Punt The New Ballroom To The Next Administration

Dummy Donnie's Folly

There is a pending court case to stop the construction of Trump's new ballroom/secure bunker/man cave or whatever else he decides to put there.   

I know Trump will argue you just can't stop construction on a partially built structure.  That's why he tore down the old East Wing before anyone could stop him. 

You sure as hell can stop a project mid-construction.  It happens all the time.  Stop construction.  Stabilize what is there.  Make it safe and secure and let it just sit there.  Ugly as it is.  Call it "Dummy's Folly".  My first choice was "FU's. Folly", but Trump has screwed up so many things I want to hold that for something more consequential.  If we start labeling all of Trump's worst screwups the ballroom wouldn't even make the top 25.

I would like to find a way to make Trump pay for this stabilization since he caused this mess, but I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court would say it was part of his presidential duties so he can't be held personally responsible.   I've got to admit he does seem to care more about building monuments to himself than he does about little things like losing a war he started.

I suggest we leave the ballroom uncompleted until 2029 when there is a new president and new Congress.  Let them decide what to do with it.  It will make Trump so mad every time he sees it.  Maybe it will make him rethink starting construction on his "Arc de Idiot".

Constitutional Amendments No Longer Needed

As I understand Justice Brett Kavanaugh's recent decision in Trump v. Barbarar , he does not believe that the text of the 14th Amendment that codifies Birthright Citizenship in the US Constitution is clear enough. So he cites a clarifying law, federal statute 8 U.S.C. §1401(a) from 1952 to interpret how we should actually understand Birthright Citizenship. He used this law to justify his vote that Trump's understanding of birthright citizenship is incorrect. That's fine.

Then he suggests that Congress could write a new law to re-interpret our understanding of birthright citizenship to something better. 

So Congress can just write a new law to change the current, clear interpretation of an amendment? Does that type of change apply to any part of the Constitution? I thought he was textualist?

I wonder how strongly he believes that a more liberal Congress has the right to pass a law to reinterpret  the 2nd Amendment?  How about a law something like the 2nd Amendment only applies to "arms" that existed in the eighteenth century?  If we only allowed citizens to carry muskets we would have a lot fewer mass shootings.

The Constitution certainly needs some changes.  But Trump has clearly shown that our assumption that presidents would have integrity and would at least try to follow the Constitution, their oath of office, laws, rules and precedents is outdated.  That system basically worked for 250 years, but not now.  The founders did not clearly limit presidential powers because they thought presidents would be men with integrity and any abuses would be handled by co-equal branches of government.  Unfortunately, the branches are only co-equal now in their desire for an unlimited executive.

Now we have a president who sees himself as a supreme leader, supported by a Congress full of MAGA toadies that ignore their Constitutional duties and a Supreme Court that wants a president with limited checks and balances.  They raised the president above the rule of law and interpret free speech to allow mega-donors to drown out the speech of ordinary citizens

The Constitution, the rule of law and legal the system is hard pressed to stand against such power.  Allowing a cult president to push laws through Congress using simple majority votes to modify the Constitution is not the answer.

One Person, One Vote. One Person, One Voice.

Money Overpowers Free Speech  

In line with the idea of "one person, one vote," why should some people and institutions have so much more "free speech" than the average person?

The First Amendment enshrines the right to free speech. According to Dictionary.com, speech is linked to communications from people. So why do we think corporations have the same right to free speech as humans? Corporations can't vote in state and federal elections. Corporations can't be put in jail.

When you give corporations and large groups of people the same First Amendment rights as an individual person, you diminish the rights of individual people. This is especially true when you pervert the concept of free speech to include money as a form of speech, as the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling did.

Anyone can speak in support of a candidate to encourage voters to support that candidate. But how can a person raise their voice to be heard in a media environment where corporations and wealthy people can spend unlimited sums of money to carefully craft messages and blast them across multiple media platforms?  My speech is of less value. 

One person, one vote. Large sums of money should not be allowed to diminish the value of my vote or the value of my speech. The number of people I, as an individual, can reach is limited. With large sums of money from an individual, a corporation, or a large group of people, there is no limit. We don't allow candidates to directly give money or gifts to voters to gain their votes, but we allow large donors the means to overpower my speech by paying for unlimited access to media sources.

The billionaire Elon Musk, for a little over 1% of his net worth, could finance every candidate in every federal election for a year. That is every Republican, Democrat, and independent.

Let's suppose you have a net worth of $100,000. Would you pay $147 to become the BFF of a U.S. president? Elon Musk could easily pay the entire cost of Trump's 2025 campaign (about $1.5 billion) for the equivalent of your $147.

Do you think that is fair? More importantly, do you think that is good for our democracy?

Only voting-age citizens should be able to donate money, goods, or services to politicians running for elected office, and the amount should be limited. It should be an amount that an average voter might be able to give.  It should be no more than a few thousand dollars a year.

I suggest a constitutional amendment to limit the amount of money candidates receive.

How about something like this:

"Only voting-age citizens of the United States may donate money, goods, or services (excluding the value of an individual's voluntary personal services) to candidates running for federal office (President, House, or Senate). Donations must be from one individual to one individual candidate. Groups of citizens may not pool their donations; this includes married individuals. An individual may donate to any number of candidates in any federal election, but the total amount donated in a year, including all donations made to all candidates, shall not exceed..."

Obviously, I am not a constitutional scholar, so that is just a suggestion.

I haven't suggested what the maximum amount should be. I have some thoughts. The amendment should contain a formula to calculate the amount so it could change each year without the need to amend the Constitution later. The amount should be relatively low. Perhaps it could be based on the federal minimum wage, multiplied by the previous year's rate of inflation and then by some multiplier. That way, any non-inflationary increase in the limit would benefit the lowest-paid workers. It would also make it harder to raise the limit substantially without broader economic implications.

