Tag Archives: Trump

Everything You Need to Know About Trump

Leave a reply

In an April 29, 2025, interview with Terry Morgan of ABC News, that can be seen here: https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1917381376111960380 Donald Trump, in his capacity as President of the United States, claimed that Abrego Garcia had the initials, MS 13, tattooed on his knuckles. On April 18, Trump had held up a photo purporting to show that Garcia’s knuckles bore those symbols. Since multiple other clear photos of Garcia’s knuckles showed other symbols but not the “MS 13,” fact checkers concluded, rightly, that the April 18 photo had been doctored. Trump had to know that.

When Trump brought up the subject with Morgan, the interviewer tried multiple times to move away from the subject, at one point noting in a kind of under-breath remark that Trump’s prior “photo” had been Photoshopped, Trump wasn’t having it. He persisted in his flagrant lie, attacked Morgan and refused to let the discussion move on. Trump knew he had lied but insisted that Morgan agree otherwise. To his credit, Morgan wasn’t going to do that and continued to try to move the conversation to another subject, ignoring the personal attacks from the President.

This incident as well as any other tells you everything you need to know about Trump. He is fully prepared to lie, insist the lie is “true” and refuse to move on until everyone agrees with him. It is not fanciful to imagine that this occurs all the time in the Cabinet meetings and elsewhere. Trump completely lacks a moral component and is thus able to make obviously false statements, demand that everyone agree that they are true, and refuse to permit the conversation to move on until they do.

This is the man that holds the highest political office in the country, dishonest to the core. Everything about him is driven by his lack of interest in and likely his inability to tell or even recognize the truth. For Trump the truth is whatever he wants it to be. In combination with his wealth, this practice has served him well in the one sense that it has supported his quest to accumulate more wealth and to live in a fantasy world of his own creation that also supports his quest for power.

I suspect this is what happens in Russia when Vladimir Putin says something that is blatantly false. Anyone who dares challenge him knows that Putin will not hesitate to order that person’s death and that there are plenty of fearful aides who will carry out such orders rather than put themselves at risk.

So far as we know, Trump has not ordered anyone killed, at least not directly. He is, of course, behind the federal government’s determination to deploy a force of armed men in masks and unmarked vehicles to arrest and deport to prisons in foreign countries, without opportunity to consult counsel or communicate with families, people of all ages and conditions who are “suspected” of certain crimes or merely affiliations. To support him in this quest, Trump has at his disposal a large gang of men, many suspected of being affiliated with the Proud Boys and other racist organizations, and a Press Secretary who is skilled, like Trump, at talking over anyone who questions her about the government’s practices.

Very little separates Trump from Putin. The Supreme Court has held that the President of the United States may commit crimes in office without punishment in the course of his “official duties” under Article II. Trump is keenly aware of this “freedom.” How long before he executes its ultimate logic? Who in his gang of sycophants will stop him?

Everyone is familiar with the famous quote: “”power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” When checking in Safari to confirm my recall of its origin, the Apple AI program produced this “overview:”

    • Lord Acton (John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton):

The quote is widely attributed to him, an English historian and politician, who wrote it in 1887.

    • The Core Idea:

The saying posits that the exercise of power, regardless of the individual’s initial intentions, can lead to a decline in moral standards and a tendency to prioritize self-interest over the public good.

    • Absolute Power:

The phrase emphasizes that unchecked, absolute power amplifies this corrupting influence, potentially leading to complete moral decay.

    • Historical Context:

The quote has been used to analyze various historical figures and political systems, highlighting the potential for corruption in positions of power.

    • Relevance to Modern Politics:

The saying remains relevant in contemporary politics, where concerns about the abuse of power, unchecked authority, and the potential for corruption are ongoing.

Everything you need to know.

Words to Survive By

Leave a reply

The following are excerpts from recent speeches by Governor Jay Pritzker of Illinois. He is a Democrat. He has balanced the budget (Republicans, take note of what used to be an article of faith for you). He is intelligent. He is articulate. He is terrified at what is happening to his country. And, yes, he is rich.

In reading them, recall that while the Democratic presidential ticket carried the state comfortably in 2024 (54.37% for Harris/Walz), there was a 6-point shift toward Republicans compared to Biden’s 2020 result.

For perspective, Governor Pritzker notes that “Our [Illinois] economy is over $1.1 trillion and growing – the fifth largest in the United States and the 18th largest in the world.” I had no idea.

State of the State and Budget Address — February 19, 2025 – end of the speech
[Watch on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DGTFzW4Oj4J/?igsh=MWd2Ym13aW5hN3BndA%3D%3D]

 “As some of you know, Skokie, Illinois once had one of the largest populations of Holocaust survivors anywhere in the world. In 1978, Nazis decided they wanted to march there.

The leaders of that march knew that the images of Swastika clad young men goose stepping down a peaceful suburban street would terrorize the local Jewish population – so many of whom had never recovered from their time in German concentration camps.

The prospect of that march sparked a legal fight that went all the way to the Supreme Court. It was a Jewish lawyer from the ACLU who argued the case for the Nazis – contending that even the most hateful of speech was protected under the first amendment.

As an American and as a Jew, I find it difficult to resolve my feelings around that Supreme Court case – but I am grateful that the prospect of Nazis marching in their streets spurred the survivors and other Skokie residents to act. They joined together to form the Holocaust Memorial Foundation and built the first Illinois Holocaust Museum in a storefront in 1981 – a small but important forerunner to the one I helped build thirty years later.

I do not invoke the specter of Nazis lightly. But I know the history intimately — and have spent more time than probably anyone in this room with people who survived the Holocaust. Here’s what I’ve learned – the root that tears apart your house’s foundation begins as a seed – a seed of distrust and hate and blame.

The seed that grew into a dictatorship in Europe a lifetime ago didn’t arrive overnight. It started with everyday Germans mad about inflation and looking for someone to blame.

I’m watching with a foreboding dread what is happening in our country right now. A president who watches a plane go down in the Potomac – and suggests — without facts or findings — that a diversity hire is responsible for the crash. Or the Missouri Attorney General who just sued Starbucks – arguing that consumers pay higher prices for their coffee because the baristas are too “female” and “nonwhite.” The authoritarian playbook is laid bare here: They point to a group of people who don’t look like you and tell you to blame them for your problems.

