After writing the three-part article defining Fascism, and observing the present administration’s actions, I have arrived at this conclusion.  The President is moving our government to a more powerful, centralized figurehead (the Presidency), resulting in a less democratic state under the guise of Make America Great Again.

The President is not governing by using the parameters as set forth by the Constitution.  Those including the idea of three separate, but, equal branches of government.  Instead, he ruling.  By definition given by Webster’s dictionary, ruling: 

1. Governing; controlling the will and actions of intelligent beings, or the movements of other physical bodies. 2. Marking by a ruler. 3. Deciding; determining. 4. a. Predominant; chief; controlling; as a ruling passion.

Re-read the very first portion of the Webster’s definition. The fourth portion of the definition helps to clarify the first portion.  Now, think about what that means in a system of government that emphasizes equal branches of government.

Please allow me to review the meaning of Fascism as defined in the first article.

1. fascism | ˈfaSHˌizəm | (also Fascism) noun an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
   1. [derogatory] extremely authoritarian, intolerant, or oppressive ideas or behavior: 
   2. [with modifier] very intolerant or domineering views or practices in a particular area: 
   3. 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

How closely does this coincide with my idea of “ruling” instead of using the process of governing as set out by the Constitution, laws, an accepted practices for approximately 250 years of our country’s existence?

Let me point out why I consider this to be of grave importance.

President Donald Trump has been in office for three months and has signed over 120 executive orders during that time.  While some of the orders have been regarding minor issues like paper straws and water pressure, some of Trump's orders have raised concerns including one attempting to change birthright citizenship in the U.S., which the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear in May.

This amounts to the President negating the provisions of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.  In simple terms, the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, guarantees citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including former slaves. It also ensures "equal protection of the laws" and prohibits states from depriving anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process. This has been a cornerstone for many landmark Supreme Court decisions regarding civil rights.
 
The President’s argument will be the 14th Amendment was aimed at giving citizenship to the slaves after the Civil War, and not babies born in the United States to undocumented citizens.  It has been accepted since the inception of the 14th Amendment that ANYONE born on US soil is automatically a citizen of the United States.  The President’s argument will also attempt to overturn the theory of jus soli (of the soil) which has been the accepted practice in the United States for over 150 years, to jus sanquinis, a legal principle where citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents, regardless of the child's birthplace.

The 14th Amendment also guarantees due process in a court of law.  At the moment, the President’s White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Steven Miller, has said the White House (the President) is actively seeking to suspend the rule of Habeas Corpus, which is one of the cornerstones for our legal system.  A prisoner may petition the court through a writ of habeas corpus.  When the writ is issued, it requires the person holding the prisoner to bring them before the court. The court then determines whether the detention is lawful, and if not, the person must be released  The Suspension Clause protects liberty by protecting the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It provides that the federal government may not suspend this privilege except in extraordinary circumstances: when a rebellion or invasion occurs and the public safety requires it.
 
The President will base his argument on the fact he has stated the United States has suffered an invasion of undocumented citizens and the invasion must be stopped.  Eventually the Court will rule on this action, if it takes place, and will decide on the matter.  So, with that in mind…what constitutes an invasion as compared to immigration.  Using Webster’s once again:

INVASION, noun (singular as well as plural). [Latin invasio, from invado. See Invade.]
 

1. A hostile entrance into the possessions of another; particularly, the entrance of a hostile army into a country for the purpose of conquest or plunder, or the attack of a military force.

 
IMMIGRATION, noun
 

1. The passing or removing into a country for the purpose of permanent residence.

So, what is the decision to be made?  Certainly, the President has made a case in the public arena by claiming there are hardened criminals coming into or already in our country, something I do not doubt.  His Secretary of Homeland Defense has made television commercials touting the removal of such people, even going as far as to film in the El Salvadorean prison where the hardened criminals were taken.  And in each commercial, the Secretary says to those who have immigrated here unlawfully, you will be arrested and sent back and you will not be able to return.

