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.​

Rule of Law

4/15/2026

0 Comments

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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



 




 
 
 
 
 
0 Comments

Are There Three?

4/12/2026

0 Comments

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Until…


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create.

3/31/2026

0 Comments

 
You, as the reader,  may be thinking this will be another entry about the actions of the government, or lack thereof, but you would be wrong.  I’d like to write about the public education system, of which I spent 30+ years of my life, living my dream.

Since the mid 70s, the public education system has been under constant attack.  From the press, to the politicians claiming to be the education politician and fix what was wrong, to those who championed “schools of choice” because public schools were bad.  Certainly, there were studies completed that indicated public education was failing and the system needed to be overhauled.  There were many suggestions from the politicians to “fix” the problem…but what was overlooked was the lack of educational experience the politicians had in regards to classroom management, appropriate curriculum, cognitive development of students, and external factors that all contribute to success or failure of a student.  No law can address these aspects of public education.

It is my opinion that what has changed the public education system for the worse is the change in educational philosophy of the nation, i.e., what should be taught in the classroom and school.  
There seems to be a public outcry about what is NOT BEING TAUGHT in public education…but is that clamor understanding of the elements that have brought about what David Berliner called in his book, “The Manufactured Crisis”.

Few people understand the purpose of education; few understand the funding of education; few understand why there has been a rush to privatize public education.  Consequently, the public wants many different things taught in school but do not realize the constraints on public education.  For example, there is only the possibility of 24 class offerings, in a 4-year high school program that operates on 6 class periods a day.  That’s it…24.  Each state has its own requirements for high school graduation. In the State of Arizona, state requirements are a minimum of 22 credits, including 4 English, 4 Math (Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, +1), 3 Science, 3 Social Studies (History, Govt/Econ), 1 Fine Arts/CTE, and 0.5 Physical Education, plus 6.5 electives. Students must pass the Civic Test with a grade of 60% minimum and complete an Education Career Action Plan (ECAP).

An Education and Career Action Plan (ECAP), something I never experienced, is a personalized, living document—often an electronic portfolio—used by students (typically grades 6-12) to align their academic coursework with future career goals. It helps students map out postsecondary plans (college, trade school, military, or work) while documenting progress, skills, and extracurricular activities.  What I find most interesting about this is, kids as young a 12 are being asked to make life determining decisions…and we know those plans are going to change for some based on a myriad of reasons.  There is research indicating many people leave their chosen field after a few years of on the job.  That includes college graduates.
 
Gone from the curriculum is Wood shop, Auto shop, and traditional Home Economics which all introduced students to the possibility of a career in the trades.  Even Home Economics taught mundane subjects like sewing and cooking which might spur on students to aspire to be chefs or clothes designers.  There is now a wave of people asking why teaching students about insurance,  how to fill out a tax return, how interest rates affect prices of every commodity needed….in other words, Consumer Math, isn’t part of a high school curriculum.  I don’t disagree, it should be, but to get qualified people to teach this is another constraint on public education.
 
And yes, there are some areas of school curriculum that need to be revisited with open eyes.

 
In a traditional sense of curriculum in the high school setting, and just examining what takes place in my State of Arizona, is it feasible to teach World History, or US History, or Government and Economics in the timeframe given?  For example, how many centuries of World History…since the time events have been chronicled, must be taught in 180 days of an academic year?  ( Honestly, the school calendar may state 180 days, but when state mandated testing, district testing, student registration take place, the number really dwindles to anywhere between 165-170 days of instruction.  And that doesn’t take into consideration any staff development days as well.)  The United States will celebrate 250 years of existence, but that doesn’t take into account from the time Roanoke Island colony (1585) was founded until 1776 and the Declaration of Independence.  How is the history of our nation to be taught in 180 days of an academic calendar?  And, as for teaching government and economics in a 90-day academic semester, which both are now at the forefront of everyday life…the task is overwhelming.    
 
Does one realize the evident problem here?  Some would recite the buzzword phrase of “less is more”, in other words delete some of the less important material.  What happens to be the less important material?
  
If certain portions of the World History were to be omitted, is it possible the public would really understand the ongoing problem in the Middle East.  It has only lasted for about 2000 years and numerous Crusades.  Would anyone know about the lead up to and results of the Civil War, let alone, Manassas  1 and 2, Antietam, Gettysburg, Vicksburg, R.E. Lee, Grant, Sherman?  Would students understand the difference between a democracy, a totalitarian, or a monarchy government.  Would students know about the invisible hand Adam Smith wrote about, or the means of production, Gross National Product, or inflation, and what is a depression?