I just have one question: What comes next? After we’ve discriminated against, deported or disparaged all the immigrants and the gay and lesbian and transgender people, the developmentally disabled, the women and the minorities – once we’ve ostracized our neighbors and betrayed our friends – After that, when the problems we started with are still there staring us in the face – what comes next?

All the atrocities of human history lurk in the answer to that question. And if we don’t want to repeat history – then for God’s sake in this moment we better be strong enough to learn from it.

I swore the following oath on Abraham Lincoln’s bible: “I do solemnly swear that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the state of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Governor …. according to the best of my ability.”

My oath is to the Constitution of our state and of our country. We don’t have kings in America – and I don’t intend to bend the knee to one. I am not speaking up in service to my ambitions — but in deference to my obligations.

If you think I’m overreacting and sounding the alarm too soon, consider this:

It took the Nazis one month, three weeks, two days, eight hours and 40 minutes to dismantle a constitutional republic. All I’m saying is when the five-alarm fire starts to burn, every good person better be ready to man a post with a bucket of water if you want to stop it from raging out of control.

Those Illinois Nazis did end up holding their march in 1978 – just not in Skokie. After all the blowback from the case, they decided to march in Chicago instead. Only twenty of them showed up. But 2000 people came to counter protest. The Chicago Tribune reported that day that the “rally sputtered to an unspectacular end after ten minutes.” It was Illinoisans who smothered those embers before they could burn into a flame.

Tyranny requires your fear and your silence and your compliance. Democracy requires your courage. So, gather your justice and humanity, Illinois, and do not let the “tragic spirit of despair” overcome us when our country needs us the most.

Thank you.”

****

Later, on April 28, 2025, Governor Pritzker spoke at a Democratic fundraiser in New Hampshire. The video can be seen here if that is your thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMndfvxVeRo Transcript excerpts follow [the transcript was AI-produced; I have fixed typos when possible]:

“… we need to knock off the rust of poll-tested language and decades of stale decorum. It’s obscured our better instincts. We have to abandon the culture of incrementalism that has led us to swallow the cruelty and the callousness with barely a cowardly croak.

It’s time to fight everywhere and all at once.

Let’s start with something that should be easy to say: it’s wrong to snatch a person off the street and ship them to a foreign gulag with no chance to defend themselves in a court of law. I want to be clear this is not an argument about immigration. This is an argument about the Constitution.

Remember Trump just last week arrested and deported three children under 8 years old, all US citizens, all of them, one of them a four-year old with Stage 4 cancer. Let that sink in. This country was founded on the idea of habeas corpus. It’s a fancy legal term that in plain words means no government has a right to arbitrarily take your freedom away from you. Preserving habeas corpus is not some fever dream of the left-wing echo chamber. It’s a fundamental concept of justice that people have fought and died for dating back to the Middle Ages. It was in the Magna Carta. It was considered by our nation’s founders to be so vital to our liberty that they wrote it right into the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson called it the essential principle of government. Benjamin Franklin opined that those who would give up habeas corpus for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security, and Alexander Hamilton wrote that the practice of arbitrary imprisonments has been in all the ages the favorite and most formidable instrument of tyranny.

Franklin, Jefferson, and Hamilton standing for the idea that the government doesn’t have the right to kidnap you without due process is arguably the most effective campaign slogan in history. What do we think that Colonel Stark was talking about if not this when he said, “live free or die?” Today it’s an immigrant with a tattoo. Tomorrow it’s a citizen whose Facebook post annoys Donald Trump.

There are plenty of people in this country who hold opinions that I find abhorrent, but my faith and our Constitution dictate that I fight for their freedoms as loudly as I defend my own. As a Ukrainian-American Jew who built a Holocaust museum, whose family immigrated here as refugees from the Russian pogroms, let me say this to Donald Trump: stop tearing down the Constitution in the name of my ancestors. Do not claim that your authoritarian power grabs are about combating antisemitism. When you destroy social justice, you are disparaging the very foundation of Judaism.

When the pendulum swings back, and it always does, you will have contributed to the climate of retribution that will inevitably follow, so let’s dispel another myth from the MAGA Republicans: that we Democrats believe that undocumented people who are convicted of violent crimes shouldn’t be allowed to stay in this country. We want public safety just as much as Republicans do and when we get back in control of Congress, and we will, and when we get the White House back, and we will, Democrats need to make it a priority to pass real sensible immigration reform. We need to secure our border. We need to keep and attract hardworking taxpaying law-abiding people and give them a path to citizenship. Immigration with all its struggles and its complexities is part of the secret sauce that makes American great always. Immigrants strengthen our communities, enrich our neighborhoods, renew our passion for America’s greatness, enliven our music and our culture, and enhance understanding of the world. The success of our economy depends upon immigrants. In fact, 46% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants.

The return on investment for America’s 250-year commitment to immigration is incalculable, but because of Donald Trump’s xenophobia, we’ve seen foreign students already choosing not to attend our universities and being told to leave. Businesses from overseas are afraid to invest their money here and to bring their executives to our shores. Scientists are choosing to innovate in European laboratories instead of American ones already in just 100 days. If the best and the brightest around the world no longer flock to this shining city on a hill, then the US economy is likely to fail.

But failure is starting to look like that’s the point of all this, doesn’t it? We have a Secretary of Education who hates teachers and schools. We have a Secretary of Transportation who hates public transit. We have an Attorney General who hates the Constitution. We have a Secretary of State, the son of naturalized citizens and a family of refugees. on a crusade to expel both from our country. We have a head of the Department of Government Efficiency, an immigrant granted the privilege of living and working here, a man who has made hundreds of billions of dollars after the government rescued his business for him, who is looking to destroy the American middle class to fund tax cuts for himself.

And we have a president who claims to love America, but who hates our military so much that he calls them losers and suckers, and who can’t be bothered to delay his golf game to greet the bodies of four fallen U.S. soldiers. And we have a Grand Old Party  founded by one of our nation’s bravest presidents, Abraham Lincoln, who today would be a Democrat I might add, a Grand Old Party so afraid of the felon and the fraud that they put into the White House that they would sooner watch him destroy our country than lift a hand to save it.

