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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
IMMIGRATION, noun
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Struggle against decadence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extreme nationalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is your opinion?

Sexism and misogyny

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

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

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

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

But the times could be changing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

​
Conservative Economic Programs

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

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

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

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

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

Inequality:
Critics argue that supply-side policies can exacerbate income inequality by disproportionately benefiting the wealthy, without necessarily leading to broad-based economic growth.
 
Limited Evidence:
Some studies suggest that the benefits of supply-side policies may not be as substantial as claimed, particularly in terms of job creation and productivity growth.
 
Impact of Demand:
Supply-side policies may not be as effective if demand is insufficient to absorb the increased supply of goods and services. 

Alternative Theories:
Demand-side economics, which focuses on increasing demand as a way to stimulate economic growth, offers an alternative perspective.
 
On the surface, I would believe most all Americans would agree with portions of the above characteristics of what would be considered conservative economic policy.  Who wouldn’t agree with tax cuts, or reduced government spending, minimal government debt, and free markets.  I would support some of the characteristics of a conservative economic program myself, but, what about the scope of all of the characteristics mentioned?

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

Years ago, a Republican candidate for the Presidency, Steve Forbes suggested a flat tax for all.  Forbes estimated that a 10 per cent flat tax would generate more money for the country than was being taken in at that time using the current tax programs.  In essence, if a person made one hundred thousand dollars a year, the tax for that person would be ten thousand dollars.  If a corporation made one hundred million, the tax would be ten million.  Very simple, and his numbers said it would work.
  
The caveat however, was the self-employed person.  How would the self-employed report their earnings if everything was done in cash?  How would the government determine what the tax would be for the self-employed?  And the loudest complaints about this came from whom?  Take a guess…large corporations.

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

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

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

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

Self-interest and the market:
Individuals, pursuing their own financial gain, are motivated to produce goods and services that consumers want and need.
 
Invisible hand in action:
The collective actions of these self-interested individuals, guided by the market forces of supply and demand, lead to a natural and efficient distribution of resources and goods. 

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

​Without this thought of how society benefits from those who take the risk to produce the goods and services needed by society, how does society progress?  If Eli Whitney had not come up with the idea of interchangeable parts, what would have happened to industry?  Would it have never grown?  How would the automobile industry have been different?  If Eli Whitney had not invented the cotton gin, what would have happened to the southern plantations that thrived on cotton?  Can you imagine what the world would be without the invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg?
 
In my opinion, a conservative economic policy without moderation allows the rich to become richer, maybe even become “robber barons”.  It doesn’t allow society to progress at the rate it should.  It doesn’t allow the “little person” a great deal of economic freedom.
  
 
Corporatism

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

Historically the ultimate aim was to destroy labor movements and suppress political dissent. Ideally, large corporations do not want the labor to unionize for fear of not being able to control labor and wages.  In 1935, the National Labor Relations Act was passed by Congress and signed by FDR.  The NLRA guarantees employees the right to organize, form or join labor organizations, bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing, and engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.  This act was an attempt to prevent “robber barons” from re-emerging in American society and pressuring the national government to be lenient on large corporations.  It also allowed the labor pool to seek out an “honest day’s wage for an honest day’s work”.  The large corporations did not like this because it cut into the huge profits the corporations were making prior to 1929.
 
This idea of corporatism provided the CEO’s and CFO’s of the corporations became politically active in a “shadow” role of advisors to the administration.  Sound Familiar?  
 
President Trump’s present cabinet and advisors “includes a wrestling magnate, a private space pioneer, a New York real estate developer, the heir to a small appliance empire, and the wealthiest man on the planet -- with several being donors and close personal friends of the incoming president.

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

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

As it has already been indicated, a favorite tool of modern-day fascists is deregulation that results in profits to businesses at the expense of consumers.  This group of people now have the ear of the President.  One may arrive at the conclusion this group of people may use their position to gainfully improve their financial worth.  I will not conclusively state that this will happen, but a past political slogan of “Drain the swamp” now must be questioned.
  