These are the problems I faced when I was in the classroom, just as those who came before me and certainly after me did as well. And yet, education, and in particular, faculty members, are blamed for trying to do the almost impossible.

Does the same apply to other facets of the curriculum?  Yes.  I cannot help my grandson with his math homework.  Why?  The methodology is different from what I learned.  And the process is what is being graded, not the end result of the correct answer.  In the early 1950’s the Russians taught Algebra to kindergarten students, who, could accurately answer algebraic problems.  But the underlying problem to all of this was the Russian students did not know the value of 1…what 1 meant.

Science is everchanging because of research.  I have no problem with that happening, BUT at what point does the scientific research and technology overtake the basic learning blocks of scientific knowledge the student needs to learn about what has been uncovered or developed by scientific research?
  

Computer science has been integrated into high school curriculum.  I taught at a school that had the best computer instructors and resources in the greater Southwest.  This is a needed part of curriculum, but there is a caveat regarding this subject.  Should the student rely on a computer to “think”, as in AI…Gemini, ChatGPT, applications like those, or does the student develop critical thinking skills needed to evaluate situations and solve problems?  

Let me suggest business has had hand in the changing of educational policy in our nation claiming that students are not prepared to enter into the business world.  Here are my thoughts regarding this.

The question that should be asked is, “Why isn’t business training their workers, instead of arguing public education should do so?”  Answer: Ready to work in the business industry.  But what does that mean?  The answer is required to be defined to help public education improve.

If the answer of that very important question is read, write, mathematics, and think critically, then what are the decisions makers doing to promote that?  And then the question that needs to be asked and answered is, “Just what in the hell are we doing?”

What this argument really does is benefit business, because big business doesn’t have to or want to spend time and money training, orienting, new hires…and this means more profit for big business.  The argument is for the advantage of business.

If those who make educational policy were serious about improving public education, those making the decisions need to understand the inherent problems of education.  Decisions made in the past have not taken in to consideration time constraints and increasing the work load of both students and faculty members (for whatever reason) and not producing students who can approach the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. 
 

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a theory of learning with six levels of cognitive development.  They are from lowest to highest, Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create. This theory REQUIRES students to be able to read, write, and perform mathematical problems.  It REQUIRES students to be creative and critical thinkers, all of which are needed to be a contributing member to society.  What this theory doesn’t do is produce students who can immediately step into a career of financial planning, or being an electrician, or being a plumber, or a policeman, or fire fighter.  And therein lies what I consider to be the crux of the matter for big business.
  

But what this theory does, is hopefully prepare a student to be able to make decisions based upon their educational experiences in the classroom.  Namely, Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create.
  

That is my opinion…something I had over thirty years of experience to consider…




 
 
0 Comments

Not an April Fool's Joke

3/31/2026

0 Comments

 
Tomorrow, April 1, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States is scheduled to hear arguments of the Trump v. Barbara Case.  This is not an April Fool’s joke.

This judicial review is centered on the January 2025 Executive Order (EO) signed by President Trump to limit the citizenship of children born in the United States to undocumented citizens living in the United States.  

Historically speaking, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was to grant citizenship to slaves freed by the end of the Civil War, who were not born in the United States.  Since that time, the 14th Amendment has always been interpreted to mean anyone born in the United States is a citizen of the United States.  The President doesn’t believe that to be what the 14th Amendment was meant to address and he wishes to change the decades old meaning of it.
  
The motivation for the President’s action is unclear, and apparently undefined.

In my opinion, there is a bigger question this court case represents.

Constitutionally, there are four methods to amend the Constitution.  All four methods require the use of the Congress and States. 
 
The four methods for amending the U.S. Constitution are:
  1. Proposal by Congress & Ratification by State Legislatures: The standard method where 2/3 of both houses of Congress propose an amendment, and 3/4 of state legislatures ratify it (used for 26 amendments).
  2. Proposal by Congress & Ratification by State Conventions: 2/3 of both houses of Congress propose an amendment, and 3/4 of special state conventions ratify it (used only for the 21st Amendment)
  3. Proposal by National Convention & Ratification by State Legislatures: 2/3 of state legislatures apply to Congress to call a national convention for proposal, and 3/4 of state legislatures ratify it.
  4. Proposal by National Convention & Ratification by State Conventions: 2/3 of state legislatures apply to Congress to call a national convention for proposal, and 3/4 of special state conventions ratify it.

Should the Supreme Court rule in favor of the President, the Court will have opened the door for the President to change, alter, amend, or possibly do away with any part or the entire Constitution.  In other words, the four methods of amending the Constitution are all but gone and forgotten.

