One Man's Opinion
  • Blog
  • Press
  • Contact
  • New Page
  • Blog 3/11/25
  • 3/16

One Man's Opinion

My motivation for beginning this blog is to express thoughts regarding pertinent subjects to me and hopefully others.  I found that expressing myself on social media caused too much name calling, too much anxiety, too much anger.  As we all know, it is very easy to subject someone to a level of stress hiding behind social media.  It would appear, everyone has an opinion, which they are entitled to, but few, if any, have serious thoughts regarding their statements.  

Call it inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning…or maybe just common sense, but at one point in time everyone must exhibit it, for the good of the person, for the solving of a problem, or, for expressing an opinion that is not full of holes like Swiss cheese.  It is one thing to have an opinion based on fact; it is another to be a parrot of words.
 
The bottom line is if you choose to read what I have written, good for you.  You may not like what I have written and that is okay, just don’t utilize this blog to bash anyone with a barrage of unsavory comments.  That is unacceptable.  If you choose to differ, please have a well thought out response.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion.​

And So, it Goes...

10/1/2025

0 Comments

 
"And so, it goes" is a recurring, iconic phrase in Kurt Vonnegut's novel Slaughterhouse-Five, serving as a dark, fatalistic, and sometimes absurdist commentary on the randomness of death, especially during wartime, and the resulting desensitization to violence.  The death could be of a human, of a pet, of a plant, or a democratic republic.

When the President walked into the room at Quantico on Tuesday, there was no applause, just silence.  In the President’s own words, he described what he witnessed.  “I've never walked into a room so silent … Have a good time. And if you want to applaud, you applaud ... If you don't like what I'm saying, you can leave the room. Of course, there goes your rank, there goes your future. but you just feel nice and loose.”  This, according to MSNBC producer Kyle Griffith.

I’m wondering what the President thought the reaction of the audience to be.  The discipline of approximately 800 of the most senior military officers of the United States Armed Forces was on full display.  The military is to be APOLITICAL.  The officers sat in their chairs, with great posture as one would expect, in full dress uniform.  As Gen. Douglas MacArthur called what the President witnessed over 70 years ago during his farewell address in 1951, …”Duty, Honor, Country”.  General Milley would be proud.

Maybe that was lost on the President.  Maybe he doesn’t understand “Duty, Honor, Country”.  Maybe the President doesn’t understand the sacrifices these “lifers” in the military have willfully given.   Maybe the President has confused discipline for personal loyalty.  Maybe the President expects loyalty to his person, instead of the country and Constitution.

As it was, President Trump gave a meandering speech that often focused on his familiar grievances.  He spoke for over an hour, delivering remarks that may have put people to sleep, but was wildly partisan in terms of content.  He repeatedly bashed Democrats and the free press guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, calling them “sleezebags” and “really corrupt,” respectively.

In the President’s address, he indicated he believed the real enemy of the United States, was, the “enemy within.”  The President said he had told Sec. Hegseth certain cities of the United States should be the training grounds for the military.  Journalist Phillip Bump wrote Trump said “We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military – national guard, but military – because we’re going into Chicago very soon, that’s a big city with an incompetent governor.”  A published account from “The Hill” stated, “They’re very unsafe places, and we’re going to straighten them out one by one,” Trump said. “And this is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That’s a war, too. It’s a war from within.”

Really?  That sounds to me the President is indicating waging war against citizens of the United States.  I will not use or throw around the term “traitor”.  I will not accuse the President being unhinged.  What I will suggest is the President is drunk with power.  An old cliché I remember from long ago is, “The secret of using power is not to abuse it.”  Maybe the President, along with the rest of his administration should, as Stephen Covey has written, “…understand before being understood”.

The President also made comments about recently built Naval vessels.  Once again, from Phillip Bump, "Trump notes than in World War II they were building a ship a day but we don't build ships anymore. Does he … not realize that the military needs of 2025 are different than those of 1945?"  OR, does he not know how long it takes to build a naval vessel?  Did the President or his speech writers(?) research or talk to anyone in the ship building business?  I don’t think so…
 
Just to be clear, during World War II, the time it took to build a warship varied dramatically depending on the vessel's size, complexity, and the shipyard's efficiency.  The United States, using mass-production techniques, developed the fastest shipbuilding practices in history.  The U.S. implemented standardized, prefabricated designs and assembly-line construction to build massive numbers of ships in a very short time. 
 