In essence, instead of directing Congress to develop a comprehensive bill reforming immigration, the President has selected a group of people to be the burden of everything that is wrong with America.  He has given “cause” for this by indicating the undocumented citizen is a drain on the nation’s economic system, the nation’s health system, and the nation’s Social Security system.  This is somewhat true, but is it enough to forego the legal proceedings guaranteed by the Constitution?  When asked by Kristen Welker of “Meet the Press” regarding this, the President said, “I think so, because if we don’t, we would have millions of court cases and that would take years”.

In addition, the President has failed to heed legal decisions by the nation’s court system.  He has made derogatory statements about the judges who have ruled against his actions.  The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Roberts, has publicly rebuked the President two times for his actions and statements.  In the President’s defense, he has stated he doesn’t worry about the Constitution because he has “very good lawyers working for him” to do that.

Is that enough to ignore the Constitution and court system?  Is this an attempt to centralize power in branch of our national government?

One of the characteristics of a fascist leader is the opposition to democracy; another is totalitarian ambitions.  By disdaining the democratic process and centralizing power in the executive branch, the President has moved our nation in the direction of an autocratic, totalitarian government setting.

The third branch of our government is Congress, both the House and Senate.  Despite the President's party controlling both the House and Senate, little legislation has taken place.  On April 29th of this year, Time magazine reported:

“But the first 110 days of Trump’s administration paints a more complicated picture. Instead of relying on the Republican-led Congress, Trump has leaned heavily on executive action to carry out his agenda, issuing an unprecedented 135 executive orders since he took office in January. In doing so, Trump has largely bypassed Congress at the outset of his Administration, a sharp break from his first term. So far, Congress has only passed six bills—five of which have been signed into law—the fewest of any president in the first 100 days of an administration in the last seven decades, according to a TIME analysis of congressional records.”

With that being said, it may be concluded that the President is making law to fit his Project 2025 agenda through Executive Orders, once again, usurping authority from another “equal” branch of government, to make the Executive Branch the more powerful, centralized figure he really wants to be.

The most recent(?) bill passed by the House and sent to the Senate was The Gulf of America Act, or H.R. 276, is a proposed bill that would rename the Gulf of Mexico as the "Gulf of America". The bill is essentially a codification of a previous executive order signed by President Trump that also renamed the Gulf.  The bill would also require federal agencies to update their documents and maps to reflect the new name within 180 days of enactment. According to the House of Representatives, the bill passed the House on May 8, 2025 and was sent on to the Senate, where no action has taken place.
 
I find the lack of legislation coming from the House and Senate to be alarming.  It would be far too convenient for the President to ask Congress to legislate his agenda, after all, the Republicans control both chambers.  But for one reason or another, the President has not taken that route.  One must ask “Why?”.

As for the issue of tariffs, Article One Section Eight of the Constitution enumerates the powers of the Congress.  One clause deals with “to regulate commerce”.  The commerce clause gives Congress broad power to regulate many aspects of our economy and to pass environmental or consumer protections because so much of business today, either in manufacturing or distribution, crosses state lines. But the commerce clause powers are not unlimited.  Even though it has been accepted practice for Congress to allow the President to levy a tariff for years, why didn’t the President go to Congress (remember the President’s party controls both chambers) and ask for Congress to levy the tariffs to regulate foreign commerce?  Once again, one must ask “Why?”.

My thought is the President wants to be the ruler instead of a part of a working government.  In essence, he wants to be the government, and that my friends, is a total lack of concern for democracy as we know it.

There are many other thoughts I have regarding the methods of this administration.  Voicing those concerns would only look like a smear of mud from me.  I choose not to do that.  But what I do choose to do is champion democracy as suggested by the Founding Fathers, and a Constitution that has been flexible enough to last over two hundred years and serve this country well.
 
 
 
 

Leadership principle
Many people often think of themselves as leaders, but few, understand what that means.  Some people believe that leaders are born, some in the right place at the right time, some who leverage their position to become placed in a leadership position, but few acknowledge people can learn to become leaders.  Leadership has many characteristics, which if acknowledged and learned can propel individuals into a leadership role. 
 