There have been many unfounded charges that the President may run for a third term.  When asked about a 3rd term, the President has been vague about his candidacy.  Clearly, this is defined in the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution, which permits a President to serve two fully elected terms (8 years) or a maximum of 10 years.

The President wishes to impose federal regulations on the states who have the responsibility to carry out elections.  This is part of the controversial SAVE ACT.  By the terms in Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, of the Constitution referred to as the Elections Clause, indicates that state legislatures will establish the times, places, and manner of holding elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate, subject to Congress making or altering such state regulations (except as to the place of choosing Senators).   The Supreme Court has interpreted the Elections Clause expansively, enabling states to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns.
​
The Presidential EO to change the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the possibility of a third term, and the changing of Article 1 Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution are some of the changes the President wants to take place, but obviously, these changes are in conflict with the supreme law of the land, the Constitution.

All of this is possible should the Supreme Court agrees with the President in Trump v. Barbara.  The States and Congress may no longer hold the power to change or add to the Constitution because theoretically, the President could over-rule any decision by Congress or even the Supreme Court by EO.  In other words, the power of the government will rest solely with the President who can just about do what he wants.  That isn’t an elected President, that is a dictator.


This country was based on the premise of what President Lincoln said in his famous Gettysburg Address,  “Of the People, By the People, For the People “.  It would be a shame to have the voice of the people not heard by the President.

That is just one man’s opinion…mine.  I hope you have one too!
0 Comments

The Day I look forward to

3/26/2026

0 Comments

 
Every time MLB Opening Day comes around, I get excited.  Another season, happiness as my favorite team wins and sadness when the season concludes.

I am now in the throes of introducing my grandson to the art of hitting and throwing.  I enjoy it very much, I hope he does as well.  We went to a spring ball game recently and as an 8 year old, Miles watched the game with great intent.  Maybe, just maybe the bug of the best game on Earth will bite him.


Please allow me to repost my thoughts about Opening Day from about a year ago.  Near the end of this entry is a thought written by one of my friends who has experienced baseball for most of her life.  My friend's husband played while attending BYU, her boys played in a university setting, her grandsons played at a university setting.  She knows what she has written to be true.

And once again Dad, thanks for the introduction.



Even though I have white hair and am long in the tooth, there are some things I can remember from my very early years.  One of them was watching baseball on tv at my grandmother’s house.  The tv screen wasn’t very big in those days, and the picture looked eerily similar to the early green screens of early computers.  But there he was on the screen, wearing number 7.  I remember looking at my grandmother and asking how my dad was on tv, playing baseball, and not at work.  You see, my dad wore number 7 for the baseball team of Carpenter, Illinois, which played every Sunday during baseball season.  The player on tv, wearing number 7, as I learned later, was none other than “The Mick”…Mickey Mantle.

My dad introduced me to baseball.  He played every Sunday when it was baseball season in Carpenter, and our family went to watch.  My dad and I played catch on occasion.  I think the last time that happened I was about 12.  He told me if he saw me throw a curveball, he would quit playing catch.  About the only thing I can remember my dad giving me advice about the game was when I was in high school.  “If you are the leadoff hitter, most pitchers like to throw the fastball on the first pitch of the game.  Be ready for that, and if you like the pitch, jump on it.”

As a young adolescent, one did what one could to practice baseball skills.  In those days of the 50’s, there weren’t batting cages, just as there wasn’t a place to take fly balls.  So, we improvised.  Our playground became the road in front of the house.  Old baseball would have an “Eye bolt” inserted into it and have a length of rope attached to the “eye bolt”.  One person would swing the ball in a circle and the rest of the group would take batting practice in that manner.  What really happened was a bunch of kids learned how to hit from both sides of the plate, because when a person batting right-handed hit the ball, the path of the ball would reverse, and consequently everyone hitting had to turn around and hit left-handed.

We played baseball games in the street.  Bases might be a spot on a sidewalk, a set of steps leading up to a house.  There was no catcher’s gear, so the catcher played back from the plate as to not get hit with a foul ball.  I don’t remember ever breaking a window…and the word “CAR” meant get out of the road.

My first MLB game was at Old Sportsman Park in St. Louis.  The Cardinals were so bad at that time, the team had placed on the hand operated scoreboard, “If anyone catches a foul ball on the fly, you can have a tryout with the team”.  At 7 years of age, I was in no danger of catching a foul ball.  But I immediately became a lifelong StL Cardinal fan.

I became so enchanted with the game; I decided to make the game part of my life’s work.  I became a high school baseball coach, and was blessed to coach many, some who were good, some not so good.  But it was for the love of the game.