These large and complex vessels required more traditional construction methods, resulting in longer build times. 
  • Battleships: The powerful Iowa-class battleships took years to complete. For example, the USS New Jersey was under construction from 1940 to 1943, a period of just under three years.
  • Fleet Aircraft Carriers: The famous Essex-class carriers had a wartime average construction time of 18 to 20 months, with the fastest being completed in about 15 months. The USS Midway, a Midway-class carrier, was built in just 17 months.
  • Submarines: Construction times for U.S. submarines varied by shipyard, ranging from 9 to 24 months

On the same day as the Quantico meeting, no progress was made on a Continuing Resolution aimed at keeping the government afloat and open.  At the present time, we have a government shut down.  Neither side is willing to address the abyss between the two party’s leaders.  As one would suspect the blame game is in full force for people to see.  The Republicans are claiming the Democrats want money to insure undocumented citizens.  The Democrats are saying the Republicans wanted to pass the Continuing Resolution to fund the government, and afterwards, discuss could be had regarding insurance to include Medicare, ACA, and Medicaid.  

To fully understand who may and who may not be insured I have included the following:

Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for federal health insurance programs, but may have options for coverage and care through state programs, emergency Medicaid, and community health centers.
 
Federal restrictions
Undocumented immigrants are barred from federal programs, including: 
  • Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace: They cannot purchase subsidized health insurance through the federal or state marketplaces.
  • Medicaid and Medicare: They do not qualify for comprehensive Medicaid or Medicare coverage.
  • Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP): They are not eligible for CHIP. 
The finger pointing needs to stop and compromise must be found.  The two parties must sit and discuss their issues.  And, it is apparent the President will say yes or no to any compromise.  The “ball” is in the politician’s court; do the work of the people.  Or, continue to put the nation at risk.

With all due respect to Vonnegut…“And so, it goes “.
 
0 Comments

An Abundance of What to Write About

9/26/2025

0 Comments

 
It’s been a hectic two weeks for me…and for the nation.  As one may realize, there have been an abundance of events that have taken place which have drawn national, if not international attention.  For me, it was difficult to find one thing to write about.  I thought I had an idea about something, and then, another event took place and I was back to square one.  So, with that thought in mind, I offer this one man’s thoughts about…
  1. The assassination of Charlie Kirk was awful.  It’s a terrible thing that a young man’s life was cut short by a bullet.  The motive for the killing hasn’t been clearly defined, but it may be assumed the assassin didn’t like Kirk’s message.  It is a shame Kirk’s wife and children must carry on without a husband and father to complete the family.  As it is well known, the memorial for Kirk was held in Glendale, AZ…at the State Farm Stadium.  The estimated attendance of the memorial was in excess of 200,000, which included the President, the Vice President, and certain members of the Cabinet.  As custom and law dictates, anytime the President and Vice President are together with members of the cabinet, one person must be designated the “lone survivor” in the event the unspeakable were to happen.  In this case…the Speaker of the House,  Mike Johnson.  
      
  2. The on again, off again, on again Jimmy Kimmel saga was something to behold. Personally, I see nothing wrong with a comedian telling a joke or two.  If the joke is aimed at a political figure; so be it.  I am not of the opinion Kimmel tried to down play the Kirk assassination.  What Kimmel tried to point out was the President was using the Kirk assassination for his gain instead of mourning the death of a close associate.  One must realize when a person decides to enter into public service, criticism and ridicule will happen and it just must be endured with a smile.  I do believe the federal government took action to silence Kimmel…which if anyone doesn’t know, that is a violation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the same document that allows those in the federal government to govern within the stated powers of the occupied office.

  3. The President’s UN visit turned into a comedy show of its own.  The escalator stalled when the first lady and President attempted to ride it; the teleprompter used by the President didn’t work properly as the President addressed the General Assembly.  The President has asked the UN to conduct an investigation and punish those who are responsible for the treatment he received at the UN.  And the punishment to those responsible would be what…?

    And then, there was the President telling all present, their countries were going to hell if they didn’t do something about immigration.  Amazing to believe the President of the United States tell the countries of the world their countries were going to hell, when the history of the United States is based on immigration.  Historians would agree there have been four major waves of immigration into the United States beginning with the founding of our country to present day.

