Blog Archives

Fascism part two

4/28/2025

Conservative Economic Programs

One may ask what is meant by Conservative Economic Policy (Programs).  This can be defined  as when conservatives advocate tax cuts, reduced government spending, free markets, deregulation, privatization, free trade, and minimal government debt. Fiscal conservatism follows the same philosophical outlook as classical liberalism. This type of economic policy lends itself to what may be called supply-side economics.  This theory of economics proposes economic growth is primarily achieved by increasing the production of goods and services, rather than through increased demand.

Examples of Supply-Side Policies:

Tax Cuts:
Lowering corporate and individual income tax rates to encourage investment and spending.

Deregulation:
Reducing regulations on industries to allow for greater flexibility and efficiency.

Free Trade:
Promoting free trade agreements to increase global competitiveness and access to new markets.

Labor Market Reforms:
Reducing minimum wage or weakening labor unions to increase labor flexibility.
It suggests that policies like tax cuts, deregulation, and allowing free trade can boost supply, leading to increased investment, job creation, and overall economic growth. Some may even call this “trickle down” economics because the benefits of tax reduction and deregulation “trickle down” to all segments of society.

Criticism of Trickle-Down Economics

Inequality:
Critics argue that supply-side policies can exacerbate income inequality by disproportionately benefiting the wealthy, without necessarily leading to broad-based economic growth.

Limited Evidence:
Some studies suggest that the benefits of supply-side policies may not be as substantial as claimed, particularly in terms of job creation and productivity growth.

Impact of Demand:
Supply-side policies may not be as effective if demand is insufficient to absorb the increased supply of goods and services.

Alternative Theories:
Demand-side economics, which focuses on increasing demand as a way to stimulate economic growth, offers an alternative perspective.

On the surface, I would believe most all Americans would agree with portions of the above characteristics of what would be considered conservative economic policy.  Who wouldn’t agree with tax cuts, or reduced government spending, minimal government debt, and free markets.  I would support some of the characteristics of a conservative economic program myself, but, what about the scope of all of the characteristics mentioned?

One must ask who really benefits from the proposed tax cuts.  If the tax cuts are not laid out in a proportionate manner, (the concept of ability to pay a fair share) then the real winner here would be the large corporation.  I have nothing against people becoming millionaires or billionaires.  Those people took the risk to achieve what they have achieved; the bigger the risk, the bigger the reward.  But if tax policy doesn’t include large corporations paying their fair share of the tax burden…then something is amiss, and the wealthy become wealthier.  Is that fair tax policy?

Years ago, a Republican candidate for the Presidency, Steve Forbes suggested a flat tax for all.  Forbes estimated that a 10 per cent flat tax would generate more money for the country than was being taken in at that time using the current tax programs.  In essence, if a person made one hundred thousand dollars a year, the tax for that person would be ten thousand dollars.  If a corporation made one hundred million, the tax would be ten million.  Very simple, and his numbers said it would work.

The caveat however, was the self-employed person.  How would the self-employed report their earnings if everything was done in cash?  How would the government determine what the tax would be for the self-employed?  And the loudest complaints about this came from whom?  Take a guess…large corporations.

What about deregulation of industry?  Is deregulation a good thing for industry?  Read the book, “The Jungle”, by Upton Sinclair.  The book may change your mind about eating sausage and, you will know why the FDA is so important.  Do you think the EPA is a necessary regulatory commission?

Is privatization a good thing?  That depends on what is being privatized.  Think education.  And with that, deregulation occurred in the Charter Schools movement.  Our national educational profile has taken a big dip in the past few years.  The State of Arizona does not require a charter school to follow the same teacher certification standards as public school districts.  Each charter school can set its own requirements for teachers; however, some schools do require you to obtain a traditional teaching certificate.  Do you believe someone without mastery of a subject matter can provide proper instruction.  After all, a teaching certificate is the state education department stating an individual has the proper subject material knowledge and training to be leading a classroom.

Think prisons.  Who actually pays for the prisons?   Someone would have to pay for the cost of the building, the correction officers, the utilities, the food, the medical care of prisoners.   It would seem the taxpayer, because I can’t believe an investor would make available a holding cell for a prisoner for no profit.  The prisoner is not going to pay…so that leaves it up to the government who sentenced the prisoner in the first place.  So how does the privatization of prisons save money?

Another concern of mine with the “conservative economic programs” is the ignoring of Adam Smith’s idea of the invisible hand of the economy.  In his book, “The Wealth of Nations”, Smith explained in his book, when individuals act in their own self-interest in a free market, they unintentionally benefit society as a whole. This occurs through the interaction of supply and demand, where prices adjust to reflect both the cost of production and consumer demand, leading to an efficient allocation of resources.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Self-interest and the market:
Individuals, pursuing their own financial gain, are motivated to produce goods and services that consumers want and need.

Invisible hand in action:
The collective actions of these self-interested individuals, guided by the market forces of supply and demand, lead to a natural and efficient distribution of resources and goods.

Benefits for society:
While individuals may not have the intention of benefiting society, the market system ensures that their actions ultimately contribute to the overall welfare of the community.