As Opening Day comes on March 27th of this year, I would like to leave this statement which came from a close family friend, who is the wife of a baseball player/coach, whose sons grew up to be baseball players and coaches.  I think it says it all.
 
"Ball" is not a game. It's a philosophy. Ball forms you. Ball leads you. Ball points the way and you follow. Ball shapes your values and it develops your character. Ball makes you well-rounded and gives equilibrium to your days and nights. If you work at it hard enough, ball becomes a set of principles that guide your decision making. Ball teaches you to love, to forgive, to breathe deeper, to think. Ball connects you to a spiritual language that only other "ballers" speak. Ball is handed down; it is bequeathed. Ball is the cushion that catches you when you fall and it's the wings that make you soar.

Thanks dad, for the introduction, and GO REDBIRDS!

 
0 Comments

Passing Thoughts

3/15/2026

0 Comments

 


At the outset of the current administration the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was established to ferret out wasteful spending and downsize the government.

As of spring 2025, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk claims to have identified $105 billion to $160 billion in potential savings. However, these figures are not independently verified, and analysis suggests the actual, documented savings are significantly lower, with estimates ranging from $1.4 billion to roughly $8.5 billion.  Hundreds of government employees were also terminated.
 
Reports in November 2025 indicated that DOGE was dismantled eight months ahead of its planned July 4, 2026, charter end date.
 
And now, it is been recently reported the Department of War under the leadership of Secretary Hegseth spent a record $93.4 billion on grants and contracts in September 2025. This "use-it-or-lose-it" spending spree included roughly $22 million for steak and lobster, $225 million on furniture, and $1.8 million on musical instruments.  

So, if DOGE was created to stop wasteful spending and possibly fraud…why not just return the 94.3 billion to the general fund.  Rib Eye, lobster, crab legs….are they part of the military MREs?  For you older vets…C-Rations.

So much for wasteful spending.


President Donald Trump publicly contradicted Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard regarding Iran's nuclear program on June 17, 2025, dismissing her assessment that Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon.  Gabbard is the Head of the NSI which oversees ALL of the intelligence agencies of the US.  If Trump wasn’t listening to Gabbard, who then, was he with in consultation?
 
On June 22, 2025, President Trump ordered the bombing of Iranian sites capable of producing enriched uranium needed for the production of a nuclear weapon.  The President proudly claimed the sites they “obliterated” in June of 2025.
 
President Trump has announced to the nation the reason for war in Iran was because Iran was about 2 weeks away from possessing a nuclear weapon.    (If the sites were in fact “obliterated” how did Iran rebuild the facilities quickly enough to produce enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon so quickly?)
 
According to Larry Nutter, graduate from Northern Colorado…

How long it would take to enrich uranium to make a nuclear bomb is entirely dependent on how many centrifuges are being used and correct operation of the equipment. If an operation had one centrifuge, it would take many lifetimes to produce enough fissile uranium to make a nuclear bomb. Iran was operating about 18,000 first-generation IR-1 centrifuges and about 1,000 second-generation IR-2 centrifuges. It had also accumulated a stockpile of roughly 7,000 kilograms (about 15,430 pounds) of low-enriched uranium (under 5%) and about 200 kilograms (440 pounds) of 20% enrichment uranium. To be weapons grade, the U-235 content of uranium has to be 80%+. Creating at least 55 kilograms of 80%+ from almost 20,000 would take several months. Modern nuclear weapons based on uranium typically use uranium enriched to 90% to 93% U-235, which is known as weapons-grade uranium, for the primary fuel. Making weapons grade uranium is a very difficult process.
 
In later statements, the President would say Iran was on the verge of having built missiles of mass destruction and it would benefit all if those missiles were destroyed.  The President also added that Iran was planning on taking over the entire Middle East.

So which is it?  Nuclear weapons, missiles of mass destruction or the take-over of the Middle East by Iran?  Maybe all…who really knows?

And just for another passing thought…

 
Why would the President prepare to send an expeditionary force of 2500 Marines to the Middle East (Iran) if he was only considering “boots on the ground?” 
 
U.S. President Donald Trump told Reuters on Thursday, March 5, 2026, the United States must be involved in choosing the next leader of Iran.  Trump said in a ‌telephone interview that he thinks the next leader of Iran is unlikely to be the late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's son, who has emerged as a frontrunner to succeed his father.
 
And the Iranians chose whom to be their next leader?
 

0 Comments

Peace President

3/8/2026

0 Comments

 
Rather than spend a great deal of time trying to write my concerns about our Peace President, I thought I would use this space to highlight the accomplishments of our Peace President by providing this read, which to me, is really revealing.

But before you click on this link, please keep in mind our Peace President has established his Board of Peace, with himself as the chairman, and invited selected countries to join his board at the cost of 1 billion dollars each.  So, that may be a step in the right direction.


