Tag: democracy

Onward Christian Soldiers: Trump’s War on Iran and Secular America.

In the year 1188 AD, both England and France imposed an income tax to help pay for the third Crusade.  It was called the Saladin Tax.  It was a first.  It was 10 percent.  Saladin was the general, the Sultan, who recaptured Jerusalem the year before, expelling Christan forces who ruled Jerusalem since the first crusade when a Christian army captured the holy city in 1099, butchering most inhabitants. 

Saladin captured the imagination of the West.  They even invented a European origin story for him; he was featured in western literature, to include in Dante’s inferno.  In 1920 when the French General Henri-Joseph-Eugene entered Damascus after the victorious allies divided up the Ottoman Empire amongst themselves – Mandates they called them – he visited Saladin’s tomb and allegedly said, “Mr. Sultan, we’ve returned to the Orient.” 

They drew new maps and new countries.  Syria and Lebanon came under French rule, Palestine and Transjordan went to the British empire.   Europe certainly did return and managed through their imperial hubris, ignorance, and contempt for the peoples of the region, set the stage for over a century of regional and global conflicts and wars over this land. To include Trump’s war with Iran

God, it seems, gets the both the blame and the glory.  Depending on who wins the day.

To listen to Secretary of Defense Hegseth, Trump’s war with Iran is a crusade.  He uses Christian imagery to portray American forces as soldiers of Christ.  His prayers ask that God and Christ guide American bombs, bullets, and missiles to kill evil enemies.  Onward Christian soldiers wearing God as his armor.  He stated that there would be no quarter.  The crusaders in Jerusalem in 1099 offered no quarter.  Man, woman, child, struck down by sword and axes guided by Jesus and God.  

That notion of chivalry and God died on the fields of Flander, the Somme, and Ypres hundreds of years later.

Unfortunately, Hegseth is not an outlier in Trump’s world.  The White House increasingly compares Trump to Jesus, betrayed, and arrested.  At a recent private Easter event, Trump’s spiritual advisor Pastor Paula White-Cain compared the experiences of Christ’s crucifixion to Trump’s legal troubles, you know sexually assaulting a woman in a department store dressing room or paying off a porn star to keep silent about an affair.  Although I think she must have forgotten about these secular trials.  I too see Trump and Jesus in the same thought, every time he opens his mouth or posts on Truth Social, I say, “Jesus Christ, what the fuck did that idiot just say.”

It is not new in our history for American leaders to invoke God, especially after great tragedies or wars or other calamities.  America’s sense of its exceptionalism is deeply rooted in God. That shiny city on a hill.  It is new, however, for an American president to lay claim to divinity.  The Beatles were crucified, pun intended, when they claimed they were more popular than Jesus during a radio interview.

Trump is deliberately, cynically I think, erasing the line between him and Jesus.  Many of his adherents are in lock step with him, nonetheless.  For Trump to claim divine rule requires not only breaking down, but utterly demolishing, the wall between state and church.

Our country has a long history of keeping religion out of state and keeping the state out of religion.  For good reason as we can see by Trump’s insane comparison to Jesus. The Constitution does not mention “God.”  Not even the oath of office for president mentions God.  When asked why God did not appear in the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton famously quipped, “We forgot” or “We don’t need any foreign help.”  Whether these were apocryphal response, I don’t know, but they have a ring of authenticity.

In 1777, while a Delegate to Virginia’s General Assembly, Thomas Jefferson submitted a statute for Religious Freedom.  It was shelved given opposition from the still powerful Anglican Church members. That bill lay dormant of over a decade and was resurrected by James Madison in 1785 after Patrick Henry submitted a bill a year earlier calling for a tax to pay ministers of the Christian religion.  

In response to Henry’s bill, Madison wrote a Memorial and Remonstrance against the assessment.  In it he warned that the state should not support any religion.  That belief in God was between a man and his creator, that the state had no business interfering with such relationship.  He warned that once you support Christian ministers, what will stop a particular sect within Christianity from assuming dominance over the others.  Henry’s bill did not pass.

Virginia’s Baptists supported Madison’s Remonstrance and the Religious Freedom bill.  They had suffered heavily from Anglican Church violence in the 18th Century, especially during the Virginia’s Great Awakening in the 1740s.  Itinerant Baptist ministers were whipped or jailed and driven out of counties. Sadly, many Baptists today who support destroying the barrier between church and state have forgotten that history.

He was right.  In Texas, which provides tax dollars to both secular and religious charter schools, Islamic charter schools requesting public funding are being denied funding, claims leveled about terrorism.  Bashing Muslims has become sport in Texas amongst those Republicans running for office.  A proposed public school reading list contains the bible, but not the Koran.

In addition to the Remonstrance, Madison also resubmitted Jefferson’s decade old bill to Virginia’s General Assembly.  It passed.  Both Madison’s Remonstrance and Jefferson’s bill for Religious Freedom should be required reading.  Both argue that God doesn’t need the State:

“That Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitation, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness….”  Adding, “not to propagating it by coercion …but extend it by its influence on reason alone.” 

What became the first amendment to the constitution, written by Madison, were born in Madison’s Remonstrance and Jefferson’s Statute for Religious Freedom (1786).  It clearly articulates that the government  could not establish a state religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof.  A careful balance.  

In 1802, President Jefferson, in a famous letter to the ‘Danbury Baptists,’ wrote that the 1st Amendment built a “wall of separation between Church and State.”  While Jefferson had no direct hand in the writing of the Constitution — he was the American Ambassador to France during the constitutional convention, and was not in Congress when the propositions were submitted by Madison which became the Bill of Rights — he and Madison regularly corresponded, explaining their thoughts and ideas of government and the constitution.  

This separation of church and state, this wall, has informed the liberal American experiment that in a healthy democracy the role of religion and the role of government are better kept distant and respectful. 

That arrangement worked spectacularly.  Religion thrives in America because of this wall of separation.  It is a paradox then that America aims to finish off a despotic theocratic state in Iran while planting the very seeds of a despotic right wing white nationalist Christian theocratic state in America.  

MAGA voices like Gladden Pappin – who claims the Pope will appoint Melania as queen – and Rod Dreher want American to go back to the Middle Ages, where the church held power, where the Bible was the law of the land. They hate and despise the enlightenment and liberal ideals of democracy, human rights, and the freedom to enjoy a personal relationship with God, without government surveillance and dictate.

The conspicuous and dangerous allusions to Trump, God, and Christ in prosecuting Trump’s war against Iran are anathema to America’s founding ideals and over 250 years of history.  God help us all.

