Subscribe to the IHARE Blog

America’s Third Civil War: Jeffrey Goldberg (Atlantic) and David Blight (Yale)

America's Third Civil War (The Atlantic)

Another year draws to a close. It is time to update the situation on America’s Third Civil War. We are at the three year anniversary of an issue of The Atlantic with the front cover “How to Stop a Civil War.” The Christmas New York Times Sunday magazine issue had an article by David Blight, Yale University with the title “The Irresponsible Conflict: Was the Civil War Inevitable? As America Struggles through another Era of Deep Division, the Old Question Takes on New Urgency.”

This is not my first blog on America’s Third Civil War. For example:

America’s Third Civil War: An Update December 13, 2020

America’s Third Civil War is unfolding in unexpected ways. Previously I had blogged that the 2020 Presidential election would be our Battle of Gettysburg (He Really Could Stand in the Middle of 5th Avenue, Shoot Somebody, and Not Lose Voters April 1/2020)

As it turns out, I was correct. Just a few weeks after that blog, the Confederate flag would wave in Capitol rotunda on January 6, 2021, the furthest advance of the Election Day campaign to overthrow the government. Since then the tide has subsided. There has been a steady stream of released transcripts. Indictments are looming in 2023 for the insurrection organizers (2023: The Year of Indictments December 22, 2022).

So let us look back on what The Atlantic was writing three years ago and what Blight wrote one week ago.


Jeffrey Goldberg tactfully opens his “Editor’s Note” with:

The 45th president of the United States of America is uniquely unfit for the office and poses a multifaceted threat to our country’s democratic institutions.

In my blog of December 13, 2020, I wrote about his comment that anticipates the words of Liz Chaney of the House Select committee:

I doubt that Goldberg anticipated a frontal assault on the democratic process including an attempted coup to steal the election with the support of the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives and 125 accomplices. To imagine an attempted coup by this particular President requires no stretch of the imagination.

Of course, I had no idea of what was about to occur. A mere 19 days later there would be such a coup attempt.

Goldberg: Out of our conversations, and others like it, emerged the idea for the special issue you are now reading, what we have called “How to Stop a Civil War.” … (W)e worry that the ties that bind us are fraying at alarming speed⸺we are becoming contemptuous of each other in ways that are both dire and possibly irreversible.

My blog: If these words reflect Goldberg’s assessment of the situation in December 2019, then one can only imagine what he must think in December 2020. For now the coup to steal the election temporarily has been stopped by the Supreme Court. One should expect the final stand where the last ditch effort to overturn the election will be undertaken will be when the new House convenes to ratify the vote of the Electoral College. He still thinks he can overturn the election and has roughly 126 people who will help him. The fat lady still hasn’t sung yet.

Obviously this prediction about what would transpire on January 6, 2021, proved to be correct.

Goldberg also notes that the first issue of The Atlantic was 1857 (see below)

The next two articles in the issue were covered in the earlier blogs in 2020:


The Texas Secession: Legally Dividing America December 14, 2020

I never did complete my review of the entire issue so let me take a stab at doing so here so we can glimpse the thinking of a mere three years ago. Following these articles above, there was a section on “The Forces that Pull Us Apart.”

The first article in the section was “How America Ends: A Tectonic Demographic Shift Is Underway. Can the Country Hold Together?” by Yoni Appelbaum. He quotes Candidate Trump on Twitter in October, 2019, saying:

What is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP, intended to take away the Power of the People, their VOTE…

Applebaum notes Trump’s quoting a supporter’s dark prediction that impeachment

…will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.

Applebaum’s concern is the competing sides have crossed the line where each side dehumanizes the other. As to how this has happened he suggests:

…the biggest driver might be demographic change.”

To support this charge he cites a book published in 2002 by Tuy Teixeira and John Judis, The Emerging Democratic Majority, and an article published in The Atlantic in 2012, where Teixeira doubles down on that argument.

