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.​

A Framework to Recovery

1/24/2026

0 Comments

 
Since the purge of “illegals” (I prefer undocumented citizens) has begun I have often wondered how it will end.
  

The question(s) that come to mind when I think about this deportation program happen to be:


  1. When the President leave’s office, will this action continue?
  2. When the funding for this program runs out in 3 years or so, will Congress refund the deportation action?  Currently, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act appropriated 170 billion dollars for over four years for enhanced enforcement, targeting large-scale removals.  That equates to roughly 42.5 BILLION a year for four years.
  3. What happens if the mid-term elections produce the Democratic party assuming control of either the House or Senate, or both chambers?
  4. Can the United States survive 22.5 years of political and civil unrest regarding undocumented citizens and the deportation action?
  5. Will the civil unrest cause the President to declare “martial law” and cancel the mid-term elections, thereby allowing his policy to remain in effect until the civil unrest abates and martial law is rescinded.
  6. At that point, would elections then be reinstated?
  7. Is all of this unrest a ploy to turn the United States into an authoritarian government and do away with the Constitution?
  8. Why hasn’t Congress offered a suitable path forward…something that every President since Clinton has indicated was sorely needed. 
  9. Is there a proactive avenue forward instead of the reactive avenue being taken?
 
With all of those questions looming and no answers being given, it requires one to speculate as to why? It appears Congress isn’t going to perform its Constitutional duty and produce a reasonable solution to this “illegal immigration” problem.  Congress seems content to allow the executive branch of the government to proceed with this deportation action that has created much civil unrest, death and injury, all in the name of removing the most dangerous and violent illegal citizens from the United States, all in the name of America First.

If Congress isn’t going to be part of the solution, then it is incumbent the citizens of the United States suggest possible solutions to this very emotional problem.  With that, I would like to propose this “framework” for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented citizens.  I believe it to be a bit of a compromise for both parties and will dial down the temperature of civil unrest in our nation.  One must have an open mind and be receptive to such possible solutions.

 
First and foremost, close both the northern and southern borders until the proposal is active.  By that time, hopefully Congress who is charged with the implementation of naturalized citizenship and immigration will develop some meaningful legislation, or just modify this proposed framework.
 
Second, develop a pathway for undocumented citizens to become citizens of the United States.  It is unreasonable for the nation to suffer civil unrest for an extended period of time to fulfill the dreams of a President and broken system of immigration. 
 
The framework for the pathway to citizenship would include:

1.  Make the immigration process free for those who are in this country.  The core government fee for U.S. naturalization (Form N-400) is around $710 to $760, with a $50 discount for filing online, though some can pay a reduced fee of $380 or get a full waiver if they qualify based on income or military service. The total cost can range from $800 to over $4,000 when including optional expenses like attorney fees (potentially thousands), document translations, travel, and passport fees, depending on individual needs. Those listed costs are for one (1) person.  A family of four could pay up to $16000 dollars to go through the process.  Those who come to this country “illegally” and take on low paying employment are generally are not in a position to pay that sum of money.
 
 
How do we know that?  It is a well-known fact those undocumented citizens take jobs that pay low wages.  Why?  Because, no matter what the low wage is to be, the US dollar is more powerful in purchasing power than the monetary system of the undocumented citizen’s country of origin.  Putting food on the table, paying rent, and the everyday expenses of utilities, clothing, take up most funds from those low paying jobs.  If that is the case, why would a family bother to enter into a pathway for citizenship that would cost thousands of dollars, when that money could be used for living expenses?  It is a matter of survival.

2.  For undocumented citizens to participate in this process, they must register with immigration services with the guarantee, those undocumented citizens who do not have any convictions from their country of origin will not be deported.  Those who do have a conviction for drugs, theft, violence (including murder), from their country of origin will be extradited (if necessary) or deported back to their country of origin without due process. 
​ 
 
In the event one member of a family falls into this category, the family will be required to decide to accompany the criminal back to their country of origin or stay in the United States.  This country is not a country that believes in the “corruption of blood” doctrine; those involved in a situation as suggested should have the opportunity to decide how the family wishes to move forward.
 
In the event there are undocumented children involved, those children would register to become citizens on their 18th birthday for the immigration program, similar to the Selective Service Draft registration.

3. Those undocumented citizens who choose to apply for citizenship through this program will have to prove of living in the United States for a minimum of 4 years.  Rental receipts, utility receipts, paycheck stubs, banking records and any other form of documentation that can prove the undocumented citizen has been in the United States prior to the enactment of this program should be accepted.  Should the undocumented citizen fail to register with DHS at the appropriate time, deportation will occur.  

In the event undocumented citizens have lived in the United States for less than 4 years, applications for work or student visas would be permitted with the caveat, registration for citizenship with the Department of Homeland Security be made when the 4-year residency requirement is met.  Should the undocumented citizen fail to register with DHS at the appropriate time, deportation will occur.

4.  The undocumented citizen must pass a written examination regarding the history of the United States, the structure of the government, its officials and their duties, and the Constitution of the United States in order to gain citizenship to the United States.  Written material for this examination will be provided by Naturalization Services once the applicant has been properly vetted and application for citizenship has been accepted.  Upon receiving the written material for the naturalization examination, the applicant will have 365 days to successfully pass the written test.  Failure to successfully pass this test will result in the expiration of the application for citizenship and the undocumented citizen will be deported.  The applicant may take the written examination as many times it takes to be successful.   

5.  The undocumented citizen must sign a loyalty statement to the United States.  As President Theodore Roosevelt said, “We have room for but one flag, the American flag….”.  This is a must.  This action is not demanding the applicant forego the traditions and culture of their country of origin.  Our nation is a “bowl of vegetable soup”, of many different cultures brought to this country through immigration.  While it would be permissible to fly the flag of the country of origin at the domicile of the applicant, under no circumstances will the flag of the United States be subservient to another flag, and the successful applicant must agree to loyalty to the United States.
 
While some may question the thought of making the immigration process “free” for those undocumented citizens now living in the United States, let me provide some numbers that may change one’s mind.
 
At the end of 2025, Homeland Security's deportation initiatives involved significant funding, with an estimated 170 billion dollars allocated via the “One Big Beautiful Act” for border and interior enforcement, including billions for ICE operations and detention.  The 170 billion was to be spread out over 4 years, amounting to about 42.5 billion a year.  (The January 2026 proposal to keep the government from shutting down at the end of January includes an additional 10 billion for ICE immigration operations.)
 
A report by the American Immigration Council estimated that a large-scale operation aimed at deporting one million people per year could cost $88 billion annually.  If this is correct, the allocation in the One Big Beautiful Act will produce a deficit of approximately 46 billion dollars a year for the federal government for the deportation action now being taken.

As of 2023, the estimated number of undocumented immigrants in the United States reached a record high of approximately 14 million, according to Pew Research Center data.  Other organizations, such as the Migration Policy Institute, estimated 13.7 million for the same period. This population, representing about 4.1% of the total U.S. population, grew by 3 million since 2019.
 
The New York Times on January 17, 2026, reported some 622,000 have been deported since Trump took office in late January of 2025.  I can’t disagree with his thoughts about ridding this country of violent criminals who have entered our country without proper documentation. To me it makes perfect sense, the United States is not a dumping ground for violent, undocumented criminals. 
 

However, if the current policy stays in effect, at the rate of deportation as it now stands, it will take approximately 22.5 years to complete the deportation of those the Trump administration deem “undesirable”.  22.5 years…let that sink in. 
 
Using the 42.5 billion dollars allocated in the One Big Beautiful Act as a baseline number for Department of Homeland Security deportation efforts, the total sum for deportation of undocumented citizens over 22.5 years would be approximately 956.25 billion dollars.  With our country now having a national deficit of approximately 39.5 trillion dollars, does it make sense to spend almost another trillion dollars the country does not have, to pursue deportation of undocumented citizens?  And who bears the hardship of paying for this policy…no one but the taxpayer.  I’m not in favor of spending that type of money when a more cost-efficient method would benefit the nation and the taxpayer.
 
I am not opposed to deporting criminal undocumented citizens who have come to the United States to live in the shadow of freedom and escape the judicial system of their country of origin.  The United States should not take on the problems of other countries.  But, guaranteeing those undocumented citizens a pathway to citizenship without prosecution or persecution by the federal government may be the only way to quiet the civil unrest we now see in our country.  From personal experience, I know undocumented citizens have a great deal of reluctance to come forward and provide information regarding living arrangements, physical addresses, phone numbers, believing that information would be turned over to Homeland Security.  Therefore, an absolute guarantee there will be no prosecution or persecution for those who voluntarily come forward to enter the pathway to citizenship program is a must.
 
This administration has said they will deport only the most dangerous and violent undocumented citizens first, but that is not true.  How is the federal government identifying whom are “illegal aliens” and who are violent and dangerous?  Many American citizens have been detained by ICE simply because they are not white.  Oglala Sioux tribal members, Navajo tribal members, a retired Coast Guard veteran, Hispanics who are American citizens have all been detained by ICE.  
 
I would like to believe if undocumented citizens came forward to enter into the pathway for citizenship, by the process of elimination, it would be that much easier to identify the most violent and dangerous criminals who have entered our country illegally and prevent the questionable behavior of the DHS officers who are attempting to detain undocumented citizens.
 
I also believe if Congress would implement some reform to the immigration process, the temperature in the streets, the civil unrest would subside considerably…otherwise it is possible more and more events like what has taken place in Minneapolis may very well take place in other parts of our country…which could be interpreted by the current administration as “domestic terrorism” or a civil war, in which the Insurrection Act would be instituted by the President (he has already said he is poised to invoke this Act) which would certainly result in martial law and quite possibly the suspension of the mid-term elections and elections to come.
 
Since Clinton’s administration, illegal immigration has been a concern of each presidential administration, yet, for some unknown reason, Congress has just “kicked the can” down the road. It is imperative Congress take up this problem and forge a reasonable solution.  Because if there isn’t a plan going forward, there are no answers to questions number 1, number 2, and number 3.

Someone in the room needs to act like an elected official and start to solve this immigration problem and mend the giant divide in our country.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


0 Comments

Critical Thinking versus Propaganda

1/16/2026

0 Comments

 

I grew up in the 60’s and witnessed a lot of things happening in our country; the protests over the Vietnam War, the race riots of 67 and 68, which included big cities burning; cities like Chicago, Cleveland, Washington D.C., Kansas City, to name a few.  We endured the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK jr.  I didn’t go, but Woodstock was in 69.  And, we all lived in the fear of the Soviet Union because we never knew what the hell they were going to do during the Cold War.  Afterall, Nikita Khrushchev's famous quote spoken in 1954, “We will bury you!”, carried a different connotation for many Americans.  Thankfully Khrushchev was deposed in 1964, but only after he tried to put Russian ICBMs in Cuba, which would have rained hell on the US.

The small town in which I lived provided me with ample opportunities.  I had the opportunity to hunt, fish, play sports, and had one hell of an education.  My graduating class of 68 people had three (3) national merit semi-finalists.  Our school had NO HONOR CLASSES, NO ADVANCED PLACEMENT CLASSES, just great teachers who had high expectations for their students and held each one accountable for their actions.  I should know about accountability, because in my senior year, along with some of my class mates, we wrote and published an underground school newspaper ridiculing one of the faculty members and damned near got expelled over it.  Not suspended, expelled.

I bring this to your attention because I wanted you to know where I came from and what I came from and why this entry will be about two things that are lacking in our society at the moment, in my view, critical thinking and the understanding of propaganda.

Critical thinking is important to a success of a democratic state, a thriving economy, for research and development in the medical field…the list could go on and on.  But the question that many cannot answer is what are the attributes or characteristics of critical thinking?  I was taught well in high school to acquire these characteristics…to acquire those characteristics because of the Russian propaganda that was being publicized on almost a daily basis.

And so, with that, let us examine the two points of emphasis for this entry…critical thinking characteristics and propaganda.

First and foremost, I asked two former colleagues whom are highly qualified to answer my posed question, what they believed critical thinking meant to them.  One colleague answered, “Asking questions that takes one beyond what is on the surface”, while the other colleague suggested, “When I think of critical thinking, analysis of the information presented is crucial. I know there are all kinds of characteristics involved, but I think of it as a lab experiment. You have to gather available information, identify what is real and what is false. I believe that you then must evaluate this information as to where it fits with what you know versus what you believe all the while knowing that you may be challenging your belief system. You have to be open-minded enough to process and accept or deny this new information. Bottom line, you have to use your brain and not your gut.”

