One Man's Opinion
  • Blog
  • Press
  • Contact
  • New Page
  • Blog 3/11/25
  • 3/16

One Man's Opinion

My motivation for beginning this blog is to express thoughts regarding pertinent subjects to me and hopefully others.  I found that expressing myself on social media caused too much name calling, too much anxiety, too much anger.  As we all know, it is very easy to subject someone to a level of stress hiding behind social media.  It would appear, everyone has an opinion, which they are entitled to, but few, if any, have serious thoughts regarding their statements.  

Call it inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning…or maybe just common sense, but at one point in time everyone must exhibit it, for the good of the person, for the solving of a problem, or, for expressing an opinion that is not full of holes like Swiss cheese.  It is one thing to have an opinion based on fact; it is another to be a parrot of words.
 
The bottom line is if you choose to read what I have written, good for you.  You may not like what I have written and that is okay, just don’t utilize this blog to bash anyone with a barrage of unsavory comments.  That is unacceptable.  If you choose to differ, please have a well thought out response. 
 Everyone is entitled to an opinion.​

Adam Smith, Where are You?

8/27/2026

0 Comments

 

Let me please clarify, I am not a scholarly economist.  

But there are certain principles of economic theory that I observe.  When supply is short and the demand is high, the price of an item increases, and the reverse is true when the supply is great and the demand is low, the price of an item decreases as well.

There is a big difference between “wants” and “needs.”  I would imagine those two ideas become confusing at times. 
 

I also am aware how high interest rates for credit effects price of housing and transportation.  That in itself has contributed to the thought of “affordability” now being bandied about by many.
  

What we as a nation are now experiencing in the economic policy coming out of Washington DC, be it good or bad, and how it is directly and indirectly effecting our pocketbooks.  So, with that in mind, I thought it would be good for me to review the works of the “father” of capitalism, Adam Smith.

Here is what I found.  Adam Smith published “The Wealth of Nations” in 1776.  Yes, the same year the colonies broke from Great Britain.  In his book, Smith wrote about the “invisible hand” and how it helped shape individual economic policy…after all, as individuals we determine what we need, what we want, what we can afford.

But Smith’s work goes a bit farther than that simple supposition.

In his work, Smith lays out these basic principles:

Core Concepts
  • Division of Labor: Breaking a big job down into tiny, specialized tasks makes workers much faster and more productive. (For example, making pins goes much faster if one person cuts the wire, another sharpens it, and a third puts on the head). 
  • Self-Interest: People work hard and trade with others not out of charity, but because it benefits them. (The butcher sells you meat because he wants to make a profit, which in turn gives you the food you need).
  • The Invisible Hand: When everyone is allowed to freely buy, sell, and chase their own honest goals in a competitive market, an unseen "invisible hand" guides the economy to benefit society as a whole. 
  • Free Markets (Laissez-Faire): Governments should mostly stay out of the economy, keep taxes low, and let trade happen freely without heavy rules or monopolies
 
In examination of these core concepts, one may understand how the economics of our nation has developed. 


The division of labor creates jobs and expertise.  Instead of one person performing all tasks to complete a job, several people perform individual tasks with greater expertise allowing the job to be completed in a more rapid fashion. 
 
One must understand how the core concept of self-interest applies to the economic system.  People work to acquire capital to exchange for goods, those needed and those wanted.  But I contend this basic core goes a bit deeper than that.  The individual is allowed to CHOOSE where to work, where to live, in what to invest, and what to purchase.  Everyone has that opportunity…sometimes that opportunity is taken, other times it is not.
 
As the “the invisible hand” of the economy silently has operated in my lifetime I have seen air travel evolve from four propeller Tri-Star TWA airliners to a four-jet engine jumbo Boeing 747.  I have seen automobiles fitted with the most current technology, when 50 years ago, a backyard mechanic could set the points in a distributor using a matchbook cover.  What is most evident is the “invisible hand” is determined by the consumer wants and needs, and with that, the cost of living and lifestyle has risen.
 
While many would say the economy should be classified as capitalism, in truth, it is often called a mixed economy; one that requires governmental intervention on behalf of the citizenry.  The government intervention is an evil necessity.  The time frame from 1870 to 1900 is characterized as the era of Robber Barons.  Men called “Robber Barons” were powerful industrialists and financiers who amassed immense fortunes through monopolistic control of heavy industries, ruthless competition, and the exploitation of workers, though supporters also viewed them as vital "captains of industry" who modernized the nation.  These men accomplished this without governmental restraints.
 
Enter President Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican President.  If memory serves me correctly, Roosevelt used the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to break up monopolies, with the Northern Securities Company being the first to fall.  In all Roosevelt sued 47 companies and won.  
 
All of this action of Roosevelt would be consistent with Adam Smith’s thoughts about capitalism.  With capitalism, there needs to be small governmental regulation to prevent large businesses we call monopolies;  monopolies created to take advantage of labor and create large sums of wealth for a few.
 
It would appear the current administration in Washington is not quite in line with Smith.  In my opinion, the single most important part of Smith’s book is the idea of free trade.  And I believe, with the evolution of the standard of living, the economic system of the United States is actually an international system of trade as well as a domestic trade.  This is driven by the wants and needs (the invisible hand) of the consumer.
 
So, when the President of the United States imposes tariffs on foreign nations as they trade with the United States, how does that jell with the idea of Laissez-Faire and that government should mostly stay out of the economy?  The tariffs are to “protect American businesses or farmers or cattlemen”…but in reality, does it?  If the President believes those tariffs placed on a foreign nation will result in lower prices for the American consumer, then, in my opinion he is wrong.
 
On August 27th, the Associated Press reported Iran’s economy, already strained by high inflation, years of Western sanctions and a war that has sharply reduced oil revenue, is poised for more instability as the Trump administration tries to coerce other countries into ending all financial dealings with the Islamic Republic.  So far, the United Arab Emirates has suspended all trade with Iran…and that is a big deal for Iran.  BUT the caveat is China.  China is one of, if not the largest buyers of Iranian crude.  The result of the sanctions imposed by the United States is yet to be seen.
Treasury Secretary Bessent recently said “Those who stand with the United States will reap the rewards of our partnership,” while outlining the plan he called “Operation Economic Outcast.” “Those who tether themselves to the Iranian regime should expect to share in the isolation.”
 
