The Great Legacy of Fmr Justice Anthony Kennedy

 I have long been a student of the United States Supreme Court. For nigh five decades I have followed court rulings, Supreme Court Justices and the effect rulings have had on politics and the citizenry. I've been most interested in the Supreme Court because I believe it is the branch of government that has the most prevailing and significant impact on the everyday lives of the American people. Of course, it also serves a monumental role as an arbiter who maintains the checks and balances on the other branches of government. The U.S. has an extensive hierarchical court system allowing for appeals and reviews. Cases in the lower courts are often overturned, dismissed, retried, and appealed all in attempt to ensure true justice is carried out. Cases that are unable to get resolved in the lower courts often are presented to the Supreme Court, which is the court of last resort. 

Former Justice Anthony Kennedy was appointed by President Reagan in 1987. After serving 31 years on the bench he retired in 2018. Justice Kennedy was known for writing some of the court's landmark opinions and wielded significant influence across various legal domains, including LGBTQ+ rights. To give some insight into Justice Kennedy's personal composition, in the case of Griswold vs Connecticut, a privacy case about the use of contraceptives, Kennedy discussed "a zone of liberty, a zone of protection, a line that's drawn where the individual can tell the Government, 'beyond this line you may not go.'" Kennedy became known as an independent thinker, though he voted with the conservative justices the majority of the time, but not always. 

Recently, Kennedy spoke during "Speak Up for Justice"' a virtual forum about threats to the rule of law, defending the role of judges in a democracy. He advocated the need to protect them and their families from threats. "Many in the rest of the world look to the United States to see what democracy is, to see what democracy ought to be," stated Kennedy. "If they see a hostile, fractious discourse that uses identity politics rather than to talk about issues, democracy is at risk. Freedom is at risk." Kennedy did not mention Trump by name during his speech. He did say, "We should be concerned in this country about, as I've already indicated, the tone of our political discourse. Identity politics are used so that a person is characterized by his or her partisan affiliation. That is not what democracy and civil discourse is about." 

Other participants at the forum, which included judges from the US and other countries warned about how attacks on courts can threaten democracies, denouncing statements by Trump deriding the courts. US District court Judge Esther Salas, whose son was killed by a disgruntled lawyer who went to her New Jersey home in 2020, said, "disinformation about judges was spreading 'from the top down' with jurists attacked as 'rogue and corrupt'". Salas warned that the number of threats recorded against judges this year was reaching unprecedented heights in the U.S., noting that the U.S. Marshals Service has tracked more than 400 threats since January, when Trump took office. 

Though retired, and no longer a sitting jurist, Justice Kennedy's resounding opinion on this issue should strike a strident chord with everyone, from the President himself down to ordinary people discussing politics in a coffee shop. There is indeed a threat to democracy, finally someone has spoken up and told us exactly what it is. 

PTSD is a curse...And LA is bringing it home...

I watch and read the news about the riots going on in LA. Bricks, rocks and bottles being hurled at police, cars burning and being vandalized. Ingrates standing on vandalized cars waving the flags of foreign countries. Most of them draped in a keffiyah. Protesting the “oppression of Palestine and the slaughter of innocent Palestinians.” Perhaps the protesters should attend the same training Great Thunberg is getting in Israel about now; videos of the October 7 attack that killed over 1,200 innocent Israelis and 250 civilians taken hostage. Unprovoked attack, I might add. Many of the hostages have died in captivity. Some have yet to be released. 

And here we are, watching Los Angeles burn. The governor himself can’t bring himself to call in the resources to calm the situation. Nor can the mayor of Los Angeles. Trump calls the National Guard and greaseball Newscum starts squawking like a goose. Why? Your city is on fire, out of control and you dont want help to quell the riots? What’s the plan, let them have their fun and we’ll clean up after them? Is that what being a sanctuary city is all about? Do you want Trump to call Hamas and tell them “We’re so sorry, you guys carry on, we’ll get those pesky Israelis out of your hair.” Seriously, what is it that you want?

Whatever it is, you’re not going to get it. If you’re lucky, maybe a couple of weeks in jail and a hefty fine. If you’re an illegal alien, a one way ticket home. That’s if you’re lucky. As far as cleaning up the mess, that’s Newscum’s problem. Forget about federal help.

So, why did I mention that PTSD is a curse? Some years ago when I was a young man starting my career, I was given an assignment in Iran. Short term, no big deal. This was back in the late 70’s when Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was the ruler of Iran. He was not a good character, nevertheless, for political reasons he was a political ally of the US. In February 1979, at the height of some serious political and civil unrest in Iran, the Shah was overthrown and left Iran going into permanent exile. Before he left, the streets of Tehran looked a lot like the streets of LA today. Rioting, burning cars, trucks and buildings, protesting and chaos. Just like LA today. How do I know this, I was there. Leading up to the shah’s departure, the unrest was gradually, yet steadily growing. The company I worked for had an office in downtown Tehran, we walked to and from the hotel daily to work. Now and then we would see some troublemakers throw a rock or two, but we didn’t think things were out of hand. Until it was. The last couple of times I made the walk to and from work, was like being on a movie set, but it was no movie. It was real life, and it was terrifying. The morning I went in to the office and saw bullet holes in the windows, I told the boss I’m done. Apparently, at that time I was the only one who was throwing in the towel. I later learned that it wasn’t long before the rest did the same. 

I was booked on a flight out of Tehran the next day that departed at 8am. I had to be at the airport at 5am. Martial law was in effect, so anyone on the streets between 5am and 8pm was subject to being shot. Evidently, due process wasn’t a thing in Iran. Still isn’t…The taxi driver spent the night in the hotel lobby since he couldn’t make the trip from his home to the hotel during curfew. At 5 am sharp, we loaded my bag in the taxi and took off on the dark, quiet streets of Tehran. As we were leaving we noticed the hotel staff were taking down portraits of the Shah. I asked one of them why they were doing that. The reply was “It’s for the guest’s safety.” The taxi driver took off driving hurriedly through the deserted streets, making lots of turns. I wondered why he seemed to be meandering, it was adding to my growing anxiety. My mind was conjuring up more ‘what-ifs’ than you can imagine. But he kept driving and that gave me hope. After forty-five minutes or so of scurrying down dark streets, we turned onto what seemed to be a straightaway. I prayed it was the ‘homestretch’ to the airport. But as soon as we turned onto the open road, hope quickly faded into fear. For as far as I could see were troops, armed troops milling about armored tanks carrying automatic rifles. The first thought that came to mind was Jesus, please don’t stop. I had no idea, no clue, what the next few minutes would bring to my life. Is he going to stop the car, the door to be yanked open and I would be drug onto the sand and who knows what next… Who’s side is he on? Is he getting bakshish for delivering an American? The Iranians were as unhappy with us as much as they were with the Shah. Just.Keep.Driving. was all I could think. As we sped down the road through hell I occasioned a look out the window and actually made eye contact with a couple of armed soldiers. At least, I thought they were soldiers. In the Middle East it’s often difficult to tell who is a soldier and whose side they are on. Making eye contact was a big mistake when your anxiety is hitting a zenith. They appeared to be as unhappy as I was which was not a good sign. I slid a little lower in the seat and continued to pray. We were probably on the straightaway for about fifteen minutes. It felt like a week. I suppose it wasn’t my time to go as the driver kept driving and we soon pulled up in front of the airport. A few minutes after 8 o’clock the 737 took off for London. As it turns out, it was to be the last commercial flight to leave Iran for several years. Once we were ‘wheels up’ everyone on the plane, I suppose over 200 passengers, applauded. Myself included. 

Several years after the Shah was exiled, a movie was made about the brief period of time around the Shah’s departure until the Iranian dissidents took the American hostages at the American Embassy. The movie was about employees of a company owned by Ross Perot, titled “On Wings of Eagles.” Many of his employees didnt leave before the last flight that I had the privilege of being on. With no aviation transport, they were forced to make their way to the coast and pay for passage on boats. Any kind of boat, tugboats, merchant ships, money talked and it saved lives. One day later and I would have been doing the same. If you haven’t seen the movie, dig through the archives and check it out. It’s historically accurate, and gripping. 

What I see happening in Los Angeles today brings back memories of my time in Tehran. The streets of LA look eerily like the streets of Tehran did back then. Iran’s history was etched in stone during those days. The not-at-all peaceful transfer of power, and the emergence of a radical Muslim regime. I’ll never be able to forget what I saw in Tehran. Countless lives were forever changed during those days. Mine included. Now, watching the same happen in LA? Are the National Guard and the Marines needed? Did Trump make the right decision? From my perspective, yes…

Highly Creative People...And the malady many of them often carry...

