Lock him up Archives - Page 2 of 3 - ... on a quiet day, I can hear her breathing

Call Grows to Impeach Trump, ‘The Most Dangerous Man on the Planet’

Spread the love

Original article by Jon Queally republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Protestors stand on an image depicting US President Donald Trump during a gathering to protest against the US and Israel attack of Iran and the killing of the Supreme leader in front of the US Embassy in Ankara on March 1, 2026. (Photo by Adem Altan/AFP via Getty Images)

“Trump’s illegal war on Iran and the rule of law,” said one pair of campaigners, “establish an intolerable pattern of egregious abuses of power, directly threatening our constitutional order, our safety, and our way of life.”

After the unprovoked bombing of Iran over the weekend by the United States and Israel—strikes that included the unlawful assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei—the call for US President Donald Trump to be impeached and removed from office has grown as the straightest path to hold the US leader to account for the attacks which policy and human rights experts have condemned as a serious war crime.

With a regional war in the Middle East that was already boiling from Gaza to Lebanon and from Syria to Yemen now exploding in the wake of the US-Israeli attacks on Iran, Globe and Mail columnist Debra Thompson on Sunday called Trump “the most dangerous man on the planet.”

RECOMMENDED…

Three-Time Trump Voter Calls C-SPAN to Apologize for ‘Supporting This Rotten, Rotten Man’

As Trump Marches US Toward Iran War, Critics Ask: Where’s the ‘Pushback’ From Dems and Media?

“Rather than ending wars,” Thompson notes, “Trump has initiated military action eight times, carrying out attacks in seven countries (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Yemen, Somalia, and Venezuela) in 2025.” Such a pattern of violence and warmongering should make clear that failure to restrain Trump has only emboldened him.

“The recurring danger in this latest presidential aggression is that there are no guardrails, no constraints, and no post-hoc justification,” writes Thomson, “other than that Mr. Trump is the President of the United States and can do whatever he wants.”

But American presidents cannot simply do whatever they want. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll out Sunday, less than 25% support the president’s aggression against Iran. In the first wave of the US military attack, an Iranian school for girls was bombed, killing over 108 civilians, mostly children.

While some congressional lawmakers are pushing for a vote this week on a War Powers Resolution to curtail US military operations against Iran, others are demanding more robust action from Congress to bring Trump’s war-making to an end.

Has any member of congress called for Trump to be impeached? If they claim he should have asked permission before starting a war but aren't committed to filing articles of impeachment they are engaging in political theater.
— Margaret Kimberley (@freedomrideblog) February 28, 2026

“Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war, as well as to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and fund and regulate the military,” declared novelist and political activists Stephen King on Saturday. “Impeach the SOB.”

Impeach Trump.
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) February 28, 2026

Mike Hersh and Alan Minsky, respectively the communications director and executive director of the Progressive Democrats of America, argued in a Sunday op-ed for Common Dreams that “Trump’s illegal, unconstitutional war on Iran is not only a moral and humanitarian disaster, but also a profound constitutional crisis.”

According to Hersh and Minsky:

Trump’s illegal war on Iran and the rule of law establish an intolerable pattern of egregious abuses of power, directly threatening our constitutional order, our safety, and our way of life. These intertwined crises cry out for an immediate, decisive response by the Congress and the US public.
Therefore, PDA demands that all members of Congress, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike, uphold their oath of office to defend our constitutional republic. The Constitution offers one and only one remedy when President a repeatedly breaks the law and arrogantly refuses to abide by the limits on the power clearly laid out in the Constitution. That remedy is impeachment, followed by removal from office.

Matt Duss, executive vice president for the Center for International Policy, said that US lawmakers, as well as the American people they represent, “must also be ready to hold the president and his administration accountable for this breach of US and international law.”

“The failure to hold past presidents liable for war crimes and related violations of our own laws has helped lead to this dangerous moment, with a seemingly unrestrained president endangering millions of lives with impunity,” warned Duss. “The forever wars and the imperial presidency must finally come to an end.”