I also didn't include state and local elections or other ballot measures, such as bond issues. Those issues should also be addressed. I am more concerned about large sums of money from individuals, corporations, or groups (and yes, that includes unions) being used to influence federal elections, but limits on state and local elections should also be considered. I think $2,500 a year sounds reasonable.

Another issue that needs to be addressed is how much a single individual can contribute to their own election. As mentioned above, Elon Musk could easily pay for his own presidential campaign. Yes, I know he is not eligible to run, but there are more billionaires every year. This gets tricky, but we have a billionaire in the presidency right now. How is that working?

We need to get big money out of elections. 

Is Corruption Hereditary?

Did Trump raise his kids to be corrupt or did it just come to them naturally?

Click on cartoon to enlarge it.

It Takes An Idiot

Trump the Clown

A large structure is currently being built on the South Lawn of the White House for Donald Trump’s "UFC Freedom 250". In a few weeks, mixed martial arts fighters will enter a cage and fight until they injure their opponents so badly that they can no longer continue to fight. Who in their right mind thinks that such a spectacle brings any honor to our nation’s history, the White House or the presidency?

We Are No Longer Number One!

Donald Trump's mental health is deteriorating quickly.  

He displayed very bad judgement when he got our country into a war with Iran.  He didn't listen to the advice from experts in his administration since he truly believes he is the smartest person in the world.

His use of social media to make policies, conduct international relations, wage wars, and slander his enemies is dangerous and certainly not acceptable presidential behavior.  His constant use of social media makes his mental deficiencies obvious to the world on a daily basis.

His corruption and lawlessness is intentionally obvious and astounding.  

His need to put his name and/or picture on everything is pathetic and an obvious indicator of his mental illnesses.  Republicans used to chide liberals for giving participation awards to children.  What do they say about the made up peace prizes that Trump takes with great pride?  His incessant talking about his big, beautiful ballroom is unnerving.

I'm sure Donald Trump wanted to change the world order and believes that he has.  He is correct.  The United States is no longer the leader of the free world.  Trump has put us on a course to lose our status as the world's economic, technological and moral leader.  Our  allies no longer believe they can trust or depend on us.  Sadly, this trust will not be regained once Trump is out of office.  Maybe if he hadn't been re-elected a second time a new administrations could have come in and tried to repair the damage Trump had done in the first term.

Trump's re-election and his seemingly unstoppable insane antics have shown the world that the U.S. voters, U.S. governing officials, U.S. laws, courts and the United States Constitution could not stop an incompetent and lawless person from inflicting terrible damage on the United States and the entire world.

A new Democratic administration could try to mend and prevent the kind of destruction Trump unleashed on the U.S. political system, but the world is moving away from viewing us as the world's leader.  We have clearly shown that we as a country are untrustworthy and I'm not sure we can regain that trust  

How Is Trump's Comb Similar To His Social Media?

You Can't Hide Your
Lying Eyes Or
Your Balding Head

Donald Trump's use of his comb is very similar to his use of social media.

The primary use for both is to conceal rather than reveal.

The comb is used to conceal his growing bald spots and social media is used to conceal the truth of his incompetence and failures.

Unfortunately for Trump, his thinning hair and growing list of failures are getting too hard to hide.

Don't Be A trump!

Donald Trump's actions to hide history are well documented. He signed executive orders directing the National Park Service to make sure that information at parks focused on American successes and not on facts that, in his mind, might inappropriately disparage Americans (at least white Americans) or our history. He wouldn't put Joe Biden's picture on the wall outside the Oval Office with all the other presidents. He made sure the free days at national parks no longer include MLK's birthday or Juneteenth. His unbelievable hatred of and attacks on DEI. The list is long.

All of my life I've known there are good presidents and some not-so-good ones. There are great presidents and there are terrible presidents. But until Trump, most, if not all, wanted to make America better. Not Donald Trump. No matter what he says, his goal in leading is not to make America great again; it is to make America Trumpier. Trump's goals in life have always been to do what pleases Trump, especially if he can antagonize or harm his enemies. He also loves to put his name on things. The more consequential the building or action, the better.

Since Trump is the worst president in the history of our country, I think that once he is no longer president we should reverse, as much as possible, the damage he has done and paint a truer legacy of his presidencies. His name or likeness should be used only in cases that document what happens when you elect a president who is ignorant of expected presidential behavior, incompetent, lawless, corrupt, and seemingly incapable of normal human emotions.

I don't mean just reversing his many anti-history actions and executive orders. I mean taking his name off everything his demented ego forced him to put it on. First on my list are the buildings and institutions that bear his name. His presidential portrait should be hung in the basement, where people will only stumble upon it when they get lost. Tear down any monuments he has built, like the ballroom and the triumphal arch if it gets built. Take down all the gold, melt it, and use it to pay off the national debt.

We all know the name Mudd (the doctor who treated John Wilkes Booth). That name carries a stigma to this day. How about a new saying? I suggest, "Don't be a trump." Depending on the context, it would mean something like, "Don't be an idiot," or "It doesn't always have to be about you," or "You're not as smart as you think you are," or "Stop lying," or "You stink."

I'm OK with putting his name on buildings that would make him mad. How about "The Trump Sewerage Treatment Plant"? Or, "The Trump Memorial Hospital for the Criminally Insane"?  I would like to see an executive order acknowledging that DEI has been and should be an important goal of our country and calling it "The Trump Memorial DEI Restoration Act."

Trump should be included in the history of this country, but that history should truthfully document what he did—the good (there must be something) and the bad (the Smithsonian will need a new wing to hold it).

