Opinion Pieces
Opinion articles, op-eds, and news commentary from various sources and writers. I created this page to have a platform to inspire others to perhaps consider ideas and thoughts that hadn't been considered before. I firmly believe when we hear other points of view :
the same as our own but worded in a way we had never heard
opposite points of view
We become better at critical thinking, we consider more than we would have on our own.
Written By:
Graeson Von Stein
On 2 October 2018, Jamal Khashoggi, a US-based journalist and critic of Saudi Arabia's government, walked into the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, where he was murdered.
In the months that followed, conflicting narratives emerged over how he died, what happened to his remains, and who was responsible.
Saudi officials said the journalist was killed in a "rogue operation" by a team of agents sent to persuade him to return to the kingdom, while Turkish officials said the agents acted on orders from the highest levels of the Saudi government.
Some seven years later, May, 2025, the crowd applauded as trump said: “Mohammed bin Salman is our greatest representative, greatest representative. And if I didn’t like him, I’d get out of here so fast. You know that, don’t you? He knows me well. I do — I like him a lot. I like him too much.”
Forgive and forget?
This is a tough read, but read it:
Jamal Khashoggi was strapped to a table and dismembered alive by Saudi Arabian henchmen on October 2. His blood curdling screams were broadcast to the outside world on his Apple Watch for the seven minutes it took to kill him.
The next day, on October 3, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley privately drafted her resignation letter. (Thank you, Paula Cobia). Six days later, on October 9, she submitted it to a stunned public. No plausible explanation was offered for her sudden departure.
It was not until October 12, a full ten days later after the brutal killing, that the world began to even learn of Khashoggi’s disappearance.
It would take almost another full week after that for details of the gruesome ambush to publicly emerge.
What is clear, is that the American government certainly knew of Khashoggi’s killing before we knew, and most certainly in advance of the murder itself. Yet in the following two weeks have saw nothing less than an absurd, obsequious public cover up from the president of the United States himself and top cabinet members for this gruesome ambush by the Saudi Arabian government of somebody Trump was certainly familiar with.
Pat Robertson of the Evangelical community told his flock all the Trump talking points. That this man’s life and extrajudicial torture and assassination should not matter to us, because $100 billion is on the table in weaponry that the Saudis need to kill the Yemeni people with, and, as seems to be the new reality in Gotham, who could possibly know the truth anyway?
The worst part of what is happening is not trump. It is trying to understand the millions of people who enabed this. The people who will send the same people back to let this continue while screaming about tyranny and the swamp and claiming some Orwellian moral high ground.
I never thought a party could take a trillion dollars from the treasury for their wealthiest donors, steal Internet privacy as the new electronic gold, end net neutrality, blame the massive deficit not on their tax heist but on your Social Security and Medicare then promise to slash those if re-elected, sell junk insurance plans to tens of millions and seek to take away insurance from tens of millions of others, imprison children literally grabbed from parents who are then deported with NO MEANS of reunification, put a man on the supreme court sexual assault allegations be damned, and cover up a brutal murder for a dictatorial regime for no proffered reason except to allow that dictatorial regime to continue genocide in Yemen using the weapons we were selling them."
Today’s GOP isn’t a political party so much as it is a crime syndicate with a flag. A hollowed-out husk of its former self, rubber-stamping whatever demands come down from the penthouse suites while feeding their base a daily buffet of rage-inducing nonsense to keep them too angry and distracted to notice their pockets are being picked. “Conservative” now translates roughly to: ethically allergic, reality-optional, and morally bankrupt with a side of fascism.
It’s time—long past time—for the adults in the room to take the wheel. Because this isn’t governance. It’s a three-ring circus on fire, and the clowns are in charge.
Every day is a new lowest day in America.
Today is no different.
It is difficult wondering what the bottom might be.
Written By:Anthony Guiliano Frank Costanzo
For nine straight weeks, CBS’s “60 Minutes” has held the Trump administration’s feet to the fire, refusing to back down despite a barrage of legal threats and presidential tantrums. The most recent episode tackled Trump’s controversial policies on Ukraine—where correspondent Scott Pelley interviewed President Zelenskyy at a bombed site—and Greenland, highlighting local resistance to Trump’s annexation ambitions. These are just the latest in a series of hard-hitting segments: previous weeks have exposed the administration’s dismantling of USAID, the firing of government watchdogs, and the chilling effects of Trump’s executive orders on diversity and equity.
Trump’s response has been as predictable as it is alarming.
He’s called “60 Minutes” a “dishonest Political Operative,” demanded the FCC strip CBS of its license, and is pursuing a $20 billion lawsuit over their coverage—especially an interview with Kamala Harris he claims was unfairly edited.
He’s even pressed his own FCC appointee to punish CBS and other critical outlets, a move right out of the authoritarian playbook: using government power to silence dissent and intimidate journalists.
In an era when too many media organizations shy away from confronting power, “60 Minutes” is showing what real journalism looks like. As Lesley Stahl put it, the show is “fighting for our life” and standing up for the First Amendment. When the stakes are this high—when a sitting president is openly threatening the free press—media courage isn’t just admirable, it’s essential for democracy to survive.
Help this information get to more voters. A well-informed electorate is a prerequisite to Democracy.—Thomas Jefferson
— The Other 98%
Written By:
James Greenberg
It looks like democracy. It speaks in the language of freedom. It waves the flag, holds elections, quotes the Constitution. But behind the symbols, a long con is unfolding—one colder, more calculating, and far more dangerous than most Americans are prepared to admit.
Donald Trump isn’t dismantling American institutions—he’s repurposing them. The presidency, the courts, the bureaucracy—each is being turned into a set piece in a scripted display designed to secure loyalty, reward insiders, and disguise a transfer of power from the public to the private. What looks like patriotism is bait. What looks like governance is misdirection. The goal isn’t just control. It’s consent through illusion.
This is cryptocracy: rule by the concealed. It doesn’t need a coup or a canceled election. It survives by keeping the rituals of democracy intact while inverting their purpose. Laws become tools for punishing enemies and shielding allies. Agencies no longer serve the public—they protect the executive and advance his network. The state no longer mediates among competing interests—it extracts loyalty and delivers favors.
Like any long con, it relies on trust. Institutions still exist, and so does the choreography. Press briefings continue. Elections go forward. But the meanings have shifted. The symbols remain to prevent panic. Meanwhile, decision-making quietly moves behind closed doors, carried out by loyalists, family members, and private operatives with no accountability.
Cynics will say this is nothing new. Every administration has operated in the shadows to some extent. But Trump hasn’t inherited these tendencies—he’s institutionalizing them. What used to be excess is becoming architecture. Oversight isn’t obstructed—it’s being erased. Dissent isn’t debated—it’s being criminalized. Public life becomes a simulation, where power flows through backchannels.
This didn’t begin with a single law. It has advanced through calculated steps: firings, reassignments, stalled investigations, and legal interpretations twisted to serve personal power. The Department of Justice has been reshaped into a shield for the executive. Foreign policy is routed through sons-in-law and loyalists. Elections still happen, but not as democratic rituals—they’re framed as loyalty tests. Results are accepted only when they validate the con.
I’ve seen something like this before. In the 1980s, I lived in Mexico under the PRI. It called itself a democracy. On paper, it was. But everyone understood the real system: favors over fairness, relationships over rights, tribute over transparency. Bureaucracy wasn’t a system of rules—it was a maze of deals. Services came with a price. Outcomes depended on proximity to power. The law was performed, not followed. It wasn’t dysfunction. It was design.
Like any long con, it’s not just about illusion—it’s about extraction. The goal isn’t just power. It’s profit. Trump’s network turns public office into private gain: campaign funds flow into legal bills and branded merchandise; loyalists are rewarded with contracts, pardons, or favorable deals; tax policy is rewritten to favor billionaires while posing as populism. The public thinks they’re taking their country back. But the con is taking their labor, their tax base, their future—and repackaging it as patriotism.
Trump has updated that model for a reality-TV audience. Spectacle replaces structure. His family runs policy. His businesses collect payment. His allies receive contracts and pardons. His enemies are humiliated or prosecuted. The line between government and personal enterprise vanishes—and the crowd cheers. What was once concealed is now flaunted. Corruption isn’t hidden or denied—it’s recast as cunning.
The jet Qatar offered to Trump wasn’t a diplomatic gesture. It was tribute—a down payment. Trump’s praise sent the message loud and clear: praise buys protection, money buys access, and institutions exist to serve those already in the club. This isn’t statesmanship. It’s graft dressed as diplomacy.
Under a cryptocracy, corruption isn’t a deviation—it’s the system. And it only works if the mark never realizes they’re being conned. That’s where performance comes in. The public sees press briefings and thinks transparency still exists. They see elections and assume consent still matters. But behind the scenes, the old machinery has been swapped out.
From an anthropological lens, this is more than institutional decay. It’s a cultural shift in the logic of power. Authority no longer comes from law or legitimacy. It comes from proximity, spectacle, and the ability to manage fear and grievance. Institutions remain, but they function like sets—familiar enough to keep us from noticing what’s changed.
And the public becomes part of the con. Spectacle becomes expected. Cynicism becomes wisdom. People stop asking for truth and settle for confirmation. They stop expecting public service and come to admire dominance. Trust isn’t just broken—it’s repurposed.
Trump wears the mask of a presidency, but what he’s constructing is the infrastructure for rule through performance, loyalty, and concealment. Democracy isn’t abolished—it’s staged.
This con doesn’t need to win everyone over. It just needs to keep enough people distracted, discouraged, or deceived. It doesn’t break the old system. It convinces us it’s still working.
And if we don’t call it what it is—if we keep responding to Trump’s actions as isolated outrages rather than a systematic restructuring of power—we risk becoming long-term investors in our own deception, believing we still live in a republic long after the game has ended.
What we’re facing isn’t dysfunction. It’s a confidence game. And by the time we realize we’ve been taken, the con may already be complete.
Written By:
James Greenberg
If Donald Trump is consistent in anything, it’s projection. What he accuses others of—rigging elections, weaponizing government, undermining democracy—is almost always a reflection of his own actions.
In 2020, while railing that Democrats were trying to steal the election, Trump was laying the groundwork to sabotage it himself. He appointed a loyalist postmaster general who removed mailboxes and dismantled sorting machines in Democratic strongholds. He spread doubt about mail-in voting, then crippled its infrastructure. And when none of it stopped him from losing, he refused to concede, rebranding his defeat as theft.
That lie became the foundation of a movement—not to restore democracy, but to rewrite it. Under the banner of “election integrity,” Republican lawmakers began pushing laws that restrict access to the vote, weaken independent oversight, and centralize power in partisan hands. What we are witnessing is not a battle over ballots, but over the rules of democracy itself.
Authoritarian regimes don’t cancel elections—they manipulate the conditions under which they’re held. And today’s Republican strategy follows that script with chilling precision.
Laws that once ensured broad access to the ballot have been rolled back or gutted, especially after the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which invalidated key protections in the Voting Rights Act. States quickly imposed strict voter ID laws, purged rolls, closed polling sites in urban and minority neighborhoods, and shortened early voting windows. These measures don’t prevent fraud—they suppress participation, especially among voters of color, the poor, students, and the elderly.
The gerrymandering of districts further entrenches minority rule, allowing Republicans to retain legislative control even when they lose the statewide popular vote. In some places, redistricting has been so extreme that courts have ruled it unconstitutional—only for new, equally skewed maps to replace the old ones.
Trump’s allies have also transformed election certification from a procedural formality into a partisan battleground. In Georgia, the GOP legislature gave itself the authority to take over county election boards—targeting Democratic counties like Fulton. In Arizona, Republicans proposed laws to let the legislature reject the outcome of a presidential election outright. In Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, local officials faced threats and intimidation simply for certifying lawful results. This is not oversight. It’s sabotage.
And it goes deeper. Trump has worked to paralyze the Federal Election Commission, nominating ideologues like Allen Dickerson who openly oppose campaign finance regulation. The goal is to gut what little oversight remains, clearing the path for unlimited spending and influence-peddling.
That brings us to the deeper betrayal: the quiet dismantling of “one person, one vote.” Through a series of Supreme Court decisions, most notably Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010), money was redefined as speech, and political spending as a constitutional right. The result is a system where billionaires and corporations drown out the voices of ordinary citizens—not with ballots, but with cash.
From an anthropological perspective, this is a fundamental cultural shift. The citizen has been replaced by the donor. Public deliberation has been eclipsed by private transaction. Elections are no longer contests of ideas but competitions for capital. Campaigns cost millions, and those who fund them expect returns—not in stickers or slogans, but in policy.
The real fraud isn’t someone voting twice. It’s legislation written by lobbyists, passed by indebted lawmakers, and sold as reform. The real waste isn’t public assistance—it’s the diversion of public power to serve private wealth. And the real abuse isn’t in election procedure but in the hollowing out of representation itself.
This isn’t just a Republican project, though Republicans have weaponized it most aggressively. Both parties have raised the price of political admission, turning governance into a pay-to-play arena. But under Trump, this structure has taken an authoritarian turn. He doesn’t just seek advantage within the system—he seeks to dominate and redefine it, leaving democratic form intact while stripping it of content.
The most dangerous part is not that this is happening, but that we are learning to live with it. We are beginning to accept long lines, voter purges, gerrymandered districts, and billionaire-funded campaigns as normal features of our political life. We are treating democratic erosion as a technical debate rather than a moral and civic emergency.
And that’s how democracies die—not in a single moment, but in a series of compromises. A little more money in politics. A little less access to the ballot. A little more power concentrated in partisan hands. Until one day, elections still happen, but they no longer matter.
But this isn’t fate. It’s design. And designs can be undone.
History tells us that systems built on exclusion eventually collapse under the weight of their contradictions. But only if we act—not just to cast our votes, but to defend the right to vote; not just to criticize corruption, but to end the system that enables it.
Democracy isn’t something we inherit. It’s something we practice. And if we want it to survive, we have to stop mistaking it for a ritual and start treating it as a responsibility.
Written By:
James Greenberg
They don’t have to ban your voice to silence it. All they have to do is bury it. In today’s digital landscape, silence has become a system, and invisibility is the new form of censorship.
Your voice isn’t being erased. It’s being quietly sidelined. As algorithms take over decisions about what the public sees and what it doesn’t, we face a new kind of suppression—one that hides behind neutrality while reshaping what counts as truth.
It doesn’t begin with confrontation. It starts with a flicker. A dip in engagement. A post no one seems to see. You chalk it up to timing, topic fatigue, or maybe the algorithm just didn’t favor it this time.
But then it happens again. And again.
Eventually, your most urgent insights, your most carefully reasoned arguments, start to disappear into the void—not because they’re inaccurate or offensive, but because they’ve triggered something in the machine. Not a warning. Not a takedown. Just a vanishing act.
This is what digital suppression looks like. It doesn’t announce itself. It doesn’t have to. It simply tucks your words away, just far enough that no one else finds them. The digital town square is still open—only now, the mic is off.
Major platforms no longer need to block speech outright. Instead, they quietly push certain posts to the edge of the algorithmic map. Words like “violence,” “election,” “genocide,” “vaccine,” or names of political figures become red flags—not because they’re false, but because they signal volatility. Your post might still appear to you, and maybe to a few others, but to the broader public it has already been marked “not worth showing.”
No notification. No appeal. Just silence by omission.
What we’re witnessing is not content moderation in the classic sense. It’s something more ambient. More automated. It’s what happens when predictive algorithms—not people—start deciding what counts as valuable, visible, or safe. It’s not censorship by commission—it’s suppression by omission.
And it’s completely legal—for now. The state isn’t doing this. No agency has intervened. These are decisions made by private companies, whose policies are shaped less by truth than by risk—risk to engagement, to brand image, to revenue. The goal isn’t to stifle opinion outright. It’s to avoid conflict. To keep users scrolling, not thinking.
They say knowledge is power. But anthropology teaches us that power doesn’t rest solely in information—it lies in who gets to speak, who gets heard, and how ideas circulate. Every society sets boundaries around what counts as truth and who gets to declare it. Today, those boundaries have quietly shifted. The authority that once belonged to editors, elders, priests, or elected officials now rests with algorithms. These systems don’t deliberate. They don’t reflect. They compute. And they don’t take responsibility when they get it wrong.
What we say—and whether anyone hears it—is increasingly shaped by hidden calculations most of us can’t access or understand. These systems teach by feedback: when your words disappear, you learn to stop speaking. When your reach collapses, you stop trying. The silence isn’t forced—it’s taught.
