Professor Nagle Blitzes History, Truth

[XLFD]

One would hope that one who has taught history for decades and has written multiple books on history would accurately use references to history when writing an 'open letter' to their congressman.  But WSCC Professor Michael Nagle, who also sits on the Ludington School Board, decided to reach back to Northern Europe 90 years ago in order to explain why he thinks the president of the US should be impeached.  In that letter published by the MCP, he starts off by saying:  "The Trump Administration has undertaken a Blitzkrieg of actions since January 20,", and then he finishes with "Poland and much of Europe fell to a similar Blitz beginning in 1939. I pray the U.S. Constitution does not crumble under this Blitz in 2025."

If you are not aware, blitzkrieg/blitz was first coined in 1935 to explain a 'lightning war' strategy adopted by the Germans acting under Adolf Hitler in World War II.  Nagle uses that terminology to make a connection to his readers that Trump is the latest incarnation of Hitler and that the whirlwind of activity by the Trump Administration to achieve his ends is a matter of warfare on the American people. 

If that connection is not clear by his use of the historical allegory in those sentences the rest of the story makes it clearer as he asks Republican Representative John Moolenaar to proceed with impeaching the president for effectively doing what he said he would be doing during the course of the 2024 election cycle.   

The body of that letter, reproduced in full below, shows the extent of this derangement that has the professor situated on the wrong side of history, at least in this letter as he shows other problems in deciphering what is happening now and by giving faulty analysis of other historical events.  We will address some of his points in an analysis that follows his letter, which immediately follows this picture of the professor as a poll worker in 2024.

Dear Congressman Moolenaar:

I am writing today asking when you plan to introduce articles of impeachment against President Trump.

As everyone in the nation is aware, the Trump Administration has undertaken a Blitzkrieg of actions since January 20. One of the President’s first steps was to issue a blanket pardon to those involved with the events that took place January 6, 2021. Do you agree with the decision that those who engaged in the insurrection, including a convicted felon who used a taser against a law enforcement officer, should receive a pardon? If your answer is no, when do you plan to introduce articles of impeachment? If yes, why don’t you support our law enforcement officers?

President Trump recently issued an executive order abolishing birthright citizenship. Given the text of the 14^th Amendment reads “All persons born in the United States… are citizens of the United States,” wouldn’t the executive order be clearly unconstitutional? Another executive order declared that only the “President and Attorney General… will interpret the law for the executive branch.” Doesn’t this contradict Article III in the Constitution that “Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases” including “the Laws of the United States”? The nation’s founders included the system of separation of powers and checks & balances for a reason. They had just fought a war against a monarch who had overstepped his authority and they wanted to ensure an authoritarian ruler did not come to power in the United States. Disturbingly, Elon Musk recently called for the impeachment of judges who questioned such executive orders.  If you support ending birthright citizenship, expansion of executive power, and the impeachment of judges interpreting the constitution, could you please explain why? If not, when do you plan to introduce articles of impeachment against President Trump?

Numerous so-called cost cutting actions have been taken by Elon Musk and his DOGE group. Some have also called for the elimination of the Department of Education. Are you aware this department assists and distributes funds for students with disabilities? Do you support President Trump’s apparent goal to leave these students behind? Do you agree that Musk should be given the authority to make personnel decisions and be granted access to Americans’ sensitive personal information?  If not, when do you plan to introduce articles of impeachment?

Thank you for your service in the House of Representatives and for taking the time to consider the ideas put forth in this letter. I hope you, and Congress, act soon. Poland and much of Europe fell to a similar Blitz beginning in 1939. I pray the U.S. Constitution does not crumble under this Blitz in 2025.

Sincerely, Michael W. Nagle, Hamlin Township

ANALYSIS:

1) Blitzkrieg:  This is a method of warfare, a quickly executed military tactic to use against an enemy.  Nagle insinuates throughout that the war is on the American people, but a look at what has been done thus far shows that to the extent that the administration is 'blitzing' it is doing so against the bureaucratic state-- saving taxpayer money and uncovering fraud in the process.  The people who elected Trump, including Moolenaar, are thrilled such waste and fraud are being unshrouded; the people upset are those whose jobs are in jeopardy because they are an unnecessary extra brick in the government wall.

