博客存档

Socialism on the Rise

8/26/2025

A very long time ago, while I was attending Northern Arizona University, a political science class discussion centered around the difference between Socialism and Communism.  To some, the confusion was because the words are almost interchangeable and are often used as a descriptive term of a form of government.  This discussion led many to begin to understand both Socialism and Communism are forms of economic theory, and truly not a form of government.

In a nutshell, the difference between Socialism and Communism is quite simple.  A Socialist economic system requires the government to own the means of production that are of vital interest to the country.  All utilities would be owned and operated by the government.  Any commodity that is not of vital importance to the country can be owned by private individuals.  What that may mean is one could own a tv of choice, but the tv station and media is owned and operated by the government.  This type of economic system allows for social classes to exist because of the ability to own private property that is not deemed to be “of vital interest” by the government.

In a pure Communist economic system, the government owns ALL OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.  The government controls all aspects of the economic system, determines a five-year economic plan, determines where workers are needed, and determines what will be paid to the workers.  Farms are state owned; and the government determines what crops will be grown. Under a Communist economic system, all citizens are treated the same; supposedly, there are no social classes.

I bring this to your attention because of some troubling activity that took place earlier this week.  I found this article published by the Intel Newsroom to be “of vital interest” to the country.

Intel and Trump Administration Reach Historic Agreement to Accelerate American Technology and Manufacturing Leadership

AUGUST 22, 2025Published

SANTA CLARA, Calif.-- Intel Corporation today announced an agreement with the Trump Administration to support the continued expansion of American technology and manufacturing leadership. Under terms of the agreement, the United States government will make an $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock, reflecting the confidence the Administration has in Intel to advance key national priorities and the critically important role the company plays in expanding the domestic semiconductor industry.

The government’s equity stake will be funded by the remaining $5.7 billion in grants previously awarded, but not yet paid, to Intel under the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act and $3.2 billion awarded to the company as part of the Secure Enclave program. Intel will continue to deliver on its Secure Enclave obligations and reaffirmed its commitment to delivering trusted and secure semiconductors to the U.S. Department of Defense. The $8.9 billion investment is in addition to the $2.2 billion in CHIPS grants Intel has received to date, making for a total investment of $11.1 billion.

I’m not one to jump to conclusions, but the phrase “to advance key national priorities” is close in meaning to “of vital interests”.

And to me what is even more disturbing was the following I found when reading NBC News as well as other news outlets:

U.S. could take stakes in more companies, Trump adviser says

Kevin Hassett said the Trump administration's piece of chipmaker Intel is "like a down payment on a sovereign wealth fund."

Aug. 25, 2025, 6:33 AM MST / Updated Aug. 25, 2025, 11:40 AM MST
By Steve Kopack and Gabe Gutierrez

The U.S. government could take equity stakes in more companies, potentially through an American sovereign wealth fund, according to one of President Donald Trump's top economic advisers.

National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett made the comments Monday, days after the United States took nearly 10% stake in Intel.  The government secured a piece of the semiconductor maker with money intended for grants as part of the CHIPS and Science Act, passed during the Biden administration.

And then, after reading what Hassett had to say, I read about this, being reported by CNBC, as well as other new outlets, the following:

Trump Pentagon weighing equity stakes in defense contractors like Lockheed, says Lutnick

PUBLISHED TUE, AUG 26 20258:20 KEVIN BREUNINGER

Top officials at the Pentagon are “thinking about” whether the U.S. should acquire equity stakes in leading defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Tuesday.

The Cabinet secretary, in an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box”revealed the Defense Department’s interest in taking those stakes days after the U.S. government acquired 10% of Intel stock in a roughly $9 billion deal.

Lutnick was asked if the Trump administration would repeat that move with other companies that do business with the government.  “Oh there’s a monstrous discussion about defense,” Lutnick replied. "Lockheed, which makes most of its revenue from federal contracts, is “basically an arm of the U.S. government,” he said.

In my lifetime of 74 years, I cannot recall the federal government going into business with companies, shall we say, “of vital interest”?  Defense contracts have been awarded on a bid basis; that would include planes, ships, guns, and ammo.

Recently, President Trump, as reported by NPR, Reuters, Time Magazine, and Newsweek,  has called for the FCC to revoke the broadcast license of ABC and NBC because they have treated him badly.  And it has been speculated that Stephen Colbert was cancelled as part of a deal, possibly to gain favor for Paramount's pending merger with Skydance.  Colbert had been openly critical of Trump while hosting the Late Show.  Is there a move to control broadcast journalism as well as print journalism?