After a deep dive into the internet to search for critical thinking attributes, I was provided with the following:

Core Characteristics & Traits
  • Inquisitive & Curious: Constantly asking questions, seeking deeper understanding, and staying well-informed.
  • Open-Minded: Willing to consider new ideas and different viewpoints, even those conflicting with personal beliefs, and change views based on evidence.
  • Analytical & Systematic: Breaking down complex information, identifying logical connections, and thinking through problems step-by-step.
  • Evidence-Based: Valuing credible data and evidence, and using it to support conclusions, not just accepting information at face value.
  • Skeptical & Objective: Questioning claims, identifying biases, and avoiding emotional reasoning or jumping to conclusions.
  • Clear & Precise: Striving for clarity, accuracy, and relevance in thought and communication.
  • Fair-Minded: Evaluating arguments and ideas impartially, understanding different sides without immediate dismissal.
  • Self-Aware & Humble: Recognizing personal limitations, biases, and the possibility of being wrong, and being willing to learn.
  • Persistent:  Continuing to seek truth and understanding, even when facing complex or ambiguous problems. 
Other Key Skills Involved Are:
  • Interpretation: Understanding the meaning and significance of information.
  • Inference: Drawing logical conclusions from data.
  • Evaluation: Assessing the credibility and quality of sources and arguments.
  • Problem-Solving: Developing strategies to overcome challenges.
  • Decision-Making: Choosing the best course of action based on analysis.
  • Explanation: Clearly articulating reasoning and conclusions. 
As a former classroom educator, I am aware of the Socratic Method of teaching.  Essentially, the Socratic Method requires the questioning of the individual’s belief until what is considered “fundamental truth is realized”.  Then the student or person will actually know why they know what they know.  It may be a slow, drawn-out process, but in general, it begins with “Why?”

As you may have imagined, that was part of my high school education.  The English instructors I had asked for our position in regards to Shakespear’s Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet, and then asked us to defend our position.  Our math instructors taught us how to create truth tables for a mathematical hypothesis to determine if the hypothesis was true or false.  For those who took chemistry, it goes without saying the experiments were done according to the scientific method, which requires many of the steps of critical thinking.

And yes, there were discussions, but a discussion regarding the thoughts of individuals that didn’t require an attack on the individual as in an ad hominem venture.  These events took on several of the characteristics listed above…in particular, being curious, open minded, and the possibility one may be wrong.  Very few times did ridicule or anger come from the discussions.
 
About now, you are probably asking yourself, what is the point of this…I don’t blame you, but be patient.

As I said, I grew up in the 60s, and there were many external factors that helped mold my belief system. The Cold War and not knowing what the Soviets were going to do was disturbing.  It was almost like looking over your shoulder, waiting for something crazy to happen.  We watched on tv the Cuban Missile Crisis unfold and it was impactful.  The war in Vietnam was brought into our homes every night on tv.

Our government and the press continually bombarded the American people with the latest propaganda from the Soviet Union.  I know what propaganda is and its purpose, but just to be sure, I did a deep dive into the internet to seek out characteristics of propaganda and its uses.  What I didn’t realize is that the concept of propaganda is used in a variety of ways…think advertising and marketing.  It is also used to express a vision for a company or even a nation.

With that in mind, let me provide you with the results of what I found regarding propaganda.

prop·a·gan·da /ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
noun
  1. information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a particular cause, doctrine, or point of view.
 
These principles describe methods used to manipulate public opinion, focusing on emotional appeals, repetition, and the simplification of complex issues. The summarized techniques include:
 
  • Lie Big: Using enormous falsehoods, as people may find them harder to disbelieve than smaller lies.
  • Focus: Keeping the message uncomplicated and ignoring complex context for mass appeal.
  • Repeat: Constantly repeating a simple message to build familiarity.
  • Blame: Consistently blaming and dehumanizing the opposition.
  • Provoke: Using outrage, fear, and resentment as motivators over rational thought.
  • Crisis: Framing issues as a matter of survival to create urgency.
  • Emotion: Appealing directly to personal feelings, which are harder to question than facts.
  • Pander: Flattering one's base and demonizing critics.
  • No Limits: Suggesting that the victor's morality is not questioned, implying that the ends justify the means. 
Core Techniques & Elements:
  • Emotional Manipulation: Aims to evoke strong feelings (fear, pride, anger, patriotism) rather than logical thought.
  • Simplification: Reduces complex issues to black-and-white choices or easy-to-digest slogans.
  • Symbols & Slogans: Uses powerful images (flags, uniforms) or catchy phrases to represent complex ideas.
  • Selective Information: Presents only facts that support the agenda, omitting contradictory evidence or the distortion of data.
  • Repetition: Repeats messages and slogans frequently to make them seem more familiar and believable.
  • Stereotyping: Labels groups or individuals to create prejudice or appeal to existing biases.
  • Name-Calling: Uses derogatory labels to discredit opponents.
  • Authority: Uses respected figures or experts to endorse an idea.
  • Band Wagon: Suggests everyone else is doing it, encouraging conformity.
  • Fear Appeals: Scares audiences into action.
  • Glittering Generalities: Uses vague, emotionally appealing words (freedom, justice) without concrete meaning

Just examining this information, it is relatively easy to understand how concern, consternation, and fear the Russians could impose on the American people in the late 50s and early 60s.  Our government didn’t outwardly call on a nationalistic sense from our people, nor was the term “patriot” bandied about as well.  But the idea of the US being a strong, determined nation was ever present.

Being an American History and Political Science major in college, I had to examine historical policy as well as political policy.  And to my surprise there was a bit of propaganda in both arenas.  For example, the Emancipation Proclamation tell us Lincoln freed the slaves January 1, 1863.  There is some truth to that, but consider this; the Confederate States of America didn’t pay attention to what Lincoln had to say.  The slaves of the Confederacy were not truly freed until the war was over.  If there were any slaves held in the United States, those slaves were freed under the Emancipation Proclamation.  A bit of historical propaganda.

As for political propaganda, consider the reason the United States was involved in Vietnam.  The main policy that led to US troops in Vietnam was the Cold War doctrine of Containment, specifically justified by the Domino Theory, which posited that if one Southeast Asian nation fell to communism, others would follow, prompting Presidents Kennedy and Johnson to escalate involvement to prevent South Vietnam's collapse.  Also included in this policy was the fact the US wanted to stop the spread of Communism to the United States.

Being a person who was somewhat curious and inquisitive I often asked of people how Communism, an ideology, was to float across the Pacific and somehow contaminate the beaches of the free and brave.  No one could give an answer.

At that time, I realized our government spins the narrative to fit its needs.  I believe that is something foreign to most Americans.  So, this “enlightenment” on my part caused me to become skeptical unless concrete evidence could be produced to support actions of our government.  In other words, I found it beneficial to ask for proof, to ask for evidence, to make my own decisions regarding actions of our government. 
 

I support the Constitution, the protocols laid out by the Constitution, the separation of powers of government, the idea of transparency in governmental policy, all the while knowing our government will not tell the public everything because the fear of setting off panic in our streets.  I get that.  What bothers me is at this very moment this administration is spinning the narrative so much, Khrushchev would be proud.

People who are critical thinkers are not wanted in the United States at this moment by this administration.  People who ask questions, namely the press, are castigated, called names, and ridiculed by this administration.  People who are analytical, who want some sort of evidence to support the narrative given by the administration are “blown off” by the administration.  People who want to be clear and precise, or have a clear, articulated, factual response to a simple question are ignored and given some spin of the narrative that supports the administration.
 

The narrative regarding Venezuela has unfolded and changed, there have been questions asked, but not answered.  The logic of the Venezuelan narrative has been unclear and questionable.
  

This administration originally told the American people the leader of Venezuela was part of a drug cartel that was running fentanyl to the United States in speed boats.  The fentanyl was killing Americans.  As a result, the United States Military began destroying boats suspect of running fentanyl to the United States.  The United States Military killed over 100 people while destroying over two dozen boats.  This was all done in the name of national security and protecting American citizens from Venezuelan President Maduro and his fentanyl.  Certainly, this illicited an emotional issue for many Americans.  As it turns out, the speed boats may have actually been transporting cocaine, destined for Europe.  No evidence has been provided to support the narrative of fentanyl being transported to the U.S. from Venezuela, other than what the administration has stated.  Contrary to this narrative, it has been widely discussed by this administration, the fentanyl was coming to the United States via Mexico, and that China was supplying necessary material for the fentanyl to be manufactured in Mexico. 
 

The United States Military also began to apprehend “sanctioned ships” who were transporting Venezuelan oil to other countries.  It would have been far clearer, if this administration had done what JFK did to Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis and placed a naval blockade on all sea traffic going to and coming from Cuba until the Soviets left Cuba, missiles in hand.  A naval blockade of Venezuela would have notified the entire world and American people the intentions of the United States; it would have stated credible data and evidence, and used it to support the conclusions of JFK’s administration.  Instead, the current administration has asked the nation and world to accept the narrative at face value. 
 

And as it has turned out, the end game of this policy seems to be the apprehension of Maduro, (some may call it a kidnapping because the United States has no jurisdiction in Venezuela), and the installation of another Maduro compatriot as the new President of Venezuela.  This United States has said we are now running Venezuela until it is appropriate to turn the reins of government back to Venezuela.  The American administration has invited American oil executives to the White House for a meeting to determine if the American oil executives are willing to go back to Venezuela and upgrade the infrastructure of the Venezuelan oil industry and begin to produce oil.  One US executive said he found Venezuela “uninvestable”.  Recently, this administration claims to have sold 500 million dollars of Venezuelan oil, and has stashed the money in a Qatar bank, to be controlled by the President of the United States.

It must be noted, that since the apprehension of Maduro, as of this day, January 16th, 2026, no more drug speed boats have been sunk by the American military.  None.  Let that sink in.  So, what was (is) then, the end game for the United States in Venezuela?

Now I call upon you, the reader, to become a critical thinker.  Review the characteristics of critical thinking and the characteristics of propaganda.  I want you to revisit actions by this administration that may have asked you to believe things at face value.  I want you to revisit the number of times this administration has called people derogatory names because they asked questions or denied the narrative being spun by the administration.  I want you to revisit questionable narratives this administration has spoken and printed.

I want you to think about Greenland.  This administration has said the United States needs Greenland for national defense.  That doesn’t make any sense.  Denmark and Greenland are members of NATO, and the United States has a military base in Greenland.  The United States has been given the green light to expand its military presence in Greenland by Denmark.  So why take Greenland?  What is the real end game?  Rare earth minerals?

I want you to think about how this administration has tried to control the press.  This administration has sued the New York times, Wall Street Journal BBC, CBS News/Paramount, ABC News and he Des Moine Register primarily for defamation, often over coverage related to his business dealings, political statements, or investigations into his activities.  This administration has tried to have late night talk show hosts fired for their satire and comedy regarding the administration.  All of this, and I mean all of this, flies in the face of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Finally, I want you to think about this quote from the President about deploying the National Guard to Chicago:  “I have the right to do anything I want to do.  I’m the President of the United States.”  If you know anything about checks and balances, the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the Constitution, does this statement ring true?

Be a critical thinker…our nation very much needs that at the moment.
 
 
 
 
0 Comments

One Must Think and Evaluate

1/7/2026

0 Comments

 
This entry will provide the opportunity of the reader to form their own opinion on the direction of the United States under the Trump administration in regards to foreign affairs.  While I understand the necessity of establishing spheres of influence to ensure our national defense is more secure, one must decide how a nation goes about establishing those spheres of influence. 

To establish those spheres of influence, the idea of imperialism and sovereignty must be defined.  From those definitions, a foreign policy, or, how one nation treats another nation, must be developed.  The development of that policy requires a nation to either respect the people’s ability of a nation to self-govern, or reject that idea.  

It must be realized one country’s culture, way of life, ideals, religion, governmental system may not align with another country, like the United States.  In a question, “Should the United States seek to change the way another country’s people live, if those people do not ask for help?”  In 1983, Grenada's Governor-General, Paul Scoon, secretly requested U.S. help after a coup, and the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) formally asked the U.S. to intervene to restore order and democracy in Grenada.  The United States responded to the cry for help.  This action helped to restore the United States “sphere of influence” in the Caribbean and gave notice to the world, the United States is still the policeman of the Western Hemisphere as delineated by President Theodore Roosevelt and the Roosevelt Corollary, which amplified the Monroe Doctrine of 1823.

Without question, imperialism has existed throughout the history of the world; there are many examples, and the United States exists only because the colonists broke from England because of its imperialistic methods.  Japan exerted an imperialistic movement in to China, Korea, and even Southeast Asia.  Today, Russia is doing the same in the Ukraine.