Those characteristics include courage, organization ability, decisiveness, communication skills, have intelligence and be educated, great judgment, develop trust, must be sensitive or compassionate to others, a motivator, and take responsibility and accountability for actions.  One last thing a leader must have is a vision, or a plan of where the leader wants to take the group.

Other than vision, I’m not sure which characteristic is the most important.  Some may say education…one must be academically prepared to lead.  But think about Alexander the Great, William the Conqueror, or Attila the Hun for a moment. What about DaVinci, Michelangelo, or the early architects of the great cathedrals of France?  Just how educated were they compared to education of today?  I mean, in recent years there have been political leaders in Arizona believe the earth is flat, even though Magellan proved them wrong hundreds of years ago.

Better yet, how about the education level of our founding fathers of our country?  Or Abraham Lincoln?

At a dinner in the White House honoring Nobel Prize winners, President John Kennedy said, "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
 
It must be noted there is no quantitative measurement for each of the characteristics of leadership.  One may be more talented and blessed in some characteristics than others, but one must possess all of these characteristics.  And it is my contention leadership doesn’t exist only in high business or political positions.  The moms and dads of the family use the same characteristics as those in business and politics…they just use a different set of criteria and subject material. 

What are Leadership Styles?
A leadership style adopted by any leader is usually a combination of their personality, life experiences, level of intelligence, family dynamics, and way of thinking.  Just as important, leadership thrives on the aforementioned characteristics.  Without the presence of those characteristics, leadership may not be as effective as it could be.
Leadership styles have been studied in various fashion to uncover the appropriate or most effective leadership style that motivates and influences others to accomplish set goals. The major tenet of effective leadership style is the degree to which it builds follower trust.

Studies carried out indicate that followers who trust in their leader are more likely to follow through with the leader’s instructions over and above the expected. In turn, they will accomplish set goals while being allowed to speak freely to air their ideas and suggestions on the direction of the projects at hand.

Why Do Leadership Styles Matter?
That being said, leaders should be able to understand their leadership style in relation to a combination of traits listed above and determine how best they can be most effective.  Effective leadership has more to do with leadership style.  Sometimes effective leadership demands the use of a leadership style that may be contrary to a leader’s own leadership style.  However, understanding one’s leadership style allows a leader to take ownership, control, and responsibility for the size and scope of the tasks ahead.
 
Here is a small synopsis of a few selected leadership styles:

Coercive or Autocratic leadership 
Of all the leadership styles, coercive is the least effective in most situations. It’s not difficult to understand why. This style is characterized by top-down decision making, an authoritarian approach, and a demanding, do-what-I-say attitude, of the leader. (Sometimes referenced as “My way or the highway”).  While this style may yield short-term results, it has a corrosive long-term impact on the culture of the followers, leading to high turnover and a disillusioned, disengaged group of followers.  This type of leader shows little compassion for others.
 
This command-and-control leadership style may work in certain crisis situations where swift, decisive action and a clear chain of command are needed: a corporate takeover or in an emergency room, for instance. In most cases, though, this approach is likely to be detrimental.

Authoritative leadership 
The authoritative leadership style, not to be confused with coercive or autocratic leadership, involves motivating your team members by connecting their work to a larger organizational strategy, helping them understand how their day-to-day tasks contribute to a greater purpose. It’s about setting clear guidelines; not micromanaging. It’s also about trusting your staff members to work towards the shared vision with autonomy and creativity, which creates high employee engagement and increased job satisfaction. 
 
This leadership style is beneficial in lots of situations, and it’s particularly useful during times of change or uncertainty. It can also be integrated into daily operations by reminding your team members of your mission or vision.
 
Transformational leadership
Transformational leadership is all about transforming the group by inspiring followers to keep increasing their production and achieve what they never thought they were capable of. Transformational leaders expect the best out of their team and push them consistently until their work and lives go through a transformation or considerable improvement.

To be effective, transformational leaders should possess high levels of integrity, intelligence, a shared vision of the future, empathy, and good communication skills.

