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.

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.

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.

Why Do Republicans Hate CPB, PBS and NPR?

The Republicans in Congress just voted to de-fund the public media organizations CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting), PBS (Public Broadcasting System, domestic TV service) and NPR (National Public Radio).  These media organizations were established by Congress decades ago.  For much of the time since then Republicans have complained that they are biased "liberal" media and they are unfair to Republicans and Conservatives.  

As a long time regular viewer of PBS and a listener of NPR, I disagree.  PBS shows a wide variety of shows including Sesame Street, Daniel Tiger, Ken Burns documentaries, Master Piece Theater, and some news, political and cultural shows.  The news shows seem to me to be very fair and balanced unlike FOX news or MSNBC.  NPR provides many shows including news, weather, science, entertainment, etc.  In many rural areas NPR may be a primary provider of news and weather.

I have been confused by the vehement hatred of these public media outlets by Republicans/Conservatives.

I think I've figured out why Republicans hate them. 

I asked ChatGPT to summarize principles of Democrats and  Republicans.  You can click on the links to see its answers.  I also asked ChatGPT to make a summary list to compare Democratic and Republican principles.  Finally I asked ChatGPT to define the principles of a Liberal Democracy.  You can read these to get a more detailed description of each.

According to ChatGPT":

Democrats tend to emphasize:

• Collective responsibility through government action,
• Equity and inclusion for historically marginalized groups,
• Public investment in health, education, and the environment,
• And a belief that government can and should help level the playing field for all Americans.

In essence, a liberal democracy blends majority rule with minority rights, ensuring that even unpopular groups have their basic freedoms safeguarded.

The principles of the "liberal" Democratic party seem to more closely align with ChatGPT's description of a liberal democracy.  So Republican's consider any institutions that believe in the ideals of a liberal democracy to be biased towards and aligned with Democrats.  But sorry Republicans, the U.S. Constitution was designed to define a liberal democracy for the United States.  This was long before the Democratic Party was created.  The founders fell short of a liberal democracy in some areas (slavery, universal suffrage), but until recently we have been moving forward to complete the project (more about this in future posts).

We have a First Amendment which guarantees free speech, but which party likes to ban books?  Which party believes in an historical interpretation of the Constitution and then chooses to ignore the opening clause of the Second Amendment?  

Which party is the worst proponent of gerrymandering?  I know Democrats have also been guilty of gerrymandering, but it is Texas Republicans who are trying to take gerrymandering to a new level.  

Which party would like to implement universal health care?  Which party wants to cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SNAP?  In the current environment, which party is standing up for rule of law and due process?  Which party is trying to destroy the principle of separation of powers?  Which party has neutered congressional oversight?  Which party is trying to make courts impotent?  Which party is trying support medical science? Which party is trying to keep independent agencies like the DOJ and FBI truly independent and not subject to executive pressure? Which party believes in the unitary executive?  Which party is trying to mitigate climate change?  Which party has been more willing to get big money out of politics? Which party is more interested in funding early education (like Head Start).   Which party is trying to fund food for school children?  Which party is trying to destroy our world class higher education system?

So Republicans hate CPB, PBS and NPR because these organizations work very hard to provide objective information and services that reflect the ideas of Constitution and the people of this country.  They may not always be perfect, but they are always working to be provide facts and objective truth. 

And Republicans hate them for this.

Differences Between Conservative and Liberal Beliefs

I asked ChatGPT to do a side-by-side comparison of typical Republican and Democratic party principles.  The answers are provided below.  I included them here because I want to reference this in a later post. 