There are a lot of ‘things’ in our lives that have contributed to making life better in some way. I use the word ‘things’ simply because I can’t think of a word inclusive enough to cover everything. Art, music, culture, technology, products, markets… and more. What I want to talk about is the people behind some of these monumental, life-changing developments and some common, yet unique characteristics so many of them seem to possess. Many of these people are famous, at least to some extent and their fame generally comes from their remarkable contributions. But when we take a closer look at the person, the character behind the watershed creations they left us with, often we find traits, attributes, facets, mannerisms, habits, and quirks that we weren’t expecting to learn. In some cases, they can be shocking. Things we learn about as them as a person doesn’t seem to align with their persona and their remarkable contributions to society. So many of these creative geniuses left legacies that in many ways define the world live in, yet the personal impressions they left with those who knew them, lived with them, collaborated with them was repugnant, even abhorrent. Perhaps they did leave us with a cultural or technological treasure, but they also left an acidic reputation. It’s an intriguing topic, let’s look at some examples. 

A contemporary with whom practically everyone alive is familiar with and who left us with a plethora of technological marvels is none other than Steve Jobs. Probably half the population of the world is using an iPhone, or an iPad, or an iMac or something else made by Apple. There are quite a number of people who possess considerable wealth due to the rocketing rise in value of the Apple brand through the years. But if you set aside all these technological miracles and take a closer look at the person who brought it all to life, you might be surprised. Steve Jobs was brash, arrogant, contemptuous, intense, and driven. While he did lead a company known for quality products, he was exceptionally difficult to work with. 

Some of these creative geniuses who drove hard to impress the world with their altruistic efforts weren’t quite able to ‘keep it between the legal lines’. Perhaps what they lacked in genuine creative genius they made up for it with corruption and deceit. Take the case of Elizabeth Holmes. At the age of 19, Holmes dropped out of Stanford University and founded Theranos, a healthcare technology company. The company claimed to have developed revolutionary blood testing technology that could perform hundreds of tests with a single drop of blood. This promised to make blood testing cheaper, more convenient, and more accessible. Theranos reached a valuation of $9 billion. The company’s proprietary technology was soon found to be unreliable, and it was discovered they were using commercially available machines for their testing while falsely claiming breakthroughs. As the trail of fraud and conspiracy began to unravel, her and her co-conspirator Ramesh Balwani were convicted on multiple fraud charges and are both currently in prison. 

One would be hard-pressed to find a living person who has not listened to music by the Beatles. Everyone has pleasant memories they associate with a Beatles song. Millions recognize their songs anytime they hear them. They were all very talented artists but Lennon and McCartney formed one of the most successful songwriting partnerships in music history. Several of the songs they wrote became cultural icons and defined a generation. Lennon’s songwriting often explored themes of love, peace, and social commentary. One might expect that such beautiful music heralding such compassion would be the reflections of a calm and tranquil soul. Not so much. Lennon had a reputation for being sarcastic and cynical. His impulsive nature lead to numerous controversies. He was egotistical and highly opinionated, arrogant. 

We have come to expect a level of eccentricity from musicians, not often seen in others. Often an underpinning of their brand is uniqueness. Standing out, so to speak. Contemporaries are often known for their affinity for mind-altering drug use, probably a lot of great songs came from musicians on a high. And of course there’s the aberrant and reckless behavior that accompanies the drug use. And we all know fame often builds colossal egos. This isn’t only contemporary musicians though. Let’s go back a few centuries and have a look at Ludwig von Beethoven. Talent and greatness only begin to describe Beethoven. He revolutionized almost every genre of music he touched. He introduced greater emotional range and intensity, using innovative harmonies and rhythms. His symphonies transformed the genre from entertaining works into grand, dramatic statements. His music had a profound influence on later generations of composers. Beethoven became deaf in his later years yet still continued to compose some of his greatest works. Beethoven was a fiery and irascible person. His irritability was likely exacerbated by his deafness and the isolation it caused. In spite of his disability, he had an enormous ego and was arrogant. Like Lennon, he was often sarcastic and dismissive of the opinions of others. He could be blunt, tactless and incredibly rude. 

A particularly interesting case of a bright, idealistic visionary who went terribly ‘off the rails’ was Martin Shkreli. Shkreli dropped out of high school but later earned a business degree from Baruch College. He started a career in finance and founded two hedge funds. Neither venture made much money, which led him to the pharmaceutical industry as a potentially lucrative area. He co-founded the biotech firm Retrophin. In 2015, Shkreli’s company, Turing Pharmaceuticals acquired Daraprim, a 62 year-old drug used to treat toxoplasmosis, a parasitic infection that can be life-threatening, especially for people with HIV/AIDS and pregnant women. Shortly after acquiring it, Turing raised the price of a single pill from $13.50 to $750, an increase in excess of 5,000%. Shkreli defended the price hike by claiming that profits would be used for research and development of new and better drugs. He also claimed that Daraprim made up only a small percentage of overall health costs and offered to provide the drug at a lower costs to patients without insurance. His claims were widely rejected and faced immense public outrage. Prior to the Daraprim controversy, Shkreli was under investigation for his activities at Retrophin. In December 2015, he was arrested by the FBI and charged with securities fraud. It was alleged that he defrauded investors in his hedge funds and used money from Retrophin to pay them back. In 2018 he was sentenced to seven years in prison and ordered to forfeit $7.4 million in assets. Shkreli became known not only for the Daraprim price hike, but also for his provocative and offensive online presence. He frequently engaged in controversial behavior on social media, including taunting his critics. Since his release from prison, he has been banned from serving as an officer of any publicly traded company. 

While Shkreli obviously crossed the line into criminal activity, most savants don’t. But character traits that seem to pervade the class of the overly talented is brash, caustic, narcissistic personalities. Some appear to be motivated by self-adulation, with a sharp contempt for others. There are a host of well-known personalities who exhibit exceptional talent and creativity who also posses some or all of the characteristics described in the above cases. Such as Gordon Ramsey, Kanye West, Bobby Fischer, Frank Lloyd Wright, Howard Hughes, Thomas Edison, Andrew Fastow, Sam Bankman-Fried, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, Mark Cuban, Travis Kalanick, John Kapoor… All highly capable, intelligent, over-achievers who were comtemptuous, solipsistic jack-asses. Most overlooked these fatal character flaws in light of their astounding achievements and contributions. One cant help but wonder, why? Why do super-savants need to be caustic personalities? The axiom, we are a product of our environment doesn’t really hold in these cases. Most probably came from decent, respectable families. Even if that weren't the case, at some point in everyone’s life we become individually responsible for who and what we are. Granted, everyone is not a ‘nice guy.’ Everyone is not socially adept and easy to get along with. We dont expect everyone to be. But typically in the real world, in everyday life, the stubborn, recalcitrant, jerks usually pay a price for the inability to get along. If you happen to be a super-creative innovator, then I suppose you’ll just have to live alone in your little universe that you believe yourself to be the center of. And we’re only too happy to let you…

We're moving

 I will no longer be posting to my blog here on blogspot.com. I have started an account on substack where my posts will appear going forward. I believe substack is more suited to how I want to go forward with my blog and will give the added benefit of providing more visibility and thus traffic to my blog. 

I'll still be posting topics on political analysis but I'l be expanding my new blog on substack to include aerial drone videos and discussions concerning drone photography. This is a hobby, so far, but may become an avocation at some point. It's really fun and I think you'll enjoy the videos and photos. And, of course, the political takes will continue as usual. 

Hope to see you over there on substack. 

cclaytonlewis.substack.com

Let's beat this dead horse just a little bit more...

 In a perfect world, only the truth is spoken. Of course, we don't live in a perfect world. There never has been a perfect world and there never will be. Some untruths are without much consequence, others not so much. The 'dead horse' I mentioned, is of course the Biden scandal which has been the headline topic of late. Two liberal 'journalists' authored a book about what is undoubtedly the biggest presidential scandal in history. The scandal of hiding the physical and mental decline of a United States President from the public. And during his period of incapacity, his presidential power and execution of duties being assumed by 'others'. We will probably never know the names of the group of 'others'. The only safe assumption, in my opinion, of at least one of the names is Jill Biden. If his wife didn't know of his cognitive and physical decline, then she's either much worse off than him or the world's greatest liar. Could be both for all we know. As far as who the others were, that secret will probably go to the grave. I'm quite sure that is what 'they' intend. 