How does all of this effect the American consumer?  All one has to do is look at the price of gasoline at the nearest filling station.  The President can tie his actions to Iran in the name of national security, but the fact remains, the American consumer is paying for more for gasoline than they should be.  
 
The President is instituting a plan to import up to 300,000 metric tons of ground beef (or lean beef trimmings) to be imported with reduced or removed tariffs. 
​ 

Key Details of the Plan
  • Amount: Up to 300,000 metric tons.
  • Timeframe: Over a 90-day (3-month) period.
  • Tariff Status: Waived out-of-quota tariffs.
  • Price Target: Importers committed to selling the beef 25% below current market prices to help lower grocery costs for consumers.
 
This plan is supposed to ease the price of beef in the United States as well as help ranchers “grow the herd”.  The national herd of cattle is at an all-time low in numbers and experts predict it will take at least 24 months to get the herd somewhere close to the previous size it was.  There are several factors regarding the lack of production due to a small herd, drought, and feed constraints.
 
The United States generally produces about 11 million metric tons of beef a year.  The 300000 metric tons of imported beef represents about 2.75 percent of the annual production of beef in the United States.  With that in mind, are the consumers of the US to expect prices of beef to go down in price by 2.75 percent?  Think about what that means…2.75 percent of 10 dollars is a mere 27/28 cents.
 
One a side note, I also would like to know who and where the inspection of the imported beef will take place.  That information needs to be known so the public can rest assure the imported beef is not tainted.  
 
Finally, the President is placing more tariffs on Canadian products…with lumber being one of the largest imports to the United States.  That may seem to be insignificant to some, but Canada delivers about 28 percent of softwood lumber used in the United States.  And, of all of the foreign lumber brought into the United States, Canada accounts for about 82 percent of all imported lumber.
 
I will ask of you, what industry uses more lumber than any other industry in the United States?  Answer:  The construction industry…the building of new homes, the repair and remodeling of existing homes, and non-residential buildings (think commercial, schools, hospitals for a few examples).  The term “affordability” comes to mind.
 
What I know about tariffs:  The nation paying the tariff to trade in the United States will pass that cost on to the consumers of America.  Some call it an indirect tax.  Who gains from the tariffs?  The government of the United States.  Who pays more for need goods?  The American consumer.
 
As I wrote earlier, I’m not a scholarly economist, but I understand cost of living, affordability, indirect taxes call tariffs, supply and demand, and how price is determined.  I understand “wants and needs”.  I also understand how oil is tied to most everything the average American purchases.  With that being said, just what in the hell is this administration doing to help John Q. Citizen?   It is my position if the current economic trend continues as Washington D.C. wishes, the separation of those who are wealthy and those who are not will be as wide as the Grand Canyon, and it may be impossible to bridge that gap.  Maybe members of this administration should read the works of Adam Smith.  It is a good blueprint for economic prosperity for all.
 
I have my opinion…I hope you have one as well.
 
 




 


0 Comments

Re-iteration Again

8/19/2026

0 Comments

 
As you may very well notice, I authored this piece ...to Protect and Preserve...a year ago today.  With the midterms shortly arriving, I thought it might be an opportune time to review what our leader has said regarding the "corrupted" election process in our nation.  

As it is, there have been a miniscule amount of illegal votes recorded in past elections...if one chooses to read more about this, visit this website:

 https://fairelectionscenter.org/voting-by-noncitizens-is-a-non-issue/

So without any apologies, here is my work from a year ago...and in my opinion, it still rings true today.



8/19/2025 
0 Comments


 
When a person assumes the office of the President of the United States, on inauguration day, the elected official takes the oath of office.  The oath is found in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States.  The oath is as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." 

In my opinion, the President is failing to “preserve, protect” the Constitution.  The defense of the Constitution is subject to definition, but it would be my hope the President would protect our country from invasion from an enemy force, other than what the President has referred to as “an invasion” of undocumented citizens.

To be clear, I want to present some facts that may indicate my opinion is correct.

Reported on August 18 2025 by the New York Post among other reporting news agencies…

President Trump unveiled plans Monday (August 18th) to sign an executive order claiming to “help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections” by banning both mail-in voting and electronic tabulation machines. 

“I am going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS, and also, while we’re at it, Highly ‘Inaccurate,’ Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES,” Trump declared on Truth Social.

The president did not provide any evidence to back up his claims that voting machines are “highly inaccurate.” Most voters live in municipalities where they cast paper ballots that are scanned by voting machines and are subject to multiple checks to ensure accuracy.

“WE WILL BEGIN THIS EFFORT, WHICH WILL BE STRONGLY OPPOSED BY THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THEY CHEAT AT LEVELS NEVER SEEN BEFORE, by signing an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections,” Trump went on.

This proposed action is in direct conflict with the Constitution.  Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 states The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.

This clause of the Constitution intentionally leaves the election process to the states and not the federal government.  For the President to sign an Executive Order to “get rid of MAIL-BALLOTS…Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES” is overstepping his authority.  In plain sense, the President cannot force the individual states to conform to a system of voting prescribed by the federal government or even the President.  In fact, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Elections Clause expansively, enabling states to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns.

Historically, from colonial times through the 1880s, elections in the US were conducted through a method called viva voce, meaning "with the living voice", where votes were openly stated. Paper ballots, often printed by political parties, were also used during this time, where voters would obtain a ballot and deposit it into a ballot box at the polling place. 
 
The invention of the Acme Voting Machine in the late 1880s marked a shift in election technology. It was designed to enhance vote integrity by providing a mechanism to detect voter fraud and ensure that only one vote was cast per person. The Acme machine, and others like the Automatic Booth invented by Jacob Myers in 1889 and introduced in 1892, were among the first mechanical voting machines used in US elections.  And by the mid 20 century voting machines were used in metropolitan areas of the United States.

Let me also clear, I am not sticking up for the Democratic Party, but let’s once again delve into a bit of US Presidential history and examine the election of 1876.  To say that it was a controversial election is an understatement.  The 1876 Presidential Election presented problems with several states sending conflicting Electoral College votes to Congress.  Oregon, Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina all did so.  Samuel Tilden, a Democrat won the popular vote, however he did not win the electoral vote.  The Republican candidate was Rutherford B. Hayes, who was a very close second to Tilden.  But because of the 20 controversial Electoral votes not being awarded, no winner was determined.