Without this thought of how society benefits from those who take the risk to produce the goods and services needed by society, how does society progress?  If Eli Whitney had not come up with the idea of interchangeable parts, what would have happened to industry?  Would it have never grown?  How would the automobile industry have been different?  If Eli Whitney had not invented the cotton gin, what would have happened to the southern plantations that thrived on cotton?  Can you imagine what the world would be without the invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg?

In my opinion, a conservative economic policy without moderation allows the rich to become richer, maybe even become “robber barons”.  It doesn’t allow society to progress at the rate it should.  It doesn’t allow the “little person” a great deal of economic freedom.


Corporatism

corporatism | ˈkôrp(ə)rəˌtizəm | noun the control of a state or organization by large interest groups.

Historically the ultimate aim was to destroy labor movements and suppress political dissent. Ideally, large corporations do not want the labor to unionize for fear of not being able to control labor and wages.  In 1935, the National Labor Relations Act was passed by Congress and signed by FDR.  The NLRA guarantees employees the right to organize, form or join labor organizations, bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing, and engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.  This act was an attempt to prevent “robber barons” from re-emerging in American society and pressuring the national government to be lenient on large corporations.  It also allowed the labor pool to seek out an “honest day’s wage for an honest day’s work”.  The large corporations did not like this because it cut into the huge profits the corporations were making prior to 1929.

This idea of corporatism provided the CEO’s and CFO’s of the corporations became politically active in a “shadow” role of advisors to the administration.  Sound Familiar?

President Trump’s present cabinet and advisors “includes a wrestling magnate, a private space pioneer, a New York real estate developer, the heir to a small appliance empire, and the wealthiest man on the planet -- with several being donors and close personal friends of the incoming president.

In total, the combined net worth of the wealthiest members of his administration could surpass $460 billion, including DOGE co-head Elon Musk -- whose net worth of more than $400 billion exceeds the GDP of mid-sized countries.

Even discounting Musk, Trump's cabinet is still expected to be the wealthiest in history, with reported billionaires Howard Lutnick nominated as commerce secretary, Linda McMahon nominated as education secretary, and Scott Bessent nominated as treasury secretary. Together, Trump's expected cabinet is worth at least $7 billion.”

As it has already been indicated, a favorite tool of modern-day fascists is deregulation that results in profits to businesses at the expense of consumers.  This group of people now have the ear of the President.  One may arrive at the conclusion this group of people may use their position to gainfully improve their financial worth.  I will not conclusively state that this will happen, but a past political slogan of “Drain the swamp” now must be questioned.

When the stock market took a big dive after the tariff war began, the President himself said, “This is the time to buy”.  When the President floated the idea he may pause the tariffs, the stock market rocketed upward.  Who made out with their investments?  Was it manipulation of the economy or was it coincidence? Is this government by oligarchy?

I’ll let you decide.

Imperialism

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

The United States has created “spheres of influence” around the world.  There are many methods in which this may be done.  Obviously, military action can get this done, but this risks the entire world going to war.  Japan found this out after attacking Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Japan had wanted to have power and influence in Southeast Asia as well as China.  Southeast Asia could provide raw materials (like tin, rubber, and some oil) that the islands of Japan did not have.  China had natural resources that Japan did not have.  At the time Japan had a much better military than either the countries of Southeast Asia or China, and diplomacy wasn’t thought of much by the Japanese.

The United States had told Japan to stay out of Southeast Asia.  That didn’t mean much to the Japanese because in 1941, the US wasn’t really a force in the world.  The US had realized victory in WWI, but the US Senate didn’t ratify the Treaty of Versailles to effectively end WWI.  President Wilson proposed the League of Nations, but the Senate didn’t go along with the plan, and the US failed to join.  The US wasn’t really thought of as a “world power”.  However, that all changed on December 7, 1941 when Japan attacked US forces at Pearl Harbor.  Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who planned the attack would reportedly write in his diary, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with terrible resolve.”

Let us not forget what was going on in Europe at this same time.  Germany was busting at the seams to militarily take control of Europe.  In a move that was carefully orchestrated by Adolf Hitler, the Munich Agreement signed in 1938, was an agreement between Great Britain, France, Italy, and Germany, where a region in Czechoslovakia known as the Sudetenland, a region with a large German speaking population was to be ceded to Germany.  This agreement was aimed to prevent war by bowing to Hitler’s territorial demands.  As we all know, Germany then invaded Poland and WWII began.
These are two examples of imperialism using the military to spread influence over an area of the world.  There are other measures that can be used to further the concept of imperialism.  One measure that the US uses to a great deal of success is foreign aid.  This aid can come in the manner of money, and often does…but, the country accepting the foreign aid must accept the terms as indicated by the US government to receive the foreign aid.  And those terms are to the benefit of the United States.

