Dems add more anti-Russian hysteria

The NY Times editorializes:

In the summer of 1950, outraged by Joseph McCarthy’s anti-Communist inquisition, Margaret Chase Smith, a Republican senator from Maine, stood to warn her party that its own behavior was threatening the integrity of the American republic.

She complained about the "Communist design of 'confuse, divide and conquer.'"

Communism was threatening the American republic. We had commie spies and sympathizers at the highest levels. Spies gave away our atom bomb secrets and undermined our foreign policy.

Now the Russians are no longer commies, and China is more of a threat.

But the deep staters and Dems want to bring back the Cold War. They are preoccupied with weird conspiracy theories about how the Russians supposedly interfered with the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton blames the Russians for her loss, and now claims that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian puppet.

The Russians do indeed have a long history of propaganda seeking to 'confuse, divide and conquer.' But so does the NY Times, Wash. Post, and CNN.

It is funny how the NY Times sides with the Russians as long as they are Commies, and then turns anti-Russian when the Russians reject Communism.

Another NY Times essay:

As a feminist philosopher, I understand our constitutional crisis to be all tangled up with a specific brand of what I call “sovereign masculinity.” Sovereign masculinity is not a real, existent thing. It lives instead in that dimension of human existence Charles Taylor called the “social imaginary,” and is just one of many things that situate me in the world in ways I don’t have to think about. ...

The conservative Harvard political philosopher Harvey Mansfield wrote a treatise praising this kind of manhood in 2006, as an antidote to America’s post-9/11 blues. “The most dramatic statement of manliness would be the one where the man is the source of all meaning, where nothing else has meaning unless the man supplies it,” he wrote. The ultimate aspiration of the sovereign man is to have his speech operate like the speech of a god, where his word instantiates truth.

This is why toxic masculinity is not a separate issue from political authoritarianism generally. The sovereign man is not subject to the law because he is a source of law for others. The spectacles of subservience we have witnessed since Trump was elected are testament to that equivalency. Once obedience to the word of the sovereign sets in, becomes normal, we are on the road to an authoritarian state.

When Marie Yovanovitch stood up straight and walked with unassailable confidence through flashing press cameras to testify before Congress, after being told not to, the spell was broken.

These people are nuts.

Yovanovitch was fired because she was a holdover political appointee who are rumored to be disloyal. Her testimony proves that she is disloyal. I don't know anything about her, but there is not a list of those who complain about being fired by Trump, and their complaints pretty well prove that they should have been fired.

Correction: A comment below suggests that my terminology was a little sloppy. Ambassador is a political job, where the President is entitled to appoint people faithful to his policies. This ambassador was a political appointment in the sense that Pres. Obama moved her from being a career State Dept employee to a political position. She was only fired in the sense that she was re-assigned back to the State Dept. These changes occur with every new administration. That is my understanding.