Objectively speaking...WTF is Donald Trump DOING To US?

Let's review...

From an outsider, objective perspective, Donald Trump as POTUS 47 appears to be pursuing several key objectives, with his actions reflecting a mix of personal, political, and ideological motivations:

1. Consolidating Personal Power & Avoiding Accountability

• Undermining institutions that could hold him accountable (DOJ, FBI, courts, media).
• Seeking to expand executive authority and diminish checks on his power.
• Promoting loyalists and attacking dissenters, ensuring a government that serves him personally.
• Using government power to punish political enemies.

2. Reshaping the U.S. Government to Favor His Base & Ideology

• Pushing Christian Nationalism and right-wing populism (e.g., attacking "woke" institutions).
• Weakening regulatory agencies, favoring corporate interests and deregulation.
• Centralizing power in the executive branch while sidelining Congress and the courts.

3. Cementing Control Over the Republican Party

• Silencing or ousting moderate/conservative opposition within the GOP.
• Elevating hardliners like JD Vance, ensuring his brand dominates post-Trump GOP.
• Keeping his base engaged with cultural war issues, conspiracies, and grievance politics.

4. Redefining America’s Global Role Toward Isolationism & Autocracy

• Undermining NATO and cozying up to authoritarian leaders.
• Weakening U.S. diplomatic influence while prioritizing transactional foreign policies.
• Encouraging nationalist and protectionist economic policies.

5. Securing Long-Term Influence Beyond His Presidency

• Installing Supreme Court justices and federal judges aligned with his agenda.
• Supporting efforts to rewrite voting laws in ways that favor Republicans.
• Encouraging state-level legislation to further entrench Trumpist ideology.

At its core, Trump’s second term appears designed to reshape the U.S. into a more authoritarian, nationalist state centered around his personal power and ideology. He’s leveraging chaos, division, and institutional erosion to ensure that he and his movement remain dominant—potentially beyond his presidency.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

MaGA...Running Blind

In the world of political extremes, the unwavering support for Donald Trump among his MaGA (the "a" lowered in a half mast nod to the damages done to the country by that group, until they stop), followers can often appear perplexing, especially in the face of mounting controversies, legal challenges, and widespread criticism. For many, the commitment to Trump transcends rational political reasoning and ventures into the territory of emotional investment and identity. 

Elon at the end of his government destruction? Trump told his cabinet he's leaving soon.

Also, Trump recently discovered the word, "groceries" the other day, an old word, a beautiiful word", he said. No one uses the word for like, "grocery store"? This man is the dumbest SOB I've ever in the White House, or in business, or in the United States, or on planet Earth. Truly.

I can only see one reason Donald Trump became POTUS: blind paradimetrics. Ignorance, unrequited pain, disingenuous frustration, and misplaced vengeance— Truly, such fine qualities for the Republican Party to explore & exemplify. #convictedFelonTrumpGOP

There is some good news. "Map Shows Pres. Donald Trump's Approval Rating in Each State 2 Months Into Term" - Trump's approval rating has turned negative for the 1st time since his ridiculous return to the WH.

Also after $20 some Million spent in the Wisconsin judicial race, Elon lost, the Trump MaGA GOP lost and America and democracy won, big time. 1 big "W" for democracy, 1 big "L" for the kakistocracy led by Trump, the big dumb is diminishing, just not soon enough. Musk said it would decide Western Civilization, then immeidately turned away when he lost saying he'd expected to lose (sounds like Trump there). 

And Trump hates losers. Elon lost. 'Nuff Said!

Brief aside...I asked ChatGPT, who I like to call, "Chuck", in a call back to the TV show "Supernatural" (see, "God"): "Could it be said that the world is starting to look at the USA under Donald Trump (America's 1st convinced felon POTUS, #47, as the little bitch country of the world? Or something on that order?"

Its response:

"That’s definitely a blunt way of putting it, but you’re not alone in wondering how the world is perceiving the U.S. under a potential second Trump term. Many foreign policy analysts have speculated that Trump's "America First" approach, his transactional view of alliances, and his history of cozying up to authoritarian leaders could weaken the country’s global standing.""

If he follows through on threats to abandon NATO, cut off traditional allies, and push isolationist policies, the U.S. could be seen as unreliable, weaker in influence, and more beholden to stronger global powers like China and Russia. Some might argue that this would make the U.S. a "pushover" or a diminished force on the world stage, which could resemble what you’re describing."