While I may agree with the recent war with Iran, if the reason for the war is truthful.  But in the President’s own words, when describing an earlier strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, the President claimed the facility was “obliterated”.  For those who need clarification about the word “obliterated”, it means to destroy utterly; wipe out.

If I am not mistaken, the President has offered Iran would have a nuclear weapon in “two weeks” as a reason to attack Iran.

Please utilize the link provided, it is really a good read.

https://www.cfr.org/articles/guide-trumps-second-term-military-strikes-and-actions
​

And after reading this article, help me understand how our President qualifies for the Nobel Peace Prize.

I have my own opinion…do you?
0 Comments

If It Were That Simple

2/19/2026

0 Comments

 

The ancient Greek Hippocrates is credited with saying "Desperate times call for desperate measures".  I am becoming more in tune with that statement, and with that I would like to present a case for impeachment of not only the President, but for Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth as well.  If I believed there was more concrete evidence other than hiding behind the curious statement of “an ongoing investigation”, I would include Attorney General Pam Bondi.  The Department of Justice has not complied with the law regarding the disposition of the Epstein Files in a timely manner, nor has the DOJ, namely Bondi, answered questions regarding such, as demonstrated in a recent, heated hearing with Congressional members.

The Constitutional basis for impeachment is found in Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution.  This portion of the law of the land simply states that the President, Vice President, and all civil officers "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".

Accordingly, to understand the procedure of impeachment, allow me to provide in a nutshell, how the process takes place.  Charges would be made by the House of Representatives, and the trial of those charged would take place in the Senate, with the Supreme Court Chief Justice, acting as the judge.  The members of the Senate would be the jury and provide a verdict of guilty or innocent.

While the definition of treason and bribery is fairly simple to understand, it is the High Crimes and Misdemeanor portion of Article 2, Section 4 that is murky.  However, to fully be aware of what all of these terms mean, please indulge me and read the following: 

Understanding the Charges

Treason:  Defined by the Constitution as levying war against the U.S. or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort.  One can only be convicted of treason by admission in a court of law, or the testimony of two eyewitnesses.  This is written in Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution. ·      

Bribery:  Offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting something of value to influence an official act. 


"High Crimes and Misdemeanors":  This is a political term, not strictly a legal one, encompassing:
  • Abuse of power. 
  • Serious breaches of public trust. 
  • Actions that undermine the integrity or functioning of government. 
  • While often involving criminal-like behavior, it can include non-criminal misconduct by officials. 
While it is impossible to state any person in the current executive branch has displayed treasonous behavior, one may raise a point or two regarding bribery, and certainly build a strong case for abuse of power and actions that undermine the integrity or functioning of the government.  My focus will be on the “abuse of power” and “undermining the functioning of the government”.  The people whom will draw by attention are the President of the United States and the Secretary of War.
  

I am of the opinion, the President committed an act of war when US military personnel were used to “capture” Nicolas Maduro, the President of Venezuela and transport Maduro to the United States.  It has been widely reported and video provided of the incursion into Venezuela to “capture” Maduro.  Reportedly, 150 US aircraft were used to neutralize certain Venezuelan military outposts as well as attack helicopters to secure Maduro and his wife.  The White House (the President) has said this wasn’t an act of war, but an arrest of an indicted criminal.

Legally, the United States has no jurisdiction in Venezuela.  Even though the United States and Venezuela have had an extradition treaty in place since 1922, extradition with Venezuela has been very difficult because of political tensions between the two countries.  And, it is unreasonable to believe Maduro would be turned over to the United States.

With that in mind, ask yourself this:  If a foreign country brought aircraft into American airspace, neutralized specific military outposts that may guard the White House, and then take the President away to another country, would the United States deem that an act of war?  I believe Senator Rand Paul said as much.  Senator Paul argued that if another country acted against the U.S. the way the U.S. acted toward Venezuela (e.g., bombing air defenses, capturing a leader), it would be considered an act of war.  Think Pearl Harbor.
 
In retrospect, the President should have advised members of Congress what his intentions were BEFORE the incursion into Venezuela.  It is the Congress who declares war, not the President, even though the President is the Commander in Chief.  Obviously, with disregard to Congress and international relations, the President over stepped his power…with no regrets.
​

As with the capture of Maduro, there is the question of destroying “drug boats” that were in the open seas.  Supposedly, (no real evidence was provided by the White House) these boats were bringing fentanyl to the United States.  The President made a great effort to explain these boats were bringing poison to kill American citizens and for national security risks, the “drug boats”  must be stopped.  That was the President’s rationale for the action of destroying boats and killing the occupants of said boats.  But, as it turns out, most of the boats were delivering cocaine to other islands in the Caribbean for transit to Europe.  And as it has been reported, most of the fentanyl that comes into the United States comes via Mexico.