The extent of the lies, untruths and deception to pull this off is unfathomable. Abe Lincoln is turning in his grave. There is no 'of the people, by the people and for the people' here. Whomever perpetrated this was 'the people shall never know...' Their thinking, and that's using the term in an immensely liberal sense, was allowing the public to know the truth is not in the best interest of the Democratic Party. And now that it's obvious to even the most casual observer what happened, the best interest of the Democratic Party resembles the Titanic sitting at the bottom of the North Atlantic. They're still making noise, but it's akin to a a baby crying in a crowded theater. Very annoying, but inconsequential. 

The American voting public still values veracity. We still abhor lying and deceit. Proof of that lies in the current state of the Democratic Party. As the venerable Mr Lincoln once said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." No one knows this better than the current Democratic Party. Or at least what's left of it...

#original sin #presidential scandal #deep state 

Suasion and the Supreme Court...

 Politics are an integral part of American politics. It's 'the nature of the beast' so to speak. It's a, one could reasonably argue, a natural part of civil discourse and debate. For the legislative and executive branches of government, that is. The judicial branch was intended to interpret the constitution and to apply the rule of law equitably, so that everyone was treated equally under the law. With the doctrine of separation of powers, political ideologies and priorities were meant to be exclusive of the workings of the judicial branch. For the most part, a couple of centuries passed and things went as planned. I emphasize, for the most part...

Politics can be like a contagious disease, it tends to spread to places where it wasn't supposed to be. Like the Supreme Court. Thomas Jefferson and his Secretary of State, James Madison refused to even send a lawyer to argue Marbury vs Madison. M vs M was one of the most important and foundational cases in U.S. legal history. Chief Justice John Marshall and the court in this case established the principle of judicial review; the power of the court to declare laws unconstitutional. The is ruling gave the Supreme Court the power to the court to rule a law enacted by congress as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has done so on numerous occasions; Brown vs Board of Education, Roe vs Wade...

Of course, today we are not dealing with a law enacted by Congress. We are dealing with Executive Orders, while being legal instruments of the executive branch are subject to judicial review. Were Congress to quit sitting on its hands and do what it should be doing, this might not be happening. The monkey wrench comes in deciding does the ruling of a federal district court constitute proper and appropriate  judicial review? In effect, a federal district judge is issuing a ruling binding on the entire nation when the entire nation is not the jurisdiction of that judge. 

Difficult as it may be to believe, there was a time when the Supreme Court decided it was not necessary to decide a case dealing with federal authority to ban slavery. The greatest irony of history? Perhaps... 19th century lawyers tended to regard precedent as a series of decisions affirming a principle, as opposed to modern day lawyers viewing a single decision as a binding precedent. 

History considers our most authoritarian president to be Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt devised a 'court-packing' plan to de-legitimize the court to disable the opinions of its four conservatives at the time. They had a record of striking down his 'New Deal' programs. He denounced the court in his famous 'fireside chat' radio programs and his court-packing proposal was so baleful that his own Democratic Party rejected it resoundingly. But the suasion of his campaign was so effective the court bent its jurisprudence to allow Roosevelt to do what he wanted. 

In 2010, deja vu revisits, all over again. In his state of the union address, Obama openly derided the justices for siding with "special interests" in the Citizens United decision. In 2012, Obama upped the pressure in advance of the court's decision on the constitutionality of Obamacare, waring against the extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress. He claimed this was a good example of illegitimate judicial activism, a group of unelected people overturning a duly constituted and passed law. Sound familiar? Obamacare was passed unilaterally. Not one single Republican vote. Not. One. 

These were not arguments on the proper role of the court, they were efforts to intimidate the court against going against the will of the people. And it worked. Chief Justice John Roberts changed his vote to rule Obamacare as constitutional. Such had never happened in the history of Supreme Court rulings. 

The court has been unduly influenced on the topic of gun control. In March 2020, Chuck Schumer stood on the steps of the Supreme Court building to bellow, "I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have unleashed the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions." Waves of protests followed targeting the justices at their homes. The Biden admin responded by conspicuously resisting providing law enforcement protection to the justices. The 2020 presidential candidates including Buttigieg and Harris endorsed court-packing. Biden attacked the court when it struck down his unconstitutional student loan plan to spend a half trillion dollars to forgive student loans without congressional approval. On the campaign trail he bragged, "The Supreme Court blocked it, but that didn't stop me." Lest we forget...

Trump's defiance of court orders are not unprecedented, not by any means. In fact, the threats to the judiciary have typically come from the democrats throughout the past century. The democrats are simply playing on the ignorance of the voters to history. 

#supremecourt #courtshopping #politicalhipocrasy

The sins of the past...

 Radical idealism and ideology has no place in the handling of foreign affairs and foreign relations. Global politics is best left to skilled statesmen and negotiators who meticulously plan and set goals and who consistently rely on risk analysis to obtain optimal outcomes. Their methods and manners don't allow for their own idealism or ideology, or that of their superiors to direct, or even influence their work. They must visualize what success looks like from the start. 

The US has had some rock stars in matters of foreign diplomacy. A few examples: George Marshall, the Secretary of State during the Truman presidency. Marshall played a key role in shaping Truman's postwar foreign policy through the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan helped stabilize the European continent and prevent the spread of communism. Marshall won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953. 

Henry Kissinger was secretary of state in the Nixon and Ford administrations. Kissinger accomplished the impossible task of detente with the USSR, establishing relations with China, conducting the Vietnam war negotiations, and of course the 'shuttle diplomacy' in the Middle East. Kissinger's efforts reworked the dynamics of the Cold War. 

James Baker III was Secretary of State for George H.W. Bush who managed diplomacy during the fall of the Soviet Union. He was also responsible for the unification of Germany and the Gulf War unification. 

Madeleine Albright was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton, the first woman to ever hold the office. She was active in the expansion of NATO, the Balkans and provided valuable leadership in post-Cold War  efforts. 

The world is a different, and much better place thanks to the work of these masters of diplomacy. The legacy of the presidents they served benefitted from their contributions. For other presidents, their legacies will be forever stained  in history because of the lack of efficacy on the part of those they appointed to this office. During the Obama administration Hillary Clinton and John Kerry served in the role. Clinton advocated for the "Reset" with Russia, which ultimately resulted in political disaster. Obama sought to instill fear in American allies with the Russian Reset. He believed that Bush 41 was responsible for worsening relations with Moscow, completely blind to Putin's lust for his interests in Eastern Europe. Obama scrapped a plan to provide radar installations and interceptor missiles for Poland and the Czech Republic. He withdrew brigade-sized combat teams from Europe and set the stage for the first time the US had no combat tanks on the European continent. The Kremlin responded with aggression, culminating with the first invasion of Ukraine. 

Following suit, Obama thought it prudent to cut strategic ties with the Middle East. By December 2011, he had withdrawn every American soldier from Iraq, and empowered the Shiite militias backed by Iran hoping the mullahs would see to America's interests. They did not. Once again, blinded by his ideals, Obama was focused on the nuclear deal with Iran, which today has become a nuclear train wreck. The Arab Spring uprising complicated matters at the time. The Syrian regime began to implode opening the door for the rise of ISIS, stoked by the Russian regime who now felt free rein since America had 'left the building'. Obama now felt compelled to bring American troops into Iraq in 2014, as well as into eastern Syria. 

Obama's misplaced vision for America to no longer be a hegemonic world leader was actually beginning to work. If America wasn't going to be the pre-eminent power of the Pacific Rim, then who would. The answer was right in front of his eyes, yet he still played blind. This brings us to the 2016 election. Can you imagine inheriting the fubar Trump did in his first term? Obama didn't only leave a country divided, on the world stage he literally let the dogs out. We can only hope that Trump, in his second term learns from the sins of the past. Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer...

Who defines Quality of Life?

 Throughout the history of the world there have been countless wrongs inflicted upon the innocent. Many have been cases of innocents being caught 'in the middle' of a conflict. Many were subjects of totalitarian rule. Some, even citizens of modern democracies. Those responsible for inflicting pain, suffering, and the loss of life invariably are focused on a goal, or agenda of some sort. It may be retaliation, aggression, political ambition, an act of defense, or offense, or ideological disparity. 

With each new generation comes a new set of conflicts with intended and unintended damages. History tells us that stable democratic regimes are far less likely to inflict hardship and suffering on its citizens. Dictatorships and authoritarian regimes seem to be far less concerned with the plight of the plebeians. In the present day world, the majority of countries have a democratic government. Of the 167 countries with 500k or more population, 58% are democracies of some sort. Some four dozen or so have elements of both democracy and autocracy. 13% or 21 countries are autocracies. The number of countries that are democratically governed has been on an upward trend since the 70's. As the Cold War came to an end and the Soviet-led bloc crumbled, democracy began to spread globally. Of the 75 countries that were known as autocracies in 1987, only 15 were still rated that way three decades later. More than a third had become democracies. 