This is how dissent gets neutralized—not by law, but by architecture. Not by overt repression, but by engineered irrelevance.
And yet, we adapt. We reword, reframe, and reroute. We use screenshots instead of links. We split long thoughts into short bursts. We speak in metaphor. We rely on each other to share, to amplify, to notice what’s being buried. Engagement isn’t just visibility—it’s resistance.
Sometimes, we simply outlast the filters.
Because at the heart of all this quiet suppression is a deeper anxiety: that words—raw, unfiltered, and unsanctioned—still matter. That someone might read them and see the world differently. That something buried might still bloom.
If this resonates with you, don’t just scroll past. Share it—carefully. Copy and paste. Add your own words. Screenshot a line that speaks to you. Start a quiet chain of visibility.
Engagement matters—not for vanity, but for survival in an online world that now decides what deserves to be heard. When you respond, when you pass it on, you’re doing more than spreading a post. You’re keeping a conversation alive that someone, somewhere, would prefer to let disappear.
Speak while you still can. Amplify while it still matters. Because silence isn’t just the absence of sound. It’s what power calls peace.
Written By:
Andrea Lamkin
President Donald Trump admitted on Fox News host Bret Baier's show on Friday evening that he chose to go on a three-nation Middle East tour instead of attending the Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul, which failed to reach a resolution.
Baier asked Trump why he decided not to go to Turkey, where Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky showed up but Russian President Vladimir Putin went. While Trump was not scheduled to go, Baier pointed out that he had spoken about it.
"I might have. But I will tell you what. I would not have wanted to disappoint UAE," said Trump after revealing his confusing 'golden dome' plan for the US.
Trump, who went on a 'completely incoherent' rant amid his 'mental decline', then added that he made "12 times the money" on his Middle East tour.
"I can make up the money on one trip like this. Think of it, this trip, I made 12 times the money that we're talking point. I made that money in a few days. I've always been good with money. I make money. In four days, I made 12 times what we spent in Ukraine," Trump said, cutting off Baier when the host said it is "not about the money" but about "pressuring Putin."
Trump lashed out at the former administration for the "money being pissed away."
Trump claimed he made 12 times the $174.2 billion amount the U.S. spent on aid for Ukraine, equaling $2.94 trillion.
On Thursday, Trump said, "Nothing is gonna happen until Putin and I get together."
On Baier's show, Trump said, "I always felt there can't be a meeting without me because I don't think a deal is going to get through. There is a lot of hatred on both sides."
With Trump not in attendance, Russia and Ukraine refused to reach a ceasefire deal amid European leaders calling Moscow's approach "unacceptable."
Russia allegedly threatened an "eternal war," according to a source who spoke to Sky News, who also reported that Moscow is not ready to negotiate the terms of the ceasefire deal, The Express US reported.
"Our position - if the Russians reject a full and unconditional ceasefire and an end to killings, tough sanctions must follow," Zelensky said on X, adding, "Pressure on Russia must be maintained until Russia is ready to end the war."
This high school track star is right: Trans kids are just trying to make their way through high school, and don’t need additional bullies from Congress.
Read the full letter to the editor:
Pope Leo XIV enrages MAGA world during his first diplomatic audience by calling for respect and dignity for migrants around the world — a direct refutation of the xenophobic demonization offered by Donald Trump.
The Vatican and White House are on a high-speed collision course....
Speaking to his diplomatic corps, Leo stated that government leaders must strive to build "harmonious and peaceful civil societies."
"No one is exempted from striving to ensure respect for the dignity of every person, especially the most frail and vulnerable, from the unborn to the elderly, from the sick to the unemployed, citizens and immigrants alike," he said.
"My own story is that of a citizen, the descendant of immigrants, who in turn chose to emigrate," Leo added. His paternal grandparents came to Chicago from France and his maternal side has Creole ancestry.
While the audience was conducted in private, the Vatican released the prepared text from the pope and the dean of the diplomatic corps.
These new remarks are just the latest indication that Pope Leo shares views on migrants that are diametrically opposed to those of Donald Trump.
During his first papal conference, he condemned "loud" communication and "prejudice" while calling for free speech to be upheld.
"We do not need loud, forceful communication, but rather communication that is capable of listening and of gathering the voices of the weak who have no voice," the pontiff told a group of journalists.
He called on the world to "disarm communication of all prejudice and resentment, fanaticism and even hatred."
"Let us free it from aggression," he said.
He praised "the precious gift of free speech and of the press," offering a sharp contrast to Trump's relentless attacks on the free press and his efforts to silence critics through weaponized litigation.
"Let me, therefore, reiterate today the Church’s solidarity with journalists who are imprisoned for seeking and reporting the truth while also asking for their release," said Leo.
Not only that, but in February, the pope — then known as Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost — shared a piece on his X account entitled "JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn't ask us to rank our love for others" in which the author dismantled Vance's claim that Christians should love their family first, then their neighbors, then their community, then their fellow citizens, then the rest of the world.
The then-Cardinal also retweeted a message slamming Trump and El Salvadoran Dictator Nayib Bukele for the "illicit" deportation of innocent Maryland father Kilmar Abrego Garcia and the "suffering" caused by MAGA deportation policy.
He also shared an article from the American Cardinal Timothy Dalton entitled "Why Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric is so problematic" which condemned the "nativism" espoused by the MAGA movement. The piece called on Christians to see "the immigrant as a gift to our nation" and "welcome the stranger."
Republicans despised Pope Francis and were hoping for a far-right pope to succeed him. Instead, the world has been blessed with a pope who wants to continue Francis's work and spread a message of love and compassion for all.
Summary
In this dynamic and revealing interview on What’s at Stake, Rev. Mark Thompson speaks with progressive activist Egberto Willies about the Trump administration’s quiet program to resettle white Afrikaner “refugees” from South Africa in the United States. Willies exposes the racial double standard of this policy, contrasting the privileged treatment of Afrikaners with the brutal treatment of Black and Brown migrants from Haiti, Central America, and beyond. The conversation also touches on Trump’s disregard for constitutional norms, his alliance with Elon Musk, and his backdoor efforts to dismantle Medicaid and the ACA. The interview underscores how white supremacy and economic injustice remain central to the MAGA agenda.
-
Egberto Willies criticizes the Trump administration’s hypocrisy in welcoming white Afrikaner “refugees” while persecuting Black and Brown migrants.
-
Afrikaners arriving in the U.S. are greeted with chartered planes, public aid, housing support, and job assistance, despite no credible threat of persecution in South Africa.
-
Trump, influenced by Elon Musk and white nationalist rhetoric, leverages immigration policy to reinforce white demographic dominance.
-
The conversation links this issue to broader patterns of racial injustice, from border violence to historical patterns of colonial favoritism.
-
Willies warns that while the media fixates on Trump’s spectacles, his administration is quietly slashing Medicaid and undermining healthcare access for millions.
This conversation is a searing indictment of the ongoing racial and economic inequities embedded in America’s immigration and domestic policy. Egberto Willies exposes how Donald Trump’s embrace of white Afrikaner “refugees” is less about compassion and more about demographic manipulation—an attempt to tilt the racial scales in favor of whiteness. At the same time, he highlights the grotesque mistreatment of asylum seekers of color and the cynical use of national policy to protect the wealthy while gutting public programs like Medicaid. The interview is a necessary call for progressives to stay vigilant and confront the quiet, systemic cruelty that persists beneath Trump’s headline-grabbing theatrics.
Written By:
David Earl Williams III
I’ve seen growing speculation about masked ICE agents appearing in videos across social media. These clips show unidentified individuals conducting raids—something highly unusual, as federal officers are required to clearly identify themselves. This raises serious questions: Are these deputized locals? Private contractors? If so, that crosses dangerous legal and ethical lines.
While ICE agents may wear masks in rare, high-risk situations, it is not standard procedure. The agency also has a documented history of using deceptive tactics—such as impersonating local police—to enter homes without a judicial warrant. Now, we’re seeing unmarked vehicles and unidentified agents dragging people away. Many have likened this to kidnapping rather than lawful enforcement.
Let’s be clear: there is no legal precedent for deputizing civilians to carry out immigration enforcement. If these masked individuals aren’t trained, sworn officers—if this feels like a scene from a police state—it’s because it is. Ask questions. Film everything. Demand answers from your local and federal elected officials before this becomes the new normal.
Written By:
Rainer Hofmann
Trapped in Delusion – How Donald Trump Drowns in His Own Web of Lies
It is a text that electrifies the air, a barrage of capital letters, accusations, and conspiracy theories – and it comes from the President of the United States. On his platform, Truth Social, Donald Trump unleashes a torrent of accusations and wild claims. The "AUTOPEN," the "stolen election," the "radical left Democrats," "political thugs," and a "dirty cop" named James Comey – in a single post, a universe of mistrust and delusion unfolds.
"Whoever controlled the 'AUTOPEN' seems to be turning into an ever-larger scandal. It is an essential part of the actual crime, THAT THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WAS RIGGED AND STOLEN! Millions of people knew this, but the radical left Democrats conducted a campaign of indoctrination and innocence like never before seen," Trump writes.
It is a monologue in capital letters, a scream of despair, of rage, and of complete alienation from reality. Once again, Trump paints a picture of a world conspiring against him, a world full of enemies who have supposedly taken his rightful power away.
But what are we really seeing here? It is the text of a man trapped in an endless narrative of betrayal and persecution. Trump's words are not a political argument – they are a manifesto of paranoia. The supposedly "stolen election" – long disproven by dozens of court rulings, independent investigations, and official recounts. And yet he clings to it. Why?
Because he cannot do otherwise. Because his entire political legacy is built on the lie that he is the rightful winner, cheated by a network of "radical left Democrats," "political thugs," and shadowy forces. Because admitting defeat would be a symbolic death for him.
But this is no longer just about Donald Trump. It is about the question of whether a man who knowingly spreads false claims, who constructs a completely alternative reality, should continue to hold the highest office in the United States.
Because what we are witnessing here is not just an outburst of anger. It is a glimpse into the abyss of a narcissistic personality that refuses to acknowledge facts, that refuses to take responsibility. It is a dangerous mix of grandiosity and persecution mania that, in the hands of a president, becomes a deadly weapon.
Official recounts, court rulings, even judges appointed by Trump himself have confirmed that there was no massive fraud in the 2020 election. But in Trump’s world, these facts are meaningless. In his world, anyone who contradicts him is part of a giant conspiracy. His enemies are everywhere, his followers are martyrs.
But a president trapped in such delusion is a danger – not only to the political stability of the United States but to democracy itself. When the most powerful man in the world creates his own reality and pulls millions into this illusion, the very foundations of truth are at risk.
Is Donald Trump still capable of fulfilling his office? Is a man who can no longer distinguish between truth and delusion fit to serve as commander-in-chief of the United States? Or has the time come for Congress – and the American people – to confront this question?
This is not just a question of politics. It is a question of reason. It is a question of the survival of democracy. And it is a question that the United States can no longer avoid.
Post, Donald Trump, May 17, 2025:
Whoever had control of the “AUTOPEN” is looking to be a bigger and bigger scandal by the moment. It is a major part of the real crime, THAT THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 2020 WAS RIGGED AND STOLEN! Millions and millions of people knew that, but the Radical Left Democrats waged a campaign of inoculation and innocence like none that had ever been waged before. THIS IS WHY THE UNSELECT COMMITTEE OF POLITICAL THUGS, WHO WERE GIVEN A FULL AND COMPLETE PARDON BY THE PERSON WHO WIELDED THE NOW ILLEGALLY USED AUTOPEN, DELETED AND DESTROYED ALL EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION FROM THEIR CORRUPT AND VICIOUS WITCH HUNT AGAINST ME, AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE, WHOSE LIVES WERE COMPLETELY SHATTERED AND DESTROYED BY THIS HISTORICALLY CRIMINAL EVENT. Remember, it all began with DIRTY COP James Comey, Obama, a hapless and cognitively impaired Sleepy Joe Biden, and my now very famous ACCUSATION that,“THEY SPIED ON MY CAMPAIGN!” Whoever had control of the Autopen is just the beginning. The biggest crime of all is that THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WAS RIGGED! I (MAGA!) WON THE ELECTION BY MILLIONS OF VOTES, AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT. GOD BLESS AMERICA, FOR THE FIGHT HAS JUST BEGUN!!!
End of the Post
This Truth Social post by Donald Trump shows clear signs of irrational, conspiracy-laden, and emotionally charged language. The use of capital letters for entire sentences, the repeated and unsubstantiated claims of election fraud, the denunciation of alleged opponents as "radical left Democrats" and "political thugs," the constant blame-shifting, and the self-righteous portrayal of himself as a victim are typical characteristics of conspiracy thinking.
The text also reveals a clear departure from reality. Official recounts, court decisions, and independent investigations have found no evidence of widespread election fraud in the 2020 presidential election. The repeated claim that the election was "stolen" is not only false but a clear attempt to create an alternative reality.
From a psychological perspective, this could be described as "delusional thinking" when a person persistently clings to false beliefs that are clearly contradicted by facts and evidence. However, it would be unprofessional and unethical to diagnose a mental disorder without a professional assessment.
In a political context, the term "loss of reality" is often used when a political figure repeatedly spreads misinformation and presents conspiracy theories as facts. Trump's persistent claims of election fraud and his aggressive and self-pitying behavior could fall into this category.
Illustration by The New York Times; photograph by Barbara Alper/Getty
At the beginning of March, my group chats started blowing up. Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student, had just been detained without a warrant for his speech and activism. He was a noncitizen legally in the country, just like me and like many others in my orbit. In the following weeks, the reports kept snowballing, as did my group chat messages.
I came here on a student visa 10 years ago, so watching the sudden and deliberate clampdown on the rights of people like me was disturbing and felt like a sharp departure from the policies of the first Trump administration.
There are about 16 million green card and long-term visa holders in the United States. They work in a wide range of industries, notably tech and health care, but they’re also artists, social workers and media professionals. For many, including me, moving to America and building a life here was based, in part, on the promise of freedom of speech and expression.
That guarantee is eroding under the current administration. And I wanted to know how fellow green card and long-term visa holders are contending with all the uncertainty about their place in America now.
In a recent episode of the “Opinions” podcast, four legal immigrants reflect on the reasons they chose America as their new home and their fears for the future as the Trump administration continues its attacks on immigrants and destroys whatever is left of the American way of life they aspired to.
As one of the immigrants said, while describing America’s projected identity as a bastion of freedom and hope in the world, “How can you be the beacon of hope if you’re not standing up at your house?”
Written By:
James Greenberg
Donald Trump doesn’t govern so much as he performs—an ongoing spectacle in which policy, power, and personality collapse into a single, unrelenting act of dominance. In his hands, governance becomes theater—not just in the metaphoric sense, but as a literal means of exercising control. Spectacle is not the decoration of power—it is its instrument.
From the moment he descended the golden escalator, Trump has blurred the line between statecraft and stagecraft. His rallies, firings, and public humiliations aren’t side effects of leadership—they are the main act. They reenact loyalty, inflame resentment, and project supremacy. What passes for communication is often ritualized drama. What looks like chaos is, more often than not, choreographed for emotional impact.
This isn’t new in world history. Ancient regimes understood the value of spectacle well. Roman emperors ruled as much through Triumphs and gladiatorial games as through legislation. The Colosseum wasn’t just entertainment—it was a stage for the imperial mythos, where public executions, mock battles, and displays of clemency performed the moral order of empire. The emperor sat at the center, deciding who lived and died—an image of total control. Trump, too, sits in his metaphorical box seat, orchestrating a politics of vengeance, grievance, and theatrical retribution. When he calls for locking up opponents or ridicules the vulnerable, it’s not a lapse—it’s the ritual shaming of dissent.
Likewise, the Aztec Empire mastered the theater of power. Sacrifice was not cruelty for its own sake—it was a cosmic performance, a reminder that the emperor stood between chaos and survival. The Templo Mayor was a stage as much as a sanctuary. Victims—often captives—were paraded, honored, and publicly killed to display the state’s might and the gods’ favor. The tzompantli, or skull rack, made that violence visible, permanent, unforgettable.
Trump’s stage is digital, but the logic is strikingly familiar. His enemies are made visible—migrants, journalists, political opponents, even former allies—and marked for symbolic erasure. The ritual is less bloody but no less brutal. Dehumanization becomes a script: “animals,” “vermin,” “disloyal.” The crowd is not just entertained but mobilized—through chants, memes, and participation in a collective moral purge. In this performance, cruelty is not a flaw; it is the demonstration of strength, the punishment of unbelievers, the theater of fear.