Oral Arguments and Severed Horse Heads: The Supreme Court and Birthright Citizenship

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard arguments in Trump v. Barbara whether Trump’s Executive Order stripping birthright citizenship from children of non-citizens was constitutional.  Every lower court hearing cases regarding the Order ruled that it was unquestionably unconstitutional. The arguments before the justices of our country’s highest court should have taken on the patina of well worn rituals and procedures. However, it was far from normal.

Last year, at an initial hearing before the Court, a majority of justices kept an injunction on the order in place, staying the implementation of Trump’s Order indefinitely.  The vote was 6-3.  Not shocking, given a radical core of conservative justices seem hell bent on overturning everything that smacks of small “l” liberal governance.  The Court could have left the appeals court in ruling in place, basically saying that the lower court’s ruling was sound.  They did not.  Instead, a least four justices voted to hear the case.

Yesterday, in an unprecedented move, Trump attended the oral arguments. His attendance, for all intents and purposes, was a direct attack on the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution.   Trump did not stay for all of the arguments, leaving after the first hour.  His message sent, I think.  

Most of the justices, it seemed, were skeptical of the government’s argument that birthright citizenship should be limited.  The government’s argument hinged on the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and the word “domicile” in the seminal 1898 Supreme Court ruling United States v. Wong Kim Ark.  Their arguments rehashes of earlier losing arguments.  This should be a slam dunk case, but it isn’t.

In a previous post, I predicted with despair that Trump and the government would prevail.  I thought perhaps I was wrong, and was heartened when the justices in a 6-3 vote kept the injunction in place.  That signaled the government would most likely not prevail in court.  Yet, I worried that at least four justices wanted to hear the case.  

This case should not be a nail biter.  It has been settled law for 128 years.  But with today’s Court consisting of a super majority of conservatives with a hard-core troika of ultra radical conservative justices, anything is possible.  

Enter Trump.  No sitting president has ever attended oral arguments at the Supreme Court. It is unseemly, and I think, an assault on the doctrine of the separation of powers.  His presence was like a dog pissing on a tree, marking its territory.  Trump was marking his Order and signaling to everyone, ‘do not rule against me and my Order.’ It was designed, I argue, to intimidate the justices that are on the fence, so to speak.  That is Barrett and Gorsuch.  Like the Godfather movie, Trump was the decapitated horse’s head laying at the foot of the bed.  A warning of bloody consequences. 

I would not be surprised that folks acting on Trump’s orders engage in a campaign of intimidation, influence, and ever terror against Barrett and Gorsuch in the coming weeks. He will use similar tactics that he has already used on his other perceived enemies.  His no holds barred attack on the Chair of the Federal Reserve is just one very recent example.  DOJ investigations, insinuations of wrongdoing, grand juries, threats of impeachment against other federal judges.  This will get nasty.

Even though many of the justices seemed skeptical in whole or in part of the government’s arguments; to include the Chief Justice Roberts, the majority opinion is far from settled.  The final vote is in doubt in my mind.  Congress abdicated to Trump.   Will the Supreme Court do so as well?   Surrendering the Judicial Branch to Trump, so that he can hang its stuffed head next to all the gold and gild bling in the Oval Office.   That is to be seen.

Are We Still a Democracy?

Are we still a democracy? I think that is a good question and not one asked hyperbolically or in the ‘sky is falling’ moment of hysteria or panic. Serious people are asking that question and the answers may not be to your liking. I struggle that I even have to ask that question, but one must in today’s America. A demagogue rules America by fiat and edict. Two reports offer a snap shot of the health of America’s democracy. You be the judge.

This past November the Charles F. Kettering Foundation published a report on Americans attitudes towards democracy.  This report was done in conjunction with Gallup, a respected polling organization.  

Their conclusion was, that overall, Americans were committed to democracy, but with clearly defined differences in how one’s age defines how one perceives democracy as an ideal and how one’s economic circumstances impact perceptions of democracy’s effectiveness in solving problems.  

If you are over 65 democracy is super.  A robust 80 percent are strongly committed to democracy.  If you are under 29 not so much.  Only about 53 percent say that democracy is the best form of government. Economics also played a role in how one perceived democracy is performing.  If you are ‘living comfortably’ about a third gave democracy a thumbs up.  Those who say it is ‘very difficult to get by’ only 12 percent give democracy a thumbs up.  For those that ‘feel disconnected from their communities’ or question their status in society are likely to question democracy’s ‘value and performance.’

In another report recently released, researchers at a Swedish University published a report on the global health of democracy.  Their tenth annual report.  According to the V-DEM Institute website, the report is an analysis of “….the largest global dataset on democracy with over 32 million data points for 202 countries and territories from 1789 to 2025.  The report involves over four thousand scholars and other country experts and measures over 600 different attributes of democracy.” Go to the this link to read the report: https://www.v-dem.net/documents/75/V-Dem_Institute_Democracy_Report_2026_lowres.pdf)

It does not look good for the world, much less the United States.  Devoting an entire section of the annual report, the authors addressed democratic backsliding in the United States. They conclude that the United States is no longer a liberal (small l liberal) democracy, primarily because of the unprecedented and rapid concentration and accumulation of power in the presidency and the dismantling of our constitutional checks and balances.  I think they are right. They also conclude that America’s fall from democracy to autocracy was done in record time.  Faster than both Turkey’s and Hungary’s slip into the autocratic abyss. In a rank ordered list of 179 countries for strength of democratic values and norms, America has slipped to 51st.  Yeah, make America great again.

So, it appears most Americans still believe in the great experiment called democracy, but, paradoxically, a majority do not believe democracy is working in America.  

Given the K-shaped economy, where wealth inequality continues to grow rapidly in America, it is no surprise that Americans tend to be skeptical of democracy, but strangely unskeptical of unrestrained capitalism.  Democracy doesn’t make one unequal, capitalism does. One should not conflate an economic system (capitalism) with a political system (democracy).  That’s not to say, however, that they are mutually exclusive; one should try to understand them as interacting spheres of power.  Our democratic decline is a reflection of America’s broken political economy.

The Kettering Foundation report does to some extent explain why many Americans, it seems, are indifferent to the collapse of American democracy. The V-DEM institute report shows the result of that indifference in hard numbers, at least at the federal level.

Where are we then as a country?  And where do we go from here?

At a federal level, yes, I think we are no longer a democracy.  Our system has collapsed.  Trump’s war in Iran is an example of our spectacular fall from a constitutional system of checks and balances to complete and utter deference to Trump by Congress.  Only an absolute monarch takes their country to war without consulting the people.  That is exactly what Trump did, and Congress cowered like the spineless shits they are.