Amongst the countries with the most advanced democracies, it is surprising to many, including myself, that the United States is not among the top ten. Most advanced democracies tend to score high in areas like political participation, civil liberties, functioning of government, and electoral process. The country most often ranked number one is Norway. Norway has high voter participation, transparent institutions, strong civil liberties, and trust in government. Having spent time in Norway, I can personally attest that the vast majority of Norwegians are multilingual, well-educated and very nice people. Several countries in Northern Europe are amongst the top ten. New Zealand, Canada, Ireland and the Netherlands are also on the list. 

As of the 2024 Democracy Index published by the Economist Intelligence Unit, the United States is ranked 28th out of 167 countries and is classified as a "flawed democracy." The EIU evaluates countries based on five categories; electoral process and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties. The US scores high in electoral process and pluralism, it lags in political culture and functioning of government, reflecting challenges such as political polarization and institutional gridlock. Partisan pressure on the electoral process has also become a degrading issue. 

The two categories that bemoan even the most ardent nationalists are political culture and functioning of government. Regrettably, that is an aspect of our democracy that has deteriorated over the past fifty years. Our two-party system of government has become increasingly divisive, polarized, and adversarial. Interestingly, the U.S. doesn't rank in the top ten with regard to standard of living either. While we rank very high in productivity, i.e. GDP per Capita,  at #3, the average life expectancy is lower than all of the countries in the top ten by several years. 

In spite of being a world leader in many respects, the U.S. democratic system of government lags behind in many others. While some metrics indicate we have a lower standard of living than several other nations, there is a key characteristic that must be pointed out. The countries identified as leaders in democratic government and standard of living, all of them in the top ten, practice a more socialistic, welfare state form of government. Social services such as universal healthcare, free or low-cost education, substantial unemployment benefits, strong public pensions, subsidized housing and transportation, social housing and welfare support... All of this and more provided by the government. Which of course translates to higher taxes to support it all. No government in history, anywhere on the planet has ever earned a cent in earned income. 

If other countries enjoy stronger, higher-rated democracies and higher standards of living than the U.S., why don't we emulate their social and democratic structures ourselves so that we might enjoy the same benefits? The answer is simple, because we don't want the government to play a large, dominant role in our lives. We don't want to depend on the government to feed and house us. We want opportunities to work, prosper and remain independent. We want our opportunities to be limited only by our own aspirations, not the government. In spite of many ongoing attempts to instill socialistic structure into our government and culture, the American people have resisted. We want minimal government and more personal freedom. We enjoy lower personal income taxes and generally lower costs of living that most countries. We want personal sovereignty as well as national. Americans have defined their own metrics for quality of life. And that's the way we want it.

Airing the dirty laundry...

 During a recent cabinet meeting Secretary of State Marco Rubio revealed that the Biden's administration's Department of State kept dossiers on American citizens accused of serving as "vectors of disinformation". One of the dossiers was for someone actually sitting in that very Cabinet meeting. For any red-blooded American that is no less than 8.0 on the Richter scale earth-moving shocking. 

This 'department' in the office in the Department of State was established to monitor the social media posts and commentary of American citizens, to identify them as 'vectors of disinformation'. This 'office' was previously known as the Global Engagement Center. Rubio officially closed this office earlier this month. The Global Engagement Center tagged accounts as "Russian personas and proxies" based on criteria like "describing the coronavirus as an engineered bioweapon', blaming 'research conducted at the Wuhan Laboratory' and 'attributing the appearance of the virus to the CIA.'

When reorganizing the  State Department Rubio said the GEC engaged with media outlets and platforms to censor speech it disagreed with. According to journalist Matt Taibbi, the center funded a secret list of subcontractors and helped initiate a form of 'blacklisting' during the pandemic. 

Musk previously described the GEC as "the worst offender in US government censorship and media manipulation." Musk made this statement more than a year before he endorsed Trump in the 2024 presidential race and assumed a role in DOGE. I think it safe to say that Musk was onto what the GEC was doing so the GEC put together a dossier on him. Stay tuned for Rubio to disclose for whom the dossiers were for...

The office of GEC was established by none other than former president Obama in 2016 through an executive order aimed at coordinating counterterrorism messaging to foreign nations. Its scope was later expanded to include countering foreign propaganda and disinformation. And here we are today with two dossiers for high level Trump admin officials lying on the table. 

This office of the GEC under the previous administration costs taxpayers more than $50 million per year. Purposed with actively censoring and silencing American citizens. There have been numerous adjectives used to describe the actions of the two previous democratic administrations, but let's add depraved to the list. And unforgivable...

#constitutionalcrisis #ruleoflaw #dossiers #globalengagementcenter #

The problem with US...

 When you saw the title of this post, you likely thought does he mean us, as in we, or does he mean the United States? The answer is yes. I meant us, as in we and I meant the United States. One in the same. Granted, I have readers all over the world (thank you for reading my blog), but they're very smart people and they know who I am talking about. What I am going to talk about today is some fundamental  problems we are having in America  and exactly what or who is causing them. 

Let me start off with answering the question, up front. We are. Us. And us alone. We are causing many of our own problems. Example, the Russians weren't behind the Russian Hoax. We were. All told, the Russians didn't have anything to do with it. Don't you know they were having a good laugh at our expense? Embarrassing. 

Inflation over the past few years. Can't blame that on anybody outside of 'us'. Was it Covid's fault? Did the coronavirus create trillions in government handouts? It made a lot of people sick but I don't think it had anything to do with writing stimulus checks. Did Mexico or Canada decide to open our borders and let millions of illegal immigrants flood our country, creating housing shortages and drug addictions? Including hardcore criminals and tons of fentanyl? Hardly. We did. It's almost embarrassing to use the pronoun we, but pronouns have been so abused lately, I don't feel that bad. Let's just say I'm being inclusive, I'm including Joe Biden and his cadre of idiots. I'm using 'we' as a very inclusive term. We caused inflation, we opened the borders. Herein lies the root causes of the self-inflicted mayhem. 

Let me break them down: at the top of the list; we don't listen to each other. The framework of our system of government and society is based on civil discourse and debate. Partisan politics is causing our iron framework to rust. It has gone too far into the realm of 'us against them'. 'We' has become more singular than plural. There's more than one 'we'. "We the people" has become we the democrats, or we the republicans. Whatever the other party may say or do, it's wrong. Never mind the merits or the benefits, it's wrong because it was 'their' idea, not ours. Which brought us the current phenomenon known as TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome. It's real. Ridiculous, but real. 

Next up is accountability. When's the last time you heard a high level government official say "I take full responsibility. It was my fault." That's about as rare as rocking horse poop. I'm sure it's happened but history hasn't done well in recording it. It's as though we're all narcissists now. "Not my fault. It's you. You're the problem." 

I'm going to keep this simple, because it really is. There's one more item on the list of root causes. Honesty. Telling the truth. As the prescient and perhaps genius Eric Blair (aka George Orwell) once said, "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." If George were alive today, witnessing the current state of affairs, if not completely stunned and speechless, he might say, "I tried to tell you...". In present day politics, sadly to say, telling the truth is an option. One not often chosen. If the truth doesn't facilitate the end game, then it'll have to wait. (Or be omitted...) Orwell was right, the day has come when the truth is revolutionary. It's not the norm anymore. 

So how do we get out of this self-imposed pandemic of social corruption? I'm not one of civilization's great minds, and this is a question that even the brightest might struggle with. Back in the late eighteenth century, there was a group of men who had a vision, and a profound sense of purpose. They convened and fostered what has become a system of government that became a nonpareil. No other country in the history of the world has yet to devise a system of governance that is genuinely of the people, by the people, and for the people. They are the reason we became known as the United States of America. Let's find a way to keep it that way.

#america #trumpderangementsyndrome #civildiscourse #georgeorwell

We have a Constitution and we're almost 250 years old. Why is this happening?...

President Trump was elected and entered office with some specific mandates from the electorate. There were issues the American people were fed up with, as evidenced by the electoral margins, including, immigration and it's associated criminal fallout and societal decay, not to mention out and out lawlessness, the excesses and fraud and waste in the federal government, the blatant abuse of 'lawfare' to punish one's political adversaries, corruption at the federal level (Hunter Biden's laptop, and presidential pardons...), and the bad policies that led to a bad economy, i.e. inflation. There were more, plenty more. 