Now one may wonder what this has to do with Trump’s statement, the Democrats will cheat at any level…well let’s see how this election of 1876 plays out.  According to the Constitution, if no candidate receives the necessary electoral votes, the House of Representatives would decide the outcome of the election.  But wait…that is not what happened.

The outcome of the disputed 1876 presidential election was ultimately decided by an Electoral Commission created by Congress
. 
Here's how it unfolded:
  • Disputed Votes: The election between Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and Democrat Samuel J. Tilden resulted in a stalemate, with disputed electoral votes from Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina, and Oregon. Tilden won the popular vote but lacked the necessary electoral votes without those contested states.
  • Creation of the Electoral Commission: To resolve this crisis and avoid potential civil unrest, Congress established a 15-member Electoral Commission in January 1877.
  • Commission Composition: The commission was comprised of five members from the House of Representatives, five from the Senate, and five Supreme Court justices.
  • Decision and Outcome: The Commission ultimately voted along party lines (8 Republicans to 7 Democrats) to award all 20 disputed electoral votes to Hayes, securing his victory by a single electoral vote (185 to 184).
  • Supposedly, an independent was to be on this commission, but died before the commission could decide the outcome, and was replaced by…a Republican.  As you may have read, the vote went along party lines and Rutherford “Old Eight to Seven” Hayes, was declared the winner.  This took place two days before his inauguration, March 5, 1877.

Was there a fix in this election, as Trump has declared so many times after his loss in 2020?  Was there controversy over the commission when the Constitution details the procedure to declare a winner of a Presidential Election should no one receive the necessary Electoral College votes to win?  Was there controversy over the Electoral Votes of four states that sent in conflicting electoral college vote tabulations…(Sound familiar Arizona and other states; the false electors of the 2024 election)?  Was there a political party cheating during this election?  If there was, I don’t think it was Samuel Tilden’s party, or he would have been declared the winner.

​
 
Now, in the Presidential Election of 1948, it was widely expected Thomas Dewey would defeat the incumbent, Harry Truman.  In fact, the Chicago Tribune printed its daily paper with the headline, DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN.
​
The 1948 election showcased a mix of mechanical voting systems and traditional paper ballot counting, with results progressively compiled at the local and state levels before the final electoral count and declaration in Congress. The election is also remembered for the significant upset victory achieved by Truman despite early polling predictions to the contrary
 
Counting the votes in the 1948 US presidential election was a lengthy process, as it was primarily done manually
. 
  • Election Day: November 2, 1948
  • Early Confusion and Concession: Despite initial erroneous reports of Thomas Dewey's victory (e.g., the infamous "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline), Harry Truman had a narrow lead on election night. By mid-morning on November 3, Dewey conceded the election to Truman.
  • Vote Counting Duration: While the initial results were reported on Election Night and the following day, the complete and final tallying of votes took a longer period, possibly several days, to be finalized as results came in from across the nation. Therefore, while the outcome was generally known and conceded the day after the election, the manual vote counting process for the 1948 election extended beyond Election Day, taking several days for the final tallies to be confirmed and months until the official count in Congress. 

I will agree there have been difficulties with our voting process.  In Phoenix we have seen long lines on election day; we have seen mail in ballots dropped off on election day become the last votes to be counted and sway an election.  We have seen voting machines accuracy questioned, audited, with no real irregularities noted.
 
Arizona is trying to improve the process for every election.  So are all other states.  History will teach us a manual count of the Presidential vote will consume time.  On the Presidential ballot, there are other candidates and referendums to be considered, and all of those would also be manually counted.  This is time intensive at a best definition.  Is that what our country needs…a repeat of 1876, or 1948?  A manual counting of votes does not insure better accuracy than what is on display with the current system.

The problem is the President and his motivation to get rid of voting machines and mail in ballots.  At one time his lawyers had filed over 60 lawsuits concerning voter fraud in the 2020 election, yet none were adjudicated for a lack of evidence.  It has been said he wants to send more responsibility to the states…i.e., the dismantling of the Department of Education, yet he wants to control the election process, to “help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections”.  The question that needs to be asked is why?  And it needs to be answered.

I have an opinion that would answer that question…so should you.
0 Comments

My World of Thought

8/11/2026

0 Comments

 

I have given much thought about the current climate of politics in the United States.  I have tried to understand the great divide between the two parties, and I am having difficulty making any kind of sense of it.

Why?

In my world, the definition of a group is a number of people or things that are located close together or are considered or classed together; a number of people or things that are located close together or are considered or classed together.  More importantly, the members of the group must give permission for the group to exist as one; and just as important, if a member of the group leaves, then the original group no longer exists.  

For example, think back to graduation day from high school…a group of kids all celebrating their accomplishments.  However, what may be lost in the moment is, that is the very last day that group of kids will exist as one, because that group will never meet as one again.


In my world, the definition of a country is an area of land that has some sort of boundaries, be it political such as a line in the sand or geographical, such as an ocean, river, or mountain range.  In other words, a country deals with land.

Also in my world, the definition of nation refers to a group of people who share land that has boundaries and have similar beliefs.  In that sense, the people who share the country known as the United States would be known as the American Nation.

With that being said, it must be realized the people who live in the United States must have similar beliefs, customs, and traditions.  Those beliefs, customs, and traditions would be political, educational, faith based, tailgating at sporting events…the list goes on and on.  However, the common denominator of all of these aspects of life is freedom or opportunity to make a choice.

If the aforementioned is all true, then why does one group of our nation paint another group of our nation opposed to the similar beliefs which are the basic principles of our country’s existence?

Communists, radicals, cheaters, unpatriotic, lazy, lunatics, and party of crime are all descriptors used by one group of people to describe another group of Americans.  Why?  What is the purpose, the real purpose of doing so?

Better yet, why do people of our country believe what is being said?   What ever happened to “Truth, Justice, and the American Way”, or has the “American Way” gone away?

Certainly, ancient Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle have opinions regarding the demise of government structures.  Rather than include excerpts from Plato’s, Republic, I would recommend conducting a brief search for a synopsis of the thoughts of those three.(https://www.history.com/articles/what-are-platos-5-forms-of-government)

I am of the opinion the answer to some of my questions will expose the real state of American politics and our republic.  
 