The courts are still functioning as defined but has no ability to enforce its decisions.  These court decisions are theoretically enforced by the executive department, a department that in many instances has given the Court’s the middle finger. As such, Trump’s threat to take over the mid-term elections and challenge the results should be taken at full face value.  

At the state level, at least in Virginia, we still are a democracy.  Some states like Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida are authoritarian regimes, by my estimates.  Wrecking the barriers that separate church and state, restricting women’s rights, demanding schools teach white heritage and not real history, imposing voting barriers such as a de facto poll taxes (getting a passport for instance, which costs a couple hundred dollars), restricting and banning books, to list a few.

The question then becomes not only about democracy, but whether our social contract as a united country can survive, or is it in terminal decline?  Is it possible for America to remain a federation of united states, some liberal democracies while others theocratic autocracies? A king like president punishing states and rewarding others?

Fundamentally, and I acknowledge this, our perceived health of our democracy seems to be defined by where one is standing in the political spectrum. Some think Trump hasn’t gone far enough while others think he is gone way to far; many others just want to pay for gas and feed their family. It’s complex, it’s fluid, it’s uncertain. Our crisis of democracy, I think is a crisis of identity. It’s about whose America this is and whether democracy is the solution, or as some argue, the problem?

State of the Union:  Reason, Faith, and the American Way

I remember the day they died.  It was a cold day, partly cloudy.   The engines roared as we rolled out of the scrub pine forests of Fort Benning, Georgia, and pulled into an assembly area to clean and turn in our armored tracks.  Everything caked red, mud and sand. Our final two-week field exercise was over and spirits were high, however, only to be dashed. In the age before cell phones and the internet, rumors circulated in the assembly area that the space shuttle Challenger exploded on takeoff.  No survivors apparently.  It was January 28, 1986.

The destruction of the Challenger and death of her crew dominated the news. It was a period of collective national mourning. American’s demanded answers.  A commission was established.  The weather and then the O-rings were fingered as the cause of the accident along with flawed decisions on launch day, poor communication between NASA and the maker of the O-rings, and a failure in NASA’s “safety culture.”  

Ten years later the sociologist Diane Vaughn wrote The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA.  Vaughn saw the disaster as a failure of a workplace culture; where ‘acceptable risk’ was incrementally expanded slowly over time, exacerbated by a ‘culture of production,’ and a senior leadership at NASA unaware of many problems plaguing programs they led.   This culture, Vaughn posited, resulted in the “normalizing of deviance.”  Vaugh didn’t believe that project managers and decision makers up the NASA hierarchy were amoral or made “amoral calculations” per se, it was that NASA’s cultural ethos had changed over time to where unacceptable risk had become normal, and therefore non-deviant.  A disaster resulted.

This theory of ‘normalizing deviance’ captured my attention, and continues to do so to this day. Many disasters are rooted in the normalization of deviance in many organizations.  Boeing’s MAX 737 air disasters which resulted in the deaths of over 300 souls comes to mind immediately.  Although there, I think there were amoral decisions based on greed.  

Vaughn saw the development of a culture where deviance is normalized over times as organic, a product of layered decisions by different folks over an expanse of years, driven by internal demands and too few resources, and unrealistic expectations by senior leaders.  These eventually result in delayed disaster:  The loss of life on both small and large scales.

Today I argue, the state of our union is in question, subjected to the unrelenting head winds of the deliberate normalization of deviance within our government. It is part of the disorder playbook Project 2025, a deliberate strategy by the Trump administration to affect those disruptions.  Where amoral decisions are the point. Where disaster is the goal. We seem now to be in a continuous vortex, spiraling toward a national disaster, Captain Chaos at the helm.

Like most folks coping with a disaster in real time, I am trying to figure out just what the hell is going on, orient myself to understand where the danger lies, protect myself and my family and my community from harm.  I ask myself what is animating the Trump movement’s wanton destruction of our constitutional system, a system fundamentally embedded in the Enlightenment.   

It is clear, I think, that part of the process is to disassemble the constitutional order, to undermine the state, to break the system, induce chaos and disruption simultaneously, to make folks want to walk away from democratic norms.   Democracy then becomes the agent of chaos, an ungovernable mess, with Trump and his minions as the cavalry coming to the rescue.  But it is more like the pyromaniac volunteer fireman who sets your house a blaze and then arrives on the fire truck.  That is part of the autocratic, dictator-in-waiting playbook.

The evidence is strong, and suggests it is very much at the heart of gutting the federal system, both within and without the executive branch of government.  Below are four examples of this normalization of deviance:

  1. Secretary of Defense Hegseth’s and President Trump’s speeches to an assemblage of admiral and general officers at Quantico, Virginia, this past year was a call to disregard centuries of our military’s ethos of remaining apolitical and not treating Americans, or certain Americans, as enemies.  Calling American citizens enemies or suggesting that certain American cities be used for conducting war maneuvers is not normal and should never be normal. Hegseth and Trump are trying to change that ethos.  It may be working.  The extrajudicial killings of alleged drug smugglers — a criminal offense not an act of war – by American service members are one of those incremental changes that may lead to larger changes.  We have seen this in Department of Homeland Security.
  2. DHS operations are another example of this deliberate normalization of deviance.  Homeland Security has become a paramilitary force designed to discipline and punish migrants, regardless of status, harass non-whites, criminalize foreign accents, and kill transgressors, such as Good and Pettri and others. The Recruitment and hiring of unqualified applicants, many of whom could not pass basic physical fitness standards, and more importantly, pass a required constitutional law test during training, does not bode well for law enforcement ethos within ICE of CBP.  Hiring law enforcement officers whose primary qualifications are being a Trump loyalist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi, or ignorant brute, is not normal.  Noem and Miller and Trump have already changed the ethos of DHS, for the worse.
  3. Department of Justice attempts to indict political foes is another example of normalizing deviant behavior.  The latest attempt to use a grand jury to indict six members of Congress for reminding uniformed members of the military that they can refuse to obey illegal orders (see 1 above) is astounding.  The incompetence of the DOJ’s attorney that presented the case to the grand jury would be great fodder of late-night comedy shows – it was – but for the fact that DOJ was trying to indict Trump’s political foes.  That is scary shit.  Ever since Trump appointed the least qualified Attorney General in American history, along with his chilling speech at the Justice Department, he has worked hard to impart a culture of deviance at DOJ. That deviance led to attempts to indict political foes with specious probable cause and suspect interpretations of criminal laws.
  4. Even childhood vaccines have become the object of Trumpian deviance.  Childhood vaccines save lives.  What once was an unacceptable risk to children’s lives – remaining unvaccinated — is now acceptable to too many parents on the mistaken and misguided belief that autism is caused by vaccinations.  How many children must die or be scarred before sanity returns?  The science does not support that claim of cause and effect.  But that’s the point, I think.  The attacks on reason and science and learned authorities — vice religious authority — are a clue as to a wider agenda against expertise.  But more on that below.