    In return, the Columbian government has asked the UN to conduct an investigation into the United States destroying three Venezuelan boats on the open sea with the investigation pointed directly at the President of the United States.  This action by the United States could be considered an act of war on Venezuela, without permission from Congress.  Taken from the Constitution, Article 1 Sec 8… “To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;”


  4. U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert resigned his position Friday (Sept 19th) amid pressure from Trump administration officials to bring a criminal case against New York Attorney General Letitia James.  Siebert would not file charges against James because he hadn’t found enough evidence of mortgage fraud to support the charge.  In Siebert’s place, the President nominated Lindsey Halligan, one of Trump’s personal lawyers.  Halligan is an attorney without prosecutorial experience. Notably, at the same time, the office where Siebert worked, under pressure from the President, was investigating James Comey.  

    Yesterday, (Thursday, Sept 25) Comey was indicted for lying to Congress and obstruction.  In my opinion this is a weaponization of the DOJ by the President to seek revenge against his critics…(think Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert).  The newly appointed US Attorney Halligan ran point on these indictments of Comey. 


  5. And on Thursday, Sept 25,  a new round of tariffs has been levied.  President Trump said he will put import taxes of 100% on pharmaceutical drugs, 50% on kitchen cabinets and bathroom vanities, 30% on upholstered furniture and 25% on heavy trucks starting on Oct. 1.  According to Trump, this was done for “National Security and other reasons.”  This is a bit of a stretch as the Commander in Chief…let alone forgetting to ask permission from Congress to levy any tariff at any time.  Yes, the power to regulate commerce resides with Congress…taken directly from the Constitution, Article 1 Sec 8…“To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;”

I am more than convinced the voters have elected a person who is not invested in the government for the people and by the people than the man in the moon.  The President claims to make America first, but his actions do not support his thesis.  One does not use associates for personal gain.  Kirk and Musk were used as a diversion from other items of importance to the nation…mainly the Epstein files.  One does not weaponize the DOJ to silence critics.  President Lyndon Johnson had this to say about his critics…After being trashed numerous times by the Smothers Brothers, President Lyndon Johnson wrote them, “It is part of the price of leadership of this great and free nation to be the target of clever satirists.  You have given the gift of laughter to our people.  May we never grow so somber or self-important that we fail to appreciate the humor in our lives.”  One does not persecute or prosecute political figures who may not agree with leadership.  If dismissal of a federal employee is needed, let it be because of a failure to discharge their requisite duties and not because of some personal vendetta.

Unlike JFK who eloquently said…”Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”.  It is my opinion President Trump may not have heard the second part of JFK’s statement and only heard what he wanted to hear…ask what your country can do for you…


0 Comments

War...What is it good for?

9/15/2025

0 Comments

 
War, huh, yeah What is it good for?  Absolutely nothing…

While decades passed without such high-level successful assassinations, recent years have seen a dramatic number of deadly instances of political violence targeting officials at all levels of government.  During my lifetime, I have witnessed the assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert Kennedy, Sr.  All tragedies, all acts committed by people who had some sort of disagreement with those shot dead.  President Reagan, survived an assassination attempt.  However, in recent years, our nation has experienced an uptick in assassination attempts as well as attacks on public figures.  Why?  There is a myriad of reasons.  I have listed several of these “attacks” for one’s perusal and allow one to possibly arrive at a conclusion.

A targeted attack struck the family of US District Judge Esther Salas in New Jersey on July 19, 2020.  She was the first Hispanic woman appointed to that position. Previously, Salas served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge, becoming the first Hispanic magistrate judge for the District of New Jersey. A self-proclaimed "anti-feminist" lawyer, Roy Den Hollander, disguised himself as a delivery driver and went to the judge's home, where he shot and killed her 20-year-old son, Daniel, and critically injured her husband, Mark.

One of the most significant events was the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. A group of Donald Trump's supporters stormed the building to prevent the certification of the 2020 election. Five people died on the day of the attack, and four police officers died by suicide in the following days.  Somehow that angry mob was thought of by some government officials as an orderly protest.

In 2022, Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg, a Democrat, was nearly killed in an assassination attempt during his mayoral campaign when a suspect fired 6 shots in the campaign office.

In April of this year, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s residence was set on fire. The suspect admitted to planning to beat Shapiro with a hammer.  Shapiro is a Democrat.

The recent deadliest attack on elected officials occurred in June 2025 in Minnesota. A 57-year-old man, Vance Boelter, went on a politically motivated shooting spree, killing Democratic State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband, and wounding State Senator John Hoffman, a member of the Minnesota Democrat-Farmer-Labor Party.  Boelter was arrested and found to possess a "hit list" containing the names of 45 Democratic officials.