Principle	Republican Party (Conservative)	Democratic Party (Liberal/Progressive)
Role of Government	Limited government; more power to states and individuals	Active government role in addressing social and economic issues
Taxes & Economy	Lower taxes, deregulation, pro-business	Progressive taxation to fund public services and reduce inequality
Healthcare	Market-based solutions; repeal/replace the ACA	Healthcare is a right; expand ACA or pursue universal healthcare
Social Safety Net	Reduce size of welfare programs; encourage self-reliance	Strengthen programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid
Individual Rights	Emphasize gun rights, religious freedom, property rights	Emphasize civil rights, voting rights, and protections for marginalized groups
Abortion	Pro-life; support restrictions or bans	Pro-choice; support access to abortion and reproductive healthcare
LGBTQ+ Rights	Mixed; some support traditional definitions of gender/marriage	Strong support for legal equality and protections for LGBTQ+ people
Climate and Environment	Skeptical of regulations; favor fossil fuels and energy independence	Support strong environmental regulations; invest in clean energy and climate action
Immigration	Emphasize border security, reduced legal immigration, strict enforcement	Support path to citizenship, protections for Dreamers, more humane policies
Education	School choice, parental control, charter schools, reduce federal role	Invest in public schools, affordable college, universal pre-K
Gun Policy	Defend Second Amendment; oppose most gun control laws	Support background checks, red flag laws, limits on certain firearms
Law and Order	Strong support for police and tough-on-crime policies	Criminal justice reform, address systemic racism, community policing
Foreign Policy	“America First,” military strength, skeptical of global institutions	Multilateralism, diplomacy, alliances like NATO, global leadership
Judicial Philosophy	Originalist interpretation of Constitution	Living Constitution; support judicial decisions that expand rights
Voting Rights	Emphasize election integrity, voter ID laws	Expand voting access, oppose voter suppression, support automatic registration

Notes:

• These are general trends and do not apply to all individuals in either party. Both parties include moderates, libertarians, populists, and progressives. 
• Platform positions may shift depending on current leadership, national events, or generational changes.

Above is the side-by-side comparison of care principles of Conservative Republicans and Democrats as provided by ChatGPT.  You may  or may not agree with the results of this comparison,  Feel free to comment if you have issues with this description.  Anonymous comments are allowed, but please keep them civil.

What Principles Define A Republican Conservative?

I asked ChatGPT "What principles would the Republican Party say define a Republican conservative?"  The answer is provided below.  I included it here because I want to reference this in a later post.

The Republican Party and self-identified conservatives within it typically define Republican conservatism through a set of principles rooted in limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and traditional values. While there’s variation among Republicans (e.g., traditional conservatives, populists, libertarians, nationalists), the mainstream principles they claim to uphold include the following:

Core Principles of Republican Conservatism

1. Limited Government

• Government should play a minimal role in the economy and personal lives.

• Federal power should be restrained, with more authority left to states and local governments (federalism).

• Regulation should be limited to foster personal responsibility and free enterprise.

2. Individual Liberty and Personal Responsibility

• Emphasis on constitutional rights—especially free speech, religious freedom, gun ownership (Second Amendment), and property rights.

• People, not government, should be primarily responsible for their own success or failure.

3. Free Market Capitalism

• Private enterprise is seen as the engine of prosperity and innovation.

• Low taxes, minimal regulation, and limited government spending are prioritized.

• Opposition to what’s viewed as government overreach in areas like healthcare and environmental regulation.

4. Traditional Social Values

• Support for traditional family structures and opposition to policies that conservatives believe undermine them.

• Pro-life stance on abortion.

• Religious values—particularly Judeo-Christian ethics—are often emphasized as foundational to American identity.

5. Strong National Defense and Law Enforcement

• Military strength is viewed as essential to national security and global leadership.

• Support for law enforcement, border security, and a tough stance on crime and illegal immigration.

6. Strict Constitutionalism

• The Constitution should be interpreted according to its original meaning ("originalism").

• Opposition to judicial activism or creating new rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution.

7. Fiscal Responsibility

• Government should balance its budget, reduce the national debt, and cut spending—though in practice, this principle is sometimes inconsistently applied.

• Opposition to large welfare programs and belief in the efficiency of private charity and faith-based initiatives.

8. American Sovereignty and Patriotism

• National interests should be prioritized in foreign and domestic policy ("America First").

• Skepticism of global institutions (like the U.N. or World Economic Forum) and international agreements that are seen to compromise U.S. sovereignty.  

Above is the description of a Republican Conservative as provided by ChatGPT.  This may or may not reflect what you believe are the principles of conservative ideology.  Feel free to comment if you have issues with this description.  Anonymous comments are allowed, but please keep them civil.