Just as pernicious is the normalization of deviance in Congress.  The Constitution specifically empowers Congress with the power to declare war, to levy taxes, to spend the people’s monies.  When Trump claimed those powers from Congress, Speaker of the House Johnson and Senate leader Thune looked the other way.  Johnson, like Sergeant Shultz in the old TV series Hogan’s Heroes, keeps repeating “I see nothing, I see nothing.”

It is not if, but when, we will have a national rupture if we continue to ignore the deviance creeping into our government.  A normal President would accept a mid-term loss, Trump on the other hand, is already seeding deviance by claiming rigged elections if he loses, calling for Republicans to ‘nationalize’ elections in selected states or localities.  If he tries to nullify the elections and seize ballots it will be a national disaster, with broad and serious consequences.  If he succeeds, it may be the end of our great experiment, disunion, perhaps even war.  

It is not just the normalization of deviance within government that is of concern. We must look at the larger context in which to understand where we are going as a nation. This Age of Normalizing Deviance is part of a wider movement to counter and undermine the Enlightenment not only in America, but globally.  

The late 17th century to the start of the 19th century was a period that was marked by the innovation of new sciences and philosophies that questioned old assumptions and traditions and beliefs about the human condition.  These new thinkers sought to better understanding the world through reason and science.  What would come from these innovations were the intellectual foundations for representative government – democracy – and concepts inalienable rights of man.  Starting with the Glorious Revolution in England in 1688/89 it was a period of intellectual and physical revolutions.  Europe and North America were convulsed.  Without this Enlightenment, our country would not, could not, exist. 

The Enlightenment brought forth American style democracy: our written constitution; our enduring social compact; our concept of individual freedom.  Adherents to radical enlightenment paved the way for the American Revolution, the concept of equality, the separation of church and state.  The French Revolution gave birth to the modern notion of human rights.  The Haitian revolution put a dagger in the heart of slavery, although it died a slow death.  Betterment of the human condition through science not superstition, through democracy not monarchy.

Nevertheless, contrary to the belief that reason and science vanquished faith, there has in fact been a long détente between reason and religion, for well over a century. Moderate enlightenment adherents sought a middle ground between reason and religious traditions to answer the great questions about the meaning of life, the human condition.  It is why our deist founders like Madison and Washington and Hamilton didn’t include God in the Constitution.  It is why Jefferson and Madison introduced a bill in Virginia’s General Assembly to keep religion and state separate.  

Harvard, Yale, and Columbia came out of this Enlightenment drama in North America.  It is no coincidence then, why these and other historical institutions are targets of Trump and his Departments of Education and Justice.  Unlike many newer land-grant universities and colleges, they are a direct bridge to the Enlightenment.

This dual secular public square and private religious space is precisely why America is one of the top countries in the world when measuring for religiosity.  It was a bequeath from our founders to future generations of Americans.  It’s our strength, not our weakness.  Nonetheless, we do suck when it comes to maternal mortality rates.

I think degrading and undermining these enlightenment ideals and traditions is the goal of Project 2025.  The Trump movement is a convenient vessel through which to achieve these goals.  We are in a period of counter-revolution; abolishing the existing enlightenment order to replace it with one that fits more with their world view of a patriarchal society; divine rule through Christian religious hegemony and authority.  Theocracy not democracy. 

We must fight and resist.  For those who adhere more to faith than reason, you have the most to lose in this battle, I argue.  

Take the Lord’s Prayer, for example.  It has two versions, one in Matthew the other in Luke.  Additionally, some folks say ‘debt’ verse ‘trespasses’ or in another example of word choices, some say ‘lead us not into temptation’ while others say, ‘do not let us fall into temptation.’  Words matter. These variations permit congregations and churches to diverge in the meaning of prayers, their cosmology of the world, however slight, yet meaningful to them. 

Without the separation of church and state, eventually government will corrupt religion and ultimately pick a particular sect as a winner.  Do you want Trump, or any president for that matter, appointing your church’s minister or priest?  Or telling you which version of the Lord’s Prayer to repeat?  Or shutting down your Temple, Mosque, or Church? Or what religious text to read?  Prayer in school takes on a different meaning when your version of a prayer is subordinated to another sect’s version.  If nothing matters more to you than your faith, this is what is at stake.  

If past is prelude, we must expect another disruptive and divisive State of the Union message by Trump.  I refuse to participate by watching.  We must as a nation come to together to derail the normalizing of deviance within our government.  With so much in the balance, to sit back and let the dominoes fall where they may is reckless and a betrayal to all who died defending our country, and a betrayal of generations of Americans yet to be born.  Autocrats have a way of eventually devouring their own young.  If you wait too long, you, or your unborn descendants, will be on the dinner plate.  

Break Glass in Emergency: Vote Yes by April 21 in Virginia’s Redistricting Referendum

If things were normal, which they are not, I would oppose returning the drawing of Virginia’s congressional district maps back to the state’s legislature, even temporarily.  America is in deep trouble, however. Democracy is in retreat; the country is ruled by decree out of the White House. Congress sits mute.  A President ruling from his gold encrusted throne threatens to “nationalize” the elections and seems indifferent to his paramilitary police brutalizing communities and shooting and killing citizens.

The Constitution – our written social contract as to how the government is organized and how power is shared – is shredded day-by-day by Trump.  Our representative in the 5th District, John McGuire just voted for the Save Act to make it harder for Americans to vote and agrees with Trump’s call for Republicans to nationalize the vote, or at the least, has not repudiated Trump’s demand.  He thinks he works for Trump and not we the people of his district.  It is time to fight back, it is time to b break the glass because there is a constitutional emergency.

The fastest and best way to check Trump’s unchecked power is by electing Democrats to the House of Representatives – the people’s house – and the senate.  Sensing a coming defeat this November and a loss of a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, Trump demanded that red states redraw their congressional districts, immediately.  If you can’t win fair and square, cheat, lie, and steal is this administration’s mantra.

Texas obliged instantly, without consulting their people.  Another example of rule by dictate far too common in red states.  At least the people of California had a choice whether to redistrict (they voted ‘yes’ this past November).  We the people of Virginia will have our chance to give voice to whether we redistrict.  That vote is April 21.  Early voting starts March 3.   

Democrats did not ask for this redistricting fight, but Trump threw down the gauntlet.  We the people of Virginia must take drastic steps to reclaim sovereignty or lose our democracy to one-party rule and dictatorship. 

