Will Chaos Result In Anarchy In The U.K.?

In 1834 William IV, a far right extremist-- who had once been the loudest voice against abolishing slavery-- fired Lord Melbourne, a Whig, as prime minister. That was the last time a British monarch fired a head of government. William was also the last member of the House of Hanover and the last British monarch to serve as king of Hanover. When he died 3 years after appointing-- despite the will of Parliament-- Sir Robert Peel, a Tory, as prime minister, he was survived by 8 illegitimate children he had had with his mistress, actress/former prostitute Dorothea Jordan. He was succeeded by his niece Queen Victoria. (Little known fact: David Cameron is a descendant-- the great, great, great, great, great grandson-- of William by one of the bastard daughters, Elizabeth FitzClarence.

Yesterday the Sunday Times reported that the current crackpot prime minister, Boris Johnson, will dare the Queen to sack him rather than resign as prime minister in an attempt to drive through Brexit on Halloween. A senior Conservative said that "Unless the police turn up at the doors of 10 Downing Street with a warrant for the prime minister’s arrest, he won’t be leaving."

In an unprecedented escalation of the constitutional crisis, senior aides said Johnson would not stand aside if his proposals were rejected by Brussels and MPs tried to unseat him to avert a no-deal Brexit.

They said Johnson was prepared to "squat" in Downing Street even if MPs declare no confidence in his government and agree a caretaker prime minister to replace him.

Through it's media organ, RT, Russia-- which has been behind the turmoil in Britain and the EU-- reported yesterday that Johnson will screw-- like in wreck-- to EU if they don't agree to his exit package. RT.com: "Johnson is not about to take the forced Brexit extension lying down, reportedly devising plans to veto the European Union’s seven-year budget and appoint 'nuclear weapon' Nigel Farage as commissioner.

Johnson has long insisted that the UK would leave the EU by October 31, saying he would “rather be dead in a ditch” than ask the bloc for an extension to its exit deadline.

Parliament passing the Benn act, which requires a Brexit delay unless a divorce deal is agreed, looks to have scuppered those plans, but if forced to hang around for longer Johnson seemingly plans to be a thorn in Brussels’ side.

An explosive report in the Sunday Telegraph reveals that senior government figures plan to "sabotage" the EU if Britain remains in the union after Halloween. Two cabinet ministers told the paper that the plans include blocking the Union's 2021-2027 budget, which is expected to be signed off early next year, as well as sending a Eurosceptic such as Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage to Brussels as the UK’s next EU commissioner.

On Saturday the approach was approved by Steve Baker, former Brexit Minister, who likened it to firing "a nuclear weapon into the heart of the asteroid."

"I unashamedly back Nigel Farage to be our next EU commissioner in the unfortunate event that it transpires," he told Chopper’s Brexit Podcast.

  "This approach is inspired by the film Armageddon. There is that moment when they are trying to save the world and so what they do is they land on the asteroid and they put a nuclear weapon into the heart of the asteroid. Nigel Farage is that nuclear weapon."

One problem with this plan is that the rest of the European Commission will have been ratified by the European Parliament so MEPs would have a clear vote on whether to approve the UK’s nominee. Given Farage’s two decades of causing trouble in Brussels MEPs are highly unlikely to wave him through as a commissioner.

Is The Donald A Punk Rocker? More Than A Few People Think So

Johnny Rotten ended the last Sex Pistols show— at Winterland in San Francisco— exactly the way Rotten's current day hero, Señor Trumpanzee should exit the national stage: "Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated." (I was standing with Bill Graham at the side of the stage, each of us eager for the band to exit so we could pick up all the quarters that were tossed at the band by the audience.)

Friday, the NY Times carried a piece by Sean Howe about that Pistols tour and why a film of it has languished for 4 decades. Howe wrote that “After seven electrifying, antagonistic performances, the band broke up.” A journalist interviewed me last week about the tour and I think its coming out next week. He found an old review I had done of the show in Atlanta, which I can’t remember writing, let alone having been at. But I do remember the penultimate show at Winterland. The write told no one liked that show except me and one other journalist.

