There Is A Trump Doctrine And It's Mostly About Enriching Himself

What’s the “Trump Doctrine” of foreign policy? At first glance, foreign policy under Trump seems inconsistent, arbitrary, and devoid of principle.

A few weeks ago, even before the airstrike on Syria, Trump communications director Mike Dubke told Trump’s assembled aides that international affairs presented a messaging challenge because the Trump administration lacks a coherent foreign policy. “There is no Trump doctrine,” Dubke declared. 

I think Dubke is being grossly unfair. Of course there’s a Trump Doctrine. You just have to know where to look for it. 

The Trump Doctrine began to emerge when Trump issued his travel bans (both the first and second) on predominantly Muslim countries.

But he notably excluded predominately Muslim countries where Trump has business interests.

So under what might be called the First Principle of the Trump Doctrine, people living in a predominantly Muslim country have a chance of entering the United States only if their country contains an edifice with Trump’s name on it.

The Second Principle follows logically from the first. Countries that are potential markets for Trump’s business ― nominally run by his two sons, but still filling his pockets ― may be eligible for special favors if they allow Trump to make money there.  

For example, Trump’s business currently has 157 trademark applications pending in 36 nations, according to the New York Times.

Registered trademarks are giant financial assets for a business like Trump’s, which in recent years has made big money by selling his name rather than by building or making anything.

Soon after he was sworn into office ― but only after Trump backed off of his brief flirtation with a “two China” policy ― the Chinese government granted Trump preliminary approval of 38 trademarks of his name.

“It was a gift,” said Peter J. Riebling, a trademark lawyer in Washington, of China’s decision. “Getting the exclusive right to use that brand in China against everyone else in the world? It’s like waving a magic wand.”

One potential obstacle for the Second Principle is the Constitution’s “emoluments” clause, which bars U.S. government officials from receiving gifts from foreign powers.

No matter. Apparently the Trump Doctrine, well, trumps the Constitution.

A group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), joined by several prominent law professors, is suing Trump over this.  

But the United States ― through the U.S. Department of Justice ― argues in a legal brief, expected to be filed this month, that the framers of the Constitution meant only to rule out gifts that compensate presidents or other office holders for services they might do for a foreign power, not for public policies they advance that benefit a foreign power. 

Interpretations of the U.S. Constitution by the Department of Justice aren’t like the musings of any random defense attorney. They carry special weight. They represent the views and interests of the United States.

Which makes this one official U.S. government policy ― and thereby, confirms it as the Second Principle of the Trump Doctrine. 

The Third Principle comes down hard on countries that kill their own children with poison gas. They will be bombed.

You may recall Trump had long been opposed to bombing Syria. But, as he recently explained, Syrian dictator Basha al-Assad’s “attack on children… had a big impact on me,“ adding that “my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much.” The bombing ensued. 

This doesn’t mean endangered children will be given refuge in the United States, though. Recall the First Principle: Nobody gains entrance to the United States from a predominantly Muslim nations unless their country contains a Trump hotel, spa, or golf course.  

Which brings us to the Fourth Principle.

Not long after the Syrian bombing, Trump authorized the Pentagon to drop a 22,000-pound GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB) on people described as “Islamic State forces” in eastern Afghanistan near the Pakistani border.

It was the first time the bomb ― nicknamed the “mother of all bombs,” and one of the largest air-dropped munitions in the U.S. military’s inventory ― had ever been used in a combat.

Trump’s rationale? The group was allegedly connected to ISIS.

So under the Fourth Principle of the Trump Doctrine, the United States reserves the right to drop a mother of a bomb on any group seemingly connected with ISIS.

This applies even if the group is not fighting to gain or hold territory claimed by the Islamic State. The group could be thousands of miles away from the Islamic State, anywhere around the world. 

Could a mother of a bomb be dropped on such a group if it’s located in a country containing a Trump hotel, or considering a Trump trademark application? 

Frankly, I don’t know. That pesky detail hasn’t been worked out yet. 