Democrats, we may have to fix our messaging and our strategy, but our values are exactly where they ought to be, and we will never join so many Republicans in the special place in Hell reserved for quislings and cowards. It’s time for us to be done with optimism about their motives or their objectives, time to stop wondering if you can trust the nuclear codes to people who don’t know how to organize a group chat. It’s time to stop ignoring the hypocrisy wearing a big gold cross while announcing the defunding of children’s cancer research, and time to stop thinking we can reason or negotiate with a madman. Time to stop apologizing when we were not wrong. Time to stop surrendering when we need to fight.

Our small businesses don’t deserve to be bankrupted by unsustainable tariffs. Our retirees don’t deserve to be left destitute by a Social Security Administration decimated by Elon Musk. Our citizens don’t’ deserve to lose health care coverage because Republicans want to hand a tax cut to billionaires. Our federal workers don’t deserve to have a 19-year-old Doge bro called Big Balls destroy their careers. Autistic kids and adults who are loving contributors to our society don’t deserve to be stigmatized by a weird Nepo baby who once stashed a dead bear in the backset of his car, Our military service members don’t deserve to be told by a washed-up Fox TV commentator who drank too much and committed sexual assault before being appointed Secretary of Defense that they can’t serve their country simply because they’re Black or gay or a woman.

If it sounds like I’m becoming contemptuous of Donald Trump and the people he has elevated, it’s because I am. You should be too. They’re an afront to every value this country was founded upon.

But there’s a way out of this mess. I know because I’ve been to this movie before. When I was elected Governor in 2018, it was after four years of a very destructive Republican chief executive. He had run on the idea of shaking things up as Governor, and he promptly started defunding key government agencies, slashing state benefits, and refusing to pass a state budget. Illinois’s credit rating took a dive. Companies fled. State social service agencies closed, and government services that the poor and elderly and sick relied upon vanished.

Does that sound familiar? Illinoisans hated it, even the ones who voted for the guy. They hated it so much that four years later they elected me.

Here’s the lesson that I learned. When we emerge from this, and we will emerge from this. our democratic agenda must be bold and our ideas fearless. We must be willing to slay sacred cows and allow the courage of our actions to match the immediacy of our words. We must deliver on that agenda for working families and for the real people who truly make America great.

I understand the tendency to give in to despair right now, but despair is an indulgence that we cannot afford. In the times upon which history turns never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption, but I am now.

These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace. They have to understand that we will fight their cruelty with every megaphone and microphone that we have. We must castigate them on the soap box and then punish them at the ballot box. They must feel in their bones that when we survive this shameful episode of American history with our democracy intact, because we have no alternative but to do just that, we will relegate their portraits to the museum halls reserved for tyrants and traitors. And when the courage of our civic leaders waivers, when they fail to stand up for our country in its moment of greatest need, then we should remind them that cowardice always comes at a cost in the world’s most successful republic.

No generation of Americans has escaped our true inheritance, the test that we are given that asks how hard we are willing to fight to keep our society free. It was selfish to think that ours would be the first but the fact that we are still here debating the question tells me our predecessors never failed this test in the past. Often in situations just as dire as the one in front of us cowardice can be contagious, but so too can courage. Courage born during times when complacency beckons like a siren call is the most important kind of all. Just as the hope that we hold on to in the darkness shines with its own special light these days, I cling to the courage and the hope demonstrated by Andy and Gavin and Lucy. Courage and hope that risks limbs and livelihoods to go to the most visible place possible to wave a sign or to post an upside-down flag and remind everyone that what we do and what we don’t do matters.

So, tonight, I’m telling you what I’m willing to do and that’s fight for our democracy, for our liberty, for the opportunity for all of our people to live lives that are meaningful and free. I see around me tonight a room full of people who are ready to do the same. So, I have one question for all of you Granite Staters. Are you ready for the fight for real? Granite Staters, are you ready for the fight? Good night, New Hampshire. God bless you, and God bless these United States.”

                                                            ####

Harvard, Tell the Clown Prince to F*ck Off

1 Reply

Late yesterday, reports stated that the Department of Homeland Security, headed by dog-killer Kristi Noem, acting on instructions from Donald Trump, purported to revoke Harvard University’s certification of admit foreign students who account for more than one-quarter of the enrolled student body.

The pretext for this latest violation of law, the Constitution, and common sense, and without evidence, was that Harvard was allowing:

anti-American, pro-terrorist” foreigners “to harass and physically assault individuals … and obstruct its once-venerable learning environment.” The secretary also accused the university of working with the Chinese Communist Party by hosting and training members of its paramilitary group.

 As reported by the Washington Post,

The decision means Harvard can no longer enroll foreign students, and existing international students at Harvard must transfer or lose their legal status, Noem said.

Noem gave the school 72 hours to turn over a list of records on international students to regain its certification before the upcoming academic year. DHS is seeking disciplinary records as well as electronic records, video and audio footage of international students who engaged in illegal activity, violence, threats to personnel or students, or protest activity on or off campus over the past five years.

Since neither Trump nor Noem appears to have any awareness of what goes on at our most important institutions of higher learning, we can perhaps see in Noem’s hostility the underlying resentment of what they neither know nor appreciate:

It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused. Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country.

And there is this:

“Harvard has turned their once-great institution into a hotbed of anti-American, antisemitic, pro-terrorist agitators,” said White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson on Thursday. “They have repeatedly failed to take action to address the widespread problems negatively impacting American students, and now they must face the consequences of their actions.”

Evidence? Compliance with procedures? The Clown Prince cannot be bothered.

There you have it. The federal government now claims the right to decide what the “right thing” is for universities it regards as unaligned with its agenda.

This hubris, based on no evidence and not in compliance with legal procedures for decertification, is likely inspired by the worst-in-legal-history Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision in which it created the doctrine that the president can commit crimes in office within the scope of his official duties under Article II and that his motives may not be questioned, all without criminal accountability.

It goes without saying, though I’ll say it anyway, that Noem’s message has instilled uncertainty and fear among Harvard’s 6,793 international students. But it’s worse than that.

More than 1 million international students attend colleges in the United States every year, contributing nearly $44 billion to the national economy, according to NAFSA: Association of International Educators.

They play an outsize role in the economics of higher education, in that many international students pay full tuition …. and by creating a critical mass of students to support certain departments, such as computer science and engineering.