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Elect A Clown And Get A Horror Show

 Elect a clown

Trump the clown

And get this!

Trump the horror show

  Liar

  Incompetent

  Lawless

  Corrupt

  Chaotic

  Unstable

  Amoral

  Cruel

  Narcissistic

  Nonempathetic

  Vindictive

  Wannabe king

  Megalomaniac

  Insurrectionist

Masks Protect Lawlessness. That's The Point.

Fear is the goal.
Hate is the result.

We are in a partial government shutdown because Democrats are insisting on changes to the way ICE operates.

One of the Democrat's demands are that ICE, Border Patrol and other agents carrying out Trump's mass deportations not wear face masks.  Officials in Homeland Security say removing masks in not negotiable because the threats on federal immigration agents have skyrocketed.  According to ICE on October 30, 2025, the number of death threats had increased by 8000%.

What I have not heard anyone in the government say is when this increase started and what might have caused it.

Do they not think that the increase may have been a result of the unlawful, thuggish and violent actions by immigration agents?  These actions seem to be planned actions to terrorize people.  I think the agents who wear skull masks are a prime example.

You want to counter the death threats?  Then require immigration agents to conform to accepted rules of conduct that are required by respected police organizations from around this country.

I'm old, but I remember when streaking (running around naked at public events) was a thing.  Laws were changed so that people who wore masks to hide their identity while streaking were subject to more severe penalties.  

I think the wearing of a mask by immigration agents to hide their identities and evade legal responsibility for unlawful actions is an admission of guilt.

When ICE agents start behaving like other respected police organizations, they won't need masks.

All Talk, No Action

During his State of the Union speech last night, Trump said he would really like to stop the war in Ukraine.  He said that 25,000 people a month are dying in the war.

I've heard that number from other sources, but that is the number of Russian troops dying in a month.  That number of deaths is completely under the control of Putin.  Putin can stop the deaths of Russian troops any time he wants.

Trump said nothing about the number of Ukrainian civilians that are being targeted and killed by the Russians.

Russia is the aggressor and the war will end only when Putin decides to stop his aggression.  Trump knows this.

What the hell is wrong with Trump that he can't put more direct pressure on Putin to stop this war now?

The Burger King Tells Whoppers.

Whopping Liar

Painful as it was, I watched all of Trump's State of the Union speech last night.  Actually it was more like an end of year wrap up of his proudest moments and lies.

I never watched the Apprentice, but he does have a talent for acting like he cares about people.  He gave awards to some people who deserve the attention and he shared the stories of people who have endured terrible losses.  Of course he didn't really care about any of these people.  He just wanted to use their stories to bolster his self-image and pretend to show how much he cares about them.  Trump has repeatedly shown that empathy is not an emotion he understands.  These people were just props for him.

He again claimed that tariffs are great and that foreign countries pay for tariffs.   He said he liked tariffs because he could use them to make other countries do what he wants them to do, they bring manufacturing jobs back into the U.S. and they raise a lot of money.  He even said that someday tariffs could replace income taxes. 

But two of his tariff goals are contradictory.  The more manufacturing that occurs in the U.S. rather than a foreign country, the less revenue generated by tariffs.  Imported manufactured goods generate tariff income.  Without an income tax those same goods made by workers in U.S. factories do not generate any tax revenue.

As would be expected, Trump lied continuously and outrageously.  If he is talking he is lying, so in a speech that lasted an hour and forty seven minutes he could spew a lot of lies. 

And the burger king tells whoppers.

The Ultimate "Owning The Libs"?

Have You No Shame?

Magettes and Trump love to "own the libs".  Are the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by ICE and the refusals by the FBI and DOJ to share evidence about these crimes the ultimate examples of owning the libs?

Are Magettes and Trump proud of these crimes?

Magettes should be ashamed, but like their boss, DJT, they don't know the meaning of the word.

What Is It? An Imposter Or Madness?

I Am Not A Liar!

In June of 2017, at the start of Donald Trump's first term, Sean Spicer, then the White House Press Secretary, said that Donald Trump's tweets "are considered official statements by the President of the United States."  I did a search and could find no policy change from the White House that retracted or disavowed that statement.  

I just read that the actor Kelsey Grammer said he liked President Trump, adding "I've never seen a more transparent presidency in my life".  I'm not sure that publicly and continuously lying qualifies as transparent, but what are we to make of the recent racist post picturing President Obama and his wife?

Was that post and picture an "official statement" from the President of the United States?

Trump now claims that he didn't make the racist post.  It was posted on his account by some unnamed staff member and the post has now been taken down.  Is this follow-up statement a transparent clarification or just another lie?

So which is it?  Are his posts still supposed to be taken as policy?  Trump clearly intends them to be taken seriously.  Or, are there staff members who are free to make official presidential announcements without Trump's knowledge?  Or, are these posts just the ramblings of a seriously damaged mind?

Finally, should Trump still be in control of the nuclear codes?  I wonder if some un-named staff member also has the codes.

Attack Greenland! Is he Crazy?

Troops from allies of the United States, including France, Germany, Norway, and Sweden, are being sent to Greenland to prevent an invasion of Greenland by the United States.

That is a fact, not some insane conspiracy. Actually, it is not the United States that wants to invade and seize Greenland; it is just Donald Trump.

He recently told all of us that the only constraints on him as president are his morality and his mind. He is telling us that the Constitution, laws, Congress, the courts, international law, voters, treaties, and so on do not apply to him.

I do not know what his rationale is for asserting that he is unconstrained, but it is clear that he is physically and mentally impaired.  He must be stopped. The only people who can stop him are his MAGA supporters and the feckless Republican Senators and Representatives who have, up to now, failed to honor their oath of office and their constitutional duties as an equal branch of government to provide a check and balance on an out-of-control president.