But this one uncertainty doesn’t undermine the overall consistency or clarity of the Trump Doctrine of foreign policy. It’s four major principles are firmly rooted either in making money for Trump, or stopping bad people from doing bad things.

If Mike Dubke had a clearer grasp of Donald Trump’s worldview, he’d surely see this ― as would everyone else.

This post was originally published at RobertReich.com.

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related… + articlesList=58ec625ce4b081da6ad0076b,58eff254e4b0da2ff85f7c34

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Erdogan's Referendum Was Neither Free Nor Fair

ISTANBUL — In 1946, members of Turkey’s ruling party made the momentous decision to transition to a multi-party system and usher in democracy to Turkey. In the eyes of political scientists, this is an event with few precedents elsewhere in the world. The political theorist Samuel Huntington, in an article concerning authoritarian regimes, defines Turkey as “the most clear-cut instance of the shift from an exclusionary one-party system to a competitive system.”

And now with more than seven decades of experience with multi-party politics, Turkey has been largely successful at preserving its self-imposed democratic system, regardless of its imperfections and despite a handful of military coups. But Sunday’s referendum, which approved a change from a parliamentary system to a presidential one and will allow the winner of the next presidential election to take full control over the government, was arguably one of Turkey’s most problematic political votes to have been held under an elected, non-military administration.

The referendum will have far-reaching implications for Turkey. The position of the prime minister has now been abolished. It is clear that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has run Turkey for almost 15 years, has no desire to share power with a political partner. Moreover, the referendum took place under a state of emergency proclaimed after last year’s attempted coup. Since that traumatic event, more than 100,000 public sector employees have been dismissed, the rule of law has been suspended and numerous media outlets have been shut down by force.

In such an atmosphere, there are serious concerns about the democratic legitimacy of any debate about altering the country’s political system. Indeed, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe expressed concern about the validity of the vote, saying the referendum had taken place on an “unlevel playing field.”

Throughout the campaign preceding the vote, there was scarcely any discussion of the proposed constitutional changes.

For one thing, the co-chairs of the HDP (the third-largest party in Turkey’s parliament and the one whose main base of support is Turkey’s Kurdish population) are currently under arrest, as are numerous HDP deputies and mayors. The HDP was unable to conduct an effective campaign leading up to the referendum. In addition, Turkey’s media and academia — which would normally take a leading role in weighing any changes to the country’s political system — have been operating under severe constraints due to the state of emergency. As a result, the task of campaigning against the proposed changes mainly fell to Turkey’s main opposition party, the CHP. But the center-left CHP’s influence over Turkey’s electorate was limited.

Erdogan’s referendum strategy was based on consolidating his appeal to right-wing voters. He formed a partnership between his party, the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, and the nationalist MHP. Sunday’s vote was less a referendum, which occurs when a society decides to make a change to its political system through meaningful debate in a democratic setting, than a plebiscite, which is merely meant to test public opinion rather than to have a binding effect.

With little room for real debate, the “referendum” merely serves as a rubber stamp for the country’s leader. Throughout the two-month-long campaign, there was scarcely any discussion of the proposed constitutional changes. Instead, everything was reduced to the question of whether to end or to prolong Erdogan’s tenure. On the final day of the campaign, Prime Minister Binali Yildirim effectively admitted as much: “There wasn’t a chance to talk about the content [of the referendum].”

Everywhere in Turkey — in the streets, in public squares, on television, in the newspapers — the “yes” campaign dominated. Making full use of the public funds at its disposal, the AKP appealed to voters’ emotions, portraying itself as full of valor and zeal. There was no sign of the skeptical, critical, deliberative atmosphere that is a precondition for any constitutional referendum. Leaders of various parties never appeared on television to debate each other in front of the nation. Even more troublingly, those in the “no” camp were, at times, accused of being terrorists or coup supporters. In the absence of free debate and other democratic conventions, the referendum simply became a plebiscite validating the country’s transition to one-man rule.

There was no sign of the skeptical, critical, deliberative atmosphere that is a precondition for any constitutional referendum.