Those prognostications about the demographic changes which would sweep Democrats into power have been the subject of recent blogs here:

Demographic Deluge, Democratic Nightmare: The Emerging Democratic Majority
October 28, 2022

What will White Racists Do if the Republican Party Becomes Diverse?
October 31, 2022

Are Democrats Capable of Crafting a New National Narrative?
November 1, 2022

Already in 2019, Applebaum recognized that all had not gone according to plan in the 2014 and 2016 elections. Yet still in 2019, he concluded that Teixeira was correct but premature. He concurred with that analysis and offered as an explanation the actions the Republicans were taking to minimize the vote.

Today [2019], a Republican Party that appeals primarily to white Christian voters is fighting a losing battle… The GOP‘s efforts to cling to power by coercion instead of persuasion…

 The remedy was for the GOP to reach out to these groups just as Democrats once decided there was more to be gained by not locking immigrants out of the party. Jews, Italians, and Irish had become white and everyone sought the American dream. Applebaum noted that even dissidents in American history from the suffragists at Seneca Falls to Martin Luther King at the Lincoln Memorial of Harvey Milk at the San Francisco city hall all quoted the Declaration of Independence. Even the calls for change were expression of American founding ideals rather than as a rejection of them. One notes these words and sentiments were written before Woke became the dominant cultural idea of dissidents and toppling Jefferson became the rallying cry.

The next article was “Left Behind: The Real Roots” of the Urban/Rural Divide,” a conversation by editor Jeffrey Goldberg with Tara Westover. The conversation focused on the economic disparity between the poorest states – which voted for Trump in 2016 – and the richest states – which voted for Clinton in 2016. Democrats represent districts responsible for two-thirds of the national GDP. Westover observed a strong tone of condescension between the urban centers which have benefited economically from the technological change and the rural areas which have not.

Needlesstosay, the very tone, attitude, and vocabulary of the elitist Woke have become one of the great strengths of the Republican Party.

There are many more articles in that issue of The Atlantic, too many to review here.

During 2022, there were multiple articles continuing this theme of the Civil War. In general terms, they emphasize the reality of two houses in a single state struggling barely to remain together. Here are some prominent examples:

“The Abortion Battle May Be a Precursor to Even Larger Struggles by Fareed Zakaria (May 5, 2022, CNN and contributing editor to The Atlantic. He cites a study of America’s cultural values that maps them by counties. The result is one country that would fit comfortably with Northern European Protestant countries and the other closer to Nigeria and Saudi Arabia.

“Battle Over Abortion Rights Threatens to Deepen America’s Divide” by Peter Baker (May 7, 2022, NYT, print). His opening lines are:

For years, the United States has been drifting further apart, less a single country than an uncomfortable marriage of vastly disparate cultural and political entities…

It is a world where the loudest voices dominate the conversation and in effect “Come let us reason together” is impossible.

“America May Be Broken beyond Repair,” by Michelle Goldberg (May 28, 2022, NYT print). She cites an odious commercial by Blake Masters, who later weakly lost the Arizona Senate race, as an example. She then refers to the book Divided We Fall by anti-Trumper David French on various scenarios in which the dissolution of the country might occur. (See my blog Will California or South Carolina Secede First? (September 25, 2020).

“America Is Growing Apart, Possibly for Good: The great “convergence” of the mid-20th century may have been an anomaly” by Ronald Brownstein (The Atlantic, June 24, 2022 newsletter). In this article, not only is the divided nation model acknowledged. This time the Red States (Confederates) will seek to impose their values through legislation and the Courts on the Union States.


U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021: Jon Cherry/Getty Images. “Hancock at Gettysburg,” by Thure de Thulstrup: Alamy.

Blight’s article is more of an historical essay than a politic op-ed piece which makes sense since he is an historian (= person of history in Woke). Most of it is about 1857 and the Dred Scott case (and the year The Atlantic was founded).

In addition to the historical analysis, Blight does comment on the present situation.