Lech Kowalski filmed the tour without permission from the band… or anyone else. It’s called DOA: A Right of Passage. It only showed a few times at the Waverly Theater in NY (1981) and “has since existed as a cult totem, popularized by word of mouth and circulated illicitly in degenerated quality. The film briefly appeared on videotape, issued by HarmonyVision in 1983, before separate clearances for home video were de rigueur, but it quickly went out of circulation. This month, almost four decades after filming began, it finally got an official home video release from MVD Rewind, but Mr. Kowalski, 65, is reluctant to speak about it.”

They financing the movie, Tom Forcade, founder of High Times magazine, “hought the Sex Pistols were the first sign of the Armageddon and the complete disillusionment with the American government, and this was going to be the beginning of chaos. And it wasn’t a mercenary kind of thing-- he really thought he was filming a documentary on the collapse of Western civilization.” The tour manager had his security team throw them out [of that first show in Atlanta]. Johnny Rotten later wrote in Anger in an Energy about his suspicions that High Times was a front for the C.I.A. The crew was thrown out of every show but managed to bribe its way back in each time.

The subsequent interview that Mr. Kowalski landed with Sid Vicious was nearly incoherent, an intimate but harrowing glimpse into the heroin-doomed lives of the bassist and his girlfriend, Nancy Spungen. Sid Vicious was arrested and charged with killing Spungen in October 1978. Mr. Forcade shot himself in November. Sid Vicious died from a heroin overdose in February 1979.

It sounds like the Trump Regime. Out the same day as Howe’s Pistols piece, the New Yorker ran one by Steve Coll, The Distrust the Trump Relies On. “Since the 1970’s,” he wrote, “Gallup has been polling Americans annually about their confidence in their country’s institutions— the military, the Supreme Court, Congress, the Presidency, organized religion, the health-care establishment, and public schools, among others. Over all, the project describes a collapse in trust over time, even though the surveys started amid the disillusionment of Watergate and the failed war in Vietnam. In 1973, more than four in ten Americans had ‘a great deal’ or ‘quite a lot’ of confidence in Congress. This year, the figure was twelve per cent. Trust in churches and other religious institutions has fallen from sixty-five per cent to forty-one per cent in the same period. Confidence in public schools has dropped from fifty-eight per cent to thirty-six per cent. The loss of faith in the ‘medical system’ has been particularly dramatic— a decline from eighty per cent in 1975 to thirty-seven per cent this year. There are a few exceptions to the broad slide. Confidence in the police has held steady at just above fifty per cent. Confidence in the military has increased, from fifty-eight per cent in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to seventy-two percent this year. Otherwise, it isn’t clear where citizens have redirected their faith, or whether they have at all.”

No one would claim Vladimir Putin was behind any of this… until this year, as America began reaping his machinations that put an utterly incompetent, unprepared and psychologically deranged chief executive into the White House. Huge payoff for Russia!

Even in a stable constitutional republic, a cynical or unmoored citizenry presents an opportunity for demagogues and populists. As much as stagnant wages in former manufacturing regions, glaring economic inequality, or white backlash after the Obama Presidency, the country’s disillusionment with institutions enabled Donald Trump’s election. Trump had a sound instinct as he took office that public disgust with élites, including those running the Republican Party, ran so deep that he—even as a New York billionaire—could get away with outrageous attacks on people or agencies previously believed to be off limits for a President, because of the political backlash that the attacks would generate. After his Inauguration, for example, Trump did not hesitate to denigrate the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies for promoting their independent judgment that Russia had sought to aid his campaign. And the President’s opportunistic assaults on less popular institutions— such as the news media and Congress— have riled his base.