 

No DEI For Republicans

Republicans have been complaining for years that higher education in the U.S. is too liberal and has been treating conservative scholars and students badly.

They want to see more conservative faculty, students and administrators in higher education.  They want more respect for conservative thought and policies.  They want a full seat at the table.

Sorry Republicans, that sounds like DEI. 

Trump Is Not Presidential And Is Getting Worse

I'm having trouble putting the word "President" in front of Trump.  I know he won the election, but practically every day he does something that is clearly not presidential.

He seems to be working very hard to destroy this country.  I'm not sure why.  My guess is there are four impulses that are driving him.  

First, he is a narcissist  He only cares about himself. He does not care about anyone else except to the extent he can use them to bolster his ego or increase his wealth.  His obvious corruption and lawlessness doesn't bother him as long as it helps him. He is deeply flawed psychologically.

Second. as has been pointed out by many people, he is transactional.  He makes decisions on what to do or say by calculating what the most beneficial action would be for him personally in that particular moment.  It is reported that he doesn't read his daily intelligence briefings.  We have to depend on him to keep us, the country and the world safe, but he shows no interest protecting anyone or anything except himself.

His transactional method of governing explains his most significant and obvious personality trait, constant lying.  If Trump says something, there is a better than even chance he is lying.  That is why he can say something and then soon after say the exact opposite.  Both of the contradicting statements were true to him when he said them; even if the first true statement was reversed later.   

Trump never admits a mistake.  So you won't hear an apology or a reason.  He feels it would be weak to admit a mistake.  He only admits to a mistake when doing so would benefit him.  And even then he will claim that the mistake was caused by someone else.

Trump continually violates his oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".  He has dismantled important independent agencies such as the  Department of Justice and the FBI.  He neutered the legislative branch and he is trying to destroy the judiciary.  He insults and alienates our  allies.  He is trying to destroy important institutions such as Harvard for seemingly no reason.

Third, Trump can hold a grudge for a long time. Trump promised to be the president for everyone in the country, not just the people who voted for him.  That is clearly not the case.  The pardoning of January 6th rioters is a good example.  Another is his actions that benefit states or groups he considers part of the MAGA movement while trying to hurt states or groups that are not MAGA.

Fourth, Trump's mental condition is declining rapidly.  Republicans have been making a lot of noise about Joe Biden's mental health while he was in office.  I wonder if any Republicans are thinking about how and when they are going to be faced with removing Trump from office?  My guess is they are hoping for some health issue bad enough that it is obvious he can no longer perform his duties as president (as if he ever has actually performed like a president).

Trump was never fit to be president in his first term and he is much worse this time around.  

I worry that without some help from Republicans Trump will irreparably damage our  country before we can vote in a Democratic legislative majority next November.  And that assumes enough voters wake up and see how dangerous Trump is.

President Thinks Midshipmen At Naval Academy Are Incompetent

In the newspaper this morning I read an article by the AP about 381 books being removed from the library at the Naval Academy.

The article said Navy officials used a key word search and identified about 900 books that looked to be problematic and then pared that number down to 381 which were removed from the library.

According to Cmdr. Tim Hawkins, Navy spokesman, "Nearly 400 books were removed from the Nimitz Library to comply with directives outlined in Executive Orders issued by the President."

So the President believes that future leaders of our military and country are not competent enough to make their own decisions about what they should read.   I think I know who is not competent and it is not the Midshipmen.  

 

Below is a definition of DEI.  Given that U.S. military members come from all over our diverse country and often have to work shoulder to shoulder with allies from around the world, does DEI really sound like such radical ideas we need to hide them from people?

Diversity includes all the ways in which people differ, encompassing the different characteristics that make one individual or group different from another.

Equity is the fair treatment, access, opportunity, and advancement for all people, while at the same time striving to identify and eliminate barriers that have prevented the full participation of some groups.

Inclusion is the act of creating environments in which any individual or group can be and feel welcomed, respected, supported, and valued to fully participate.