Recently, it has become disturbing common to hear Americans wonder aloud whether we are headed for another breakup of some kind.

He cites polls showing huge percentages of the Democratic and Republican voters favoring some kind of “secession.” The Second Civil War historian then quotes a NYT Opinion contributor who concluded that “there appear(s) to be no major or effective movement to counter polarization.” Once again we can see the need for a new national narrative and for the need of historians to take the lead in crafting one.

Blight takes aim on both sides:

A strained insistence on conformity and correctness of thought, language and behavior by the left and the right also seems to have rendered respect, grace and honest communication across political lines a thing of the past.   

Blight is a college professor of history at Yale. He is in some ways on the frontlines of this dilemma. It would be interesting to know how he has dealt with these issues in his own classrooms … assuming that it contains students from both sides.

Blight concludes:

…it might be said that our country is already in the midst of a slow, low intensity civil conflict. Will it bring about something more violent and destructive?

Presumably he means than what happened on January 6, 2021. After all, back in the Second Civil War, battles were large-scale with dead and wounded in the tens of thousands at each major encounter.

Most of the remainder of the article is about the 1850s and the Dred Scott decision. Blight notes in passing that the Confederates acknowledged that Lincoln really had won and the election had not been stolen. One may add that back then, the Confederates then withdrew much like Kevin McCarthy withdrawing Freedom Caucus members from participating in the House Select Committee, a decision that backfired as he now realizes. We will never know what would have happened if the Confederates had decided to remain in Congress and participate in the 1864 Presidential elections. Strange as that scenario may sound according to Lincoln the secession was illegal and the Confederates always were part of the United States.

Blight ends his article somewhat optimistically. The midterm elections show that “at least small majorities in many regions prefers facts over bizarre conspiracy.” Whether that dynamic will remain true cannot be known until future elections are held. Otherwise he wonders if it is 1857 all over again. That year preluded the Second Civil War; will 2021 prelude the Third?

As someone who has written for years about the Third Civil War, I am strangely optimistic that the worst is over.

The 2022 election was comparatively calm despite the heated rhetoric.

The Stop the Steal candidates lost the major state and federal elections. Instead of Arizona being a beachhead for the New World Order, the TV personality who lost the governor’s race continues to make a fool of herself and undermine the cause. Otherwise all the “Stop the Steal” candidates who lost accepted their defeat without any commotion.

The Freedom Caucus is about to make a fool of itself with an onslaught on investigations even as its leaders faced probable indictment for their role in the January 6 insurrection. Compared to the House Select Committee, the Freedom Caucus investigations will look like a circus in contrast to the professional performance we just witnessed.

The insurrection ring-leader himself is going to face a series of charges that will keep him busy for years to come. In addition he has now been exposed not only as a political loser but as a business failure who has been kept afloat due to Daddy, the Apprentice, and skilled accountants. These are not the attributes of a storm-the-Capitol leader in 2024 assuming he even gets the nomination.

None of the wannabee candidates have the personality and charisma to lead a charge on the Capitol in 2024 especially when it will be under Democratic control and they have learned from 2021.

I suspect that the desire for a Civil War is mostly confined to alternate reality websites and cable shows and does not accurately reflect the nation’s mood.

Finally there are the immigrants who should be considered. Lincoln reached out to them in the Gettysburg Address. He knew his audience were not all descendants of those who had fought in the American Revolution. By standing with the Union during America’s Second Civil War they stood with those who had fought in the first one. Now all those immigrants of recent years did not come here because they want to live in a country that is cracking up and convulsed by war. People want the government to work right for them. Few will heed the call for an insurrection in 2024 in the event anyone even makes one.

Contingency Plans for January 20, 2021: If He Loses

Preview to the Third Civil War: Bombardment of Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor: 12th & 13th of April, 1861 (

What are the contingency plans for January 20, 2021, if Joe Biden wins the election?
What are the contingency plans for January 20, 2021, if Joe Biden loses the election?