0 Comments

Reiteration

8/2/2026

0 Comments

 
I posted this a year ago.  I find it only appropriate to do so again because of the accusations coming out of Washington regarding Socialism and Communism.  If one has read my previous post regarding the accusations, then I hope this offers some clarity to what may be really happening.



A very long time ago, while I was attending Northern Arizona University, a political science class discussion centered around the difference between Socialism and Communism.  To some, the confusion was because the words are almost interchangeable and are often used as a descriptive term of a form of government.  This discussion led many to begin to understand both Socialism and Communism are forms of economic theory, and truly not a form of government.

In a nutshell, the difference between Socialism and Communism is quite simple.  A Socialist economic system requires the government to own the means of production that are of vital interest to the country.  All utilities would be owned and operated by the government.  Any commodity that is not of vital importance to the country can be owned by private individuals.  What that may mean is one could own a tv of choice, but the tv station and media is owned and operated by the government.  This type of economic system allows for social classes to exist because of the ability to own private property that is not deemed to be “of vital interest” by the government.

In a pure Communist economic system, the government owns ALL OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.  The government controls all aspects of the economic system, determines a five-year economic plan, determines where workers are needed, and determines what will be paid to the workers.  Farms are state owned; and the government determines what crops will be grown. Under a Communist economic system, all citizens are treated the same; supposedly, there are no social classes.

I bring this to your attention because of some troubling activity that took place earlier this week.  I found this article published by the Intel Newsroom to be “of vital interest” to the country.

Intel and Trump Administration Reach Historic Agreement to Accelerate American Technology and Manufacturing Leadership

AUGUST 22, 2025Published

SANTA CLARA, Calif.-- Intel Corporation today announced an agreement with the Trump Administration to support the continued expansion of American technology and manufacturing leadership. Under terms of the agreement, the United States government will make an $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock, reflecting the confidence the Administration has in Intel to advance key national priorities and the critically important role the company plays in expanding the domestic semiconductor industry.

The government’s equity stake will be funded by the remaining $5.7 billion in grants previously awarded, but not yet paid, to Intel under the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act and $3.2 billion awarded to the company as part of the Secure Enclave program. Intel will continue to deliver on its Secure Enclave obligations and reaffirmed its commitment to delivering trusted and secure semiconductors to the U.S. Department of Defense. The $8.9 billion investment is in addition to the $2.2 billion in CHIPS grants Intel has received to date, making for a total investment of $11.1 billion.

I’m not one to jump to conclusions, but the phrase “to advance key national priorities” is close in meaning to “of vital interests”.  

And to me what is even more disturbing was the following I found when reading NBC News as well as other news outlets:

U.S. could take stakes in more companies, Trump adviser says

Kevin Hassett said the Trump administration's piece of chipmaker Intel is "like a down payment on a sovereign wealth fund."
 
Aug. 25, 2025, 6:33 AM MST / Updated Aug. 25, 2025, 11:40 AM MST
By  Steve Kopack and Gabe Gutierrez

The U.S. government could take equity stakes in more companies, potentially through an American sovereign wealth fund, according to one of President Donald Trump's top economic advisers.

National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett made the comments Monday, days after the United States took nearly 10% stake in Intel.  The government secured a piece of the semiconductor maker with money intended for grants as part of the CHIPS and Science Act, passed during the Biden administration.

And then, after reading what Hassett had to say, I read about this, being reported by CNBC, as well as other new outlets, the following:


Trump Pentagon weighing equity stakes in defense contractors like Lockheed, says Lutnick

PUBLISHED TUE, AUG 26 20258:20 KEVIN BREUNINGER

Top officials at the Pentagon are “thinking about” whether the U.S. should acquire equity stakes in leading defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Tuesday.

The Cabinet secretary, in an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box”revealed the Defense Department’s interest in taking those stakes days after the U.S. government acquired 10% of Intel stock in a roughly $9 billion deal.

Lutnick was asked if the Trump administration would repeat that move with other companies that do business with the government.  “Oh there’s a monstrous discussion about defense,” Lutnick replied.  "Lockheed, which makes most of its revenue from federal contracts, is “basically an arm of the U.S. government,” he said.

In my lifetime of 74 years, I cannot recall the federal government going into business with companies, shall we say, “of vital interest”?  Defense contracts have been awarded on a bid basis; that would include planes, ships, guns, and ammo.
  
Recently, President Trump, as reported by NPR, Reuters, Time Magazine, and Newsweek,  has called for the FCC to revoke the broadcast license of ABC and NBC because they have treated him badly.  And it has been speculated that Stephen Colbert was cancelled as part of a deal, possibly to gain favor for Paramount's pending merger with Skydance.  Colbert had been openly critical of Trump while hosting the Late Show.  Is there a move to control broadcast journalism as well as print journalism?

I believe the most profound statement to come out of Washington D.C. during the past week was from Sen. Rand Paul, Republican from Kentucky, wrote in an X post, “If socialism is government owning the means of production, wouldn’t the government owning part of Intel be a step toward socialism?
”
The United States considers itself as a Capitalist economic nation.  The citizens of our nation are free to own the means of production.  The citizens of our nation are free to use their private property as they see fit, as long as it is within the confines of local ordinances.  The citizens of our nation are free to work where they wish, to purchase what they wish, to invest how they wish, to live where they wish…all integral parts of a Capitalist economy.

To be sure, there is governmental regulation in some areas of the economy.  That began with President Theodore Roosevelt taking on the Northern Securities Company using the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in 1902.  Why did TR do this?  To break up a monopoly and create a more level playing field for all entrepreneurs.  Several other monopolies fell because of this…Standard Oil was split into 34 different companies to break up an economic monopoly.  All of this was done for the benefit of the common citizen…the action tried to prevent an aristocracy of rich robber barons who controlled the economy and held great influence in Washington D.C..

So, after reading the different accounts of the past week regarding the government purchase of a part of Intel, and the distinct possibility of the government purchasing part of other industries that are certainly of vital interest to our nation, I must agree with Senator Rand Paul.

What is fascinating about this governmental action, President Trump has said he wanted to help the common citizen.  He has reduced taxes for the common citizen to put more money in the pockets of Americans.  However, his tariff war will undoubtedly cause prices to rise for the common person who is operating from paycheck to paycheck.  Trump wants to bring industry back to the US…a noble idea, but if the government buys into a company that returns to the US, why would those companies return?  And just for knowing, which agency of the government would receive the dividends from the companies in which our national government has become an owner?