I believe the most profound statement to come out of Washington D.C. during the past week was from Sen. Rand Paul, Republican from Kentucky, wrote in an X post, “If socialism is government owning the means of production, wouldn’t the government owning part of Intel be a step toward socialism?
”
The United States considers itself as a Capitalist economic nation.  The citizens of our nation are free to own the means of production.  The citizens of our nation are free to use their private property as they see fit, as long as it is within the confines of local ordinances.  The citizens of our nation are free to work where they wish, to purchase what they wish, to invest how they wish, to live where they wish…all integral parts of a Capitalist economy.

To be sure, there is governmental regulation in some areas of the economy.  That began with President Theodore Roosevelt taking on the Northern Securities Company using the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in 1902.  Why did TR do this?  To break up a monopoly and create a more level playing field for all entrepreneurs.  Several other monopolies fell because of this…Standard Oil was split into 34 different companies to break up an economic monopoly.  All of this was done for the benefit of the common citizen…the action tried to prevent an aristocracy of rich robber barons who controlled the economy and held great influence in Washington D.C..

So, after reading the different accounts of the past week regarding the government purchase of a part of Intel, and the distinct possibility of the government purchasing part of other industries that are certainly of vital interest to our nation, I must agree with Senator Rand Paul.

What is fascinating about this governmental action, President Trump has said he wanted to help the common citizen.  He has reduced taxes for the common citizen to put more money in the pockets of Americans.  However, his tariff war will undoubtedly cause prices to rise for the common person who is operating from paycheck to paycheck.  Trump wants to bring industry back to the US…a noble idea, but if the government buys into a company that returns to the US, why would those companies return?  And just for knowing, which agency of the government would receive the dividends from the companies in which our national government has become an owner?

And on another note, it would be interesting to see who purchased Intel stock BEFORE the deal was completed with the White House.  It would be just as interesting to see who has purchased stock in Lockheed before the announcement from the White House.  Insider trading?  Who became even more wealthy?  I’m not going to say corruption, but it is what President Theodore Roosevelt fought.  The rich getting richer and the average citizen taking it in the shorts.

I have arrived at my opinion…have you reached yours?

0 Comments

Anthem of the 60's Still Appropriate

8/24/2025

0 Comments

I was driving in my car recently and the anthem from the 1960’s came on over the airwaves.  I grew up in the 60’s and I recognized it immediately.  It was a song by the Buffalo Springfield, a group that consisted of Neil Young, Bruce Palmer, Dewey Martin, Stephen Stills and Richie Furay.  If I am not mistaken the group recorded only four albums, and one of those was a compilation of the group’s hits.  The name of that song is For What It’s Worth.

As I was listening and singing, I realized that song was very appropriate for this era of national politics.  So, as I have decided to write, with all due respect to Stephen Stills, the author of the song, and choose lyrics from the song, and then try to apply those lyrics to today’s atmosphere in the United States.

So here goes…

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear...

One must ask themselves, what are our national political figures doing…or for that matter thinking?

Not too long ago, and I have written about this before, Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, issued a statement regarding Iran’s nuclear capabilities and was thrown under the bus by the President who proclaimed the director to be wrong.  Later, Gabbard issued a statement indicating that her agency was “aligned” with the White House agenda.  Take a guess who nominated Gabbard to that post…

It wasn’t too long after that, the President said the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board, Jerome Powell, should resign.  Why?  The president's gripes with his handpicked Fed chair — whom Trump has called a "numbskull," a "Trump Hater" and a "stubborn mule" — have largely focused on the central bank's decision to keep interest rates relatively high so far this year, part of an inflation-fighting campaign.

The problem at the current moment is the Fed Chair is concerned about how the recently introduced tariffs will affect the American economy.  If inflation does go up, then the high interest rates are the method to ease inflation.  If inflation does in fact go down, the Fed will lower interest rates, hopefully sometime soon.  Nonetheless, Powell was Trump’s nominee and confirmed to the Fed Board during Trump’s first term in office.  He was later renewed by President Biden to the same position, and when Trump took office, Powell remained in his position.  So, what is happening here?

From the Associated Press…

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has fired a general whose agency’s initial intelligence assessment of damage to Iranian nuclear sites from US strikes angered President Donald Trump, according to two people familiar with the decision and a White House official.  The report came after Trump said the Iranian nuclear sites were “obliterated”.  Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse will no longer serve as head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, according to the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.
Hegseth also fired Vice Adm. Nancy Lacore, who is chief of the Navy Reserve, as well as Rear Adm. Milton Sands, a Navy SEAL officer who oversees Naval Special Warfare Command, another US official said.  The reasons for their firings, the latest in a series targeting military leaders, ain’t exactly clear.

Yet Hegseth remains as Secretary of Defense even though he was caught sending sensitive information over an unsecured social media application…

There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware...