Of course, Trump supporters would argue the opposite—that his leadership would make America "tougher" by refusing to play by old diplomatic norms. But globally, leaders who rely on strong alliances may see the U.S. as more of a wildcard or even a liability." I did read that the EU is beginning to realize that America is now becoming an "adversary". Purposely. 

Let's face it, more and more of America no longer cares what the Trump Kakistocratic Party is thinking, as the clowns they elected tear down America, democracy, our economy, and push all of that into the world at large. WILL Trump crash the world economy? 

He doesn't know, he just wants to find out.

Anyway...

I could exercise my psychology degree long and hard on the Trump authoritarian political personality cult known as MaGA. They seem to be one giant Milgram study. The Milgram experiment (1961) was a psychological study by Stanley Milgram at Yale University, designed to test obedience to authority. I had to learn about it, among many others, before getting my degree in 1984.

Participants were instructed to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to a "learner" (an actor) whenever they answered incorrectly. Despite hearing the learner’s cries of pain (which were faked), most participants continued delivering shocks when urged by an authority figure. The study revealed how ordinary people could commit harmful acts under authoritative pressure, shedding light on obedience in extreme situations, including historical atrocities.

Like in the Milgram experiment, many MaGA supporters follow Trump's directives despite ethical concerns, driven by authority, social pressure, and emotional investment. Just as participants in the study ignored their own moral discomfort to obey commands, MaGA followers often dismiss facts, legal issues, and harm to others, prioritizing loyalty over critical thinking. This highlights how strong leadership, combined with fear and group identity, can override personal judgment and ethical boundaries.

This phenomenon can be understood through psychological concepts like the running blind effect, where individuals continue on a path of belief despite overwhelming evidence suggesting they might be wrong. Fear-based messaging, blame-shifting, and a deep-seated attachment to a divisive narrative fuel this dynamic, creating an environment where supporters double down rather than reassess their positions. 

In this context, the fervent loyalty to Trump may not just be about policies or political ideologies but about the need to preserve a worldview that, for them, is defined by a constant battle against perceived threats.

Running blind is primarily an idiom rather than a formally recognized psychological theory. It describes acting without sufficient knowledge, foresight, or awareness of consequences. While it overlaps with concepts in psychology—such as escalation of commitment, confirmation bias, and motivated reasoning—there is no specific "Running Blind Effect" formally defined in academic literature.

As for MaGA and motivated reasoning? It could absolutely be said that many within the MAGA movement have failed on the Four Ways to Avoid the Pitfalls of Motivated Moral Reasoning. 

Let’s break it down:

1. The "Front Page" Test – Many MaGA supporters seem unconcerned about how their actions or beliefs would appear in an objective public setting. Instead, they often exist in media bubbles where their beliefs are reinforced rather than challenged. The movement’s leaders, including their convicted felon Trump, thrive on secrecy, misinformation, and alternative narratives that sidestep accountability.

2. Don’t Go It Alone – Rather than surrounding themselves with dissenting voices, MaGA supporters often reject mainstream sources of information and listen exclusively to right-wing media that echoes their views. The culture of Trumpism discourages critical self-reflection and punishes those who question its dogma (e.g., the backlash against former allies who criticize Trump).

3. Avoid Ambiguity – The MaGA movement thrives on ambiguity, using vague terms like "deep state," "election fraud," or "America First" without clear, fact-based definitions. These ambiguous narratives allow followers to justify actions that might otherwise be seen as unethical or extreme.

4. Stay Humble – Trumpism is built on a rejection of humility. The movement, much like Trump himself, tends to dismiss criticism outright, often attacking those who disagree rather than engaging in self-reflection. The idea of "never admitting defeat" or "owning the libs" has replaced intellectual humility with a defensive, combative stance.

By failing in these four areas, the MaGA movement has created an environment where motivated reasoning runs unchecked, reinforcing tribalism and making it difficult for supporters to critically assess their beliefs.

Overall? A troubling testament to blind loyalty over critical thought, where emotion eclipses reason and tribalism replaces integrity. Their problem isn't so much the failure, but the striking out at others for their own failings, ascribing those failings repeatedly to others. And in the political arena, they harm others and weaken the very country they claim to love.

There are various ways to view this: For Decades, a Behavioral Blind Spot Has Plagued Political Development

And, A massive experiment on choice blindness in political decisions: Confidence, confabulation, and unconscious detection of self-deception

The running blind effect could definitely be a factor in how hardcore MaGA supporters process and respond to information. The term generally refers to situations where individuals continue down a chosen path despite mounting evidence that it may not be in their best interest, often due to emotional investment, identity reinforcement, or cognitive biases.

