An ex-NFL player is wisely drawing attention to a divisive anti-American hate campaign by his city council.

Did they install the usual burning cross of “America First”? Or a statue of Robert Lee?

No, no that’s far too golden age. Too obvious.

In spite of vigorous and scathing attacks from liberals and minority groups, between three and six million native-born Protestant white men rushed to join the secret order. At least another half-million women joined the Women of the Ku Klux Klan. Some even claimed that President Warren Harding took the membership oath in a secret White House ceremony.

All that America First lynching stuff is so old skool and uncool. These days all the cool kids use MAGA as a reference to their grandpa’s America First.

Cue the Huntington Beach council posting an expensive giant MAGA plaque in black and gold, like an update to the 1916 KKK propaganda film screening at the White House.

Some attendees likened the plaque to political propaganda, while others simply called it tacky. Dozens of emails were also sent to the Council to urge them to drop the plaque design in favor of something less divisive.

“While celebrating the legacy of this vital institution is worthwhile, the wording contained on this plaque does not honor the library’s contributions; instead, it serves as a poorly disguised political statement,” one opposition email reads. “This is inappropriate and an irresponsible use of public resources at a time when our city faces massive budget cuts and a severe deficit crisis.”

“I find it incredibly disrespectful that the city council is attempting to memorialize a political agenda into our library through incorporating a MAGA acronym in the plaque. As a nonpartisan council, it is unacceptable to politicize this public space, especially considering the hypocrisy of the message,” reads another.

Some residents weren’t having it though, particularly an ex-NFL player Chris Kluwe, who accurately described the council having a Nazi moment. When he spoke the truth in opposition the council quickly had him arrested.

“…it is clear this council does not listen, so instead, I’m going to take my time to say what MAGA has stood for these past three weeks,” Kluwe said. “MAGA stands for trying to erase trans people from existence. MAGA stands for resegregation and racism.” […] Kluwe went on to criticize the president for recent mass firings and budget cuts. “MAGA stands for firing air traffic controllers while planes are crashing. MAGA stands for firing the people overseeing our nuclear arsenal,” he said. “MAGA stands for firing military veterans and those serving them at the VA, including canceling research on veteran suicide. MAGA stands for cutting funds to education, including for disabled children. MAGA is profoundly corrupt, unmistakably anti-democracy, and, most importantly, MAGA is explicitly a Nazi movement. You may have replaced a swastika with a red hat, but that is what it is,” Kluwe said.

He’s not wrong.

At issue is a city plaque that is not merely ‘golden’ letters, but a flashpoint in our ongoing national dialogue infiltrated by the normalization of Nazism. The city council’s insistence on incorporating hateful ‘MAGA’ messaging into public spaces has drawn parallels to tragically violent repressive chapters of American history, when similar tactics were used to embed political messaging in civic institutions meant to deny freedoms.

To put it simply, scientific analysis of American history says where there’s a MAGA plaque the white supremacist terrorism will manifest. It’s like flying a swastika or burning a cross.

After midnight, on April 3, 1924, several automobiles drove onto the Columbia campus at 116th Street. Twenty or so men, cloaked in the white hoods and robes of the Ku Klux Klan, stepped out of the cars and carried a seven-foot-tall wooden cross down onto the grassy lawn known as South Field. They dowsed it with kerosene and set it on fire. The flames of the burning cross could be seen from all the residence halls on the quad, as well as from the windows of neighboring apartments.

Three years after the cross burning, Trump’s father was arrested in a KKK (America First) rally.

…newspaper clips unearthed by VICE contain separate accounts of Fred Trump’s arrest at the May 1927 KKK rally in Queens, each of which seems to confirm the Times account of the events that day. While the clips don’t confirm whether Fred Trump was actually a member of the Klan, they do suggest that the rally—and the subsequent arrests—did happen, and did involve Donald Trump’s father…. A fifth article mentions the seven arrestees without giving names, and claims that all of the individuals arrested—presumably including Trump—were wearing Klan attire.

The Huntington Beach city council’s recent actions follow a concerning pattern. When residents formally objected to the controversial plaque installation, citing both its divisive messaging and questionable timing during a budget crisis, the council responded not with discussion but with an aggressive police response to peaceful protests. This approach to public disagreement – where dissenting voices are treated as adversaries rather than constituents deserving representation – raises serious questions about democratic governance and civic dialogue at the local level. MAGA leaves no room for representation, only homogenization.