2)  January 6, 2021, pardons:  Nagle falsely claims this was an insurrection, an incendiary term that is not historically accurate, and more than 4 years later, nobody involved that day was charged with insurrection.  As for DJ Rodriguez, the man who allegedly used the taser, he served approximately four years for the crime and was sentenced to many more, while Capitol Police Officer Michael Byrd has served no time and has never been prosecuted for violating all police procedures in fatally shooting (murdering?) Ashli Babbitt when she posed no immediate threat to him or others.  Where was his taser?  Reasonable people can disagree, but few J6ers deserved for their actions what punishments they received, and pardons across the board was a good move towards restoring justice.

3)  14th Amendment:  Nagle wisely leaves off a section of the 14th Amendment that is the basis behind reevaluating the legislative intent. "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."  Trumps EO indicates that the phrase left off by Nagle is important as do many other rational outlets with a knowledge of history and law.  Leaving out this phrase was a bit of academic dishonesty on Nagle's part.

4) Interpreting law:  Nagle does the same exclusionary thing for this.  Trump's other EO says "The President and the Attorney General (subject to the President’s supervision and control) will interpret the law for the executive branch instead of having separate agencies adopt conflicting interpretations."  Rather than impinge on the judiciary, the EO effectuates Trump's pledge to the folks that unelected bureaucrats would not be given extraconstitutional powers to override the POTUS or AGUS.  

5) Musk asking to impeach judges:  Nagle is asking Moolenaar to impeach the POTUS on nothing credible, but he faults Elon Musk for calling for impeachments for low-level judges arguably abusing their judicial power in blocking the many abuses of taxpayer money Musk's office has found already?!  Seems hypocritical at the least.  Later on, he claims Musk has the power to make sweeping personnel decisions, but while he's likely made several suggestions, we can't find any that he's made unilaterally, other than in his own private businesses, like Twitter.  Remember how he cut that down by 80% and bettered the product almost immediately? 

6) Department of Education:  Nagle then argues for this federal department for some reason.  Nagle, whose two jobs depend indirectly on the success of public education is an obvious proponent for this useless department, probably not understanding that the money saved in ditching this bureaucratic snafu might be block granted to states for education and get the federal government out of education, like it was before the Carter Administration-- you know, back when the education system in the United States was the envy of the world.

Nagle's bizarre politics is disturbing, but not unexpected from a career academic without a lot of experience in the real world where people are fed up with having their taxes wasted and their public officials crooked.  Rewriting history and shredding sections of the Constitution is not a good look to have, professor.

[Willy]

Excellent rebuttal X. You accurately correct Nagle's absolute idiocy about how he interprets the World. It's scary and hard to believe that Nagle is a professor, teacher and educator of our youth. He is so incompetently wrong about the Constitution, history, Jan 6 and how the Government operates. In my opinion he should not be allowed anywhere near a classroom. If he were an ordinary citizen, it would be reasonable to accept his ignorance and chalk it up to being a person to busy to keep up with the news but he's a teacher. for God's sakes, and because of that, he needs to get his head on straight, hide his prejudice about Trump and get busy to re-educate himself by researching  and searching for the truth. His type is a danger to the education of our kids. He is the poison that is generated by a system that created and maintains the Department of Education.

[XLFD]

I didn't really know that Nagle was such an ideologue until I read this letter, and I didn't know he was academically dishonest until he deliberately left out parts of the laws and orders in question just to make his own political point stronger.  The mark of a good professor, or any teacher for that matter, in making a point is that they address the weaknesses of their position and counter the strengths of any counterargument.  He threw out the weaknesses in his position to make it appear stronger and always ignored reasonable counterarguments.  And he did both without really having to worry about running out of space or time-- like I sometimes have to do at meetings because not everything will fit in two or three minutes of commenting.