When the stock market took a big dive after the tariff war began, the President himself said, “This is the time to buy”.  When the President floated the idea he may pause the tariffs, the stock market rocketed upward.  Who made out with their investments?  Was it manipulation of the economy or was it coincidence?  Is this government by oligarchy?

I’ll let you decide.


Imperialism

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

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

Japan had wanted to have power and influence in Southeast Asia as well as China.  Southeast Asia could provide raw materials (like tin, rubber, and some oil) that the islands of Japan did not have.  China had natural resources that Japan did not have.  At the time Japan had a much better military than either the countries of Southeast Asia or China, and diplomacy wasn’t thought of much by the Japanese. 
 
The United States had told Japan to stay out of Southeast Asia.  That didn’t mean much to the Japanese because in 1941, the US wasn’t really a force in the world.  The US had realized victory in WWI, but the US Senate didn’t ratify the Treaty of Versailles to effectively end WWI.  President Wilson proposed the League of Nations, but the Senate didn’t go along with the plan, and the US failed to join.  The US wasn’t really thought of as a “world power”.  However, that all changed on December 7, 1941 when Japan attacked US forces at Pearl Harbor.  Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who planned the attack would reportedly write in his diary, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with terrible resolve.”

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

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

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

So how does this all apply to present times?

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

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

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

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

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


Military values

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US President Donald Trump issued pardons or commutations for more than 1,500 people convicted or charged in connection with the US Capitol riot four years ago.
 
Fourteen members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, two far-right groups, are among those whose sentences were commuted by the new Republican president as he took office on Monday.

Trump also signed an order directing the Department of Justice to drop all pending cases against suspects accused in the riot.
 
The executive action came shortly after Trump was sworn in as the 47th president of the US inside the Capitol, which was stormed by his supporters on 6 January 2021 as lawmakers met to certify Joe Biden's election victory.
 
During a signing ceremony in the Oval Office on Monday evening, Trump displayed a list of the names of US Capitol riot defendants he said were receiving a pardon.
 
"These are the hostages, approximately 1,500 for a pardon, full pardon," Trump said. "This is a big one."
 
"These people have been destroyed," he added. "What they've done to these people is outrageous. There's rarely been anything like it in the history of our country."
 
The proclamation says that it "ends a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people over the last four years and begins a process of national reconciliation".

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

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

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

The primary characteristics of fascism include:

1. Opposition to Marxism. 
2. Opposition to (parliamentary) democracy. 
3. Opposition to political and cultural liberalism. 
4. Totalitarian ambitions. 
5. Conservative economic programs. 
6. Corporatism. 
7. Imperialism. 
8. Military values. 
9. Leadership principle. 
10. Struggle against decadence. 
11. Extreme nationalism. 
12. Sexism and misogyny. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politics Dec 15, 2023 4:46 PM EDT
 
WASHINGTON (AP) — A jury awarded $148 million in damages on Friday to two former Georgia election workers who sued Rudy Giuliani for defamation over lies he spread about them in 2020 that upended their lives with racist threats and harassment.
The damages verdict follows emotional testimony from Wandrea “Shaye” Moss and her mother, Ruby Freeman, who tearfully described becoming the target of a false conspiracy theory pushed by Giuliani and other Republicans as they tried to keep then-President Donald Trump in power after he lost the 2020 election.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Trump administration has said Mr. Ábrego García's deportation to El Salvador was an "administrative error", but they have also alleged he has ties to the MS-13 gang, a group it designates as a foreign terrorist organization.  Trump has ignored the court order to “facilitate” the return Garcia who was wrongfully detained and deported to Venezuela.
 
The important item to understand is this:  If a ruling body can unilaterally declare a class of people to be terrorists, hard line criminals…whatever, without any form of proof provided for the electorate to see, without respect for the judiciary branch of the government, then there may be an opposition to democracy.