Unless one has been under a rock or in stupor of some sort, the President ordered the National Guard into Los Angeles to help quell protests over immigration raids in and around Los Angeles.  The President also sent about 200 Marines to Los Angeles as well.  This action marks the first time a President has mobilized the National Guard WITHOUT a request from a governor since 1960.

Recently, the President has ordered the National Guard to Washington D.C. to stop an intolerable wave of crime.  Secretary Hegseth has authorized the National Guard to carry weapons and to act as a local law enforcement agency carrying out law enforcement.  However,

From FactCheck.org, here is what we know about the allegations.

“The Metropolitan Police Department of D.C. released crime statistics on Aug. 11 that showed the number of homicides in the city had decreased by 32% from 2023 to 2024 and by 12% so far from 2024 to 2025, as we’ve written. Violent crime overall for 2024 was down 35% from the previous year and was “the lowest it has been in over 30 years,” the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia reported in January.

“In addition to the overall violent crime reduction, homicides are down 32%; robberies are down 39%; armed carjackings are down 53%; assaults with a dangerous weapon are down 27% when compared with 2023 levels, with the District reporting the fewest assaults with dangerous weapons and burglaries in over 30 years,” according to the press release from then-U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves.”

Obviously, the Metro Police Department was doing something right, but, President Donald Trump, however, declared a “crime emergency” in Washington on Aug. 11 to justify a federal takeover of the city’s law enforcement. He wrongly claimed at a press conference that day, “Murders in 2023 reached the highest rate probably ever” in Washington. (The peak murder rate was in 1991.)  Crime statistics would indicate violent crime is receding in Washington D.C., but is still higher than larger cities in the nation.  And let me add, the President has said he may send the National Guard to New York City, Chicago, and San Francisco to “clean up those cities.”

But, wait, there may be one small problem.

The Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) is a U.S. federal law from 1878 that generally prohibits the use of the Army and Air Force for domestic law enforcement purposes.

Key facts about the act include:

Purpose: The law was designed to prevent the federal military from being used as a civilian police force in the United States.
Restrictions: It makes it a crime to willfully use "any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws".
Exceptions: The act has exceptions, including specific circumstances authorized by the Constitution or an Act of Congress. The military can also be used in emergencies, such as for disaster relief or to quell a major civil disturbance, in support of civilian authorities.

However, this plays out, “there’s a man with a gun over there…” and I just don’t think that will resonate with the public.

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong…

On the order of the President, the state of Texas has redrawn congressional districts to provide the President with 5 more Republican seats in the House of Representatives.  In response to the Texas redistricting, the state of California will vote on a referendum in November to determine if the congressional districts in California should be redrawn.  Illinois and New York have indicated they may do the same.  In essence the House of Representatives is deepening the normal battle lines of politics which will not be beneficial to the nation as a whole.  The MAGA Republicans and the Democrats will say it is the other party’s fault the abyss between the two parties has deepened.  And this may just be the tip of the iceberg as Trump tries to grab more power as the President.

The public has heard numerous times the country was in dire shape due to the policies of the Biden administration.  Just as we have heard numerous times how great the country is prospering under the Trump administration.

A couple questions to ponder:

If the MAGA Republicans are so sure their agenda is widely accepted by the voters of the nation, why then ask Texas to redrawn their congressional districts to provide 5 more Republican seats in the House?
Is the Chair of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell being a true conservative by waiting to see the results of the tariffs imposed by Trump before lowering interest rates as the President wants?
Who is right and who is wrong?

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid…

How many times have we heard the word “hoax”, or “witch hunt”, or “I didn’t do anything wrong!” come from the mouth of the President. Truly, if the President has done nothing wrong, then all of those catchy words and phrase do apply. And the citizens who doubt the President would owe him a big apology. But, using a phrase from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

These examples allow me to believe; the President puts on a good face in public; but in private he may doubt himself and fears he will be found out.

I say this because of my thoughts about:

I’ll end the Ukraine/Russian war. This was a cornerstone of President Trump’s campaign for office. It appears more and more the Summit meeting with Putin in Alaska was a failure. At the moment, Putin has said there will be no ceasefire and no face to face with Zelensky. Russia has bombed an American factory in the Ukraine, even though their Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov denied this on Meet the Press, August 24, 2025. The President has found criticism for his handling of the Summit.
Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, remarked this week, at the request of the President, we are going to paint the “wall” on the border black. The reason? Black retains heat and will make it difficult for illegal immigrants to climb the wall. In doing this, the Trump administration is admitting the wall may not be doing what it is supposed to do…keep people out, otherwise, why paint the wall black? And while the paint job may cost millions to complete, a five-dollar pair of gloves with silicone dots just might allow those illegal immigrants Trump wishes to keep out, the opportunity to climb the fence. This is another of Trump’s campaign promises. Once the illegal immigrants find out about the use of gloves…the money for the black paint will be a waste and the judgment of the President will be questioned in the press.
RFK, jr… Secretary of Health and Human Services is in the process of confusing people in the nation to vaccinate their children, to trust the CDC, and to trust the WHO. Why? Because according to RFK, jr., vaccines cause autism. The CDC has given out bad information regarding disease and vaccines and the WHO is only in it for the money. So far, this year, the nation has endured a measles outbreak. Because of the MMR vaccine, measles was virtually wiped out. Polio has been virtually wiped out in the United States because of the polio vaccine of Jonas Salk. It saved lives. RFK, jr’s education does not include science or medicine. He has a BA in American History and Literature from Harvard; a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law; a Master of Laws from Pace University. RFK, jr. is not a man of science or medicine. The main charge of our government is to protect man’s right to life. Does RFK, jr. fit that mold? The President’s judgment comes into question regarding the nomination of RFK, jr.
I have mentioned Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Hegseth earlier in this article. I’m not sure Gabbard misrepresented the facts regarding Iran; just because the President said so, doesn’t make Gabbard wrong. Why? Because of the report published by Lt. Gen. Kruse that didn’t align with Trump’s “obliterated” remarks concerning the Iranian nuclear program. I am confident Pete Hegseth fired Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse on the order of the President because the intelligence report Lt. Gen. Kruse issued regarding the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities made the President look bad.

To correct the error of his judgement, it would seemingly damage his image. In my mind, the President doesn’t want that to happen…therefore…witch hunt, hoax, I didn’t do that, all come into play. Yet we know of his legal troubles, his business failures, his failed University. We know of his marital failures. We know of his misogynist attitude of women by listening to the infamous Billy Bush tape.

We better stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look, what's going down?

I have my opinion, you can conclude what you want.

0 Comments

Slavery at the Smithsonian

8/22/2025

0 Comments

On May 10th of 1933, the first book burning took place in Germany. The reason the books were burned was because the material in the books did not support the narrative of the German government, namely Adolf Hitler.

To fit the narrative of the present-day US administration, books need not be burnt. However, a Neo-revisionist narrative of American History that supports the current administration philosophy will have the same effect. The action of calling the Smithsonian not representative of our American heritage and culture and then ordering an investigation as well as changing some presentations of the Smithsonian is akin to burning books that are not aligned with the MAGA narrative.

Declaring an overemphasis on slavery in the Smithsonian reeks of racism and bigotry.

If slavery in the United States is to be "downplayed" by politicians, how then, would the reasons for the American Civil War be explained to people? How would one explain to people why Gettysburg is such hallowed ground? How would one describe the courage and valor both sides fought with for their own causes…the South for the economics of slavery; the North to protect and defend the Constitution? What about the significance of the Civil War Amendments…the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments that have been so instrumental in the development of our country? How would the need for those amendments be explained without recognizing the institution of slavery and how bad it was.

How then would the continuing fight for Civil Rights be explained to people? How would Plessy v. Ferguson, Topeka v. Brown, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 be explained to people? Why would Jackie Robinson’s admission to Major League Baseball be so, so significant?  And just how would the Civil Rights movement to include Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. be explained to people?

And maybe this isn’t about Slavery at all…maybe it is just a person in a position to create a new litany of history in his own mind…just to Make America Great Again.

Has our great nation made mistakes?  Absolutely!  Have those mistakes allowed the nation to learn and grow into something better.  I would hope so.  In my mind, America has become a great nation because of the difficult times our nation has endured and grown into a better place to be.  From a fledging nation to the world power we now realize, our nation’s road to greatness has had pot holes to be navigated.

Who can argue that FDR’s speech to Congress of December 8th, 1941 to declare war …”a day that will live in infamy…” wasn’t America at one of its finest hours?  When JFK said in a speech delivered at Rice University on September 12, 1962, the United States would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade…would anyone doubt it would happen?  Who would argue the picture of the entire Congress together, offering support as one group, following the attack of 9-11 wasn’t America at one of its finest hours?

And lest we not forget…President Bush and his actions following the attack of 9-11…throwing out a first pitch during the World Series in New York, just to show the nation and the world, the resolve of America was our country at its best. That was a very polite middle finger salute to those who caused the attack on the World Trade Centers.

So, please tell me how our nation will be “greater” with a new narrative of history that fits the desired narrative of the current administration.  Help me understand…

0 Comments

...to Preserve, Protect...

8/19/2025

0 Comments

When a person assumes the office of the President of the United States, on inauguration day, the elected official takes the oath of office.  The oath is found in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States.  The oath is as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In my opinion, the President is failing to “preserve, protect” the Constitution.  The defense of the Constitution is subject to definition, but it would be my hope the President would protect our country from invasion from an enemy force, other than what the President has referred to as “an invasion” of undocumented citizens.