All this suggests the need for a certain realism and vigilance about the rising volume of attacks by Trump and his allies on Robert Mueller, the special counsel leading the investigation into possible Russian interference in the election and (increasingly) related issues, and on the F.B.I., whose agents carry out much of the investigative work. Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton all denigrated the counsels who investigated them. Nixon went so far as to fire some of those he saw as his tormentors, in the infamous Saturday Night Massacre. Judging by the indictments of certain Trump associates, such as his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and the coöperation agreements by others, notably Michael Flynn, his former national-security adviser, it is conceivable that during the next year Trump will face a choice between radical action— issuing preëmptive pardons, firing Mueller or the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein— and allowing someone close to him, perhaps even a family member, to face criminal charges. It is hard to imagine him reacting to that dilemma with care or caution.

On Wednesday, Senator Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, apparently alarmed by the attacks on Mueller, delivered a warning in a speech on the Senate floor. “Any attempt by this President to remove Special Counsel Mueller from his position or to pardon key witnesses in any effort to shield them from accountability or shut down the investigation would be a gross abuse of power and a flagrant violation of executive-branch responsibilities and authorities,” Warner said. “These truly are red lines, and we simply cannot allow them to be crossed.” The White House attorney Ty Cobb responded that “no consideration” was being given to firing Mueller, but, given Trump’s record of saying one thing and doing another, and of overruling his spokespeople, it was hardly a persuasive denial.

Warner said he hoped that senators and members of Congress from both parties would speak out similarly, to make clear that his position represented an institutional consensus, not a partisan attack. That seems unlikely. Many establishment Republican leaders might be pleased if the facts uncovered by Mueller so damaged Trump that it weakened his grip on the Party and discredited his nativist, America First movement. But, if a significant number of Republicans challenge Trump in public during the 2018 midterm cycle to defend the prerogatives of Congress or the F.B.I., they would be showing a kind of courage that few members have offered since Trump won their party’s nomination, in 2016.

It is tempting to think that an institution like the F.B.I. enjoys such credibility and public support that its agents and officials— and Mueller himself— can rely on cross-party backing in a crisis, even if Republicans remain silent now. Perhaps. But this was a party that refused to challenge Trump’s backing of Roy Moore in Alabama’s Senate race. And an understanding of what core Trump supporters believe about the F.B.I. and Mueller has to take into account Gallup’s trend lines. While celebrating this new year, it will require a certain degree of evidence-light optimism to be convinced that the center will hold.

Want To Stop Conservative Democrats From Betraying The Party? Take Part In The Nominating Process

In the 2006 midterm elections there was a huge wave against Bush and the Republican Party, Despite the DCCC running some really ghastly Republican-lite candidates-- tons of putrid Blue Dogs-- the wave swept them into office. The Republican House losses: 30 seats. The list below are districts that flipped from red to fake-blue and then subsequently flipped back to red once voters realized they been cheated (primarily by DCCC charlatan Rahm Emanuel):

• AZ-05- J.D. Hayworth to Blue Dog Harry Mitchell to David Schweikert
• FL-16- Mark Foley to Blue Dog Tim Mahoney to Tom Rooney
• IN-02- Chris Chocola to Blue Dog Joe Donnelly to Jackie Walorski
• IN-08- John Hostettler to Blue Dog Brad Ellsworth to Larry Bucshon
• IN-09- Mike Sodrel to Blue Dog Baron Hill to Todd Young
• KS-02- Jim Ryun to Blue Dog wannabe Nancy Boyda to Lynn Jenkins
• NY-20- John Sweeney to Blue Dog Kirsten Gillibrand/Blue Dog Scott Scott Murphy to Chris Gibson
• NY-24- Sherwood Boehlert to Blue Dog Mike Arcuri to Richard Hanna
• NC-11- Charles Taylor to Blue Dog Heath Shuler to Mark Meadows
• OH-18- Bob Ney to Blue Dog Zack Space to Bob Gibbs
• PA-04- Melissa Hart to Blue Dog Jason Almire to Scott Perry
• PA-08- Mike Fitzpatrick to Blue Dog Patrick Murphy to Mike Fitzpatrick
• PA-10- Don Sherwood to Blue Dog Chris Carney to Tom Marino
• TX-22- Tom DeLay/Shelley Sekula-Gibbs to Blue Dog Nick Lampson to Pete Olson