Fast forward to now…think Greenland, think Venezuela (other than the apprehension of Maduro), think Canada, think Mexico, think Colombia and all of the rhetoric that has been coming out of the White House . Just think about that…after you read the definitions of sovereignty, imperialism, sphere of influence, and the historical results of such. 
​ 
Should the United States impose its will on other countries in the name of national security?  Will the “acquisition” of Venezuela and Greenland increase national security or enhance someone’s deep pockets?

Maybe your opinion will differ from mine, maybe not.

sovereignty | ˈsäv(ə)rən(t)ē, ˈsävərn(t)ē | noun 
  • supreme power or authority
  • the authority of a state to govern itself or another state: national sovereignty. 
  • a self-governing state

imperialism | imˈpirēəˌlizəm | noun 
  • a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy, economic, or military force

sphere of influence sphere of influence (also sphere of interest) 
  • a country or area in which another country has power to affect developments although it has no formal authority
  • a field or area in which an individual or organization has power to affect events and developments

Political and Geopolitical Consequences
  • Arbitrary Borders: European powers drew national boundaries without regard for existing ethnic, linguistic, or cultural lines. This has fueled modern conflicts and civil wars in regions like Africa and South Asia as rival groups were forced together or unified communities were split apart.

  • Loss of Sovereignty: Colonized peoples lost their right to self-governance, often replaced by puppet regimes or direct rule from abroad. This legacy of political instability continues to influence modern international relations.

  • Global Conflicts: Intense competition between imperial powers for new territories was a major contributing factor to the outbreak of both World War I and World War II. 

Social and Cultural Consequences
  • Cultural Erosion: Western languages, religions (notably Christianity), and legal systems were often forcibly imposed, leading to the marginalization or erasure of indigenous traditions and identities.

  • Racial and Social Hierarchies: Imperial rule introduced rigid social structures based on race and class, frequently using "divide and rule" tactics that favored one ethnic group over another to maintain control.

  • Demographic Shifts and Disease: The arrival of imperialists often brought new diseases (such as smallpox) that devastated indigenous populations, while forced labor and migrations significantly altered the demographic makeup of entire regions

Economic Consequences
  • Resource Extraction: Imperial powers restructured colonial economies to serve their own industrial needs, extracting raw materials like gold, rubber, and cotton without significant reinvestment in local development.

  • Dependency and Trade Imbalance: Many colonies were forced into monocultures—growing a single cash crop (e.g., sugar or tea)—creating long-term economic dependence on global market prices and former imperial masters.

  • Destruction of Local Industry: Imperial policies often dismantled traditional handicrafts and indigenous industries to eliminate competition for manufactured goods from the "mother country
 
0 Comments

The Donroe Doctrine...are you kidding me?

1/4/2026

1 Comment

 
By now, it has come to most people’s attention, the United States apprehended the President of Venezuela and his wife.  Both were arrested and flown to New York City to be arraigned and imprisoned to await trial.  An indictment for Maduro charges him with being a narco-terrorist, conspiracy, drug trafficking, money laundering and corruption.  Maduro is accused of directing resources of Venezuela (armed guards among other things) to protect cocaine shipments, using his power of the state to facilitate drug operations…all of which appeared in a U.S. indictment issued in 2020.

At the time of the indictment, a reward of 15 million dollars was placed upon Maduro’s head.  As of August of 2025, that reward had grown to 50 million.

I cannot argue with the capture of Maduro.  Just as President Obama went after Osama bin Laden, using lethal force to dispose of bin Laden, President Trump had to use military force to apprehend Maduro and his wife.  According to Secretary of State Rubio, Maduro was given numerous options by the United States to leave Venezuela peacefully, but refused.  Only Maduro can answer why he didn’t take the opportunity to leave, and we can only speculate about this thought process.

However, there are politicians who are debating if the apprehension was a legal move by the President.  One may imagine President Trump’s answer for those who question his decision, but it wasn’t what was expected.  Trump claimed this action to be a legal apprehension of a criminal; the action taken because the opportunity was right.  But to do so required special forces of the military along with the destruction of Venezuelan military outposts as well as infrastructure. 

And therein lies the conundrum.

From the National Constitution Center

“Most people agree, at minimum, that the Declare War Clause grants Congress an exclusive power. That is, Presidents cannot, on their own authority, declare war. Although it is somewhat more contested among scholars and commentators, most people also agree that Presidents cannot initiate wars on their own authority (a minority argues that Presidents may initiate uses of force without formally declaring war and that  Congress’s exclusive power to “declare war” refers only to issuing a formal proclamation).

In modern times, however, Presidents have used military force without formal declarations or express consent from Congress on multiple occasions. For example, President Truman ordered U.S. forces into combat in Korea; President Reagan ordered the use of military force in, among other places, Libya, Grenada and Lebanon; President George H.W. Bush directed an invasion of Panama to topple the government of Manual Noriega; and President Obama used air strikes to support the ouster of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. Some commentators argue that, whatever the original meaning of the Declare War Clause, these episodes (among others) establish a modern practice that allows the President considerable independent power to use military force.

In general, most scholars and commentators accept that presidential uses of force comport with the Declare War Clause if they come within one of three (or possibly four) categories, though the scope of these categories remains contested.”
 

First, Presidents may use military force if specifically authorized by Congress.

Second, Presidents are thought to have independent authority to use military force in response to attacks on the United States.
 

Third, Presidents may use other constitutional powers – principally the commander-in-chief power – to deploy U.S. forces in situations that do not amount to war.


A fourth potential category is using force under the authority of the United Nations, which some commentators have argued can substitute for approval by Congress. 

And then there is the War Powers Act of 1973.

The War Powers Act (or Resolution) of 1973 is a U.S. law limiting the President's ability to commit troops to armed conflict without Congress's approval, passed after the Vietnam War to restore Congress's war-making authority.  It requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces and mandates removal after 60 days (with a possible 30-day extension) unless Congress authorizes the action. While intended to strengthen legislative oversight, its effectiveness and constitutionality are subjects of ongoing debate, with presidents often challenging its limits. 
 
Key Provisions
  • Notification: The President must report to Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities.
  • Consultation: The President should consult with Congress before introducing forces.
  • Time Limit: Military action must end within 60 days unless Congress authorizes it or declares war.
  • Withdrawal: A 30-day period is allowed for safe withdrawal of forces after the 60-day limit.
  • Congressional Authority: Congress retains its constitutional to declare war.


How did Trump justify this apprehension without consulting Congress?  The Secretary of State and President Trump both stated this wasn’t an attack on Venezuela, but indicated the Justice Department sought military assistance to apprehend Maduro, along with his wife.  In other words, the military was needed to facilitate the Justice Department’s desire.
 
Trump, admittedly did not consult with the Congress or Congressional leaders as required by the War Powers Act.  Trump said he didn’t have to because of the nature of the action…the apprehension of Maduro.  And our President also said he was afraid of leaks coming out of Congress if he did consult the members of Congress which would have caused the mission to fail.  

That is a fair assessment, but, as quickly as Trump has called people a traitor, i.e. Marjorie Taylor Green, Mark Kelly, among others, Trump could have easily told the members of Congress with whom he was to consult, if anyone leaks this information, you will be charged with “Accessory after the Fact”, because leaking the information could prevent Maduro from being apprehended.  

 
But Trump didn’t.  Why?  Because he either doesn’t trust members of Congress, or, in his mind there was no need to do so because this was a US Department of Justice operation and doesn’t fall within the War Powers Act.  Or, because no one in the government has stepped forward to challenge the President.  The Democratic leadership has spoken weak words; the Republicans have abdicated their Congressional power to Trump.  And the abyss grows deeper.
 
And, once again, therein lies the conundrum.
 
In the press conference held by the President following the action in Venezuela, Maduro was the subject of discussion, until the President added his comments about China, Iran, and Russia having interests in Venezuela.  In short, the President invoked the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which simply stated the Western Hemisphere was closed to future colonization by any country outside the Western Hemisphere.  During President Theodore Roosevelt’s tenure in office, the Roosevelt Corollary was produced which essentially said the US would be the “policeman” of the Western Hemisphere.  The statement of “Walk softly but carry a big stick” came out of Roosevelt’s desire to police the Americas.

The President has now renamed the Monroe Doctrine to the “Donroe Doctrine”.
 
From Newsweek
 
"The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we’ve superseded it by a lot, by a real lot," Trump said during a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida, in the wake of the  U.S.’s extensive operations against Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro in the early hours of Saturday. "They now call it the 'Donroe Doctrine."

"We sort of forgot about it — it was very important, but we forgot about it. We don't forget about it anymore," the President added. "American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again."
 
I don’t believe JFK forgot about it during the Cuban Missile Crisis or President Reagan when he was asked by the Prime Minister of Grenada to invoke the Monroe Doctrine and rid Grenada of hundreds of Cuban and Soviet personnel from the island.  And, I will speculate that foreign diplomats are aware of the Monroe Doctrine.  

So, when President Trump made the accusation of China, Iran, and Russia being involved with investments in Venezuela, and the need to rid Venezuela of those countries, the question that goes unasked is “Was this truly an apprehension of Maduro or a military action designed to activate a regime change in Venezuela and rid that country of China, Iran, and Russia thereby invoking the Monroe Doctrine?”  Secretary of State Rubio made several statements on Sunday morning television, “Meet the Press” and “Face the Nation” that the action in Venezuela was in the best interests of the United States national security, to apprehend Maduro and to rid Venezuela of China, Iran, and Russia investments and influence.

All of this is how the White House spins the story of the action in Venezuela.  The White House can unequivocably state we got our man (and wife).  We are willing to work with whomever takes the reigns in Venezuela…but what does “work with whomever” mean?  Does it mean we will work with whomever as long as whomever does what we want?  The White House has said it is only interested in providing stability, opportunity, and bring wealth to the people of Venezuela…but at what cost?  And to whom?

Trump is a transactional leader.  He has written a book in 1987 titled “’The Art of the Deal”.  He does little unless there is some sort of compensation in return.  We need to wait and see what that compensation may be.
1 Comment

The Navy Blue and Trump (Gold)

12/22/2025

0 Comments

 
The Brits built the HMS Hood
The Germans built the Bismarck
The Japanese built the Yamato

All big classic battleships thought to be the superior battleship. All are now resting at the bottom of the ocean, casualties of war.

Alfred Mahan wrote a book entitled The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783. It is an historical book detailing how the power of the navy created world powers. The book does make sense. Sea power is still a condition that allows nations to become world powers.

Today, President Trump announced a plan to construct a "Golden Fleet" to include the biggest and fastest battleships ever build by the United States.  But under the conditions in the modern era, is it wise to build warships that are subject to attack from various forms of weapons?

Even though it hasn't been spoken, there is a thing called "arms race".  It started back when the Brits were fighting the French and the Brits brought out the long bow, capable of piercing the armor of French knights.  As one may imagine, weaponry began to escalate and improve for centuries...because no country wishes to have inferior weapons.  How would a country defend itself with inferior weapons, or a lack thereof?  Think Ukraine.

The Falkland Islands War should be proof enough with old Argentine naval vessels being sunk by missiles fired from attacking airplanes. With guidance systems improving a great deal since the Falkland Islands war, Tomahawk missiles could be launched from hundreds of miles away to attack and hit the battleships Trump has green lighted.

We know this could happen because of American use of Tomahawk missiles in the 2003 invasion of Iraq during what was called "Shock and Awe". Guidance systems and weaponry has only improved in the last 20 years.

Would one honestly believe Russia and China will not try to counter-act the new proposed naval vessels by Trump?  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that question and the answer to it.

So build those ships bigger and better than anything the US has produced and call them "Trump Class" vessels. Build that Golden Fleet.  But will it be able to outrun incoming long range warheads? Will it be able to defend themselves should this happen? Will this turn out to be a huge waste of time, effort, and money?  Will it cost American sailors their lives?

I have my opinion....
0 Comments

Shoulder Taps

12/20/2025

0 Comments

 
Picture

​This entry will not have a thing to do with Washington D.C., the President, the situation with Venezuela…but I have been tapped on the shoulder to write this.

Recently, I received this “cartoon” via the internet.  I looked at it and thought, that is me.  That is how I came about my belief and faith in God…or Allah…or Yahweh…or Abba.  To me, even though the faith systems may be different, it all reflects in the belief of a Supreme Being, if you will…whom I call God.

My folks never took me to church.  My upbringing wasn’t fashioned in the thought of religion.  About the only “religion” I knew about was playing ball and trying to become better at my chosen sports.  As I look back on my early years as a teenager, I have often wondered about how great the improvement in natural talent would have been for me, and all others with whom I played, could have been with the technology now available.  I grew up in the era of “see the ball, hit the ball”.  That was my “religion”.