Vote YES to temporarily redistrict Virginia’s congressional seats.  

For those constitutional law geeks like me, below are some Frequently Asked Question:

How many other states are redistricting (or counter redistricting) based on Trump’s outrageous demand?

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, five states have already redistricted (Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, California); A number of states have introduced legislation to redistrict (Maryland, South Carolina, Washington, and Virginia):  Florida is in the process of adopting legislation with additional states contemplating redistricting, but awaiting state court decisions (Alabama, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Wisconsin).  Other states have already moved forward and many plan to do so.  Indiana rejected Trump’s redistricting demand.

Why does Virginia need a vote on whether to redistrict its congressional districts?

In November 2020, Virginians voted overwhelming (66 percent) to amend the state’s constitution to appoint a 16-member bipartisan commission to draw Virginia’s congressional districts.  Virginia is one of about a dozen states that have independent commissions to draw congressional maps.  A majority (29) still permit their state legislatures to draw congressional districts.  The referendum vote in April is the only constitutionally sanctioned method to temporarily amend our state constitution so that the Generally Assembly can redraw Virginia’s congressional districts.  

Why hasn’t the Supreme Court ruled that partisan redistricting is unconstitutional?

They did rule, by not ruling.  They took the easy way out and said it was out of their hands, that there were no ‘judicially discoverable’ or ‘manageable standards’ to adjudicate claims of unconstitutionally drawn districts, with one exception, drawing districts to favor white voters (e.g., diluting concentrations of black or brown voices into majority white districts).

A brief recent history:  In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts could hear challenges to how congressional districts were drawn, however, the court offered no standards.  Some years later in 2004, the Supreme Court ruled there were no “judicially discoverable or manageable standards.”  The conservative court inches it way toward legalizing partisan gerrymandering.

In 2019, in Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme court ruled that federal courts could not hear claims of partisan gerrymandering because they – the court — could not articulate any standard by which to judge partisan gerrymandering.  Out of very thin air, they could invent the legal fiction that President Trump is immune from crimes committed for official acts, but these Harvard and Yale legal brains are damned clueless as to how to fix the scourge of gerrymandering.  This legal punt basically legalizes partisan gerrymandering no matter how egregious, at least at the federal court level.  State courts can still hear cases, nonetheless.

To make matters worse, the Rucho decision gave states a “partisan” get-out-of- constitutional jail card for race-based gerrymandering.  In 2024, South Carolina drew racially gerrymandered congressional districts.  The South Carolina NAACP sued.  South Carolian argued it was not racial gerrymandering, but ‘partisan’ gerrymandering.  In a 6 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court agreed with South Carolina and let the racially drawn maps stand.

After Texas redrew its congressional districts after Trump requested it do so, The League of United Latin American Citizens sued.  A federal district court, after 9 days of testimony and review of thousands of documents, concluded that Texas illegally redrew the congressional districts based on race.  In a shadow docket ruling, however, the Supreme Court, overturned the district court and said Texas could use the newly drawn maps.  

The reasons given by the Supreme Court’s were: 1) The District Court failed to “honor the presumption of legislative good faith;” 2) The District Court did not produce a viable alternative map; 3) It was too close to the election to redraw the redrawn congressional maps.   My only response:  What the fuck!  I did not know there was a ‘legislative good faith’ exemption to unconstitutional laws.

So, there you have it.  Go out and vote. And vote Yes.  

“It’s Not If, but When”

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

—Martin Niemöller

I try not to post more than one essay a week, but this week seems to warrant another.  After reading an article about a viral video of a 70-year-old bookstore owner who said he was “fucking angry’ before walking back into a haze of smoke and tear gas in Minneapolis, I wanted to research the back story of the quote he posted in his store. The one above.

The history of the person, and why he said or wrote these words, is just as important at the words.  

Martin Niemöller was a Lutheran pastor in Germany during the rise of Hitler and the Third Reich. According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum – which displays this quote on a wall as you exit the exhibits as a final thought — Niemöller originally ‘sympathized with Nazis ideas’ and supported the far right. However, when Hitler began to “interfere with the protestant church” he dared to criticize Hitler.  He spent seven years in prisons and concentration camps.  

For those who support the far right here in America that is your right. But when you stand by, and even cheer and gloat, when the government comes for migrants, liberal politicians, journalists, or late-night comedians, that quote should be a wakeup call.   Don’t think you are immune, you are not. It’s not if, but when they come for you.

“Guards of this Kind:” A Brief History of the Original Intent of Madison’s Second Amendment.

New York Times Reporter: “Do you see any checks on your power….”

Donald Trump:  “Yeah, there is one thing.  My own morality.  My own mind.  It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

No Mr. President, we the people can stop you.

What is happening in America is not normal.   When a president sitting in the White House, stewing in his own grievances and thirst for vengeance and proclivity to spectacle, says he is only bound by his “morality,” we as a nation are in deep trouble.  As is the world.

I know this essay’s title may make some folks uncomfortable, but please bear with me (yes, a pun). I am self-aware enough to understand that invoking the Second Amendment can be provocative. I struggled while writing this essay on a number of levels. First, is that it even had to be written. Given the words and actions of Trump, I feel it is necessary. On another level, I don’t want to be interpreted as calling for armed revolt. I do not want that. That would be insane.

My whole adult life was living, working, or traveling to conflict and war zones, failed and failing states, police states. I know that option to be unacceptable. On a third level, I feel too many Americans are indifferent or distracted or worn. down and just don’t give a shit, that only some people are impacted and they will never by touched. Inevitably, in a dictatorship, even it you agree with the dictator now, you will be touched and your soul will be crushed eventually as you tire of being told what to watch, what to read, and what to think. Because you are reading this, you know I hit the publish button.

I want to lay out my thoughts on the limits of power of the central government and what States can do once Trump and federal government blows past those limits.  The origin and intent of the Second Amendment figures prominently in any discourse about how to create “guards” to a tyrannical central government.

Blue states continue to get pounded by the Trump administration.  It routinely withholds funds from blue states as punishment for resisting his policies.  Incongruously, it is the blue states that provide most tax raised monies to the federal government, with red states getting more federal tax dollars in terms of spending than they actually put in. In essence, Trump is super charging the transfer of wealth from blue to red states.  Oh, the irony.

Trump targets blue states and cities with mass deployments of militarized immigration agents as punishment for deigning to treat migrants as human beings.  As the result of protests against these deployments, Trump federalized and deployed national guard units without traditional requests from state governors, and in all instances in blue states, against the wishes of the governor and the majority of the state’s peoples, to quell, he alleges, widespread violence, but we know it is to smother the people’s voices.  