Who cares? Old news? Yeah... but. But the moron Pelosi put in rage of the DCCC is following ever single step Emanuel took in 2006 to "win," including openly recruiting Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Many are pretending to be "progressives." So what will happen in 2022, the next crap Ben Ray Lujan candidates will all be beaten the same way Emanuel's crap candidates were beaten in 2010.

On Wednesday LaTosha Brown, southern activist and cofounder of Black Voters Matter, asked-- and answered-- an important question: How Long Does It Take a Southern White Democrat Elected by Black Voters to Shift to the Right? Less Than a Week. "Over the past few days," she wrote, "many voters in Alabama who helped carry Doug Jones to a historic election victory have expressed frustration over recent comments from the senator-elect regarding both President Donald Trump’s alleged history of sexual harassment and the GOP tax bill. In an interview this week with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Jones said that he doesn’t agree with the Democrats who argue Trump should resign from office over the allegations regarding sexual assault and harassment because the allegations 'were made before the election, and so people had an opportunity to judge before that election.' He also gave a less-than-clear answer on how he would have voted on the GOP tax bill, were he given the chance. That Jones would pursue a faulty strategy of shifting to the right is not surprising. In fact, many of those who voted for him expected such a shift, although we didn’t necessarily expect to see it before the election was even certified. What we also did not expect, and what may be more troubling, is the feedback from supporters within the progressive community asking us to 'be patient' with Jones. Such feedback is very reminiscent of the comments from white clergy members urging Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to wait-- comments which gave birth to Dr. King’s famous Letter From a Birmingham Jail.

Those of us who have dedicated our work and lives to engaging and empowering Black and marginalized communities know that once we allow white candidates to shift right, history shows that they never (or almost never) prioritize the policies and issues most deeply affecting Black voters’ communities. In fact, in most instances these electeds will use the distancing-from-Black-voters tool to build “white political caché” in the South. The cycle of abandonment and lack of accountability never stops because Black voters become their Southern white rallying tool. Unfortunately, Black voters have a long history of being the political pawns of both parties; in recent years we even witnessed and experienced this with our own beloved President Barack Obama. Because of the insidious nature and pervasiveness of racism in this country, Black political abandonment has always generated some level of white political support in the South and in the nation. We have to change this paradigm.

...As a Black woman and feminist, I’m no longer willing to continue to leave my fate and the fate of people in the Deep South who are hurting in the hands of those who don’t have the moral fortitude, courage, or forward thinking to create a shift in the current paradigm of power. Historically, Black voters have blindly supported white candidates we believed (or at least hoped) would “remember us” and our issues legislatively while they publicity shifted or positioned themselves on the right. This has not been an effective strategy for us. The strategy of depending on blind, unaccountable white benevolence for building political power has never quite panned out for Black people, women, or people of color in the South. And it never will.

Additionally, I believe the other severe damage of Jones’ apparent pivot to the right is the devastating and traumatic impact on the psyche and spirits of Black people who went beyond the call of duty to over-perform in the last election cycle in Alabama. What message do we want to send Black voters? Do we think this strategy is sustainable? Are we still imploring a “just wait and see”‘ strategy for Black people more than 50 years after the Voting Rights Act? We will continue to tell Black voters, “Just hold on and wait because this is simply the best you will have to work with.” Do we think young Black voters will stand for this?