It’s time to call the question. Donald Trump and the sycophants that do his bidding believe they are above the law. The Supreme Court indicated as much and, given an inch, Trump always takes the proverbial mile.

So, Harvard, stand your ground. You’ve done it before in the face of gross government overreach, and you have the resources, including one of the world’s great law schools (disclosure: my law school) to mount a compelling defense against this grotesque overreach by the federal government.

It’s interesting that the political party that for decades decried the growing power of the federal government at the expense of the states now applauds anything that Clown Price Trump says he wants. Trump is a fraud, a cheat, a fool, and is intent on destroying not only the greatest American institutions but on removing the authority of the United States from the world arena, leaving it to the likes of Vladimir Putin. One of the many losses resulting from the Trump administration’s embrace of universal ignorance is the loss of opportunity to spread the message of democracy to the world through the voices of international students who learn about and experience it here.

It’s time to call the question and Harvard, your number has been called. Stand up to this petty wanna-be dictator and let’s get down to the core question whether our Constitution will be obeyed or not. If not, then the question will be put squarely before the people as to whether they want a democracy or not.

Finally, in case Trump is considering calling up the military to take control of Harvard and compel its submission, all military personnel should re-familiarize themselves with the principles of Nuremberg. You have no immunity for complying with unlawful orders. Think before you act.

Update: Harvard has sued to stop the administration’s unlawful overreach, citing violations of the First Amendment, the Due Process clause of the Constitution, and the Administration Procedures Act. Good. Meanwhile, Harvard, press your response in the media. Don’t give Trump the advantage of sole occupation of the public space. You have  the horsepower so use it!

Words

Leave a reply

Call me a quibbler if you like. I don’t mind. I believe that how we use words is very important and can reveal hidden meanings of intention of which the writer may be unaware. I expect, however, that the Editorial Board of the New York Times would be particularly conscious of the meaning of their statements. Recent experience suggests I am wrong about that, and I suspect I know the reason.

Some background. The Times describes its editorial board as “a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.” Fine as far as it goes although a bit vague on details.

On May 1 a digital version of the Editorial Board’s position titled There Is a Way Forward:  How to Defeat Trump’s Power Grab was published in the Times. On May 4, “A version” of the article appeared in print, Section SR, Page 2 of the New York edition with the headline: Fight Like Our Democracy Depends On It. Having not seen that version, I address here the digital version. The printed version at least has a title more accurately stating what the battle is really about.

Note first that the article is introduced by a probably-AI generated depiction of an American bald eagle, our national symbol, struggling to free itself from a green, goo-like substance adhering to its wings and claws. I read that image to mean that democracy is in serious trouble, an assertion that I and many others have made in multiple posts, and which I believe cannot rationally be denied.

I was intrigued to see the Times standing up for democracy this way. Then I read it.

The opening was very strong:

The first 100 days of President Trump’s second term have done more damage to American democracy than anything else since the demise of Reconstruction. Mr. Trump is attempting to create a presidency unconstrained by Congress or the courts, in which he and his appointees can override written law when they want to. It is precisely the autocratic approach that this nation’s founders sought to prevent when writing the Constitution.

The opening was followed by recognition that the Trump challenge is not ephemeral:

Mr. Trump has the potential to do far more harm in the remainder of his term. If he continues down this path and Congress and the courts fail to stop him, it could fundamentally alter the character of American government. Future presidents, seeking to either continue or undo his policies, will be tempted to pursue a similarly unbound approach, in which they use the powers of the federal government to silence critics and reward allies.

But wait. Let’s look more closely:

Mr. Trump has the potential to do far more harm in the remainder of his term. If he continues down this path and Congress and the courts fail to stop him, it could fundamentally alter the character of American government. Future presidents, seeking to either continue or undo his policies, will be tempted to pursue a similarly unbound approach, in which they use the powers of the federal government to silence critics and reward allies.

The piece continues with “It pains us to write these words” …. The patriotic response to today’s threat is to oppose Mr. Trump. But it is to do so soberly and strategically, not reflexively or performatively.”

The strong opening has thus been diluted with reference to the “potential” for future harms that will occur “if he continues down this path,” suggesting there is a reasonable chance Trump will suddenly transform into a person different than he has been his entire life. And the article makes clear that the writers don’t like having to criticize Trump. The solution they propose is implicitly critical of what many people have been doing and thinking in response to Trump’s unhinged blast through the federal government. The authors slip-slide into a description of a “coalition” of damn near everyone who isn’t a committed Trump cultist. A coalition of the willing so broad and encompassing that it will seem, because it is, a bridge too far.

I am encouraged in my cynicism about the position being advocated by what comes next:

 The building of this coalition should start with an acknowledgment that Mr. Trump is the legitimate president and many of his actions are legal. Some may even prove effective. He won the presidency fairly last year, by a narrow margin in the popular vote and a comfortable margin in the Electoral College. On several key issues, his views were closer to public opinion than those of Democrats. Since taking office, he has largely closed the southern border, and many of his immigration policies are both legal and popular. He has reoriented federal programs to focus less on race, which many voters support. He has pressured Western Europe to stop billing American taxpayers for its defense.

The reference to the southern border and other Trump policies is apparently based on a poll of 2,128 Americans crafted by and analyzed by the crafters for another article in the Times.

In the interest of fairness, I note this closing of the paragraph arguing that Trump has been doing what the American public wants:

Among these policies are many that we strongly oppose — such as pardoning Jan. 6 rioters, cozying up to Vladimir Putin of Russia and undermining Ukraine

But even that qualification comes with a qualification: “but that a president has the authority to enact. Elections have consequences.”

Then:

Mr. Trump nonetheless deserves criticism on these issues, and Congress members and grass-roots organizers should look for legal ways to thwart him.

Just criticism? Is the Times Editorial Board unaware that the Republican Party has majorities in both Houses of Congress and that the Congress thus constituted is incapable of judgment independent of whatever madness Trump wants, including an astonishing array of unqualified and incompetent cabinet and agency appointments?

The equivocation continues throughout the article. Under “Pillars of democracy,” the writers felt it necessary to point out that Presidents Biden and Obama had “tested these boundaries [separation of powers] and at times overstepped them.” While the Editorial Board strongly criticizes Trump/Vance about their attitude toward the judiciary, in my view there is no question that the approach used undermines the full impact of the Trump story. They note, for example, that Trump/Vance “seem to have defied clear [court] orders.”