What The Hell Did Trump Take Before His Speech?

I watched Trump's speech to the nation last night (Wed, 12/17/2025).  As others have explained, this was Trump trying to convince the nation that he is a better president than the polls show him to be.  No one not already in the cult was convinced.

Trump frantically tried to convince us that as president he is so much better than what people think.  He was speaking so quickly that I became convinced he was hyped up on something.  I don't know what he took to hide his failing health and make sure he didn't fall asleep during his speech, but they should have given him a smaller dose.

Don't Cross This Line Or Else...

Somethings are becoming very clear.

Trump thinks that he can do anything he wants. 

•     Break any law he wants. 
•     Ignore the Constitution.
•     Make Republican law makers do whatever he says to do.
•     Ignore any of the norms that would apply to any other president.
•     Defy the courts.
•     Destroy the DOJ and FBI.
•     Prosecute anyone who opposes him without any proof of wrong doing.
•     Spend any money he wants without authorization.
•     Harm people and institutions when it suits his needs.
•     Use our military in any way he wants.
•     Threaten our allies.
•     Pardon without explanation people who do not deserve it.
•     Use the power of the presidency to enrich himself, his family and his friends.

He thinks a critical number of his voters will support him no matter what.

Trump has lost his mind.

The Supreme Court has said that Trump cannot be prosecuted for anything pertaining to his core duties as president. They've also basically said anything Trump does while in office is part of his official duties.  That means the only control over the president is impeachment.

Voters, Republicans, Democrats and independents, need to draw some lines that clearly state things that they believe will necessitate Donald Trump's impeachment.

These include:

• Starting a war without Congressional approval.  Venezuela will not start a war with us.  If there is a war it is because Trump wants one.
• Using the government or military to manipulate or overturn election results.
• Unleashing the military against citizens.
• A pardon or commutation for Ghislaine Maxwell.
• Impeding the release of the Epstein files.

I'm sure there will be more impeachment lines that will need to be drawn.  It is important we make these red lines bright and clear.  Trump has to believe that Republicans, Democrats and independents will impeach him if he crosses any of these lines.

Update 01/17/2026

I would like to add another red line.  Any overt act take control of Greenland.  Articles of Impeachment should already be written so they can immediately be sent to the House if he makes a move.

The King Of Corruption

Show Me The
Money

Donald Trump cannot claim to be the King of the United States.  He cannot claim to be the best president ever of the United States.  

But I can prove he is the most corrupt president of the United States.  Ever!

It is estimated that Donald Trump's net worth was $4.3 billion on election day in 2024.  Forbes estimates his net worth was $7.3 billion in September, 2025.  So between November 5, 2024 and September 30, 2025, 273 days, Trump's net worth increased by $3.0 billion dollars.

That's $10,989,011 per day!  And it would be a lot more if we removed all the days he spent playing golf and not playing president.

But in fairness, I'd wager he spent most of his time (when he wasn't playing golf or remaking the White House) worrying about that new word, affordability. 

25th Amendment Conspiracy Options

JD Vance

Donald Trump has acknowledged he will (or may) not be on the ticket in 2028 and that there are a lot of candidates to take his place.   JD Vance and Marco Rubio are at the top of the list.

I suggest that Trump watch out for JD.

JD will be watching to see what the chances are that Trump will be out of office before his term ends. If Trump leaves the presidency early, JD will take over for the rest of Trump's term and may be able to be elected to two more terms of his own. All challenges by other candidates like Rubio will be over before they can start.

If necessary, JD can work behind the scenes very, very quietly to fuel and support the 25^th Amendment to get Trump out of office early so he can be elevated to the presidency. Maybe a leak of a bad Trump physical or mental health diagnosis would be enough to get the ball rolling. JD would initially claim that talk of forcing Trump out of office is treasonous, but after awhile he will reluctantly concede it may be best for the good of the country.

Magettes will destroy JD if there is any hint he is working to get Trump out of office early. Even more likely, if Trump decides JD is working against him, Trump will make sure JD leaves office before he does. How does Don Jr as a replacement VP sound?

Rubio has to know all this, so it will be interesting see what he does to foil JD's plans. Maybe a cabal of Republican presidential candidates would work together to block JD.

BTW, in a previous post I said I didn't want to see Trump harmed or killed because the MAGA conspiracies on what “really” happened will be insane.  Simple logic says JD will have to get his fair share of scrutiny if any thing happens to Trump while he is in office.

White House Ballroom, Who Is Stupid?

Trump and his administration think the American people are really stupid.  Or at least dumber than they are.

When asked if they consulted anyone for permission and guidance before destroying the East Wing of the White House, their answer was they were told you don't need permission to tear something down.  You only need permission for "construction — vertical build".  So by that rationalization Trump wouldn't need permission to tear down the entire White House?  He'd just need permission to construct a new White House?  You mean the new gold plated "Donald Trump Executive Mansion"?

The "vertical build" is not some technical jargon, it is word shit to keep the paving of the Rose Garden and the erection of the new White House flag poles out of the discussion.

Trump claims that he and some of his friends will pay for the new ballroom (originally estimated to cost $200 to $250 million).  He may extort money from his "friends", but I don't believe he will put any of his own money into the venture.  Trump also just filed for a $230 million payment for the suffering he took because of his two indictments for the January 6 riots and the national security documents he stole and hid at Mar-a-Lago.  Indictments that he would have probably been convicted on if he hadn't won the 2024 election.  He filed the suits knowing that he and his surrogates have the sole legal authority to authorize the payment to him (you can't make this stuff up).  Does the $230 million sound close to any current project Trump might like to fund?  If it is not needed for the ballroom, he can take a tax deduction and give it to his presidential library to cover the expenses of flying around in his Qatari jet until it is needed to go in the library. 