We know that it is precisely the type of behavior from elected officials like Jones that creates an uphill burden for the Democratic Party, because it further alienates the Democratic base, feeds voter apathy, discourages civic participation, and supports a narrative that somehow Black people in the South are powerless and only pawns in this two-party system. It was by challenging and resisting this very faulty belief that we actually mobilized the tens of thousands of Black voters who participated in unprecedented numbers in the Alabama election.

No one was voting to guarantee a career for Doug Jones

Sometimes we will focus so intently on the battle before us that we will lose the war. Last week’s election wasn’t about helping the Democrats gain more power, but it was about Black voters sending a strong and clear message to America that we know our collective power, we know that we are the core base for advancing progressive politics in this county, and we will no longer continue to be taken for granted by either party. This election was not about Doug Jones. It was about us. We care about health care, affordable housing, mass incarceration, education, immigrant rights, and tax reform. And as the people who put Doug Jones in power, we will demand his attention to these and other priority issues.

It is for that reason that I think it is critically important that progressives think more deeply about the direct and indirect consequences of Doug Jones’ actions and the intended and unintended damage that his public kowtowing to the conservative right will have on eroding the base and further alienating the very same voters who put him in office.  

Just wait 'til grassroots Democrats get a load of the two corrupt right-wing crap candidates Schumer has picked to run for the Senate from Arizona and Nevada, respectively Blue Dog Kyrsten Sinema (who has the worst voting record of any Democrat in the House) and Sinema wannabe Jackie Rosen. Doug Jones is unlikely to ever be as bad as either.

A Real Time Look Back Into DIY San Francisco Punk Rock

I have a vague recollection that this happened. The first part of this video above was a TV show I apparently taped with KTVU icons Ann Fraser and Ross McGowan in the early 80s in San Francisco about the punk rock scene. Someone sent it to me Friday. (And, no, that was not John Amato shouting "Howie" when I came out on the set. This was decades before we ever met. Does sound like him though.) It looks like they put makeup on me. Eventually I stopped allowing that when I went on TV but this early in my show biz career. Here's a picture of me from back in those days-- without the makeup; I'm the one on the right, at the KSAN studio with Chris Knab, my 415 Records and radio show partner, and a couple of Sex Pistols, Steve Jones and Paul Cook:

Trump's More Like Journey Or Confected Nashville Crap Than Like Punk Rock

When they were younger, music fans of a certain age had to choose-- Beatles or Stones. The next generation had a similar choice-- Pistols or Clash. I liked the Beatles-- a lot. I used to take acid when a new Beatles album came out so I could really get into it fully. But, like Trump, I was a Stones guy. By the time punk rock got going I was a dj on KSAN in San Francisco and KSJO in San Jose. Many people in the Bay Area will tell you that the first time they heard Anarchy In the U.K. or God Save the Queen was on one of my radio shows. Maybe other American DJs did live interviews with the Pistols as well but one of the ones I did with them wound up on an album, Big Tits Over America. I got fired from KSJO over that one. Anyway, I always preferred the Clash-- more coherent, more melodic... truth be told, easier.

Johnny Rotten was in the "news" yesterday-- "backing" Trump and Brexit:

Godfather of punk, anarchist and former Sex Pistol John Lydon, AKA Johnny Rotten, was on the show this morning promoting his limited edition new book Mr Rotten's Songbook. Having built a career on his anti-establishment views, he didn't shy away from talking about todays political landscape.

Lydon came out in support of Brexit claiming the working class had spoken and that he would stand by them. He also claimed he could see a possible friendship in Trump, praising his ability to terrify politicians. Rotten himself inspired a generation of anarchists.

This alt-right character Paul Watson is a real dirt-bag-- and is either incredibly stupid about what punk rock is or is just trying to deceive the simpleminded people likely to care what he has to say. Worth watching though:



In late January, his former bandmate, L.A. resident Steve Jones, also flogging a book Lonely Boy: Tales From a Sex Pistol, was asked about Brexit and Trump. Being more of an American these days, he went right for the Trumpy part of the question:

So we’re living in crazy times, obviously. You’ve probably been asked this but in the wake of Brexit and also Trump’s presidency, do you feel like we need another Sex Pistols right now?

