By Michael Woyton
Standing on a stage at a rally in the state of Nebraska, the president of the United States actually said something that — up to now — was unthinkable that an American leader would say.
But then again, dementia continues to chip away at whatever mind president donald j. felon* still has. He no longer has the filters he may have had that would have prevented him from just saying whatever comes to what is left of his mind.
FREE: Subscribe to On Second Thought now:
“Speaking at a Republican political rally in Nebraska,” according to the New York Times, “the president sought to justify the Iran war as necessary for ‘keeping the world safe.’ He then suggested there could be strikes on the United States,” specifically saying, “Let them take — Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego.”
If you watched the video above, at about the 20 second mark, the person who once said it is the policy of the U.S. to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks stated that taking out Los Angeles or San Diego would be “a very small price to pay.”
Oh, and the maga crowd attending the rally cheered what he said.
This is obviously an escalation from the “Russia, if you’re listening” plea for foreign interference during his first campaign for president.
For the convicted felon and adjudicated rapist, it is the natural evolution of his thought process: It’s fine to suggest the destruction of the second and eighth most populous cities in the country.
While the White House spoke-sycophants have defended what the man with his tiny fingers clutching the nuclear codes said in Nebraska, California Democrats, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria called his statements “dangerous” and “reckless,” respectively.
In posting on the site formerly known as Twitter, Bass said the president’s role is to protect the country, “not to actively threaten it and encourage attacks on American lives.
“In the face of irresponsible threats, as Angelenos, we know how to stand together and protect our city,” she wrote.
Even someone endorsed by the mayor of Mar-a-Lago, running to represent the 48th congressional district of California, said he “vehemently” disagreed with the president.
Jim Desmond, who sits on the San Diego County board of supervisors, posted on the tweetie machine that he served in the Navy to protect Americans, “not write off American cities as an acceptable price of war. … No American city is expendable, and no American family should ever be treated as collateral damage.”
One hopes that no one in his or her right mind would suggest that Iran take out an American city or two.
The key words here are “right mind,” and we are talking about the donald.
What gives me pause, especially after the latest “no beardos, no weirdos” speech by Secretary of War Crimes Pete Kegseth, is the fact that the golfer-in-chief is actually in charge of the nuclear weapons and their deployment.
And it’s clear from seeing how the defense secretary views the reality of war through the eyes of a gamer that he wouldn’t do much to prevent the president from using a nuclear weapon. Couple that with Kegseth firing generals left and right, likely making certain that there will be willingness on the part of the military left in place to do whatever is asked of them.
The president has long had a fascination with “nuclear.” It was reported that he asked a policy advisor three times during a briefing why the U.S. can’t use nuclear weapons. And while he’s said to have explicitly ruled out using nuclear weapons against Iran, he has talked about annihilating the entire country.
I recently finished reading a book by investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen called “Nuclear War: A Scenario” — what? I needed some light late-summer reading.
The 2024 nonfiction book takes the reader through a 72-minute scenario about what could happen if North Korea were to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile toward the Pentagon. It leads inevitably to global catastrophe, including an estimated 5 billion deaths worldwide.
Jacobsen’s details, which are based on interviews with experts and policymakers, are harrowing enough, even with the realization that she is basing the scenario on what competent leaders would do in such a situation.
Examples include the scenario’s president waiting almost literally to the last second to authorize a retaliatory strike, then the president’s helicopter being felled by the detonation of weapon that explodes over the Pentagon, leading the line of succession to be unclear, leading to a lack of communication with the Russians who misinterpret the destination of the U.S.’s retaliatory strikes, leading to the Russians firing their retaliatory strikes.
Messy indeed, but imagine those in charge now dealing with a possible nuclear strike on American soil. Something the commander-in-chief joked about at a campaign rally.
It is painfully obvious that there will be no 25th amendment or any such reining in of the madman in the Oval before the midterms.
Every day it seems we are faced with a new threat from the White House.
In less than a month we will know if enough people are paying attention.
— — — — —
* I’m following what the wannabe king declared on social media that he will only refer to the Supreme Court in lowercase because he has a complete lack of respect for them after the illegal tariffs ruling.
Find and follow me on BlueSky through this link.
Lead art by Michael Woyton.