Where past presidents used symbolic politics to inspire, unify, or console, Trump uses it to divide, inflame, and dominate. FDR’s fireside chats invited trust. Reagan’s stagecraft romanticized the republic. Obama’s speeches conjured a pluralist future. Trump’s spectacle, by contrast, enacts a constant campaign of conquest—one that recycles the same message: “I am power, and you are either with me or don’t count.”
He doesn’t wield spectacle to support policy. The performance is the policy. Border walls that don’t get built. Trade wars with no strategic end. Executive orders staged for broadcast, then ignored. These aren’t failures—they’re scripted moments designed to assert dominance and provoke response. The aim is not governance but enthrallment.
This is a form of power that doesn’t just operate through commands or coercion—it reshapes the arena itself. Trump doesn’t merely fight opponents—he recasts institutions as corrupt, reframes truth as partisan, and positions himself as the sole trustworthy source of reality. Courts, science, Congress, the press—all are undermined, not through policy debate, but through performance. The presidency becomes a stage for domination, and everyone else is either cast in support—or pushed off it.
And like all ritualized systems of power, the performance disciplines others. Bureaucrats who resist are removed. Scientists who speak up are ridiculed. Inspectors general are sidelined. The cruelty isn’t hidden—it’s choreographed. The message is clear: question the leader, and you’ll be cast out. The crowd learns the script. They chant, they echo, they embrace it as their own.
This isn’t a continuation of American political tradition—it’s a mutation. Trump has taken familiar tools and stripped them of institutional ballast, repurposing performance as domination and spectacle as governance.
And as history reminds us—from Roman arenas to Aztec altars—the more a regime relies on spectacle to enforce legitimacy, the more brittle it becomes once the applause stops.
Written By:
Anne Millerram
The “One Big Beautiful Bill” moving through the United States House of Representatives is being advertised as an economic engine, but that rhetoric masks its reality.
The current bill text would grind our economy to a halt by stealing 830,000 jobs by 2030, costing America more than $1 trillion in GDP by 2034, and increasing power prices 50% by 2035 according to new Energy Innovation analysis of energy-related provisions of the 2025 House Reconciliation bill.
By killing off existing clean energy tax incentives, Congress would kneecap our ability to build new power generation fast enough to meet soaring energy demand. Electricity demand is forecast to increase up to 15.8% in the next four years, with 128 gigawatts of new load expected on the grid as the AI race heats up. But the Reconciliation bill text would force expected clean energy capacity additions to fall dramatically – 114 GW by 2030 and 302 GW by 2035 - right when we need it most.
Warning signs are flashing for our economy: Inflation is rising and 82% of Americans are already worried about a potential recession. Clean energy is what’s available right now, and it cuts costs for families and businesses. But this bill would destabilize our economic competitiveness and set us back years against China and other economies to meet rising global demand for energy technologies.
America’s economy and families simply can’t afford this bill.
America’s Manufacturing - And GDP - Could Fall Off A Cliff
Last week, the House of Representatives released its 2025 budget Reconciliation legislation. Bill text passed out of several committees would repeal existing clean energy tax credits, claw back unobligated funding, expand oil and gas leasing, repeal certain Clean Air Act programs.
The sum of these parts would weaken our economy, not strengthen it, primarily by targeting existing clean energy tax credits passed by Congress in 2022. To date, these credits have generated $321 billion in new private investment across nearly 2,400 domestic clean-energy facilities, representing 4.7% of all U.S. private investment in the first quarter of 2025, with an additional $522 billion in private sector investment announced but not yet spent across more than 2,200 facilities.
The current Reconciliation legislation undercuts these 7,000 projects, risking billions in investments, dampening economic growth, eliminating jobs, and raising energy bills for people and businesses. Just the threat of repeal has already led investors to cancel $6.9 billion worth of projects between January and March 2025.
If the bill’s changes were fully implemented, that manufacturing growth would fall off a cliff as developers would cancel a significant number of announced clean energy manufacturing facilities, dramatically decreasing clean electricity generation deployment – costing America $1.1 in lost GDP between the budget reconciliation window of 2026-2034. That’s even worse than simple Inflation Reduction Act repeal.
Energy Innovation
Clean energy investment was worth $2.1 trillion in 2024, and while America’s clean energy economy has boomed since 2022, ceding this economic opportunity by killing off a fast-growing industry will hand that investment and jobs growth to competitors like China and the European Union.
Reconciliation Risks An Energy Crisis And Massive Job Losses
Losing out on all that clean energy manufacturing and deployment doesn’t just harm our overall economy, it also cuts off our ability to build new generation fast enough to meet electricity demand that’s surging due to data centers, manufacturing, and electrification.
The Reconciliation bill would dramatically decrease power generation capacity additions, costing the country 114 GW of new clean energy generation by 2030 and 302 GW by 2035, risking an energy crisis when we need new power more than ever.
Clean energy is the fastest option for utilities to meet rising demand – it composed 90% of all new capacity added to the grid in 2024, with solar and battery storage alone making up 84% of all new generation and renewables hitting 17% of total U.S. electricity supply.
But while gas has risen to become the nation’s largest source of electricity at 40% of total generation, new gas plants face massive hurdles to coming online because turbine manufacturers facing delivery backlogs until at least 2029. “To get your hands on a gas turbine right now and to actually get it to market, you’re looking at 2030 or later,” said John Ketchum, CEO of NextEra, one of America’s largest utilities.
And don’t forget jobs. The combination of cancelled manufacturing facilities and cancelled clean energy projects would cost our economy more than 830,000 jobs in 2030 and nearly 720,000 jobs in 2035. Not only would manufacturing and construction jobs disappear, but all the related jobs that depend on people working would suffer too – think the restaurant serving lunch, the stores selling uniforms and tools, and the destinations where those workers spend their vacations.
Change in domestic jobs in the EI Reconciliation May 2025 scenario
Energy Innovation
American Families And Businesses Forced To Pay More
But the real economic danger lurking in the Reconciliation bill’s text is the price American families and businesses would have to pay.
Decreased clean energy generation plus higher fossil fuel prices from increased gas exports and oil demand would force consumers to pay more than $16 billion more in annual energy costs in 2030 and more than $33 billion more in 2035 – an average of $120 more per year for American households in 2030 and $230 per year in 2035. Meanwhile fuel and operations and maintenance costs for businesses would spike $65 billion in 2030 and $94 billion in 2035.
Energy Innovation
This would all happen even if the Reconciliation bill increases U.S. oil and gas production and fossil fuel prices decline. Price reductions from higher fuel production are more than offset by greater demand for those fuels and higher electricity costs, forcing households to pay more for their energy. More internal combustion engine vehicles on the road means more demand for gasoline and diesel, while increased reliance on burning gas to generate electricity tightens supplies – on both, higher demand increases prices.
And while gas has been relatively cheap in recent years, the U.S. Energy Information Administration forecasts gas prices will rise 91% by 2026 with “additional risk over the forecast period” from new liquefied natural gas exports.
Even new clean energy would become more expensive due to the Reconciliation bill’s proposed tax credit changes, as utilities and power market operators are forced to pay more for new generation, passing that increased cost directly through to consumers.
A shocking 34% of U.S. households had to cut back or skip necessary expenses in the past 12 months to pay energy bills, while 23% have been unable to pay part of all of their energy bill during the same time. Todd Brickhouse, CEO of North Dakota’s Basin Electric Power Cooperative, told Congress the “removal of [tech-neutral energy tax credits] will not allow utilities to plan for and avoid increased costs, and this will also immediately harm ratepayers.”
Reconciliation: One Big Beautiful Bill America Can’t Afford
With inflation rising, American households simply can’t afford another hit to their budgets. With a recession looming, American workers can’t afford to lose good jobs. And with tariff-induced trade wars on the horizon, American companies can’t afford to lose our domestic supply chain.
Add it all up, and the Reconciliation bill is a bad deal for our country.
Written By:
Anne Millerram
When U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled in April that Trvmp administration officials could face criminal contempt charges for deporting migrants in defiance of a court order, the blowback was immediate.
USA-TRVMP/JUDGES-THREATS Boasberg tweet
When Elon Mvsk shared an online post that mischaracterized the work of Judge Boasberg’s daughter, some of his followers responded on X with calls “to lock her up."
The president’s supporters unleashed a wave of threats and menacing posts. And they didn’t just target the judge. Some attacked Boasberg’s brother. Others blasted his daughter. Some demanded the family’s arrest – or execution.
U.S. District Judge John McConnell’s family endured similar threats after he ruled that President Donald Trvmp overstepped his authority in freezing grants for education and other services. Far-right provocateur Laura Loomer tweeted a photo of the judge’s daughter, who had worked at the U.S. Education Department as a policy advisor, and accused McConnell of protecting her paycheck. Billionaire Elon Mvsk amplified the post to his 219 million X followers. 𝐍𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐣𝐨𝐛 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐯𝐦𝐩’𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.
Boasberg and McConnell are among at least 11 federal judges whose families have faced threats of violence or harassment after they ruled against the new Trvmp administration, a Reuters investigation found.
The broadsides are part of an intimidation campaign directed at federal judges who have stood in the way of Trvmp’s moves to dramatically expand presidential authority and slash the federal bureaucracy. As Trvmp and his allies call for judges to be impeached or attack them as “radical left” political foes, the families of judges are being singled out for harassment.
Reuters examined hundreds of posts and comments reaching millions of people across nearly a dozen online platforms, including Mvsk-owned X and far-right websites such as Gateway Pundit and Patriots.win. The review identified calls for at least 51 federal judges to be fired, arrested or killed. All of those judges handled cases involving the new Trvmp administration. The posts and comments often echoed Trvmp’s language, describing the judges as “radical,” “leftist” or "activist."
𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑼.𝑺. 𝑴𝒂𝒓𝒔𝒉𝒂𝒍𝒔 𝑺𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒊𝒄𝒆, 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒔 𝒇𝒆𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒋𝒖𝒅𝒈𝒆𝒔, 𝒅𝒆𝒄𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒔 𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒋𝒖𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒓𝒚.
The attacks on judges’ relatives are part of a pattern of harassment and intimidation that Trvmp and his allies have used to cement their political power, silence critics and pressure the judiciary. In a remarkable admission, longtime Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said last month the threat of political retaliation by Trump has made lawmakers “afraid” to criticize the administration’s policies.
Note: The article contains offensive language because it shows some of the threats to the judges and their families.
Written By:
Oregon's Bay Area
If there’s one thing Donald Trump has achieved with stunning efficiency, it’s turning America into such a cautionary tale that the rest of the democratic world is sprinting in the opposite direction.
In Canada, Australia, and now much of Europe, voters are increasingly rejecting anyone who even smells like Trump. Pierre Poilievre’s convoy flirtations and hard-right dog whistles may thrill a certain base, but he’s hitting a wall with moderates and independents who’ve watched Trumpism play out and want nothing to do with it. In Australia, Anthony Albanese rose to power on a wave of rejection, not just of Peter Dutton’s party, but of the cynical, culture-war politics that echoed MAGA tactics. And this weekend, Romania delivered a sharp rebuke to nationalist George Simion, electing technocrat and anti-corruption crusader Nicușor Dan instead.
Trumpism may still grip a fractured, manipulated U.S. electorate, but globally? It’s radioactive.
Watching the U.S. unravel, courts defied, allies insulted, the rule of law shredded, billionaires writing policy, has had a clarifying effect. From Warsaw to Sydney, from Bucharest to Ottawa, people are realizing that the MAGA model doesn’t export well. It burns bright, and then burns everything down.
America used to export democracy. Under Trump, it started exporting chaos. The world is saying: no thanks.
Trump has been a brutal but clarifying teacher. His authoritarian swagger, disdain for norms, transactional alliances, and open admiration for strongmen like Putin have become a live demonstration of how fast democratic stability can rot from within.
Leaders like Nicușor Dan and Poland’s Rafał Trzaskowski are stepping into the breach with a message that feels almost quaint by comparison: competence, integrity, rule of law. It’s not flashy, but it’s precisely the antidote to MAGA’s chaos engine.
And while Europe has its own far-right forces, Meloni, Le Pen, AfD, Simion, the backlash in places like Romania suggests citizens are growing more resistant to spectacle and hungry for substance.
Trump’s accidental legacy abroad may end up being this: a red warning light flashing across the democratic world that says, “Beware: this is how it starts.”
follow me at marygeddry.substack.com and @magixarc.bsky.social
Written By:
Rainer Hofmann
Trump Administration Suspected of Deal with Sinaloa Cartel Allowing 17 Family Members to Enter the United States
MEXICO CITY – Amid growing controversy, media reports suggest that the Trump administration allegedly made a deal with a leader of the notorious Sinaloa Cartel, allowing 17 family members of cartel boss Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán to enter the United States. These reports are based on statements by Mexican Security Chief Omar Hamid García Harfuch and independent investigations by journalists Hofmann, Zadah, and Chaparro. What began as mere suspicion has, in recent days, developed into an increasingly dense trail — a mosaic of clues that more clearly points to an actual deal between the U.S. government and the cartel.
On May 16, 2025, Mexican Security Chief García Harfuch confirmed that 17 family members of cartel boss Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán had entered the United States — allegedly as part of a deal between the Trump administration and Guzmán’s son, Ovidio Guzmán López, a leading member of the Sinaloa Cartel.
As early as May 12, 2025, it became known that the family — including Griselda López, Ovidio's mother, several nephews, a grandson named Archivaldo, and a daughter of "El Chapo" — had presented themselves to U.S. authorities at the San Ysidro border crossing in Tijuana. They reportedly entered with several branded suitcases and over $70,000 in cash.
Mexican Authorities Confirm Reports
In an interview with Radio Fórmula, García Harfuch stated that the entry of the family members was clearly part of a "negotiation" between the U.S. Department of Justice and Ovidio Guzmán López. García Harfuch further explained that the 17 family members did not have any arrest warrants and that their entry into the United States was voluntary.
"It is very clear that negotiations with the U.S. Department of Justice led to the family entering the United States," García Harfuch said.
A Deal That Raises Questions — and Clues That Grow More Convincing
For days, we have been investigating this case intensively, and the evidence is becoming increasingly substantial. More and more indications from Mexico suggest that this deal actually took place. It is not only the statements of García Harfuch but also reports and observations from the border regions that indicate that the family members' entry was part of a negotiated agreement. These revelations stand in stark contrast to Donald Trump’s immigration policy, in which he has consistently portrayed himself as a hardliner against illegal migration and cartel-affiliated groups.
The Alleged Deal and Its Context
Ovidio Guzmán López, the son of "El Chapo," was arrested by Mexican authorities in 2023 and extradited to the United States, where he is facing charges for various drug offenses. According to court documents dated May 6, 2025, he is expected to plead guilty as part of a deal on July 9, 2025.
However, it remains unclear whether and to what extent the deal with U.S. authorities included the entry of his family members. The Trump administration has not yet issued an official statement, and neither the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) nor Ovidio Guzmán’s attorney, Jeffrey Lichtman, have responded to inquiries.
U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, sharply criticized the alleged deal, accusing President Trump of having "allowed 17 relatives of El Chapo, one of the most notorious drug lords in the world, into the United States." "What message does that send? Who knows? Maybe he got a presidential helicopter from them," Schumer said sarcastically in a Facebook video.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum demanded on May 14, 2025, that the Trump administration clarify the circumstances of the family members' entry. "It must be clarified whether there is an agreement or not. They must explain this to the people of the United States... and also to Mexico," Sheinbaum said at a press conference.
Open Questions and Lack of Transparency
While the statements of Mexican Security Chief García Harfuch and the reports by Luis Chaparro point to a deal between the Trump administration and the Sinaloa Cartel, many details remain unclear.
Were the family members brought to the United States as part of a witness protection program?
What were the terms of the alleged deal between Ovidio Guzmán López and U.S. authorities?
Why were Mexican authorities not informed in advance?
But one thing is certain: The revelations already show the potential for an explosive political and diplomatic scandal. Trump owes more than just an explanation.
Written By:
Janis Ian
This is all basically because the administration adopted the advice of a 23-year-old who had never had to do a day's work in his life except play at being a grown up CEO. The disregard for what happens when you break things, and equating "people" with "things", is a hallmark of this administration. And I certainly hope history will remember all of them that way.