And on another note, it would be interesting to see who purchased Intel stock BEFORE the deal was completed with the White House.  It would be just as interesting to see who has purchased stock in Lockheed before the announcement from the White House.  Insider trading?  Who became even more wealthy?  I’m not going to say corruption, but it is what President Theodore Roosevelt fought.  The rich getting richer and the average citizen taking it in the shorts.

I have arrived at my opinion…have you reached yours?

0 Comments

Red Scare Again?

7/16/2026

0 Comments

 
With all of the discourse coming from Washington government officials, namely Speaker Johnson and the President, regarding how Communism and Communists are infiltrating the political arena in our nation, I thought it might be to the advantage of many to understand what our government officials are stating.  With that, let me offer some insight into the different types of economic systems and government systems that are being a new political thought as our elected officials suggest.

First and foremost, it must be understood economic and government systems are “separate” entities that are inextricably linked together.
 

Communism is an ECONOMIC system that requires the government to own ALL OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.  The individual has little to no choice of what to purchase, where to work, where to live, or in what to invest.  Communism allows for very little free enterprise if any (think black market).  The government makes those choices for the benefit of the “group”.  The government system that is associated with Communism is a TOTALITARIAN government, meaning, the government controls all that happens.  The totalitarian government allows only party members to participate in the functions of government. 
 

Socialism is an ECONOMIC system that requires the government to own ONLY THOSE means of production that are of vital interest to the nation.  In a Socialist economic system, the individual may own private property, purchase what they wish (as long as it isn’t of vital interest), live where they wish and invest how they wish, (once again, as long as it isn’t of vital interest).  The government most associated with Socialism, is a totalitarian government, but, a Socialist economic system DOES NOT REQUIRE  a totalitarian government is in place.  The government of a socialist country could be elected officials by the voters of the country (not just certain party members), it could be a constitutional monarchy, it could be a democratic state.

Capitalism is an ECONOMIC system that requires no intervention by the government in ownership of the means of production.  In a Capitalist nation, the individual (consumer) has the freedom to live where they so desire, work where they wish, purchase what they wish and invest in the company of their choice.  Obviously, Capitalism isn’t associated with a totalitarian government, but instead, a government that allows the individual to participate in the daily actions of the government.  We refer to that as a DEMOCRACY. 
 

With the accusations levied by the President and the Speaker, is it fathomable to believe our nation of people would allow a totalitarian government to exist within our borders?  The response from the President and Speaker may very well be, “This is how it starts!”.  I suppose there is historical evidence for this to be true…just examine the rise and fall of the Third Reich under Adolph Hitler and one would understand how this may happen.

I would point out that ALL FORMS of government have three branches of government; executive, legislative, and judicial.  The difference between governments is how this is approached.  If a national government permits only those in a specific political party to vote and to occupy government positions, the probability of discourse opposed to the leadership is next to zero.  In other words, in a totalitarian government, if there is a disagreement with leadership, the disagreement and person no longer exist.  In a government that allows qualified voters to participate, there will be disagreement with the leadership, (it is called “loyal opposition”) and those who disagree have the right to do so without harm or censorship.  (However, do not yell “Fire” in a crowded room…you will be tried and convicted for endangering life)

So then, what would it take for Communism and a totalitarian government to exist here in the United States?  There would be a need to consolidate the power and authority of the government to a central figure…like a President.  It would take the central figure to ignore the legislative branch and govern by royal edict, or in our world, by Executive Order.  It would take the central figure to ignore judicial rulings.  It would take the Congress in total, to not execute their duty of checks and balances on the other branches of government, (like impeachment) but, instead prove loyalty to the central figure, in our case the President.  It would take the judiciary to agree with the central figure with his actions.


Could this happen here in the United States?

Certainly, the scare tactics of the party in control are at work.  And as I previously referenced the Third Reich, the leadership of that country singled out a group of people and claimed they were the root cause of Germany’s problem.  The Brown Shirts and SS roamed the countryside identifying those “unpatriotic” to the cause.
  

Our leadership has called many of our government leaders as well as military leaders as “weak”, “treasonous”, “unpatriotic”.  Why?

I would hate to believe what I am witnessing is the beginning of the end of our nation.  But…

What is your opinion?
 
0 Comments

Upside Down?

7/5/2026

0 Comments

 
For some of us who went to college in the late 60’s and early 70’s, we may very well remember the following quote, published on a poster, attributed to Adolph Hitler.  It is thought to be fabricated in nature.  The quote appeared on a poster, with a small American flag turned upside down, at the bottom of the quote, under the name of Adolph Hitler.
 
"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The Universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country ... Without law and order our nation can not survive." 
 
The following is an excerpt from President Trump’s address given July 3, 2026 at Mount Rushmore:
 
“…There is now a resurgence of the communist menace in our land, including from newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our way of life and our great success. These are not mere political disagreements like differences over taxes or regulations. Communism is a mortal threat to American liberty.
 
It is the greatest threat to our country, including World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, or even 9/11. Uh, we're not gonna let this happen to us. Believe me, we're not letting it happen. Because communism is the enemy of free people everywhere, everywhere in the world. Never works. It's the enemy of the Constitution.
 
Above all, it's the enemy of July 4th, 1776. It is the enemy indeed. Even while the radicals and extremists attack our incredible history at every turn, they are silent on the miserable history of communism itself because it never worked. Thousands of years, if you look at it under different names, under somewhat different ideologies and systems, that system has led to more death and destruction than any system ever tried.
 

It killed 100 million people just in the last century alone. Communism is the exact opposite of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's death, tyranny, and the pursuit of evil. The godless communist morality states that anything is justified to bring about inhuman visions and a pro- -- and to really propose what's good.
 
They don't want good. They don't love God and they don't want God. They don't love religion and they don't want religion, and they won't have it, but we will not let them win. They have no chance against us. They have no respect for law, justice, principle, tradition, or your God-given rights. It's an ideology of mass theft, mass control, mass lies, and mass murder.
 
Such doctrines can be given no quarter in a democracy because the first thing they do when they get into power is turn around and destroy it. It always is destroyed just as communists have done in other countries all over the world, no matter where you look. Very simply, communism represents the worst ideas and abuses in history by the worst people…”
 
While some may draw similarities to supposed quote of Hitler and the speech of the President, I have elected to just let each form their own conclusions.  However, there are some “things” in Trump’s address I would like to dissect.
 