Trump takes office and within hours, literally, he begins to take action. Of course, the president lacks the power to 'make' laws, only Congress has the power to do that. The closest he can come is executive orders. As the southerners' phrase goes, "Katy bar the door, here they come." 125 so far, in about 90 days. 

Trump campaigned on restoring common sense to government. This resonated with voters, with good reason. He brought Elon Musk in as director of government efficiency, tasked with rooting out programs, agencies, directives, systems, and practices that involved outright corruption, fraud, waste and lacked true productive purpose in government. Theoretically, and practically sensible on all levels. Obviously, the fallout was programs would end and agencies would cease to exist, meaning benefits would cease and jobs would be lost. Illegal aliens, especially those engaged in criminal activity would be prosecuted and/or deported. 

All this is happening and not at the lackadaisical, lethargic, beaureacratic  rate that we are used to seeing. Progressive ideologies have been offended and with the Democratic Party currently operating in a leaderless vacuum, democrats were faced with the question they haven't faced in four years, 'how do we stop Trump?' Republicans now control the executive and legislative branches of government, so what's left? The courts, of course. 

In spite of attempting to destroy and discredit Trump through nefarious lawfare before he was elected, unsuccessfully, and lacking other viable options, they decided to try again. Democrats and progressives are a persistent, if ignorant lot. It didn't take them long to figure out our sometimes fallible court systems and its Swiss-cheese-like procedures. In short order, we have federal district judges issuing injunctions delaying and even halting executive actions. Almost exclusively, these injunctions were being ordered by liberal, activist judges issuing orders and injunctions as if their jurisdictions included the entire nation. Which they don't. Courts are for parties that have suffered identifiable, non-speculative injuries and damages directly caused by a defendant and are addressable by a judge. Such is not the circumstances of these cases being brought before the federal district courts attempting to stop Trump's executive actions. These judges are in effect making policy by nullifying the policy choices of the elected administration. They are not settling the rights of the parties to a lawsuit, they are enacting law on the nation, far beyond their jurisdiction for as long as the injunction lasts. 

The judicial branch, all of it, is tasked with saying and interpreting what the law is. They cannot write it or enforce it. They do not have the authority to make policy, that prerogative is given to the political branches accountable to the people whose lives are affected. The courts role is to settle the rights of the parties involved and nothing more. 

The constitutional authority in this ignorance/blindness to separation of power is Congress. For unknown reasons, Congress has been unassertive, even silent so far. Illegal criminal aliens are being deported, allegedly without due process, taxes are being imposed (tariffs) that have and continue to demonstrably damage the American economy and so far the Big Cahuna (Congress) is yet to utter a word. The solution to these issues we face doesn't lie with the person we elected to the office of the President. He has rules he must follow. When he fails to do that there is one government body he must answer to. But they must insist that he do so. Mr. Speaker, what say you?...

#tariffs #constitutionalcrisis #federaldistrictcourts #lawfare #DOGE

Sucks to be Xi...

 At present, Trump's tariff situation is unpredictable, even chaotic. We are all well aware of the vacuum effect it has had on the equities markets and America's savings accounts. Trump is doing a lot of good things regarding national security, immigration, and advocating for American industry. But his tariff program is wreaking havoc and destruction. It was not well planned and is being terribly executed. I think Trump has shot himself in the foot and refuses to admit it hurts. However, he is taking steps to ameliorate the situation, however token some of them may be. He has initiated a 90 day pause for effecting most of the tariffs with but one exception; China. This month he raised the general tariff rate for Chinese goods to 145%. Essentially, this closes most of the American market off to China. Any way you look at it, that is major. The US accounts for more than a third of global consumer spending. 

For many and various reasons the world has been deglobalizing for years. The Trump Liberation Day tariffs are significantly speeding up the process, further threatening the stability and well-being of the People's Republic of China and other export-driven economies. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has essentially put a nail in the coffin of globalization. The Covid pandemic dealt a massive blow to connectivity between nations, companies and people as well. 

Practically every country involved in trade has tariffs. With the American consumer market off limits to China, other countries are not going to allow China to flood their markets with goods that otherwise would be sold to the US. Most of them are not large enough to absorb China's massive export volume, and they won't allow China to butcher their national industries. A major problem, for China, is Trump's tariffs come at the worst possible time. China's economy is in dire straits. Export factories in southern China are closing as orders dwindle. Workers are returning to hometowns subsisting on farms. China is experiencing its version of '2008'. Xi's predecessor, Hu Jintao attempted to avoid a downturn by launching the biggest stimulus program in history, causing China to take on enormous debt. (Sound familiar?) Today, China's total debt to GDP ratio is approaching 400%. No typo, 400%. That is not sustainable. For years there have been a series of high profile debt defaults especially in the property sector. 70% of wealth in China is in property. 

And here came the tariffs cutting off China's biggest customer. Makes sense that Xi's best course of action would be to call Trump and work something out. Make a deal as Trump says. The chances of that happening though are about as good as raising a bumper crop of corn on the north slope of Alaska. Xi cannot back down or make concessions without appearing to be weak as a leader. Such would lead to challenges to his position. There are already signs of discontent with his rule, especially in the military. "China does not flinch from any suppression," he claims. If he doesn't compromise, China's economy will fail. If their economy fails, he will fail. Yes, it sucks to be Xi...

Confused? Just ask our combat veterans...

 Yesterday an immigration court ruled that Mahmoud Khalil can be deported. This week, Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State stated that Khalil's ties and support to Hamas were sufficient and credible grounds for revoking his green card status. In spite of the ruling that he can be legally deported he is eligible for 'due process', which means he has the right to appeal. Legal experts have claimed that such formality likely will not change the lower court's ruling that he can be deported. As a green card holder, Khalil had legal status as a resident alien. To be clear, he was not a US citizen, nor did he have the same rights of free speech that citizens have. His actions and speech were clearly indicative of subversion and espousing support for a terrorist organization. Pretty solid ground for declaring that he should be deported. Marco Rubio declared that Khalil was a risk to national security. Once again, legal experts have supported this to be a true statement. We should all rejoice in the fact that a government official and an immigration court took decisive action before any bodily harm or loss of life occurred. Not everyone agrees with the outcome, but due process has taken place. 

For those who may be unsure or support the perspective that Khalil was denied his right of free speech, let me offer this. American citizens are guaranteed the right of free speech. That sentence must be read and interpreted literally. Khalil is not and has never been an American citizen. As such, he is not entitled to the same right of free speech that an American citizen would be in similar circumstances. 

Is Khalil actually a threat to national security? I mean, he's just a Columbia University grad student participating in campus protests, right? Yes, that is right. Except for the word 'just'. As Paul Harvey would famously say, "And now for the rest of the story..." Khalil was born to Palestinian parents in Syria and is a citizen of Algeria. He worked for a time at the British Embassy in Lebanon. He also worked as a public affairs officer for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees. UNRWA has functioned as a de facto arm of Hamas. A number of UNRWA officials have been implicated in the October 7 attack on Israel. Khalil improperly omitted his UNRWA work history from his green card application. That alone is sufficient basis for revoking his green card status and deporting him. 

Khalil had become prominent in the campus uprisings that followed the October 7 atrocities, featuring the illegal occupation of university buildings that had to be ended by NYC police. Illegal encampments on university grounds that had to be dismantled by NYC police, and illegal harassment of Jewish students that violated university standards and federal civil rights. Khalil claimed to be a 'senior associate' of Columbia University Apartheid Divest. CUAD expressly backs armed resistance by Hamas and recently rescinded an apology it had offered after one of its members said Columbia should be "grateful that I'm not just going out and murdering Zionists." Khalil positioned himself as the pro-Hamas intermediary with university administration from which they were seeking to coerce concessions, including divestment from Israel. Even the most casual observer could reasonably conclude that such is not constitutionally protected speech, it's extortionary. 

So, Khalil is getting due process. He'll also be getting a one way ticket to a resort in El Salvador, courtesy of the United States. Are these proceedings legally and constitutionally sound? Most experts and immigration lawyers are saying yes. Is it right and just? Look at it this way: he is advocating and promoting the views (possibly more than mere views...) of a known terrorist organization. This particular terrorist organization executed a surprise and barbaric attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Hundreds of Jews in Israel, including dozens of American citizens were killed, maimed, raped and taken hostage. Many of those hostages died in captivity and their bodies yet to be surrendered. A truce was agreed with Hamas to surrender hostages and bodies, which, after releasing a few, Hamas ignored the truce. 