Regarding Congress, the Board says, “Mr. Trump’s steamrolling of Congress involves more legal complexity, many scholars believe.” The obvious implication is that “many scholars dispute the view being stated. More equivocation subtly inserted at every turn. Another example:

Other attempts to assert power over previously independent parts of the executive branch seem more defensible, however. The executive branch reports to the president, after all, and parts of it have suffered from too little accountability in recent decades.

It is true, I admit, that the Editorial Board’s article contains much damning information about Trump’s conduct of the presidency. It could not be otherwise.

Yet, again and again, the subtle equivocation creeps in:

It remains possible that our concerns will look overwrought a year or two from now. Perhaps Mr. Trump’s shambolic approach to governance will undermine his ambitions. Perhaps federal courts will continue to constrain him and he will ultimately accept their judgments.

Sure, it’s “possible” that a lot of unexpected things may happen, but why in an article ostensibly designed to expose the President’s violations of the Constitution and his oath of office, to name just a few, are these constant “on the other hands” inserted?

Maybe I am just quibbling, but, as the Editorial Board notes near the end of its article:

our constitutional order depends to a significant degree on the good faith of a president. If a president acts in bad faith, it requires a sophisticated, multifaceted campaign to restrain him. Other parts of the government, along with civil society and corporate America, must think carefully and rigorously about what to do. That’s especially true when the most powerful alternative — Congress — is prostrate.

Yet, while noting that Trump’s political support seems to be waning, the Board warns us to avoid:

“exaggeration about what qualifies as a violation. Liberals who conflate conservative policies with unconstitutional policies risk sending conservatives back into Mr. Trump’s camp.”

In the end, the Board gets one thing right:

The past 100 days have wounded this country, and there is no guarantee that we will fully recover. But nobody should give up. American democracy retreated before, during the post-Reconstruction era, Jim Crow, the Red Scare, Watergate and other times. It recovered from those periods not because its survival was inevitable but because Americans — including many who disagreed with one another on other subjects — fought bravely and smartly for this country’s ideals. That is our duty today.

Having beat this dead horse, I point the Times Editorial Board and my readers to a video that nails it. The woman in the video understands how language usage matters as she states ways to avoid equivocation and ambiguity. You can see the video here: https://www.threads.com/@debbieelledgeofficial/post/DJb2YEIN-pg?xmt=AQF0BLloj6EmrkRVS8pzJFTxn8QHvGWYkz2cHHWwynWmrA

The Problem of Pledging Allegiance to a President Over the Constitution

Leave a reply

For those who don’t know ….

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury … nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part:

…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part:

No State shall … pass any ex post facto Law….

Pam Bondi (Attorney General) and Stephen Miller (White House Deputy Chief of Staff) maintain that since the gang to which Kilmar Abrego Garcia allegedly belonged to was declared a terrorist organization by President Trump, that since Mr. Garcia belonged to the gang back in 2019, he is now a terrorist and subject to immediate removal from the United States and return to his native land of El Salvador, at which point the United States is free to wash its hands of him and leave him to his fate at the hands of rival gangs in the CECOT Prison.

As Ms. Bondi, the US Attorney General robotically recited recently, “Mr. Garcia does not belong in this country.” Bondi and Miller must not have been paying attention during that part of constitutional law class. You can see where I’m going with this.

Even if it is absolutely true that Mr. Garcia is a bad guy, a gang member and all the rest of the allegations made against him by Bondi, Miller, and Trump, his kidnapping and removal from the United States after a federal judge ordered that he not to be removed cannot be justified because:

  • Garcia did not receive an indictment for a crime committed in the United States,
  • was not presented with the details of an alleged crimes,
  • received no Miranda warnings,
  • had no opportunity to retain and consult counsel and, therefore,
  • no opportunity to contest the “findings” on which the government purported to act in arresting and deporting him.

In short, whatever else Mr. Garcia may be, he is a “person”, and he received nothing resembling “due process of law” to which the Constitution entitles every “person.” He was secretly snatched from the street and forcibly removed from the country. Just like what the Nazis and other totalitarian regimes have done in the past. The faux anger displayed by AG Bondi and Stephen Miller in the White House video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv4HjZmiueo] are no excuse for this outrageous behavior. By comparison, the student who killed two people and wounded six others at Florida State University will receive the full panoply of opportunities guaranteed by the law and the Constitution.

What is the main difference between Mr. Garcia and the Florida State shooter? You know it without my spelling it out. The Trump regime is a foul collection of racist idol worshippers committing daily crimes against humanity, among other offenses to our Constitution, laws, and culture. Performative yelling at a White House press event that Mr. Garcia is bad person is no excuse for depriving him of the rights every other person in this country is entitled to receive.

Trump’s followers had better realize that if the government can do this to Mr. Garcia, it can do it to anyone. And it is.

NBC News reported on Senator Van Hollen’s visit to Mr. Garcia in El Salvador this way:

Van Hollen traveled to El Salvador on Wednesday to push for Abrego Garcia’s release after the Trump administration did not demonstrate any efforts to “facilitate” his return, despite a Supreme Court ruling last week requiring just that.

The legal battle continued Thursday, when a federal appeals court rejected an effort by the administration to put the requirement on hold. In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel said the administration was trying to assert “a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process.”

In a statement Thursday night, the White House called Van Hollen’s efforts in support of Abrego Garcia “disgusting” and said Trump will “continue to stand on the side of law-abiding Americans.”

In addition to its other offenses against the Constitution and laws of this country, the Trump administration has decided it’s perfectly acceptable to try and convict individuals in the press without even a semblance of due process. We insist that murderers get full due process, but the President of the United States is allowed to assert the guilt of individuals without any process whatever? Trump has obviously learned nothing from his multiple court defeats in defamation cases. Read any history book about totalitarian regimes, and you can see where this is headed. Americans better wake up and put a stop to this.