First, beyond the obvious denouncing communism, why has the President been so reticent to help the Ukraine fight communism and Vladimir Putin?
 
If Putin’s communism is death, tyranny, and the pursuit of evil, why has the President threatened to leave NATO, which would leave Europe and satellite countries of Europe vulnerable to the threat of Putin?

Second, even though the President claims “Thousands of years, if you look at it under different names, under somewhat different ideologies and systems, that system has led to more death and destruction than any system ever tried”, he should be aware that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels developed a revolutionary socio-political theory known as Marxism.  And when was their work published?  1848.  Not thousands of years ago.  Just to put things into perspective, Christ was born approximately 2026 years ago.  For those interested, the published work of Engels and Marx is entitled, ”The Communist Manifesto”, which indicates there are not different ideologies and systems of Communism.  There is but one ideology and system for Communism, merged with a totalitarian government.
 
Third, the President states “They have no respect for law, justice, principle, tradition, or your God-given rights. It's an ideology of mass theft, mass control, mass lies, and mass murder.”  I couldn’t agree more.  But…”no respect for law, justice, principle, tradition, or your God-given rights…mass theft, mass control, and mass lies”…in my studies of government, I was often told by my professors that I should take note of a leader who accuses another leader (for example, Putin) of gross injustices, because there is a very good chance those accusations are exactly what the accuser is doing.  

The President has ignored legislation to present the Epstein Files.  The President has filed a failed Supreme Court appeal to void his conviction of sexual abuse on E. Jean Carroll.  The President has tried to consolidate the power of the government into the executive branch alone (Think executive order to abolish birthright citizenship).  The President has amassed a small fortune because of his position in government which borders on the violation of the Emoluments Clause (Think Qatari jet as an example).  The President has spoken half truths throughout this administrative term (Think June of 2025, when the President proclaimed we have obliterated Iran’s capability to produce a nuclear weapon, yet we are now engaged in a war to prevent that very thing from happening.)
 
The Fourth of July marking the 250 years of Independence has come and gone.  The address delivered by our President sounds similar to the poster from the late 60’s and early 70’s.  So the question that begs to be asked is “Do we need to hang the American Flag upside down?”
 
 
 
 
0 Comments

250 Years More?

6/28/2026

0 Comments

 
As we approach the 250-year anniversary of the founding of our great nation, it is only fitting that we look back on the more prolific statements regarding the ideals that have made our nation so great, so inviting, and so strong.
 
From the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence…
 
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

We all know the story about King George III imposing his will on the people of England.  We know that many left because of religious persecution.  The Pilgrims, the Puritans, the Catholics all ventured to the “New World” to worship as they pleased instead of being forced to comply with the Anglican Church whose head was the King of England.  Hence one ideal of the American nation is there should be not one official religion of the American Nation. 
 

History has also taught us English debtor prisons were emptied during the formative years of the colonial period in the “New World” by sending many “prisoners” to the colony of Georgia.  Going to prison for not being able to pay personal debt is a foreign concept to this nation.  One may declare bankruptcy, may lose their residence, may lose their car, but not go to jail.  Financially, one may be down and out on their luck, be faced with a mountain of debt, but not go to prison for being unable to pay their debt.

The document also sets the experiment in action stating “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”…something that had never been put into existence in world history.  This concept and the American Revolution gave birth to the French Revolution…people are not subjects of the government, but rather the government is given permission by the people to rule in a reasonable fashion, and if not, then the permission of the people (the governed) is rescinded.

The Declaration of Independence was really the motivation for the ideals established in the Constitution.  From the Preamble of the Constitution…

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The first seven words of the Preamble to the Constitution reflects the ideal of government for our nation is derived from the people…”We the People of the United States…”.  
 
In 1863, following the Civil War battle at Gettysburg, President Lincoln delivered a two-minute address to consecrate the hallowed ground where tens of thousands perished during the great battle.  Lincoln echoed the basic tenet of our government in his Gettysburg address…
 
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate – we can not consecrate – we can not hallow – this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

In a speech delivered at the Loyola College Alumni Banquet in Baltimore, Maryland the “future” President of the United States, John Kennedy gave us this quote…

"Let us not despair but act. Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past - let us accept our own responsibility for the future."  

Kennedy spoke of government by collaboration, government to find the best pathway forward, government that would allow people to cherish freedom to worship as they pleased, to enjoy economic prosperity as well as economic risk.  But most importantly, government that regarded the permission by the people to govern on their behalf.

Even in the time of President Nixon’s resignation, members of his own party advised him to resign or be impeached and convicted.  Goldwater, Rhodes, and Scott enacted on what had been set in action by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and Kennedy’s speech in Baltimore.  Government derived its power from the people, and those given permission to govern were to be committed to upholding the “unalienable rights”, the “more perfect union”, government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”, and to “find the right answer”.
​

In my view, the Washington DC politicians are not upholding these ideals of America.  Those that came before, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Kennedy, and many others were transformational leaders; leaders that made everyone better off without advertising their accomplishments.  Today’s leadership is transactional; leaders that have the idea of “what’s in it for me” hiding behind spoken half-truths and disregard for governmental procedure that has persevered and is survived the test of time.  The current administration has created a divide in the nation, pitting one against the other…unlike what JFK stated…” Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer but the right answer.”  Our nation has survived 250 years, but Lincoln also said in 1858, “A house divided cannot stand”.
 
In November, we need to find the right way, we need to look to the future for our children and children’s children.
 


0 Comments

Now That's a Crime

5/19/2026

1 Comment

 
It has been a while since I have taken to the idea of writing about my opinion.  The reason?  There have been so many things happening so fast, I couldn’t keep up, so I decided to not express an unfounded idea.  And then I thought about that very fact and said to myself, “That is a Crime”!

So, then, that is what I have found myself pondering…crime.

According to Webster’s dictionary, a crime is:

crime | krīm | noun an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law:  • illegal activities:  • an action or activity that, although not illegal, is considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong:

In the legal sense, crime is categorized as either a felony or misdemeanor.  Felony can be classified differently in individual states, as in Arizona, there are 6 categories of “felony”.  A felony is a very serious crime that, if the accused is found guilty can carry a lengthy prison sentence or even death, in the case of a murder conviction.  Conversely then, a misdemeanor is still a crime but carries a less severity of punishment.