When asked about what the new ballroom would be called, Trump said something like he hadn't really thought about it, but probably  "The White House Ballroom".  BS!  The whole purpose of  the new ballroom is to get his name on it.

Trump claims the country needs the new ballroom so Presidents don't have to erect big tents on the South Lawn every time for the large, lavish dinners required for a foreign leader's state visit.

I did some checking.  I could only find about a dozen such events in the last 10 years.  I also checked about roughly how many venues there are in DC that could house 800 people.  The estimate was about 30 to 60 locations.  Even many more if you include the areas surrounding DC. 

I can understand there might be some security issues using some building not on the White House grounds, but they hold national political conventions in public buildings.  And there are some government buildings that are already big enough.

How much more would it cost to build a dedicated national ballroom at a different location?  The ballroom could then more easily be used for other large governmental events.  It might also make it easier to implement another of Trump's goals for the new building.

My instinct is, as Deep Throat said, "Follow the money".  I've got to believe Trump has got some plan to monetize the new ballroom.  Imagine how much magettes would pay to be able to say, I had my wedding, wedding reception, birthday party, bar/bat mitzva, funeral, etc. in "The Donald J. Trump White House Golden Ballroom". Cha-ching!

To Win War, Promise Trump The Peace Prize

President Zelensky may now have an opportunity to win the war with Russia.

It is widely believed that Trump was able to get a cease fire in Gaza and the return of the hostages because he put maximum pressure on all leaders in the Middle East, especially Israel and Hamas . He put the pressure on these leaders not because he had some altruistic goal to end the fighting and suffering. He did it because he so badly wants a Nobel Peace Prize. The fact that he didn't win this year may have provided an opening for a new approach to the issue.

President Zelensky should contact the Nobel Peace Prize Committee and tell them they have a chance to not just reward people working for peace after the fact, they can actually encourage peace themselves. Zelensky should talk to the Committee and ask for a commitment to give Trump the peace prize if he gets Putin to agree to and implement the following:

• Complete cease fire and removal from all hostile troops from Ukraine.

• Return all Ukrainian territory Russia has taken. That includes Crimea and the areas taken before the most recent Russian invasion of Ukraine.

• Return all the Ukrainian children that were kidnapped.

• Allow Ukraine security measures like joining the European Union and NATO, and allowing U.S. and European troops to train in Ukraine.

Zelensky could then go quietly to Trump and explain if he can get Putin to agree to these four items, the Nobel Committee has committed to give Trump the peace prize. All the parties can agree to keep the agreement secret if that is needed.

Trump's ego will demand that he make whatever effort is needed to accomplish the task.  Full sanctions on Russia.  Unlimited funds.  Cruise missiles and other sophisticated equipment.

Given Trump's declining mental abilities, I think he should be warned that starting a nuclear war with Russia will invalidate the whole agreement.  

Zip Ties For Children

This cartoon is not intended to be funny.  It may seem disingenuous and outrageous, but not if you've been following the news.

ICE agents stormed an apartment house in Chicago the other night.  They were allegedly looking for two gang members.  From what was reported, they had no warrants.  They broke down doors for each apartment, stormed in and rousted people from their sleep, beds and apartments.  They dragged people, including children, outside.  Some were in pajamas, some were naked.

People were handcuffed.  Children had their hands zip tied together.  Many were kept outside for hours.  Included were U.S. citizens.  Citizens were released only after ICE independently confirmed that they actually were citizens.  In some cases that took hours.  I guess you have to keep your passport in your pajama pocket.

When you couple that with Trump telling our top generals and admirals that they should consider using U.S. cities and citizens for military training, the cartoon doesn't look so outrageous.

Maybe ICE should get some hand ties made just for kids so they won't be so traumatized when they are cuffed.

The sooner Republicans wake up and demand Trump be removed from office, the better off our country will be.

Would You Accept Tickets To White House UFC Fight?

What idiot decided it is a good idea to hold a UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) at the White House?

Oh yeah, our idiot king.  Oops, I meant our idiot president, but why?  And are there no adults in the White House that can tell Trump this is a bad idea?  Are there no Senators or Representatives who love and respect our country and our White House enough to speak up and try to stop this?  So far it looks like they are all expecting ring side seats.

I've heard the fighters are going to walk out of the Oval Office on their way to the ring.  What The Hell!

I think that Trump is a very sick man and I am worried about the damage he is doing to our country.  

If you were offered a seat at this UFC fight, would you say "Yes" or "No" or "Hell No!".

If you said "Hell No", please call and/or write your Senators and Representative to tell them they need to speak up and help save our country.  We really need Republicans and MAGA to stand up and say "Enough is enough".  The app "5 Calls" will help you with understanding issues and contacting politicians.

There is another nation wide protest on October 18th.  Please attend a protest and let MAGA know Trump is hurting the country much more than he is helping it.  We don't need or want a king.  I've got to believe much of MAGA knows this and it is not what they signed up for.  The country needs their help now.

One more thing, I read the purse for the fight is $100 million.  Where is all the money to stage this event coming from?  There better not be even one cent from the U.S. government.  How much is the U.S. going to receive for use of the White House and the grounds?  Who is going to pay for any damage done to the White House or the grounds?  How much money will go to Trump or his family or his friends?  Again, the "not one cent" rule should apply (lot's of luck with that).  

Who is going to pay for the damage done to the reputation of the United States of America, once known as a super power and the leader of the free world?  I hope that will be Trump and Republicans in November, 2026.