Assassination attempts on national leaders

Members of Congress have also been directly targeted. On June 14, 2017, a gunman motivated by left-wing extremism opened fire on Republican lawmakers practicing for a charity baseball game in Alexandria, Virginia. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise was critically wounded, and three others were injured before Capitol Police killed the attacker in a 10-minute gunfight.

In June 2022, an armed man was arrested outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Republican, later admitting he intended to kill the justice.
​
Other top officials have faced grave threats. In October 2022, the husband of then-US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Paul Pelosi, was bludgeoned with a hammer by an intruder in their San Francisco home. The attacker said he intended to hold the speaker hostage and break her kneecaps.

The highest levels of American politics have also been targeted recently. In 2024, President Trump, a Republican, faced two assassination attempts during his presidential campaign. On July 13, at a rally in Pennsylvania, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks fired an AR-15-style rifle from a rooftop 400 feet (122 meters) away. The shots grazed Trump's ear, killed a spectator, and wounded two others before Secret Service snipers killed Crooks.

The second attempt on President Trump occurred on Sept. 15, 2024, when 58-year-old Ryan Wesley Routh hid in bushes with an SKS rifle 300-500 yards (274-457 meters) from Trump at a Florida golf course. A Secret Service agent spotted the rifle and opened fire, causing Routh to flee without firing a shot.

Targeting infrastructure and officials

The violence has also extended to the infrastructure of politics. Political party offices for both Democrats and Republicans have been repeatedly attacked. In the fall of 2024, a man shot at a Democratic office in Tempe, Arizona, on three separate occasions.

In March 2025, the New Mexico GOP (Grand Old Party) headquarters in Albuquerque was targeted by suspected arson. Other incidents have included a 2016 firebombing of a North Carolina GOP office and repeated acts of vandalism against Democratic offices nationwide.

Finally, Charlie Kirk was gunned down at Utah Valley University during one of his engagements at university locations around the country.  Was Kirk controversial?  Yes.  But it that a reason to kill him?  It was a senseless murder for what reason?
  
My point is this…what we are seeing and experiencing with the attacks on political figures is not a left or right problem…it is all of our problem.  Social media has added to this problem because it allows people from hundreds of miles away to insult another with no real repercussions.  False information is displayed as “the truth”, and that information is not true at all.  Yet, subscribers to social media outlets believe the message to be accurate.  This creates a false narrative, one that is destructive to civil discourse.

Too many people have said, “This has to stop”, but little to no action has taken place.  Behavior of the leadership on both sides of the aisle hasn’t changed.  There is no respect shown for one another; there is no more “loyal opposition”.  The attitude is “you are with me or against me”, and that is just wrong.

Stating that these attacks are “evil” is a cop out for everyone.  This seemingly removes guilt from those of us who didn’t participate in the attack; it exonerates us…but does it?  Doing nothing to change the behavior of our role models…namely national politicians incite people to act out.  Bad things happen when bad words and intentions are spoken and displayed.  Threats made often end up in some sort of action…by those who are threatened.  And those actions are rarely good.

Our national political leaders have added to the problem with their divisive rhetoric or actions.  Was Speaker Pelosi guilty of this?  Absolutely.  When she tore up the SOTU address manuscript given to her by President Trump on national tv…she helped to incite her followers.  Pelosi was wrong in what she did.  She showed a lack of respect for the Office of the President of the United States regardless of her dislike for Trump.
 
Was, is, President Trump guilty of this?  Yes!  As early as the 2016 Republican Presidential Debates when he called then Senator Marco Rubio, “Little Marco” and other candidates as “losers”.   Calling President Biden “Sleepy Joe” in public is a complete disrespect for the President of the United States.  One cannot lead by continually inciting one’s opponents without expecting a bad result. 
 

In regards to Kirk’s assassination, President Trump made these comments:

“If you look at the problem, the problem is on the left. It’s not on the right, like some people like to share the right, the problem we have is on the left,” Trump told reporters. “And when you look at the agitator, you look at the scum that speaks so badly of our country, the American flag burnings all over the place, that’s the left. That’s not the right.”

The president on Saturday told NBC News that he wants to see the country heal, “but we’re dealing with a radical left group of lunatics.”

And Trump made these statements BEFORE any information regarding the shooter was known.