Another measure, and this did happen after WWII was the rebuilding of Europe with what was known as the Marshall Plan.  It was a diplomatic masterpiece for the US.  Europe had been decimated by war and had no way of rebuilding.  The European economy was virtually non-existent, citizens had little to no money to purchase needed items, if they could find the needed items.  So, it became incumbent for the US to take action to rebuild Europe.  Why one may ask?  It was understood by the US government, if Europe had no money to purchase necessary items, and had no way of generating income, then how would Europeans purchase American goods?  With the rebuilding of Europe, the availability of employment took off for the Europeans, disposable cash began to rise, and American goods could be purchased.  In a roundabout manner, this could be viewed as economic imperialism.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is another example of using diplomacy to expand power and influence in other lands.  This treaty allows for American military to establish military bases in countries that are members of NATO.  Some people question the need for this organization, but the basis is really simple.  Other than the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11…how many battles have been fought on American soil?  In 250 years as a country…with the exception of the Civil War, only 3 attacks with foreign enemies have taken place on American soil.  Through NATO, unless the US is attacked in the homeland, we will fight battles outside of the US.  Yes, that too is a result of imperialism.

So how does this all apply to present times?

The President has issued tariffs against the world.  It has been said that trade with countries around the world has been in favor of the countries of with which the US trades.  This leads to imbalance of money coming in and going out of the US, thereby resulting in foreign nations making a large(?) profit by trading with the US.  Is the President trying to expand the power and influence of our country, or just level the playing field.  If the President is trying to expand the economic power the of the United States, that is economic imperialism.  Should the US continue down the path of issuing tariffs?  The end result of tariffs will raise prices for the American consumer, because in reality, a tariff is a tax on the country that is trading with the US, and that tax is passed on to the American consumer by higher prices.

I understand the President’s stance about fair trading agreements.  It makes sense, but at what cost will it be to the American consumer? How will this improve the economy for the United States in the short term?

The President has indicated he believes Canada and Greenland would be better off being a state in our Union.  The President has also stated he believe the US should re-take control of the Panama Canal.  These statements have been made in total disregard of the sovereignty of those countries.  What is the rest of the world to think about that?  Politicians understand what was said and what suggested by those comments. And, to my surprise, the President didn’t take military action off the table in regards to the Canal and Greenland.

The President has tried to broker a peace between the Ukraine and Russia.  One of the components of the agreement was for the Ukraine to cede to Russia the Crimea and those parts of the Ukraine Russia now holds.  This would create a peace for both countries…but, if history does repeat itself, one only has to review what took place in Munich in 1938, and most importantly, afterwards.  As of today, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the President is contemplating walking away from the peace talks altogether.  This move will certainly raise an eyebrow or two in the world, as the leader of the free world and the protector of democracy turns his back on the Ukraine.  That definitely will shrink the sphere of influence created by those that came before President Trump.

I would only ask that one reviews this idea of imperialism and how it can affect you individually.  You have the wherewithal to make your own determination about to what extent our President may be using imperialism for the benefit of whom?

Military values

Historically fascists favored military values such as courage, unquestioning obedience to authority, discipline, and physical strength.

President Trump has said we need to strengthen our military.  I would agree.  But to strengthen and not use the military is another question.  Thomas Jefferson was not in favor of building a strong military.  He believed the country would only need this if our country was in danger.  Pearl Harbor may have proved that to be true.  Does Trump plan to use the military…he hasn’t taken military action off the table in regards to the Panama Canal.

In the United States, most all of us know who is and is not military.  However, there are para-military organizations in the US.  Some are part of a government agency, like, the CIA Special Activities Center, Special Operations Group which is a covert action and paramilitary operations division of the CIA, also known as the "Third Option," or, the DOE Federal Protective Forces which is responsible for protecting Department of Energy facilities and personnel, or the DOE Office of Secure Transportation and its responsibility for the secure transportation of DOE materials and personnel, and the FBI SWAT,  which is a Special Weapons and Tactics teams within the FBI.

For those para-military organizations not government affiliated, those organizations adapt to the outward trappings of military organizations, such as paramilitary uniforms and Roman salutes. We see this today in self-styled “militias.”  Some of those groups include the Oath Keepers.  The Oath Keepers is a patriot movement group that has been linked to extremism and involvement in events like the January 6th Capitol attack; the State of Arizona apparently has two statewide self-declared militia, the Arizona Liberty Guard and the Arizona State Militia.  Both the states of New York and Missouri have paramilitary groups as well, the New York Light Foot Militia and the Missouri Militia.

Let us not forget another far-right group, the Proud Boys.  The Proud Boys is an American far right militant organization that promotes and engages in political violence. The Proud Boys are opposed to left-wing and progressive groups and support President Donald Trump.  In fact, the Proud Boys consider themselves the protector of President Trump.  While Proud Boys leadership has denied being a white supremacist organization, the group and some of its members have been connected to white supremacist events, ideologies, and other white-power groups throughout its existence.

For the military branches of the US, the Commander in Chief is the President.  He may command the armed forces to deploy, attack, or protect the citizens of the US.  Members of the military swear to protect the Constitution.  In General Mark Milley’s farewell address, he said...

“We don’t take an oath to a king, or a queen, or to a tyrant or dictator, and we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator,” Milley said. “We don’t take an oath to an individual. We take an oath to the Constitution, and we take an oath to the idea that is America, and we’re willing to die to protect it.”

“Every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, guardian and Coast Guardsman, each of us commits our very life to protect and defend that document, regardless of personal price,” Milley continued. “And we are not easily intimidated.”