"Hands Off" Rally

My wife and I joined a "Hands Off" rally yesterday.  It was satisfying and enjoyable.  We took some quickly made signs (unfortunately not very water proof) and joined about 1,300 people on the shoulder of a very busy four lane street.  I think the crowd stretched more than a quarter mile.

It was cold and rainy,  but that didn't dampen the spirits of the many people there.  A lot of cars drove by.  Many honked their horns, waved and gave us thumbs up as they went by.  We waved back.  I saw some one finger salutes.  I also smiled and waved at these people.  That is what free speech is about.

People walked behind the crowd  and took pictures of us and our signs.  I again smiled and waved.  

Some days the torrent of unconstitutional, illegal, incompetent, immoral and corrupt actions we see coming from the Trump administration and Republican politicians can be very depressing.  It felt good to be doing something in public.  To stand up and say I think what you are doing is wrong.

What I was amazed by was the number of cars that had a person or two with their windows down and their phones up videoing the whole line of protesters.  I've never had so many people want a picture of me.

Schumer Was Correct

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is being severely criticized by fellow Democrats for his YES vote on the Republican CR funding bill and letting it become law. Democrats wanted Schumer to vote NO which would have caused the government to shut down. Most Democrats thought a NO vote would be one of their few chances to stop or at least slow Trump's radical agenda.

Schumer thought that shutting the government down would only give Republicans more power to implement their plans.

I agree with Schumer.

Limited government has been a guiding principle of Republicans for decades. Ronald Reagan said the government was the problem, not the solution. Grover Norquist, a well known Republican advisor from the 1980s, wanted to cut the government so deeply that he could “drown it in a bathtub”. Trump shut the government down for about a month during his first term. Republicans like government shut downs.

I haven't figured out what Trump's overall plan is for the country (assuming he has one), but it obviously includes destroying the government, the economy, Democrats, the rule of law, the free press, the Courts and probably the Constitution. A long government shutdown that he could blame on Democrats helps him meet his (and Putin's) plans.

If Trump and Musk really wanted to down size the government and make it more efficient, they wouldn't be firing thousands of employees by in-discriminant means or decimating government departments and agencies.

We need to fight Trump every way we can. Helping him shut down the government does not help the country at all. Once the government was down, how would Democrats every get it going again without Republican help? Do you really think Republicans would make any adjustments or concessions to their bill to get Democratic votes to restart the government? Republicans did not ask for or allow any suggestions from Democrats when writing the CR funding legislation. Why would they do anything during a shutdown they were happy to have? 

It would take Democrat's making concessions and promising enough YES votes before Republicans would bring the CR bill up for another vote. So instead of stopping the Republican's CR bill Democrats would just put the country through the turmoil of a possibly long shutdown and show the country how truly politically weak they are.

Two Hundred Year Old Social Security Recipients?

During President Trump's recent address to the nation Republican's were appalled by his claims of very old people in the Social Security System.  He implied that they were receiving benefits, but provided no proof.  Of course, he never provides proof for his outlandish statements.

What really surprised me was that Republicans seemed stunned to hear of very old people being in the system.  Didn't the President's physician during his first term, Dr. Ronny Johnson, claim President Trump was so healthy he could live to be 200? So what's the big deal?  True to his Republican roots Dr. Johnson provided no proof.

Letter To Republican Senators

The conduct of the President in his first month is appalling. I know he promised us shock and awe and we have gotten that. What I didn't expect was incompetence, outrageous lies, illegal actions, unconstitutional actions, scorn for the rule of law and corruption. I could cite many specific actions, but if you can honestly say you don't know what I'm talking about than this letter really doesn't matter.

I expect a new administration to make changes that reflect their priorities. There are always things that the President wants to add or change, but I would expect these to reflect careful thought and be checked for legality and constitutionality. Instead we have rash, harsh, slap-dash actions with no clear plans. Many of these actions seem to be aimed at pure retribution rather than making our government more cost effective or better for our country and citizens.

I understand the President believes he knows more about everything than anyone else. That is clearly revealed by his many appointments that represent his desire for absolute sycophancy from all subordinates rather then expertise in the nominees' areas of responsibility. We both know he does not know everything.