But despite the unequal, unfair conditions that prevailed, Erdogan achieved his objective by only a hair’s breadth, with only 51 percent of the vote. Opposition parties made allegations of voting irregularities and questioned the legitimacy of the result. A majority of voters in Turkey’s big cities (including Istanbul and Ankara) and in the Aegean and Mediterranean regions voted no. Even the district of Uskudar in Istanbul where Erdoğan has a house voted no. His steadiest support came from the more conservative Anatolian heartland and the Black Sea provinces.  

Given that Turkey has been governed under a state of emergency for nine months — with the rule of law suspended, heavy pressure on the media and a campaign environment that was neither free nor fair — it is all too obvious what kind of presidential system awaits Turkey. Opposition parties have described Turkey’s new political order as a one-man regime. Erdogan has described it as a “Turkish version” of the presidential system. This system is undoubtedly quite different from its U.S. counterpart — it has more in common with the dysfunctional presidential systems of Latin America. Under Turkey’s new presidential system, the president will have ultimate authority over all three branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial. Any checks and balances will be ineffective.        

The new system can only be expected to lead to further uncertainty and instability in Turkey over the coming years. Since being president in 2014, Erdogan has effectively governed the country singlehandedly, and serious political and economic problems have resulted. Turkey is reeling from last year’s coup attempt, terrorist organizations are carrying out gruesome attacks and the Turkish lira is steadily depreciating. It is worth asking whether one man is likely to solve all these problems or only exacerbate them further.

Those in the ‘no’ camp were, at times, accused of being terrorists or coup supporters.

Who will be vindicated in the years to come? The residents of Turkey’s big cities and coastal areas, who desire a more pluralistic political model as well as integration into the global system? Or conservative voters from the Anatolian heartland, who have eagerly adopted the government’s populist message and see one-man rule as the answer to Turkey’s woes? 

The shift to one-man rule opens Pandora’s Box for Turkey because, despite using state resources for the “yes” campaign, Erdogan’s referendum still only passed with 51 percent of the vote. Such a narrow win despite the cards tipped in his favor equates to a defeat — a Pyrrhic victory. This realization was clear in Erdogan’s subdued rather than celebratory tone when he gave the “victory” speech on election night. Given that half the population is not behind him, he knows this will not end well for him when he is unable to resolve Turkey’s myriad of challenges all on his own.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

First Woman To Officially Complete Boston Marathon Runs Again 50 Years Later

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

Kathrine Switzer smashed gender barriers 50 years ago when she became the first woman to officially complete the Boston Marathon. But the most iconic part of this record-breaking endeavor didn’t happen at the finish line.

Switzer, then 20, donned lipstick and earrings when she showed up to the 1967 Boston Marathon as the race’s first official female competitor. Race organizers had unknowingly granted her this historic title because she used her initials, K.V., to register for the traditionally all-male event ― a move she has said wasn’t intentionally misleading.

As she made her way to the starting line, then-boyfriend Tom Miller encouraged her to wipe off her lipstick, worried she might provoke race officials. But Switzer refused.

She had only run a couple of miles before the marathon’s director, Jock Semple, took notice of her. He charged at Switzer and attempted to forcibly remove her bib marked with the number 261.

“A big man, a huge man, with bared teeth was set to pounce, and before I could react he grabbed my shoulder and flung me back, screaming, ‘Get the hell out of my race and give me those numbers!’” Switzer wrote in her 2007 memoir.

Miller helped fend off the attack, but press photographers captured the tense scene, which became a symbol of sexism in sports. The image thrust Switzer into stardom and inspired her decades-long advocacy for women’s equality.

Fifty years later, Switzer has entered the race once again. The 70-year-old running pioneer is wearing “261” on her race bib at the 121st Boston Marathon.

She’s ready to make the 26.2-mile journey on Monday from Boston’s suburbs to Copley Square alongside 125 teammates to benefit her foundation, 261 Fearless. Switzer founded the charity in 2015 with the vision of empowering women through running.