It appears that while President Trump demands loyalty to him and his agenda, the Constitution protects Americans from any type of military attack by our military on our citizens.  However, that is not the case with the self-declared militias.  Those far-right groups are dedicated to a far-right agenda that can be compared to the agenda of the Third Reich.

Absolute loyalty to the cause, ultra-nationalistic, white supremist, misogynistic, anti-immigrant, and Islamophobic are all qualities of these groups.  And some of these groups have been associated with President Trump.  In a Presidential Debate on September 30, 2020, when confronted by the debate moderators and Candidate Joe Biden, President Trump said this:

“Proud Boys, stand back and stand by,” Trump said. “But I’ll tell you what, I’ll tell you what, somebody’s got to do something about antifa and the left because this is not a right-wing problem.”

Facing widespread criticism for his failure to condemn the group, Trump also said, “I don’t know who the Proud Boys are.” He added, “Whoever they are, they have to stand down. Let law enforcement do their work.”

Now that may all sound convincing, but testimony from the Congressional Hearings regarding the attack on the Capitol and the ensuing fallout may prove this statement to be different.  Testimony by some said the Proud Boys were main players in the attack.  There were many of the Proud Boys indicted and convicted of seditious acts against the government.  At one point of the legal proceedings, members of the Proud Boys wanted to subpoena Trump to testify on their behalf.  The presiding judge didn’t allow that to happen.

And probably the most contradictory event to take place regarding the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers and Trump was reported by the BBC:

US President Donald Trump issued pardons or commutations for more than 1,500 people convicted or charged in connection with the US Capitol riot four years ago.

Fourteen members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, two far-right groups, are among those whose sentences were commuted by the new Republican president as he took office on Monday.

Trump also signed an order directing the Department of Justice to drop all pending cases against suspects accused in the riot.

The executive action came shortly after Trump was sworn in as the 47th president of the US inside the Capitol, which was stormed by his supporters on 6 January 2021 as lawmakers met to certify Joe Biden's election victory.

During a signing ceremony in the Oval Office on Monday evening, Trump displayed a list of the names of US Capitol riot defendants he said were receiving a pardon.

"These are the hostages, approximately 1,500 for a pardon, full pardon," Trump said. "This is a big one."

"These people have been destroyed," he added. "What they've done to these people is outrageous. There's rarely been anything like it in the history of our country."

The proclamation says that it "ends a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people over the last four years and begins a process of national reconciliation".

So, what do you think?  This is just my opinion…what is your’s?

0 Comments

Fascism Part One

4/20/2025

0 Comments

In the recent past the word ”fascist” has been bandied about in reference to the actions of the present federal administration. I thought it would be a great idea to determine how people arrived at the accusation about our own government, namely, President Trump.

fascism | ˈfaSHˌizəm | (also Fascism) noun an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
- [derogatory] extremely authoritarian, intolerant, or oppressive ideas or behavior:
- [with modifier] very intolerant or domineering views or practices in a particular area:
- Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach

The primary characteristics of fascism include:

Opposition to Marxism.
Opposition to (parliamentary) democracy.
Opposition to political and cultural liberalism.
Totalitarian ambitions.
Conservative economic programs.
Corporatism.
Imperialism.
Military values.
Leadership principle.
Struggle against decadence.
Extreme nationalism.
Sexism and misogyny.

To be sure, there are other interpretations of what Fascism may be, but for my belief, this about covers the definition of the idea of Fascism.  While I will write about these, I will not attempt to cover all in one article.  I shall describe four in a series of three articles.  I will provide well known facts, some current, some from the past to help explain what is meant, and then leave you to your own conclusion.

To borrow a line from Vonnegut, “And so it goes…”

Opposition to Marxism. Modern fascists try to use socialism as a boogeyman to scare people.

This is particularly true in the US.  Why?  Because most all citizens of the United States love their country, their freedom to make a choice, and to participate in government.  However, beginning in 1950, Senator Joe McCarthy became the most visible public face of a period in the United States in which Cold War tensions fueled fears of widespread communist subversion.  He alleged that numerous communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers had infiltrated the United States federal government, universities, film industry, and elsewhere. Ultimately McCarthy was censured by the Senate in 1954 for refusing to cooperate with and abusing members of the committee established to investigate whether or not he should be censured.

Are there any actions of the present-day administration that is comparable to McCarthyism?

What about the recent attacks on Social Security, claiming it will bankrupt the US?  What about the threat of cutting Medicare and Medicaid claiming it will contribute to the bankruptcy of the US?   All of these programs are Socialistic in nature.  But, it is also the charge of the national government to protect man’s right to life…and that is what these programs help to do.  Mentioning these three programs being cut, causes many voters concern and consternation.  Trying to sell these programs as bad will not fly.

Opposition to democracy. You will see this in attempts to make it difficult for people to vote, often under the guise of “preventing voting fraud” even when they cannot produce evidence of fraud.