Trump, What The Hell!

Are You My Enemy?

During his speech to the generals and admirals today I heard Trump say something that shocked me.  He said something about the military fighting enemies, but said he also had to fight his enemies.  He said it is easier for the military to fight their enemies because they wear uniforms.  

Then he said his enemies are:

"No different than a foreign enemy, but more difficult in many ways because they don’t wear uniforms. At least when they’re wearing a uniform you can take them out.”

What the hell!  Trump frequently talks about Democrats as "the enemy from within".  So he would like to be able to "take out" his enemies (Democrats) like the military takes out their enemies?

Keep in mind,  Trump brags about bombing and shooting boats in the Caribbean that HE says are carrying drugs.  He provides no proof.  It seems to be based just on his judgement.

So when Republicans talk about Democrats encouraging violence let them listen to that part of his speech.  Trump wants to "take out" anyone he judges to be his enemy.  Is that a hint?

Hegseth's Very Important Speech

Trump and Secretary of Defense Hegseth (he is only Secretary of War in his imagination which is also the only place where he is are qualified to hold his current job) held an urgent meeting to make sure our top generals and flag officers know that there are new rules they are expected to obey.

Hegseth talked about several changes to the military.  He basically told these officers that if they didn't like these changes, they should do themselves a favor and just resign now.  Listen up dimwit Hegseth, you didn't get your current position based on merit,  you got it for lying and kissing Trump's ass.  These generals and admirals have spent years and decades getting to their positions and will still be there when you are on the trash heap of history.  Do yourself a favor and resign now.

Hegseth said there is no place in the military of over weight generals.  What about an overweight Commander in Chief who delivers a long rambling speech filled with lies?  What kind of image is he setting?

Hegseth also basically said there were too many women in the military who are not up to his physical requirements.  Pete, I would bet there are women in the military that could whip your ass.  And why just limit it to physical qualifications?  I'll bet there are a lot of women in the military with better brains, judgement and overall intellectual ability than you'll ever have.  Do yourself a favor and resign now.

The war man wants to change the rules so that anonymous complaints to inspector generals will no longer be allowed.  Anonymous complaints were allowed because pin heads like Hegseth would fire anyone who complained about something he didn't want to hear about.  Leaders can't address problems they don't know about.  

What a waste to bring all of these officers from around the world to listen to a lot of nonsense.

Will Trump Make It To Heaven?

Trump "Golden"
Pearly Gates

Recently Trump seems to be thinking more about his mortality and what he might need to do to increase his chances of getting into heaven.   I don't want Trump to die anytime soon, although a stroke from his terrible diet would be OK.  Preferably one that leaves him unable to speak, whine or insult others.

From what I remember from Sunday school as a kid, I think he will need to admit his past sins and ask for forgiveness.  Admitting he is wrong is not something he has had a lot of practice doing. Given that and his knack for long rambles, he will need a lot of time to make his case that he shouldn't be sent straight to hell.  He just might need to live to 200 to accomplish this.

Given his absolute need for the lime light, I think he has provided evidence that he has broken at least nine of the ten commandments. Maybe he can squeak through on commandment five, “Honor Thy Father and Mother”.

If he should make it to heaven, you can bet he'll immediately suggest to God that changes need to be made. Remember, Trump is right about EVERYTHING. Since Jesus is already the right hand of God, it might be a stretch for Trump to accept being the left hand of God. 

Trump would probably start his changes with what he considers is his supreme expertise and suggest the Pearly Gates be painted gold. Only then moving on to finding his enemies that got to heaven before him and having them all deported to hell.

Trump Is Such An Embarrassment, Again

Loser King of Chaos

I just watched the live joint press conference with British Prime Minister Starmer and Trump.  As an American I am deeply embarrassed. 

Trump was on television for so long acting like this genius business person even though he declared bankruptcy six times. You would have thought someone could teach him how to act like a president.

In his responses to questions, Trump spent more time bragging about his imagined successes and blaming Biden for leaving him such a disastrous country than he did on thoughtful answers.  It didn't help him to have some mindless American reporters (are were some of them influencers?) asking him questions.

Starmer, unlike Trump, came across as a knowledgeable, reasonable politician that understood what was required in this situation.

At one point I believe Starmer was in the middle of answering a contentious question from the press and he said something Trump really liked.  Trump reached over and slapped Starmer twice very firmly on the back.  I thought the act was very rude and a typical Trump move to always try to steal the lime light. I don't think Starmer appreciated Trump's interference.

Trump tried to take control of the questioning, but Starmer, who was the host, stood his ground.  I don't think Trump liked that, but at least on this he was in better control than he often is.

Trump is such and embarrassment, again.

It's All About The Glitz

Trump's Idea Of A Perfect Air Force One

In May, Qatar gifted a 747 jet to the United States.  It is unclear whether it is the property of the United States or the Air Force, but will undoubtedly end up as the property of Donald Trump, (aka Commander of Grift).  It is also unclear how much the upgrades will cost, how long they will take and exactly where the money will come from.

Newsweek reported that an official with information about the contract to modify the Qatar plane to be an Air Force One, referred to the jet as "executive airlift" and not "presidential transport,". This suggests requirements may differ.  It was also suggested this may mean fewer security, communications or defensive systems.

If this "new" Air Force One is not up to the standards of a real Air Force One, it will probably not be used overseas.  So we will pay somewhere between 400 million to a billion dollars for a plane that will be more ostentatious, but not as capable or safe.  But that is the Trump style.

Image from  ChatGPT.

I Saw Nothing

I Saw Nothing

Several weeks ago magettes were in an uproar about people in the Biden administration who they thought hid the cognitive decline of President Biden.  They wanted investigations and legal charges.