Along with this idea of crime, comes a judicial system that relies on an assumption of  “innocent until proven guilty” which includes the premise of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Another portion of our legal system that is paramount is the recognition of “conflict of interest”.  A conflict of interest is a situation where an individual or organization has competing personal, financial, or professional interests. A conflict of interest doesn't mean something unethical has definitely happened, but rather that the potential for bias exists.  However, when these interests clash, it compromises the ability of those in a position to make decisions affecting the public and society to remain impartial, make objective decisions, or fulfill their duty to a third party. 
 
A conflict of interest can be found if a public official rewards a financial gain to a certain class of people with whom the public official may be associated.  It could be in the form of nepotism, as in hiring a person who is a close friend or relative to a job in which they may not have expertise.  It could be a lawyer representing two clients who have opposing viewpoints in legal argument.  Or, it could be someone accepting a bribe from someone or a company to “look the other way”.
 
Because of this, it requires a member of the judicial system, (judges, lawyers, government officials) should recuse themselves from any situation that could be determined to be a “conflict of interest” to maintain the trust of the public.

I have decided to define all of this to demonstrate what is the real point of this article.

The President has dropped his 10 billion-dollar lawsuit against the IRS in favor of establishing a “slush fund” of 1.776 billion dollars to be granted to those who have been unfairly “prosecuted” or “persecuted” if you prefer, by the Biden administration.  What remains unclear is how this taxpayer money will be distributed, how one may apply for “restitution”, and when the distribution will actually take place.  It has been reported that a committee consisting of five people will make the determination of who will receive how much.

When one speaks of a conflict of interest, this situation comes to the top of the list.  Forget that the President’s son in law is now trying to negotiate peace around the world; he has had no previous experience, nor is he an elected public official.  Forget the President has accepted gifts from foreign governments in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution (think Qatar jet).  Forget, the President has pardoned over 1500 people judged guilty by a jury of their peers for participation in the attempted insurrection of the government on January 6, 2021.

The conflict of interest in this 1.776 billion-dollar payout is right out in the open, and one doesn’t need to “connect the dots” to understand it.  However, please allow me to do so.

The IRS is part of the executive branch of the government.  The Attorney General, who supposedly negotiated this payout deal, is part of the executive branch of the government.  In fact, the interim Attorney General, did serve as the President’s personal attorney at one time, defending the President in his criminal trial in 2024. 

Who is the head of the executive branch of the government?  The answer, the President.

The President has been video-recorded as he said he knew nothing of the negotiations that took place to set up the payout scheme.  The President has disavowed having knowledge about the entire scenario…yet he is the head of the executive branch of government, and somehow, the President drops his 10 billion-dollar lawsuit in favor of a 1.776 billion-dollar payout?  Is the public supposed to believe the Attorney General did this without the consent of his boss?

Who then is expected to receive money from this payout scheme?  The President has said he will not receive any money, and neither will either of his sons.  But one has to look no further than 1500 hundred people, who were given due process, and justly found guilty for their participation in the attempted insurrection, which, in essence, was an attack on our nation’s government, a crime that could have been considered “treason”, yet pardoned by their Commander in Chief…our President.

Now that is a crime.
1 Comment

Rule of Law

4/15/2026

0 Comments

 
The rule of law is a foundational principle where all people, institutions, and government entities are accountable to publicly known, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated laws. It ensures that no one is above the law, upholding democracy, human rights, and procedural fairness through stable and just legal systems.  In other words, there is a due process, which includes being charged of a lawful violation and being judged by a group of your peers.

Key elements of the rule of law often cited by the World Justice Project include:
  • Accountability: Both government officials and private actors are held accountable under the same laws.
  • Just Laws: Laws are clear, publicized, stable, and applied evenly to protect fundamental rights, including human rights and property rights.
  • Open Government: The processes for enacting, administering, and enforcing laws are accessible, fair, and efficient.
  • Impartial Dispute Resolution: Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent judges and representatives.
  • Equality Under the Law: All persons are treated equally by the legal system, with legal rights protected
  • Separation of Powers/Checks and Balances: Power is divided among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, with an independent judiciary overseeing the others.
 
I have included this article from USA Today for your reading pleasure.  It is pertinent to my thoughts.
​
DOJ seeks to throw out convictions against Oath Keepers and Proud Boys

Fernando Cervantes Jr., USA TODAY
April 14, 2026Updated April 15, 2026, 12:10 p.m. ET

The Justice Department asked a federal appeals court April 14 to throw out seditious conspiracy convictions given to leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers for their involvement in the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.


Although President Donald Trump already commented the prison sentences of some leasers of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers in January 2025, the new filing would go a step further.

Prosecutors, in a filing signed by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to vacate the convictions to allow the government to permanently dismiss the indictments against the leaders.

“The government’s motion to vacate in this case is consistent with its practice of moving the Supreme Courtto vacate convictions in cases where the government has decided in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of a criminal case is in the interests of justice − motions that the Supreme Court routinely grants,” prosecutors said in court records obtained by USA TODAY.

According to the filing, prosecutors asked to erase the convictions of Oath Keepers members Stewart Rhodes, Kelly Meggs, Kenneth Harrelson and Jessica Watkins, as well as Proud Boys members Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola.

In a statement to The Associated Press, Nordean’s attorney, Nicholas Smith, praised the move from the Justice Department.

“We don’t want a precedent that says that any physical confrontation between protesters and law enforcement means a crime akin to treason, such as seditious conspiracy,” Smith said.

Smith did not immediately respond to USA TODAY’s request for comment.

The filing from the Justice Department follows the Trump administration's moves to
pardon people involved in the Capitol riot. In one of the first moves of his second term , Trump pardoned more than 1,500 people involved in the riot.

"These are the hostages, approximately 1,500, for a pardon. Full pardon," Trump said in the Oval Office at the time , "This is a big one. We hope they come out tonight.”

Trump's proclamation provided a "full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol" on Jan. 6.


 
Just so everyone is aware, the Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch of the government.  The Executive Branch is led by the President, Donald J. Trump.  It was the President who decided to pardon those involved in the siege of the Capitol Building on January 6th, 2021.  As it was told by Trump Years later, he described the day as a "day of love" and argued that the protesters were peaceful, often stating, "These were peaceful people, these were great people".