Now he is deploying hundreds of additional Homeland Security agents to investigate alleged fraud in Minnesota’s social safety net programs, according to DHS’s secretary.  A calculated and chilling response to the protests over the killing of a woman by an ICE agent and the states demand to be included in the investigation of the homicide of Renee Good.  Incongruously, Trump condemns the death of protestors in Iran, but claims an American protestor shot and killed by an ICE agent was a domestic terrorist, and, intoned, deserved to die.  

Hey, Ayatollah in Iran.  News Flash:  Just rebrand Iranian protestors as deranged left wing domestic terrorists.  Then you are good to go.

This is what despots do.  They flood the streets with thugs and faceless paramilitaries and then sanction investigations to cover up murders. Nazis Germany’s Brown Shirts of the past are being reborn as combat fatigue wearing ICE agents.

This is what he will do to Virginia now that we will have a democratic governor and a state legislature controlled by democrats.  Expect payback with canceled programs, stopped federal grants, and deployments of Homeland Security agents to intimidate citizens.

The ability of a state to resist a tyrannical central government is how the Second Amendment was born.

What became the Second Amendment was not intended as an individual right to bear arms but a collective right of a state to bear arms to maintain its’ citizens inalienable rights.  Lord Dunmore, the English Governor of Virginia’s, attempt to seize the militias’ arms in Williamsburg, Virginia, at the outset of America’s first civil war was still fresh in the mind of the founding generation.  

It never crossed the minds of folks back then that the constitution needed to enumerate the right to own firearms for defense or hunting at the federal level.  Gun ownership – mostly muskets — was so ubiquitous and a traditional right in the colonies that enumerating the right would be ridiculous.  States had the right to regulate firearms and did so, most notably restricting possession primarily to whites.  

The Second Amendment was intended as a state’s right to maintain armed militias for their defense against a tyrannical central government.  It was a meant as bulwark of self defense against a large standing Army used by the central government to impose its will on a state or states. If you follow how the language of the amendment changed and unfolded, I think one can get a sense of what the intent was and how the amendment was seen and understood within a broader conception of constitutionalism, tradition, common law, and gun possession in the early republic.

On June 8, 1789, James Madison introduced nine propositions or resolutions for amending the Constitution. From these propositions the House of Representatives would derive 17 amendments, of which, ten would eventually become the Bill of Rights. Way down the list, buried in proposition four, after statements about religious freedom, freedom of speech and press, the right to peaceable assembly and petitioning for redressing of grievances, Madison, proposed what would become the second amendment.

The Annals of Congress contains the record of the running debates surrounding the amendments to the Constitution and reflect contemporaneous conceptions of the meanings of these amendments, and how they changed over the debates. Madison, borrowing from the other state constitutions and even the 1689 English Bill of Rights, proposed the following language regarding the right to bear arms (House Records, pp. 451-452):

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Madison’s propositions did not gain much traction in Congress. Members of Congress were more concerned with the mechanics of setting up a functioning government. The debates preceding and surrounding the discussions on the proposed amendments centered on funding mechanisms and structure of the various executive departments being contemplated. Madison nonetheless persisted, and on July 21 requested further consideration of the amendments. After “desultory” conversation on the amendments, they were referred to a committee of eleven, which included Madison.

Just short of a month later, the committee of eleven finished their work on the proposed amendments and presented them to the House of Representatives on August 17. Madison’s language on bearing arms was revised and read:

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms (House Records, p.778)

Eldridge Gerry of Massachusetts, a veteran of the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787, and who was one of three delegates who refused to sign the Constitution at the end of the convention, led the debate regarding the amendment to bear arms. His remarks are crucial, I think to understanding, the intent of this amendment. He states:

“This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed (p. 778).”

Not one person during the debate contradicted or challenged Gerry’s assertion, which seems to state that the ability to keep and bear arms referred to the people’s ability to form militias as a collective defense against a tyrannical central government. The remainder of the debate that day on this amendment surrounded primarily the question of religious scruples and service in the militia.

After more “desultory” (I love that word) conversation, 17 proposed amendments to the Constitution were sent to the Senate on August 24. The bearing arms amendment was number 5 and read after some minor tweaking (Senate record, pp. 63-64):

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

On September 4, the senate, whose records of debate are not as detailed as the House’s records of debate, showed that senators objected to a number of the amendments, but without comment as to why. “On the motion to adopt the fifth article of the amendments proposed by the House of Representatives, amended to read as followeth: ‘a well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed:’ It passed in the affirmative” (Senate Record, p. 71).

So, there you have it, a brief but spectacular history of the origin of the Second Amendment.

Trump’s advisor Stephen Miller’s call to abandon America’s social contract and resort to a ‘state of nature’ where brute force is the first and only response should scare the shit out Americans.  This new dogma of ‘power, strength, and violence’ will fundamentally rewrite the world order but also crush America’s social contract between the people and the government:  the annihilation of the separation of powers, the demise of a democratic central government, and the eradication of shared sovereignty between the states and the central government.  That, good reader, is why we have “guards of this kind,” the Second Amendment. 

Let me be clear, I am not calling for armed revolt or violence against our central government or secession, I still believe in the vote and the power of the American people to reign in Trump.  But as Congress and the Supreme Court not only fail to curtail Trump’s excesses, and in fact enable him, what are the people to do?  

States are the peoples last bulwark against Trump and a despotic central government.  A new pposition is rising, however.   Not from spineless democratic leaders like Schumer, but from Republicans.  Republican Senators that voted to restrain Trump’s war powers received threatening profanity laced phone calls by Trump.  A sign he is losing control and trying to bully folks back into line.

What I ask is that our new, incoming governor, think long and hard about how to deal with an increasingly authoritarian and despotic central government that continues to ratchet up the level of violence against the people in targeted states and cities – maladministration as Eldridge Gerry put it.  The governor needs to develop contingency plans on when and how to resist, to include using the National Guard to defend our natural and inalienable rights as a free people of Virginia.  

It seems to me America cannot long remain a nation if Trump puts his boot on the neck of blue states while red states happily bend the knee to the tyrant in the White House. Time to mobilize once again, stay engaged, and get family and friends to vote this November.

America’s New National Security Strategy:  Let the War Dogs Loose.

Welcome to the New Year, I guess . . . . .

During New Year’s Day lunch with family the topic of predictions for 2026 arose.  Predictions ranged from Democrats winning the mid-terms, to Trump being removed from office for health reasons, to Ukraine falling to Russia.  I posited it will be a year of war, pointing to our country’s new national security strategy, particularly the part about the Western Hemisphere.