From the New York Times:

“A broad range of legal specialists on the use of lethal force have said that the strikes are illegal extrajudicial killings because the military is not permitted to deliberately target civilians — even suspected criminals — who do not pose an imminent threat of violence.”

“The White House has said the killings are lawful. In a notice to Congress, the administration said President Trump had “determined” that the United States is in a formal armed conflict with drug cartels and that crews of drug-running boats are “combatants.”

From the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA)

“On those missions, use of deadly force is prohibited by law and policy unless there is a clear self-defense justification: that the U.S. personnel involved face an imminent threat of death or serious injury. The videos that the administration shares on social media do not show self-defense situations: those aboard the boats are not firing at U.S. aircraft or drones, and often do not even appear to be aware that they are under attack.”

“Revelations that survivors of the initial boat strike on September 2 were killed by follow-up strikes led to speculation that the subsequent strikes constituted “war crimes.” But since there is no actual war against drug trafficking organizations, peacetime rules of engagement and international human rights law apply, meaning that the military’s follow-up strikes against the survivors were extrajudicial executions, just as the other killings caused by these attacks. If the U.S. were indeed at war, then a so-called “double-tap” strike to kill survivors would be a textbook example of a war crime.”

The use of the word “combatants” by the President would indicate the President regarded these actions against the “drug boats” as a “war” and therefore should have advised Congress, but he did not.  Those in the “drug boats” were judged guilty by the President of the United States without providing evidence of broken law or judicial process.  In essence, those killed by military strikes were victims of murder.  In my opinion, not only did the President abuse his power when acting as judge, jury, and executioner by hiding behind a thin veil of “national security”, he is at least, on the surface, guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

The requirement for being charged with conspiracy to commit murder requires proof of an agreement between two or more people to intentionally kill another person, coupled with at least one overt act taken by any co-conspirator to further that plan.

It is that simple.  
​

Some may argue that President Obama did the same when Seal Team 6 took out Osama Bin Laden, but that isn’t the case.  Bin Laden wasn’t the head of a sovereign nation.  The United States military did not neutralize any Pakistani assets.  Two U.S. helicopters landed in the compound Bin Laden was living in and Seal Team 6 stormed the residence and killed Bin Laden.

That action of killing Bin Laden does not equate to the military action to capture(?) of Maduro.
 
The President has used tariffs against foreign nations, originally claiming those nations had been “ripping us off” in trade.  However, that tune has changed with the President now using tariffs as a measure to extort what he wants from foreign nations.  Some may call that “blackmail”.

Certainly, the use of tariffs have angered some of America’s closest allies…namely Canada.  The use of tariffs has caused some volitivity in the stock market, and American consumers to pay a bit more for desired goods. 

In 2025, the Trump administration enacted a significant number of tariffs, driven by over 40 executive orders, which raised the average effective U.S. tariff rate from 2.5% to approximately 27% by April 2025, before settling at 16.8% by November 2025. These actions led to $287 billion in collected tariff revenue, a 192% increase from 2024. 
 
While it appears the nation is becoming “rich, rich, rich” as the President has stated, it is questionable as to whom is actually paying the tariffs.  Is it the foreign nation itself, or is the price of the tariff being passed on to the American consumer in higher prices for desired goods?
 
From the Tax Policy Center affiliated with the Brookings Institute and published January 28, 2026:
 
“TPC estimates that tariffs announced by the Trump administration through December 4, 2025 will impose an average burden of about $2,100 per tax unit (or household) in calendar year 2026.”

If what Tax Policy Center has stated is true, then the United States is getting rich by stealing from Peter to pay Paul.  Essentially, the United States of America may becoming “rich, rich, rich” on the backs of its own citizens.

Let it be known the power to levy tariffs lies with the Congress, not the President of the United States.
  

Our national government is based on three, equal branches of government.  Each branch has specific duties as enumerated by the Constitution.  Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states Congress has the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with Indian tribes,”  which would include the use of tariffs as a measure to regulate commerce with a foreign nation(s).  Therefore, it is implied if the President wishes to employ tariffs to balance a trade deficit, the President should consult with Congress to do so.  The President did not.  Some may call that executive over reach; I call it an abuse of power.  This abuse of power appears to be costing the average household significant expense. 
 

In my view, it is that simple.
 