NOW, I purposely colored the Dems, blue, and the Republicans, red, so one could see the violence is NOT taking on the position of what the President has claimed…”…we’re dealing with a radical left group of lunatics.”  Logically, it doesn’t make much sense for a left leaning citizen to attack a Democrat, or a right leaning citizen to attack a Republican.  Does it?

Great leaders ask how can I help, not demand loyalty to the cause.  Great leaders may not agree with their opponents, but nonetheless, show respect to those with whom they may not be in agreement.  Great leaders make the people around themself, better at what they do.  Great leaders are not transactional, they are transformational.
  
The war between the two political parties needs to stop.  It will help lower the “temperature” of divisive rhetoric which should lower the attitude of “if you are not with us, you are against us.”  And just maybe prevent further attacks on political and public figures.
​
War, what is it good for?  Absolutely nothing.  It ain't nothing but a heart-breaker, Friend only to The Undertaker….


 
 
 
 


0 Comments

Isolationism vs. sphere of influence

9/4/2025

0 Comments

 
 
I saw something interesting the other day on Social Media.  It was an image of the President wearing a hat that was embroidered with the phrase “Trump was right about everything”.  I thought to myself, everything is defined by the word “all”, or “100 per cent”.  As I pondered this statement, I began to realize some things that didn’t align with “Trump was right about everything”

President Trump was wrong about:

I’ll build a wall and Mexico will pay for it.  No, Mexico is not paying for the wall.

I’ll stop the Russian/Ukraine war on day 1 because Putin would agree with what President Trump wanted.

About the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for the incumbent President Donald Trump, and the filed 62 lawsuits contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in 9 states.  All were denied by the courts.  Some of the judges issuing judgements were appointed by President Trump himself.

The Putin Summit and the ceasefire.  The Summit to produce a ceasefire has backfired on the US.  Putin played Trump.

Sending the national guard to act as law enforcement.  This action violates the Posse Comitatus Act as determined by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco.  The judge  set his order to go into effect Sept. 12.

Having Hegseth authorize the national guard to carry weapons while deployed in American cities to serve as law enforcement, once again a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

Nominating RFK, jr to head up the nation’s health.  He isn’t a scientist or a doctor; he has no formal training in this area.  And now, after enraging the CDC community with non-scientific date regarding vaccines…even the US Senate is now questioning RFK, jr’s actions.
  
Nominating Hegseth to run the Pentagon; we know he used an unsecure social app to transmit sensitive information regarding the bombing of Iran.  You criticized Biden for his withdrawal from the middle east, but it is okay to have sensitive information given out on an unsecure social app?

Zelenskyy being a war monger… Zelenskyy is not on the offensive side of this war.  He wasn’t invaded; he is protecting his country as well as he can. 

The results of the Iranian bombing; the nuclear facilities were not “obliterated” according to military intelligence reports.  US defense secretary Pete Hegseth has fired the Pentagon's intelligence agency chief, just weeks after a White House rebuke of a review assessing the impact of American strikes on Iran.  Lt Gen Jeffery Kruse will no longer serve as head of US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Pentagon said in a statement. other senior military commanders have also been ousted by the Pentagon.

Waging economic war using tariffs.  The President has over stepped his authority.  Article I, section 8, of the Constitution begins with the clause, “Congress shall have the power” and followed by  “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”.  Consequently, the President’s use of tariffs may be construed as “illegal”.

But most importantly, President Trump IS wrong about leading America into an isolationist policy with the mantra of Make America Great Again.  Retreating from America’s position as leader of the free world has emboldened our “enemies”.  As Washington and Jefferson warned against “entangling alliances”, it was found to be necessary to join those which our nation was warned not to do.

As early as 1918, when President Woodrow Wilson floated the idea about a “League of Nations” to prevent another world war, the US Senate did not ratify the treaty, which 1) the US didn’t enter into the League of Nations; and 2) because the League of Nations was part of the Treaty of Versailles, theoretically, the US never agreed to the Treaty of Versailles which ended WW1.

Since that time in history, the US has entered into many treaties and agreements with foreign nations around the world.  Most all were to promote peace, to protect human life from disease, to share information, and to commit to fair trade. What this all amounts to is the 100 years of work former presidents and administrations have done to create a “sphere of influence” for the United States.  Some may say it is buying off people to do our will, and those people may very well be correct.  But, one thing is certain, with the exception of Pearl Harbor and 9/11, the United States hasn’t been attacked on home soil.  Other than the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, the diplomatic ideology of “sphere of influence” has worked in favor of the US.