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

Let’s begin with “rule of law”.  According to this idea, those living in a democratic society operates under a system of laws that applies equally to everyone, including those in power.  When anyone has been aggrieved, the victim has the opportunity to seek retribution in a court of law, using law as the basis for the argument.  In a democratic society, anyone who is accused of a crime and arrested has the use of due process, which once again, brings in the court system to provide an opportunity for the accused to defend themselves.  And that idea alone, provides for the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” with the onus of proving guilt on the accuser.
​
In essence, everyone must live and operate under the law, both civil and criminal.  Now how does that apply to today?  Early in Trump’s administration, the Supreme Court gave the President immunity in anything he may perform, as long as it was in an official capacity.  In my view, this unfortunate decision circumnavigates the impeachment provision of the Constitution.  And, just as important, states the President is above the rule of the law.

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

Another tradition value held by the United States is the Protection of Human Rights.  Those Human Rights include freedom of speech, assembly, and religion which are all guaranteed and protected.  I believe that even these rights have come under attack.  In recent times, any form of speech that doesn’t agree with those in power comes under attack with innuendo and sarcastic response.  We have seen an insurrection called a peaceful demonstration.  That was no more a peaceful demonstration than pigs can fly.  And now, religion has been attacked.  Certain religions have been identified as a religion of terrorists.
 
So here is my question to all…do you have the right to make decisions that concern your existence or not? We make decisions regarding whom we marry (even though at times there were some who tried to legislate a marriage is between a man and a woman), where we live, where we work, what occupation to chase…without governmental intervention.  Do we really get to think independently?

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

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

With the Supreme Court granting immunity to the President when acting in “an official capacity as President”, it is my opinion the check and balance of the Congress on the President has been eliminated.  This certainly allows the Executive branch, namely President Trump unbridled power.  If Trump is ever questioned about his actions, he can merely say he was acting in an official capacity and I have immunity.  About the only thing left for Congress as a check on the President is to not pass legislation he wishes to pass, or to not pass a budget.  Other than that, I am not aware of any other measure Congress could take to limit the President’s power.
  
In recent weeks we have seen the President ignore rulings from federal courts, including the Supreme Court.  The President is using a “spin machine” to construct carefully worded answers to questions indicating he cannot comply with federal court orders.
  
This is a power grab unseen before in our country.  The President is doing what he wants to do, and the hell with the rest of the government.  How is it the President can appoint an outside the government person to cut programs and people without a plan?  I’m not against cutting fat in the budget, finding wasteful spending, creating a smaller government, BUT to do so without criteria or plan, without accountability is, okay?  There is no regard for what has happened, and at best, it could be surmised, because Trump is the President, he believes he can do what he wants, with no check or balance from the other two branches of government, which, ironically are supposed to be equal in nature to the Executive Branch.  And this can all be wrapped up in Trump’s statement, “I know what I’m doing”
.
I disagree with that.
 
https://www.usa.gov/who-can-vote
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/preserving-and-protecting-the-integrity-of-american-elections/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/jury-awards-148-million-in-damages-to-georgia-election-workers-over-rudy-giulianis-2020-vote-lies
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment
 

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

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

There are now two things the President has said that have caught my attention. 
 
According to the Associated Press (AP),”Top national security officials for President Donald Trump, including his defense secretary, texted plans for upcoming military strikes in Yemen to a group chat in a secure messaging app that included the editor-in-chief for The Atlantic, the magazine reported in a story posted online Monday. The National Security Council said the text chain “appears to be authentic.”
 
“Trump initially told reporters he was not aware that the highly sensitive information had been shared, 2 1/2 hours after it was reported. He later appeared to joke about the breach.”

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

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

The second item from Washington that has me raising an eyebrow or two is the thought the President is considering a run for a third term of office.  The President has indicated there are several scenarios which could allow him to run again for the Presidency.  According to the 22nd Amendment of the US Constitution, no person can be elected to two (2) terms, or serve more than ten (10) years.
  