Along the way, friends of mine invited me to go to church with them.  And so, I did.  As a junior in high school, me and two of my friends decided to go to the local Methodist Church.  We attended regularly and even went to Sunday School classes until one day, our Sunday School instructor was upset that we posed a question regarding God and Science she couldn’t answer.  We were asked to leave and not return.
  
I have always been somewhat scientific in my thinking.  I understand what probable truth means and what absolute truth means.  I trusted the scientific method to provide answers…but absolute truth demands accepting the truth without proof…blind faith.  I wasn’t ready for that.

Another high school friend invited me to attend his church, the Church of Latter-Day Saints.  I thought it was a great idea, because of their youth programs and that church had the best-looking girls in town.  My faith didn’t grow, but I learned a great deal about the Mormon Church.  Some people consider that faith a cult; I would disagree.  Certainly, that faith system has some tenets unlike other faith systems, but all in all, in my opinion, it isn’t a cult.  (As it turned out, many years later, I would be invited to speak at a Farewell Sacrament Service for one of the missionaries who was called to a mission for the church.)
 
I met a guy in college, just by chance.  Pat Bonnet was his name.  If memory serves me correctly, he was a Canadian who happened to play college football.  Because of my past of playing football, we bonded.  Amazingly, Pat and I sat and he asked me about my “resistance” to accepting God.  I told him that wasn’t the case, I just couldn’t square it in my mind.  Then Pat offered this analogy, one that I understood.  Pat told me, just like your football coach in college who developed a game plan for the upcoming game, God has a game plan for you, but you don’t know what it is.  You just have to trust God.  Trust God.  That stuck with me.

I was married in the Episcopal Church.  That is what my bride to be wanted and I said yes.  Up until that time, I had no real affiliation with a church, and my faith was still a loose connection of yes there is a God, but…If it wasn’t for my wife, I don’t know if I would have been able to understand what some call the mystery of faith. 

Our teaching careers gave us the opportunity to move about to different areas of the state.  Some decisions were by choice, others not.  Between the desire to move from one locale to another, and the dreaded reduction in force…we picked up and moved.  But we always had a way to stay grounded by finding an Episcopal church.

We have been married for over 50 years, and have had the chance to reflect on our time together and events that took place for which there is no explanation.  It would be easy to say we have been blessed.  It would be easy to say we put our trust in God.  But, to me, that would just be talk.

Over the years, we have had the urge to help people out.  Where the urge came from, I initially didn’t know.  But one day I heard a cleric talking about “shoulder taps”.  It was explained as if someone touched you on the shoulder to do something to help a person.  I believe in shoulder taps and I believe those “shoulder taps” come from God.  So did the cleric.
  
And with that, I certainly believe God tapped my shoulder and provided divine guidance on numerous times…finding a woman who could put up with me for over 50 years, for a daughter who has put up with me her entire life, for a grandson that means everything to me, and for the life I have been privileged to live.

Included in my life, I have met many, many people who have enriched my existence.  I will not list names because there are far too many, but from the faculty at Holbrook High School to Carl Hayden Community High School and those in between, I have been led by God to meet some fascinating teachers and students and athletes.  I couldn’t be more grateful for the relationships forged by divine guidance.  

What I have learned is that one may not realize the impact faith in God may have had in your life, until you retrospectively examine your life’s journey.  I am of the opinion all people have had “things” happen in their life that are unexplainable.  I know my wife and I have had more than a fair share of those unexplainable “things” happen to us.  Some may call it a miracle, other, just say it must be fate, or coincidence.  I believe it to be divine intervention.

Some people have a “shoulder tap” to do something for someone and when asked, why, the answer sometimes is “I don’t know, I just wanted to do it”.  My assertion is God tapped your shoulder.

As I wrote earlier, I have been tapped on the shoulder to write this article.  With all of that being said, and this being the season of joy and love, please let me say “Merry Christmas “.  I hope you all have a day filled with happiness and love, and create memories that last a lifetime.




0 Comments

Aargh Matey

12/10/2025

0 Comments

 
As of today, December 10, 2025, the United States has entered into the business of piracy. 
​
President Trump has told the world we  “We’ve just seized a tanker on the coast of Venezuela, a large tanker, very large, largest one ever seized, actually,” Trump told reporters at the White House, later adding that "it was seized for a very good reason.”
  
Trump did not offer additional details. When asked what would happen to the oil aboard the tanker, Trump said, “Well, we keep it, I guess.”

One must ask…why did this event take place?

US Attorney General Pam Bondi offered “for multiple years, the oil tanker (the Skipper)  has been sanctioned by the United States due to its involvement in an illicit oil shipping network supporting foreign terrorist organizations.”

Am I missing something here?  The US military under the command of either the President or the Secretary of War, blows alleged drug running boats out of the water, killing over 80 people, because, as the President claims, the narco-terrorists are poisoning our citizens and we are now at war with them.  Yet, the US Coast Guard boards and seizes an oil tanker. 
 
The question that needs to be asked and answered is, “If the Coast Guard can board and seize a sea going tanker, why can’t the Coast Guard interdict, stop the “drug boats” and prohibit their distribution of drugs?
”
Piracy has been regarded as a crime on the open seas and is often a reason for war.  Think President Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates…think Somalia pirates…

The government of Venezuela has called this action blatant piracy on the open seas.  And in doing so, has stated the actions of the United States destroying “drug boats” is just a smoke screen for the real intended policy of acquiring Venezuelan oil and using force to remove Venezuelan President Maduro from office.

And there appears to be support coming from American lawmakers to the Venezuelan claim.  Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the U.S. seizing the oil tanker cast doubt on the administration’s stated reasons for the military buildup and boat strikes.

“This shows that their whole cover story — that this is about interdicting drugs — is a big lie,” the senator said. “This is just one more piece of evidence that this is really about regime change — by force.”

The irony of this event and the strikes on the “drug boats” is the President of the United States has cast himself as the Peace President.  It is well known he campaigned for the Nobel Peace Prize, which he did not receive.
  
However, President Trump received the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize.  The FIFA Peace Prize is a new, annual award, established in late 2025 by soccer’s governing body, to honor individuals who have made "exceptional actions for peace and unity," uniting people globally.  Some believe this award was used to placate the President, because of upcoming World Cup matches to be held in various cities in the United States.

And, to add to the initial irony of the moment, let us not forget, the Senior Little League team from Venezuela was not granted visas so the team could come to the United States and participate in the Senior Little League World Series.  Venezuela was on a list of countries with U.S. travel restrictions, linked to national security concerns under the Trump administration's policies.

The bottom line is self-revealing.  President Trump is committing the United States to armed conflict with Venezuela, WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.  It appears this is being done to remove Maduro from office in Venezuela.
​
Admittedly, the President may send troops to where ever by invoking the National Emergency Act of 1976, but must be specific in regards to why this needs to happen.  The main reason given by President Trump on January 20, 2025 was to strengthen the southern border.  Which, because of a broken immigration policy and system, needed to be done.  As of this moment, the immigration policy and system hasn’t received any serious overhaul from Congress, which is an enumerated duty of Congress in the Constitution.

I am of the opinion the President’s Executive Order did not include what is taking place in the Caribbean, the eastern Pacific, and with Venezuela, yet it is happening, either lawfully or not.

And, with all of what our nation has recently witnessed, does this behavior of the President qualify as “exceptional actions for peace and unity?"
​
I know what I believe…
0 Comments

Come on Supreme Court

12/6/2025

0 Comments

 
In recent months, our nation has heard the term “constitutional crisis” based on actions of the present administration.  In my view, this crisis is on the brink of either solidifying the rule of law in our country or destroying the Constitution, which would mean re-writing the pathway for American citizens and our system of government.

The Supreme Court has decided to take up the case of President Trump’s Executive Order regarding birthright citizenship.  In question is the first section of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  The first section of the 14th Amendment states:

Section 1.   All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

At question, is the President’s EO to remove the first sentence of this Amendment.  The argument that might be given, is this amendment was provided to ensure the slaves who were freed as a result of the Civil War (1861-1865) would become “citizens” of the United States, and that it no longer applies to our nation at this time.  However, it should be noted, this amendment to the Constitution is more than just citizenship.
  
The second sentence of Section 1 has been used numerous times to ensure equal protection to all citizens.  This amendment led to reversing the Dred Scott decision, was used in the determination of Brown v. Board of Education, key to the desegregation of schools, and was paramount in producing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

More importantly, and in my opinion, this action may bring the true light of the matter to the forefront is Section 3 of the same amendment.  Section 3 states:

Section 3.  No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

This section of the 14th Amendment brings to mind the action of then President Trump and his speech on the Ellipse of January 6th, 2021 urging his followers to “fight like hell”, telling the crowd if they didn’t, they would lose their country.  This took place immediately before the Capitol was put to siege by Trump’s followers…who were following his suggestion to “fight like hell”.

The Supreme Court has a decision to make regarding the power of the Executive Branch.  That decision to be made is, can the President eliminate a portion of the Constitution with the stroke of a pen?  

​By Executive Order, President Trump has indicated he wishes to restrict birthright citizenship.  The fact is, most all of the people in the United States born here, who are not children of undocumented citizens, could be subject to this EO.  So…would new born babies be subject to applying for citizenship to the United States?

More importantly, if the President can use an EO to change the Constitution, then, the President can make null and void Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, something that may or could prevent him from holding office.
  
The President could abolish elections; the President could play judge, jury, and executioner without regard to due process or the rule of law.  We are already seeing that played out with the sinking of alleged drug boats and narco-terrorists being killed
.  
The President could determine what would be the pathway forward for the nation and persecute those who objected to his desires.  We have seen the President revoke his endorsement of Marjorie Taylor Green, a devoted disciple of Trump, because she spoke out against the President; The President has determined Senator Kelly has committed sedition and should be hanged, all the while Senator Kelly just reiterated what is in the UMCJ and the DOD War Law Manual.

Or to be more outlandish, the President could declare the entire Constitution null and void and reconstruct the government as he or she wishes.

There is an amendment process as described in the Constitution.  The U.S. Constitution can be amended through a two-step process: proposal and ratification. An amendment must first be proposed, either by a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate or by a national convention called for by two-thirds of the states. Second, the proposed amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states, either through their state legislatures or through state conventions.
 
I am aware that Executive Orders have the same effect as law produced by Congress.  I am not aware of a portion of the Constitution stating the President can amend the Constitution by Executive Order.
  
Let us pray the Supreme Court understand what is at issue and denies the power of the President to change the Constitution with the use of Executive Orders.
 
 
 
 
0 Comments

Because I Said So...

11/23/2025

0 Comments

 

I have been accused by some of having a severe case of what is called TDS.  I thought maybe this was a psychological disorder, so I decided to research the condition known as TDS.  Here is what I found:

The term "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (TDS) was coined by conservative political commentator and editor of National Review, Jonah Goldberg, in 2010, years before Donald Trump's presidency. It was later popularized in political commentary to describe a supposed condition where political opponents have an irrational and extreme aversion to Donald Trump. The term is not a recognized medical diagnosis and has no specific doctor who developed it. 
 
Yet this term is thrown around when anyone may show displeasure with the President.  Now here is a question for you, the reader.  Do you suppose Marjorie Taylor Green has been told she has a case of TDS since her “split” from the President?  After all, the President has called her a “traitor”. 
 
Or is it a “go to phrase” for those who blindly support this administration?
 
I have my opinion…
 
I would like to continue this entry and write about and express my thoughts regarding the video made by six elected officials speaking to a camera and proclaiming military personnel do not have to follow unlawful orders.  The six legislators who appeared in the video regarding "lawful" (specifically, "illegal" or "unlawful") orders are all Democrats with military or intelligence backgrounds are:


  • Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.)
  • Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)
  • Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.)
  • Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.)
  • Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.)
  • Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.)

While this video may be considered controversial, it is accurate.  I have read portions of the Department of Defense War Manual and this is what I found under Title 18 of the same manual.

18.3 DUTIES OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 
Each member of the armed services has a duty to: (1) comply with the law of war in good faith; and (2) refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders to commit violations of the law of war. 

18.3.1.2 Practical Ways in Which the Requirement to Comply With the Law of War in Good Faith is Met by Individual Service Members. Individual service members are not expected to be experts in the law of war. The burden on individual members of the armed forces to know the relevant requirements of the law of war is addressed in practice through the following ways.
 
First, service members should receive training commensurate with their duties on the relevant requirements of the law of war. 