Well, to be honest with you, I think Donald Trump is the modern-day Johnny Rotten.

Wow. What? Why?

Well, they have the same color hair, and he’s basically come out of left field, with no experience of anything, and he’s just doing it. Like, not in the normal way that all the others do it. It kind of is a bit like Sex Pistols-like, if you want to look at it like that. You know, it’s an odd one.

You’re not trying to say that Donald Trump is punk rock, I hope?

No. I’m not saying that, but as far as politics goes, he’s about as knowledgeable about politics as we was in playing rock music when we first started. Don’t misquote me, though!

I'm not sure who the first person was to mislabel Trump a punk, but we tried explaining why that's embarrassing earlier this month. Kyle Smith made the assertion, derogatorily, on Nov. 9 in the NY Post.

Donald Trump may favor stodgy blue suits and boring red ties and wear his hair in a strange double combover, but don’t be fooled. That’s how he looks, not who he is. Who he is is a guy with a safety pin through his nose and a purple mohawk. He just pulled off the most punk act in American history.

If you’re a Hillary Clinton voter, or a member of the average media outlet, observing the Trump phenomenon to you was like watching Frank Sinatra in the 1970s: has-been, used-up, going through the motions appealing to a rapidly disappearing demographic, relying entirely on crusty oldies like “My Way.”

Yet the version of “My Way” Trump actually represented was the one gargled by Sid Vicious, the short-lived Sex Pistol, over the closing credits of Goodfellas-- crude, sneering, shocking, postmodern. None of us could believe what Trump was doing-- because no one had ever seen anyone do it that way before.



Remember when somebody mentioned the sainted war hero John McCain and Trump wisecracked that he couldn’t be that much of a hero if he got caught? Punk!

Remember when he promised a big announcement that he was ready to concede that President Obama was actually born in the United States and every news hound covered it as if it were the Super Bowl? He turned it into an infomercial for his new Trump hotel in the Old Post Office building on Pennsylvania Avenue in DC.

Hey, what’s more punk than shameless love of filthy lucre?

Remember when Hillary Clinton, Lisa Simpson-like, was busily organizing a landslide?

She did everything by the book. She amassed a prim little army of do-gooders, covering her bases by opening proper little field offices in every burg in America, even in Dallas and Houston. Trump scoffed, and sent out some 3 a.m. tweets. (Hillary, we learned from WikiLeaks, once needed 12 staffers and 12 hours of deliberation to craft a single tweet.)

Even Trump himself often seemed so ambivalent about the position he found himself in that the most seasoned political reporters openly wondered if he even wanted to win.

Just not giving a flying fig is the quintessence of punk.

Trump didn’t just throw out the playbook, he set fire to it. And America loved it. Not releasing his taxes? Fine, said America-- can you help us game the system too? So antagonizing the media that major news outlets dropped all pretense of neutrality and openly campaigned against him? Not a problem, said America-- we hate those sons of bitches too, and the enemy of our enemy is our friend.

Punk is the art of taking the stage with no preparation whatsoever and screaming: It’s me against the world, and what the freak are you gonna do about it?

The last year-and-a-half it was Trump against the world, and the world lost.

Would You Work For A Fascist Regime?

According to Gallup, Trump's disapproval numbers continue to tick upwards every day. Yesterday it was at the unprecedented-- for a new president-- high of 50%. Today it's at 51%. It took Bush 3 years to turn over half the country against him; it took Trump a week. In England, in just a few hours, nearly a million people signed a petition demanding the government cancel his state visit to their country. [UPDATE: After two days, the petition had nearly two million signatures. Brits hate Trump.] That's a lot more people than went to his failed inauguration. The petitioners' demands will now be debated in Parliament. They aren't calling for Trump to be barred from the country, only citing his "well documented misogyny and vulgarity" as reasons to keep him away from the Queen. "Donald Trump should be allowed to enter the UK in his capacity as head of the US Government," the petition reads, "but he should not be invited to make an official State Visit because it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen. Donald Trump’s well documented misogyny and vulgarity disqualifies him from being received by Her Majesty the Queen or the Prince of Wales. Therefore during the term of his presidency Donald Trump should not be invited to the United Kingdom for an official State Visit."