The ilk of terrorist organizations include, Hamas, al Qaeda, Taliban, Hezbollah, ISIS, the Islamic State, Al-Shabaab... All of the organizations have demonstrated to the world their tunnel-vision idealism, their proclivity towards extreme violence to both military and civilians, and their willingness to die for the cause. Many US soldiers have died at their hands. So if you're not sure if deporting Mahmoud Khalil is justice, just ask any combat veteran. 

Beautiful tariffs? Actually, they're starting to look ugly.

Yesterday, April 2, Trump had his little Rose Garden party where he announced the “Day of Liberation”, whatever the hell that means. He believes and has many others believing that tariffs are the end-all be-all. To me, it sort of feels like let’s fill the boat half full of water just to prove it won’t sink. It’s a great boat and by proving it won’t sink we’ll make it even greater. His genius idea, so far, has turned the stock market on its head. Ourselves as well as millions of others that are retired have seen our accounts shrink. Pretty big losses. For us, we have seen a decline of 10%. Fortunately, our broker has pulled us out of the market, so the bleeding has stopped. Once the storm has passed we will watch it grow back to where it was. Hopefully.  

Ever since he took office he has been talking about and touting his tariff plans. ‘Beautiful’ he calls them. So far all I have observed is that they have stirred up muddy water in a clear lake and pissed off many countries of the world that we trade with. Are they going to solve all the problems he says they will? Pardon me if I don’t pat him on the back. Too much of his plans seem counterintuitive to sound economic principles. His explanations are ‘this is how I say it’s all going to transpire’, and it doesn’t line up with what a lot of economists who have studied economics a lot more than he has have to say. To be honest, I think I have studied economics a lot more than he has. Prices are going to rise in America but not because of inflation this time. They’re going to rise because of supply chain disruptions causing imbalances in supply and demand. Other countries who are being impacted by the nonsense are equally, if not more dependent on foreign trade as we are. Many are countering with their own tariffs. Which means, of course they will be taxing their own citizens making many goods no longer affordable for them. So we will be exporting less just as we will be importing less. The global marketplace is going to shrink, for everybody. 

Presumably, this will stimulate more foreign investment in America. For some countries with large scale economies, maybe so. For many smaller countries. No. Will this stimulate economic growth in America? It will, but not to the scale that Trump thinks it will. The reason is Americans will be selling more to Americans but they’ll be selling a lot less to foreign markets. And many US businesses are powerhouses because they sell to foreign markets. The global marketplace is a lot bigger than the US market. By paring down their global market, you pare those companies down. Which will translate to fewer jobs in America. 

This tariff mania was not well planned and thought out. Trump did not listen to some of the very smart people (much smarter than he is...) before he pulled the trigger on this. History has taught some very tough lessons regarding tariffs. Obviously, Trump isn’t a history buff. All we can really do at this point is fasten our seatbelts and prepare for some turbulence. 

#tariffs #foreigntrade #globalmarkets #trumptariffs

The Federal Courts have overstepped.

 Last week the federal appeals courts in Washington agreed to halt the Trump admin's deportation of members of Tren de Aragua. In spite of it being a temporary order, it still ventured into the executive domain of government concerning war and national security. A federal court has never overruled the decision of a president or Congress that the United States has suffered an attack of invasion. Ever. The Department of Justice has petitioned the Supreme Court to review, which it is expected to do. The Court should intervene with action that prevents trial judges from interfering with the elected branches authority over war and national security. 

On March 15, President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to send members of TdA to a prison in El Salvador. TdA has been designated a foreign terrorist organization and Trump claimed they were conducting an invasion or predatory incursion through "irregular warfare" such as drug trafficking and mass illegal immigration into the US. The Act requires that the enemy be a "hostile nation or government". Trump claimed this standard was met as TdA is "closely aligned with and integral to the Venezuelan government."

While it may be difficult to prove that a gang integral to a hostile foreign government is conducting an invasion or incursion in the US, at this point it remains a judgment call. Are the federal courts the right governing body to make that judgment? Judicial review does not extend to every constitutional question. The Constitution itself has committed the final decision to the president or Congress on matters of national security for which there are no legal standards the courts can apply. Chief Justice John Marshall admitted that  "the president is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion. For his decisions, he is accountable only to his country and to his own conscience. His choices cannot be questioned in court because the subjects are political. These issues respect the nation, not individual rights, and being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive". 

In the past, federal judges has refused to rule on the legality of not only the Iraq and Afghanistan wars but every war in American history, including the Guantanamo Bay cases. The courts deferred to the decision of George W. Bush that the 9/11 attacks had started a war. In the Prize Cases of 1862, the Supreme Court refused to judge whether President Abraham Lincoln had properly invoked the nations's war power in response to secession. The Court declared they could not question the merits of his decision and left the decision to "the political department of the government to which this power was entrusted". In the War of 1812, the Supreme Court also recognized that courts could not review decisions of other branches regarding war. Justice Joseph Story concluded "the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclusively to the president, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons." The court stressed that delay and confusion could arise in the ranks if questions arose over the presidents authority. The court also observed that "the evidence upon which the president might decide that there is imminent danger of invasion, might be of a nature not constituting strict technical proof, or the disclosure of the evidence might reveal important secrets of state, which the public interest and safety might require they be kept in concealment." 

In the Appeals Court stay, the court ignored the judiciary's traditional deference on questions of war and invasion. Judge Karen Henderson's opinion concluded "there must be hostilities." Judge Henderson, check with the families of the numerous Americans killed by TdA. They'll clue you in on the hostilities. 

Federal judges do not have the capability, knowledge and understanding, or access to the information to make sensitive decisions on whether a foreign actor represents a national security threat, not can they judge the harm that may come from action or inaction. Courts at any level are not designed or tasked with making policy decisions involving probabilities and risks, which are characteristic of war and national security. Analysts and investigators have asserted that the Maduro regime in Venezuela has purposely sent TdA to the US to destabilize our political system. They have trained several hundred members for that work and assumed operational control of them. 

Such is not the domain of our judicial system. The constitution is quite clear in assigning this responsibility and accountability to the executive and legislative branches. Venezuela is capable of and positioned to damage US interests in the Caribbean. China has been a longtime ally of Venezuela, dating back to the Hugo Chavez regime. To repeat, there are risks involved that the judicial branch are not qualified for nor do they have the constitutional delegation to consider matters of national security. There is basis and precedence and the Supreme Court needs to instruct them to stand down. 

#trendearagua # appealscourt #federalappealscourt #federalcourtoverreach #nationalsecurity #supremecourt

The #Tesla Takedown Affair

 So, some voters are miffed about what Elon Musk is doing through DOGE. He is being labeled as  Nazi, a fascist, and a host of other unprintable slurs. Recently, nationwide protests have been organized literally across the country, some drawing hundreds of protesters. Protests were planned in Canada and Europe as well during the day being called "a global day of action."A left-wing advocacy group, "The Action Network" claimed "Tesla Takedown' is a peaceful protest movement. We oppose violence, vandalism and destruction of property. We are simply exercising our First Amendment right to peaceful assembly. "Indivisible", another left-wing group said "Rally attenders must be peaceful and nonviolent." 

In the US the protests planned for Saturday were promoted by actors, filmmakers, various members of Congress, activists and academics who led rallies last week to support the planned protests. They were described as 'grassroots' protests to thwart Trump and Musk's agenda and to tank Tesla's stock. The protests were billed as nonviolent and included people line dancing outside Tesla dealerships and holding anti-swastika and anti-Musk and 'don't buy swastikacar' signs. 

Tesla locations everywhere have encountered violence and vandalism recently. Tesla owners have been hit with countless occurrences of vandalism to their cars. Tesla dealerships have been vandalized and many vehicles torched and fire-bombed. 

Yet the protests are purportedly peaceful, non-violent, grassroots protests. Truthfully, none of the three adjectives apply. Open the pages of any major news source to see photos of rows of unsold Teslas burning and exploding on dealership lots. Of miscreants keying and spray-painting swastikas on privately-owned cars. As has been the case in past protests and movements, these are not grassroots campaigns. They often are funded, planned and coordinated by national, political organizations like the Indivisible Project, Move-On.org, and professional protest firms. Many of the protesters seen at the events are being paid to do so. Those shouting through bullhorns were holding the bullhorn with one hand and a script in the other. The professional protest industry in the US was working overtime Saturday. This kind of organizing/protesting has become known as 'astro-turfing'. According to Asra Nomani in an article in the FairFax Times, "critics say these operations mislead the public, distort the media narrative, and erode trust in genuine democratic movements by masking partisan objectives behind a veneer of local outrage." So now we can add 'fake protests' to 'fake news'. At one of the protests, a protester was seen parking near a van with a sign "Poster Lending Library." These groups use digital platforms, pre-scripted chants, pre-printed signs, and prepared toolkits to manufacture the appearance of grassroots activism.They're not even trying to be discrete. 