To be clear, I want to present some facts that may indicate my opinion is correct.

Reported on August 18 2025 by the New York Post among other reporting news agencies…

President Trump unveiled plans Monday (August 18th) to sign an executive order claiming to “help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections” by banning both mail-in voting and electronic tabulation machines.

“I am going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS, and also, while we’re at it, Highly ‘Inaccurate,’ Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES,” Trump declared on Truth Social.

The president did not provide any evidence to back up his claims that voting machines are “highly inaccurate.” Most voters live in municipalities where they cast paper ballots that are scanned by voting machines and are subject to multiple checks to ensure accuracy.

“WE WILL BEGIN THIS EFFORT, WHICH WILL BE STRONGLY OPPOSED BY THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THEY CHEAT AT LEVELS NEVER SEEN BEFORE, by signing an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections,” Trump went on.

This proposed action is in direct conflict with the Constitution.  Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 states The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.

This clause of the Constitution intentionally leaves the election process to the states and not the federal government.  For the President to sign an Executive Order to “get rid of MAIL-BALLOTS…Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES” is overstepping his authority.  In plain sense, the President cannot force the individual states to conform to a system of voting prescribed by the federal government or even the President.  In fact, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Elections Clause expansively, enabling states to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns.

Historically, from colonial times through the 1880s, elections in the US were conducted through a method called viva voce, meaning "with the living voice", where votes were openly stated. Paper ballots, often printed by political parties, were also used during this time, where voters would obtain a ballot and deposit it into a ballot box at the polling place.

The invention of the Acme Voting Machine in the late 1880s marked a shift in election technology. It was designed to enhance vote integrity by providing a mechanism to detect voter fraud and ensure that only one vote was cast per person. The Acme machine, and others like the Automatic Booth invented by Jacob Myers in 1889 and introduced in 1892, were among the first mechanical voting machines used in US elections.  And by the mid 20 century voting machines were used in metropolitan areas of the United States.

Let me also clear, I am not sticking up for the Democratic Party, but let’s once again delve into a bit of US Presidential history and examine the election of 1876.  To say that it was a controversial election is an understatement.  The 1876 Presidential Election presented problems with several states sending conflicting Electoral College votes to Congress.  Oregon, Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina all did so.  Samuel Tilden, a Democrat won the popular vote, however he did not win the electoral vote.  The Republican candidate was Rutherford B. Hayes, who was a very close second to Tilden.  But because of the 20 controversial Electoral votes not being awarded, no winner was determined.

Now one may wonder what this has to do with Trump’s statement, the Democrats will cheat at any level…well let’s see how this election of 1876 plays out.  According to the Constitution, if no candidate receives the necessary electoral votes, the House of Representatives would decide the outcome of the election.  But wait…that is not what happened.

The outcome of the disputed 1876 presidential election was ultimately decided by an Electoral Commission created by Congress
.
Here's how it unfolded:

Disputed Votes: The election between Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and Democrat Samuel J. Tilden resulted in a stalemate, with disputed electoral votes from Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina, and Oregon. Tilden won the popular vote but lacked the necessary electoral votes without those contested states.
Creation of the Electoral Commission: To resolve this crisis and avoid potential civil unrest, Congress established a 15-member Electoral Commission in January 1877.
Commission Composition: The commission was comprised of five members from the House of Representatives, five from the Senate, and five Supreme Court justices.
Decision and Outcome: The Commission ultimately voted along party lines (8 Republicans to 7 Democrats) to award all 20 disputed electoral votes to Hayes, securing his victory by a single electoral vote (185 to 184).

Supposedly, an independent was to be on this commission, but died before the commission could decide the outcome, and was replaced by…a Republican.  As you may have read, the vote went along party lines and Rutherford “Old Eight to Seven” Hayes, was declared the winner.  This took place two days before his inauguration, March 5, 1877.

Was there a fix in this election, as Trump has declared so many times after his loss in 2020?  Was there controversy over the commission when the Constitution details the procedure to declare a winner of a Presidential Election should no one receive the necessary Electoral College votes to win?  Was there controversy over the Electoral Votes of four states that sent in conflicting electoral college vote tabulations…(Sound familiar Arizona and other states; the false electors of the 2024 election)?  Was there a political party cheating during this election?  If there was, I don’t think it was Samuel Tilden’s party, or he would have been declared the winner.

Now, in the Presidential Election of 1948, it was widely expected Thomas Dewey would defeat the incumbent, Harry Truman.  In fact, the Chicago Tribune printed its daily paper with the headline, DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN.