America’s Third Civil War is moving forward to its showdown. So far the skirmishes in the culture war have been mostly local and mostly non-violent. Clearly now the intensity is ratcheting up. That process will continue until Election Day. Given the write-in ballots, the boiling point may not be reached until after Election Day as the time required simply to count the votes may go beyond Tuesday. And then there will be the law suits. Lots and lots of lawsuits.

Two pre-election Civil War scenarios have been presented in the publications I receive. The first was published in the January/February 2019 issue of The Atlantic by Elizabeth Goitein, a co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, entitled The Alarming Scope of the President’s Emergency Powers. I have slightly revised her possible scenario to bring it up-to-date.

Imagine that it’s late 2020. Trump’s approval ratings are at an all-time low. A disgruntled former employee has leaked documents showing that the Trump Organization was involved in illegal business dealings with Russian oligarchs [and Saudi royalty]. A disgruntled government employee has leaked Trump’s taxes showing that he has violated the law many times for many years.  The coronavirus and trade war with China and other countries has taken a significant toll on the economy. Trump has been caught once again managing ineptly, and his international gaffes are becoming impossible for lawmakers concerned about national security to ignore.

In straw polls pitting Trump against various potential Democratic presidential candidates, the Democrat consistently wins. Trump reacts. Unfazed by his own brazen hypocrisy, he tweets that the Ukraine and China are planning a cyber operation to interfere with the 2020 election. His Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, claims to have seen ironclad (but highly classified) evidence of this planned assault on U.S. democracy [and the release of Covid-19]. Trump’s inflammatory tweets provoke predictable saber rattling by the Chinese leaders; he responds by threatening preemptive sanctions and tariffs. Some Defense Department officials have misgivings, but others have been waiting for such an opportunity. As China’s statements grow more warlike, “Chinaphobia” takes hold among the American public.

Proclaiming a threat of war, Trump invokes Section 706 of the Communications Act to assume government control over internet traffic inside the United States, in order to prevent the spread of Chinese disinformation and propaganda. He also declares a national emergency under International Emergency Economic Powers Act, authorizing the Treasury Department to freeze the assets of any person or organization suspected of supporting China’s activities against the United States. Wielding the authority conferred by these laws, the government shuts down several left-leaning websites and domestic civil-society organizations, based on government determinations (classified, of course) that they are subject to Chinese influence. These include websites and organizations that are focused on getting out the vote [and resisting voter suppression].

Lawsuits follow. Several judges issue orders declaring Trump’s actions unconstitutional, but a handful of judges appointed by the president side with the administration. On the eve of the election, the cases reach the Supreme Court. In a 5–4 opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Court observes that the president’s powers are at their zenith when he is using authority granted by Congress to protect national security. Setting new precedent, the Court holds that the First Amendment does not protect Chinese propaganda and that the government needs no warrant to freeze Americans’ assets if its goal is to mitigate a foreign threat.

Protests erupt.

On Twitter, Trump calls the protesters traitors and suggests (in capital letters) that they could use a good beating. When counterprotesters oblige, Trump blames the original protesters for sparking the violent confrontations and deploys the Insurrection Act to federalize the National Guard in several states. Using the Presidential Alert system first tested in October 2018, the president sends a text message to every American’s cellphone, warning that there is “a risk of violence at polling stations” and that “troops will be deployed as necessary” to keep order. Some members of opposition groups are frightened into staying home on Election Day; other people simply can’t find accurate information online about voting. With turnout at a historical low, a president who was facing impeachment just months earlier handily wins reelection—and marks his victory by renewing the state of emergency.

Over all, this prognostication remains fairly believable. I tried to update it to reflect the coronavirus and to diminish the Iran factor. I did not revise it to account for the extensive voter suppression activities already underway in the attacks on mail-in ballots, the cleansing of voter rolls in Trumpican-governed states, and the pending deployment of the Trumpican Voter Suppression army. These actions will only heighten the tension. We can witness in Hong Kong what easily could happen here.