From Mother Jones:
In 100 days the administration has, in no particular order:
- “Accidentally cancelled,” in Musk’s words, funding for “Ebola prevention.”
- Sent Harvard an “unauthorized” list of demands, which led the nation’s wealthiest university to stop negotiating with the administration and fight back in the courts.
- Rescinded job offers for the Veterans Crisis Line, “due to an administrative error.”
- Fired Health and Human Services employees that, according to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., “should not have been cut.”
- Accidentally fired, and tried to rehire, employees at the National Animal Health Laboratory Network who were working on the administration’s response to bird flu.
- Fired, and scrambled to rehire, people responsible for maintaining the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile.
- Fired, and then un-fired, workers at the Environmental Protection Agency.
- Fired, and then rehired, people responsible for ensuring the safety of medical devices.
- Fired workers at the Small Business Administration, then un-fired them, and then fired them again.
- Accidentally fired people who had already taken a buyout offer.
- Tried to fire 22 US attorneys, but sent the termination emails to the wrong addresses.
- “Mistakenly” gave the “normalize Indian hate” guy the power to rewrite Treasury payment systems.
- Accidentally published classified information about the National Reconnaissance Office.
- Shared an unclassified list of new CIA employees via email.
- Tried to sell a government complex that includes a secret CIA facility.
- Inadvertently put both the Justice Department and the FBI headquarters up for sale.
- Accidentally made Brian Driscoll (aka “Drizz”) acting director of the FBI and then just went with it rather than acknowledge the mixup.
- Accidentally revealed living peoples’ Social Security numbers as part of their big dump of JFK assassination files, after Trump ordered the documents released with 24 hours notice.
- Accidentally cut off the ability of people in Maine to get Social Security numbers for their newborns because, according to the acting Social Security administrator, “it looked like a strange contract.”
- Accidentally made it possible for anyone to update the Doge.gov homepage, which resulted in the words “THESE ‘EXPERTS’ LEFT THEIR DATABASE OPEN” staying up on the site for 12 hours.
- Claimed $8 billion in savings on an $8 million contract.
- Completely invented a non-existent $50 million program to supply condoms to Gaza.
- Hired a new IRS chief—on Tax Day—without telling the Treasury Secretary, leading to the new IRS chief being replaced with yet another new IRS chief three days later.
- Paid $2 billion because the acting solicitor general appealed the wrong court ruling.
- Submitted an internal legal brief saying that their congestion pricing case against New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority is bad, as an unsealed filing in their congestion pricing case.
- Added Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to an emoji-riddled group chat about war plans in Yemen.
- “Accidentally” terminated and then reinstated environmental grants in Michigan.
- Cut off funding to food programs “that were not meant to be cut.”
Announced an investigation into a non-existent medical school.
- “Mistakenly” removed Jackie Robinson and Japanese-American soldiers from the Department of Defense website.
- Imposed tariffs on an island of penguins.
- Made tariffs 4 times too high because of an incorrect math equation.
- Broke, for 10 hours, the mechanism for actually collecting tariffs.
- Accidentally told an immigration attorney from Massachusetts, who is a US citizen, she had to leave the country.
- Accidentally told Ukrainian refugees they had to leave the country.
Accidentally detained US citizens in immigration sweeps.
- Deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador due to an “administrative error.”
- Accidentally pronounced 82-year-old Ned Johnson of Seattle dead."
Written By:
Nate McMurray
OPEN LETTER: We All Saw It — A Good Man, a Tragedy, and the Cost of Silence
President Biden has cancer.
This isn’t some superficial lesion, a harmless skin spot. It’s in his bones—likely lingering for years, maybe more than a decade.
And so, the news—quietly confirmed in passing—landed with a whisper, not a thunderclap.
Maybe that’s because many of us had already been holding our breath. Because deep down, we all felt something was wrong.
The slowed gait.
The faltering sentences.
The weight in his eyes.
And we told ourselves not to look.
Or worse—we told others they were wrong for seeing it too.
Now the truth is here. And it’s heartbreaking.
Because Joe Biden is a good man.
And this is all so very sad.
I met him in 2018, when he came to help our grassroots congressional campaign. At the time, if you remember back, he wasn’t exactly on the A-list of Democratic politics. But he was one of the only national figures who cared. And I was so grateful.
We were running on fumes when the call from his team came. When told a driver was needed to meet him at the airport, I sent my brother. We had no budget for a driver. My brother is a serious, responsible guy—and, yes, a rugged John Wick-like handsome. He showed up in white gloves, trying to look official. I told him, “Take those off. You look like a hitman.” I was honestly afraid the Secret Service would pounce.
But there was no security. No handlers.
Just Joe, walking out of the Buffalo airport alone with a rolling duffel bag, wearing the kind of humility you rarely see in public life.
He didn’t blink. He laughed.
He was kind, warm, and deeply human.
He wasn’t my first choice for president.
But I believed in him. I saw him and knew he was a decent man. I thought he could beat Trump. And I was proud when he did.
But what came next wasn’t a surprise. It came slowly, then clearly: The decline. The strain. The growing disconnect.
And I felt compelled—not with anger, not with joy, but with sadness—to say: We need a new candidate.
It hurt to say that. Joe was one of the only truly kind people I’d met in politics.
But it was obvious.
We weren’t being cruel. We weren’t trying to divide the party. We were just trying to be honest—because honesty, we thought, was all of our responsibility.
But we were told to be quiet.
To trust the process.
To get in line.
We watched people who’d built reputations on truth-telling look the other way. We watched pundits scold those who dared speak plainly. I remember, after that awful debate, watching MSNBC—hearing Joe Scarborough lecture viewers for reacting the way any sane person would.
And now?
Now they’re writing books about what we all saw in real time.
Joe Biden was not fit for office anymore.
“Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members. The virtue in most request is conformity.” — Emerson
That’s exactly what happened.
We didn’t just protect Joe—we protected the illusion.
We chose unity over clarity. Comfort over truth.
And in that silence, we gave Trump his opening.
As Joe inevitably fades from public life—and, heartbreakingly, from this world—I’m left thinking not just of him, but of the country he tried to hold together. Of what he gave. And of what we failed to give in return: truth, before it was too late.
Because now we face a very different man in power.
A man driven by grievance, not grace. And it reminds us of the fragility of both democracy and life itself.
There’s a line from John Keats, written about Montmorency Falls:
“A poor Indian’s sleep / While his boat hastens to the monstrous steep…”
That’s what this has felt like for years—
A drift toward something irreversible.
And too many of us pretending it wasn’t happening.
Let this be a lesson.
Not in blame, but in courage.
We cannot, as Orwell warned, be forced to disbelieve our eyes. We must be brave. We must come from the truth.
Life is short. Fragile. Fleeting. We should not be cruel—but we cannot surrender to delusion.We cannot keep telling ourselves stories that simply aren’t true. We cannot confront the delusions of right wing politics with delusions of our own.
Because the next time we’re asked to choose between silence and truth—Let us choose truth.
Not just for the country’s sake—But for the people we claim to love.
Best,
Nate
Written By:
Anne Millerram
When U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled in April that Trvmp administration officials could face criminal contempt charges for deporting migrants in defiance of a court order, the blowback was immediate.
USA-TRVMP/JUDGES-THREATS Boasberg tweet
When Elon Mvsk shared an online post that mischaracterized the work of Judge Boasberg’s daughter, some of his followers responded on X with calls “to lock her up."
The president’s supporters unleashed a wave of threats and menacing posts. And they didn’t just target the judge. Some attacked Boasberg’s brother. Others blasted his daughter. Some demanded the family’s arrest – or execution.
U.S. District Judge John McConnell’s family endured similar threats after he ruled that President Donald Trvmp overstepped his authority in freezing grants for education and other services. Far-right provocateur Laura Loomer tweeted a photo of the judge’s daughter, who had worked at the U.S. Education Department as a policy advisor, and accused McConnell of protecting her paycheck. Billionaire Elon Mvsk amplified the post to his 219 million X followers. 𝐍𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐣𝐨𝐛 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐯𝐦𝐩’𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.
Boasberg and McConnell are among at least 11 federal judges whose families have faced threats of violence or harassment after they ruled against the new Trvmp administration, a Reuters investigation found.
The broadsides are part of an intimidation campaign directed at federal judges who have stood in the way of Trvmp’s moves to dramatically expand presidential authority and slash the federal bureaucracy. As Trvmp and his allies call for judges to be impeached or attack them as “radical left” political foes, the families of judges are being singled out for harassment.
Reuters examined hundreds of posts and comments reaching millions of people across nearly a dozen online platforms, including Mvsk-owned X and far-right websites such as Gateway Pundit and Patriots.win. The review identified calls for at least 51 federal judges to be fired, arrested or killed. All of those judges handled cases involving the new Trvmp administration. The posts and comments often echoed Trvmp’s language, describing the judges as “radical,” “leftist” or "activist."
𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑼.𝑺. 𝑴𝒂𝒓𝒔𝒉𝒂𝒍𝒔 𝑺𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒊𝒄𝒆, 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒔 𝒇𝒆𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒋𝒖𝒅𝒈𝒆𝒔, 𝒅𝒆𝒄𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒔 𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒋𝒖𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒓𝒚.
The attacks on judges’ relatives are part of a pattern of harassment and intimidation that Trvmp and his allies have used to cement their political power, silence critics and pressure the judiciary. In a remarkable admission, longtime Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said last month the threat of political retaliation by Trump has made lawmakers “afraid” to criticize the administration’s policies.
Note: The article contains offensive language because it shows some of the threats to the judges and their families.
Written By:
Oregon's Bay Area
If there’s one thing Donald Trump has achieved with stunning efficiency, it’s turning America into such a cautionary tale that the rest of the democratic world is sprinting in the opposite direction.
In Canada, Australia, and now much of Europe, voters are increasingly rejecting anyone who even smells like Trump. Pierre Poilievre’s convoy flirtations and hard-right dog whistles may thrill a certain base, but he’s hitting a wall with moderates and independents who’ve watched Trumpism play out and want nothing to do with it. In Australia, Anthony Albanese rose to power on a wave of rejection, not just of Peter Dutton’s party, but of the cynical, culture-war politics that echoed MAGA tactics. And this weekend, Romania delivered a sharp rebuke to nationalist George Simion, electing technocrat and anti-corruption crusader Nicușor Dan instead.
Trumpism may still grip a fractured, manipulated U.S. electorate, but globally? It’s radioactive.
Watching the U.S. unravel, courts defied, allies insulted, the rule of law shredded, billionaires writing policy, has had a clarifying effect. From Warsaw to Sydney, from Bucharest to Ottawa, people are realizing that the MAGA model doesn’t export well. It burns bright, and then burns everything down.
America used to export democracy. Under Trump, it started exporting chaos. The world is saying: no thanks.
Trump has been a brutal but clarifying teacher. His authoritarian swagger, disdain for norms, transactional alliances, and open admiration for strongmen like Putin have become a live demonstration of how fast democratic stability can rot from within.
Leaders like Nicușor Dan and Poland’s Rafał Trzaskowski are stepping into the breach with a message that feels almost quaint by comparison: competence, integrity, rule of law. It’s not flashy, but it’s precisely the antidote to MAGA’s chaos engine.
And while Europe has its own far-right forces, Meloni, Le Pen, AfD, Simion, the backlash in places like Romania suggests citizens are growing more resistant to spectacle and hungry for substance.
Trump’s accidental legacy abroad may end up being this: a red warning light flashing across the democratic world that says, “Beware: this is how it starts.”
follow me at marygeddry.substack.com and @magixarc.bsky.social
Written By:
Rainer Hofmann
Trump Administration Suspected of Deal with Sinaloa Cartel Allowing 17 Family Members to Enter the United States
MEXICO CITY – Amid growing controversy, media reports suggest that the Trump administration allegedly made a deal with a leader of the notorious Sinaloa Cartel, allowing 17 family members of cartel boss Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán to enter the United States. These reports are based on statements by Mexican Security Chief Omar Hamid García Harfuch and independent investigations by journalists Hofmann, Zadah, and Chaparro. What began as mere suspicion has, in recent days, developed into an increasingly dense trail — a mosaic of clues that more clearly points to an actual deal between the U.S. government and the cartel.
On May 16, 2025, Mexican Security Chief García Harfuch confirmed that 17 family members of cartel boss Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán had entered the United States — allegedly as part of a deal between the Trump administration and Guzmán’s son, Ovidio Guzmán López, a leading member of the Sinaloa Cartel.
As early as May 12, 2025, it became known that the family — including Griselda López, Ovidio's mother, several nephews, a grandson named Archivaldo, and a daughter of "El Chapo" — had presented themselves to U.S. authorities at the San Ysidro border crossing in Tijuana. They reportedly entered with several branded suitcases and over $70,000 in cash.
Mexican Authorities Confirm Reports
In an interview with Radio Fórmula, García Harfuch stated that the entry of the family members was clearly part of a "negotiation" between the U.S. Department of Justice and Ovidio Guzmán López. García Harfuch further explained that the 17 family members did not have any arrest warrants and that their entry into the United States was voluntary.
"It is very clear that negotiations with the U.S. Department of Justice led to the family entering the United States," García Harfuch said.
A Deal That Raises Questions — and Clues That Grow More Convincing
For days, we have been investigating this case intensively, and the evidence is becoming increasingly substantial. More and more indications from Mexico suggest that this deal actually took place. It is not only the statements of García Harfuch but also reports and observations from the border regions that indicate that the family members' entry was part of a negotiated agreement. These revelations stand in stark contrast to Donald Trump’s immigration policy, in which he has consistently portrayed himself as a hardliner against illegal migration and cartel-affiliated groups.
The Alleged Deal and Its Context
Ovidio Guzmán López, the son of "El Chapo," was arrested by Mexican authorities in 2023 and extradited to the United States, where he is facing charges for various drug offenses. According to court documents dated May 6, 2025, he is expected to plead guilty as part of a deal on July 9, 2025.
However, it remains unclear whether and to what extent the deal with U.S. authorities included the entry of his family members. The Trump administration has not yet issued an official statement, and neither the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) nor Ovidio Guzmán’s attorney, Jeffrey Lichtman, have responded to inquiries.
U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, sharply criticized the alleged deal, accusing President Trump of having "allowed 17 relatives of El Chapo, one of the most notorious drug lords in the world, into the United States." "What message does that send? Who knows? Maybe he got a presidential helicopter from them," Schumer said sarcastically in a Facebook video.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum demanded on May 14, 2025, that the Trump administration clarify the circumstances of the family members' entry. "It must be clarified whether there is an agreement or not. They must explain this to the people of the United States... and also to Mexico," Sheinbaum said at a press conference.
Open Questions and Lack of Transparency
While the statements of Mexican Security Chief García Harfuch and the reports by Luis Chaparro point to a deal between the Trump administration and the Sinaloa Cartel, many details remain unclear.
Were the family members brought to the United States as part of a witness protection program?
What were the terms of the alleged deal between Ovidio Guzmán López and U.S. authorities?
Why were Mexican authorities not informed in advance?
But one thing is certain: The revelations already show the potential for an explosive political and diplomatic scandal. Trump owes more than just an explanation.
Written By:
Janis Ian
This is all basically because the administration adopted the advice of a 23-year-old who had never had to do a day's work in his life except play at being a grown up CEO. The disregard for what happens when you break things, and equating "people" with "things", is a hallmark of this administration. And I certainly hope history will remember all of them that way.
From Mother Jones:
In 100 days the administration has, in no particular order:
- “Accidentally cancelled,” in Musk’s words, funding for “Ebola prevention.”
- Sent Harvard an “unauthorized” list of demands, which led the nation’s wealthiest university to stop negotiating with the administration and fight back in the courts.
- Rescinded job offers for the Veterans Crisis Line, “due to an administrative error.”
- Fired Health and Human Services employees that, according to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., “should not have been cut.”
- Accidentally fired, and tried to rehire, employees at the National Animal Health Laboratory Network who were working on the administration’s response to bird flu.
- Fired, and scrambled to rehire, people responsible for maintaining the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile.
- Fired, and then un-fired, workers at the Environmental Protection Agency.
- Fired, and then rehired, people responsible for ensuring the safety of medical devices.
- Fired workers at the Small Business Administration, then un-fired them, and then fired them again.
- Accidentally fired people who had already taken a buyout offer.
- Tried to fire 22 US attorneys, but sent the termination emails to the wrong addresses.