Original article by Jon Queally republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Donald Fuhrump says that Amerikkka doesn't bother with crimes or charges anymore, not being 100% Amerikkkan and opposing his real estate intentions is enough. — Donald Fuhrump says that Amerikkka doesn’t bother with crimes or charges anymore, not being 100% Amerikkkan and opposing his real estate intentions is enough.

Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.

Orcas discuss rotting brain. Front Orca says "Wish someone would lock him up". — Orcas discuss rotting brain. Front Orca says “Wish someone would lock him up”.

Post author:dizzy
Post published:2 March 2026
Post category:Donald Trump Fascism Israel Neo-liberalism new authoritarianism plutocracy politics the filthy rich Zionism
Post comments:0 Comments

Experts Pillory Trump Case for War on Iran: ‘Flimsiest Excuse for Initiating a Major Attack’ in Decades

Spread the love

Original article by Jake Johnson republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

US President Donald Trump oversees the military assault on Iran with Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles at Mar-a-Lago on February 28, 2026 in Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by Daniel Torok/White House via Getty Images)

“What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable,” said one analyst.

Senior Trump administration officials attempted during a briefing with reporters on Saturday to make their case for the joint US-Israeli military assault on Iran that has so far killed hundreds and plunged the Middle East into chaos.

According to experts who listened to the briefing, which was conducted on background, the justification for war was incredibly weak. Daryl Kimball, president of the Arms Control Association, told Laura Rozen of the Diplomatic newsletter that the administration’s argument was “the flimsiest excuse for initiating a major attack on another country without congressional authorization, in violation of the UN Charter, in many decades.”

RECOMMENDED…

As Trump Marches US Toward Iran War, Critics Ask: Where’s the ‘Pushback’ From Dems and Media?

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine and President Donald Trump

Trump Admits War Would Be Disastrous for Ordinary Iranians as He Weighs Military Assault

During his early Saturday remarks announcing the attacks, President Donald Trump claimed that “imminent threats from the Iranian regime” against “the American people” drove him to act. But Kimball said that administration officials “provided absolutely no evidence” to back that assertion during the briefing.

“What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable,” said Kimball.

Following the start of Saturday’s assault, which Trump explicitly characterized as a war aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, unnamed administration officials began leaking the claim that Trump feared an Iranian attack on the massive US military buildup in the Middle East, prompting him to greenlight the bombing campaign in coordination with Israel and with a nudge from Saudi Arabia.

Kimball, in a social media post, took members of the US media to task for echoing the administration’s narrative. “Reporters need to do more than stenography,” he wrote in response to Punchbowl’s Jake Sherman.

“The American people were lied to about Iraq. The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price.”

Trump and top administration officials also repeated the longstanding claim from US warhawks that Iran is bent on developing a nuclear weapon, something Iranian leaders have publicly denied—including during recent diplomatic talks. Neither US intelligence assessments nor international nuclear watchdogs have produced evidence indicating that Iran is moving rapidly in the direction of nukes, as claimed by the administration.

Rozen noted that some remarks from administration officials during Saturday’s briefing “suggested Trump’s negotiators”—a team that included Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff—“may not have had the expertise or experience to understand the Iranian proposal to curb its nuclear program.” Rozen reported that one administration official kept misstating the acronym for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog.

Trump administration officials, according to Rozen, seemed astonished that Iranian negotiators would not accept the US offer to provide free nuclear fuel “forever” for Iran’s peaceful energy development, viewing the rejection as a suspicious indication that Iran was opposed to a diplomatic resolution—even though, according to Oman’s foreign minister, Iran had already made concessions that went well beyond the terms of the 2015 nuclear accord that Trump abandoned during his first stint in the White House.

Experts said it should be obvious—particularly given Trump’s decision to ditch the previous nuclear accord—why Iran would not trust the US to stick by such a commitment.