The 1948 election showcased a mix of mechanical voting systems and traditional paper ballot counting, with results progressively compiled at the local and state levels before the final electoral count and declaration in Congress. The election is also remembered for the significant upset victory achieved by Truman despite early polling predictions to the contrary

Counting the votes in the 1948 US presidential election was a lengthy process, as it was primarily done manually
.

Election Day: November 2, 1948
Early Confusion and Concession: Despite initial erroneous reports of Thomas Dewey's victory (e.g., the infamous "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline), Harry Truman had a narrow lead on election night. By mid-morning on November 3, Dewey conceded the election to Truman.
Vote Counting Duration: While the initial results were reported on Election Night and the following day, the complete and final tallying of votes took a longer period, possibly several days, to be finalized as results came in from across the nation. Therefore, while the outcome was generally known and conceded the day after the election, the manual vote counting process for the 1948 election extended beyond Election Day, taking several days for the final tallies to be confirmed and months until the official count in Congress.

I will agree there have been difficulties with our voting process.  In Phoenix we have seen long lines on election day; we have seen mail in ballots dropped off on election day become the last votes to be counted and sway an election.  We have seen voting machines accuracy questioned, audited, with no real irregularities noted.

Arizona is trying to improve the process for every election.  So are all other states.  History will teach us a manual count of the Presidential vote will consume time.  On the Presidential ballot, there are other candidates and referendums to be considered, and all of those would also be manually counted.  This is time intensive at a best definition.  Is that what our country needs…a repeat of 1876, or 1948?  A manual counting of votes does not insure better accuracy than what is on display with the current system.

The problem is the President and his motivation to get rid of voting machines and mail in ballots.  At one time his lawyers had filed over 60 lawsuits concerning voter fraud in the 2020 election, yet none were adjudicated for a lack of evidence.  It has been said he wants to send more responsibility to the states…i.e., the dismantling of the Department of Education, yet he wants to control the election process, to “help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections”.  The question that needs to be asked is why?  And it needs to be answered.

I have an opinion that would answer that question…so should you.

0 Comments

Re-apportionment...yea or nay

8/12/2025

0 Comments

In view of what is taking place in the state of Texas, and the impact on other states, (Illinois, New York, and California) I thought it might be a good idea to re-visit a classroom lesson I gave in regards to the re-apportionment of Congressional districts as prescribed by the Constitution.  I have borrowed information from the text I used for class, “Magruder’s American Government”.  I consider it the “Bible” of American Government textbooks.

So, without any further thought, here goes…

One may ask, why does re-apportionment take place?

·                Purpose: The fundamental reason for reapportionment is to ensure that representation in the House of Representatives reflects the changing demographics of the United States, upholding the principle of "one person, one vote" within the Congressional districts of each state.

·                Process: This process occurs every ten years following the constitutionally mandated decennial census. The Census Bureau determines each state's population, and these figures are used to calculate how the 435 House seats are to be divided among the states. The current method for this allocation is the method of equal proportions.

· Impact: Reapportionment can lead to states gaining or losing seats in the House, depending on whether their population has grown or shrunk relative to other states. This then triggers the process of redistricting within the affected states, where new district boundaries are drawn to ensure each congressional district has a roughly equal population.

Reapportionment is closely tied to several important concepts in American government, including:

Federalism: The process highlights the division of power between the federal government (which conducts the census and calculates apportionment) and state governments (which handle redistricting).
Democracy and Representation: The goal is to ensure fair and accurate representation in the House, reflecting the will of the people in each state.
Gerrymandering: The redistricting process, while intended to be fair, can sometimes be manipulated by political parties through practices like gerrymandering to gain an electoral advantage.

What is happening in Texas, (at the request of the President, who has said he doesn’t believe he should follow the Constitution because he has brilliant lawyers to do that work for him), is the Governor of Texas is trying to re-district the state and provide five (5) Republican seats up for election in the mid-term elections coming up in 2026. Texas state legislators, all Democrats, have fled Texas so the Republicans would not have a quorum present to conduct legislative business.  The FBI, at the request of the executive branch of the US government, is trying to “round up the legislators” and return them to Texas.  It is unclear if Democratic legislators would attend any legislative session called by the Governor of Texas.

Some pundits say the Democratic legislators are failing their responsibility to the voters of their respective legislators, while others believe the action of the Democratic legislators is a way of protesting against an unconstitutional action of the Texas Governor.

In response to the proposed action of Texas, the Governor of Illinois, JB Pritzker, has taken the President as well as Governor Greg Abbott to task about this proposed action by stating Illinois will re-district as well to counteract the move by Texas.  The states of California and New York indicated they will follow the lead of Illinois.

With all of this being said, I must ask, who is in the wrong here?  The Constitution clearly states when the National Census and re-apportionment process is to take place.  If Texas does re-district, and Illinois, New York, and California follow through with their plans of action, aren’t all four states breaking Constitutional law? Who is trying to protect democracy as defined by the Constitution?