This is obviously more than a story about a plaque. From Wilson’s White House screening of “Birth of a Nation” to inspire the KKK’s revival, through Jim Crow laws that were studied by Nazi Germany, to modern MAGA symbolism in Huntington Beach – there’s a continuous thread of how oppressive institutions respond to challenges of their authority. When civil rights activists stood against segregation, they were met with violence and censorship. When residents speak against divisive symbols today, they face arrest rather than dialogue.

The deeper question isn’t about the technical ability to install such messages in our public spaces – it’s about the cost to our civic unity, particularly in a region like southern California with its own complex history of racial tension. As the council’s response to peaceful protest demonstrates, these aren’t just symbols of the past – they’re active choices about who we are as a nation and what values we’ll permit to be normalized in our shared spaces.

Trump’s obsessive tariff propaganda, coupled with deregulation, mirrors the old policies that contributed to an American 1890s economic crisis… an exit from stability, opposite of any prosperity.

In the longer term, we can expect that a result of these policies will be the gradual decoupling of trade between the US and other countries. […] A bit like Brexit has made the EU extremely cautious about its long-term relationship with the UK, Trump’s presidency is likely to make allies, and others, much more wary about the nature of economic dependency on the US.

The severe economic decline during the 1890s, a ‘golden‘ time which Trump says he wants to go back to, was known as the ‘Great Depression‘ until the 1930s crisis took the title.

Although the American economy grew tremendously during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, much of the country’s fabulous new wealth enriched only a few thousand captains of industry. Conditions for most ordinary people were steadily deteriorating. By 1893, one of every six American workers was unemployed, and many of the rest lived on subsistence wages. Plummeting agricultural prices in the 1890s killed off a whole generation of small farmers. Strikes and labor riots broke out from New York to Chicago to California. Socialist and anarchist movements began attracting broad followings. In 1894, Secretary of State Walter Gresham, reflecting a widespread fear, said he saw “symptoms of revolution” spreading across the country.

America’s prosperity and economic growth in fact were being driven mainly by immigration (which includes innovation, with ideas frequently introduced by those arriving) during industrialization, until the positive trend was severely damaged by tariffs.

So, in a nutshell, immigration was good. Got it. Trump wants to end that. And at the same time tariffs were bad, rapidly creating inequality and symptoms of revolution. Trump wants to restart that. Why then…?

Let’s take a closer look. The economic catastrophe of the 1890s stands as a stark testament to the fragility of unregulated markets and the devastating impact of protectionist policies. What began as a financial tremor quickly cascaded into one of the most severe economic collapses in American history. The numbers give a devastating story: GDP per capita plummeted from $6,400 to $5,500 in contemporary terms, while unemployment soared to a staggering 20% of the workforce. The banking sector was particularly ravaged, with more than 800 institutions failing in rapid succession.

Perhaps most emblematic of the era’s collapse was the railway industry, the very backbone of American industrial might, where over 150 companies fell into bankruptcy. To put this devastation in perspective, consider that today’s GDP per capita stands at $75,000 – more than ten times the wealth of that supposedly ‘golden‘ age.

This was not merely a recession under tariffs; it was a systemic failure that exposed the fundamental weaknesses and oppressive nature of America’s Gilded Age economy.

The McKinley Tariff of 1890 serves as a particular cautionary tale in American economic history, demonstrating the political peril of protectionist policies.

The legislation’s impact was swift and severe, driving up consumer prices across the nation and sparking a fierce electoral backlash. The political consequences were nothing short of catastrophic for the Republican Party, which suffered a stunning loss of 78 House seats in the 1890 midterms – a repudiation so complete that even the tariff’s namesake, William McKinley himself, was swept from office.

The American public’s verdict on high tariffs was unequivocal: the Democrats seized control in 1892 and promptly dismantled the protectionist framework. When the Republicans later attempted to resurrect high tariffs, history repeated itself with remarkable precision – the party again faced electoral devastation, losing both the House and ultimately the presidency to Woodrow “America First” Wilson by 1912.

This cycle of tariff implementation and voter rejection demonstrates a clear pattern: Americans have consistently reacted negatively on economic policies that raised their cost of living to benefit the most elitist (e.g. “golden“) interests.