Such a style of leadership is often associated with high growth-oriented organizations that push boundaries in innovation and productivity. Practically, such leaders tend to give followers tasks that grow in difficulty and deadlines that keep getting tighter as time progresses.

However, transformational leaders risk losing track of individual learning curves as some team members may not receive appropriate guidance to complete challenging tasks. At the same time, transformational leaders can lead to great results and engagement through shared trust and vision between the leader and followers.

Transactional Leadership
Transactional leadership is more short-term and can best be described as a “give and take” kind of transaction. Team members agree to follow their leader based on job acceptance.  Essentially, it’s a transaction involving payment for services rendered. Team members are rewarded for exactly the work performed. If one meets a certain target, one may receive a bonus, whatever that may be. 

Transactional leadership establishes roles and responsibilities for each team member and encourages the work to be completed as scheduled. There are instances where incentive programs can be employed to motivate followers.  In addition to incentives, there are penalties imposed to regulate how work should be done.

Transactional leadership is a more direct way of leadership that eliminates confusion between leader and follower, and tasks are clearly spelled out by the leader. However, due to its rigid environment and direct expectations, it may curb creativity and innovation. It can also lead to lower job satisfaction and high turnover.

Ask yourself what type of leadership style is being exhibited by the President.  Is he governing by using the appropriate strategies of the Constitution that are in place, or is he ruling by issuing Executive Orders?  There is a distinct difference.

Struggle against decadence

decadence | ˈdekəd(ə)ns | noun moral or cultural decline as characterized by excessive indulgence in pleasure or luxury: he denounced Western decadence. • luxurious self-indulgence

woke | wōk | verb past of wake adjective (woker, wokest) often derogatory alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination

Many times, the comment has been spoken about how the American society has declined.  It is a constant in the news of today, and has been for several years.  The thought is so prevalent that it has permeated politics, sports, marriage…the list goes on.  The current term for this decline has been associated with the work “woke”.  Because of the notoriety of the subject, there are many half-truths and complete falsehoods regarding “wokeness”.

As a nation, we have been told by our leaders there are certain roles for each gender.  These are ascribed roles one is born into, and that is that.  One may have even read or heard there are only two genders and they are assigned at birth, male and female.  While that is true, the issue of transgender people jumps to the front of the line in regards to “hot issues” regarding acceptance or denial.  And this issue is repugnant for many people.

The idea of “wokeness” has reached into public education.  There are claims by politicians, one in particular, that public schools are permitting students to use pronouns of choice instead of pronouns that reflect one’s sexuality.  It has been bandied about that public schools are changing student’s sex, by sending the students to have surgery for sex reassignment without the permission of parents.  Other than this being laughable, it is believed by many.

This same issue caused Connecticut female student/athletes to sue on the grounds transgender athletes were allowed to compete in track meets and defeat standout girl athletes.  The basis of the suit was the transgender athletes cost the female athletes accolades and scholarship opportunities.  The Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied the lawsuit ruling the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge a policy that allowed transgender youth to participate on sports teams that align with their gender. The Court also ruled that discrimination against transgender students violates Title IX.

This legal decision has not calmed the waters of transgender people.  Many parents have stated they will not comply with schools that allow transgender students to use the restroom of their choice of gender, instead of the gender assigned at birth. 
 
Even clergy members are at opposite ends of the spectrum regarding transgender people.  Theologians have spoken against this issue because, as some say, Jesus gave life to one to live as one is born.  Others counter with Jesus loves all regardless of condition or station in life.

In 2014, a young black man was killed by police in Ferguson, Missouri.  There have been conflicting reports as to what actually happened, but it is known a police officer killed a young, unarmed, black man.  As one may imagine, this caused turmoil and riots.  The police were accused of covering up for the officer who shot the young black man.  This caused President Obama to send Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States to investigate regarding this event.  This marked one of the few times in US history the DOJ was sent by the President to investigate an event, even though the jurisdiction was held by the Ferguson police department.