The Vice President is allowed to complete the unexpired term of the President, should the President become disabled or die in office.  However, those years served are counted as part of the “term limits”.  So, if a President were to become disabled or die in office one (1) year into the elected term, the Vice President would become the President, serve the remaining term of three (3) years and could only run for one four (4) year elected term of his own.

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

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

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

During the recent Presidential campaign, Trump called Biden too old to be President.  Republican candidate Nikki Haley even suggested there should be a “too old” age limit for Presidential candidates.  Many voters thought Biden to be too old…too frail…and those who thought that were probably correct.
  
But with Trump being the oldest President ever inaugurated in United States history…what does that say about campaign rhetoric?  

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

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

Even though I have white hair and am long in the tooth, there are some things I can remember from my very early years.  One of them was watching baseball on tv at my grandmother’s house.  The tv screen wasn’t very big in those days, and the picture looked eerily similar to the early green screens of early computers.  But there he was on the screen, wearing number 7.  I remember looking at my grandmother and asking how my dad was on tv, playing baseball, and not at work.  You see, my dad wore number 7 for the baseball team of Carpenter, Illinois, which played every Sunday during baseball season.  The player on tv, wearing number 7, as I learned later, was none other than “The Mick”…Mickey Mantle.

My dad introduced me to baseball.  He played every Sunday when it was baseball season in Carpenter, and our family went to watch.  My dad and I played catch on occasion.  I think the last time that happened I was about 12.  He told me if he saw me throw a curveball, he would quit playing catch.  About the only thing I can remember my dad giving me advice about the game was when I was in high school.  “If you are the leadoff hitter, most pitchers like to throw the fastball on the first pitch of the game.  Be ready for that, and if you like the pitch, jump on it.”

As a young adolescent, one did what one could to practice baseball skills.  In those days of the 50’s, there weren’t batting cages, just as there wasn’t a place to take fly balls.  So, we improvised.  Our playground became the road in front of the house.  Old baseball would have an “Eye bolt” inserted into it and have a length of rope attached to the “eye bolt”.  One person would swing the ball in a circle and the rest of the group would take batting practice in that manner.  What really happened was a bunch of kids learned how to hit from both sides of the plate, because when a person batting right-handed hit the ball, the path of the ball would reverse, and consequently everyone hitting had to turn around and hit left-handed.

We played baseball games in the street.  Bases might be a spot on a sidewalk, a set of steps leading up to a house.  There was no catcher’s gear, so the catcher played back from the plate as to not get hit with a foul ball.  I don’t remember ever breaking a window…and the word “CAR” meant get out of the road.

My first MLB game was at Old Sportsman Park in St. Louis.  The Cardinals were so bad at that time, the team had placed on the hand operated scoreboard, “If anyone catches a foul ball on the fly, you can have a tryout with the team”.  At 7 years of age, I was in no danger of catching a foul ball.  But I immediately became a lifelong StL Cardinal fan.

I became so enchanted with the game; I decided to make the game part of my life’s work.  I became a high school baseball coach, and was blessed to coach many, some who were good, some not so good.  But it was for the love of the game.

As Opening Day comes on March 27th of this year, I would like to leave this statement which came from a close family friend, who is the wife of a baseball player/coach, whose sons grew up to be baseball players and coaches.  I think it says it all.
 
"Ball" is not a game. It's a philosophy. Ball forms you. Ball leads you. Ball points the way and you follow. Ball shapes your values and it develops your character. Ball makes you well-rounded and gives equilibrium to your days and nights. If you work at it hard enough, ball becomes a set of principles that guide your decision making. Ball teaches you to love, to forgive, to breathe deeper, to think. Ball connects you to a spiritual language that only other "ballers" speak. Ball is handed down; it is bequeathed. Ball is the cushion that catches you when you fall and it's the wings that make you soar.

Thanks dad, for the introduction, and GO REDBIRDS!