We Have Reached the End of the Line

Leave a reply

OR: The Trump Noose Tightens on the National Neck

The Trump administration, laced through and through with unqualified and incompetent appointees to positions of great responsibility, mistakenly snatches a man (Kilmar Abrego Garcia) off the street and, in the face of a court order to stop, puts him on a plane for a hellhole prison in El Salvador. The court orders his return. Trump’s Department of “Justice” declines and appeals. The Supreme Court majority eventually votes unanimously to order the administration to “facilitate” the victim’s return. In doing so, however, the Court gratuitously and unnecessarily “advises” the District Court judge to act with due regard for the separation of powers and the President’s supreme authority over foreign affairs.

As was 100 percent predictable, the administration leaps upon that advice and says “no thanks, we’re not going to bring him back. Mr. Garcia, charged with no crime, can rot in El Salvador for all we care and there is nothing you can do about it because this decision is made under the President’s Article II power to control absolutely the foreign affairs of the country, just as the Court suggested.”

Recall that in a prior decision this same Supreme Court held that the President could conspire with the Department of Justice to commit crimes, including the crime of trying to overturn an election he clearly lost, and could not be held accountable for his criminal conduct in office. Further, in carrying out his “executive powers,” the President’s motives could not be questioned.

So, here we are. A man properly in the United States, charged with no crimes, is ripped from his family and employment, hustled onto a plane full of others similarly situated for the most part, and imprisoned in a foreign country. With the apparent approval of the highest court in the land.

Trump then invites the dictator of El Salvador to the White House where that dictator labels as “preposterous” the question of his returning his prisoner to the United States. In a statement that is typical of people who consider themselves unbound by law, the Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele told Trump: “To liberate 350 million people, you have to imprison some. That’s the way it works.”

The power of courts to hold the federal government in contempt of court and sanction it or its attorneys is far from clear. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11271 That is perhaps why the District Court judge, in whose face the Department of Justice has metaphorically spit, has thus far fumed and fussed over the DOJ’s recalcitrance but has not issued any form of mandatory punishment for its resistance to the court’s mandates. Likely the judge realizes that the Supreme Court, having recently pronounced the unprecedented and astonishing doctrine of presidential immunity for crimes committed in office, will not support mandatory sanctions against DOJ for its disobedience.

And we now hear the President of the United States and people who work for him remarking that the power to snatch people off the streets and imprison them in foreign countries permits the federal government to do this to American citizens as well as people like Mr. Garcia who were properly here under work permits but were not citizens. Many of us have seen the videos of armed men in blackened vans visiting people in their homes for what are ludicrously labeled by the men as “wellness checks.” And some people are literally being assaulted on the streets, arrested and hauled away with no formal charges, no due process, and no opportunity to get counsel. These behaviors are blatant violations of our criminal laws and the Constitution.

We have reached the point of no return. The President has made clear he will stand for no resistance to his wishes. It seems virtually certain therefore that we will soon experience a declaration of martial law and a presidential directive to imprison here or abroad, without trial or other due process, anyone the President or his compliant appointees selects for removal. Or maybe he won’t even bother with a declaration that he likely regards as superfluous.

If allowed to get away with this, the President will have completed his subordination of the Constitution and brought about his dictatorship over the United States. As insane as that future seems, there is little happening now that suggests it is an overblown scenario. Trump has repeatedly made clear that he regards the Constitution as authorizing him to “do whatever I want.” We are there now. He is doing whatever he wants.

It is beyond dispute that if he can with impunity deport and imprison Mr. Garcia, he can do it to anyone, including American citizens who cross him or are merely suspected of being “disloyal.” Anyone who has studied the history of dictators surely knows that is how the process works.

The question then becomes: who will stop him and how? Certainly not the Republican cowards in Congress who value retaining what they fancifully believe is their “power” over their oaths to support the Constitution. It was once believed that the senior military leadership would handle the problem, but Trump has replaced most of those who might have acted decisively to restrain him. The courts lack both the will and the mechanisms for holding the President to account.

Trump’s abuse of power is plain and open. He believes the law does not apply to him and that the Constitution grants him powers that the Founders would never have imagined. Who then will stop him? And when?

New York Times Lines Up with Bezos

1 Reply

Yesterday was a great day in our country. Millions of Americans participated in peaceful protests all over the country, including cities in  Red States and even other countries. Millions. Hopefully, this signals the beginning of the early end of the Trump administration and the clowns he has appointed, with Republican Party complicity, to destroy the government and our international standing.

In reviewing the remarkably clever signs created by protesters around the country and marveling at the size of many of the crowds, I turned to the New York Times online, expecting to see the top headline and at least a photo from the huge turnout in New York City, despite bad weather. But, lo, what did my eyes behold but a photo of Donald Trump and, well, see for yourself:

If you skip the dog story and the “Analysis” whose title suggests everything is going to be ok, scroll down a screen, you see this:

A presidential seal and another photo of Trump dominate the page. In the lower left corner, you finally  reach the report about the nationwide protests over Trump’s attempt to destroy the federal government.

Do the editors of the New York Times now thing a story about dogs in the workplace and talking about women’s cleavage there is more important? This presentation reminded me of how CNN had promoted Trump in the run-up to the 2016 election, showing constant pictures of podiums while waiting for Trump to appear. This is a Washington Post type presentation in the post-Bezos-ownership era.

The Times owes the world an explanation.

OR ….

2 Replies

It just hit me tonight … suppose the real reason Trump’s military “planners” for the attack on the Houthis did their talking in a Signal space that was vulnerable to spying by Russia was not a mistake. Suppose instead it was done that way at Trump’s direction because he made a deal with Putin that Putin and/or Putin’s people would be “in” on the conversation or at least be able to hear it. Maybe that’s why Trump didn’t fire Hegseth and Gabbard and the others who “should have known better.” It was because Trump had directed them to make the planning “visible to Russia and if Trump had then fired them when the disclosure was made public, they might have disclosed that Trump directed them to proceed that way. Maybe one or more of them have the receipts. Speculation, I admit, but ….

If You Want To Destroy A Country ….

2 Replies

Or … 2025 is our 1984

There are several ways to destroy a generally well-functioning country. One is invasion. Vladimir Putin is trying that in Ukraine, cheered on by Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard and other Republican sycophants. Invasions are self-evidently messy. Lives are lost by the thousands, property is destroyed, and the psychological impact on all sides of the conflict can last for generations.