Switzer, who ran her last marathon in 2011, told The Boston Globe that her training techniques have evolved since preparing for the 1967 Boston Marathon, although at least one pre-race ritual hasn’t changed.

“I never go out of the house without lipstick, much less run a race without it,” Switzer told the publication earlier this month. “Definitely. Lipstick, earrings, eyeliner, the whole thing. That’s part of it.”

Switzer wasn’t the first woman to finish the Boston Marathon. In 1966, Bobbi Gibb, who will be a grand marshall for this year’s race, ran alongside the men even though she wasn’t allowed to register. Boston Marathon organizers didn’t officially allow women to race until 1972.

Switzer’s advocacy work helped pave the way for female athletes across the world. She played a major role in getting the women’s marathon accepted as an official Olympic event in 1984, and she was inducted into the National Women’s Hall of Fame in 2011 for dedicating her career to “creating opportunities and equal sport status for women.”

The Boston Athletic Association announced Thursday that it will retire number 261 in Switzer’s honor after she runs this year’s marathon.

“When I finished Boston in 1967, a journalist asked me what I was trying to prove,” Switzer told Competitor.com in March. “I said I wasn’t trying to prove anything, I just wanted to run.”

“Once you start running, you question other things in your life that don’t make you happy,” she added. “I often say, ‘If you’ve run a marathon, you can do anything!’”

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=58b481b4e4b0a8a9b7852630,58920b16e4b0522c7d3e5f0f

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Sutton Foster And Her Husband Have Adopted A Baby Girl

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

Sutton Foster’s family just got a bit bigger.

According to People, the Tony award-winning actress and singer and her husband since 2014, screenwriter Ted Griffin, adopted a daughter named Emily Dale Griffin, who was born on March 5. 

Foster dropped the big news Friday night during her Lincoln Center’s American Songbook show at the center’s Alice Tully Hall. On the day of her performance, the actress posted a photo of herself with friends on Instagram that has since been flooded with congratulatory comments about her new addition.

Foster, who has starred on Broadway for years, plays a mother on the TV Land show “Younger,” and in February 2016, she said she and Griffin were discussing the possibility of starting a family. 

As People reports, Foster said her and her husband’s lives are “forever changed” and their “hearts are exploding” with happiness, thanks to their daughter.

Congratulations to the couple!

The HuffPost Parents newsletter, So You Want To Raise A Feminist, offers the latest stories and news in progressive parenting.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Melania Trump Wore Pink To The Easter Egg Roll, But Look At This Tweet

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

Melania Trump dressed festively for the annual White House Easter Egg Roll on Monday, wearing a pale pink tea-length dress and matching flats. 

But we’re too distracted by one pointed meme to comment further. 

Even the bunny looks like he just heard Katniss volunteer as tribute.

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related… + articlesList=58ef764fe4b0bb9638e1c29c,56f93137e4b0a372181a506f,58f4d3c0e4b0da2ff861ec6b,56f94346e4b0143a9b48a0f3

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

'Girls' Breastfeeding Finale Gave An Honest Look At New Motherhood

For a show that has reveled in the misadventures of youth, “Girls” cast a pretty accurate picture of the responsibilities of new motherhood in its finale Sunday night.

The final episode, “Latching,” centers around Hannah’s attempt to get her baby (in classic “Girls”-ian fashion, named “Grover”) to latch on so that she can breastfeed. 

The episode takes place five months after Grover’s birth, and Marnie and Hannah have both moved to the country to take care of the baby. Despite having spent his first six weeks breastfeeding, Grover now refuses to take the breast and Hannah is pumping constantly to bottle-feed him. 

There are a million other ways that such ideals lead women to believe they’re not doing motherhood “right.”

“Sometimes there’s something ― the chemistry, the fit, it’s just off,” the doctor tells Hannah, exacerbating her fears that her baby “hates” her. Ever-dedicated to appearances, rule-loving Marnie upholds the sanctimonious ideal of motherhood, as she reads to Hannah from parenting books and says things like, “There’s a reason they call breast milk ‘liquid gold.”