Jasmine Crockett, who you have no doubt heard of recently, is working with the Soros-backed paid protest group "Indivisible' to organize protests at Tesla stores across the country. She was quoted as saying, "Let's take down Elon Musk for my birthday." Tesla protesters protesting at a dealership in Texas immediately stopped what they were doing and left at precisely at 12pm. Colin Rugg, co-owner of Trending Politics noted in a post on X, "This was odd..." Leaving at a precise time is indicative of someone who is 'on the clock', when the pay stops, the work stops. 

A particular point of irony I'd like to point out, is a number of promoters, advocates, sponsors, activists and members of Congress who speak freely against Elon Musk, Tesla and DOGE recently have been and continue to purchase Tesla stock. You'd be surprised how many democratic members of Congress own Tesla stock. Gil Cisneros (D-NY) called Trump and Musk 'atrocious' and that DOGE was 'causing destruction'. Days after making these claims, he bought thousands of dollars of Tesla stock. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) in a public rant said "The risk to Americans privacy and financial security from Musk's unchecked access are not only unacceptable, but outright dangerous. At about the same time, Gottheimer disclosed he purchased $45,000 in Tesla stock. Vicente Gonzalez (D-TX), who said "DOGE's action is incredibly concerning" this month bought over $100,000 of Tesla stock. During the Biden administration the Democratic controlled Congress was passing laws putting the country on the path to phasing out combustion engines. Now, they're actually 'combusting' them. Liberal Democrats are consistently hypocritical if anything...

#Teslatakedown #moveon.org #elonmusk #DOGE #JasmineCrockett #Indivisible #teslaprotests #teslahypocrisy

Does it matter where you were born?

 The US District Court for the District of Columbia, where many of the cases interfering with the Trump administrations' authority have been presented, has 15 judges, five of them were born outside of the US. Country of origin isn't a factor in most jobs, but it does beg the question if judges with ties to foreign nations and cultures are the best choices for making decisions affecting the US military, immigration or foreign policy. One cannot say it's completely irrelevant, since the authors of the constitution itself stated that one must be a US born citizen to qualify for the position of US president. Until Donald Trump became president, decisions regarding national security and foreign policy were the exclusive domain of the president. The liberal resistance has taken it upon themselves to undermine the presidents' executive authority in the only way they know how, weaponization of the judicial system. And we thought that ended with Alvin Bragg... They have filed a chain of lawsuits suing the administration and have 'chosen' courts in known liberal districts in which to file. The district court of DC is Lalaland for these suits. 

Surprisingly, the DC district does not have a history of foreign-born judges. It includes 10 senior judges who still occasionally hear cases in the district. This group of 10 judges date as far back as the Reagan administration in the 1980's, all were born in the US. Starting in 2014, Barry Obama appointed Judge Tanya Chutkan who was born in Jamaica. She attended law school at George Washington University. Before her appointment to the federal court, she had no experience as a judge. None. She is currently overseeing the legal challenge to DOGE's work to cut excess government spending. Obama also appointed Judge Amit P. Mehta to the DC court. Mehta also had no experience as a judge. None. Mehta was born in India, his parents immigrated to America when he was one year old. Mehta will oversee four civil cases related to events from January 6 that purport to blame Trump for injuries, which will undoubtedly detract from presidential duties, or at least attempt to do so. 

The other three foreign born judges were nominated by Joe Biden, aka Brandon. Judge Ana Cecelia Reyes was nominated in 2021, who also had no prior experience as a judge. None. She was born in Uruguay, lived in Spain and later immigrated to Kentucky where she grew up. Shew is the first openly LGBTQ Latina to be appointed to this court. Reyes presided over the case objecting to Trumps' executive order declaring 'gender dysphoria' as a disqualifier for troop readiness. The first Muslim Arab American in the DC district court is Judge Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali. He was born and raised in Canada to Egyptian parents. Ali only became an American citizen in 2019. Ali obtained a degree in software engineering in Canada then graduated from Harvard Law school in 2011. He worked as a volunteer in the Biden presidential campaign and various nonprofits. He had no experience as a judge (or any other legal experience...) prior to being appointed by Biden. None. Ali, with no supervision, oversight or collaboration restored $2 billion in USAID spending to foreign nonprofit contractors that had been paused by the Trump administration for 90 days. 

The newest judge on the DC district court is Judge Sparkle Sooknanan. She was sworn in on January 2, 2025. Born in Trinidad-Tobago in 1983, she attended college and law school in Brooklyn NY, graduating in 2010. She clerked for Justice Sotomayor and was deputy assistant attorney in the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ. Biden appointed her as district judge in the DC district. She had no experience as a judge, ever. None. 

None of the cases impeding the Trump administrations' agenda have gone in front of conservative judges in conservative states. They have all landed in the DC district or the SDNY (southern district of New York). All of the judges that have heard these cases have ruled against Trump or his policies in the past. 

Any arguments regarding constitutionality, legal interpretation or precedence are moot at this point. If American citizens are guaranteed a fair and impartial judgement, then why shouldn't the president be guaranteed such? During the Biden administration there were 14 negative district court judgments. For Obama, 12. For Bush, 6. During the administrations of the entire 20th century there were approximately a dozen. 65 days into the Trump administration there are already 15. Is this bias, resistance, revenge, lawfare, or corruption? Or some or all of the above? What it is not, is what the authors of the constitution intended...

Is this due process, or something else?

 Today in a 2-1 decision, an appellate court sided with the federal district judge who ruled against the Trump administrations' right to deport violent Venezuelan gang members without a due process hearing. Trump invoked the two centuries old Alien Enemies Act as the basis for his actions. Apparently, the appellate court deliberations were dominated by an Obama appointee, a Patricia Millett. The debate centered on whether the administration violated the constitutional due process protections which might have provided habeas protections. Habeas corpus protections are rights that protect citizens against unlawful detention. Note the keyword 'citizens'. The illegal criminal deportees were not American citizens. While they are subject to our laws while in America, legally or otherwise, they are not automatically afforded the same constitutional rights and protections as American citizens. Tren de Aragua has been declared a foreign terrorist organization, no one or no organization (or political party) has contested that. So far, anyway... Had the deportees been members of al Qaeda, or ISIS, would the same resistance be occurring? I suppose, given the state of affairs we are experiencing today, anything is possible. The offenses of this foreign gang of terrorists while in our country are known and documented. They are on video taking over an apartment building in Aurora Colorado. They are known for violent crimes against American citizens, including children. Let me say it one more time, they are not American citizens. I'm not a lawyer, as most of us aren't. But being a lawyer isn't a requirement for standing up for what's right. How wonderful the world would be if more lawyers actually did that... Is allowing violent, illegal immigrants, and foreign terrorists on the streets right? Is the right answer yes, no, or only after they are protected by our, not their, constitutional rights? 

Agreed, we are not at war with Venezuela. Is that required before we can protect ourselves against all the active and sleeper TdA cells on our soil? What sleeper cells you say? TdA comes from a country ruled by a savage dictator. Venezuela held a free election a couple of  years ago and he was duly elected? No, he wasn't. When it became apparent he was losing the election he had his opponent silenced forcing him into exile. Maduro declared himself the winner and president of the country. The Venezuelan people didn't. The US doesn't recognize him as the valid Venezuelan head of state. TdA has long-standing ties to a Maduro crony who  is now one of his administrations' leading lackeys. The center of gravity of the cocaine industry shifted from Columbia to Venezuela in the past few years. Instrumental in the current operations is, you guessed it, TdA. Maduro has long been an ally of Russia and China. Not to mention that he holds a deep-seated hatred of the United States. What better vehicle than TdA to flood the US with illicit drugs. TdA aren't just drug smugglers and dealers. They're also murderers, rapists, and just all-around thugs, full-service providers for a dictator. In a nutshell, they're here doing Maduros' bidding. Here in America. 