Another issue that caused concern in the recent past was the “Black Lives Matter” movement.  Many cities across the United States painted streets with "Black Lives Matter" in the wake of the 2020 protests following the killing of George Floyd. Some notable examples include Washington, D.C., with a mural on 16th Street. Other cities that also painted streets with the phrase include Oakland, CA, Charlotte, NC, San Francisco, CA, Denver, CO, Seattle, WA, and Albany, NY, among many others. 

Hints of racism and civil rights emanated from this issue.  Many people who were not black said “All lives matter”.  And the racial gap widened.

What has been forgotten in this is the meaning of decadence and woke.  Do the people of our nation over indulge in luxury and pleasure?  Is it not good to have nice things in life; to spend money as one may wish, provided one has the money to do so?  It is wrong to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor?  Gluttony comes to mind.  Envy comes to mind.  So does Greed.

The definition of woke would indicate people are concerned with discrimination and social injustice.  The Supreme Court of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954) was about discrimination and social injustice.  The Little Rock Nine and the action of President Eisenhower was about discrimination and social injustice.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was about discrimination and social injustice.  Public Law 94-142, also known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act or Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, is a landmark U.S. federal law enacted in 1975 that guarantees a free, appropriate public education to all children with disabilities, ages 3-21 was about discrimination and social injustice, just as Title IX provided an opportunity for girls to compete in interscholastic sports.  All were acts regarding discrimination and social injustice.
 
And, in the event, one may believe all of these court actions or laws benefited black or handicapped students, Bakke v. UC Davis Regents once again attacked discrimination and social injustice.  Steven Bakke was a white citizen trying to get into medical school at UC Davis.  He was denied because his test scores were not meeting a certain threshold.  However, when Bakke discovered that minorities were admitted to the medical school who had lower test scores than his, he sued…and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor.

Finally, the 14th Amendment, which one person in particular is arguing it is out of date and needs to be amended or deleted from the Constitution, flat out guarantees first class citizenship to all, regardless of race, creed, color…et al.  The operative word is ALL which is 100 per cent in most languages known to mankind.
Do I agree with many of the issues surrounding the decadence or wokeness of our society?  No, I do not.  But what I have to understand is discrimination and social injustice fails to allow citizens of our nation to chase their dreams.  That violates one of our most cherished aspects of our national fabric…opportunity to live as one wishes.  And as the song goes, “Catch your dreams, before they slip away…”

Extreme nationalism

extreme | ikˈstrēm | 
adjective:  1 reaching a high or the highest degree; very great:  • not usual; exceptional:  • very severe or serious:  • (of a person or their opinions) advocating severe or drastic measures; far from moderate, especially politically
 
nationalism | ˈnaSH(ə)nəˌlizəm | 
noun:  1 identification with one’s own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations:  2 an ideology that elevates one nation or nationality above all others and that places primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations, nationalities or supranational groups

In my lifetime of 70 years plus, the times that I can remember our nation exhibiting nationalism is during the Olympic Games.  Most all Americans cheer on our athletes, often with the “USA, USA, USA” chant; and when an American wins an event.  Going back into the Olympic archives, Lake Placid, 1980…The USA Hockey team defeating the defending, four-time Olympic Gold Champions, Soviet Union Hockey team…characterized by Al Michael’s call, “Do you believe in Miracles?”, our nation swelled with pride.  And two days later, the American team won the Gold Medal, beating Finland, the heart of our nation once again swelled with pride.

It was our nation; it was us being as nationalistic a possible; it was a great deal of hubris being displayed.  It was, a great time for our nation.

Without question, writing about this facet of Fascism has been the most difficult for me.  It is because I believe the extreme nationalism being experienced now in our nation is leading our country down a dangerous pathway.
The definitions I have listed clearly suggests the concept of nationalism puts the interests of the nation above all other nations of the world.  It also indicates this ideology can be detrimental or even exclude other nations.  One facet of the aforementioned definitions indicates nationalism promotes the culture and interest of a nation as opposed to other nations.  It is this aspect of nationalism that I object to.  One may wonder why, so please allow me to explain.