And which states are being played by the President?  Isn’t President Trump’s asking Texas to find five MAGA districts similar to asking the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find 11,780 votes"?

In essence, we once again see the President’s disdain for rules and regulations of the Constitution he doesn’t like…because the President can do what he wants to do because SCOTUS gave the President immunity while he was performing in an official capacity.  And…just so it doesn’t go unmentioned once more…”I have brilliant lawyers working for me.”

I have had friends tell me the Constitution is just a piece of paper; it can be changed.  Ahhh, but there is a process for that as well…and it isn’t at the whim of the President.

0 Comments

It would take a shift in thought...

8/2/2025

0 Comments

I would like to revisit an event I have previously written about and then make comment on the firing of a prominent Department of Labor employee who was in charge of labor statistics.  Recently I wrote:

On March 25, 2025, Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard testified at a Senate hearing concerning global threats. This hearing was part of the Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community. Part of her testimony was…

“…Iran continues to seeks expansion of its influence in the Middle East, despite the degradation to its proxies and defenses during the Gaza conflict. Iran has developed and maintains ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and UAVs, including systems capable of striking U.S. targets and allies in the region. Tehran has shown a willingness to use these weapons, including during a 2020 attack on U.S. forces in Iraq and in attacks against Israel in April and October 2024. Iran's cyber operations and capabilities also present a serious threat to U.S. networks and data.

The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003. The IC is closely monitoring if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program…”

Today, June 20th, President Trump refuted his appointed Director of National Intelligence testimony.  Reuters reported President Trump said that his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was wrong in suggesting there is no evidence Iran is building a nuclear weapon.

At the time of my writing I asked the question, “To whom is the President listening to, if not his Director of National Intelligence?
”
First, with whom has Trump been discussing national intelligence, if he hasn’t spoken with Gabbard and her division?

Second, is there a “shadow” or black ops intelligence gathering division of government that goes unmentioned, and if that is the case, why is Gabbard and her intelligence division even in operation, if the President is relying on information from another source other than Gabbard?

Third, is this Trump just being Trump and having to be the alpha dog in the room?  The person with all of the knowledge regarding all aspects of the government? “Was the President listening to a “shadow intelligence agency” or was he just being his own alpha self?”

Later, when the US attacked Iranian nuclear sites, the President addressed the nation saying the Iranian sites had been “obliterated” (his word) before any formal assessment of damage could be made.  As it turns out, according to intelligence reports the damage to the Iranian sites was less than what the President had told the public.  So, the question I asked before is somewhat appropriate, “To whom is the President listening?”  Or, does he just hear what he wants to hear and disregard the rest?

And now we have a long time Department of Labor employee in charge of labor statistics being fired because of a poor jobs report created for the past month, and a revision of a previous report regarding jobs gained, which is not out of character of the Department of Labor.  Why was the employee fired?  Because the President accused the employee of “fixing” the report to make him look bad…and the real “kicker”, is, like his dealing with Gabbard, and his immediate declaration of obliterating Iranian nuclear capabilities…he has no evidence, no proof to support his acclimations.

The word “truthful” comes to mind.  Using an Oxford dictionary, I found this definition:

truthful | ˈtro͞oTHf(ə)l | adjective (of a person or statement) telling or expressing the truth; honest:

Another word that raises an eyebrow or two is “accountable”.  And using the same dictionary I found this:

accountable | əˈkoun(t)əbəl | adjective 1 (of a person, organization, or institution) required or expected to justify actions or decisions; responsible: parents could be held accountable for their children's actions | government must be accountable to its citizens.

And just to provide more clarity, the word “justify” must be addressed.

justify | ˈjəstəˌfī | verb (justifies, justifying, justified) [with object] 1 show or prove to be right or reasonable: the person appointed has fully justified our confidence. • be a good reason for: the situation was grave enough to justify further investigation.

So now I pose another question.  It is a question the requires self-evaluation of one’s ethical values.  It requires an answer that is truthful to no one except yourself.  It is a question that Congress and the Courts must answer in a manner to represent the very fabric this on which this country was established.

“When will the President be held accountable for his actions of lies and deceit?”

To turn a deaf ear, or turn away from this behavior of the President is not the American way of life.  It was proven to be so when Barry Goldwater, John Rhodes, and Hugh Scott went to President Nixon and told him to resign or be impeached and removed from office.  And we all know what President Nixon did.  If it could be done then, it can be done now.