Americans are not unaware of this. For at least four years, actually longer, we have seen what is going on in the streets. Untold numbers of Americans have lost their lives or loved ones to illegal drugs from South America and Asia. The tsunami of fentanyl which has abated somewhat recently, has destroyed countless American families. Last November the American people spoke in a truly free election that we wanted something done about it. The majority decided that our best shot at that was to elect Donald Trump. Though he won by a significant margin, not every American voted for him. Yet never in any election in history has any president won by getting 100% of the votes, popular or electoral. And we have had multiple political parties since George Washington was elected, and it's still called the United States of America. Now, we have a president who is willing to do what needs to be done. To deport those who are here illegally and are depriving American citizens of their constitutional rights, and in many cases, their lives. Are those illegal immigrants entitled to due process rights? Were the 9/11 terrorists entitled to due process rights? We were not at war on September 11, 2001 either. How many federal district judges filed TROs on September 12, 2001? How many Americans must die before Congress or the Supreme Court step up and protect the separation of powers doctrine? And let the executive branch do what the American people asked them to do?... There is not one single federal district judge anywhere in the United States that was elected by anyone, anywhere, at any time. And nowhere in the Constitution does it say that executive actions are subject to the oversight and control of federal district judges. That power rests exclusively with Congress. I might point out that federal district judges are the lowest level of the federal judiciary. Their jurisdiction covers their 'districts'. In the case of the flood of TRO's blocking the executive actions since Trump was elected, these 'districts' have exclusively been in blue states. What a coincidence... Why has Congress been silent? Or is the bear about to be awakened?...

#separation of power #federaljudiciary #trump #dueprocess #trendearagua #constitutionalcrisis #politico

So divided, and so much at stake.

 Humans are very adaptive. When we are fatigued, we get a second wind. When fear overcomes us, adrenaline rushes into our bloodstream and we are instantly capable of things we could never do otherwise. When something, anything, annoys, irritates, irks, peeves, riles, or galls us we have this ability to compartmentalize it, which I suppose is another way of saying ignore it. Whatever that 'something or anything' was, we don't agree with it, or don't like it so we simply ignore it. This strategy can be strangely effective at times, if one ignores something long enough it will just go away. At least from one's personal perspective anyway. 

To say that our country is 'divided' would hardly get an argument from anyone these days. Metaphorically, that divide may have once been a morass, but at some point it became a crevasse. A big, wide, deep chasm that appears to be a breech not only in political ideology but in civility as well. Now and then someone will attempt to bridge the fissure only to be criticized and lambasted for such an attempt (Chuck Schumer and the CR to keep the government running...). When it comes to politics, we can't even agree to disagree anymore. 

When the George Floyd incident occurred in 2020, the destruction from rioting destroyed multiple inner cities. The death of George Floyd began a period of unprecedented civil unrest. Racial undertones have been the theme of civil unrest since the days of the civil rights movement. They still are but we have gone far beyond mere racial divides. 

We certainly haven't moved past it, we have only added to it. It's no longer only racial issues, it's liberal versus conservative, it's lawfare, it's election interference, it's lying when the truth is obvious, it's ignoring the fact that the national debt is not sustainable, it's incessant attempts to stymie the president's agenda because of TDS. Trump derangement syndrome, I actually believe that's a real thing now, sad to say... And more, much more. 

'We' doesn't quite have the same meaning anymore. There was a time when an American said 'we', that meant Americans. All of us. Not so much anymore. Now when one says 'we', if it's a liberal talking, then it doesn't necessarily include conservatives. And vice versa. We are a democracy, a nation where majority rules. That is in fact true. In essence, it's not true. Last November Trump was elected president by a significant margin of American voters. His platforms, promises and ideals were what the majority of Americans wanted and stated as much at the ballot box. Now that he's in office, the 'resistance' doesn't miss an opportunity to thwart his actions and agenda given any opportunity. They're relentless in spite of being leaderless and unconscionable. There is no  agree to disagree. They want Trump and his agenda to simply 'go away'. That crevasse I mentioned earlier is wide and deep and apparently it isn't going away either. If anything, it's getting wider and deeper. 

I am not a fatalist, as I believe most people aren't. I don't believe we are headed for another civil war. We're better than that, now. This 'divide' might exist for a long time. It may span several generations. It can and will be managed. But, just as most of us wanted change and elected Trump because he best represented the change we wanted, we, and this time I mean ALL Americans will endure the next four years and emerge better off than we are today. Not only can we compartmentalize and ignore what we dont like, we can prioritize and push for what we do like. And the majority will always rule...

#realpolitics #trump #politico #r/politics #politicalideology #electioninterference #trumoderangementsyndrome

Tariffs will be the greatest thing ever?... No, they won't Mr. President.

 When President Trump began talking about tariffs as a means of balancing trade with other nations and eliminating our trade deficit, making such claims as "We're going to have so much money we won't know what to do with it...", a question mark popped into my head. Wait a minute, what am I missing? That's not how it works, I thought. One of the things I remember from my study of economics at Texas A&M some years ago was that tariffs are paid by the importer, which would be us. Consumers and firms in the US would be on the hook for tariffs on imported goods, not foreign exporters. Tariffs are an import tax added to the price of the goods. Trump insists that other nations or foreign companies will pay the full costs of the tariffs that the US collects on imports. "It's a tax on another country," he says. 

The way things have worked in the past, for a very long time, is tariffs are paid by the importer. There are actually three possibilities for who will ultimately pay, or share, the tariffs. The foreign exporter could reduce their cost to cover the tariff to maintain their previous volume of sales to the importer. If the exporter adds the tariff to his selling price, the importer could absorb the price. They could maintain their prices and accept a lower margin. If between them, if the exporter and importer absorb the tariff, the cost would not fall on the consumer. However, in practice, that's not how it works according to studies of real-world impact of past tariff increases. In a paper on the Trump tariff regime of 2018 published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, economists analyzed the effect of the tariffs from Trumps' first term. The review found that for steel, exporters actually dropped their prices to US importers fully offsetting the tariffs. However, steel was an outlier. Overall, prices for targeted goods rose 22% on average. The study found that excluding steel, US consumers paid all of the costs of tariffs. For cars and food items consumers shouldered a 100% pass through of the tariff tax. 

A second analysis of the Trump first term tariffs from the National Bureau of Economic Research reached a similar conclusion. In most sectors of the economy, they found that tariffs has been completely passed on to US firms and consumers. 

Though Trump hasn't explicitly claimed that tariffs would accelerate economic growth, the laws of economics say they won't. From Trumps first term, tariffs did stimulate increases for domestic producers in sales. But they would have benefitted much more if not for lost sales due to retaliation from foreign producers. On the bottom line, tariffs decreased the annual GDP from 4.9% to 4.75%. The tariff increases from 2018 were a fraction of what Trump is proposing today, as would be the resulting effects.

As far as reducing the trade deficit, the Presidents' plan does not align with a basic law of economics. The annual trade deficit must match the difference between all US savings and all US investment. For years, American taxpayers and businesses haven't been saving nearly enough to support the demand for stocks and privately issued bonds, new factories, data centers, housing projects, and other profit-generating ventures. The reason they haven't, gigantic budget deficits. The government is 'taking' a huge share of America's savings that would otherwise flow into private investments to pay for the deficit. Last year, the shortage of savings to investment was equal to the trade deficit. The trade deficit, which is money in the hands of foreign nations, send that money back to the US to fund the investments we can't cover. The big influx of cash from abroad allows the US to spend a lot more than if we had to balance our own federal budget. We are in effect, financing our deficits with money from abroad. This allows us to consume more than we produce. So Trump's theory of foreigners causing our trade deficits by taking advantage of us, not true. Any country posting a savings-investment deficiency will post a trade deficit the exact same size. 

Tariffs will not shrink the federal budget deficit. Estimates say the Trump tariffs would raise around $300 billion in 2026 and shave about $2 trillion from what the annual GDP would be without them. That drag on economic growth would reduce tax receipts more than the tariffs would collect. Tariffs are known to not raise much revenue unless they are high. And high tariffs encourage smuggling. Yet another problem...

Trumps' view that we are being taken advantage of by trade partners profiting from Americas' markets doesn't align with the data. While it is true that foreign nations have high charges and technical barriers to protect certain products. But the US does the same. Prior to Trumps' second term, the EU charges an average of 1% on US imports, the exact same rate we charge. Last year the EU bloc collected $3 billion in tariffs from the US, less than half what we charged the EU. 

The facts dont support the Presidents' position on tariffs, assuming that he doesn't change the laws of economics. The long term costs of Trumps' tariffs will be immense, in terms of impact to the nations' GDP. GDP is the big cahuna. When it suffers, so does economic growth, employment, investment, tax revenue, and the federal deficit.  You might want to take another long, hard look at it, Mr. President...

#trumpstariffs #budgetdeficits #politico #tariffs #tradedeficit #GDP