Little did we know two days later the United States would attack Venezuela, seize its President and his wife and transport them to Brooklyn, New York, to face drug trafficking charges (juxtapose that with Trump’s pardon of Honduras’s ex- president for drug trafficking) and declaring that America would “run” Venezuela, with a focus on its oil resources.  

Expect more such military strikes and attacks in the months leading up to the mid-terms.  This attack was predictable and conforms to the new national security strategy published this past November.  It is a roadmap to war in the Western Hemisphere, even global war.

In a section of the strategy paper invoking the Monroe Doctrine, — which coined a new term “The Trump Corollary” —  two new strategic dogmas for dominating the Western Hemisphere, ‘Enlist’ and ‘Expand,’  were fleshed out.  Our national security policy strategy is clear in the Western Hemisphere:  America will use force to seize and control assets it deems vital and strategic to America’s national interest …… if countries don’t kindly ‘enlist’ in our cause.  

Pointedly, the new strategy targets the very things we, America, paradoxically created through our own past racist policies of empire and exploitation.  America’s new hemispheric strategy of domination and control contains a measure of stick and carrot, ostensibly calling for willing partners, but like most domestic abusers, ready with a big stick or worse.  

It says, in part, “After years of neglect the United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere, and to protect our homeland and our access to key geographies throughout the region.  We will deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our Hemisphere.  The “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine is a common-sense and potent restoration of American power and priorities, consistent with American security interests.”  This includes further down the paper, “establishing or expanding access in strategically important locations,” as one of four pillars of this new robust Monroe Doctrine version 2.0.  

The call to enforce the Monroe Doctrine, a relic of late 18th century and early 19th century empire, says much about the mindset of the Trump administration.  A strategy stuck in an anachronistic mentality of empire, great powers, and white supremacy.  It does not bode well for America.  

This ostensibly back to the future strategy fails to recognize the complexities of today’s world.  Much less acknowledge that the days of empire and colonialism died in the early to mid-20th century, first in the fields of Flanders and then in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany.   It is a mindboggling strategy that will be ruinous.

Are we really going to return to the days of a Darwinian global nation-state race to empire and war?  

One can read “control strategically vital assets” as Venezuelan oil reserves, Panama’s canal, and the minerals in Greenland or the arctic.  I think Greenland and the Panama Canal are Trump’s next military objectives, followed by Cuba, and then eventually seizing parts of the Arctic under Canadian sovereignty.    

Seizing Greenland, an autonomous region under Danish sovereignty, would provoke a broader war. Denmark is a member of NATO, and an attack on Denmark would be an attack on all members of NATO.  No doubt Denmark would invoke Article 5 of the treaty, which would oblige all 31 members (really 32 if you include the US), to come to Denmark’s aid militarily. Ditto if Trump attempts to seize parts of Canada that he deems of strategic, vital interest.  The potential is a catastrophic war with Europe and Canada, global isolation, the loss of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, and devastating collapse of US exports to the world.

Strangely, for a purportedly modern, 21st century security strategy, the strategy paper reads, in part, like a white Christian nationalist cultural manifesto.  Akin to the “white man’s burden” of late 19th century empire.  In a section titled ‘What America Wants,’ it calls for the “restoration and reinvigoration of American spiritual and cultural health, without which long-term security is impossible. We want an America that cherishes its past glories and its heroes, and that looks forward to a new golden age.” It laments Europe losing its whiteness and thereby, its culture.  The Right wing’s racist conspiracy ‘Replacement Theory’ has become a corner stone of our national security strategy.

This new security strategy is a dangerous call to return American hegemony in the Western Hemisphere, as part of a broader division of the world into global ‘spheres of influence,’ presumably he big three being China, Russia, and the United States.  Yes, Russia because Russia is, for Trump, a fellow traveler, an archetype of white male Christian patriarchy and nationalism.  

The past age of empire ended with two world wars.  The historical impacts of these European colonial empires are the root causes of today’s wars, tensions, and conflicts in the Middle East, South Asia between Pakistan and India, Sudan’s civil war, and other places too numerous to list.  Mass migrations to Europe are a result of these colonial conditions that persist to this day. 

America’s empire building and meddling in the Americas contributes directly to mass migration to our southern border.  Decades of America’s heavy hand, coups, regime change, looting and expropriation of natural resources by American corporations, encouragement of assassinations and death squads in El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1980s resulted in weak, corrupt states, an absence of civil society, the strangling of the rule of law, oligarchy, endemic  poverty, and the rise of the Narco-state.  

Haiti was a particular country of scorn and hate by America (and France) over generations as the result of its successful slave revolt that the rid the country of French rule.  The South’s slave society feared the example set by black Haitians fight for freedom would spread to their slaves.  Haiti would be punished and looted for well over a century by both France and the United States.  Haiti’s failed state status is on us, yet Trump and the right vilify them as pet eaters, as savages.  Who’s the real ‘savage’ in this story?  

Pointedly, the new strategy targets the very things we, America, created through our racist policies of empire and exploitation.  America’s new hemispheric strategy of domination and control contains a measure of stick and carrot, ostensibly calling for willing partners, but like most domestic abusers, ready with a big stick or worse.  

Not only will this new national security strategy destabilize the Western Hemisphere, but it will also provoke land grabs by China and Russia, promote authoritarian rule, engender economic chaos, fracture long standing alliances beneficial to America, and reduce America to a pariah state.  Trump has unleashed war as his domestic policies flounder.

For a president that promised America first, an end to forever wars, an end to military adventures in regime change and nation building, we seem to be heading in the opposite direction.  He is letting loose the war dogs, not caging them. Americans will suffer and die along with those we murder in the name of Trump. Rise up America before it is too late.

Usufruct

No, not a misspelling, and no, it has nothing to do with high fructose corn syrup or inedible holiday Fruit Cake.  I came across this word almost three decades ago when reading Peter Onuff’s Jeffersonian Legacies, an edited compilation of essays following a scholarly conference celebrating Thomas Jefferson’s 250th birthday.  

Herbert Sloan’s essay “The Earth Belongs in Usufruct to the Living,” deconstructs Jefferson’s September 1789 letter to James Madison.  Usufruct, basically as Jefferson knew the word, was the right to use something during one’s lifetime, like land or other property, but not destroy the value of the property through misuse, or, in in some instances, generating debts that are worth more than the property.  

He expresses his concerns in the letter whether one generation can “bind” the next generation to its debts. He thinks this issue has not been thoroughly thought through as the new Constitution comes into effect, at least metaphysically. Jefferson wrote, “[T]he earth belongs in usufruct to the living, that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.  The portion occupied by an individual cease to be his when himself ceases to be. & reverts the society.”  That is, when a generation dies off, so too should its debts. Those debts are more than pecuniary, he implied.