0 Comments

Drain the Swamp

8/1/2025

0 Comments

For as long as I can remember, I, as well as other citizens, have wondered how elected officials go to Washington with a small bankroll and return home after serving with a much larger bankroll.  There have been thoughts that members of Congress were privy to information regarding the trading of stocks and used that information to build their wealth.  Afterall, members of Congress are aware of defense contracts, economic policy that would affect gains and losses on Wall Street, the sale of federal land (in particular old post office sites), and other pieces of information that normally flies under the radar of the rest of the population.  One might say, this is equivalent to insider trading.

Now a well-known celebrity went to jail for just that charge.  Martha Stewart served a five-month prison sentence in 2004 after being convicted on charges related to the ImClone stock trading case. She was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to federal investigators.  It was found Ms. Stewart had knowledge regarding bad information about a drug the company was trying to develop, so she decided to sell her investment in that company.  The feds considered this to be “insider trading”.

And now, there appears to be a chance, legislation is on its way to prevent members of the legislative and executive branches of our government from trading stocks while in office.  CBS NEWS as well as other media outlets has reported,

“Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri joined Democrats Wednesday to advance legislation that would ban members of Congress from buying, selling or owning individual stocks.

In an 8-7 vote, Hawley and Senate Democrats on the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs voted the legislation out of committee, with all other Republicans on the committee voting against it. It's not yet clear if the legislation, which Hawley introduced, will receive a floor vote in the Republican-controlled Senate.”

The proposed legislation, originally called the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI ACT), would prevent members of Congress and their spouses from trading or holding individual stocks.  The measure would also give them 180 days to unload their stocks. Members would also have to supply their House or Senate ethics committee with written certification of compliance each year, and the Government Accountability Office would conduct a compliance audit every two years. Hawley, as a part of negotiations with Democrats, agreed to call it the Honest Act.

As one could imagine, this proposed measure has met with some criticism from members of the Republican Party.  Senator Rick Scott has voiced his displeasure with this proposed legislation.  Scott, and I would agree with this question of his, asked, “Who wants to be poor?”  Scott also agrees with the fact elected officials shouldn’t be trading stocks.  Scott’s main reason for his “anger” is his idea this proposed legislation signals members of Congress are using their position for financial gain.  I understand that argument.

But the number one elected Republican, President Trump, initially said he liked the concept of the bill, but didn’t know much about it.  Later in the day, on Social Truth, Trump had this to say:

"The Democrats, because of our tremendous ACHIEVEMENTS and SUCCESS, have been trying to 'Target' me for a long period of time, and they're using Josh Hawley, who I got elected TWICE, as a pawn to help them," the president wrote. "I wonder why Hawley would pass a Bill that Nancy Pelosi is in absolute love with — He is playing right into the dirty hands of the Democrats. It's a great Bill for her, and her 'husband,' but so bad for our Country!"

Hawley said he did have a conversation with the President afterwards and indicated that the proposed legislation would have no bearing on the President because of verbiage in the proposed bill.  The bill wouldn’t take effect until the next election cycle for each elected official, meaning, the bill will not affect the Presidency until 2028, while the House and portions of the Senate would be under scrutiny after the upcoming mid-term elections.

And just what would one believe the President said after this explanation?  Trump now likes the bill.

According to Business Insider, “Trump is selling cologne, sneakers, and Bibles as president.”  He is selling EFTs; Trump is selling bit coin currency.  Trump is selling guitars.  All with his name and sometimes his likeness on the merchandise.  Trump took a trip to Scotland to meet with the UK Prime Minister Starmer at Trump’s newest golf course property.  Knowing the press would cover the event, the President’s newest property received “free publicity” which would, or should cause his personal business to grow.

Recently, Trump has accepted a gift from the government of Qatar in the form of a 747 to replace Air Force One, which will take an estimated 850 million dollars to overhaul for security purposes, and then, will be given to the Trump library.  Please note, Boeing is in the process of building TWO Air Force One airplanes.

The Emoluments Clause in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8) restricts federal officeholders from accepting gifts, payments, or titles from foreign governments without the consent of Congress. The reason for this clause in the Constitution is to prevent corruption.  It may very well be interpreted as any elected federal official from using the office for personal gain.  Which, if I am not mistaken is what the Honest Act expresses to do.

While the HONEST ACT doesn’t any effect on the business dealings of the President at the moment, it is assumable the President likes the measure because it will not interfere with his private business he is conducting for personal gain as the President.  In my opinion, he has violated the Emoluments Clause with his acceptance of gifts from foreign nations.  And yet the Supreme Court or Congress has not formally objected to this action.

I clearly remember the campaign motto of Trump’s first campaign…” Drain the swamp”.  I am of the opinion that motto doesn’t apply to the Head Swamp Rat.

0 Comments

One Man's Opinion

Socialism on the Rise

Anthem of the 60's Still Appropriate

Slavery at the Smithsonian

...to Preserve, Protect...

Re-apportionment...yea or nay

It would take a shift in thought...

Drain the Swamp

Archives