in the Servergate scandal. Trump left Hillary in peace, so she could blame everyone but herself for botching a presidential race that was hers to lose. Democrats rewarded Trump’s mercy to Hillary with a three-year-long Russiagate hoax, Impeachment, the Hunter Biden Laptop cover-up, Impeachment Jr., and now, relentless lawfare. An unlikely defense witness for Trump is none other than Rachel Maddow. Her 2024 incarceration hallucination echoes her 2017 incarceration hallucination. She told Bravo’s Andy Cohen that if she interviewed Trump, she would ask him, “Are you going to send me or anybody that I know to a camp?” Maddow said this on January 5, 2017, 15 days before Trump’s inauguration. Her remarks confirm the unmitigated absurdity of the Left’s Trump = Hitler plush toy. For four years, Trump let Maddow, her MSNBC comrades, and other media detractors rage against him, as the First Amendment guarantees. Joe Biden, the Democrats’ shield against a “Trump dictatorship,” is this story’s true-blue totalitarian. Hardly a day passes without Biden barking orders at the American people: Buy this! Don’t buy that! Kiss your gas stove goodbye! Hug your new electric vehicle! The Biden Administration pressured social media companies to censor “disinformation” on COVID-19 treatments and vaccines. (The allegedly conservative Supreme Court gave this program six thumbs up in an outrageous decision on Wednesday.) Team Biden ordered the FBI to investigate inquisitive parents at school board meetings as “domestic terrorists.” The Justice Department has spied on Latin Mass Catholics and jailed peaceful anti-abortion protesters. Biden brags about continuing his$167 billion student-debt-transfer boondoggle, even after SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional. “The Supreme Court blocked it,” Biden said, “but that didn’t stop me.” While aching to jail Trump, Biden’s allies have imprisoned Trump’s former CFO, Allen Weisselberg, and Trump’s former White House advisor, Peter Navarro. Former campaign aide Steve Bannon might be Biden’s next political opponent to land behind bars, as soon as July 1. No wonder Americans reject Democrats’ Kommandant Trump rubbish. When the Washington Post asked 1,094 swing-state registered voters which candidate would safeguard U.S. democracy better (never mind that this is a constitutional republic), 33 percent picked Biden, and 44 percent chose Trump. (READ MORE: New Video: Vegas Voters ‘Reside’ in Bars and Strip Clubs) Democrats should abandon their bizarre, baseless fantasies about Dachau on the Potomac. Instead, they should sit in some hard chairs and craft a positive agenda for four more years. Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor. The post Donald J. Trump: Kommandant-in-Chief? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.