“Girls” chose breastfeeding, but there are a million other ways that such ideals lead women to believe they’re not doing motherhood “right.” In many cases, there is literally no way to do it right, which is why even the most self-assured woman can fall victim to fears that she’s somehow failing at being a mother.

Hannah’s also trying to come to terms with her new identity, wondering if she’s supposed to lug around her breast pump all day at her new teaching job and asks what she’s supposed to do “if there’s a student [she] wants to fuck.” “Girls’” relationship with nudity comes full-circle, as Hannah’s breasts are shown just as casually as they have been for the last six seasons ―only this time, in the sexless context of breastfeeding. 

Hannah is struggling to keep it together. “I can’t do anything,” she explains frantically to Marnie as the baby cries. “I’m still bleeding from my vagina!,” she yells at her mother during a long litany about the physical indignities of new motherhood. In a moment every parent can relate to, Hannah looks at her baby while whispering: “You’re being just a little bit of an asshole.”

During the “Inside This Episode” feature that follows the show, Executive Producer Judd Apatow says, “We started talking about postpartum depression and her mental health issues coming up again.” Ultimately, the episode is about the ways that being a new mother drives you crazy, a perspective that feels less authentically explored than it should be by now. 

Everyone whose life has been changed by parenthood can relate to the difficulty of transitioning to the extreme sacrifice and selflessness it requires.

This, along with Hannah’s concerns about what kind of man she’s capable of raising, made me wish the show had more seasons to portray parenting as realistically as it did the experiences of a certain type of young single woman. 

In a way, both the pilot episode of “Girls,” when Hannah’s parents cut her off financially, and the finale are about accepting responsibility that would be easier evaded.

Hannah has been particularly selfish throughout the run of “Girls,” but everyone whose life has been changed by parenthood can relate to the difficulty of transitioning to the extreme sacrifice and selflessness it requires. 

As Hannah’s mother reminds her, becoming a parent isn’t a choice you can take back. It isn’t a “temp job.” It’s “forever.”

Ultimately, “Latching” ends with a close-up of Hannah’s peaceful face as her baby finally accepts her breast and she hums a song she hates over the closing credits, leaving us with the sense that Hannah is maybe going to be able to leave her narcissism behind after all. 

“It’s all about trying to reconcile that anxious, addled, selfish person with the fact that someone else needs her now,” Dunham told The New York Times. That pretty much sums it up. For parenthood, and for “Girls.” 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Julian Lennon Wants To Put His Life Story Down In A Memoir

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

Julian Lennon is thinking about putting his life story down on paper.

During an interview with The Huffington Post at Build Series, the musical artist and environmental activist said he’s interested in writing a memoir because, after all, “Who knows how long we’ve got?” He added with a smile, “I am hopeful, by the way.”

Lennon, 54, admits that he doesn’t have the best memory, so he’d have to rely on others to fill in the blanks of his life.

“I’d like to get around to that because there are so many memories that a lot of my friends or colleagues that I work with have that I don’t recall because of the time and the place and because of where my focus was as opposed to theirs,” he said. “Even hearing the stories myself that my friends have told me and I’m going, ‘Really? I did that? OK, right.’ So, I’m just as curious, to be honest.”

Some of those fuzzy memories date back to when he was a child, growing up as the son of John Lennon.

“He walked out the door when I was about 3 or 4 years old and we only saw each other a few times,” Julian said of his father.

When asked what kind of impact his dad had on him, Julian said, “As a father, not so much. We tried to make that up toward the end. But musically and as an artist — him along with the rest of the boys [the Beatles]  — there’s probably nobody better. So they’ve always been an influence.”

One thing his late father said, though, has stuck with Julian.

“Dad once said to me on the rare occasions that we met that if something was going to happen to him … that he would let me know that he was all right or that we were all going to be all right in the form of a white feather. I thought that was pretty peculiar even as a kid,” Julian explained.