Second, law of war requirements have also been incorporated into domestic law, policy, regulations, and orders, which often are reviewed by counsel for consistency with the law of war.  Moreover, in most cases, the requirements and standards in applicable policies, regulations, and orders will often impose higher standards than the requirements of the law of war.

Third, when appropriate, service members should ask questions through appropriate channels and consult with the command legal adviser on issues relating to the law of war. 

18.3.2 Refuse to Comply With Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. Members of the armed forces must refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders to commit law of war violations. In addition, orders should not be construed to authorize implicitly violations of law of war. 

18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.  Similarly, orders to kill defenseless persons who have submitted to and are under effective physical control would also be clearly illegal.  On the other hand, the duty not to comply with orders that are clearly illegal would be limited in its application when the subordinate is not competent to evaluate whether the rule has been violated.

And, wanting to be as sure as I could be about this topic, I also read portions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Although the UCMJ doesn’t clearly state military personnel may disobey an unlawful order, what it does indicate is that it is the duty of the military to obey lawful orders.  This implies unlawful orders do not need to be obeyed.  This is written in Article 92 of the UCMJ.

Also, to clarify what an unlawful order is, it is described as a violation of the Constitution, laws of the United States, or regulations of the military, or if military personnel are directed to commit a crime or unethical act.

As one may imagine, this video sparked the ire of the Commander in Chief.  From USA Today, the President’s wrath was summed up in a late night posting on his Social Truth account.

“It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL,” Trump wrote.  “Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL.  Their words cannot be allowed to stand-We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET”

“SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!
” he added in a later post.

I have spoken with two Air Force veterans about this situation.  They expressed real concerns about this.  Both indicated that choosing to disobey an order that may be deemed unlawful could cost one a career, a livelihood, a dishonorable discharge, a mental scar.  Yet both veterans understood the consequence of obeying an unlawful order, something that may mar a person’s psychological make-up for years to come.  It seemed to me, both veterans were telling me there is no correct, moral answer.

In other words, one is damned if one does, and damned if one does not.

I completely understand; it would be a decision which could prove to be costly.

While the President has gone off the rails over this video, there is nothing wrong with what the six elected officials did.  First, all six exercised their 1st Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech.  Secondly, what was said by the six elected officials is correct.  So, unless I am mistaken, there has been no crime committed…unless one subscribes to the President’s angry posts on social media.

I have taken the liberty to research the speech of the President given on January 6th, 2021 while standing before a crowd on the Ellipse.  NPR has a transcript of the entire speech given by President Trump minutes before an angry crowd put the Capitol to siege.  I have included the site address for the entire speech; it is long and unjointed, but it will demonstrate the President has committed Seditious Acts and language…and in my opinion, even though he is exercising his 1st Amendment rights, his words sparked the attack on the Capitol.

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

During this speech, the President indicated he wanted Vice President Pence to violate his oath of office and the Constitution and not perform his duty of certifying the Electoral College Vote.  Pence said he would not do that.

During his speech, the President indicated there was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.  In fact, his inner circle of lawyers filed over 60 lawsuits in various jurisdictions regarding voter fraud.  Nearly all of those lawsuits were thrown out of court for a lack of evidence.

In an attempt to reclaim the Presidency, led by one of Trump’s lawyers, John Eastman, a plan was hatched to have Trump supporters sign an affidavit claiming to be the rightful Presidential Electors (and supporters of Trump) of certain states, and present that to Congress as the correct Electoral vote.  As we know, this attempt failed, led to Eastman’s disbarment in California, and litigation in Georgia and Arizona.

Finally, in Trump’s own words, during the speech on the Ellipse, he said, and I quote, 

“And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.

And I say this despite all that's happened. The best is yet to come.

So, we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.

The Democrats are hopeless — they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.”


In my view, asking the Vice President to violate his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution is similar to giving an unlawful order.  "Similar" is the operative word.  Filing over 60 lawsuits regarding voter fraud and having almost all thrown out for lack of evidence, isn’t illegal, but certainly brings forth the question regarding integrity and character.  

The so-called Presidential Electors conspired (felony) to steal (felony) the 2020 election for President Trump, and in a weird so of manner, he would be guilty of receiving stolen goods (felony).  

​And, just for the sake of mentioning the President’s remarks again…what does “And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore” illicit from the crowd on the Ellipse?  Violence at the Capitol…we all saw film of it; we all heard testimony of it.

Traitors?  Seditious behavior and speech?  Punishment by Death?  No, over 1500 Presidential Pardons by President Trump.

And, as for those six elected officials speaking about unlawful orders…other than what the President and administration has offered nothing more than “I said so”, what empirical evidence has the President and administration given to support the claim of “narco-terrorist” boats that need to be destroyed on the high seas?  Nothing!  Unlawful orders to commit murder?  We are not at war with the narco-terrorists because Congress hasn’t declared war, nor has the President asked for a declaration of war.
 
I stand with the six elected officials.  Their video did not say disobey an order; instead, the video said to military personnel, you are charged with the duty to disobey an unlawful order.  And the unlawful orders that may be issued?  

I have my opinion; I hope you have one as well.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0 Comments

Connect the Dots!

10/28/2025

0 Comments

 


FOREWORD

My career choice was education.  Along the pathway to earning my Bachelor’s degree, I was introduced to an item called “Bloom’s Taxonomy”.  A gentleman by the name of Benjamin Bloom introduced this theory in 1956 to aid instructors in developing lesson plans for their students.  The taxonomy divided the cognitive (the understanding of thought acquisition) domain into six strata, namely, knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.  The taxonomy was revised in 2001, but essentially just renamed the different levels of thought acquisition.  Most importantly, the cognitive domain focuses on intellectual skills and the development of critical thinking and problem-solving abilities.  Maybe that is why I think the way I do.
 
I am often amazed at people who have voiced their opinion (and that is their right to do so), based on a lack of fundamental knowledge of what one may speak.  Maybe it is just the inability to “connect the dots”.  It could be a lack of understanding about potential outcomes of certain actions or lack thereof, or the inability to see the “big picture”.  Maybe some people are just to consumed with some other aspect of life to see the big picture.  Maybe, it is the lack of critical thinking skills and the ability to evaluate what one knows. 
 
I wanted to teach US Government and History.  I wanted to provide an opportunity for students to gain an appreciation for our country, not only for those who went before us and laid the foundations of our government and country, but also for those who committed the ultimate sacrifice of giving their life for the benefit of our nation and country. 
 
I’ve visited Washington DC, walked the halls of the Capitol and soaked it all in.  l have been to Fort McHenry and witnessed one of the most emotional events of my life…the playing of the National Anthem after watching a documentary regarding the shelling of Fort McHenry and the writing of Francis Scott Key.  I’ve been to Philadelphia and visited Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell.  I’ve looked at the Declaration of Independence.  I’ve been to Gettysburg over a dozen times and each time I come away knowing those who fell, for either side, were committed to make life better for those who came after.  I’ve been to Antietam, walked the battlefield and crossed the Burnside Bridge over the creek that ran red from the blood of those fighting at Antietam.  I’ve been to Harper’s Ferry.  I have been to Pearl Harbor and the USS Arizona Memorial.  All of this was so compelling and I soaked up as much as I could to bring back to the classroom.
  
In the classroom, I attempted to provide for the student information from my personal experiences to make US History and Government more relevant, more interesting, more meaningful.  But nothing compares to the following:
 
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,…
 
Or this:
 
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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."
 
And the most powerful statement of all by Lincoln in his last sentence of his Gettysburg Address…
 
“…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.”
 
This quote of Lincoln, defines the core principles of democracy and remains a cornerstone of American political thought, asserting that the government's legitimacy and purpose derive from its citizenry.
 
I certainly believe that is a quality in which most Americans believe.  During government class, I conveyed to the students the value of the individual, not only in a personal manner, but in a political manner, particularly in voting.  I spoke about the power of the vote, as well as what a two-party system means for the United States.  I taught, inevitably, after an election, there is a party in control of the government (the majority) as well as a party not in control (the minority).  In doing so, I conveyed the importance of the concept of “Loyal Opposition”…the purpose being for the minority party to promote the viewpoint of the citizens of the minority party to the majority party in control with the hope that compromise could be reached.  I also included in my instruction when one party controls Congress, and the other party controls the White House, good things for the country and nation take place, because compromise is a must for progress to be obtained.  Above all, even though members of the two parties may have differences, they are not enemies, they are Americans.  And Sometimes, just sometimes…the members of opposite parties may even go to dinner together.
 
Introduction
 
In my research to provide a sound, logical argument for my articles, I came across a term of which I wasn’t familiar.  That term is “noncompetitive democracy”.  As I researched this idea of “noncompetitive democracy”, I was stunned.  In class, I often referred to this as authoritarian rule.  In class, I taught each modern-day government had three branches of government; the executive, legislative, and judiciary.  The difference between our system of government and others was the thought that those who were politicians in our government were chosen freely in an “open” election, while those in a totalitarian or authoritarian government were chosen in a “closed” election.   What I didn’t realize was how easily “noncompetitive democracy” could come about in a democratic republic much like the United States, without the use of force.
 
So, with that being said, let me provide a little light into this concept of “noncompetitive democracy” and allow you to arrive at some sort of a conclusion.  But before I proceed, please allow me to remind the reader of the definition of democracy.  

From the New Oxford Dictionary:
 
democracy | dəˈmäkrəsē | noun (plural democracies) 
  1. a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives; a Democratic Republic
  2. a state governed by a democracy
  3. control of an organization or group by the majority of its members 
  4. the practice or principles of social equality
 
A noncompetitive democracy is a political system that holds regular elections, but where the ruling party or leader maintains power through methods that prevent or severely limit genuine political competition. This contrasts with a healthy, competitive democracy where the transfer of power is a legitimate possibility for all parties. While a noncompetitive democracy may appear democratic on the surface, it functions as a form of authoritarianism.  Scholars on this subject use other terms to describe this phenomenon, including "illiberal democracy," "electoral authoritarianism," and "dominant-party system". 
 
Some of the academicians who have written on this subject include:
  • Ethan Scheiner: Scheiner, a professor at the University of California, Davis, wrote the book Democracy Without Competition. His work examines political systems where elections occur but are not truly competitive due to factors like clientelism, centralized financial structures, or long-term dominance by a single ruling party.
  • Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way: These political scientists introduced the concept of competitive authoritarianism, which is a hybrid regime that uses democratic institutions like elections but manipulates them to give an unfair advantage to incumbents. In their book Competitive Authoritarianism, they argue that these regimes are distinct from both full-scale democracies and closed dictatorships.
  • Rachel Beatty Riedl: As the Director of the Center on Global Democracy at Cornell University, Riedl studies the dynamics of democracy, including its erosion and variations. Her work, alongside other Cornell scholars, investigates democratic backsliding, a process where democratic norms and institutions are weakened.
  • Philippe C. Schmitter and Terry Lynn Karl: In their influential 1991 essay "What Democracy Is... and Is Not," they explored what distinguishes democratic from non-democratic rulers. They explained that while democracies depend on rulers, it is the norms governing their rise to power and accountability that set them apart from non-democratic regimes.
  • G. Hermet: As one of the authors of the 1978 book Elections Without Choice, Hermet's research addresses how regimes can hold elections without offering voters any meaningful choice, a core element of noncompetitive democracy.
  • Albert W. Dzur: In his 2018 book, Democracy Inside: Participatory Innovation in Unlikely Places, Dzur focuses on localized, grassroots democratic action. His work highlights that true democratic engagement can happen outside traditional competitive elections, which may or may not be truly representative.
  • Nicholas Murray Butler: Butler's 1907 book, True and False Democracy, provides a historical perspective on different forms of democracy. His work helps provide a backdrop for later, more modern discussions of noncompetitive systems
​
I became aware of these works while researching the topic.  One may ask if I have read these works.  The answer is no.  However, I trust the synopsis of each regarding noncompetitive democracy.  What I do find important is there are people who have written on the subject of  “noncompetitive democracy” as early as 1907; and all of these works point out how democracy as we know it is susceptible to change without the individual knowing it is taking place.

Again, one may ask, how does a democracy erode?  How does that happen?  

 
Chapter 1

Factors contributing to noncompetitive democracy
 
Political systems can become noncompetitive through a process of democratic backsliding, where a government gradually becomes more authoritarian over time.   How does that happen?  It may very well begin with a populist movement with ulterior motives.
 
  • Populist leaders: This type of leader may appeal directly to voters with populist anger and a strong ideological agenda, then use their mandates to dismantle democratic institutions from within.  To understand what this may mean, one must know what is a populist leader.  
    • According to the New Oxford Dictionary, the definition of populist is:  a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups

So how does this play out?  A populist leader will focus on issues that evoke latent emotional responses.  The issues grab the attention of the citizenry and cause the citizenry to become disenfranchised with the status quo…or in the government.  Drain the Swamp and Make America Great Again have been the slogans in recent history that have emotionally charged the voters of America.
  