The second example “How Far Would Trump Go to Keep Job? Foes Brainstorm Options,”   (NYT, May 25, 2020, print), is briefer as reported in the article. My awareness of this article triggered my reviving The Atlantic one. Preparing such scenarios seems more relevant now as we approach the moment of truth. In this version:

In October, President Trump declares a state of emergency in major cities in battleground states, like Milwaukee and Detroit, banning polling places from opening.

A week before the election, Attorney General William P. Barr announces a criminal investigation into the Democratic presidential nominee, Joseph R. Biden Jr.

After Mr. Biden wins a narrow Electoral College victory, Mr. Trump refuses to accept the results, won’t leave the White House and declines to allow the Biden transition team customary access to agencies before the Jan. 20 inauguration.

The approach here is more domestic-based but ultimately leads the same moment of truth for the United States. It also means that if Joe Biden wins he will face more than legal battles that will drag on for weeks. He will receive no transition support since according to the incumbent, Biden didn’t win and isn’t entitled to any. Therefore as much as possible Biden needs to be ready Day 1 with a full slate of officials who know what they are doing. This interim period will provide a window of opportunity for any foreign entity wishing to take advantage of the American vulnerability. It puts the American military in a bind since it already knows what the rest of the world knows: the American commander in-chief is a blithering idiot, a simpleminded person of limited knowledge, attention span, and retention. Who knows what he might order to be done? Who knows who will obey him?

I first considered the topic of the 2020 election chaos in a blog back in 2018 about Anonymous

Suppose the very stable genius is wrong about 2020 (assuming he is still in office and chooses to run again)? Will the President honor the election results? Will the President leave the White House voluntarily? Will he demand a full investigation into the rigged results? Will he remain in the White House until the investigation by his Attorney General (not a stupid Southerner[Sessions]) is completed?  

In the follow up on March 17, 2019, I added this perspective on my earlier blog:

Those of you who read this blog [2018], may I have thought I was off my rocker. I am pleased to note that five months later the Fixer, who well knows the personality of Person #1 and what he is capable of, raised the exact same concerns in his Congressional testimony. There was not the chance to resolve this issue in the 2018 elections since the Democratic tidal wave was so huge. Even for someone living in an alternate reality there are limits as to how many Congressional districts can be contested. The situation is quite different at the presidential level.

Suppose in 2020, the Democratic candidate wins by the same small margin as the 306 electoral vote landslide in 2016? How many states would need to be contested to switch the national results? At this point it is impossible to know. Indeed we may never know if the margin is comparable to the Congressional vote in 2018. An almost 9% spread is difficult to finesse to an Electoral College victory.

I revisited the subject on May 6, 2019, When Did You First Know Individual #1 Would Reject the 2020 Results If He Lost? following an article two days earlier. Remember Nancy Pelosi’s concerns (Pelosi Warns Democrats: Stay in the Center or Trump May Contest Election Results, NYT, May 4, 2019):


Few people outside Ms. Pelosi’s inner circle were aware of how worried she was that Mr. Trump would try to stop the opposition party from taking control of the House unless the Democrats’ victory was emphatic enough to be indisputable.

 “If we win by four seats, by a thousand votes each, he’s not going to respect the election. He would poison the public mind. He would challenge each of the races; he would say you can’t seat those people.” In recent weeks, Ms. Pelosi has told associates that she does not automatically trust the president to respect the results of any election short of an overwhelming defeat.

 She said the victory in 2020 needed to be by a margin so “big” that it cannot reasonably be challenged.

 “We have to inoculate against that, we have to be prepared for that,” as she discussed her concern that Mr. Trump would not give up power voluntarily if he lost re-election by a slim margin.

The questions I asked on March 17, 2019, remain valid.

Will Individual #1 unleash his muscle in his militias, military, police, and Second Amendment people to protect him from the greatest threat to the United States ever?