The administration’s inability to provide a coherent justification for war tracks with the rapidly shifting narrative preceding Saturday’s strikes—an indication, according to some observers, that Trump had made the decision to attack Iran even in the face of diplomatic progress and left officials to try to cobble together a rationale after the fact.

In a lengthy social media post, Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted war was necessary because Iran “refused to make a deal” and because the Iranian government “has targeted and killed Americans,” hardly the claim of an imminent threat push by the president and other administration officials.

Brian Finucane, a senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, noted in response that the Trump administration has “sidelined anyone who could articulate… a coherent argument, partly because expertise is deep state and woke and partly because they just don’t care.”

The result is another potentially catastrophic war that runs roughshod over US and international law, puts countless civilians at risk, and threatens to spark a region-wide conflict.

“President Trump, along with his right-wing extremist Israeli ally Benjamin Netanyahu, has begun an illegal, premeditated, and unconstitutional war,” US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement on Saturday. “Tragically, Trump is gambling with American lives and treasure to fulfill Netanyahu’s decades-long ambition of dragging the United States into armed conflict with Iran.”

“The American people were lied to about Vietnam. The American people were lied to about Iraq,” Sanders added. “The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price.”

Original article by Jake Johnson republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Post author:dizzy
Post published:2 March 2026
Post category:Benjamin Netanyahu Donald Trump Fascism Israel Neo-liberalism new authoritarianism plutocracy politics the filthy rich Zionism
Post comments:0 Comments

Less Than 25% of Americans Support Trump Attack on Iran: Poll

Spread the love

Original article by Stephen Prager republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Demonstrators gathered outside the White House in Washington DC on February 28, 2026 to protest US and Israeli strikes on Iran.
(Photo by Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)

“If this goes on… this is going to become a political disaster,” said one foreign policy expert.

President Donald Trump’s war in Iran is extraordinarily unpopular, according to a poll conducted shortly after the US and Israel carried out massive strikes on the country Saturday.

The survey, conducted by Reuters/Ipsos, found that just 27% of voters approved of the strikes, which have killed at least 555 Iranians as of Monday morning and resulted in retaliation from Iran that has killed at least four US service members, with more casualties expected according to a spokesperson for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.

RECOMMENDED…

As Trump Marches US Toward Iran War, Critics Ask: Where’s the ‘Pushback’ From Dems and Media?

Trump Admits War Would Be Disastrous for Ordinary Iranians as He Weighs Military Assault

Meanwhile, 43% of respondents disapproved of the military action, while 29% said they were not sure.

A majority of Republicans said they approved of the strikes, with 55% expressing support. Still, 13% disapproved, and a noteworthy 31% said they were unsure.

Only 27 percent of Americans approve of Trump's Iran strikes, per new Reuters poll. Any Dems who are still skittish about the war powers vote should get over it already. pic.twitter.com/aPPWCBcJn0
— . (@GregTSargent) March 2, 2026

Approval is dismal with nearly everyone else. Only 19% of independents expressed support compared to 44% who disapproved. And though Democratic leaders in Congress have done little to stand in the way of the strikes, their voters are overwhelmingly against them: 74% said they disapproved, while just 7% approved.

The poll reflects a wider skepticism of US military intervention, with 56% of respondents saying the president was too quick to deploy military force in recent months, including in Venezuela, Syria, and Nigeria.

Compared with previous US military interventions in the Middle East, such as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, which—at least at their outset—enjoyed broad support from the American public following intense government efforts to drum up support, there has been little effort by the Trump administration to define the purpose of war with Iran.

Trump’s justification for launching the war has shifted wildly since he began amassing troops in the region. Trump has most recently said the strikes were intended to stop an “imminent threat” from Iran; meanwhile, the Pentagon has told Congress there was no sign Iran was planning an attack unless the US did so first.

The president previously said his push for war was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, an assertion at odds with his claim that his strikes in June “obliterated” the country’s nuclear capabilities.