The complete absence of meaningful business regulation in the 1890s also was characterized by a Wild West of corporate malfeasance that ultimately proved catastrophic for the American economy. The collapse of the National Cordage Company in 1893 perfectly illustrates the dangers of this regulatory vacuum. This rope-making trust, controlling 90% of the American market, operated with virtually no oversight or transparency requirements. While publicly claiming $4 million in liquid assets, the company’s actual cash reserves had dwindled to a mere $100,000 – a deception that would be impossible under modern securities laws. When National Cordage abruptly declared bankruptcy on May 5, 1893, it triggered a stock market crash that an editorial in Commercial and Financial Chronicle on 6 May 1893 reported as ‘Cordage has collapsed like a bursted meteor,’ illuminating the broader systemic risks of unregulated capitalism. Only the company’s president and treasurer knew of its dire financial condition, exemplifying how the era’s lack of mandatory financial disclosures and oversight enabled corporate leaders to operate essentially as economic warlords, their empires built on foundations of opacity and deception.

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday stating that only the “President and the Attorney General shall provide authoritative interpretations of the law for the executive branch.”

How very National Cordage of him.

Hopefully it is abundantly clear, without even going on further, how Trump’s ongoing fraudulent show-boating and gloating about the 1890s appears either to be severely misrepresenting the historical reality to fool people into pulling the country into a huge depression, or foolishly pushing people into depression, or both. It just may be that Trump wants to bring catastrophe so much he’s willing to brazenly lie his way into it. Again, why then…?

Trump has repeatedly made the false claim that America was ‘at its richest’ during the high-tariff period of 1870-1913 even though it is not supported by any economic data – and it’s trivial to see that GDP per capita is over ten times higher today. Moreover, basic economics tells us his tariffs in reality are a tax, typically paid by those importing goods and passed on to consumers. Americans will be hit with higher taxes, to put it simply. Since none of that makes any sense for a policy in 2025, like most of the things Trump emits as a provocation to disagree, there’s something far more sinister to acknowledge under his glib pretense of economic posturing.

The period that Trump says he loves the most appears more relevant to his long-term interests because of its racist violent nativist “America First” movement, implementation of exclusionary immigration policies like the Chinese Exclusion Act, Jim Crow laws with lynchings and militant segregation, absence of safety regulations causing widespread harms including deaths, mass worker exploitation and … drum roll please … huge wealth inequality during the Gilded Age. Back in those days, a Trump would have just said his real objectives more plainly instead of spinning propaganda to mislead everyone about economic policy:

Here are some famous and not so famous quotes from one of the greatest military leaders in history, General Creighton Abrams (September 15, 1914 – September 4, 1974).

The following excerpts and more can be found in “Thunderbolt : General Creighton Abrams and the army of his times” by Lewis Sorley, 1992.

When Secretary of Defense McNamara recommended Abrams to be the Vice Chief of Staff (page 179):

When the January 1968 Tet Offensive showed that President Johnson and General Westmoreland had been lying, Abrams was promoted in June to command of U.S. Armed Forces in the Republic of South Vietnam (page 243):

When Abrams became chief of staff of X Corps (Group) in 1953 during a Korean stalemate (page 129):

For what it’s worth, the always superstitious and easily spooked Nazis feared his successes in battle most because they thought he was Jewish (NYT, 5 September 1974, Page 42).

The retreating Germans were said to be fascinated and terrified by Colonel Abrams because they assumed from his name that he was Jewish, and that he saw himself as a wrathful Jehovah taking destructive vengeance on the Germans for what they had done to the Jewish people. (Actually, he was [Catholic and] descended from a long line of New England Methodists.) […] In doing the job, Colonel Abrams collected the Distinguished Service Cross, the Distinguished Service Medal, the Silver Star, all with clusters, the Bronze Star and a dozen foreign decorations.

He was America’s greatest general after Ulysses Grant, as evidenced by his sense of what mattered most in peace and in war:

The longer I serve the more I become convinced that the single most important attribute of the professional officer is integrity. […] I don’t want war, but I am appalled at the human cost that we’ve paid because we wouldn’t prepare to fight.

“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.” – Winston Churchill

Jonathan Turley has not merely stumbled in his praise of J.D. Vance’s atrocious ahistoric Munich speech – he has trampled the truth before hurrying off as if nothing had happened.