At the conclusion of the 2020 Presidential Election, Trump claimed there was voter fraud and the election was “rigged” and “stolen” from him.  Over sixty (60) lawsuits were filed in various jurisdictions alleging voter fraud.  All cases were tossed out of court for a lack of evidence.  However, there is criminal litigation pending in the States of Georgia and Arizona against the “fake electors” for Trump.  Here is a portion of an article concerning the 2020 election lie:

Politics Dec 15, 2023 4:46 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — A jury awarded $148 million in damages on Friday to two former Georgia election workers who sued Rudy Giuliani for defamation over lies he spread about them in 2020 that upended their lives with racist threats and harassment.
The damages verdict follows emotional testimony from Wandrea “Shaye” Moss and her mother, Ruby Freeman, who tearfully described becoming the target of a false conspiracy theory pushed by Giuliani and other Republicans as they tried to keep then-President Donald Trump in power after he lost the 2020 election.

During the recent Presidential Campaign, Trump stated, as early as the summer of 2024, he should win the election, if the election wasn’t rigged or stolen from him.  The rhetoric regarding election integrity didn’t stop after Trump won his re-election bid.  On March 25, 2025, Trump issued an Executive Order, “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.”  In essence, the order requires the states to require documented evidence of citizenship before the citizen may register to vote.  This EO isn’t necessary.

The following was taken directly from the USA.Gov website:

Who can vote?
You can vote in U.S. federal, state, and local elections if you:

Are a U.S. citizen (some areas allow non-citizens to vote in local elections only), including:
- U.S. citizens living outside of the United States. Learn more from the U.S. Department of State about voting as a U.S. citizen abroad.
- U.S. citizens who were born abroad and have never lived in the United States. Your eligibility to vote is based on the state where your parents last lived or were registered to vote. Find out what states may permit you to vote absentee.
- Dual citizens living in the United States or abroad
Meet your state’s residency requirements
- You can be experiencing homelessness and still meet these requirements.
Are 18 years old on or before Election Day
- In almost every state, you can register to vote before you turn 18 if you will be 18 by Election Day.
- Some states allow 17-year-olds who will be 18 by Election Day to vote in primaries.
Are registered to vote by your state's voter registration deadline. North Dakota does not require voter registration. (Former governor Doug Burgum is now serving as the Secretary of the Interior. I certainly hope the EO President Trump issued regarding voter registration is now enforced in North Dakota.)

So, whom exactly is being left out in the cold, not being able to vote? Once again, taken from the USA.Gov website:
Who cannot vote?

Non-citizens, including permanent legal residents, cannot vote in federal, state, and most local elections.
Some people cannot vote after being convicted of a felony or if they are currently serving time for other types of crimes. Rules are different in each state. Check this guide from vote.gov to understand the laws in your state.
Some people who have a mental disability may not be able to vote. Learn about your voting rights. Rules vary by state.
U.S. citizens residing in U.S. territories cannot vote for president in the general election.

It would appear,  if there is a problem with election integrity as indicated by the MAGA Republicans, it is unfounded.  Unless, of course, the states are not discharging their duties when conducting elections in a lawful matter.  But over 60 lawsuits claiming this to be true, were thrown out of court for a lack of evidence.

Consider the mass deportation of people accused of being associated with a terrorist group or terrorist activist, or an alleged member of the Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang.  I’m not doubting the validity of the actions, but, due process was not followed, as well as no real evidence presented.  The Judiciary may find this difficult to swallow, because it is the court’s job to interpret the law and hand down decisions and court orders to ensure due process be followed.

The Trump administration has said Mr. Ábrego García's deportation to El Salvador was an "administrative error", but they have also alleged he has ties to the MS-13 gang, a group it designates as a foreign terrorist organization.  Trump has ignored the court order to “facilitate” the return Garcia who was wrongfully detained and deported to Venezuela.

The important item to understand is this:  If a ruling body can unilaterally declare a class of people to be terrorists, hard line criminals…whatever, without any form of proof provided for the electorate to see, without respect for the judiciary branch of the government, then there may be an opposition to democracy.

Opposition to political and cultural liberalism. Fascists will often claim that liberalism undermines traditional values and morality.  In order to understand this segment, one must identify traditional values and morality.

Let’s begin with “rule of law”.  According to this idea, those living in a democratic society operates under a system of laws that applies equally to everyone, including those in power.  When anyone has been aggrieved, the victim has the opportunity to seek retribution in a court of law, using law as the basis for the argument.  In a democratic society, anyone who is accused of a crime and arrested has the use of due process, which once again, brings in the court system to provide an opportunity for the accused to defend themselves.  And that idea alone, provides for the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” with the onus of proving guilt on the accuser.

In essence, everyone must live and operate under the law, both civil and criminal.  Now how does that apply to today?  Early in Trump’s administration, the Supreme Court gave the President immunity in anything he may perform, as long as it was in an official capacity.  In my view, this unfortunate decision circumnavigates the impeachment provision of the Constitution.  And, just as important, states the President is above the rule of the law.

How does that undermine the rule of law concept for other people?  If one person can be above the law, why can’t others?  In a scenario where the President is above the law, the President may (and has done it) restrict the due process of others as provided by the Constitution.  The 5th Amendment of the Constitution provides for this “due process”.  “No person… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…The 5th Amendment does not stipulate “citizen”; on the contrary, it says “person”, indicating one doesn’t need to be a citizen to have due process in the United States.