- “Mistakenly” gave the “normalize Indian hate” guy the power to rewrite Treasury payment systems.
- Accidentally published classified information about the National Reconnaissance Office.
- Shared an unclassified list of new CIA employees via email.
- Tried to sell a government complex that includes a secret CIA facility.
- Inadvertently put both the Justice Department and the FBI headquarters up for sale.
- Accidentally made Brian Driscoll (aka “Drizz”) acting director of the FBI and then just went with it rather than acknowledge the mixup.
- Accidentally revealed living peoples’ Social Security numbers as part of their big dump of JFK assassination files, after Trump ordered the documents released with 24 hours notice.
- Accidentally cut off the ability of people in Maine to get Social Security numbers for their newborns because, according to the acting Social Security administrator, “it looked like a strange contract.”
- Accidentally made it possible for anyone to update the Doge.gov homepage, which resulted in the words “THESE ‘EXPERTS’ LEFT THEIR DATABASE OPEN” staying up on the site for 12 hours.
- Claimed $8 billion in savings on an $8 million contract.
- Completely invented a non-existent $50 million program to supply condoms to Gaza.
- Hired a new IRS chief—on Tax Day—without telling the Treasury Secretary, leading to the new IRS chief being replaced with yet another new IRS chief three days later.
- Paid $2 billion because the acting solicitor general appealed the wrong court ruling.
- Submitted an internal legal brief saying that their congestion pricing case against New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority is bad, as an unsealed filing in their congestion pricing case.
- Added Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to an emoji-riddled group chat about war plans in Yemen.
- “Accidentally” terminated and then reinstated environmental grants in Michigan.
- Cut off funding to food programs “that were not meant to be cut.”
Announced an investigation into a non-existent medical school.
- “Mistakenly” removed Jackie Robinson and Japanese-American soldiers from the Department of Defense website.
- Imposed tariffs on an island of penguins.
- Made tariffs 4 times too high because of an incorrect math equation.
- Broke, for 10 hours, the mechanism for actually collecting tariffs.
- Accidentally told an immigration attorney from Massachusetts, who is a US citizen, she had to leave the country.
- Accidentally told Ukrainian refugees they had to leave the country.
Accidentally detained US citizens in immigration sweeps.
- Deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador due to an “administrative error.”
- Accidentally pronounced 82-year-old Ned Johnson of Seattle dead."
Written By:
Nate McMurray
OPEN LETTER: We All Saw It — A Good Man, a Tragedy, and the Cost of Silence
President Biden has cancer.
This isn’t some superficial lesion, a harmless skin spot. It’s in his bones—likely lingering for years, maybe more than a decade.
And so, the news—quietly confirmed in passing—landed with a whisper, not a thunderclap.
Maybe that’s because many of us had already been holding our breath. Because deep down, we all felt something was wrong.
The slowed gait.
The faltering sentences.
The weight in his eyes.
And we told ourselves not to look.
Or worse—we told others they were wrong for seeing it too.
Now the truth is here. And it’s heartbreaking.
Because Joe Biden is a good man.
And this is all so very sad.
I met him in 2018, when he came to help our grassroots congressional campaign. At the time, if you remember back, he wasn’t exactly on the A-list of Democratic politics. But he was one of the only national figures who cared. And I was so grateful.
We were running on fumes when the call from his team came. When told a driver was needed to meet him at the airport, I sent my brother. We had no budget for a driver. My brother is a serious, responsible guy—and, yes, a rugged John Wick-like handsome. He showed up in white gloves, trying to look official. I told him, “Take those off. You look like a hitman.” I was honestly afraid the Secret Service would pounce.
But there was no security. No handlers.
Just Joe, walking out of the Buffalo airport alone with a rolling duffel bag, wearing the kind of humility you rarely see in public life.
He didn’t blink. He laughed.
He was kind, warm, and deeply human.
He wasn’t my first choice for president.
But I believed in him. I saw him and knew he was a decent man. I thought he could beat Trump. And I was proud when he did.
But what came next wasn’t a surprise. It came slowly, then clearly: The decline. The strain. The growing disconnect.
And I felt compelled—not with anger, not with joy, but with sadness—to say: We need a new candidate.
It hurt to say that. Joe was one of the only truly kind people I’d met in politics.
But it was obvious.
We weren’t being cruel. We weren’t trying to divide the party. We were just trying to be honest—because honesty, we thought, was all of our responsibility.
But we were told to be quiet.
To trust the process.
To get in line.
We watched people who’d built reputations on truth-telling look the other way. We watched pundits scold those who dared speak plainly. I remember, after that awful debate, watching MSNBC—hearing Joe Scarborough lecture viewers for reacting the way any sane person would.
And now?
Now they’re writing books about what we all saw in real time.
Joe Biden was not fit for office anymore.
“Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members. The virtue in most request is conformity.” — Emerson
That’s exactly what happened.
We didn’t just protect Joe—we protected the illusion.
We chose unity over clarity. Comfort over truth.
And in that silence, we gave Trump his opening.
As Joe inevitably fades from public life—and, heartbreakingly, from this world—I’m left thinking not just of him, but of the country he tried to hold together. Of what he gave. And of what we failed to give in return: truth, before it was too late.
Because now we face a very different man in power.
A man driven by grievance, not grace. And it reminds us of the fragility of both democracy and life itself.
There’s a line from John Keats, written about Montmorency Falls:
“A poor Indian’s sleep / While his boat hastens to the monstrous steep…”
That’s what this has felt like for years—
A drift toward something irreversible.
And too many of us pretending it wasn’t happening.
Let this be a lesson.
Not in blame, but in courage.
We cannot, as Orwell warned, be forced to disbelieve our eyes. We must be brave. We must come from the truth.
Life is short. Fragile. Fleeting. We should not be cruel—but we cannot surrender to delusion.We cannot keep telling ourselves stories that simply aren’t true. We cannot confront the delusions of right wing politics with delusions of our own.
Because the next time we’re asked to choose between silence and truth—Let us choose truth.
Not just for the country’s sake—But for the people we claim to love.
Best,
Nate
Written By:
Andrea Lamkin
A CRUSHING DEFEAT FOR TRUMP
It was one of those political defeats that even a man like Donald Trump cannot ignore. A bill bearing his name, celebrated as the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” collapsed under resistance from his own ranks. It was supposed to be a masterpiece of conservative policy – a package of tax cuts and spending reductions meant to strengthen the U.S. economy and anchor Trump’s agenda for a second term. But instead, the president stands empty-handed.
The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" – 1,116 pages long, filled with tax cuts and savings – would have granted generous relief to the wealthy while slashing billions from health and social programs. It was a bill that fit Trump's vision of America: a country where wealth is rewarded, and poverty is seen as personal failure.
But what was planned as a triumph turned into a farce. In the House Budget Committee, where the bill was expected to pass smoothly, resistance arose from within. Conservative Republicans rebelled – a small but influential group demanding deeper cuts, especially to Medicaid. They wanted new work requirements for welfare recipients to take effect immediately, not in 2029. They insisted that green energy tax breaks be abolished immediately – and that no new debt be incurred to fund Trump’s tax cuts.
“We are writing checks we cannot cash,” warned Texas Representative Chip Roy, and his words echoed through the ranks of the rebellion. Alongside him stood Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma, and Andrew Clyde of Georgia. Even Lloyd Smucker, who initially voted for the bill, switched his position and ultimately voted against it.
At the same time, a very different opposition formed – this time from high-tax states like New York. Republicans from these regions demanded higher deductions for state and local taxes (SALT). Their argument: they could not support a bill that disadvantaged their voters while benefiting the wealthy.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Trump ally, saw his plan to fast-track the package fail. “Something needs to change, or you’re not going to get my support,” said Chip Roy.
And so, the “One Big Beautiful Bill” shattered under its own contradictions – too generous for the rich, too harsh on the poor, too radical for some, not radical enough for others.
Trump, returning from the Middle East, had to watch as his grand vision crumbled in the halls of Congress. A president who saw himself as an unstoppable force, stopped by his own party.
What remains is a lesson Trump will find hard to accept: Even power needs restraint. And even a “beautiful, big bill” can become ugly when it is torn apart by its own allies.
Written By:
Steve Carpentier
Monday Morning Dispatch from the Retirement Bunker
Well, here we are again—another beautiful Monday morning in Trump’s America.
Tornadoes just tore through towns like God had a grudge. Dozens dead.
A fertility clinic—where people literally go to make life—was bombed in what they’re calling a terrorist attack.
And a ship? Yeah, that crashed right into the Brooklyn Bridge, killing more people.
And in the middle of all this holy hellfire, our Fearless Leader, the One True Genius, the Orange Miracle himself?
Silent.
Not a word of comfort.
No address to the nation.
Not even a stiff little “sad!” in all caps.
Instead, he’s firing off digital cannonballs about Bruce Springsteen, Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, Oprah, and—I swear on my AARP card—even Bono.
Because THAT, my fellow patriots, is what real presidents focus on during national tragedy: celebrity grudges and unhinged conspiracy theories about illegal campaign concerts.
Now look—I know I’ve said it before, but I mean it this time: we have got to get this man’s face on Mt. Rushmore.
I don’t care if we have to chisel him in orange granite and build a wall around the mountain to keep facts out—he’s earned it.
No president in history has ever shown this level of commitment to ignoring tragedy while escalating delusion.
Lincoln freed the slaves.
FDR beat the Nazis.
Trump? He took on The Boss and Beyoncé while the country burned.
Give. That. Man. A mountain.
So buckle up, America. We’re not just living in the end times—we’re galloping toward the dumbest apocalypse in recorded history, led by a man who thinks Spotify is a Deep State op.
And me? I’ll be out back carving a MAGA hat into a pile of sandstone. One patriotic chip at a time.
In the meantime, my fellow Americans, keep the faith. There seems to be a bit of light coming from the end of this dark tunnel. So keep resisting.
Written By:
Fear and Loathing: Closer to the Edge
People know very little about the writers at Closer to the Edge. That's by design — anonymity keeps us safe, and frankly, most of us prefer to let the work speak for itself. The other writers here can keep it that way if they want, but I’m going to break tradition for a moment. I want to share something personal with you because I think it helps drive home the points I’m about to make.
I have Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease — a neurological disorder that messes with the way my body feels. The nerves that are supposed to carry messages — hot, cold, sharp, dull — don’t always arrive on time, or sometimes they don’t show up at all. It’s like my nervous system is a mailman who spends half his shift napping in the truck before remembering he’s supposed to deliver the news.
That’s how I ended up burning my hand on a hot stove once — not just a light touch, but a full-on sizzle because my nerves didn’t get the memo fast enough. I didn’t feel it until the damage was done, like my brain was buffering on a slow internet connection. Same thing happened when someone thought it’d be funny to ‘hot foot’ me — holding a lighter under my foot as a joke. I couldn’t react fast enough, and what should’ve been a stupid prank ended with me nursing a burn worse than it needed to be.
With CMT, some days are manageable — I can walk, move, and function with relative ease. Other days, my legs feel like they’ve been swapped out with rusted bicycle chains. The nerves in my feet might decide they’re on strike, or my hands will struggle with simple things like zippers and buttons.
The thing about living with a condition like this is that it doesn’t just affect my ability to feel physically — it shapes how I understand feeling in a broader sense. Pain doesn’t always announce itself the way it’s supposed to. Discomfort can sneak up on you, lingering in the background before it suddenly flares up and becomes impossible to ignore. In that way, living with CMT feels a lot like watching this country gut its safety net — the slow, creeping cruelty of it all building quietly in the background until it’s too late.
That's why Medicaid work requirements infuriate me. They're written by people who don't feel anything — not physically, not emotionally. They’re built on the cold logic of bureaucracy, demanding that disabled people prove they deserve healthcare. It's a policy designed by people who see suffering as a checkbox — a test you have to pass to justify your right to survive.
The whole thing exposes how little these lawmakers understand about what it means to feel — physically, emotionally, or otherwise. Pain isn’t something you can measure on a spreadsheet, and suffering doesn’t follow a schedule. The people pushing these policies — the Mike Johnsons of the world — are numb to the reality they’re inflicting on others, demanding that disabled Americans crawl through endless bureaucratic hoops to prove their suffering is ‘real’ while cashing his taxpayer-funded paycheck without a second thought.
If these Republicans had their way, Stephen Hawking would’ve been stacking boxes in a Walmart warehouse to ‘prove’ he really needed his wheelchair. And even then, they’d probably tell him to try harder.
The irony is that I’ve learned more about empathy from living with a malfunctioning nervous system than these so-called ‘leaders’ ever will. When you can’t always trust your body to warn you about pain, you develop a heightened sense for what others might be feeling — the exhaustion they’re hiding, the discomfort they’re pushing through, the quiet panic that comes with pretending you’re fine when you’re really not. CMT forces you to pay attention to what’s not being said — the things that are invisible to anyone too self-absorbed to notice.
That's what makes these Medicaid work requirements so uniquely cruel. They punish people for the very thing they can’t control. This isn’t about budgets, or fraud, or ‘lazy people gaming the system.’ It’s about cruelty for sport — a cold-blooded attempt to make vulnerable people jump through endless hoops just to prove they deserve care.
Written By:
One Match
So let’s get this straight: Donald Trump—the sitting President of the United States in 2025—is now openly bragging about crafting a national budget to punish blue states and reward only Republican-led ones?
This isn’t fiscal policy. It’s political vengeance wrapped in a budget bill.
Mr. Trump, you don’t get to decide which Americans deserve help based on the color of their state. That’s not leadership—that’s authoritarian rot. You swore an oath to serve all Americans, not just your fan club at rallies. This country is not your personal playground, and the budget isn’t a bribe for loyalty.
Let’s talk facts: blue states are the ones that pay the bills. California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts—year after year, these states pay far more in federal taxes than they receive. Meanwhile, many of the red states you coddle take in more than they contribute. We fund your pet projects. We underwrite your bailouts. And yet you want to strip us of the benefits we paid for?
Enough.
If blue states stopped bankrolling this country, the red states you pander to would collapse under their own hypocrisy.
This isn’t just bad governance—it’s economic sabotage, and it proves once again that Trump isn’t a president. He’s a petty tyrant who plays favorites with the future of the nation.
But here’s the part he always underestimates:
We have more power than he thinks we do.
Blue states control the cash.
And we’re done being taken for granted.
Written By:
Amanda Rosen
In case y’all missed it… the economy’s doing that thing again where it looks strong on paper but feels harder every month in real life. And I have thoughts about why.
We’ve got tariffs. We’ve got tax cuts. We’ve got a downgraded credit rating. We’ve got a declining birth rate. And none of that sounds like it belongs in the same paragraph… but stick with me. Because they absolutely do.
Yeah it’s long. Read it or don’t. I put **** to break up sections.
First, the tax cuts.
The newest budget bill is being sold as a win for families. Immediate relief to our current situation.
And it does seem that way. There’s an increase in the child tax credit. The standard deduction expands a bit. No tax on tips or overtime.
But (there’s always a but)… most of these expire by 2028. Either they revert back or disappear completely.
(BTW: the bill is over 1,000 pages long. You know people are not reading this in full. So. There’s that.)
Anyway.
That’s called a “tax cliff.” You wake up one year owing way more without realizing what changed… unless your accountant warned you, or you happened to be following the fine print.
Meanwhile, wealthier households keep benefiting, because when our relief expires, theirs often kicks in.
And to “pay” for all this? Bc you’ve gotta pay for tax cuts. Tax cuts = less federal revenue.
There are proposed cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and programs real families rely on.
Fun fact: the bill doesn’t propose less spending. It actually increases spending over the next decade and the cuts do not our pace that.
That equals a bigger deficit.
This bill doesn’t shrink spending. It just shifts the burden. Cuts to social programs fill the gap… and that directly affects the middle and working class. Aka. You. And me.
And for the record, I get the appeal of short-term help.
I’ve lived through the kind of months where we had to rank the mortgage, the groceries, and the utilities in order of importance. Like as recent as a couple months ago. I know what survival mode looks like.
But I also know how easy it is to trade short-term relief for long-term struggle.
So really think your support for these tax cuts through, okay?
******
Now… the credit downgrade.
Moody’s dropped the U.S. from its perfect AAA rating because our debt is ballooning with no real plan to fix it.
Quick crash course:
Moody’s is one of the “Big Three” credit rating agencies (alongside S&P and Fitch). They give a kind of report card to countries and companies based on how trustworthy they are as borrowers.
The U.S. borrows a lot.