Decades later, Julian would remember his dad’s white feather reference, and about 20 years ago while on tour in Australia, something really interesting happened. He received a phone call from the hotel manager where he had been staying asking him to come downstairs because there were about 30 people ― part of an Aboriginal tribe ― requesting to see him.

“I’ve always been a bit shy, so that kind of situation freaked me out a little bit,” Julian recalled.

When he arrived, the members were in a semi-circle awaiting his arrival. The “tribal elder” then walked toward him, handed him a white feather, and said, “You have a voice, can you help us?”

At that point, Julian knew he had to step up and do more than pursue a music career. He wanted to dedicate additional time to helping others, later forming The White Feather Foundation, an organization dedicated to the education, conservation and protection of indigenous culture.

Part of the proceeds of his latest project, a children’s picture book called Touch the Earth, go toward the foundation. The book has children riding on a magical plane called the White Feather Flier, and encourages readers to help save the environment and conserve water. 

For more on Julian Lennon, check out our full Build Series interview below, and go here for more on The White Feather Foundation.

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_2’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Finally, The Definitive Ranking Of People Dressed In Bunny Costumes

Since the dawn of recorded history, humanity has suffered through great wars, marveled at incredible scientific discoveries, and dressed up in bunny costumes that scare children.

No one has so definitively ranked the most well known instances of humans wearing bunny costumes. Until now.

 

5. Sean Spicer as the Easter Bunny

It was almost the final straw in the Easter basket when we discovered that Sean Spicer was the Easter Bunny. After laying so many eggs for us on live television, press secretary Spicer decided to lay the ultimate one. And still, we can’t in good conscience put him higher than the bottom of this list.

4. Elle Woods from “Legally Blonde” 

This is an important moment in bunny suit history. Elle is told she’ll be attending a costume party, and is briefly mortified when she discovers it’s a joke on her ― no one else at the party is in costume. Despite being the butt of a joke, she walks out with her ears held high. And impressive feat for someone dressed like a bunny.

3. Frank from “Donnie Darko”

It’s a bunny perhaps more in line with what one would expect from a Donald Trump administration, but no, pictured below is the creepy and ominous Frank from the film “Donnie Darko.” He represents the other acceptable reason to wear a bunny suit: to give people the willies.

2. Regina George from “Mean Girls”

Regina George ranks higher than Frank from “Donnie Darko” for the simple reason that she is scarier and more intimidating.

1. Ralphie from “A Christmas Story”

Ralphie in “A Christmas Story,” donning the present from his Aunt Clara, is the ultimate human-in-a-bunny-suit. He wears it involuntarily and with no expression of joy whatsoever, the way people are meant to wear bunny suits.

 

Well, there you have it, the definitive ranking. Now you can finally sleep at night.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Melania Trump Reminds Donald Trump To Put His Hand Over His Heart For National Anthem

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

First lady Melania Trump and son Barron Trump made a rare appearance at the White House on Monday to help President Donald Trump celebrate the annual White House Easter Egg Roll.

As the national anthem played, the first lady had to gently remind her husband to place his hand over his heart.

When Barack Obama was president, fact-checkers frequently had to debunk claims that he refused to place his hand over his heart during the national anthem.

The false theories were distributed via chain emails and relied on altered images or misattributed information. They may have stemmed from an instance in 2007 when Obama was pictured without his hand over his heart during the national anthem. 

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Content + articlesList=57ab3e85e4b06e52746e87c0,589a7b6fe4b04061313a41a2,57dc4832e4b0071a6e0765b3

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

News Roundup for April 17

Look no further, we got your news right here.

1. Hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in Israel have gone on hunger strike to protest their conditions of captivity. More here.

2. Mike Pence has warned North Korea not to test the resolve of the US. Oh great, we were just thinking it was about time for another World War. More here.

3. A man posted a murder he committed on Facebook, because… fuck. More here.

4. The US Navy has banned vaping at sea after a number of devices exploded. If only we could ban vaping everywhere. More here.

5. United Airlines have pledged to never remove a seated customer from a flight again after violently removing David Dao off a flight. No word on whether they will manhandle you for other reasons though. More here.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.