On to Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth…

When Senator Mark Kelly appeared in a video reassuring military personnel, they could fail to execute an unlawful order, whom was Senator Kelly speaking too?   It was and is widely assumed Senator Kelly was speaking to members of the military, but it is possible he was speaking to none other than the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth?

There are only two people in the executive branch of government who can order the type of military activity witnessed as these “drug boats” were destroyed; the President or the Secretary of War.  There is a hierarchy of subordinate officers in the executive and military branches that issue orders, but those orders to seek and destroy the “drug boats” had to come down from either the President or the Secretary of War.

The Kelly video became public in late November, 2025.  In early September of 2025, the assault on the “drug boats” using the military began.  War had not been declared by Congress; only declared by the President.  It is accepted practice not to use the military to enforce law against the public. 
 

If the video was meant for the entire armed forces of the United States, Senator Kelly and his colleagues were only repeating what military personnel are told during the first week of their service; you do not have to honor and illegal order.  And… Secretary Hegseth should be aware of this because he is a decorated former Army National Guard Major (2002–2021) and infantry officer who served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay, earning two Bronze Stars.
  

But, for clarity, let me add there is a code of conduct for retired military officers.  It is as follows:
​

Key Code of Conduct Guidelines for Retired Officers
  • UCMJ Jurisdiction: Retired Regular component members receiving pay are subject to the UCMJ for life and can be court-martialed.
  • Contemptuous Speech: Under UCMJ Article 88, retired officers cannot use "contemptuous words" against the President, Vice President, Congress, or Secretaries of Defense/Military Departments.
  • Political Activities: While retired officers may participate in politics, they should avoid using their title, uniform, or active-duty status to imply military endorsement of a political candidate or cause.
  • Use of Title/Rank: U.S. Department of War permits the use of military titles socially and in business, provided it does not bring discredit to the armed forces.
  • Exemplary Conduct: 10 U.S. Code 9233 requires retired officers in positions of authority to maintain high standards of honor, patriotism, and to promote morale.
  • Recall Authority: 10 U.S. Code 688 allows the Secretary of the military department to recall retirees to active duty at any time. 
Violations of these standards, particularly actions that bring dishonor upon the military, can result in administrative action or, in rare cases, recall and court-martial.
 
At issue is whether or not Senator Kelly violated this code of conduct.  In viewing the video, I did not hear “contemptuous words” against the President, Vice President, Congress, or Secretaries of Defense/Military Departments.  The Senator and his five compatriots simply re-iterated what has been told to every member of the military during their first phase of basic training.
  

President Trump said this about Senator Kelly and his friends in the video:

"It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. 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.”

Secretary Hegseth took up the mantle to call Senator Kelly back into service, even though he has been retired for 15 years from the Navy.  The purpose of this was to bring Senator Kelly back into active duty to court martial him.  Hegseth said that Kelly tried to create chaos within the military ranks.  Hegseth had other options in regards to Kelly.  Hegseth could recall Kelly into active duty and strip him of his rank of Captain, and reduce Kelly’s pension.  Hegseth chose not to do so, and he pushed forward to make an example of Senator Kelly, presumably on President Trump’s suggestion.
 
As noted earlier, many legal analysts have deemed the attacks on the suspected “drug boats” and killing of the passengers of the “drug boats” to be illegal.  With that in mind, knowing Senator Kelly and his group aired their video in November of 2025 and the attacks on said “drug boats” had begun in September of 2025, one may conclude the Senator was speaking to military personnel other than Secretary Hegseth.  If this is the case, the Senator was simply reminding the military they could refuse an illegal order.  In a strange sense, the Senator as well as his five friends, were simply exercising their first amendment rights.
 
Apparently, the court system believes that to be true as well.  U.S. District Judge Richard Leon granted a preliminary injunction on Feb. 12, 2026, stopping the Defense Department from punishing Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) for a video urging troops to refuse illegal orders.  Judge Leon ruled the actions "trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms".  Hegseth has said this ruling will be appealed.

With that being said, Secretary Hegseth could be charged with abuse of power, which is an impeachable offense, and possibly behavior undermining the integrity and functioning of government.

So, let us now hypothesize…

If impeachment charges were brought against the President and Secretary Hegseth regarding “abuse of power”,  and displaying behavior or “actions that undermine the integrity or functioning of government,” there are many questions that need to be asked, and really, those questions are not difficult to imagine.
 
Q1.  What is “abuse of power?”
Abuse of power is the misuse of vested authority, position, or influence to illegally, unethically, or unjustly harm, coerce, or take advantage of others.  It involves exploiting a higher status to manipulate subordinates, public, or organizational processes for personal gain, bullying, or creating a hostile environment.
 