The operative word in a portion of the definition of nationalism or extreme nationalism is “culture”.  While there are many definitions of the word culture, I have concentrated on the definitions I believe are most appropriate for this subject.

culture | ˈkəlCHər | 
noun 1 the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively: 2 the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group:  the attitudes and behavior characteristic of a particular social group

To clarify, intellectual achievement, customs, arts, and social institutions (government, economics, religions, marriage, education) that are shared by a nation of people within the boundaries (borders) of a country is considered culture.

Let me ask the question, “How would one describe the culture of the United States using the aforementioned definitions of culture?”

The question is relevant because, in my view, American culture is like a bowl of vegetable soup.  Some historians and sociologists have referred to American culture as a “salad bowl”. Why”.  Because American culture is a combination of all cultures of the world. 

Millions of people have immigrated to the US for a chance to better their station in life.  The first three waves of immigration took place from 1607 to 1830, from 1830s to 1880s, and from the 1890s to 1920s.  They came because of the words at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, …"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."  These people bought in to the American dream.
As these people matriculated to the US, they brought with them their customs, arts, religions, and intellectual mindset.  All people from different countries with different ideas and customs, but they chose to be American citizens.  In effect, these immigrants grew the American culture.

Taken to the extreme, nationalism becomes an ideology of group rights that denigrates individualism in favor of “the nation”.  Its foundational principle is that government exists primarily to protect the culture and interests of the nation or its dominant group.  This implies that government can use its authority to protect the national culture against potential dangers including other domestic groups and the potential spread of their cultures.  And, take a guess who would decide the dominate group.

The conflicting statement regarding the denigration of the individual in favor of a dominant group is individualism and individual rights are part of the spine of our nation. 

Extreme nationalism gives rise to discrimination, persecution, and the denial of rights of certain classes of people as determined by the national government.  We know this because Hitler blamed the Jewish people for the failings of Germany prior to WWII.  He claimed the Jewish population of Germany sold out Germany at the end of WWI to end the war.  Germany had to pay war reparations that literally bankrupt Germany…and without a major battle fought on German soil, Hitler had a sympathetic ear to speak to.

Today, in the US, the scapegoat has become the undocumented citizen.  The undocumented citizens have been described as murderers, rapists, mentally insane, and just bad people by the President.  Our national leaders have found a sympathetic ear, and they are using it.  It is unfortunate that Congress has shirked its duty to develop a reasonable, comprehensive immigration policy, something that has been called for since the Clinton administration, and by every President since.  I will say this, Congress is the real culprit regarding illegal immigration.  Congress has done nothing about immigration since before the Clinton administration.

So, imagine if you will, that bowl of soup I suggested resembled American culture.  In extreme nationalism, if one takes out the undocumented citizen (the scapegoat) out of the soup…gone will be the food, the music, the traditions, the language, the religious beliefs, the taste of the soup will not be the same. 
And, after the original scapegoat is taken from the soup, which immigration group will be next?  And with it, more missing food, music, traditions and such will be gone, and the taste of the soup will certainly not be the same.
 
And neither will the American culture be the same.

So, I ask, how does the government action of group deportation protect the culture of the United States?  In a statement, “It doesn’t”.

That is how extreme nationalism fits in to the concept of Fascism.  The government determines a dominant group, picks a scapegoat, persecutes the scapegoat, and then will turn on the dominant group when the plan begins to fail.  That is exactly what Hitler did.  I have an opinion of what or whom the President will blame when his plan to eliminate the scapegoat runs into a series of hurdles.  He has already set the stage by calling judges that do not support his agenda as “bad judges”, some who even he nominated to the bench.

And one more nugget for thought…there has been talk in Washington, led by the President, to do away with birthright citizenship.  In my view, birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.  If this becomes a reality, will people have to submit an application for citizenship even though the same people were born in the United States?  Think about that for a moment…the application process for citizenship will be no more than determining the dominant, or preferred group in the United States.

What is your opinion?