It is clear that Trump's physical and mental health is declining quickly yet the White House insists that Trump is fine.  He has minor health issues and shakes too many hands.

What the hell are magettes going to say when Trump finally completely falls apart?  We all know they'll do a Schulz.  "I saw nothing"  Schulz is from Hogan's Heroes for those under 60.

I suggest magettes start reading up on the 25th Amendment.  At Trump's rate of decline I think it will be needed before the end of the 2025.

Voting For A Presidential Third Party Is Bad

The U.S. political system is currently structured for two parties.  Voting for a third party presidential candidate is not a good idea.

At best, a vote for a presidential third party candidate is potentially bad for one of the two major party candidates.  It is a common belief that Ralph Nader prevented Al Gore from winning Florida in 2000.  The thought is that without Nader, who received thousands of votes in Florida, more Nader voters would have voted for Gore than would have voted for Bush.  We can't know that for sure, but it does make sense given the platforms of each candidate.  Bush beat Gore in Florida by only about 800 votes while Gore won the national popular vote by more than 500,000.  If Gore had won Florida he would have been the next president.  Imagine how that might have changed world history. Like no war with Iraq.

There are some people who think that third party voters kept Clinton from beating Trump in the 2016 race.

But worse than that is what happens if a strong third party candidate divides the vote totals so that no presidential ticket gets a majority of the electoral college vote (>=270).  This situation is called a contingent election and it will get ugly very quickly.  

According to ChatGPT here is roughly what would happen:

If nobody secures a majority of the electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives chooses the president from the top three vote-getters, with each state delegation casting one vote, and a candidate needs 26 state votes to win. Meanwhile, if there’s no VP majority, the Senate chooses the vice president. If the House hasn’t selected a president by Inauguration Day, the vice president-elect acts as president, or if there’s no VP-elect either, the Speaker of the House becomes acting president.

Read that paragraph carefully.  It is just a summary, but even this exposes several issues with this process.  

Representatives from each state vote as a group to determine their single vote from their state to elect the next president.  Do you see any possible problems with that?  The Representatives that vote are those from the new Congress just elected.

That means in a contingent election the state of California with 54 electoral votes (and approximately 16 million voters) has the same power to elect the next president as Wyoming with 3 electoral votes (and approximately 300,000 voters).   

The vice president is selected by a similar process, but with a separate vote in the Senate.  Senators must vote for one of the top two vice presidential candidates (the House chooses from the top three presidential candidates).  Each Senator gets one vote. Fifty-one votes are needed (not just a majority of the Senators present at the time of the vote).  So the vice president selected by the Senate could come from a different party than the president selected by the House.   

I believe if the Senate selects a vice president elect, but the House has not selected a president elect by Inauguration Day, the vice president-elect is the acting president until the House selects a president-elect.  If neither chamber has made their selections before Inauguration Day, the Speaker of the House is the acting president.  

The Constitution originally had the presidential election and vice presidential election as separate.  The 12th Amendment changed that.  Now a party chooses a team of a presidential candidate and a vice presidential candidate, but the contingent election process still sees the presidential race and the vice presidential race as separate.  

Without going into great detail, we might see candidates try to form coalitions to get the necessary votes in the House.  Building a coalition might force a presidential candidate to elevate the power of some minor party or selected Representatives just to get enough votes to win the presidency.  For an example, look at how Israel has had to suffer with the extreme religious right's hold on Netanyahu.  He absolutely needs these extremist in his coalition so he must accept some of their absurd demands.  

My point is, we don't want to ever get into a situation where the election goes to the House.  Voting for a third party presidential candidate that can't possibly win is not just your way of making a statement, it could allow a candidate you would never vote for win.

If you think gerrymandering is a hot topic now, hold your breath if no candidate gets a electoral majority.  Given that Trump thinks he is above the law, who knows how he (or a subsequent Republican presidential candidate) would deal with an election that went to the Congress. Again, it will get ugly very quickly.  And if a third party is strong enough, contingent elections could become the norm and generate seismic changes to the political landscape.  Small state Representatives will receive huge increases in campaign contributions since they will probably elect the next president.

I don't have a problem with third parties.  I think the country would benefit from a more robust discussion of issues. But we need to abandon the Electoral College and change the presidential selection process.  Allowing the House and Senate to determine presidential elections results seems like a very bad idea.  

You can double check my information by asking ChatGPT or your AI for information about Presidential contingent election rules, Election & contingent election timeline, Electoral College rules.

Why Did Trump Give ICE 180 Billion Dollars?

The OBBB (One Bodaciously Bad Bill) recently passed by Republicans gave ICE a 180 billion dollar budget (some expenditures are spread over a 3 year period but I don't think we know the actual annual amounts).  Only two countries have annual national defense budgets that are larger than than 180 billion, the U.S. and China.  Russia's annual defense budget is estimated to be 149 billion dollars.  Germany annually budgets about 89 billion.

So ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) has an average annual budget (60 billion) which puts it in range of the annual defense budgets of countries like Ukraine, France and Japan.  Only seven countries have annual defense budgets greater than 60 billion dollars.  Canada spends about 35 billion dollars a year on defense.

The current yearly funding by the Department of Defense for the U.S. National Guard is about about 40 billion dollars a year.  

The estimate of the total amount spent on state and local law enforcement in the U.S. is estimated to be approximately 135 billion dollars a year. 

What the hell does Trump really plan to have ICE do with 180 billion dollars? 

Keep in mind that ICE is going after "illegal" aliens which are not accorded the same rights as U.S. citizens.  When they grab you they don't ask you if you are a citizen.  How would you prove it anyway?  Do you normally carry your passport?  We know most detainees don't have warrants for their arrest.  ICE can treat you as illegal until you find a way to prove you are a citizen after you've been hauled away. 