What I didn't expect was the complete lack by Republican elected officials to honor their oaths of office and constitutional responsibilities. You and your colleagues are charged by the Constitution to be an equal and independent branch of the government. You are expected to act as a constraint on a President who refuses to act like anything close to what we have come to believe is presidential behavior. What I see are politicians who are more concerned about their personal and partisan political power than they are for their country or its citizens.

Please perform your constitutional duty and help President Trump understand that many of his actions are not helpful or condoned by most voters. And the number of voters who would like to see him constrained is growing quickly. If you want to continue to be an elected politician you should start listening to voters.

If you read nothing else in this letter, know that the President needs to stop acting like a know-it-all king and Elon Musk needs to go back to running his companies.

Republicans, Only You Can Save Us

 I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said something like, In a democracy you get the government you
deserve. I didn't vote for Donald Trump and I certainly don't think I deserve Trump's version of government. I believe in the Constitution, the Rule of Law, separation of powers, democracy, integrity, character, facts and truth. Trump is proving that he does not.

If you want to fight waste and fraud, go for it, but do it in ways that don't harm innocent people or valuable institutions. When you find out you were wrong it can be very difficult to repair the damage.

I've been told many times that we need a business leader in the White House. Really? When a business leader creates a disaster, they are often fired or they declare bankruptcy and leave their problems for someone else.  Before President Trump brings moral, institutional and fiscal bankruptcy on us, we need to fire him. 

Democrats can't do this by themselves. We need the help of Republicans (voters and politicians) who realize that Trump is not working in the best interests of citizens or our country. Republicans need to convince him that the chaos we are seeing is not what they voted for. If he doesn't change, they need to help to impeach and remove him from office. 

Republican's please don't wait too long. His recent executive order giving himself complete control over legally established independent departments and agencies shows he really wants to be a dictator forever.

MAGA Voters Need A Reality Check

When Democratic voters became aware of the effects of aging on President Biden, they encouraged him to reconsider his candidacy.  His accomplishments in office and his unselfish act of withdrawing from the campaign will cement his legacy as a great president.

For anyone outside the MAGA bubble, the decline of Donald Trump's mental competency and his failing grip on reality is obvious.  Trump's current poll numbers show that those inside the bubble either never see any of his outrageous comments or they really do not understand or care about the damage he proposes to inflict on the country or his political opponents.  

One of the responsibilities of being a citizen is that you be an informed voter.  That means you should search for information outside of media and information sources that tailor their product to a specific population to gain economic benefits or shape opinions.

Facts about his outrageous behavior surrounding January 6, 2020 are easy to find.  Examples of flagrant and continuous lying are everywhere.  If you can't find any, just wait.  He happily generates new ones everyday.

MAGA voters, you need a reality check and as a responsible voter it is on you to make that happen.

After the fact apologies that you didn't know or didn't believe he would be that bad will not cut it.

14th Amendment Is Not Unfair to Trump Or Voters

This blog entry is a follow-on to my previous blog on whether the 14^th Amendment should be used to prevent Donald Trump from being president again.

Many Republicans believe that voters should be allowed to make the decision about Trump's fitness to be president again. They think it is unfair and possibly undemocratic to keep him off the ballot using the 14^th Amendment.

Of course they know that the Constitution disqualifies people from the presidency who were not citizens from birth or who are less then 35 years of age. I can only guess why the authors of those provisions thought it was important to include those restrictions in the Constitution. Certainly there are many foreign born, naturalized citizens who are obviously fully qualified to run for the position, but those restrictions are in the Constitution and will be enforced until they are amended.

Conviction in the Senate of impeachment carries the possibility of a sentence that includes the disqualification from holding office again.

So the argument that the use of the 14^th Amendment is merely a political maneuver by Democrats is false. Using the 14^th Amendment is proper use of Constitutional law just as disqualification based on age or citizenship status.

I'm The President! Get Off My Yard Or I'll Nuke You!

Hey you kids, get off my yard!

When I first saw Trump's mug shot I started laughing.  My first thought was he looked like some grumpy old man yelling at the neighbor kids who were walking on his grass again.  