Every year we run a deficit and issue Treasury bonds.
A good credit rating keeps our borrowing costs low.
But now we’ve been downgraded to AA+… which signals more risk.
What does that mean? Here’s what I’ve pieced together:
>> The government pays more interest, in order to sell its debt off
>> That increases costs. Banks pass higher costs onto us
>> You pay more on your mortgage, your car loan, your credit card
And when the government spends more just to pay interest? There’s less money for the programs families need. Less room for future fixes. Less ability to recover.
****
That brings us to tariffs.
They’re here. They’re gone. They’re here again. And even with “renegotiations,” they’re higher than they’ve been in decades, approaching levels that preceded the Great Depression.
Y’all Ferris Bueller’s Day Off OGs know.
Tariffs = taxes. Corporations pass the cost along. You feel it at the grocery store. Walmart literally said this. Small businesses are saying it too.
Even worse, countries are dodging tariffs through something called trans-shipping… heard of it?
Google it. Or don’t. I’ll tell ya about it…
It’s routing goods through third countries and slapping a new label on them.
The goods still come in. But now they’re more expensive and harder to track.
BTW… with federal job cuts AND a federal hiring freeze that means less people staffed to collect tariffs. Haven’t seen this talked about ANYWHERE. The party that wants to cut fraud and waste sure is creating a lot of loopholes!
Tariffs slow down economies. They hurt consumers. That’s why inflation still feels high. That’s why prices at checkout haven’t “cooled.” That’s why basic life feels more expensive.
****
So what does it all mean?
The tax cuts, the lower credit rating, the tariffs… they make life more expensive.
They make the future more uncertain.
They make starting, or growing, a family feel like a risk.
That’s where the birth rate comes in.
We’re not having fewer kids because we hate babies or don’t understand how our bodies work.
We’re having fewer kids because it feels impossible.
A downgraded economy. Support programs on the chopping block. Paychecks swallowed by inflation. A childcare system that costs as much as rent.
It’s all connected.
You can’t call yourself “pro-family” and make it harder to afford food, housing, or parental leave.
If we want people to have kids, we need to stop treating parenting like a luxury item.
Tariffs, tax cuts, credit ratings… these aren’t abstract policies.
They shape daily life. We interact with them all day long without knowing it.
They affect whether someone buys diapers this week. Whether they can afford a home. Whether they have another child.
These are kitchen table decisions.
****
So what can we do? Because all of this feels huge.
Here’s what I keep coming back to: we have two choices.
We can feel overwhelmed and tune it out.
Or we can pull some levers that still exist:
1. Pay attention to local and state budgets.
State leaders control Medicaid, childcare, schools, and housing—even if federal help disappears. Show up. Call. Ask where your tax dollars are going.
2. Push for real family policy—not baby bonuses.
If someone says they’re “pro-family,” ask where they stand on:
>> Paid leave
>> Affordable childcare
>> Maternal health
>> School funding
>> Housing & wage stability
They don’t need to agree with you on everything. Get over needing to be 100% agreed with. Seriously.
But they do need to be specific with a PLAN. No concepts of a plan allowed anymore.
3. Vote in the primaries. Seriously.
Primary turnout is low. That’s when we actually pick our choices. Want better ones? Show up before November.
4. Talk about it.
Online, at dinner, with people who vote differently.
Tariffs, tax brackets, and interest rates aren’t niche issues… they affect our grocery bills and family planning. Bring it up.
5. Get loud between elections.
Silence = consent.
Email your reps. Submit public comments. Support orgs doing the work.
Above all… remember: we don’t have to solve everything to do something. Perfection is the enemy of progress and compromise. Be open.
We don’t need an economics degree to notice when the math isn’t mathing. We live it. Daily.
Speak up. Ask better questions. Vote with your values and your receipts.
And remember: they work for us. Not the other way around.
Written By:
Jack Rigdon
Title: The Loyalist Thread: How America’s Authoritarian Impulse Keeps Reappearing
By Jack Rigdon
⸻
Every nation has its ghosts. For America, some of the most persistent are the Loyalist, the Confederate, and now, the MAGA. Across centuries, in different guises and uniforms, the same archetype appears: a population segment deeply resistant to change, drawn to hierarchy, and willing to trade liberty for the comfort of strongman rule, generally speaking.
This isn’t partisan—it’s about examining recurring psychological patterns, cultural inheritance, and regional identity. The throughline from the Loyalists of the American Revolution, to the Confederates of the Civil War, to the MAGA movement of today, isn’t one of direct lineage so much as it is ideological DNA—passed down, reinforced, and rebranded for the times.
The Loyalists: Order Over Rebellion
In the 1770s, as revolutionary sentiment swept through the colonies, not everyone joined the cry for independence. Roughly a third of Americans remained loyal to the British Crown. They feared the instability of rebellion, believed in the legitimacy of monarchy, and—most importantly—distrusted the masses to govern themselves wisely.
These Loyalists weren’t cowards; they were guardians of the status quo, skeptical of revolution and reluctant to let go of centralized authority. Many fled to Canada or Britain after the war, but those who stayed quietly reintegrated—bringing with them a lingering reverence for order, tradition, and hierarchy.
The Confederacy: Rebellion for Hierarchy
Fast-forward 90 years. The Confederacy rose not as an echo of Loyalist submission, but as a mirror-image rebellion—one that fought not to escape tyranny, but to preserve it. The Southern cause was rooted in a defense of slavery, aristocracy, and rigid social structure. The federal government’s growing influence was seen as an existential threat to a way of life built on racial superiority and states’ rights.
After defeat, this worldview didn’t die. It simply morphed into mythology—the Lost Cause narrative, which romanticized Southern valor while rewriting history to obscure the brutal realities of slavery and sedition. For generations, this mythology fueled opposition to civil rights, desegregation, and federal oversight.
MAGA: The Populist King Complex
And now, we have MAGA.
At its core, the MAGA movement is not a conservative ideology—it is a populist cult of personality. It demands loyalty not to a Constitution, but to a man. It rejects facts, institutions, and democratic norms in favor of emotional allegiance, grievance narratives, and nostalgia for an America that never truly existed.
In doing so, it revives both the Loyalist reverence for hierarchy and the Confederate resistance to egalitarianism. It distrusts intellectualism, glorifies strength over nuance, and clings to the belief that only one man can “fix” a system that was deliberately designed to be unfixable by one person.
What ties all three eras together is not a political platform, but a psychological profile:
• Fear of social upheaval
• Desire for order and control
• Rejection of pluralism
• Worship of centralized, paternal power
These traits recur not randomly, but geographically and culturally. The South, rural Appalachia, and regions once home to Loyalist sentiment are again where this mindset thrives. It’s not genetic—but it is inherited, socially and ideologically.
A Republic, If We Can Keep It
America has always been a paradox: a republic born from revolution, yet haunted by anti-democratic impulses. Each generation faces the question: Do we trust the people, or do we retreat into the comfort of a king?
Loyalists said, “Stay with the crown.”
Confederates said, “Defy the union.”
MAGA says, “Trust the man, not the system.”
All three answer the same emotional need: to be protected, not empowered. But history tells us where that path leads—to tyranny wrapped in the flag, and obedience sold as patriotism.
If we’re serious about preserving liberty, we must not only confront authoritarianism when it arrives—we must recognize it when it returns. And it always returns.
⸻
Jack Rigdon is an author and civic reform advocate exploring historical cycles and their modern parallels.
Written By:
Jack Rigdon
JEFFERSON:
Mr. Trump. I’ve read your speeches. Watched your conduct. Heard your calls for loyalty—not to the Constitution, but to yourself. Tell me plainly—do you believe in a government of laws or of men?
TRUMP (smirking):
Look, Tom—can I call you Tom? Here’s the deal. The people love me. Nobody’s ever had support like I’ve got. We’re restoring order. Power was too spread out—too many weak people in the way. I’m just doing what works.
JEFFERSON:
What works in the short term often destroys the long term. Power unchecked becomes tyranny. We saw it in kings. You are not crowned, Mr. Trump—you are elected. And you serve only by the consent of the governed.
TRUMP:
Consent? I got 74 million votes. That’s consent. And when the system’s rigged, when the media lies, when judges don’t play fair—you better believe I’ll take control. The people want strength.
JEFFERSON:
The people also wanted Caesar. And they lost their Republic.
When fear and faction replace truth and principle, democracy becomes a performance—just a stage for the loudest voice. That is not strength. That is spectacle.
TRUMP (leaning forward):
What’s wrong with spectacle? You think anyone remembers quiet leaders? No—they remember winners. We’re making America great again. Strong borders. Strong economy. Strong leadership.
JEFFERSON:
Greatness without virtue is just empire. We declared independence to escape strongmen who mistook authority for righteousness. I wrote those words so no future ruler—elected or not—could forget the limits of power.
TRUMP:
That was 250 years ago. Things are different now. We’ve got enemies everywhere—inside and out. You’ve got to fight fire with fire. The press is the enemy. Judges don’t listen. Congress? Useless. You think your little parchment still applies?
JEFFERSON (coldly):
Yes. And if it no longer applies, then the Republic is already lost.
You speak of enemies, but you divide your own countrymen. You praise autocrats. You mock reason. You stir up mobs and silence dissent. You do not preserve the Union—you fracture it.
TRUMP:
I know loyalty. I know winning. You’re too idealistic. This isn’t the Age of Reason anymore—it’s the age of survival.
JEFFERSON:
And in trading liberty for survival, you will have neither.
I did not risk treason against a king to see my country fall under the rule of another—in a red tie instead of a crown.
Power must always serve the people—not bend them to its will.
TRUMP (standing up):
You had your time, Tom. You wrote your fancy words. I’m doing what has to be done.
JEFFERSON (softly, yet fiercely):
And I wrote those words for moments exactly like this.
When the flame of liberty flickers low…
When truth is drowned out by volume…
When one man seeks to become more than the people who gave him power…
That’s when patriots must rise—not with muskets—but with memory. With courage. With principle.
Because tyranny never knocks—it slips in through applause.
⸻
[The room falls silent. A storm brews outside. One man believes he is saving the country by dominating it. The other knows it can only be saved by freeing it.]
Written By:
Jack Rigdon
How America Was Born—and Why It Matters Right Now
A long time ago, the people of Athens built something amazing. They believed in freedom, open debate, and the idea that every citizen had a voice. It was one of the first real experiments in democracy. But over time, they lost it.
Why?
Because they got distracted by power. They stopped thinking deeply. They let loudmouths take control. They fought among themselves. And eventually, everything they built fell apart from the inside.
Fast forward to the 1700s—Thomas Jefferson was paying attention. He saw what had happened in Athens and asked the big question: “How can we build a free country that doesn’t make the same mistakes?”
So he sat down and wrote the Declaration of Independence.
It wasn’t just a breakup letter to the King of England—it was a blueprint for something better:
• A country built on reason, not rage
• Rights that couldn’t be taken away by the loudest mob
• A system that encouraged thought, debate, and progress—not control, fear, or silence
That document, along with the Constitution, is what made America great in the first place. Not slogans. Not flags. Not blind loyalty. But the idea that people should think freely, speak openly, and live equally under fair laws.
And that’s exactly what we’re in danger of forgetting.
We’re watching some of the same cracks form that destroyed Athens:
Division, distraction, anti-intellectualism, and power-hungry voices drowning out reason.
If we want to save this country, we have to go back to the source.
To Jefferson’s words.
To Enlightenment values.
To the kind of America that’s built on freedom of thought—not fear of truth.
Because if we lose that, we’re not just losing politics—we’re losing the soul of what this country was meant to be.
Written By:
Jack Rigdon
Athens, Philadelphia, and the Descent into Myth
I. The Founding as a Break from Darkness
When Thomas Jefferson and the other Founders drafted the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they were doing more than forming a new nation. They were consciously breaking away from centuries of monarchy, divine right, and theocratic control—from a world where kings ruled by the will of gods, and dissent was heresy.
The Greeks had done this first.
They challenged their gods, not worshipped them blindly. They debated justice in the streets, not obeyed it from above. They created democracy, not divine monarchy.
Jefferson echoed that legacy when he wrote:
“Almighty God hath created the mind free.”
And then built a system where that freedom was the foundation of law.
⸻
II. The Constitution as a Fortress of Reason
Our Constitution is not a mystical document.
It is a rational structure, designed with:
• Checks and balances to prevent tyranny.
• Rights and liberties not granted by rulers, but protected from them.
• A framework rooted in reasoned debate, not divine prophecy.
It is Greek in origin, Enlightenment in spirit, and uniquely American in application.
And yet today, the fortress is crumbling—not from outside invasion, but from within, through:
• Religious nationalism that seeks to replace secular law with divine command.
• Authoritarian rhetoric that elevates leaders to messianic status.
• Widespread ignorance of what the Constitution even says, let alone why it was written.
⸻
III. The Return to Myth and Messiah
What the Greeks fled—and what our Founders rejected—was the belief that truth comes from authority, that power is sacred, and that obedience is virtue.
Yet today:
• QAnon thrives like a modern-day Oracle at Delphi, spewing coded nonsense as divine truth.
• Political leaders are idolized, not questioned.
• Christianity is weaponized, stripped of humility, and repurposed into a theology of control.
This is not progress.
This is reversion—back to the Eastern mysticism and unquestionable rule that Hamilton warned about in The Greek Way, and Jefferson sought to liberate us from.
⸻
IV. The Tragic Ignorance of the Masses
Perhaps the most dangerous part is this:
Most of the people crying loudest about “freedom” today have no idea what it actually meant to the men who wrote the word into law.
They do not study Athens.
They do not understand Locke or Jefferson.
They do not grasp that freedom is not the right to dominate others or enforce faith—it is the right to think, question, and be left alone by power.
As Jefferson said:
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free… it expects what never was and never will be.”
⸻
V. We Are Not Moving Forward. We Are Being Dragged Back.
Dragged back into myth.
Dragged back into fear-based obedience.
Dragged back into a world where power is divine and dissent is damnable.
This is not a Christian revival.
It is a political hijacking of faith—a return to the very dark ages of control that the Greeks once shattered and our Constitution tried to guard against forever.
⸻
Conclusion: The Divergence
Where the Greeks gave us reason, we now embrace emotion.
Where Jefferson built on skepticism of power, we now idolize it.
Where the Constitution protected the freedom of the individual, today’s movement demands submission to a single ideology—wrapped in flags, Bibles, and fear.
We are standing at a historical divergence:
• One road leads back to Athens, Jefferson, and liberty.
• The other leads to blind faith, authoritarian rule, and the destruction of the very freedoms we pretend to cherish.
Let us ask ourselves—not just how we arrived here—but whether we are willing to turn back toward the light.
Or continue into another dark tunnel?
Written By:
Jack Rigdon
The Greatest Reversal in American History
Sometimes I sit back and honestly ask myself: How did we get here?
How did we go from Thomas Jefferson writing the Declaration of Independence—a document rooted in the freedom of the individual, freedom from state-enforced religion, and freedom to think, speak, believe, or not believe at all—to a place where one man is telling us what freedom is, what truth is, and what kind of religion makes us more American?
Jefferson saw firsthand the danger of letting government and religion mix.
He knew that once you turn faith into law, you stop getting virtue—you start getting violence, division, and eventually tyranny.
That’s why he made it clear:
“Almighty God hath created the mind free.”
And now?
We have Americans being told that only one political party holds the truth.
That only one man can save us.
That real patriotism means following, not questioning.
That Christianity is somehow now a political identity.
Let me ask something—not to attack, but to honestly reflect:
Isn’t that the very thing our founders broke away from?
Trump didn’t write the Declaration.
He didn’t design the Constitution.
He didn’t believe in limiting executive power—he expands it.
He didn’t protect religious liberty—he exploits it.
He doesn’t unite people under truth—he divides them with slogans and fear.
And yet somehow, millions of people believe he’s restoring American freedom?
Friends, that’s not freedom.
That’s a carefully repackaged version of the very tyranny we declared independence from in 1776.
And what makes it worse is that it’s being done under the name of God.
Not the God of personal conscience.
Not the God of love and humility.
But a God shaped to match one man’s ego.
It’s shocking, yes.
But it’s also heartbreaking—because many of these people truly believe they’re fighting for something righteous. They just don’t realize that what they’re defending is the very thing Jefferson warned us about.
We’re not in 1776 anymore.