There are a couple of phrases that help support my argument:  “influence to illegally, unethically, or unjustly harm”…as well as “coerce or taking advantage of others.”
 
Q2.  Has a state of war been declared between the United States and the drug cartels of Latin America?
If the answer is Yes, who declared war?  If the President said he did, according to the Constitution, the President has overstepped his authority and abused his power, and certainly has undermined the integrity of the American government on the world stage.  Please keep in mind, President Trump had “determined” that the United States is in a formal armed conflict with drug cartels and that crews of drug-running boats are “combatants”.  And…the President has said, “I’m the President of the United States, I can do whatever I want if I believe our nation is in danger.”  The President’s belief does not override the protocols set out by the Constitution.
 
Q3.  Did Secretary Hegseth order the attacks on the “drug boats?”
If the answer is “NO”, then only one other person could have given the order.  Once again, if no war has been declared, the person that ordered the attacks on the “drug boats” could be considered a murderer.
 
Q4.  If the President gave the order to attack the “drug boats” and kill the passengers of said boats, did Secretary Hegseth comply with an illegal order?
If Hegseth passed along the order from above…Hegseth did exactly the opposite of what Senator Kelly spoke about in his video.  Hegseth could be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and murder, as well as refusing an illegal order.  It is abundantly clear why Hegseth went after Senator Kelly; it was an attempt to cover his backside.
 
Q5.  Has a state of war been declared between the United States and Venezuela?
It needs to be determined by a court of law if this is in fact true.  Obviously, if another sovereign nation attempted to do what the United States did, we, as a nation, would regard that as an act of war and would respond appropriately.
 
Q6.  Who gave the order to develop the plan to “capture” Nicolas Maduro? 
Once again, if Secretary Hegseth would say it wasn’t him, there is only one person who can give that original order.  In my opinion, that would be another example of abusing his power and undermining the integrity of the government on the world stage.
 
Q7.  Who has the power and authority in the United States government “to regulate commerce with foreign nations?”
As stated in the Constitution, Congress does.  But it has been accepted practice for the President to institute trade agreements with foreign nations with the approval of the Senate.  All trade agreements are a type of treaty, and all treaties must be ratified by the Senate.  I do not believe the President can levy a tariff without consent of the Senate.  In that event, he has overstepped his authority…or as I see it, abused his authority (power).
 
Q8.  Has the President levied tariffs in an attempt to force (coerce) nations into trade agreements?
The President has levied tariffs on many nations for many different reasons, but don’t be swayed by the reasons given.  The President is a transactional leader; simply one who uses the pretense of a transaction to get what HE wants.
 
The President has argued the tariffs are being used to improve national security.  Included in this idea is drug trafficking and illegal immigration.  The President has levied serious tariffs on Mexico, Venezuela, and China because of drug trafficking.  The tariff on China has been eased because of a trade agreement with China.  The President has also levied additional tariffs on Mexico and Venezuela as well as other Latin American nations in an attempt to have those countries stem the tide of immigration into the United States.
 
The President has levied tariffs on countries that trade with Russia.  If a country is purchasing Russian oil or natural gas, those countries were to have more trade tariffs against them.  The supposition is this is the U.S.’s attempt to help the Ukraine without committing more resources to the Ukraine.
 
To my knowledge, the President did not consult with the Congress or for that matter the Senate about any of these tariffs.  Some may say it isn’t necessary.  But, any trade agreement with any foreign country is a treaty, and ALL treaties must be ratified by the Senate.  
 
Q9.  Has the President used his position in an unethical manner in his quest to gain Greenland?
Once again, the President has said the acquisition of Greenland was a national security matter.  The President spoke of purchasing the “property” from Denmark.  The President floated the idea of military intervention to acquire Greenland.  After making this off the cuff remark, several NATO ALLIES sent small military detachments to Greenland in a move to show solidarity of the NATO countries with Greenland and Denmark.
 
In my opinion, the President and his statements undermined the integrity of government.  He has brought the United States to the brink of other countries not considering the United States as trustworthy, or for that matter, no longer the defender of freedom.
 
I realize many people may not share my view or opinion.  But when a President uses phrases like “if we don’t fight we won’t have a country”, or using the guise of “national security” for purposes known only to him, or, unleashing Homeland Security to rid the nation of the worst of the worst, only to have that statement become something less than it is…one must examine the separation of powers as described by the Constitution and ask, have the President of the United States and the Secretary of War abused their power and brought the integrity of the United States government into question on the world stage?

You know my opinion…


​FYI...I posted this the day before SCOTUS decided the tariffs levied by Trump were illegal.

​
0 Comments

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
<<Previous

    Archives

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

    RSS Feed

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