It goes without saying, the American voter’s confidence in the ability of the national government (the Swamp) has waned over the last 25 years.  The blame has been laid at the feet of Congress and previous Presidents.  In his first campaign for the Presidency, President Trump used the slogan, “Drain the Swamp”, meaning, get rid of the then present-day legislators that created this lack of confidence in the government.  I can’t say I disagree with this.  Recently, there has been a great deal of support for term limits for the House and the Senate from the voters.  In fact, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has openly supported term limits for Congress and has advocated for a constitutional amendment to establish them.  DeSantis has called on other state legislatures to pass resolutions calling for a constitutional convention to draft such an amendment.  So far, no grass roots efforts regarding term limits has begun.  No Congressional action required to begin the amendment process of the Constitution has begun, and apparently will not.  The answer to the question, “Why not?” is simple.  Why would those in the Congress cut their own throat with term limits? Ironically, as of the year 2000, 15 states have imposed term limits on their respective state legislatures.  So much for draining the swamp…

In addition to the claim of inefficient government resulting in a backsliding of government, the size of the federal government,wasteful spending (which I don’t doubt), and bad programs for the United States, implemented by the Democratic Party when the Democrats were in control of the government, caused taxes to be high.  Along with this comes the assumption the federal government workforce has grown exponentially.  However, the federal government work force has grown by only 200000 civilian workers from 1975 to 2024.  That is a result of programs instituted by both the Democrats and Republicans, and quite possibly, because the population of the United States has grown from approximately 216 million in 1975 to about 340 million at the present time, an increase of about 124 million people.
​
During both of the previous campaigns for the Presidency, Trump also used the slogan, “Make America Great Again”.  This struck a chord with his supporters.  Trump pointed out that America’s demise was because of foreign aid policies, trade policies, and a lack of respect from around the world.  As for the MAGA concept, the proposal that America isn’t great, and, must be returned to its rightful place in the world is something that disenfranchised voters believe should happen.  But few Americans have asked, “When wasn’t America Great?”  Or, better yet, “Name a time when the United States wasn’t great.”

Ironically, the proof may very well be in the undocumented citizens that have entered into America to escape their station in life in their country of origin, in search for something better.  The proof may very well lie in that the number of foreign students studying in the United States.  An all-time high for international student enrollment in the U.S. was realized  in the 2023-2024 academic year.  Could these statistics be a fair indication that America is still a great nation and people come to the U.S. to better their life?

Immediately after the Presidential election in November of 2024, Trump declared, “America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate.”  Later, on March 26, 2025, Trump again said, “The American people have given us a mandate, a mandatelike few people thought possible.  We won in a big mandate. We won every swing state. We won by millions of votes.”  In reality, Trump’s popular vote victory was about 2.3 million votes out of approximately 150 million votes.


  • Political polarization: High levels of political polarization can lead voters to prioritize partisanship and ideology over democratic principles. This can create an environment where authoritarian figures find it easier to gain and maintain power.

This has been a problem in the federal government for years.  The two political parties have differences and try to persuade voters to the cause of their respective party.  However, at this time in modern U.S. History, the political rhetoric coming from the White House has been caustic and inflammatory at the very least.  President Trump’s  remarks frequently portray Democrats as a threat to the nation and responsible for political violence and government dysfunction. Trump has gone as far as to label the Democratic Party the “enemy from within” and “The party of hate, evil, and Satan.”  Not only is this dialogue divisive in nature, it causes the Democrats to respond with similar rhetoric, helping to divide the nation even more so and create a great polarized divide.   There is a preponderance of attitude of “if you are not with us, you are against us.”  And with this political divide and attitude, the concept of “loyal opposition” is disposed of, never to be seen or heard of again.  The concept of “loyal opposition” is paramount for a democracy to exist.  Truthfully, the concept of "loyal opposition" promotes respect and harmony; it does not promote a continental divide such as is seen now in Washington DC.
 
History teaches us that even the Founding Fathers didn’t agree on political philosophy, but they worked “to create a more perfect union”.  Adams and Jefferson are a great example of this.  Even though both had served the new nation in many capacities, they had different viewpoints on the identity of the national government.  As it was, because of the voting procedures during their times, Adams was chosen President and was a Federalist, while Jefferson was an Anti-Federalist and chosen Vice President.  Because of their political differences, the two men didn’t speak to each other for a lengthy period of time, but over time eventually reconciled their differences. However, their differences did not spill over to “close the government”.  Ironically, both died on July 4th, 1826.  Supposedly, Adam’s last words were “Thomas Jefferson survives.”  What Adams didn’t know was Jefferson had died a few hours prior.

There have been many times, the government has shut down because the two parties could not, or would not, compromise due to political ideology.  (The nation is experiencing that now with an historic government shutdown.) There are times when neither political party has trusted the other party.  And when the government is dysfunctional due to gridlock, the executive takes the reins of the government and expands what power is given to the executive office by the Constitution.  The executive office will seize the moment and by executive order, legislate his agenda.


  • Crisis exploitation: During a crisis, leaders may impose autocratic rules that are either disproportionate to the situation or remain in place long after the crisis has passed

A crisis, either manufactured or real, can create an opportunity for the executive branch to once again establish rules and regulations which may become part of a legal scheme or political agenda.  There will be no sunset clause on these rules and regulations unless stipulated, or until the executive branch declares the crisis or emergency over.  What crises have taken place in the last year?  Are these crises real or manufactured?

First and foremost, the mass deportation of undocumented citizens has taken the attention of the country by storm.  In performing this act, the legality has been questioned.  But, during President Clinton’s administration, a law was signed into existence, the “Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.  This law significantly expanded deportation powers and provided expedited removal procedures for a certain class of immigrants.  I would suggest if President Trump had indicated he was using a law put into existence by a Democratic President, the attitude of Americans may not have been so turbulent.  But he didn’t, and a national crisis evolved.  The strongarm action of the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Noem, as well as the White House border czar, Tom Homan, have not allowed a peaceful enforcement of the law to exist.  It also doesn’t help the situation when the President uses the National Guard in support of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to enforce his order to deport undocumented citizens. 
 
To exacerbate this situation, there have been legal challenges in the judicial system alleging the use of the National Guard is contrary to the Posse Comitatus Law, which prevents military personnel being used as law enforcement in a civil setting.  Some lower-level federal courts have provided judgments against the President, but, those judgments do not seem to mean much to the President and there is no way for the court to enforce their judgments.  In his defense, the President is splitting the proverbial hair, by insisting deployed military personnel are to protect federal buildings, and are only to support ICE and local law officials in enforcing and maintaining law, in particular the detainment of undocumented citizens. 
 
The President has also made wild claims about cities being a “hellhole” rampant with crime.  The President has suggested he would invoke the Insurrection Act and place military personnel in cities to enforce law, all of which is very legal.  However, two questions arise from this scenario: 1) Who determines what is an insurrection, and 2) If the President now considers what is taking place in Los Angeles, Chicago, Memphis, New York City as an insurrection movement…then what was the January 6th attack on the Capitol building by over 1600 people?
  
Another crisis, that in my view is far greater than illegal immigration, is the destruction of boats on the open seas by the US military.  Without offering any shred of evidence, the President has ordered the military to destroy seagoing boats which he declared are ferrying drugs and gang members to the United States.  As of today, October 24th, 2025, Department of War, Secretary Hegseth said the military had destroyed yet another drug running boat, the 10th such strike which killed six people.  Since these strikes have begun, at least 43 people have died.  Recently Secretary Hegseth ordered the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford and its strike group to deploy to the US Southern Command region to “bolster U.S. capacity to detect, monitor, and disrupt illicit actors and activities that compromise the safety and prosperity of the United States.”

At the best the President has said the United States is conducting covert operations in Venezuela, and that appears to be where the information regarding the drug boats and gang members is originating.  To make this crisis even bigger, the President has indicated he is considering a land operation in Venezuela, or other countries in Latin America to suppress the drug supply to the United States.  In either case, whether on land or sea, the actions of the President are an act of war, which requires Congressional approval.  Without it, the President could be considered a murderer and war criminal under international law.

Is stopping the flow of drugs and gang members the motivation or is there a bigger fish Trump wishes to catch.  China?

Just what do these very public crises do?  They take away the attention of the voters from what is really happening to their republic democracy…a subtle movement towards noncompetitive democracy.

 
Chapter 2


How can a competitive democracy can become noncompetitive


A competitive democracy can gradually backslide into a noncompetitive one through a process known as "competitive authoritarianism". This occurs when an elected leader, using legal and institutional levers, systematically weakens democratic institutions to favor the ruling party. The appearance of democracy remains, but its integrity is corroded, making true competition impossible.

Populism contributes to systematically eroding the institutions and norms that are paramount in a competitive democracy.  While populist leaders often rise to power through legitimate democratic processes, they use their positions to dismantle checks and balances, suppress opposition, and centralize power. 

First and foremost, the aim of the executive branch of the government is to undermine the checks and balances as established by the organizing document, the Constitution.  
 
  • Controlling the judiciary: Those politicians (all of them) in control appoint loyalist judges, weaken courts, or pack high courts to ensure favorable rulings and neutralize constitutional challenges

What we have witnessed in the United States in recent years is an attempt to control the Supreme Court by the Trump 1st Administration.  The Court has an abundance of conservative justices, many appointed by Trump during his 1st term in office, and have undone decades-old previous judicial decisions, with Roe v. Wade being the most controversial.  The Court has also ruled the President, when acting in an official capacity, has immunity from prosecution for his actions.  The caveat here is the phrase, “official capacity”.  Without the checks and balances the judiciary has on the executive branch of the government, the judiciary is terribly weakened.  The question that needs to be answered is, “Who decides what the definition of official capacity happens to be?”  With all of this being said, it is no wonder the President disregards rulings of lower courts, doesn’t adhere to precedent and protocol as established by previous Presidents, Congress, Judicial rulings, or the Constitution.  Why should he…he has immunity.

  • Weakening the legislature: The President may bypass the legislature by using executive orders or manipulate parliamentary rules to consolidate power. If the President’s party holds a large majority in the legislature, they can pass laws that benefit their party.

Since January of 2025, President Trump has signed over 220 Executive Orders.  The areas covered by the executive orders range from the mundane to the ludicrous, such as the renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.  Congress may not have been weakened by Executive action, but the government shutdown doesn’t allow for the Congress to perform it’s charged duties. 
 
At the moment there is a deep abyss between the Democratic and Republican parties over a “clean resolution” to fund the government.  The resolution has cut money from programs, namely health insurance subsidies, which the Democrats say is sorely needed by citizens throughout the country.  Without the subsidies, many of those who are enrolled in the Affordable Care Act, will see their insurance premiums skyrocket, causing many to go without health insurance.  Republicans counter with undocumented citizens receive benefits from Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIPS.  A dive into resource materials would indicate law prevents undocumented citizens from receiving those benefits.

To add more insult to injury, a duly elected representative from Arizona CD7 has yet to be sworn into office by the Speaker because as the Speaker states, he will do so when the government re-opens.  The representative, Adelita Grijalva was the winner of a special election that took place on September 23 of this year.  As of today, that was one month ago.  CD 7 in Arizona has been without representation in Congress since the middle of March, due to the death of Grijalva’s father, Raul Grijalva.  The Democrats point to the swearing in of two Republican representatives from Florida, Jimmy Patronis and Randy Fine was sworn in on April 1, 2025, within 24 hours after winning special elections in their respective congressional districts.

And the lack of government goes on until…?


  • Eliminating independent agencies: They attack regulatory bodies and other independent state agencies, replacing neutral experts with political loyalists.

The current administration has certainly weakened regulatory agencies in the federal government.  The President has appointed loyalists to posts throughout his administration.  The most important in my view is the appointment of Robert F Kennedy, Jr. as United States Secretary of Health and Human Services.  This position controls the Center for Disease Control (CDC) among other important agencies.  Kennedy, Jr. does not have any formal training in medicine or science.  Kennedy attended Harvard University, studying American history and literature; he graduated in 1976. After Harvard, Kennedy then studied at the London School of Economics. He then went to the University of Virginia Law School, graduating in 1981. In 1987, he received a master’s degree in environmental law from Pace University Law School in New York.
 
