By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a CNN interview, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller raised questions when he stated that President Trump had “plenary authority” concerning the deployment of the National Guard in Oregon before abruptly cutting himself off. “Plenary authority” implies absolute power, conflicting with the U.S. system of separation of powers and checks and balances. Miller’s comment, and subsequent silence, came amid discussion of a legal challenge to the administration’s use of the National Guard, and comparisons to authoritarian rule. The incident led to speculation about the implications of the comment and whether Miller realized the ramifications of his words.
Read the original article here
Plenary authority, the dictator phrase that caused Stephen Miller to stop talking, has become a chilling point of discussion, and it’s understandable why. It’s a phrase that seems to have frozen Stephen Miller mid-sentence, creating a moment of stark realization for those who were watching and listening. The fact that it’s a phrase used by him is not the most concerning detail; instead, it’s the implications of the concept it represents.
The core of the issue is the meaning of “plenary authority.” It essentially translates to absolute power, unrestricted authority, and complete control. It evokes the fundamental underpinnings of fascism and dictatorships, a system where a single leader holds unchallenged sway. The implications of a political figure, especially one as prominent as Miller, casually using this term should send a cold shiver down anyone’s spine who values democracy and the rule of law. The way that he used it shows a level of comfort with the phrase. This familiarity should raise questions about where such dangerous rhetoric is originating, and why it’s so commonplace within their circle.
The immediate aftermath of Miller’s slip-up is equally disturbing. Instead of the reporter following up on it, it was glossed over, which is incredibly alarming. It wasn’t properly addressed. There was a noticeable silence and the interview seemed to go on. This could be interpreted as a failure on the reporter’s part to confront the gravity of Miller’s statement. This is not just a technical glitch or a momentary pause; it’s a potential glimpse into the mindset of those in power.
The situation also raises some serious questions. What was the reaction? Why did it cause a seemingly instantaneous freeze? Was he reprimanded for what he said? Were his handlers alarmed? The entire incident is bizarre. The fact that he chose to say it, and then appeared to abruptly stop talking, is cause for great alarm. It suggests a deeper, underlying agenda that has the potential to undermine the very foundations of our society.
It’s easy to see why this might be a turning point. It’s not just about a word; it’s about a worldview. It’s a glimpse into the potential for a government that could operate without checks and balances, without accountability, and without regard for the will of the people. It is the stuff of nightmares for those of us who value the principles of a democratic society.
If that were not enough, the comparison of Miller to Goebbels is hard to dismiss. The idea that Miller is like Goebbels, a propagandist in service of a regime, is a serious indictment. It suggests a deliberate attempt to control the narrative and influence public opinion, echoing tactics used in the darkest chapters of history.
It’s not a coincidence that Miller, in this instance, would go silent. It shows that Miller realized the implications of what he was saying. He then realized the potential ramifications and shut down. The response, or lack thereof, from CNN, which included the bizarre frozen reaction, is another cause for concern. It’s a clear illustration of the stakes at play. The consequences of a government claiming plenary authority are too dire to ignore. It highlights the importance of a vigilant populace, one that recognizes the threats to our freedoms and holds those in power accountable.
In the end, this incident serves as a wake-up call, a reminder that the fight for democracy requires constant vigilance. It is a chilling reminder that the fight for democracy is a continuous one. We must remain alert, and not allow such language to go unchallenged, nor such actions to go unscrutinized.