I'm sure he spent a lot of time thinking about what image he wanted to project and then practicing that glare until he got it just right.  He wanted to make sure that his first mug shot looked presidential.  

What a clown.

No Get Out of Jail Free Card for Trump

As one of the justifications for his vote against conviction during the second impeachment of former president Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell said that the acquittal did not allow Trump to escape consequences for his actions before and during the January 6th insurrection. McConnell correctly said Trump could be prosecuted for any crimes committed during or after his presidency after he was no longer president.

Donald Trump faces indictments this year from the DOJ and/or the state of Georgia. Convictions on any one of these additional indictments would be serious enough to disqualify him from ever holding office again. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says any federal office holder, like Trump, who engages "in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or who give aid or comfort to enemies of the United States" is prohibited from holding office again.

Trump is no longer president, but he is already complaining that any legal actions against him should not be allowed since he is a presidential candidate.

By DOJ rules, but not by the constitution, Trump had a "get out of jail free" card for prosecution of any federal crimes while he was in office. (Note, this GOOJF card never applies to state or civil court cases.) Now that he is out of office, we need to make it clear that these cases will go forward whether or not Trump is a candidate or even if he is again elected president.

A wealthy person can't suddenly file for the presidency to delay any federal indictments or convictions until the next presidential election. 

I am not aware of any laws on this subject, but Trump and voters should expect that any indictments this year will be be handled as they would for any other citizen. They won't be delayed by campaign contingencies, the actual election or, should he win, by any responsibilities of his new status as president-elect or president.

Trump and his supporters have to accept the possibility that Trump could be inaugurated in a jail cell or the Oval Office moved to Leavenworth.  

We've all seen enough of Trump's play book to know that once he is indicted he will use every opportunity to slow down the judicial process. He is entitled to the same legal options as any other defendant, but he and his supporters need to accept that these slow downs increase his chances that the legal processes against him will interfere with what they see as his need to campaign or serve. If you can't accept that, don't vote for him in the primary.

Trump supporters have been able to turn a blind eye to Trump's inadequacies for years. From the day he walked down the escalator it has been been very clear that Trump lies about anything and everything. He has only a superficial understanding of the Constitution, science or the Bible. He has no idea of what is expected of a US president who is responsible for the entire country. He does not understand the concepts of independent and impartial judiciary system and justice department. He has practically no understanding of the US place in the world as an advocate and defender of democracy and as a leader who protects us, our allies and and world from countries and organizations that would harm us. Laws and norms that have guided us for centuries mean nothing to him.

Trump believes the world exists to serve him. He has repeatedly shown he is willing to sacrifice the constitution or country if he thinks that is needed to further his goals. His supporters must believe this also since nothing he does seems to affect their fealty. That is why he must face the law as any other citizen would until he is acquitted or convicted and his sentence is completed.

 

May The Best Fraudster Win

Elephant Shit

Kari Lake, a Trump acolyte and candidate for governor of Arizona, was asked if she would accept the results of the election.  She replied something like "I expect to win the election and I will accept the results".  When pressed if she would accept the results if she lost, she repeated "I expect to win the election and I will accept the results".

The fact the she basically refused to answer that simple question means she will not accept the results if she is not elected.  She obviously is a believer in "heads I win, tails you lose".

She logically can't object if her opponent makes the same election results statement.  That would mean that no matter who wins, someone is going to claim election fraud.  Of course that is insane. 

If Kari Lake really believes she can only lose if there is fraud, why is she campaigning?  Why try to convince voters you are the better candidate if you believe the other side is going to manufacture votes?  She can't know how many fraudulent votes her opponent could muster. 

If Kari Lake really believes the other side is going to produce fraudulent votes, wouldn't she be smart to tell us how the fraud will be committed so it can be prevented? Or maybe manufacture some fraudulent votes for herself? 

So extending Kari Lake's philosophy she believes both candidates will attempt to commit fraud and the winner will be the candidate that was the better fraudster.   

Kari Lake is wrong and should not be elected.  All candidates should commit to accepting the results of elections and to doing their part to make sure that elections are fair and accurate.