What makes this appointment so interesting to me is Kennedy was a Republican candidate for President during the 2024 Presidential campaign.  Kennedy announced he was withdrawing from the presidential campaign in Phoenix where Trump was holding a campaign rally.  Essentially, Kennedy was really a 3rd party candidate who was polling at about 3 per cent, which amounted to about 4.5 million popular votes, in the election won by Trump with about a 2.5 million popular vote difference.
 
As we know, Kennedy has caused many top flight experts at the CDC to leave their posts.  The complaint was Kennedy doesn’t follow or believe the science implemented by the CDC.  His stance about vaccines is contrary to the CDC.  (In my view, if an individual decided not to become vaccinated, so be it.)  But, if any argument can be made about the inefficiency of vaccines, one need not look any further than Jonas Salk and his vaccine for polio.  The U.S. military still requires troops to receive vaccinations, especially when deploying overseas, to protect against infectious diseases they may encounter. 

And let us not overlook the newly re-named War Department.  Pete Hegseth is now the Secretary of the War Department, formerly known as the Secretary of Defense.  According a published report, Hegseth is an author, former television personality, and former  Minnesota Army National Guard officer who has served since 2025 as the 29th  United States Secretary of War.  Hegseth is not a graduate of West Point, The Naval Academy, The Air Force Academy, The Coast Guard Academy, or The United States Merchant Marine Academy, but, rather Princeton where he studied politics.

In November 2024, President-elect Trump named Hegseth as his nominee for secretary of defense. During confirmation hearings, Hegseth faced allegations of sexual misconduct, financial mismanagement, and alcohol issues. Hegseth was confirmed by theSenate that month, with Vice President Vance casting a tie-breaking vote. It was only the second time in US history that a Cabinet nominee's confirmation was decided by a vice president.

During Hegseth’s short tenure, he has fired many top-level military officers.  He has questioned the physical conditioning of the military, while at the same time touting the ability of the American armed forces using his now famous acronym, “FAFO”.  Hegseth has required the Pentagon Press Corp to sign onto an agreement indicating no press releases could be done without prior authorization from the Pentagon.  Almost the entire Pentagon Press Corp left their posts, citing that type of order violates the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 
 
Currently, our military is destroying “narco-terrorist” boats on the open sea and destroying them.  That may be an admiral thing to do to protect American citizens from the poison of fentanyl and cocaine, but to do so without offering evidence the boats belonged to narco-terrorists leads people to question the legality of the action.  The President has said it is legal…but it violates international law.

Secondly, populist rhetoric thrives on creating a division between "the people" and "the elite," which leads to the delegitimization of political opponents. 
 
  • Demonizing the opposition: Populist leaders frame opponents not as political rivals but as "enemies of the people," part of a corrupt establishment that works against the nation's will.

There is a difference between insult politics and attack politics.  A big difference.  Insult politics isn’t new to the American political arena…but politicians generally stay away from attack politics.  Attack politics go after the person rather than discuss policy.  It is an ad hominem attack on the any challenger or opponent of the person in charge.  This just hasn’t happened during the present term of this administration.  In 2016, during the Republican debates, then candidate Trump said some things that caused members of his party to state they would not support Trump if he were to win the nomination.
  
From the European Journal of American Studies…

“In August 2016, Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) announced she would not support the Republican Party’s nominee for president, the former reality TV celebrity Donald Trump, because of his insulting rhetoric. Three months earlier, Rosario Marin, a longtime Republican who served as Treasurer of the United States in the George W. Bush administration, had said she could not support the nominee. Marin cited the nominee’s insulting rhetoric as the straw that broke the camel’s back. “He’s insulted me, the people I love, the community I represent,” Marin, the former Mayor of Huntington Park and Mexican immigrant, stated.  Collins and Marin were not the only Republicans to break ranks and refuse to support the controversial nominee. In fact, the list of prominent Republicans within the party openly refusing to endorse the nominee was considerable and included such party leaders as Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, and John McCain. While the breaking point for them differed, many explicitly cited the insulting or mocking rhetoric and politics of Donald Trump. “Donald Trump is beginning to cross a lot of red lines of the unforgivable in politics,” Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-Illinois) said in August 2016.  The insult politics of Donald Trump, however, was inseparable from his candidacy for president from the beginning. Going into the first primary debate, approximately two months after he announced his candidacy with an inflammatory speech in which he labeled Mexicans criminals, the New York businessman had already insulted the party’s 2008 presidential candidate, John McCain, going so far as to state that he “likes people who weren’t captured.”

“Mitt Romney had his chance to beat a failed president but he choked like a dog,” the Republican nominee of 2016 wrote on Twitter about his predecessor. “Lightweight Marco Rubio was working hard last night. The problem is, he is a choker, and once a choker, always a choker! Mr. Meltdown,” he wrote about his primary challenger Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida). “Truly weird Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky reminds me of a spoiled brat without a properly functioning brain,” he wrote after the first debate about another of his primary challengers.
​
Since that time, it has been observed how the now President Trump has used his inflammatory rhetoric towards the Democratic party as well as those whom he deems to be a challenger to his credibility.  As I have written, Trump has gone as far as to label the Democratic Party the “enemy from within” and “The party of hate, evil, and Satan.”  The New Yorker’s David Remnick points out, routinely Trump describes Democrats as “scum,” “vermin,” “animals” and “enemies of the people.”
  
These attack politics are not limited to the President.  After the assassination attempt of President Trump in Pennsylvania, Then Senator J.D Vance, issued this statement:  
“Today is not just some isolated incident,” the Ohio senator tweeted. “The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs. That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.”

Trump has gone as far as to say "I was saved by God to make America great again"  during his second inaugural address.  My guess, Trump believes he was “chosen to rule” by God, which makes him a Divine Right ruler.
  
Speaker Johnson holds Democrats responsible for the shutdown.  He argues the Democrats are the ones who have voted to keep the government closed.  The Speaker has said the Democrats are causing “pain and suffering” for the American public as they demand things like taxpayer-funded benefits for undocumented immigrants and spending on overseas programs, yet, it is a fact that undocumented citizens cannot receive federal benefits of Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, or ChiPs.  The Speaker has also criticized Democrats for "assaulting law enforcement officers," "embracing communists and socialists," voting to raise taxes on Americans at the "worst possible time," and voting against reducing government fraud and waste.

My point is none of this speaks to policy.  The attack politics drives a wedge between the political parties, between neighbors and friends.  It divides us.  What has happened is the vitriol has caused family members, friends, and neighbors not to speak of politics or policy because that subject is now emotionally charged.  Without conversation and the exchange of ideas among the public, as well as elected officials, can real progress be made if every move causes an attack on the person(s)  instead of policy?  I believe the answer to that is No!  What does happen is the leader of the party in control expands the power of the party in control, ignores the concept of “loyal opposition”, and because all of the chaos created by ad hominem attacks, the party in control, expressly the President, expands his powers while few if any notice.  If a person such as Rand Paul speaks out, his character is attacked. 
 
  • Using legal and state machinery against rivals: They can leverage control over state institutions to harass, intimidate, or prosecute opposition figures, weakening their ability to compete.

The current administration is using the Department of Justice to attack the President’s opponents, people the President considers “bad people”.  I would like to revisit what I included in a previous article for this blog.

"In September of this year, the Peace President sent a message to his Attorney General, Pam Bondi, on his Truth Social account.  Unfortunately for the Peace President and the Attorney General, the text message was made public.  Oops!
  
The post pressured Bondi to prosecute his political rivals, including former Trump appointee FBI Director James Comey, Senator Adam Schiff, and New York Attorney General Letitia James.  The message included the following:


  • "We can't delay any longer, it's killing our reputation and credibility".
  • "nothing is being done" against Comey, Schiff, and James, who he called "guilty as hell".
  • The Peace President cited his past impeachments and indictments, claiming they were "OVER NOTHING".
  • The post ended with a demand for immediate action: "JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!". "
 
As things played out, the U.S. attorney in Virginia, Erik Siebert resigned his position after receiving pressure from the Peace President to charge the President’s political opponents, because in Siebert’s words, there wasn’t enough evidence to gain a conviction.  Upon Seibert’s resignation, Bondi installed Trump's former defense attorney, Lindsey Halligan, an insurance attorney, as an U.S. attorney in Virginia to advance the cases.  Comey and James have since been indicted and both have plead not guilty to the alleged crimes. 

And, another foe of the Peace President, former Trump appointment for National Security Advisor John Bolton has also been indicted.  The indictment accuses Bolton of illegally transmitting National Defense Information by using personal email and messaging application accounts to send sensitive documents classified as high as Top Secret.

Personally, I don’t believe the President is done prosecuting his critics.  I believe, if the President could have it happen, Liz Cheney, Senator Adam Schiff, and Adam Kinzinger would be next in line to have the DOJ investigate and bring charges against them.  That would be interesting…

These actions exemplifies using the legal system to intimidate or prosecute political opponents or critics.  In doing so, others will not step forward to serve in government because of the threat of prosecution. This weakens the strength of the democratic democracy we have learned to love.  This type of action suppresses dissent.  This type of action promotes “you’re with us or against us” behavior.  More importantly, the rhetoric of demonization and action of harassment discourages opposition and reduces the space for legitimate political disagreement.  
 

Chapter 3


Lastly, while elections may continue, populists work to corrupt the process to maintain power. 
 
  • Casting doubt on electoral integrity: Populist rhetoric often claims elections are rigged or rife with fraud, even without evidence. This erodes public trust in the electoral process itself and primes supporters to reject unfavorable results.
 
Our nation has already seen this play out.  After the election of 2020, the President claimed he lost because the election was rigged and fraudulent.  Time and again the President said the election was stolen from him by the Democrats and “Sleepy Joe Biden”.  Over 60 lawsuits regarding voter fraud were filed in various jurisdictions and none saw the light of day.  Almost all were dismissed because of a lack of evidence.  

The President had his own “electors” in Arizona.  In April 2024, an Arizona grand jury indicted 18 people for their involvement in efforts to fraudulently overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election after Democrat Joe Biden won the state by around 10,000 votes.  That case has been handed back to the Arizona Attorney General by an Appeals Court.  Michigan, Nevada, and Georgia all had similar cases.
 
Some GOP held states petitioned to have voting machines audited because the claim was either faulty equipment, which had been certified to properly operate, or, software that was designed to give Biden votes instead of Trump in the 2020 election.  Those audits proved little, if anything.  However, President Trump announced plans to sign an executive order ahead of the 2026 midterm elections to eliminate mail-in ballots and electronic voting machines, claiming they are corrupt.  Legal experts have stated this is outside the power of the Executive branch.
 
There have been allegations by some Republican talking heads that as many as 2.7 million undocumented citizens voted during the 2020 election.  No real evidence has been provided or found.  As one may be aware, only citizens of the United States can vote in federal elections.  At the moment, a voter must prove citizenship for a federal election by affirming their U.S. citizenship under the penalty of perjury.  State laws may require other specific documents. However, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, which has survived the House, proposes to require documentary proof of citizenship nationwide for all federal elections.  At this time, the Republican held Senate has not acted favorably to this proposal.  The proposal would require voters to provide any of the following documents to prove citizenship.
 
  • A valid US passport
  • A certified US birth certificate with a valid government issued photo ID
  • A REAL ID compliant driver’s license that indicates the applicant is a citizen
  • A military ID card, along with service records indicating the applicant was born in the US
  • Naturalization or citizenship certificates
 
The SAVE Act cannot be viewed as corruption of the election process.  It is well within the federal government’s privilege to require this type of proof of citizenship for federal elections, but it is the state’s responsibility to facilitate election(s).  
 
However, the damage has been done.  There is a public lack of trust in the voting process now.  The President wants paper ballots and the results the day after the election.  Let me remind the reader approximately 150 million votes were cast in the 2024 election and the PROJECTED results were reported during the evening of the election and early morning of the next day.  As one may imagine, hand counting 150 million votes cannot be completed in less than a 24-hour period.  The Arizona official results were not certified until November 25 of 2024.  The 2024 presidential election formally ended when Congress officially canvassed each state’s electoral votes on January 6th, 2025.  And that date, January 6th, 2025 shall go down in history as a very dark day for the United States.
 
Interestingly enough, the GOP didn’t claim voter fraud at the conclusion of the most recent presidential election.
 
  • Manipulating electoral laws: They can change voting rules, engage in gerrymandering, or weaken electoral commissions to tilt the playing field in their favor.

In a word, gerrymandering Congressional Districts (CD) is used to benefit a candidate or party.  It is not illegal as determined by the Supreme Court.

From PBS News…


The Supreme Court, in a 2019 case originating from North Carolina, ruled that federal courts have no authority to decide whether partisan gerrymandering goes too far. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “The Constitution supplies no objective measure for assessing whether a districting map treats a political party fairly.”