We’re standing at a crossroads, and if we’re not careful, we’ll lose everything Jefferson—and Athens before him—fought to give us:
Not just government by the people,
but freedom of thought,
freedom of faith,
and the freedom to say no to those who claim to speak for God.
Written By:
Anthony Simon
Donald Trump has a nuclear meltdown after Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation report is released — revealing that the evidence was "sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction" if the trial had gone to court.
This is a bombshell of historic proportions...
"The department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a president is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government’s proof or the merits of the prosecution, which the office stands fully behind," Smith wrote.
"Indeed, but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial," he went on.
The 137-page report was delivered by the Justice Department to Congress shortly after midnight on Tuesday and the contents are utterly damning.
The document tears into Trump for attempting to undermine and destroy our democracy by reversing the 2020 election and for repeatedly encouraging "violence against his perceived opponents" in the weeks leading up to January 6th.
Smith wrote that Trump was clearly to blame for the Capitol insurrection and pointed to the fact that numerous convicted rioters testified that they believed they were carrying out Trump's wishes.
The report was the result of an exhaustive investigation and included interviews with over 250 people as well as grand jury testimony from over 55 witnesses.
Smith strongly suggested prosecution in the report, citing Trump's "unprecedented criminal effort to overturn the legitimate results of the election in order to retain power."
Trump lashed out at Smith over the report in trademark fashion with a frantic Truth Social post—
"Deranged Jack Smith was unable to successfully prosecute the Political Opponent of his 'boss,' Crooked Joe Biden, so he ends up writing yet another 'Report' based on information that the Unselect Committee of Political Hacks and Thugs ILLEGALLY DESTROYED AND DELETED, because it showed how totally innocent I was, and how completely guilty Nancy Pelosi, and others, were," Trump wrote, lobbing some of his usual baseless lies.
"Jack is a lamebrain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the Election, which I won in a landslide. THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!" he added.
The truth is that Trump knows that he's guilty and that history will judge him accordingly. He may be in the White House for a few years, but he'll be a felon forever.
Written By:
Mary Whitmer on May 19, 2025
My Cousin Works at her law firm.
Whitmer & Ehrman LLC
In 1215, 20 miles west of London on Runnymede meadow beside the Thames River, some very determined noblemen gave the incompetent and cruel King John a choice: sign the Magna Carta or surrender his throne. The Magna Carta’s 63 clauses were written in Latin. In the ensuing 800 years, almost all of them have been superseded by statute or time. Two live on. Clause 39 protects against arbitrary imprisonment. Clause 40 guarantees justice free from interference to the King. These “golden clauses,” as they are known, form the basis of American due process of law.
When my grandmother (a reporter for the Cleveland Plain Dealer) traveled to London in the 1970s, she purchased for my father, a lawyer, both a replica of the Latin Magna Carta and its English translation. They hung on the wall of his office until his death in 1977. They have lived on my office wall ever since, because I consider guaranteeing the rights of everyday people by limiting the power of the King the most important judicial achievement in history.
Because of the courage of powerful, noble men eight centuries ago, we have lived free of the concern that we will be disappeared, taken away to an unknown place by unknown people. Now, for the first time in my lifetime, we can imagine ourselves begging every arm of our government to know the whereabouts of our son, daughter, husband, or wife. We can see ourselves petitioning people we have elected to represent us who do not care or are themselves intimidated and terrified.
We have long put our faith in the Writ of Habeas Corpus and the strictures of due process, our protections against capricious imprisonment. Now we are called upon to fight for those protections, our judges, and the Rule of Law. This makes me think about the words of John Kennedy inscribed on his memorial at Runnymede: Will we “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend and oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty?”
Written By:
Pastor Brandon
You can’t follow Jesus while being complicit with cruelty, much less cheering for it.
You’re just wearing His name like a bumper sticker while driving in the opposite direction of His commands.
1 John 4:8 says it without stuttering:
"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."
Let’s make this crystal clear:
If someone tells you to love others less,
they’re not just pushing you away from kindness—
they’re calling you to disobey Jesus Himself.
Because loving others isn’t a suggestion. It’s one of the two greatest commands He gave us (Matthew 22:36–40).
That’s not faithfulness. That's not Christianity. That's not Jesus.
That’s idolatry dressed in religious language and a flag.
That’s not Gospel truth.
That’s a counterfeit gospel built to keep you fearful and angry at those very people Jesus called you to love as you love yourself.
This isn’t about politics. It’s about obedience.
And if your version of Christianity makes you colder, harsher, or less loving…
you’re not growing in Christ. You’ve drifted further away from Him.
#GodIsLove #JesusFirst #RealChristianity #ChristianNationalism #FaithInAction #1John4_8 #LoveYourNeighbor #Project2025 #MAGA
Written By:
Mary Waltees
Most of MAGA will cheer this on, not knowing that 6G technology will be used for ACTUAL digital enslavement via mRNA activation, and the Internet of Bodies (IoB).
The plan of the WEF as is laid out in the 4th Industrial Revolution are for ALL OF US to become the “smartphone” via Brain Computer Interface (BCI) implants via mRNA jabs. They want to read our brain waves, and use AI to place thoughts into our brains that only they can control through the help of demons. AI will replace the Holy Spirit and officially sealing each person into damnation for eternity.
This is essentially an abomination of desolation in our own temple, which is the 3rd temple of God.
Trump knows full well this is DARPA (U.S. Military) created tech, which these companies are forwarding as their own.
This is the Transhumanism age of ‘iron mixed with clay’ that Daniel saw. We are living it in real time and there’s NO turning back.
Keep warning others before it’s too late!
Written By:
James Greenberg
The Court in the Shadows: Trump, Project 2025, and the Quiet Coup of the Judiciary
The most transparent president in history? He governs from the shadows. And nowhere is that clearer than in Donald Trump’s relationship with the courts.
It’s tempting to think the judiciary has held the line. Judges—including many appointed by Trump himself—have blocked mass deportations, refused to dismantle birthright citizenship, and resisted attempts to place presidents above the law. But that’s only part of the story. What’s unfolding now, in real time, is a calculated effort to bend the legal system without breaking it. To shift how power moves—quietly, procedurally, invisibly—and the people caught in its wake. At the center of it all is the Supreme Court’s growing use of a legal shortcut known as the shadow docket.
Most Americans think of the Supreme Court as a deliberative body. Arguments are made. Opinions are written. Justices speak from the bench. That’s the civics-class version. But increasingly, the Court is doing some of its most consequential work offstage. The shadow docket refers to the stream of emergency rulings the Court makes without full briefing, oral argument, or public explanation. These are the midnight decisions—often unsigned, often unexplained, and increasingly sweeping in their effects.
What began as a mechanism for resolving urgent procedural questions has become a quiet pipeline for enacting controversial policies without scrutiny. And no presidency has leaned on it more heavily—or more strategically—than Donald Trump’s.
During his first term, the Court repeatedly used the shadow docket to uphold his policies on immigration and border control. It allowed the “Remain in Mexico” policy to go into effect while litigation was still pending. It reinstated a rule denying green cards to immigrants likely to use public benefits—without full argument or justification. In Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, the Court lifted a nationwide injunction on asylum restrictions that would have denied protections to virtually anyone who passed through a third country before reaching the U.S.—a decision with immediate human consequences.
Now, in his second term, the pattern continues. As Trump pushes forward with elements of Project 2025—his blueprint to consolidate executive power and reshape the federal government—he has encountered resistance in the lower courts. Yet through the shadow docket, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stepped in to let key policies take effect before full legal challenges are resolved.
One example: the Court allowed the administration to begin purging civil servants under a revised Schedule F executive order, despite multiple injunctions. Another: it declined to block the rollback of Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants, even as legal questions remain unresolved. And although it ultimately declined to hear the case, the Court allowed the enforcement of Texas’s abortion ban in 2021 via the shadow docket—an early signal of how emergency rulings can shape national policy by omission rather than argument.
What makes this tactic so dangerous is its silence. In a democracy, law should speak. It should explain. It should tell us not just what is decided, but why. These rulings don’t. They act—and the effects are immediate and lasting. Migrants are deported. Workers are fired. Rights are curtailed. And the reasoning—if any—remains locked behind closed doors.
From an anthropological perspective, this isn’t just a procedural innovation—it’s a shift in how power is performed. Courts, like all institutions, derive authority not just from rules, but from ritual. Their legitimacy depends on public acts: the argument before the bench, the written opinion, the visible conflict of ideas. Law is supposed to be more than command—it is supposed to be culture: reason enacted, fairness dramatized.
When that ritual disappears, what’s left isn’t neutrality—it’s naked authority. Power stripped of its costume.
And silence, in these cases, isn’t absence. It’s something darker. Silence functions as a message. When a court acts without explanation, it says: you don’t get to know. You don’t get to ask. You don’t get to matter. That silence reverberates far beyond the courtroom. It tells the lower courts to stand down. It tells the public that the law is no longer a conversation—it’s a decree.
This isn’t just about one president or one docket. It’s about institutional drift. Anthropologists who study collapse—from ancient states to modern regimes—know that decline rarely begins with fire and conquest. It begins with erosion. Procedures are shortened. Norms are bypassed. Exceptions become the rule. The machinery still runs, but the meaning begins to hollow out.
Some of the most consequential cases are still pending. In Trump v. CASA, the Court is poised to decide whether lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions that block federal immigration orders—a case that could neuter judicial oversight of executive policy. In United States v. Skrmetti, the Court will decide whether states can ban gender-affirming care for minors, with potential implications for federal civil rights enforcement. And in Glossip v. Oklahoma, the justices must determine whether executing a man after suppressing exonerating evidence violates due process. These are not technical questions. They are decisions about the boundaries of state power, about who is protected, and about who is expendable.
This is not just a legal battle. It’s a struggle over national memory. The Supreme Court once held a near-sacred role in our political imagination. Even when we disagreed with it, we believed it was performing something larger than power. We believed it was narrating the meaning of justice in our time. But now, its civic role is being rewritten. It no longer performs justice. It issues outcomes. The robes remain, but the ritual has gone silent.
The real danger isn’t in what the courts say—it’s in what they allow to happen without saying anything at all. The shadow docket offers the perfect mechanism: rulings that reshape the country while pretending not to decide anything at all.
We’re used to thinking that democracy erodes through violence or dramatic overreach. But sometimes, it fades by silence. Not because anyone stormed the courthouse—but because the judges inside fell silent. And because we did too.
-- Congressman Mark Pocan - National Progressive Townhall for the hour w/calls
-- Are we seriously now sending migrants to South Sudan?
-- Was UnitedHealth paying nursing home to reduce hospital transfers?
-- Crazy Alert! Rightwingers, believing Russian propaganda designed to cause death in America, are insisting Biden's cancer came from the Covid shot....
-- World news...As Israel starves and destroys GAZA, Orban has a bigger plan to muzzle dissent.
Written By:
Rainer Hofmann
Please scroll down for the English version
The end of freedom begins with a misunderstanding - Kristi Noem, Donald Trump and the abuse of Habea's Corpus
It's one of those phrases that will make you laugh in your throat: "Habeas Corpus is a constitutional right that allows the President to remove people from this country." "It wasn’t said by anyone but Kristi Noem, the acting Secretary of Homeland Security of the United States — in a hearing before the U.S. Senate on the 20th." May 2025. The sentence is not only factually wrong. He is a symptom. A symptom of the state of a government that uses the authoritarian instrument of power and openly attacks the foundations of the rule of law.
Habeas Corpus - the ancient right of protection, already in England in the 17. Created against arbitrary incarceration of the century, is not there to “remove people from the country”. It’s the exact opposite. It guarantees every person – including migrants – the right to judicial review of detention. It's the legal line between a rule of law and a police state. Between Liberty - and Trump.
And yet Noah, backed by President Trump and his adviser Stephen Miller, is trying to translate this basic principle. The justification: America is being overthrown by an "invasion" - mainly by Venezuelan migrants. This formulation is not an analysis. It's rhetoric from the language of autocrats. If the country is "attacked", then - according to the calculation - you can fight back. And suspend rights.
Trump invokes the US Constitution Suspension Clause, after which Habea's Corpus can only be suspended in cases of "rebellion or invasion." What was once thought to be martial law is now being applied to people seeking protection. This isn't just cynical. It's historically unique. Never before has a democratically elected president abused Habea's Corpus for mass deportation.
How far can Trump go before someone stops him?
The abuse of Habea's Corpus is not an isolated case. It's a stepping stone to a bigger plan. Back in March, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to get alleged Venezuelan gang members out of the country without trial. Even conservative courts in Texas, New York and Pennsylvania contradicted. Yet Trump still had him deported - overnight, on charter flights to El Salvador. Despite court orders.
So now, the last remaining fundamental right that even Guantanamo prisoners were appealed to by the Supreme Court in 2008: the right to judicial control of detention.
What does this say about a government that does not defend the rule of law but translates it?
What does that say about a cabinet willing to abandon the basic architecture of the US Constitution to pursue political objectives? What does that say about a society that allows this?
The first case in human history
Never before - in any democracy in the world - has Habea's Corpus been instrumental as a means of deportation. Even dictatorships like Chile under Pinochet or Russia under Putin have largely avoided this term because its reversal would be too obvious. And yet there is now a Secretary in the US Congress - in the liberal constitution - claiming that right is a remote permit.
This is grotesque.
This is an attack.
This is, to be honest, the first authoritarian reconstruction of the American legal system from the inside out—with a legally wrapped lie as a tool.
Where is the opposition?
Senator Maggie Hassan immediately objected to Noem, calling Habea’s Corpus for what it is: “The fundamental law that distinguishes free societies like ours from police states like North Korea.” "But it remains with words. No penalties. No vote of confidence. No legal follow-up—so far.
How far can Trump go without being stopped?
How many Constitutional principles must be broken, how many rights will be revoked, before a majority in this country realizes it's not just about immigration anymore — but about the end of American democracy as we knew it?
If Habea's Corpus is no longer sacred, then nothing is safe.
Then it's true: not the law that protects you, but the president decides whether you still have rights.
:::::::::::::::::
The End of Freedom Begins with a Misunderstanding – Kristi Noem, Donald Trump, and the Abuse of Habeas Corpus
It is one of those sentences that make you choke on your laughter: "Habeas Corpus is a constitutional right that allows the president to remove people from this country." That wasn’t said by just anyone, but by Kristi Noem, the current Secretary of Homeland Security of the United States – in a hearing before the U.S. Senate on May 20, 2025. The sentence is not only factually wrong. It is a symptom. A symptom of a government that has embraced authoritarian tools and is openly attacking the foundations of the rule of law.
Habeas Corpus – the ancient protective right established in 17th-century England to prevent arbitrary detention – is not designed to remove people from a country. It is exactly the opposite. It guarantees every person – including migrants – the right to judicial review of their detention. It is the legal dividing line between a state governed by law and a police state. Between freedom – and Trump.
And yet Noem, backed by President Trump and his advisor Stephen Miller, is attempting to reinterpret this core principle. The justification: America is being overrun by an “invasion” – mainly by Venezuelan migrants. This phrasing is not analysis. It is rhetoric in the language of autocrats. If the country is “under attack,” then – so the logic goes – one is allowed to strike back. And suspend rights.
Trump is invoking the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which allows habeas corpus to be suspended only “in cases of rebellion or invasion.” What was once meant for martial law is now being applied to people seeking protection. That is not only cynical. It is historically unprecedented. Never before has a democratically elected president abused habeas corpus for mass deportations.
How far can Trump go before someone stops him?
The abuse of habeas corpus is not an isolated case. It is a building block in a broader plan. Already in March, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members without trial. Even conservative courts in Texas, New York, and Pennsylvania opposed him. But Trump deported them anyway – overnight, on chartered flights to El Salvador. Despite court orders.
Now, the last remaining fundamental right is to be dismantled – the very right that the Supreme Court granted even to Guantanamo detainees in 2008: the right to judicial review of detention.
What does that say about a government that does not defend the rule of law, but redefines it?
What does that say about a cabinet that is willing to abandon the foundational structure of the U.S. Constitution to push political goals? What does that say about a society that allows this to happen?
The first case in the history of humankind
Never before – in any democracy in the world – has habeas corpus been used as a tool for deportation. Even dictatorships like Chile under Pinochet or Russia under Putin largely avoided the term, because its reversal would be too obvious. And yet now, a secretary of state sits in the U.S. Congress – in the birthplace of the liberal constitution – and claims this right is a permit to remove people.
That is grotesque.
That is an attack.