One can imagine that Trump’s stated desire to “own” Canada and Greenland (he would prefer the term “merge” no doubt, being a captain of industry and all) would, if anyone in his White House staff had the temerity to suggest this is a really bad idea, lead to Trump throwing himself on the floor, kicking his feet and screaming like the man-child he is: “I want it, I want it! I want it! Why can’t I have it?!! I’m now the king of the United States. Just ask the Supreme Court. I want it! Waaahhh!!”

But, of course, that’s not what’s happening. Despite being the largest collection of incompetents ever assembled, Trump’s “team” has discovered other ways to bring the country to its knees.

Most everyone has heard of, and many have read, the novel, 1984, by George Orwell. Wikipedia does a creditable job of summarizing the central idea:

The story takes place in an imagined future. The current year is uncertain, but believed to be 1984. Much of the world is in perpetual war. Great Britain, now known as Airstrip One, has become a province of the totalitarian superstate Oceania, which is led by Big Brother, a dictatorial leader supported by an intense cult of personality manufactured by the Party’s Thought Police. The Party engages in omnipresent government surveillance and, through the Ministry of Truth, historical negationism and constant propaganda to persecute individuality and independent thinking.

I don’t recall that the book explains how the world reached that state, but it’s not too hard to imagine when one recalls a little history. You know, Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin, to name a few.

We have Donald Trump. Many people thought Hitler was insane. Many people also think Trump is insane. He was elected to a second term in office despite grotesque failures of leadership in his first term, resulting in, among other things, the avoidable deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Trump revealed himself fully between 2016 and 2021. His opponent in 2024 was an intelligent, accomplished person who has served as Vice President of the United States for four years, so she was also experienced in the highest echelons of government. BUT she was a woman, and she was of Asian heritage, and she was Black. Case closed. The American electorate chose to put the loon back in power.

And what did we get? Exactly what could be, and was, expected. Examples will follow in roughly reverse chronological order in the next post.

As an aside, first, I note that I am no wide-eyed dreamer. I have been around a long time, started my career as a federal employee in fact. The government of the United States, like all governments, has many “issues.” There are inefficiencies. One of the core driving principles of the government is “don’t make obvious mistakes.” A prime example is the rulemaking process. This is what often happens.

Congress adopts legislation. Even the most detailed laws are often the products of compromises that create ambiguities or simply leave major implementation details to later-developed regulations. The country prefers that approach to simply saying, “let the bureaucrats figure it out as they wish from time to time.” We have developed an astonishingly complex process to govern “rulemaking,” with the result that regulations can take years, literally, to produce after the enabling legislation has passed.

The process involves examination of the relationship of the law in question to many other laws having to do with economic impact, environmental impact and many others. This approach, long and tedious as it may be, is preferred to subjecting ourselves to the random, arbitrary decisions of people who may or may not know what they are doing and don’t want to take the time and effort to learn. Slow and steady wins the race in our system.

However, this approach has several strong advantages:

    1. All interested parties get to express their views and offer their evidence to the decision-maker(s);
    2. The process is designed to assure that the decision-making agency has all relevant information before it when it decides what regulations, if any, should be adopted;
    3. The process governed by the Administrative Procedure Act is very demanding, taking much time and effort by many federal employees, many of whom are highly experienced experts in the subjects being regulated;
    4. Court review is available to assure agencies adhere to the governing legal principles, assuring fairness to affected parties and that the process is properly executed;
    5. All the foregoing takes much time and effort, especially given that most federal agencies are working multiple rulemakings simultaneously, in addition to enforcement actions and other statutory responsibilities.

I will now describe in horrifying detail an actual rulemaking of the Department of Transportation. I participated in on behalf of my then-employer, the American Society of Travel Advisors. Try your best to get through it. The “FR” references are to the Federal Register which is a triple-column “book” published every workday in 7-point type (a bit over half the size of the print in this blog) and including proposed and final regulations by all federal agencies. You can get a feel for its scale from the page numbers. I included them in case you want to see the actual documents.

On May 23, 2014, DOT published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to “enhance protections for air travelers and to improve the air travel environment, including a proposal to clarify and codify the Department’s interpretation of the statutory definition of ‘‘ticket agent.’’” [79 FR 29970] The NPRM also proposed, among other things, “to require airlines and ticket agents to disclose at all points of sale the fees for certain basic ancillary services associated with the air transportation consumers are buying or considering buying.”

The NPRM consumed 32 pages of the Federal Register.  Comments were due by August 21, 2014.

Comments by interested parties were plentiful. And typically, they ran the gamut: the proposal is too broad, too expensive, not broad enough; you got this wrong, you got this right; the proposals are impractical and unnecessary; the proposals don’t go far enough … and many, many more.

On January 19, 2017, DOT issued a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to expand the scope of the original proposal:

In light of the comments on this issue, the Department is issuing this SNPRM, which focuses solely on the issue of transparency of certain ancillary service fees. The other issues in the 2014 NPRM are being addressed separately. [82 FR 7536]

The SNPRM consumed 24 Federal Register pages. Comments were due by March 20, 2017.

The Department withdrew the SNPRM on December 14, 2017:

In the notice of withdrawal of proposed rulemaking, 82 FR 58778 (Dec. 14, 2017), the Department stated that its existing requirements provide consumers information regarding fees for ancillary services and noted that the withdrawal was consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, ‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,’’ [issued by Donald Trump] which has since been revoked.

But,

On July 9, 2021, the President [now Joe Biden] issued E.O. 14036, ‘‘Promoting Competition in the American Economy,’’ which launched a whole-of-government approach to strengthen competition.

… section 5, paragraph(m)(i)(F) of E.O. 14036 states that ‘‘[t]he Secretary of Transportation shall: . . . not later than 90 days after the date of this order, consider initiating a rulemaking to ensure that consumers have ancillary fee information, including ‘‘baggage fees,’’ ‘‘change fees,’’ and ‘‘cancellation fees,’’ at the time of ticket purchase.’’

Thus, the changes of presidential administrations first killed, then revived the proposed rules that occupied most of 20 Federal Register pages, seven years into the mission. DOT published the new NPRM on October 20, 2022, more than eight years into the mission. Comments were now due by December 19, 2022.

But, alas, parties on both sides of the issues sought more time. DOT granted those requests, extending the comment deadline to January 23, 2023 [87 FR 77765]. Another request for extension was denied on January 26, 2023, although, typically, “late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.”