Another tradition value held by the United States is the Protection of Human Rights.  Those Human Rights include freedom of speech, assembly, and religion which are all guaranteed and protected.  I believe that even these rights have come under attack.  In recent times, any form of speech that doesn’t agree with those in power comes under attack with innuendo and sarcastic response.  We have seen an insurrection called a peaceful demonstration.  That was no more a peaceful demonstration than pigs can fly.  And now, religion has been attacked.  Certain religions have been identified as a religion of terrorists.

So here is my question to all…do you have the right to make decisions that concern your existence or not? We make decisions regarding whom we marry (even though at times there were some who tried to legislate a marriage is between a man and a woman), where we live, where we work, what occupation to chase…without governmental intervention.  Do we really get to think independently?

What about making medical decisions such as abortion or determining to not prolong life for a person who has suffered a catastrophic accident, or suffered a heart attack or stroke?  What about those who wish to marry a member of the same sex?

As we know, President Trump has taken full credit for getting rid of Roe v. Wade.  His claim is the people wanted the decision overturned and he got it done for the people.  The argument about abortion is simply about ending life.  I understand that.  But if the mother is in danger of losing her life, if the fetus is abnormal and will have a difficult time surviving on its own as time passes, if the mother is victim of rape or incest…why do some politicians and citizens say an abortion cannot be performed?  Compare that decision to the family or loved one that “pulls the plug” on a victim of a horrendous accident which leaves the victim in a vegetative state, or, a patient who has suffered a heart attack or stroke which leaves them in a vegetative state.  Isn’t the decision about abortion and “pulling the plug” the same?

Totalitarian ambitions. Fascists want to control all political power and will tell you that only they can set things right.

With the Supreme Court granting immunity to the President when acting in “an official capacity as President”, it is my opinion the check and balance of the Congress on the President has been eliminated.  This certainly allows the Executive branch, namely President Trump unbridled power.  If Trump is ever questioned about his actions, he can merely say he was acting in an official capacity and I have immunity.  About the only thing left for Congress as a check on the President is to not pass legislation he wishes to pass, or to not pass a budget.  Other than that, I am not aware of any other measure Congress could take to limit the President’s power.

In recent weeks we have seen the President ignore rulings from federal courts, including the Supreme Court.  The President is using a “spin machine” to construct carefully worded answers to questions indicating he cannot comply with federal court orders.

This is a power grab unseen before in our country.  The President is doing what he wants to do, and the hell with the rest of the government.  How is it the President can appoint an outside the government person to cut programs and people without a plan?  I’m not against cutting fat in the budget, finding wasteful spending, creating a smaller government, BUT to do so without criteria or plan, without accountability is, okay?  There is no regard for what has happened, and at best, it could be surmised, because Trump is the President, he believes he can do what he wants, with no check or balance from the other two branches of government, which, ironically are supposed to be equal in nature to the Executive Branch.  And this can all be wrapped up in Trump’s statement, “I know what I’m doing”
.
I disagree with that.

https://www.usa.gov/who-can-vote
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/preserving-and-protecting-the-integrity-of-american-elections/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/jury-awards-148-million-in-damages-to-georgia-election-workers-over-rudy-giulianis-2020-vote-lies
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment

0 Comments

My Perceived Flaw In D.C.

4/12/2025

0 Comments

In pursuing my second Master’s in Educational Leadership, I learned a great deal about leadership; In addition to the curriculum for the Master’s degree, I read many books in regards to this subject…Randy Johnson’s, “Life Lessons from Baseball”, “Lincoln on Leadership” by Donald T. Phillips, “Leadership Lessons of Robert E. Lee” written by Bil Holton, PhD., Lee Iacocca’s “Where Have All the Leaders Gone?”, Dr. Henry Cloud’s book, “9 Things a Leader Must Do”,  Steven Covey’s “& Habits of Highly Effective People” among others.

All of the information indicated a leader must possess many qualities. It would be too hard to declare the most important quality one must possess to be successful in a leadership role.  But without question, the leader must have a vision about what needs to be accomplished, develop a methodology to make the vision a reality, then motivate people to follow the leader’s path.

And along the way, build a confidence in those with whom you may have the opportunity to work by demonstrating your commitment to making the “vision” a reality.  The “vision” must be well articulated and thought out accordingly.  Any chaos or confusion would be counter-productive to the acquiring of the goal.

Now with all of this being said, one may wonder…WTH?

Let’s consider the uncertainty of Washington DC at the moment.