Jeremy Corbyn has already called on Theresa May to put Trump's state visit on hold for as long as his horrific immigration and refugee executive orders are in place. Corbin's statement has had its intended affect and even May has reluctantly agreed that Trump's policies in these regards are horrible. "Immigration policy in the United States is a matter for the government of the United States, just the same as immigration policy for this country should be set by our government," she said. "But we do not agree with this kind of approach and it is not one we will be taking. We are studying this new executive order to see what it means and what the legal effects are, and in particular what the consequences are for UK nationals."

A thousand people/minute are adding their names to the petition. Preparations are underway to make sure that if Trump does visit London, he will be made to feel massively unwelcome-- even if Theresa May is still willing to hold President Snowflake's hand when he expresses fear of walking down a gentle incline. (Downing Street officials claimed the president’s phobia of stairs and slopes led him to grab the prime minister’s hand as they walked down a ramp at the White House.) And there's more than just the grassroots petitions and Jeremy Corbyn that are putting Trump's trip to London in jeopardy-- "an extraordinary diplomatic row with the Prince of Wales over climate change."

Members of Trump’s inner circle have warned officials and ministers that it would be counterproductive for Charles to “lecture” Trump on green issues and that he will “erupt” if pushed. They want the younger princes, William and Harry, to greet the president instead. Royal aides insist that he should meet Trump.

Senior government officials now believe Charles is one of the most serious “risk factors” for the visit.

Trump’s team is also concerned that he will face a wave of protests, with thousands of people taking to the streets to denounce him.

Trump has repeatedly branded climate change “a hoax” and a “money-making industry,” saying it was “created by and for the Chinese” to damage American manufacturing.

Hours after he took office, references to climate change were removed from the White House website. By contrast, Prince Charles has been an environmental campaigner for more than 40 years and has described climate change as “the wolf at the door.”

Trump wants to abandon the international deal to tackle climate change that was agreed at a summit in Paris in December 2015. Charles delivered a keynote speech at that meeting.

A source close to Trump said: “He won’t put up with being lectured by anyone, even a member of the royal family. Frankly, they should think twice about putting him and Prince Charles in the same room together.”

...Trump’s state visit has also sparked concerns that the president will betray the confidence of the Queen and tweet about their exchanges.

Tensions between Trump and the royals could be heightened by a series of off-colour comments the billionaire once made about Diana, Princess of Wales and the Duchess of Cambridge.

Asked by the radio shock jock Howard Stern whether he could have “nailed” Diana, Trump replied: “I think I could have.”

More recently, Trump tweeted about nude pictures of the Duchess of Cambridge saying: “Who wouldn’t take Kate’s picture and make lots of money if she does the nude sunbathing.”

While the visit is expected in the first week of June, it is possible Trump could come in October instead.

Or never. Closer to home, David Frum, writing for The Atlantic dealt with the sticky question about what normal people of good will do when they're asked to serve the fascist regime.

Some 40 people were indicted as a result of the Watergate scandal. Among those sentenced to prison: the attorney general of the United States, the White House counsel, and President Nixon’s two most senior White House aides. A dozen men were convicted or pled guilty to a range of charges after the Iran-Contra affair.

White Houses can be dangerous places under leadership that does not respect the law. When friends ask me, “Should I accept a job under President Trump?” it’s not merely a philosophical question. Answer the question wrong, and they may find themselves two or three years later facing a congressional investigation or possibly even a grand jury. Even those who never face charges-- let alone conviction-- can see their lives up-ended: As the saying goes, in Washington, the process is the punishment.