Anyone watching news coverage of the attack on the Capitol may have a different opinion.

And, over 1500 people were convicted of sedition and seditious conspiracy.  As an afterthought, I am curious as to why treason wasn’t included in the charges of many.  I thought anytime one attacked or attempted to overthrow the government, that would be treason.

Please re-read the six elements of “rule of law”.  Pay close attention to the sixth element…
​
  • Separation of Powers/Checks and Balances: Power is divided among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, with an independent judiciary overseeing the others.
 
I may be a bit naïve, but when a loyalist like Pirro, presumably acting on Trump’s wishes, files a motion that contradicts the “rule of law”,  something is amiss.  As a former President once said, “You can’t question a man’s judgement, but you can question his motivation”.
 
The statement from the attorney of Ethan Nordean of the Proud Boys, encapsulates the fact, the Executive Branch has no respect for the rule of law.  Nordean and other people were subject to due process and found guilty by a jury of their peers.  It would appear the judicial motion to vacate these convictions as an attempt to consolidate power in one specific branch of the government.  In other words, the Executive Branch knows best, and to hell with due process and the rule of law.
 
I have my opinion, maybe you have one as well.



 




 
 
 
 
 
0 Comments

Are There Three?

4/12/2026

0 Comments

 
On the afternoon of August 7, 1974, Senator Barry Goldwater, a Republican from Arizona, accompanied by Republican Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott from Pennsylvania, and Republican House Minority Leader John Jacob Rhodes, from Arizona, delivered the message that Nixon faced certain impeachment in the House and likely conviction in the Senate.   It was Goldwater who actually delivered the message and when Nixon asked about his prospects, Goldwater famously told him that there were only about 15 senators still willing to vote for his acquittal.

Nixon told his associates and family of his dire situation, and resigned the following day.

This was all about Nixon’s involvement in the Watergate Scandal…which took place in June of 1972.


The scandal stemmed from the Nixon administration's attempts to cover up its involvement in the failed break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Washington, D.C. Watergate Office Building.  Nixon wanted to know the strategy of the DNC in regards to the election of 1972.

Five burglars, known as “the Plumbers” were caught and arrested for the break-in. Investigative reporters and members of the Justice Department connected the cash found on them at the time to Nixon's re-election campaign committee.

Senate Watergate hearings were broadcast nationwide and roused further public interest. Witnesses testified that President Nixon approved plans to cover up involvement in the break-in and had a voice-activated taping system in the Oval Office. 
 

Throughout the investigation, the administration resisted attempts to further the investigation, which led to a constitutional crisis.  The Supreme Court ordered Nixon to release Oval Office tape recordings to government investigators. The tapes revealed that Nixon had conspired to cover up activities that took place after the break-in and had attempted to use federal officials to deflect the investigation.  However, approximately 18 minutes of the tape was erased before they were presented to the Congress.

Several major revelations and egregious presidential action against the investigation later in 1973 prompted the House to commence an impeachment process against Nixon.

This was one of, if not the biggest political scandal to hit the Office of the President of the United States. 

Until…


On April 6th of this year, Democratic Representative John Larson introduced Articles of Impeachment against President Donald J. Trump.  Those Articles of Impeachment listed 13 different articles of which the President may be guilty.

Those articles range from alleging the President is guilty of initiating war against alleged drug runners from South American countries without providing concrete evidence, to include murder on the high seas and piracy.  This “war” as the President described it, was conducted without Congressional approval.  Many of the actions conducted in this “national security” war, was done in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  While the UCMJ provides the mechanism for prosecution, 18 U.S. Code § 2441 explicitly defines war crimes for American law, including: 
  • Breaches of the Hague Convention IV.
  • Grave breaches of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
  • Willful killing or causing serious injury to civilians
The Articles also give an explanation regarding the piracy of Venezuelan oil on the open seas, then the selling of approximately 500 million dollars of Venezuelan oil and depositing the money in a Qatar bank.  Additionally, the President sold another 500 million in Venezuelan oil, took the money from the Qatar bank and place approximately 1 billion in the Treasury of the United States.

The Trump administration sold seized Venezuelan oil primarily to Vitol, a Geneva-based commodity trading firm, and the Trafigura Group.  The first shipment was handled by Vitol, which is notable because a senior trader involved in the deal is a significant donor to Donald Trump's 2024 campaign. 
 
The Articles of Impeachment include Article XI: Flouting Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.  President Trump is signed an Executive Order declaring “birthright citizenship” to be null and void.  What the President really wants is to overturn the Supreme Court ruling of 1898, the United States v. Wong Kim Ark.  This would strip a certain class of people born within the jurisdiction of the United States to undocumented citizens of their citizenship.
 
However, I believe over turning the Wong Kim Ark case would give precedent for the President to re-write or delete, or erase any and all parts of the Constitution by Executive Order instead of using one of the prescribed methods outlined in the Constitution.  In other words, this ruling isn’t about “birthright citizenship”.  It is about consolidating the power of the government in one branch of government, the Executive Branch, thereby doing away with the 3 equal branches of our government system, along with the checks and balances of each branch of government we, as a nation, have enjoyed for 250 years.
 
Surprisingly, even though there is much speculation about invoking the 25th Amendment, or the impeachment of the President, I do not agree with the method the Congressman has introduced.  I would simply cite the President is guilty of “Abuse of Power”, list all of the alleged abuses and proceed from there. 
 
If one were to read the entire document of Congressman Larson,

https://www.congressgov/119/bills/bres1155/BILLS-119hres1155ih.pdf,
 
one may very well agree with my premise.  

In my mind, it would be far easier to convict on a single charge of Abuse of Power, than 13 different charges.

What I really wonder is…are there Republicans in the government much like Goldwater, Scott, and Rhodes who would make the trip to the White House and deliver the message as these three Republicans did?

 
I have my opinion, I hope you have one too!
 
 
 
0 Comments
<<Previous

    Archives

    August 2026
    July 2026
    June 2026
    May 2026
    April 2026
    March 2026
    February 2026
    January 2026
    December 2025
    November 2025
    October 2025
    September 2025
    August 2025
    July 2025
    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Blog
  • Press
  • Contact
  • New Page
  • Blog 3/11/25
  • 3/16