Do you think Republicans in Congress know or care about what Trump is doing? 

Dollar figures come from ChatGPT.

Liberal Democracy Constitutional Changes

The United States is governed by our Constitution which I believe contains many of the ideas behind the concept of a liberal democracy (click on this for a description of a liberal democracy).  The "liberal" in "liberal democracy" is not directly tied to the Democratic Party, but I suspect that Democrats agree with many of the core principles that would define a liberal democracy. 

I asked ChapGPT "How should the US Constitution be changed to make it more in tune with the ideals of a liberal democracy?"  Its responses are below.  I provide ChatGPT's response here because it provides a starting framework for a discussion of changes that Democrats should think about enacting when they once again get control of the presidency and Congress. 

I've added some additional suggestions after ChatGPT's list.

 

The U.S. Constitution is already a foundational document that reflects many liberal democratic ideals, such as the protection of individual rights, the separation of powers, and the rule of law. However, there are several potential changes or reforms that could make it more in tune with modern liberal democracy, ensuring it aligns better with evolving standards of fairness, inclusivity, and accountability. Here are some suggestions:

1. Electoral Reforms

• Abolishing the Electoral College: The Electoral College can distort the will of the people, as a candidate can win the presidency without securing the popular vote. A direct popular vote for president would align better with democratic principles of majority rule.

• Reforming or Expanding Voting Rights: Making voting more accessible by eliminating voter ID laws that disproportionately affect marginalized groups, restoring voting rights to people with felony convictions, and ensuring automatic voter registration for all eligible citizens.

• Proportional Representation: The U.S. operates under a "winner-takes-all" system in most elections. Implementing proportional representation (for Congress or local elections) could better reflect the diversity of political opinions and allow for more minority party representation.

2. Strengthening Civil Liberties

• Guaranteeing Economic and Social Rights: While the Constitution emphasizes political and civil rights, it does not explicitly guarantee rights related to healthcare, education, or economic security. Adding these protections could enhance the liberal democratic promise of equality and human dignity.

• Privacy Protections: In the age of digital information, stronger constitutional protections for privacy and data security would align the document with modern values around personal freedom and security.

3. Campaign Finance Reform

• Reducing the Influence of Money in Politics: Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United have led to the proliferation of "dark money" in politics, undermining democratic accountability. Constitutional amendments or reforms that limit campaign spending and increase transparency in political donations could help reduce the influence of wealth on the political process.

4. Judicial Reform

• Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices: Currently, Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. Introducing term limits or a set retirement age for justices could prevent the court from becoming too politicized or entrenched in ideologies for too long. This could help ensure that the court remains in touch with contemporary values and challenges.

• Increasing Judicial Accountability: Implementing reforms for greater oversight of judicial actions and ensuring that courts reflect broader societal diversity could help make the judicial branch more responsive to the evolving principles of liberal democracy.

5. Clarifying or Expanding Rights for Marginalized Groups

• Strengthening LGBTQ+ Rights: Although the U.S. has made strides in recognizing the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, clearer constitutional protections could further protect against discrimination and ensure equal treatment under the law.

• Addressing Racial Justice: Amendments could be made to specifically address systemic racism, ensuring that equal protection under the law applies robustly and with focus on rectifying historical inequalities.

• Women’s Reproductive Rights: After Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, an amendment to explicitly protect a woman’s right to choose could strengthen reproductive freedoms and align with liberal democratic ideals of bodily autonomy.

6. Decentralizing Power

• Strengthening Local Governance: A stronger emphasis on federalism could allow local governments to make more decisions that directly affect their communities, increasing political participation and ensuring that diverse viewpoints are represented.

• Reforming the Senate: The current system gives disproportionate power to smaller states due to equal representation for all states, regardless of population. This could be reformed to ensure that the Senate better represents the people, reducing the influence of smaller, less populous states.

7. Improvements to the Impeachment Process

• Clearer and More Accessible Accountability: The impeachment process could be clarified to ensure that it is not used for partisan purposes and that presidents and other high-ranking officials are held accountable for serious misconduct. This would reinforce checks and balances, a key feature of liberal democracy.

8. More Inclusive Amendments Process

• Making Constitutional Amendments More Accessible: The current amendment process is intentionally difficult, requiring either a two-thirds majority in Congress or a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures. Making this process more accessible could allow for the Constitution to be more responsive to the evolving needs of a liberal democracy, especially as social and political dynamics change over time.

Conclusion:

Changing the U.S. Constitution to make it more in tune with the ideals of a liberal democracy would require balancing the foundational principles of democracy with modern concerns around equality, accountability, and inclusion. Many of these changes would make the political system more responsive, transparent, and representative of the diverse population, ensuring that the Constitution continues to serve its purpose as a living document in a modern democratic society. 

Above are the suggestions from ChatGPT to the question "How should the US Constitution be changed to make it more in tune with the ideals of a liberal democracy?".

Other constitutional or legal changes I would suggest:

• Restrictions on gerrymandering.
• Restrictions on presidential power.  The Supreme Court was obviously wrong when it said that a president could not be held accountable for illegal actions taken as part of his official duties.  The failure of Republican congressional men and women to perform their constitutional requirement to provide checks and balances on the executive branch shows the need for some way for citizens to demand change more frequently than every two years.
• Better restrictions to prevent presidential influence over or dismantling of independent agencies.  For example, The Department of Justice and FBI should not report to the executive branch.

Feel free to comment if you have any additions or issues with the improvements suggested in this entry.  Anonymous comments are allowed, but please keep them civil.