So how should a public-spirited person respond to an invitation to serve the country during the Trump years?

Let’s start by assessing the four basic risks:

1) This administration has begun its career by shredding post-Watergate ethical standards. Trump has not effectively severed his connections to his business interests. He will not release his tax returns. The Trump Organization seems-- at best-- indifferent to appearances of commercial exploitation of the presidency. Anybody in the vicinity of Trump's finances, or those of his family, stands in danger of being caught in some future scandal, including tax and corruption investigations.

2) There remain disturbing unanswered questions about the relationship between the Trump campaign and Russian spy services. The new national security adviser, Michael Flynn, accepted payments from RT, the Russian state propaganda network. (He has refused to disclose the amount.) The legal hazards presented by clandestine contacts with hostile foreign governments are even more alarming than those connected to financial wrongdoing.

3) This administration lies a lot. Lying by public officials is usually unethical, but not always illegal. As White House senior counselor Kellyanne Conway said during the Trump transition: “Nobody on TV is ever under oath.”  But there are times when administration officials do speak under oath. Lying then becomes perjury. Lying to Congress is always illegal, whether under oath or not. People who habitually lie, lie habitually. Those who work with them can face trouble, even possibly obstruction of charges if they enable such lying: President Clinton’s White House counsel Bernie Nussbaum had to resign under fire in 1994 after other government officials alleged that his legal advice in the Whitewater matter amounted to the organization of a coverup.

4) Sometimes new administrations find themselves obliged to execute laws they disagree with. Changing the law can be slow. Ignoring the law takes much less time—but also opens the door to trouble. Ronald Reagan’s first EPA chief, Ann Gorsuch, entered history in 1982 as the first agency head to be cited for contempt of Congress. Gorsuch believed that the Carter administration had imposed excessive regulatory burdens. So she simply disregarded them. Convinced, for example, that the inherited rules on lead standards in gasoline were too onerous, she assured one refiner that she would leave the rule unenforced until such time as it could be amended. Gorsuch not only ended in disgrace herself, but embroiled two of her subordinates in perjury investigations.

So what is a patriotic American who’s been asked to serve to do? A few suggestions.

A law-abiding person will want to stay as far as possible from the personal service of President Trump. As demonstrated by the sad example of Press Secretary Sean Spicer spouting glaring lies on his first day on the job, this president will demand that his aides do improper things-- and the low standards of integrity in Trump's entourage create a culture of conformity to those demands.

A wise patriot might be wary of working directly for or near Flynn or anybody else tied to the Russian state, the entities it controls, or Russian business interests. The National Security Council staff has engorged itself to such an enormous size in recent years-- now some 400 people-- that there are many important roles to fill, safely firewalled away from Flynn.

...If confronted with an improper or unethical situation, nobody need rush into career martyrdom. One of the heroes of Watergate-- IRS Commissioner Johnnie Mac Walters-- was asked to investigate individuals on Nixon’s “enemies list.” Walters, and his boss George Shultz, refused. Good people can do the right thing even under pressure. But be aware: The pressure to do the wrong thing can be intense—and the closer one approaches to the center of presidential power and prestige, the more intense the pressure becomes. It’s easy to imagine that you’d emulate Walters when reading the book he wrote four decades after the fact. But in the moment? In the Oval Office? Face to face with the president of the United States?

So maybe the very first thing to consider, if the invitation comes, is this: How well do you know yourself? How sure are you that you indeed would say no?

And then humbly consider this second troubling question: If the Trump administration were as convinced as you are that you would do the right thing-- would they have asked you in the first place?

We all know, Hitler didn't carry out the Holocaust and wage World War II all by himself. He had plenty of help. Some hung, others went to prison or fled. No one came out the better for working for his government. And Trump already has his eager, vile little helpmates, doesn't he?