 |
| MAD-Make America Dumber |
I wrote a blog entry back in August, 2026 (One Person, One Vote. One Person, One Voice.) complaining about corporations having free speech equal to the speech of people. This is important since the court also believes giving money to political campaigns is speech. In that post I suggested a new constitutional amendment to clarify that corporations should not have the same free speech rights as a person.
I just finished the book “The U.S. Constitution” by Melissa Murray which explains the Articles and Amendments using modern language, historical context and commentaries.
I learned when and how corporations became “persons” in a Supreme Court decision, sort of. The Court had over many cases decided that there were different groups that were protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. I believe these were generally groups of people.
In a Supreme Court case Santa Clara County. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S.394 (1886) the Court decided that corporations were entitled to some constitutional protections, but the opinion did not specifically state whether or nor corporations were protected by the Equal Protection Clause.
An official with the court tasked with publishing a summary of the Court's decision stated in the headnote to the summary that all the Justices agreed that the Equal Protection Clause applied to corporations although that was not stated in the actual decision. Chief Justice Morrison Waite approved the headnote and the summary. Corporations were thereafter considered “persons” under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Unbelievable.
I recommend “The U.S. Constitution” by Melissa Murray. It is not a hard read, but I guarantee you will come away with a new understanding of the Constitution, its strengths, weaknesses and, importantly, compromises.
 |
| Dummy Donnie's Folly |
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".
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.
 |
| Money Overpowers Free Speech |
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.
 |
| Trump the Clown |
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
 |
| You Can't Hide Your Lying Eyes Or Your Balding Head |
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.
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
 |
| Trump the clown |
 |
| Trump the horror show |
 |
| Fear is the goal. Hate is the result. |
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?
 |
| Whopping Liar |
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.
 |
| Have You No Shame? |
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.
 |
| I Am Not A Liar! |
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.
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.
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.
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:
 |
| Show Me The Money |
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.