How long would it take the Supreme Court to adjudicate all the legal claims filed?

If his Supreme Court betrayed him, would Individual #1 honor its ruling?

Who would actually extract Individual # from the White House?

Based on The New York Times article, it appears that more people and with more standing than I have now realize the issue is not some wild-eyed hypothetical but a real world possibility with the clock ticking. We are headed for a showdown. Of course, if the post-election legal fight drags on long enough, it could lead to Nancy Pelosi becoming President on January 20, 2021 (Could Nancy Pelosi Become the First Female President?: A Constitutional Crisis).

One final possibility to consider is suppose Biden loses. How will people react to four more years of our immature child president? Will that result push people over the edge? That is a subject for another blog.

Wartime President: The Battle Is Engaged

Do Trumpicans Want to Survive? (Courtesy Simply Psychology)

Wartime presidents are different than peacetime presidents. Sometimes being president during a war has a political advantage – Franklin Roosevelt and both Bushes initially. Sometimes being president during a war has political disadvantages – Lyndon Johnson and George Bush. The reaction tends to be due to the success or failure of the war effort rather than the validity of the war itself. If Bush had presided over the immediate capture of bin Laden and surrender of the Taliban as he almost did, he would have been viewed quite differently.

What all these wars have in common is that they involved external enemies. The situation is quite different when the foe is internal. George Washington successfully led troops into western Pennsylvania in 1794 during the Whiskey Rebellion. More prominently, Abraham Lincoln preserved the Union in the War of Northern Aggression against the breakaway Confederacy. Both Washington and Lincoln sought the unity of the United States. Now we have a president who thrives on division.

As I previously wrote, America’s third civil war will be fought differently than the first two. Right now the nominal leader of We the People is traveling throughout the country doing his best to divide it into two warring groups. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say he is seeking to exploit the existing differences much like his Russian allies. He did not originate them.

When Sarah Palin during the 2008 campaign called for her side to take back the country the conflict was already underway. At that time, John McCain refused to demonize Barak Obama, an action for which Republicans today will never forgive him. By contrast today, the current head of the nominal Republican Party leads a full-throated denunciation against the forces of chaos that are threatening the land.

Before turning to how he is actively dividing America today it is important to reflect on how the Democrats contributed to the current civil war. Palin might not have been well versed on Russia beyond being able to see it from her front yard, but she was correct that America was involved in a civil war and that her side was losing. Her assessment of the situation was spot on.

For years, the Democrats have been touting the coming of a demographic deluge. This flood of brown-skinned non-Christian(?) people were going to overwhelm the real Americans with their alien ways. Republicans responded as Samuel Morse did to the arrival of Irish Catholics in the 1830s with thunderous denunciation of the havoc these foreigners would unleash especially in the Mississippi Valley heartland. Even to this very day, America abounds in Irish and German Catholics who pledge no allegiance to the United States. Morse’s fears have been fulfilled. The non-Celtic white, the non-Germanic white, and the non-Hispanic white leave few real white people left to defend the country. So it is no wonder that Palin and the Republicans feared another round of foreigners who would undermine American way of life as the Irish, Germans, and Italians had done before them.

And the Democrats did everything they could to stoke the fears of the native-born white Americans. They relentlessly championed the flood of hyphens who would never become part of We the People and had no desire to do so. Just as the Irish, Germans, and Italians retained their hyphen and never become assimilated so the Caucasians from South America, Mexico, and Asia would forever remain beyond the pale and never identify as Americans.

Why should anyone want to be an American anyway? Democrats and their Woke politically-correct allies ceaselessly disparaged all acts in history by heterosexual white males. The celebration of those people and the events they participated in would be banished from the new country being created, first in the schools, then in the media, and finally in the halls of political power. Even non-college educated whites got the message – they were the targets of the new political order the Democrats and their brown-skinned people championed.