Deportation of undocumented citizens, only to find the court system to order the return of a deported citizen for no apparent reason other than “tattoos”.
Tariffs on, off, on, and then pause for 90 days. (I am more than aware of the history of tariffs dating back to the beginning of our country.) On, Off, On…Pause for 90 days. Even an island occupied by penguins was the recipient of a tariff. Most all countries in the world…except Russia. Does this sound like a government that has a convincing vision of what needs to happen?
The volatility of the stock market based on the on, off, on, paused tariffs. That does wonders(sic) for the economy; not just for the US, but for the World. The stock market tanked. Not long after trading opened at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, April 9th, Trump took to his Truth Social platform and wrote: “BE COOL! Everything is going to work out well. The USA will be bigger and better than ever before!” Four minutes later, he wrote: “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!! DJT”. Just before 1:30 p.m., Trump announced the pause, sending stocks soaring. The tech-heavy Nasdaq index had its biggest one-day gain since 2008, rising nearly 12%, while the S&P 500 climbed 9.5% and the Dow Jones Industrial Average surged 8%, or about 2,800 points. The next day, Thursday, the market lost another 1000 points.
Let us not give a pass to Elon Musk and his “chainsaw approach” to firing people who were government workers. Ask yourself, did his DOGE have any criteria to determine whom should be fired? Did his DOGE have enough time to evaluate programs based on need and impact if collapsed? Evidently not! With his approach, Musk fired many nuclear scientists, whom he had to try and rehire because they were the only ones working on a project. Musk has said he has found wasteful spending, which I do not doubt, and corruption, corruption, corruption. What I have difficulty trying to understand is, if the corruption was that prevalent, why hasn’t the DOJ been involved with federal indictments and arrests?
RFK, jr. who is a proponent for not vaccinating people to prevent disease, and has made that statement saying, vitamins, and healthy eating will prevent most diseases, has walked back this idea after attending the funeral of a 9-year-old girl in Texas who died of the Measles. RFK, jr. said the best way to prevent Measles is to take the MMR vaccine. Duh! Polio was virtually wiped out by the Salk Vaccine.
Recently, the “play by play” of an attack on Houthi encampments took place in a group text. Included in the group text was Jeffery Goldberg, of the Atlantic magazine, who obviously isn’t a Department of Defense employee, or in the inner circle of the Oval Office. Tim Walz took full responsibility, yet the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth stated numerous times that no secret information was involved in the Signal Text group. It makes one wonder…who is actually minding the Defense Department and the Pentagon.

I recognize that change often brings about apprehension and anxiety.  But I also know that the tradition of peaceful transition of power hasn’t been fulfilled.  The occupant at the White House has used intimidation (tariffs) to try and get what he wants from other countries around the world.  (World domination?)  The occupant at the White House has insulted previous Presidents of the United States by calling them horrible and stupid.  That is a complete lack of respect for the office of the President of the United States.  The occupant at the White House has called a respected service member and Senator, John McCain, a “loser”.  The de facto President, Elon Musk, has called Mark Kelly, a combat pilot with 39 missions, an astronaut, and Senator a traitor.  Again, a complete lack of respect for men who were veterans and took on extremely dangerous jobs.

The President received 49.81% of the recent votes cast in the Presidential Election in November.  The President hasn’t fostered an aura of confidence with investors, with blue collar workers, with educators.  The President may not believe this is important for his success…but just saying "Make America Great Again" without a cohesive, well-articulated plan, doesn’t get it done.  Trump’s statement, “Trust me, I know what I’m doing” doesn’t play well if one examines the recent behavior of his leadership, those chosen by him to fill offices of the government, as well as the many legal challenges to the actions of the Trump administration.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/markets/trump-tariff-pause-experts-question-timing-trump-social-media-posts-rcna200526

0 Comments

The Lost Cause

4/11/2025

0 Comments

Please excuse me for being a bit confused.  But now, as I was recently confronted by a colleague of mine, “I didn’t know you were so liberal”, that bothered me and I questioned myself and my political beliefs because I consider myself a moderate Republican.

So, without further ado, please allow me to provide some information that may bring forth some understanding and light to the matter of “liberal” and “conservative”.

liberal | ˈlib(ə)rəl |

adjective 1 willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas:• (in a political context) favoring policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.  2 relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise:

noun1 a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.  2 a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise: classical liberals emphasized the right of the individual to make decisions, even if the results dismayed their neighbors or injured themselves.

conservative | kənˈsərvədiv |

adjective 1 averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values: 2 (in a political context) favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.

noun 1 a person who is averse to change and holds traditional values: 2 a person favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.
Normally, these two terms are associated with our two political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans.  As I was taught, the liberals were Democrats and the conservatives were to be Republicans.  When I examined these two definitions provided by Webster’s Dictionary, I noticed a big similarity.  Both parties favor democracy and free enterprise.  With a stretch, it could also be argued both parties favor civil liberty and individual rights, because in our political scheme of things, the value of the individual is paramount.

Just ask yourself how many times have you heard the statement “Every single vote counts” which certainly emphasizes the importance of the individual in our country.
In a perfect world, both liberals and conservatives would work in concert on behalf of the country even though political philosophies may be a bit different.  Yet we know this isn’t a perfect world and that isn’t happening.

There is a concept that is essential to the success of any democracy.  That concept is described by the term, “loyal opposition”.  So, just what is “loyal opposition”?