Sexism and misogyny

sexism | ˈsekˌsizəm | noun prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex
misogyny | məˈsäjənē | noun dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women

The role of women in Fascist ideology was foremost to demonstrate her patriotism and supporting her country by giving birth to children which she would raise to become soldiers or mothers who in turn would support expansionism. While girls were not banned from studying, the cost for women students were raised to discourage it; and while women were not banned from working, certain restrictions were introduced to prevent women from being placed in authority over men in the professional life, such as banning women from certain leadership positions in the educational system which could have given them authority over male colleagues.

Unfortunately, in our society, for a long time, women were denied some civil rights…like voting.  Women were given the right to vote in federal elections about 100 years ago.  As it was, the husband of a married couple was to be the bread winner of the family, the wife, the mother and house keeper.  This was the case until about 1960 when women began to enter the workforce.  The economics of our country dictated if Americans wished to enjoy the American dream of living comfortably and having disposable income, women would have to go to work.

At the outset of women entering the workforce, women were not paid the same wages as men for the same work performed.  It is fact few if any women were allowed into leadership positions of whatever labor field they were in.  Thankfully, due to feminist activists, and the realization by many women can be assets to the nation other than bearing children, much of this discrimination or ideology doesn’t exist anymore.

But the times could be changing.

One only needs to listen to the audio tape of President Trump and Billy Bush recorded on a bus taking the two to a tv recording stage to understand what the attitude of the President is towards women.  In the event you have not heard or don’t remember the event, let me help you.
​
On tape, Trump tells Bush about a failed attempt to seduce Nancy O’Dell, who was Bush's co-host at the time (circa 2005) of the recording:

I moved on her, and I failed. I'll admit it.  I did try and fuck her. She was married.

And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, "I'll show you where they have some nice furniture." I took her out furniture—I moved on her like a bitch.

But I couldn't get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden, I see her, she's now got the  big phony tits and everything. She's totally changed her look. 

Later, referring to  Arianne Zucker (whom they were waiting to meet), Trump says:

I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything.
 
As we know, the President was later convicted of providing hush money to a porn actress to not disclose their tryst prior to the 2016 election.  And in May of 2023, the President was also found guilty for sexually abusing and defaming advice columnist E. Jean Carroll in 1996.  Apparently, the President abused Carroll as he had described to Billy Bush.
 
And yet more evidence of Trump’s disrespect for women.

Trump, who owned the Miss Universe, Miss USA, and Miss Teen USA pageants from 1996 until 2015, has publicly bragged about invading beauty queen dressing rooms, calling it one of his prerogatives of ownership.
“I’ll tell you the funniest is that I’ll go backstage before a show and everyone’s getting dressed,” Trump told Howard Stern in recordings released by CNN. “No men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in, because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it. ... ‘Is everyone OK?’ You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody OK?’ And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.”

What I can’t fathom is how any father of a daughter could accept this person and ideology as the leader of the free world.  I have asked many men what they would do if a person tried to introduce themselves to either their wife or daughter as described by Trump.  The answer was “kill him” or “knock the hell out of him”. 
 
But let us elect him to be President.

If the actions and ideology of the President were to permeate our society, to what would women be reduced?
 
I’m old enough to remember when women entered the workforce to help support the family.  Without that happening, many families might not have been able to make ends meet.  I’m old enough to remember when women’s sports were not thought of as a component of our society, but an anomaly. As a former educator, I know enough if it hadn’t been for women “manning” industrial factories during WWII while the men were fighting the war, the industrial complex may have failed.

Let me suggest, if women are relegated to the position of bearing children and keeping house, our nation will take a great step backward.  But then again, that is the position of Project 2025, President Trump’s playbook for his administration.  In the manifesto of Project 2025, there are statements that indicate there will be political attacks on:

Attacks on Protections Against Sex Discrimination and Other Forms of Discrimination 
Attacks on Reproductive Rights and Access to Health Care 
Attacks on Workplace Justice 

These statements would roll back laws that brought forth an equalization in society for women.  They would roll back (and this has happened already) women’s reproductive rights such as abortion, and it would roll back instances of workplace injustice against women.  Please reread the opening sentence of this portion of writing.
​  
I have my opinion on this matter, what is yours?
 
 
​