The infamously extremist right-wing law professor fraudulently celebrates Vance’s performance as “Churchillian” while ignoring plain and documented facts about how the Nazi party weaponized free speech vulnerabilities to seize power.

Let us state the historical record with Churchill-like clarity to rebuke the law professor’s misappropriation:

The Nazi party systematically exploited Article 118 of the Weimar Constitution, which guaranteed that “Every German has the right, within the limits of the general laws, to express his opinion by word, writing, printing, picture, or otherwise.”

They recognized unregulated speech, especially when applied through new technology, as their most potent weapon against democracy itself.

Through newspapers like Der Stürmer, they spread vicious antisemitic propaganda while facing minimal consequences. Hitler couldn’t be tried for treason after the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923 because he transformed the trial into a propaganda platform to expand his hateful rhetoric. Hitler couldn’t be banned from speaking in 1925-1927 because every time someone tried to stop him the party falsely claimed it was unfair persecution of their “truth”. Any and all attempts at restriction were spun into bogus evidence that “the establishment” feared the benefits of extreme free speech.

Upon seizing power in 1933, they immediately crushed the very extreme freedoms they had so completely exploited. The strategy to take the free speech into a plan to murder everyone who dared to speak, had worked perfectly – absolute free speech nicely enabled their rise to destroy it entirely.

This isn’t disputed history.

It’s not a matter of legal interpretation.

It’s extensively documented fact that the Nazis weaponized democratic freedoms to destroy democracy itself. This is like saying it’s a fact that cholera used the free flow of water pumps to kill people who were just trying to get a drink. If you think cholera needs to be in water for hydration to work, you might just be a Nazi enabler.

And so here stands Turley, a law professor with apparently no historical expertise, praising Vance for using the exact same Nazi propaganda techniques of the 1920s to attack the German laws specifically designed to prevent another Nazi rise to power.

The gross perversion of history is breathtaking. Consider:

1. Vance deploys the same victim narrative about speech that Hitler deployed, yet Turley bizarrely shifts Vance comparisons to Hitler’s enemy Churchill
2. Turley attacks European speech protections, completely ignoring all lessons learned from Nazi Germany
3. Turley celebrates Nazi propaganda and rhetoric techniques used to destroy democracy, while claiming he means to defend democracy

The intellectual betrayal happens in Munich, no less, a circus performance for the very city where Western appeasement of fascists led to catastrophe. The same city where Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch launched his rise with exploitation of weak regulations on speech.

Turley’s column isn’t just wrong. It’s dangerous. It legitimizes authoritarian propaganda techniques while it also attacks the very safeguards meant to prevent Nazi history from repeating.

This is how democracy goes undefended – when respected voices distort history to serve their agenda, when intellectuals praise the tactics of fascism while wrapping themselves in false claims of defending against fascism.

I know a famous lawyer who would call this the “prerogative” effect of Nazism.

Musk is a self-described free-speech advocate, but he frequently attacks publications and individuals who have spoken out against his actions. He has also been accused of blocking accounts on X of people who have disagreed with him.

Churchill would recognize what’s happening and would thrash Turley for preaching nonsense. He saw it before. In his own words about those who enable fascism’s rise:

Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong—these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.

The real “threat from within” isn’t those who learned history’s lessons. It’s those who deliberately distort that history to repeat it.

We must speak truth to power, especially when that power comes wrapped in academic credentials and false claims about defending freedom. The stakes are too high for silence.

History speaks clearly. We must not only listen, but act.

Oh, but who exactly is this professor who thinks Vance parroting Hitler is a good thing? Turley is a well-known propagandist using his academic credentials and bogus claims of moderation to mask extreme right-wing positions as normal.

Jonathan Turley Wants Everyone To Chill Out And Just Trust The Guy Who Speaks Fondly Of Hitler

This makes him more dangerous than an honest and open extreme figure, as he provides false intellectual cover for authoritarianism while merely pretending to care about democracy.

• Calls himself “longtime liberal” while almost always exclusively criticizing liberals
• A regular Fox News talking head on legal opinions who supports Trump/MAGA positions
• Testified against impeachment of Trump
• Uses writing for The Hill to consistently push extreme-right frames
• Claims to defend “traditional liberal values” when pushing authoritarian tactics
• Refers to himself as “reasonable centrist” when presenting extremist views