However, during the two tenures President Trump has enjoyed, he has removed the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (a trade agreement with 12 Asian countries), The Paris Agreement (2020 and 2025), the Iran Nuclear Deal (2018), the World Health Organization (WHO, 2025), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Tax Agreement, which in a related manner helped set up the International Health Regulations (2025) and UNESCO (2025).  And, it appears President Trump would like to leave NATO. 
 
The President, through DOGE, has cut off foreign aid funding for many agencies all of which supported the doctrine of “sphere of influence”.

From the Cambridge Press...

“The withdrawals and related provisions of the president's announcements will end, too, U.S. involvement in the regular work of organizations pertaining to the contribution and exchange of information and expertise, such as through the collaboration of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) staff with WHO officials and colleagues from other national health offices and the support given by U.S. government-funded scientists to reports developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.The president's actions will also end U.S. participation in institutional governance bodies, including membership on the boards of the WHO.”

“These initial actions were prelude to a broader assault on international law and organizations. A subsequent executive order targeted three United Nations (UN) bodies: the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).  U.S. participation in and funding of the Human Rights Council was terminated, and seeking election to that body in the future was ruled out.  U.S. funding for UNRWA, which comprises a significant portion of that organization's budget, was cut off.  And a review of U.S. membership in UNESCO, including an “evaluation of how and if UNESCO supports United States interests,” was directed.”

Trump’s tariffs placed upon countries has alienated many trade partners.  Trump’s braggadocio regarding how only he can solve world problems has alienated foreign national leaders.  Trump’s challenging the sovereignty of world countries alienated world leaders, (think Canada being a state in the Union; think Greenland, think Panama).  This is all wrong, it shows no respect for international leaders, let alone the sovereignty of nations, and, one must ask, “What will be the result of all of this?”

This can all be realized by looking at the military parade held in China on Wednesday, September 3rd.   Not only was Putin in attendance in Bejing, but so was Kim from North Korea.  And, if one were to believe this was a rather small group of national leaders meeting in Bejing at the invitation of Chinese leader Xi Jinping, consider this:

Here’s some of the other officials who were in attendance:

·       Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan
·       Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev
·       Belarus’ President Aleksandr Lukashenko
·       Cambodia’s King Norodom Sihamoni
·       Cuba’s President Miguel Diaz-Canel
·       Indonesia’s President Prabowo Subianto
·       Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian
·       Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev
·       Kyrgyzstan’s President Sadyr Japarov
·       Laos’ President Thongloun Sisoulith
·       Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim
·       Maldives’ President Mohamed Muizzu
·       Mongolia’s President Ukhnaagiin Khurelsukh
·       Myanmar’s military chief Min Aung Hlaing
·       Nepal’s Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli
·       Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif
·       Republic of the Congo’s President Denis Sassou Nguesso
·       Serbia’s President Aleksandar Vucic
·       Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico
·       Tajikistan’s President Emomali Rahmon
·       Turkmenistan’s President Serdar Berdimuhamedov
·       Uzbekistan’s President Shavkat Mirziyoyev
·       Vietnam’s President Luong Cuong
·       Zimbabwe’s President Emmerson Mnangagwa

It is not a list of global powers, but, looking at a map of the world, one would realize the significance of those countries present should all align with China.  To be sure, there were some notables not in attendance, as in some members of BRICS, which included Brazil, India, Egypt, South Africa.
   
For those who do not know, BRICS is a political and economic intergovernmental organization of ten countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates. BRICS is a grouping of major emerging economies aiming to increase their global influence and create a more multipolar world order by coordinating economic and diplomatic policies, and challenging Western dominance in global institutions and finance.  That sounds like these countries wish to implement the ideology of “sphere of influence”.

And so, I ask, if the United States continues down the path of isolationism and Putin, Kim and Xi should join up with those invited to the Bejing parade, who will hold the cards?  If one believes the US can be successful isolated from an international economic system, then one needs to consider the lifestyle one wishes to live.  As the President has said, if the US continued on the path in which it was heading, the US would have turned into a third world country.  Isolationism just make that true.
​
I have my opinion, I hope you arrive at one too!
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
0 Comments

Socialism on the Rise

8/26/2025

0 Comments

 
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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
<<Previous
Forward>>

    Archives

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

    RSS Feed

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