Blog Archives

A Framework to Recovery

1/24/2026

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:

When the President leave’s office, will this action continue?
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.
What happens if the mid-term elections produce the Democratic party assuming control of either the House or Senate, or both chambers?
Can the United States survive 22.5 years of political and civil unrest regarding undocumented citizens and the deportation action?
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mid-term elections, thereby allowing his policy to remain in effect until the civil unrest abates and martial law is rescinded.
At that point, would elections then be reinstated?
Is all of this unrest a ploy to turn the United States into an authoritarian government and do away with the Constitution?
Why hasn’t Congress offered a suitable path forward…something that every President since Clinton has indicated was sorely needed.
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

information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a particular cause, doctrine, or point of view.

These principles describe methods used to manipulate public opinion, focusing on emotional appeals, repetition, and the simplification of complex issues. The summarized techniques include:

Lie Big: Using enormous falsehoods, as people may find them harder to disbelieve than smaller lies.
Focus: Keeping the message uncomplicated and ignoring complex context for mass appeal.
Repeat: Constantly repeating a simple message to build familiarity.
Blame: Consistently blaming and dehumanizing the opposition.
Provoke: Using outrage, fear, and resentment as motivators over rational thought.
Crisis: Framing issues as a matter of survival to create urgency.
Emotion: Appealing directly to personal feelings, which are harder to question than facts.
Pander: Flattering one's base and demonizing critics.
No Limits: Suggesting that the victor's morality is not questioned, implying that the ends justify the means.

Core Techniques & Elements:

Emotional Manipulation: Aims to evoke strong feelings (fear, pride, anger, patriotism) rather than logical thought.
Simplification: Reduces complex issues to black-and-white choices or easy-to-digest slogans.
Symbols & Slogans: Uses powerful images (flags, uniforms) or catchy phrases to represent complex ideas.
Selective Information: Presents only facts that support the agenda, omitting contradictory evidence or the distortion of data.
Repetition: Repeats messages and slogans frequently to make them seem more familiar and believable.
Stereotyping: Labels groups or individuals to create prejudice or appeal to existing biases.
Name-Calling: Uses derogatory labels to discredit opponents.
Authority: Uses respected figures or experts to endorse an idea.
Band Wagon: Suggests everyone else is doing it, encouraging conformity.
Fear Appeals: Scares audiences into action.
Glittering Generalities: Uses vague, emotionally appealing words (freedom, justice) without concrete meaning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 Comments

One Must Think and Evaluate

1/7/2026

0 Comments

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

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

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

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

Fast forward to now…think Greenland, think Venezuela (other than the apprehension of Maduro), think Canada, think Mexico, think Colombia and all of the rhetoric that has been coming out of the White House . Just think about that…after you read the definitions of sovereignty, imperialism, sphere of influence, and the historical results of such.

Should the United States impose its will on other countries in the name of national security?  Will the “acquisition” of Venezuela and Greenland increase national security or enhance someone’s deep pockets?

Maybe your opinion will differ from mine, maybe not.

sovereignty | ˈsäv(ə)rən(t)ē, ˈsävərn(t)ē | noun

supreme power or authority
the authority of a state to govern itself or another state: national sovereignty.
a self-governing state

imperialism | imˈpirēəˌlizəm | noun

a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy, economic, or military force

sphere of influence sphere of influence (also sphere of interest)

a country or area in which another country has power to affect developments although it has no formal authority
a field or area in which an individual or organization has power to affect events and developments

Political and Geopolitical Consequences

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

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

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

Social and Cultural Consequences

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

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

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

Economic Consequences

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

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

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

0 Comments

The Donroe Doctrine...are you kidding me?

1/4/2026

1 Comment

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

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

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

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

And therein lies the conundrum.

From the National Constitution Center

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then there is the War Powers Act of 1973.

The War Powers Act (or Resolution) of 1973 is a U.S. law limiting the President's ability to commit troops to armed conflict without Congress's approval, passed after the Vietnam War to restore Congress's war-making authority.  It requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces and mandates removal after 60 days (with a possible 30-day extension) unless Congress authorizes the action. While intended to strengthen legislative oversight, its effectiveness and constitutionality are subjects of ongoing debate, with presidents often challenging its limits.

Key Provisions

Notification: The President must report to Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities.
Consultation: The President should consult with Congress before introducing forces.
Time Limit: Military action must end within 60 days unless Congress authorizes it or declares war.
Withdrawal: A 30-day period is allowed for safe withdrawal of forces after the 60-day limit.
Congressional Authority: Congress retains its constitutional to declare war.

How did Trump justify this apprehension without consulting Congress?  The Secretary of State and President Trump both stated this wasn’t an attack on Venezuela, but indicated the Justice Department sought military assistance to apprehend Maduro, along with his wife.  In other words, the military was needed to facilitate the Justice Department’s desire.

Trump, admittedly did not consult with the Congress or Congressional leaders as required by the War Powers Act.  Trump said he didn’t have to because of the nature of the action…the apprehension of Maduro.  And our President also said he was afraid of leaks coming out of Congress if he did consult the members of Congress which would have caused the mission to fail.

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

But Trump didn’t.  Why?  Because he either doesn’t trust members of Congress, or, in his mind there was no need to do so because this was a US Department of Justice operation and doesn’t fall within the War Powers Act.  Or, because no one in the government has stepped forward to challenge the President.  The Democratic leadership has spoken weak words; the Republicans have abdicated their Congressional power to Trump.  And the abyss grows deeper.

And, once again, therein lies the conundrum.

In the press conference held by the President following the action in Venezuela, Maduro was the subject of discussion, until the President added his comments about China, Iran, and Russia having interests in Venezuela.  In short, the President invoked the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which simply stated the Western Hemisphere was closed to future colonization by any country outside the Western Hemisphere.  During President Theodore Roosevelt’s tenure in office, the Roosevelt Corollary was produced which essentially said the US would be the “policeman” of the Western Hemisphere.  The statement of “Walk softly but carry a big stick” came out of Roosevelt’s desire to police the Americas.

The President has now renamed the Monroe Doctrine to the “Donroe Doctrine”.

From Newsweek

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

"We sort of forgot about it — it was very important, but we forgot about it. We don't forget about it anymore," the President added. "American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again."

I don’t believe JFK forgot about it during the Cuban Missile Crisis or President Reagan when he was asked by the Prime Minister of Grenada to invoke the Monroe Doctrine and rid Grenada of hundreds of Cuban and Soviet personnel from the island.  And, I will speculate that foreign diplomats are aware of the Monroe Doctrine.

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

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

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

1 Comment

One Man's Opinion

A Framework to Recovery

Critical Thinking versus Propaganda

One Must Think and Evaluate

The Donroe Doctrine...are you kidding me?

Archives