The concept permits the dissent of the minority party necessary for a functioning democracy without fear of being accused of treason.
As Michael Ignatieff, a former leader of the loyal opposition in the House of Commons of Canada, said in a 2012 address at Stanford University:
"The opposition performs an adversarial function critical to democracy itself… Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

In essence, the minority party, the party that is not in control of the House or the Senate or both, is required to present ideas contrary to the majority party as a way to create meaningful law.  This holds true even for the government of the United States.
Our elected officials have lost the concept of loyal opposition.  In fact, both parties have resulted to insults, innuendo, falsehoods, and other methods to widen the abyss between the two parties, and to make their respective parties, “the one that is correct”.  It is the attitude “If you aren’t with us, you are against us”, and quite frankly, that does no one any good.

To take this element of division to the extreme, when Nikki Haley dropped her campaign for the Presidency, Trump made the statement the MAGA movement didn’t need her supporters and they weren’t welcome in the MAGA camp.  So where do those Republicans who supported Haley send their support?  Home?

Our nation of people is greatly divided about politics and have reverted to name calling instead of meaningful discourse.  As it is now, I have seen several references of Democrats as “fucktards”, “libturds”, “demo-rats”…the list goes on.  As for the Republicans, the references are just as bad.  Conversations cannot be held regarding the state of the nation in a civil manner unless it is liberals talking to liberals and conservatives talking to conservatives.

A Republican President, Abraham Lincoln made the statement “A house divided against itself cannot stand”.  Even though Lincoln was referring to the issue of slavery, I am of the opinion this statement is relevant today.  As long as our political parties cause an abyss in our government to be as deep as the Mariana Trench in the Pacific Ocean, our nation will continue to flail about and the two parties will be counterproductive to the people of our country.  Most importantly, little to nothing will be accomplished in a bi-partisan manner within our government.

It's okay not to agree with the current state of the government for whatever reason, but we have got to keep it civil.  AND revisit the idea of loyal opposition.  We are all Americans.

0 Comments

Imagine If You Will...

4/1/2025

0 Comments

There have been many questionable scenarios since the President entered into national politics.  If one listened, the vocabulary of the President has included “hoax”, “witch hunt”, “corrupt”, “drain the swamp”, “rigged”, “stolen”, and the list goes on and on and on.

It would be easy to dispute those allegations, but I will not do so.  The vocabulary of  “evidence”, “court decisions”, “lost lawsuits”, and “fake electors” pretty much dispels those of the prior list of vocabulary terms.  And one term that I didn’t hear was “accountability”.

There are now two things the President has said that have caught my attention.

According to the Associated Press (AP),”Top national security officials for President Donald Trump, including his defense secretary, texted plans for upcoming military strikes in Yemen to a group chat in a secure messaging app that included the editor-in-chief for The Atlantic, the magazine reported in a story posted online Monday. The National Security Council said the text chain “appears to be authentic.”

“Trump initially told reporters he was not aware that the highly sensitive information had been shared, 2 1/2 hours after it was reported. He later appeared to joke about the breach.”

What bothers me about this statement from the President is, the President is the Commander in Chief.  He is the sole person who commands the armed forces; he is the one person who must authorize such activity.  No Secretary of Defense, no General, can order the military to attack without authorization from the President.  So, my concern is simply this:  Why wasn’t the President on the group text that described the moments before and during the attack on the Houthis?  One would believe the President would like to know about success or failure of the attack.  But a statement from the President indicating he was “not aware that the highly sensitive information had been shared”, may indicate a lack of communication between the different particulars of the current administration, or, plausible deniability for the President, in the event the attack went sour.

Either way, in my opinion, it doesn’t look good.

The second item from Washington that has me raising an eyebrow or two is the thought the President is considering a run for a third term of office.  The President has indicated there are several scenarios which could allow him to run again for the Presidency.  According to the 22nd Amendment of the US Constitution, no person can be elected to two (2) terms, or serve more than ten (10) years.

The Vice President is allowed to complete the unexpired term of the President, should the President become disabled or die in office.  However, those years served are counted as part of the “term limits”.  So, if a President were to become disabled or die in office one (1) year into the elected term, the Vice President would become the President, serve the remaining term of three (3) years and could only run for one four (4) year elected term of his own.

The 22nd  Amendment is explicit about how many terms (2) and years (10) a President can serve.

Now, unless Congress calls for a Constitutional Convention to change the 22nd Amendment, I am unaware of how the President could run for a third term.  However, with the state of the flux Washington DC is currently in, I suppose anything could happen.

With that being said, age, becomes a factor in the next presidential election, should Trump somehow manage a way to be a candidate.  The oldest person inaugurated as President in United States history is Donald Trump, at age 78 years, 7 months, for his second term.

During the recent Presidential campaign, Trump called Biden too old to be President.  Republican candidate Nikki Haley even suggested there should be a “too old” age limit for Presidential candidates.  Many voters thought Biden to be too old…too frail…and those who thought that were probably correct.

But with Trump being the oldest President ever inaugurated in United States history…what does that say about campaign rhetoric?

All I know is this:  If Trump can somehow find a way to be elected for a third term in 2028 and take office again in 2029, he will be 82 years and 7 months old.

How about that campaign rhetoric of a candidate being too old? Is that "the pot calling the kettle black"?

0 Comments

One Man's Opinion

Fascism part two

Fascism Part One

My Perceived Flaw In D.C.

The Lost Cause

Imagine If You Will...

Archives