Told @AJEnglish that Trump's messaging on why he started the war with Iran signalled desperation.

He is desperately trying to come up with a justification that will be convincing to his base for a war that only one out of five Americans sees as justified… pic.twitter.com/pteQ6Ey2zx
— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) March 2, 2026

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Al Jazeera that Trump’s shifting explanations reek of “desperation.”

“It’s very clear that Trump has a tremendous difficulty finding a justification for this war of choice that he’s embarked on,” he said. “The reality is that if this goes on for another week or two, this is going to become a political disaster.”

“So now he’s suddenly, desperately, using all kinds of justifications: Liberating the Iranian people, Iran is fighting against civilization,” Parsi said. “If he actually had a case, he would have stuck to that point and made it clearly. But he doesn’t have one.”

Original article by Stephen Prager republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

dizzy: Uncertain how 27% is less than 25%

Post author:dizzy
Post published:2 March 2026
Post category:Donald Trump Fascism Israel Neo-liberalism new authoritarianism plutocracy politics the filthy rich Zionism
Post comments:0 Comments

Democratic Leaders Face Backlash Over ‘Cowardly’ Responses to Trump War on Iran

Spread the love

Original article by Jake Johnson republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) held a joint news conference on January 8, 2026.
(Photo by Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

“As we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine.”

The top Democrats in the US Congress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, faced backlash on Saturday over what critics described as tepid, equivocal responses to President Donald Trump’s illegal assault on Iran—and for slowwalking efforts to prevent the war before the bombing began.

While both Democratic leaders chided Trump for failing to seek congressional authorization and not adequately briefing lawmakers on the details of Saturday’s attacks, neither offered a full-throated condemnation of a military assault that has killed hundreds so far, including dozens of children, and hurled the Middle East into chaos.

RECOMMENDED…

As Trump Marches US Toward Iran War, Critics Ask: Where’s the ‘Pushback’ From Dems and Media?

Top Dems Reportedly Working to Sabotage Bill to Stop Trump War With Iran

Schumer (D-NY)—who infamously worked to defeat the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump later abandoned during his first White House term, setting the stage for the current crisis—said he “implored” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to “be straight with Congress and the American people about the objectives of these strikes and what comes next.”

“Iran must never be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon,” he added, “but the American people do not want another endless and costly war in the Middle East when there are so many problems at home.”

Jeffries (D-NY), a beneficiary of AIPAC campaign cash, said in his response to the massive US-Israeli assault that “Iran is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism, and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region.”

“The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective, and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East,” said Jeffries.

The Democratic leaders’ responses bolstered the view that their objections to Trump’s attack on Iran are based on procedure, not opposition to war.

This is a disgusting and cowardly statement handwringing about process and the need for a briefing.

No you idiot. This war is a horror and a disaster and must be directly opposed. Any Democrat who can’t say that needs to resign and ESPECIALLY the ones in leadership. https://t.co/CdZoEyNkOy
— Krystal Ball (@krystalball) February 28, 2026

Claire Valdez, a New York state assemblymember who is running for Congress, said that “as we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine.”

“Democrats should speak clearly and with one voice: no war,” Valdez added.

Schumer and Jeffries both committed to swiftly forcing votes on War Powers resolutions in their respective chambers. But reporting last week by Aída Chávez of Capital & Empire indicated that top Democrats worked behind the scenes to slow momentum behind the resolutions, helping ensure they did not come to a vote before Trump launched the war.

“The preferred outcome of many AIPAC-aligned Senate Democrats, according to a senior foreign policy aide to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, is that Trump acts unilaterally, weakening Iran while absorbing the domestic backlash ahead of the midterms,” Chávez wrote.

Neither Schumer nor Jeffries backed legislation last year aimed at forestalling US military intervention in Iran.