On March 3, 2023, DOT took the extraordinary step of announcing a virtual public hearing on certain issues in the rulemaking, the hearing to be held on March 16, 2023, with further comments due by March 23, 2023. [88 FR 13389]

Finally, on April 30, 2024, DOT published the final regulations in 89 FR 34620, consuming 57 Federal Register pages.

The rulemaking process had taken more than 10 years. In truth much more, because before the first publication in 2014, much legal, economic and other work had been put into creating the first set of proposed rules.

But, alas, it’s not over until it’s over. At the behest of the airlines, the regulation was “stayed” in 2024 by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and on January 28, 2025, the court remanded the rules to DOT for further proceedings. The decision was based on what the court held was a fatal mistake that violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the law whose requirements ultimately lead to all the process surrounding federal rulemaking: the court found, DOT had “justified the Rule using cost-benefit data … that was not available during the notice-and-comment period.”

Whether these rules will ever be finalized is an open question, given the Trump administration’s hostility to consumer interests and regulation of business in general.

To repeat: the alternatives to this long and often painful process would allow members of government to make arbitrary and capricious decisions driven by conflicts of interest, personal bias, and other inappropriate considerations. THAT is why the government seems “inefficient.” It is inefficient by design so that other critical values are protected.

Could the process be made more efficient? Perhaps. But opening the government process to oversight and interference by people who know nothing about the governing law and little or nothing about the underlying issues and problems being addressed every day is not better government. It is tyranny.

For better or worse, for richer or poorer, we are married to this process. The courts get very upset, and rightly so, when an agency fails to follow the process correctly. That results in “remands for further proceedings,” which can mean more years of delay in reaching final rules.

Government under a system of “laws not men” is probably one of the most complex and difficult endeavors that mankind has ever undertaken. Add to that the fact that the continental United States occupies roughly 3,706,269 square miles with 161,000 square miles of that being water. The contiguous United States has an area of about 3,119,884 square miles and the State of Alaska alone embraces 586,412square miles. There are 50 states, the District of Columbia, plus more than a dozen territories under US ownership, management or sovereignty.” 

The land mass is astonishingly diverse. Some bodies of water (Lake Superior) are larger than some states (South Carolina thus also Rhode Island, etc.). Together the Great Lakes occupy more than 94,000 square miles and collectively are larger than the states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire combined. The State of Hawaii is about 2,400 miles from the US west coast and consists of 137 islands! We have mountains, deserts, forests, plains … everything.

Add to that the fact that the population of the United States numbers some 340 million people.

Legislating for this diverse aggregation of people, land, water and much else is complicated. It may be a general principle of the universe that a large, diverse country requires a large, complex government, especially if that government is to have a major role in promoting the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” of the population.

The lesson is ended. I may have bored you beyond repair. Sorry, not sorry. I will return to the headline topic, If You Want To Destroy A Country …., in another post shortly. Rest up. It’s going to get worse, much worse. Donald Trump means to have his revenge on the country he believes treated him badly. And the Republican Party is happy to go along to get along. The fate of our democracy, our economy, and our very lives is on the line. Trump’s goons, dressed in black, masked, with no visible identification, are snatching people off the streets and disappearing them. The United States is now the new Russia.

Worst Case Scenarios & Warning to MAGAs

Leave a reply

Think of this as a kind of law school exam.

  • Assume Donald Trump is still alive as the 2028 presidential election process begins in 2027;
  • Assume further that Trump during his second presidency has subverted the military, civilian law enforcement and the courts. In short, he and Elon Musk are in complete charge of the federal government without meaningful legal restraint.

Assume further that either:

  • civil war broke out but was brutally and quickly suppressed by the combined forces mentioned in Assumption (2) above, OR
  •  the people of the United States succumbed without a meaningful fight to the fascist regime established by the Trump/Musk/Vance administration.

Assume further that either:

  •  Russia has decided to work through Trump & team rather than physically occupying the United States, OR
  • Russia has defeated the NATO alliance (or what remained of it after the US withdrew), and has occupied the US without meaningful resistance,

AND in any case, assume that

  • The United States, or whatever it is called by then, has no meaningful international relationships or allies.

Before addressing the questions below, state any additional assumptions necessary to explain the probable relationships between the federal government, state governments and other countries after the presidency of Donald Trump is substantially completed in 2027. Include in those additional assumptions any relevant information about the degree of freedom exercised by the people of the United States (referencing, in particular, women (females), Black people, non-citizen residents (if any), the condition of the economy, employment and any other facts you consider significant to what the United States will look like in late 2027.

Exam Questions:

  • Is it plausible to believe that Trump will simply step down voluntarily and allow someone else (Vance? Someone not Vance?) to seek the presidency — explain; OR
  • Is it more likely that Trump will declare the term limits in the Constitution invalid and seek a third term? — explain, AND
  • If Trump seeks a third term, is it plausible to believe that he will allow a free and fair election to occur or is it more plausible to believe that he will simply declare himself the popular choice and remain in office for a third term? Explain

Open your red books and discuss. Take your time but bear in mind that time is rapidly running out.

For extra credit for MAGAs only, Google this question: “how many jews were killed in the holocaust?” You will see estimates of 6 million plus another 5 million non-Jews, including prisoners of war) in the various reports there.

Then Google: “how many Russians were murdered by Stalin’s regime?” Mussolini?

Then, answer the question: WHO were the people killed by the Germans and by Stalin and by Mussolini?

Finally, for double extra credit, MAGAs only: how likely is it that a dictator Donald Trump will behave differently than Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and all the other dictators through the vastness of time that have wantonly and randomly slaughtered “enemies” and “friends” and “supporters” who were merely suspected of becoming possible enemies or resisters even as they professed their undying loyalty to the regime? How many were murdered after being reported by neighbors? By friends? By family members?

Do you understand that a major part of the dictator’s view of the world is that everyone is a potential enemy, that spreading distrust throughout the population is essential to protecting the dictator, and that random killing ensures fear and compliance in advance from those still alive? How sure are you that an American dictator will not follow in the footsteps of all the other dictators through history?

You may leave when you turn in your red book. We assure you that your answers will be kept confidential ….

We assure you.