He expands on this theme throughout the letter, thinking aloud, and through his own arithmetic of averages of life expectancies, argued to Madison that a constitution, and laws the emanate from it, should expire after 19 years.  An average, he surmised when one generation succeeds another.   Every generation, he argued should be able to make its own laws and government, and I would surmise, even remake the social contract.  Basically, new generations should not be bound or governed by outdated laws or drown in the debts contracted by a generation long dead.  He was particularly concerned with debt.  Yet ironically, he died a debtor.

He gave one example of how the new Constitution, ratified and placed into effect in 1789, addressed this issue of government debt.   The Constitution gave congress the enumerated right to wage war, vice the chief executive:  “We have already given in example one effectual check to the Dog of war, by transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay.”  

We, as a nation, squandered that gift of restricting a King — or a President — from declaring or making war.  Congress handed back the ability to wage war beyond our borders to the President with the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973 (ironically an act designed to limit executive powers).  This limited power to wage war by the Executive was dramatically expanded in 2001, after Congress gave the President power to wage war against terrorism, in the so-called global war on terrorism.  But I don’t want to write about Trump’s march to war against Venezuela using those 2001 powers, or his new Monroe Doctrine of imperialism to dominate the Western Hemisphere through force of arms, but to a real existential threat to our country: anthropogenic climate change.

For generations, fiscal conservatives have used a version of Jefferson’s usufruct principle to argue against a growing national debt.  They contended that future generations should not be burdened by huge debts, which sap economic growth and weight workers with heavy taxes.  At least that was their argument, until it wasn’t.  When it comes to saddling the next generations with huge climate debts that must be paid as mother nature demands it, conservatives are not only mute about this principle of usufruct, but chant along with Trump, “drill baby drill.’  

This Administration’s policy of increasing fossil fuel consumption, destroying renewable energy initiatives, undermining electric vehicles, and hobbling renewable energy manufacturing and infrastructure — so that Trump and wealthy elites can profit and live in splendor — at the expense of unborn generations, is astounding.  It is immoral and criminal to condemn unborn children to a dystopian world of climate disaster by a bunch of fat old white men who will be soon moldering in their own graves.   

Jefferson was right.  A generation — our’s in particular — has an obligation to be good stewards of America’s natural resources and bounty so that future generations are not bound by destructive practices that degrade and pollute our water, our air, our food, and our climate out of greed and ignorance. 

The baby boomers had a chance after the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, but like the war powers fiasco, we squandered our chances long ago to do right by Mother Nature and future generations.  Shame, shame on us.  The next generations have no obligation to forgive us, nor should they.  Sorry Gen Z and the Millennials, we royally screwed you by binding you to a no-win situation regarding climate change.  Mother Nature is not as forgiving as an accountant in the Congressional Budget Office.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Yes, even in these trying times one must have hope. I will be taking a break over the holidays so see you in the new year. Thanks.

   

“I Believe Him”

Today, America’s national security policy, as it pertains to international relationships, is more akin to looking for a gas leak with lighted matches than serious deliberations.  That makes the world a more dangerous place and Americans less safe.

The Washington Post in a recent article claimed that Secretary of Defense Hegseth ordered a second strike on a destroyed boat to kill two survivors clinging to the wreckage.  The extra judicial murder of alleged drug smugglers is a crime in its own right; the murder of two survivors is particularly heinous.

These murders threatens our intelligence network as key partner allies back away from sharing intelligence.. Hegseth denies giving such orders and now claims an Admiral directed the second strike.  Trump says, “I believe him.”  This is a Trump pattern.

Trump, and therefore America, has an “I believe him” problem.

Trump brags about killing alleged drug smugglers one minute and then post on social media that he will pardon the ex-president of Honduras, who is serving 45 years in a federal prison for, well, drug smuggling, claiming he got a bad deal. Another example of I believe him syndrome.

 The ex-Honduran president during his term turned Honduras into a narco-state, one step worse than the kleptocracy it has been for decades. Following his term in office in 2022, Hernandez was indicted on drug trafficking and weapons charges, following a long investigation by Trump’s Justice Department during his first term.  

Honduras is a major drug transshipment country, accounting, with some estimates, for between 75 and 90 percent of all cocaine that reaches the U.S.  Less than 2 or 3 percent of all US bound drugs come through Venezuela, yet 10 percent of our entire Navy is in the Caribbean murdering alleged Venezuelan drug smugglers. That means more drugs in America not less.

In his first term Trump famously threw the whole of American intelligence under the bus, when he stated at a joint press conference with Putin in Finland, that he believed Putin’s denials of interfering in the 2016 election over the national intelligence assessment that he did. 

A few weeks ago, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto head of state for Saudi Arabia, was feted with a State Dinner at the White House.  The Crown Prince was persona not grata since 2018 after the murder of American permanent resident and Washington Post journalist Jamal Kashoggi.  If you don’t recall, Kashoggi was lured to the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, where he was drugged, murdered, and dismembered by a Saudi government hit team in the Consulate.  His body disappeared.  Our intelligence service determined that the murder was orchestrated by the Crown Prince. 

At a White House press event earlier in the day, the Crown Prince was asked about the Kashoggi murder by an reported from ABC.  After calling ABC fake news, Trump responded that ‘a lot of people didn’t like that gentleman [Kashoggi] ‘’, adding, “whether you like him or not, things happen.’  Trump followed up by defending the Crown Prince, stating that the Crown Prince denies any involvement in the killing, and “we can leave it at that.”  Another ‘I believe the man’ moment.  Trump also denied profiting personally from his Saudi connections. A $63 billion real estate deal with a firm connected to the Royal family says otherwise.

Never in my three decades experience in the foreign service arena has American national security and foreign policy been so chaotic, disjointed, lawless, undisciplined, and shortsighted.  From illegal tariffs, extrajudicial killings, interfering in elections, defending murders of dissidents, propping up authoritarian regimes, destabilizing alliances, breaking treaties and agreements, suspect travel bans, and massive curtailment of humanitarian aid, this administration has made America a pariah. Hero to zero in 200 days.

This all makes Americans less safe, domestically and abroad.  It also impacts Americans in other facets of our daily lives: American exports become less attractive; Americans pay higher prices and import taxes; more illegal drugs not less, America’s rural health care deteriorates further as foreign born and trained doctors and nurses, who make up a large share rural American health care provider, stay away;  America loses the talent wars as scientists and researchers shun work in America and head to other countries. These are not America first policies, but America last policies.  And when Trump says, “I believe him,” don’t. Look for the grift and the greed.