That is, if we are being honest, the first authoritarian reengineering of the American legal system from the inside – using a legal lie as its instrument.
Where is the resistance?
Senator Maggie Hassan immediately contradicted Noem, calling habeas corpus what it is: "The foundational right that separates free societies like ours from police states like North Korea." But it stops at words. No sanctions. No vote of no confidence. No legal consequences – so far.
How far can Trump go without being stopped?
How many constitutional principles must be broken, how many rights must be suspended before a majority in this country realizes that this is no longer just about immigration – but about the end of American democracy as we knew it?
If habeas corpus is no longer sacred, then nothing is safe.
Then the rule is: it is not the law that protects you, but the president who decides whether you still have rights.
Written By:
Pru Pru
They buried it on page 602 of a 1,116-page bill.
And you weren’t supposed to notice.
But tucked deep in the “One Big Beautiful Bill” is a time bomb—a clause that would gut the courts.
Strip them of their teeth.
Silence them in the face of executive defiance.
Here’s the hustle:
If a federal court tells this administration to stop violating people’s rights—and they refuse?
Normally, the court can hold them in contempt.
Fine them.
Jail them.
Force compliance.
But this bill says they can’t—unless the accuser put up a cash bond first.
Are you hearing what I’m saying?!
You want to stop this administration’s policies?
Better bring your checkbook.
And in civil cases—like 99% of the ones Trump’s facing?
Nobody posts bonds. That’s not how justice works.
So let’s say:
• A small immigrant rights org tries to stop the deportation of 100 people.
• Government lawyers claim it’ll cost them $50,000/day to delay removals.
• The judge could demand a $250,000 bond or more as “security.”
And if the org can’t pay that?They get the injunction—but it’s meaningless.
Because under this bill, no bond=no enforcement
This is justice for the wealthy only.
And here’s the kicker: The bill also limits how courts can issue injunctions and temporary restraining orders (TROs) in the first place.
It shifts power away from the judiciary—making it harder for judges to pause or block government action at all.
So not only would the courts be powerless to enforce their orders…
They’d be less able to issue them in the first place.
So what does that mean?
It means the courts can scream, “Stop!”
And the administration can whisper back, “Make me.”
And the law can’t do a DAMN thing about it.
It’s not just unconstitutional. It’s un-American.
And they’re selling it to Republicans by declaring:
“We can’t save America unless we sneak in the power he needs.”
The pattern of clandestine and nefarious sh*t continues. If so many Americans want this as they claim? Why do they keep operating in the shadows and hiding their true intent?
But wait—that’s just one landmine.
This bill ain’t a budget.
It’s. A. Trojan. Horse.
And it’s stuffed with poison pills for the American people:
Page 291:
A 10-year moratorium on state regulation of AI.
That means if your state passes a law to protect you from algorithmic discrimination, facial recognition abuse, or predictive policing?
Too bad. This bill says states can’t enforce it.
It opens the door to UNREGULATED AI SURVEILLANCE—on your kids, your job apps, your medical data, every second and search you make online, your every damn move.
Pages 425–443:
Massive cuts to Medicaid & SNAP.
More work requirements. Higher costs for low-income families.
More hoops. Less help.
Millions could lose food assistance and healthcare, while billionaires get HUGE tax breaks.
Pages 487–502:
Education gut job.
Ends subsidized loans for undergrads.
Strips the Dept. of Ed from cracking down on predatory schools.
Under Obama, the DOE had a rule that said:
If a school receives federal student aid (Pell Grants, loans, etc.), they must show that their grads can get decent-paying jobs—or lose access to that money.
That rule helped shut down diploma mills and shady for-profit schools like Corinthian and ITT Tech, which exploited students—especially low-income, Black, Brown, and veteran students—while collecting billions in federal aid.
What this bill does:
It blocks or removes the Secretary of Education’s authority to:
• Enforce Gainful Employment rules,
• Pull funding from scam schools,
• Or create new regulations that hold schools accountable for outcomes.
In plain language?
It lets corrupt schools get fat off federal student aid while giving students nothing in return.
And if you know, you know. This ain’t policy—it’s personal. Remember HIS University?
But it goes even further and makes Pell Grants harder to get—unless you’re in trade school, serving corporate labor needs.
They are trying to devour the middle class. Creating a two-tiered social system of the very wealthy and the very poor. It’s much easier to control folks who are financially desperate.
Pages 552–589:
$70 billion for border militarization.
$46.5B for more walls.
$5B for CBP facilities (It’s infrastructure for mass processing, concentration camps, tent cities, expanded detention centers, surveillance, and confinement.)
$4.1B for hiring more agents.
This ain’t about safety—it’s about fear.
This ain’t about keeping immigrants out—it’s about potentially holding Americans prisoner.
It’s a surveillance state, on steroids, at the border and beyond.
You know that vacation you were planning… that honeymoon to Paris? How does Vegas sound? Or Niagara Falls? Cause you can’t cross the border. Welcome to the Handmaid’s Tale 2025.
And then we circle back to page 602:
Where they try to silence the courts.
Where they tie the hands of the last institution willing to challenge this administration’s power.
Where they say: unless a bond was paid in advance, the court can’t do a damn thing to stop injustice.
And at the same time—they’re rewriting the rules that govern when injunctions and TROs can even be issued.
This is a full-scale dismantling of judicial oversight.
So let me say it louder for the people in the back:
This bill is NOT about the budget. It’s not about prosperity.
It is an attack on every system that protects you from unchecked power.
It is legislative extortion disguised as patriotism.
A thousand pages of policy dressed like democracy—
but moving like a coup.
WHAT CAN I DO?!
Call Congress. TODAY.
202-224-3121
Flood their lines. Melt the switchboard. Blow the damn whistle.
Tell them to STRIP the contempt and injunction/TRO clause.
STOP the AI surveillance trap.
SAVE Medicaid, SNAP, Pell Grants, and the courts.
And if there was ever a time to spread a message like wildfire—this is it.
Share it. Repost it. Text it to your group chats.
Because if this bill passes, it won’t just rewrite policy—it will rewrite the power structure of this entire country.
Also, we fight like hell to save democracy, but also WE MAKE A PLAN—we will not scatter like ants
—MAKE A PLAN.
Written By:
Jack Rigdon
The American Transparency and Accountability Act (ATAA)
Restoring Integrity. Rebuilding Trust. Reuniting a Nation.
⸻
Introduction: Why We Need the ATAA
America is being pulled apart—not just by partisanship, but by a deep, growing distrust in the honesty and purpose of our government. Many citizens, including those who once supported Donald Trump, believed he would shake up the system and bring transparency. But instead of draining the swamp, the swamp has deepened.
It’s not too late to fix this.
The ATAA is a bold but nonpartisan initiative to restore transparency, accountability, and trust in government—values that transcend political affiliation.
This Act is not about punishing a party or a person. It’s about giving power back to the people and putting mechanisms in place that ensure no leader of any party can abuse that power again.
⸻
Core Principles of the ATAA
1. Transparency in All Government Dealings
Every elected official, department, and agency will be subject to full public reporting on spending, meetings with lobbyists, and legislative earmarks.
2. Strict Anti-Corruption Oversight Commission
A bipartisan, citizen-led commission will have full legal authority to investigate and report on corruption, abuses of power, conflicts of interest, and ethics violations across all branches of government.
3. Campaign Finance Disclosure Reform
All campaign donations above $200 must be publicly disclosed in real-time. Dark money groups must report donors, and any attempt to obscure funding sources will result in criminal penalties.
4. Lobbying Restrictions and Revolving Door Ban
No elected official or senior bureaucrat may become a lobbyist for five years after leaving public office. Lobbyist meetings must be logged and available for public view.
5. Mandatory Financial and Tax Disclosures
All candidates for federal office, including the presidency, must release 10 years of tax returns and financial holdings. Refusal results in disqualification from the ballot.
6. Executive Power Limitations
• No president may issue pardons for themselves, family members, or individuals involved in investigations directly connected to them.
• Emergency powers may not be extended beyond 90 days without congressional approval.
7. Term Limits and Mandatory Retirement Ages
• Members of Congress limited to 12 years in office (combined House and Senate service).
• Supreme Court justices limited to 20 years of service or a mandatory retirement age of 75, whichever comes first.
8. Digital Transparency and Algorithmic Accountability
• Social media platforms must disclose any political content boosted through algorithmic means.
• Campaigns using AI-generated content must disclose it publicly with a watermark.
9. Whistleblower Protection Expansion
Federal whistleblowers exposing corruption or violations of this Act will be protected by a strengthened legal shield and expedited court process.
10. Civic Education Mandate
States that receive federal education funds must include transparent, nonpartisan civic education curriculum covering the Constitution, voting rights, and checks and balances.
⸻
A Message to the Disillusioned
To those who once placed their hope in Trump or any outsider to break up the old political order: you were right to demand change. You were right to feel betrayed by a system that seemed rigged. But if we now allow any one figure to manipulate that system for personal power, we only deepen the damage.
This Act honors your demand for accountability, not with vengeance, but with structure. Not by replacing one ruler with another, but by rebuilding the system so no one—left or right—can abuse it again.
⸻
How to Help Pass the ATAA
1. Print and Mail It: Download the one-page summary of the ATAA. Sign it. Mail it to your state and federal representatives.
2. Share It: Post the summary and this explanation on social media, neighborhood forums, and church or civic groups.
3. Ask Them to Pledge: Demand that every candidate in 2026 take the ATAA Pledge—to support each principle or explain why they won’t.
4. Start Local: Propose ATAA-aligned ordinances at the city or county level to spark bottom-up change.
⸻
Closing Thought: United by Integrity
This is not a liberal plan. It’s not a conservative plan. It is an American rescue plan. A survival blueprint.
It says, simply: Let the light in. No more shadows. No more secrets. No more unchecked power.
If we can agree on that, then we can disagree on policy—because at least we’ll be playing by the same rules again.
Written By:
Jack Rigdon
As published In:
Liz Cheney/Adam Kinzinger Against Trump
Kleon’s Athens vs. Trump’s America: A Cautionary Parallel from History
By Jack Rigdon
As the United States navigates a moment of profound political tension, historical parallels offer both illumination and warning. Two ancient republics—Athens and Rome—serve as powerful mirrors, reflecting how democracies can decline not by foreign conquest but by internal decay, fueled by populism, weakened institutions, and charismatic strongmen. Understanding these trajectories isn’t academic nostalgia—it’s essential civic education.
The Promise of Athens Before Kleon
Fifth-century BCE Athens was a marvel of human potential. Under Pericles, the city-state flourished through democratic innovation, civic engagement, and intellectual freedom. Citizens gathered not only to vote but to debate. Philosophy, art, and architecture thrived. The belief that humans could govern themselves through reason was radical and electrifying. It made Athens the envy of the ancient world.
But this vibrancy was fragile. It required a shared commitment to truth, dialogue, and civic virtue—values that were eroded when war, fear, and populist fervor took center stage.
The Rise of Kleon and the Shift Toward Demagoguery
Following Pericles’ death, Kleon emerged as a dominant political figure. Unlike his predecessor, Kleon wielded emotion and anger like weapons. He courted popularity by stoking resentment, encouraging vengeance, and attacking those who urged restraint and wisdom. Intellectuals were cast as elitist threats. Military aggression replaced diplomacy. Civic discourse became tribalized, and decisions were driven more by rage than reason.
Democracy, once a tool of enlightenment, became a vehicle for manipulation.
Rome’s Descent: From Republic to Dictatorship
Rome’s transformation followed a similar arc. The Roman Republic emphasized checks and balances, civic duty, and a senate constrained by law. But over time, rising inequality, corruption, and factionalism frayed the system. In that climate, Julius Caesar rose with promises of reform and strength.
Caesar bypassed tradition, centralized authority, and rallied the masses with spectacle and grievance. Though beloved by many, his consolidation of power marked the end of the Republic. His assassination may have been dramatic, but the real death of Roman democracy was more subtle: it happened in the slow surrender of civic institutions and public vigilance.
Where Does America Stand?
The United States was founded with these collapses in mind. The Constitution was designed as a bulwark against both mob rule and monarchical tyranny. Yet today, the country stands at a familiar fork.
In recent years, political discourse has devolved into spectacle and tribal loyalty. Former President Donald Trump’s brand of politics—anchored in populist rhetoric, anti-intellectualism, and institutional distrust—bears striking resemblance to the patterns seen in Kleon’s Athens and Caesar’s Rome.
This is not to say that America is destined for collapse, but rather that history warns us: democracies don’t always fall with a bang. Sometimes they unravel quietly, decision by decision, as citizens become spectators and loyalty to leaders outweighs loyalty to law.
What We Must Remember
The lesson is not partisan—it’s structural. Healthy democracies require a culture of truth, debate, and mutual accountability. They demand leaders who elevate the public rather than divide it. When emotion eclipses reason, when dissent is framed as betrayal, and when institutions are bent to serve individuals rather than the people, decline is not far behind.
Athens gave us the model. Rome gave us the warning. America still has the choice.
⸻
About the Author
Jack Rigdon is a civic researcher, historical analyst, and social entrepreneur based in Texas. With a foundation in construction, energy resilience, and political advocacy, Jack draws from a diverse and pragmatic background to explore the psychological, institutional, and cultural forces shaping modern America. He is the architect of the American Transparency and Accountability Act (ATAA)—a legislative proposal aimed at restoring governmental integrity—and the author of several in-progress books examining democracy, authoritarianism, and national identity. His mission is to foster clarity, accountability, and unity in an increasingly divided society, encouraging Americans to rethink what it truly means to serve their country—and each other.
Written By:
Jack Rigdon
As Published In:
Liz Cheney/Adam Kinzinger Against Trump
Title: Mind Blown: America’s Repeating Pattern of Power Worship
By Jack Rigdon
⸻
What if I told you that the MAGA movement isn’t new—not even close? That the cries for a “strong leader,” the distrust of institutions, and the disdain for pluralism are echoes of America’s past, not anomalies? That we’ve seen this before—twice, in fact.
You don’t have to squint to see the pattern. In the 1770s, we had the Loyalists—colonists who begged to remain loyal to King George III. They feared chaos, preferred hierarchy, and were deeply skeptical of democracy. Nearly a third of colonial America sided with the crown, believing the king—not the people—was the rightful anchor of order.
Fast forward 90 years to the Confederacy—a rebellion not for freedom, but for the preservation of slavery and social hierarchy. The Confederates feared the loss of their way of life, resisted federal power, and built an entire mythology around noble rebellion, Southern honor, and racial dominance.
And now? Enter MAGA—the modern flag-bearer of this psychological lineage. Wrapped in American flags and shouting about freedom, it paradoxically worships a man who acts more like a monarch than a president. Loyalty to Trump is treated as loyalty to country. Institutions are dismissed as corrupt unless they serve the “leader.” This isn’t conservatism. It’s a form of populist absolutism—authoritarianism with a red hat.
⸻
The DNA of Power Submission
Are these movements biologically linked? That’s a provocative question. While there’s no gene for “loyalty to authoritarianism,” there are measurable psychological traits—like threat sensitivity, low openness to new experience, and a preference for social dominance—that are partially heritable. People with these tendencies are more likely to prefer order, certainty, and strong authority figures. In other words: they’re more susceptible to the siren song of a “savior.”
Add cultural inheritance to the mix—family beliefs, regional myths, long-standing grievances—and you get entire populations conditioned to favor hierarchy over democracy.
So yes, in a sense, MAGA is the great-great-grandchild of the Loyalists and the Confederates. Maybe not by blood, but certainly by behavioral blueprint.
⸻
Three Movements, One Impulse
• Loyalists bowed to the King.
• Confederates fought to preserve a ruling class.
• MAGA rallies behind a man who promises to rule by instinct, not law.
All three fear change, exalt tradition, and cling to a single source of power. All three mistrust the messy work of democracy. All three think America needs less freedom—just dressed up as more.
⸻
History Doesn’t Repeat—It Rhymes Loudly
Here’s the wake-up call: these aren’t isolated historical events. They’re recurrences of the same American counter-revolutionary impulse—the desire to trade liberty for certainty, to hand power to one man, and to silence the voices of the many for the will of the few.
The Founders saw this coming. That’s why they built a system of checks, balances, and limits. But the system only works when the people believe in it more than they believe in any one man.
The real revolution is not in fighting kings. It’s in remembering we don’t need one.
⸻
Jack Rigdon is a political observer and civic reform advocate exploring how history, psychology, and culture shape the American future.