After physical survival, the Maslow hierarchy posits safety needs as the next most important. Safety includes not just protection from the natural elements – where is the president during the storms that ravaged New Orleans, Puerto Rico, and Florida – but human ones. The stress engendered by fear wreaks havoc. It does so to the people in an abusive relationship; it does so to the people in a crime-dominated neighborhood; and it does so to the people facing a demographic deluge. People who see no future for themselves, their family, their community, and their country are vulnerable to having their insecurity exploited be it by internet trolls, political leaders, or both.

Enter Donald Trump, lifelong con artist who excels in the exploitation of the vulnerable. He does not have the mental necessities to understand the Maslow hierarchy but he does has the people instincts to exploit it. He lives in a time when social media permits him in cahoots with American and Russian trolls to inflame Americans as no leader as before him. Of all the American Presidents he is the champion at dividing the country. Now during these final weeks of the 2018 elections, he is in his prime. Until such time as the fears of Republicans are overcome, his personal shortcomings, his illegal activities, and his dishonesty are irrelevant.  Consider the words of Margaret Power, professor of history at Illinois Tech, in an article about Westmoreland County, PA:

One issue that has confounded many is why so many women voted for Trump, despite his obvious misogyny and the accusations and evidence that he abused women. Penny Young Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, succinctly sums up their sentiments about Trump. “We weren’t looking for a husband. We were looking for a bodyguard. 

The Maslow hierarchy rules! BUILD A WALL!

Once again, Democrats and their erstwhile allies are ready to assist him in his effort to divide America. Their motto is “When Republicans go low, kick them.” The video of General Maxine Waters commanding her troops to get in the face of Republicans is a godsend to the native-born white Americans desperate to defend their country. The accosting of Republican elected officials no matter how despicable they are is a godsend to the native-born white Americans desperate to defend their country. It is almost as if the Democrats are trying as best they can to live down to the level of the Republican caricatures of them.

And then there is the refugee caravan. If you tried with all your might, all your heart, and with all your soul to concoct an image better suited to play into the fears of native-born white Americans about a demographic deluge preparing to invade and undermine the country, it would be difficult to do better than the image of the brown-skin caravan marching north to America. The only thing missing is having the Moslem terrorists accompany them. Oh wait. That charge has been made too.

Obviously, in the national political arena today there is no Lincoln to try to keep American together. Amazingly the Democrats who have the opportunity to rise to the occasion to provide leadership to We the People have failed to do so and do not even try.

Sorry Cory, you did not have a Spartacus moment.

Sorry Hillary, “crooked Hillary” will live on even without you avenging 2016.

Sorry Elizabeth Warren, what were you thinking? If Little Donny Wany taunts you with a $1,000,000 bet that he never would pay under any circumstances, do not sink his level by accepting his challenge. Taunt him back in a way that exposes his shortcomings as Stormy Daniels does. She is much more skilled at this than you are. You should have said:

I will give $1,000,000 to his favorite charity (meaning himself), if he releases his tax reports.

I will give $1,000,000 to his favorite charity (meaning himself), if he testifies to the grand jury.

I will give $1,000,000 to his favorite charity (meaning himself), if he identifies the California cities that rioted against sanctuary cities.

I will give $1,000,000 to his favorite charity (meaning himself), if he fulfills his campaign promise to sue all the women he claims falsely accused him of sexual abuse.

I will give $1,000,000 to his favorite charity (meaning himself), if goes one full week without telling a lie.

I will give $1,000,000 to his favorite charity (meaning himself), if he can explain his healthcare program in an actual speech of at least 30 minutes.

I will give $1,000,000 to his favorite charity (meaning himself), if he reads a book…more than 200 pages long and reviews it as in a book report.

Game on, Tiny.

The seventh-grade smart-aleck dumb-aleck is superb at fanning the flames of a war within America that is become explosively violent. By contrast, the Democrats are superb at digging a hole ever deeper without providing any leadership to We the People.