The top Democrats’ responses to Saturday’s US-Israeli attacks on Iran, which Trump said would continue “uninterrupted” even after the killing of the nation’s supreme leader, contrasted sharply with statements of rank-and-file congressional Democrats—and even some members of leadership—who condemned the president for shredding the Constitution and driving the US into another deadly war that the American public opposes.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has been floated as a possible 2028 challenger to Schumer, said Saturday that “the American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions.”

“This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic,” said Ocasio-Cortez. “This is a deliberate choice of aggression when diplomacy and security were within reach. Stop lying to the American people. Violence begets violence. We learned this lesson in Iraq. We learned this lesson in Afghanistan. And we are about to learn it again in Iran. Bombs have yet to create enduring democracies in the region, and this will be no different.”

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), a vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, was more blunt.

“Congress must stop the bloodshed by immediately reconvening to exert its war powers and stop this deranged president,” she said. “But let’s be clear: Warmongering politicians from both parties support this illegal war, and it will take a mass anti-war movement to stop it.”

Original article by Jake Johnson republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Post author:dizzy
Post published:2 March 2026
Post category:Donald Trump Fascism Israel Neo-liberalism new authoritarianism plutocracy politics the filthy rich Zionism
Post comments:0 Comments

Trump Says He’s ‘Entitled’ to Illegal Third Term as Allies Draft Voter Suppression Decree

Spread the love

Original article by Brett Wilkins republished form Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

US President Donald Trump dances on stage during a tour of the the al-Udeid Air Base in Doha, Qatar on May 15, 2025. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Extensions of presidential terms or abolition of limits are hallmarks of dictators and backsliding leaders of erstwhile democracies.

President Donald Trump raised eyebrows and angst among democracy defenders Friday for saying he deserves an unconstitutional third term in office, remarks that came a day after reporting that right-wing activists are drafting an executive order that could empower him to ban mail-in ballots and voting machines ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

“Maybe we do one more term. Should we do one more?” the 79-year-old Republican president asked attendees of an event at the Port of Corpus Christi in Texas, to roaring applause. “Do one more term. Well, we are entitled to it.”

RECOMMENDED…

‘Batshit Authoritarianism’: Trump Allies Drafting Order to Give Him ‘Extraordinary Power Over Voting’

Five-Alarm Fire Warning After Trump Says ‘Republicans Ought to Nationalize the Voting’

During his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Trump rehashed his thoroughly debunked claim that Democrats stole the 2020 election for former President Joe Biden, saying this “should be my third term.”

A third term would require a constitutional amendment, as the 22nd Amendment restricts US presidents to two terms in office.

Trump: Maybe we do one more term. Should we do one more? One more term. Well, we are entitled to it. pic.twitter.com/Niue0Q75Oo
— Acyn (@Acyn) February 27, 2026

Extensions of presidential terms or abolition of limits are hallmarks of dictators and backsliding leaders of erstwhile democracies. After Chinese President Xi Jinping lifted constitutional term limits in 2018, Trump marveled, “He’s great,” adding, “He’s now president for life.”

Trump has made cryptic allusions to a third term in office on multiple occasions.

While many Trump supporters believe he should also be president for life, his allies in actual positions of power—including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and political strategist and convicted fraudster Steve Bannon, whom Trump granted clemency—have backed a third term for his administration.

A constitutional amendment enabling a third Trump term is not under any consideration and is all but impossible by the 2028 election. So Trump and his allies are working on other ways for the president to remain in office, focusing heavily on voter suppression. The Washington Post reported Thursday that a group of right-wing activists is writing a draft decree that would give the president “extraordinary power over voting.” On Friday, Democracy Docket published an April 2025 version of the draft order provided by a Trump ally, which the outlet described as “riddled with errors.”

According to the Post, the draft executive order would cite the pretext of alleged Chinese interference in the 2020 election. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded that there was no such interference.

MS NOW national security contributor Marc Polymeropoulos called the draft order “batshit authoritarianism.”

Original article by Brett Wilkins republished form Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).