And so, what the US in now experiencing is a re-drawing of CDs in the state of Texas to garner five more Republican seats in the House.  This comes at the direction of President Trump.  In response to this action, California, has taken up the task to re-district to benefit the Democrats (5 seats) and Virginia are also re-districting for the benefit of Democrats as well (2 to 3 seats).  Missouri and North Carolina have re-districted to provide one Republican seat from each state.  There are numerous other states waiting to take up arms to do the same...Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Illinois, New York and Maryland to be precise.

One may ask why all of this is taking place in the middle of a decade, when redistricting normally takes place after the national census at the end of a decade.  The answer is really an attempt by the President to keep the MAGA party in control of the government.  In the foreword of this article, I mentioned our country has lost the concept of “loyal opposition” in our political structure.  By gaining an undeniable advantage in the House of Representatives, the MAGA Republicans would virtually eliminate a dissenting view point, and with that, quite possibly eliminate any political adversaries.

If that should happen, our democracy as we know it would turn into a noncompetitive democracy with a controlling party free to do what it wishes.

Listed below are some well-known models of “noncompetitive democracy”.
 
  • Mexico under the PRI: The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) controlled Mexico from 1929 to 2000. Despite holding regular elections with other parties, the PRI maintained power through clientelism and control of key institutions.

  • Hungary under Fidesz: Observers have pointed to Hungary's long-governing Fidesz party and its leader, Viktor Orbán, as an example of competitive authoritarianism.
    • https://ecfr.eu/publication/the-orbanisation-of-america-hungarys-lessons-for-donald-trump/
      • For those interested the above publication is a great read provided by the European Council on Foreign Relations.  It truly provides insight into “noncompetitive democracy”, aka, authoritarian rule



  • Russia under Vladimir Putin: Russia has been described as having a "managed democracy" where, even if elections are held, the outcome is controlled by the Communist party.  In my view, this is classic totalitarian government.  
 


Chapter 4


By dividing society into "us versus them," populism increases political polarization and erodes the societal norms necessary for a functioning democracy. 
 
I believe all of the following to be true:
 
  • Undermining democratic norms: Populist rhetoric often disregards democratic norms like compromise, tolerance for opposition, and respect for minority rights. This raises the stakes of political competition, as opponents are seen as moral enemies rather than legitimate rivals.
  • Fueling social divisions: Populist leaders can stoke existing ethnic, racial, or religious cleavages to create a unified base of support, often at the expense of marginalized groups.
  • Weakening civil society: Populist governments frequently try to control or suppress civil society organizations, such as non-governmental organizations and universities, that might otherwise serve as a check on their power.



What is abundantly true:
 
  • Starting in President Trump’s first term, his appointments to the Supreme Court virtually allowed him to “influence” the entire judiciary system.  As a result of this, The Supreme Court has given the President “immunity” in any action he performs in an official capacity.  In other words, the President has free reign and can ignore the Constitution.  Because of this, the checks and balances written into the Constitution to keep the three branches of government separate but equal no longer exist. President Trump has shown a disdain for the protocol and accepted procedures established by the Constitution.  In an interview with Kristen Welker, Trump was asked if he would support the Constitution, his response was “I don’t know.  I have lawyers to do that”.
  • President Trump has categorically weakened the Legislative Branch. 
    • The use of tariffs to regulate commerce is the enumerated power of Congress as stated in the Constitution.  Yet, the President is placing high tariffs on some countries, while placing smaller tariffs on other countries.  The President has recently stopped trade discussions with Canada.  This falls under the charged duty of Congress.  
    • The President has given the military permission to destroy alleged “drug runner boats” on the open sea.  This amounts to a declaration of war on the country of origin for those destroyed boats.  The destruction of these alleged boats have resulted in the death of approximately 40 people.  At best, the President could be considered a “war criminal” and as Senator Gallego from Arizona said, “It’s murder”.  The President has also floated the idea of a ground strike in Venezuela…which would require a declaration of war from Congress.  
    • At the direction of the President, certain appropriations by Congress have been withheld.  This is contrary to the Impoundment Act of 1974.
    • The President has accepted a $400 Million-Dollar 747 jet from the country of Qatar, without asking for permission to do so from Congress, as required by the Constitution.  The Emoluments Clause in the U.S. Constitution prohibits federal officials from accepting "emoluments"…gifts (money, office, or other benefits) from foreign governments or the U.S. and state governments without congressional consent.
  • The President has weakened regulatory agencies of the government.
    • The President has stacked his cabinet with somewhat unqualified people.  I dare say, when RFK, Jr. is the Secretary of Health and Human Services and has no background of study in medicine or science, that is a problem.  Early in his second term, the President called his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, a “liar” when she gave an intelligence report on Iranian capabilities to produce weaponized uranium.  The Secretary of Homeland Defense, Kristi Noem, has spent more money on tv commercials, (over $200 Million Dollars) trying to convince undocumented citizens to peacefully leave the country.  Not that it is a requirement of the office, but Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of War, did not attend any military academy to study the art of war.  He served in the Minnesota National Guard and was a tv personality.
  • The President has demonized his political opponents and critics.
    • This began with the Republican Presidential debates during the 2016 campaign and continued after Trump won the nomination.  “Lock her up”, referring to his opponent, Hillary Clinton and her alleged crimes, became a rally cry of the Trump campaign.  Since then, as it has been written in this document, Trump has continued to demonize his Republican colleagues, the Democratic party in general, and the leadership of the Democratic party.  Some have called it the “blame game”, as the President has taken little to no responsibilities for his failures.  An example could be the failed Summit Meeting with Putin in Alaska.  It produced nothing.
  • The President has weaponized the DOJ against his opponents and critics.
    • The President’s text message to Attorney General Pam Bondi as mentioned in this document is more than enough evidence to support this statement.  The President has sued the New York Times for $15 Billion Dollars for defamation.  The suit was tossed out of court, but Trump refiled an amended lawsuit for the same amount. 
  • The President has cast doubt on the integrity of elections.
    • It is well known that the President filed over 60 lawsuits regarding voter fraud in the 2020 election.  The President said the election was rigged, that he was cheated out of being re-elected.  Many states audited their election processes as well as election equipment.  Nothing was found.  But, the fear of a rigged election now permeates every election.  What I find interesting about the claimed fraud in the 2020 election is the scope of the conspiracy needed for the 2020 election to be rigged.  As Rod Serling would say…”Imagine if you will...”
  • The President is trying to manipulate electoral laws.
    • At the urging of the President, Republican states, in particular Texas, has redrawn the boundaries for Congressional Districts to seemingly acquire five seats in the House of Representatives that could produce five more Republicans to serve in the House.  Democratic held states are now redrawing their Congressional Districts to countermand what the President wants.  All of this amounts to nothing more than gerrymandering and voter suppression.
  • The President is a transactional leader.
    • In other words, he speaks of “the deal” instead of using “agreement” or “compromise”.  The idea of the deal gives the impression of “What’s in it for me (or America?)?   The President has recently made an offer to several universities to have expedited access to funding if they supported his political agenda.  At this time, I am aware of no university that has accepted his offer.   A transformational leader makes everyone around him become a better asset to the government.  A transformational leader listens to his advisors; the transformational leader trusts his advisors.  A transformational leader lends itself to creating a harmonious work environment, something sorely needed at the federal level.  This is quite the opposite of a transactional leader.
  • The crises our country is experiencing at the moment are both natural and manufactured.
    • The mass deportation of undocumented citizens has caused bigotry and hatred to rise in the nation.  For many years the US has fought to end bigotry, to expand civil rights.  The mass deportation of undocumented citizens is totally legal, but, if transparency had been offered as to why it is legal, I am of the opinion this “crisis” resulting in the mobilization of the National Guard may have been averted.  Had the President told the nation he was using a law signed into existence by Democratic President Clinton to expedite the deportation process, I believe the nation would have been more agreeable.  Many would not like the deportation order, but I believe many would have understood the order.
    • The President has used the term “woke” to demonize groups he doesn’t like.  What I find interesting is the definition of “woke”.  According to Webster’s Dictionary, the term simply “means aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues especially racial and social justice.”  I suspect many are not fully aware of this
    • The tariff war being waged by the President will eventually hurt our economy, unless some agreements (not deals) are reached with our trade partners.  As we know, the President has changed his tariff policy with some countries time and again.  And for what reason?  The recent cutting off trade discussions with Canada because the President didn’t like a commercial produced by Ottawa, Canada using President Reagan’s words to bring doubt to President Trump’s tariffs is nothing more than giving Canada the middle finger salute.
    • The open sea destruction of alleged “drug runner boats” resulting in the killing of individuals without offering evidence of the claims levied by the President leads to uncertainty.  The idea of striking Venezuela to prevent drugs from coming into the United States is an act of war, and the President has said he may have to go to Congress to get approval.  My question is, “What is the difference between destroying Venezuelan boats on the open sea and striking the homeland of Venezuela?”  I am confident there may be more to this than drugs.  China?
  • Finally, many elements of Project 2025 are subtly being implemented by this administration.    
    •  As the public takes issue with the aforementioned crises, few if any notice the “backdoor” application of Project 2025 to our nation’s government.  Many of the authors and contributors of Project 2025 are members of the cabinet, and select advisors to the President.  THE major purpose of Project 2025 is to expand and consolidate power in the executive branch of government, which is a major component of “noncompetitive democracy”, or authoritarianism.  In doing so, Project 2025 wishes to use the power of the executive branch of government to implement right-wing policies. Project 2025 calls for installing people into the federal government who are loyalists to the President, instead of people of merit and expertise.  Project 2025 calls for the elimination of DEI practices; it calls for a rejection of green energy policy and a return to fossil fuels.  Project 2025 calls for a reduction of taxes on corporations.  Project 2025 recommends the arrest, detention, and mass deportation of illegal immigrants and deploying the military for domestic law enforcement. The plan also proposes enacting laws supported by the Christian right such as criminalizing the sending and receiving of abortion and birth control medications
 
  • Including those appointments previously mentioned in this article, the people who either authored or contributed to Project 2025 and have been included in President Trump’s leadership team are:
 
  •  Russ Vought: Co-author of the "Mandate for Leadership" and now leads the Office of Management and Budget.  Vought wrote a chapter in Project 2025 outlining plans to overhaul the executive branch and refocus federal agencies to serve the president’s agenda.
  • Christopher Miller: Wrote the chapter in Project 2025 on the Department of Defense.  He was Trump’s Secretary of Defense during the last months of Trump’s first administration.  Miller is a contributor to Project 2025 and has said that a national service requirement should be "strongly considered" to create a sense of "shared sacrifice" among young Americans. Other Republicans have also endorsed mandatory service
  • Adam Candeub: Wrote a chapter scrutinizing the Federal Trade Commission.  Candeub is Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, performing the delegated duties of the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information. 
  • Stephen Miller: Senior advisor for Project 2025 and a key figure in drafting the Project 2025 playbook.  Among other things, Miller is currently the Homeland security advisor.
  • Tom Homan: Was a contributor to the immigration policy laid out in Project 2025.  Homan was appointed border czar in the new administration.  
  • John Ratcliffe: Was a contributor to Project2025 and was appointed Director of the CIA.
  • Brendan Carr: Contributor who Carr's main contributions to Project 2025 include authoring the FCC chapter of Project 2025, and implementing its agenda as FCC Chair, focusing on issues like investigating media bias, reforming tech regulations, and promoting national security and economic growth.  Carr leads the Federal Communications Commission. He has taken action to launch investigations into broadcast networks for political bias and to roll back regulations on broadband companies. 
  • ·Ben Carson: Contributor credited with recommendations for Housing and Urban Development.
  • Paul Atkins: Was a contributor to 2025 and is a member of Donald Trump's team, serving as the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

The title of this article is Connecting the Dots…and there is a reason for that title.  I am asking those of you who have read this epic installment of simmyblog.com, to think about what has been written…it is factual in nature, and “connect the dots” to determine if you, the reader, believes there is more than a subtle movement to shift from our democratic republic form of government into a noncompetitive democracy.  One, where a dominant party will rule because of the factors that have been defined and examples thereof.

With all due respect to former Northern Arizona University professor Dr. William Strauss, “the supposition being”, should the executive branch become the most powerful branch of government, and the party of the President controls both the judiciary and legislative branches of the government, to produce legislation to favor the party in control, will that not move the United States into a “noncompetitive democracy”?  This doesn’t reflect well on the eloquence of Lincoln’s phrase …” and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
 
The final question that needs to be answered is, “What would Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and John Kennedy say about the current trend in American politics?”  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0 Comments
<<Previous

    Archives

    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