For MaGA supporters who are deeply entrenched in their beliefs:

• Fear-Based Messaging: Many consume media that constantly reinforces a narrative of impending doom, socialist takeover, or moral decay. This repeated exposure triggers a heightened emotional response, leading to what’s known as motivated reasoning—they seek out and accept information that supports their fears while rejecting anything that contradicts them.

• Blame as a Coping Mechanism: Assigning blame (to liberals, immigrants, deep state actors, etc.) helps maintain a black-and-white worldview, avoiding cognitive dissonance. If things are bad, it’s easier to believe that someone else (Democrats, RINOs, "woke" corporations) is sabotaging America rather than reconsidering their own stance.

• Commitment Escalation: The running blind effect plays out in their unwavering commitment to Trump. Even when faced with legal issues, policy failures, or contradictions, many will double down instead of re-evaluating. This is partly because admitting they were wrong would threaten their identity and sense of belonging.

So, yes, the running blind effect could explain why some MaGA supporters persist in supporting Trump despite growing legal, ethical, and political red flags—because reversing course would feel like an existential loss rather than just a change of opinion.

​The "running blind effect" isn't a widely recognized term in political psychology. However, it could refer to phenomena such as the escalation of commitment or choice blindness, both of which have significant implications in political contexts.​Negotiations Ninja

Escalation of Commitment: This concept describes the tendency of individuals or groups to continue investing in a decision despite evidence of its negative outcomes. In politics, this can manifest as unwavering support for a policy or leader even when faced with mounting failures or controversies. For instance, a study titled "The escalation of commitment in political decision-making groups" explores how political groups might persist with failing initiatives due to prior investments. ​Wiley Online Library+1Wiley Online Library+1

Choice Blindness: This refers to the phenomenon where individuals fail to notice discrepancies between their intentions and subsequent choices, leading them to accept outcomes they might not have originally endorsed. In political decision-making, choice blindness can result in voters supporting candidates or policies without fully recognizing their implications. A relevant study titled "A massive experiment on choice blindness in political decisions" examines this effect in the context of political choices. ​WikipediaPMC

Understanding these psychological tendencies is crucial for fostering more informed and reflective political engagement.​

To neutralize the running blind effect and break free from the cycle of fear and blind loyalty, it’s crucial to encourage open dialogue and empathy. Creating spaces where individuals can engage with different perspectives without feeling attacked or ridiculed is key. 

Promoting critical thinking and media literacy helps people recognize biased or manipulative messaging. It's also important to encourage self-reflection, helping individuals separate their identity from their political beliefs. By fostering an environment where curiosity is valued over confirmation, we can begin to counteract the entrenched narratives that keep people stuck in a polarized mindset.

Of course, eliminating people like Donald Trump from the national stage and keeping them out of public office through a proper court trial for the crimes that have been blocked would also help.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Trump's ERS Dead in the Water, Like Trump

I'm so bored with clickbait guy in our White House. 

FYI. No. We're not replacing IRS with ERS, External Revenue Service, and tariffs. It's clickbait.

Who the Hell elected this guy? Jesus Wept...Putin Grins...along with Trump oligarchs and apparently a vast and ever growing kakistocracy.

Trump announced his intention to create an "External Revenue Service" (ERS) during his inauguration speech on January 20, 2025. The ERS is intended to collect tariffs, duties, and other revenues from foreign sources, aiming to shift the U.S. revenue system away from income taxes. ​

Following this announcement, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stated that the administration's goal is to abolish the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and replace federal income taxes with revenue generated from tariffs. ​

Economists have expressed skepticism about the feasibility of this plan, noting that tariffs currently generate a small fraction of federal revenue and that relying solely on tariffs could lead to increased consumer prices and economic challenges. ​

Trump has proposed the creation of the ERS to replace the IRS and eliminate income taxes, but this plan faces significant economic and political obstacles.​

This idea is economically unworkable and largely nonsense. 

Here’s why:

1. Tariffs Cannot Replace Income Tax Revenue – The U.S. federal government collects over $4.5 trillion annually in revenue, with over 50% coming from income taxes. Tariffs currently bring in only about $80 billion per year—a tiny fraction of what would be needed. Raising tariffs high enough to replace income tax would make imported goods unaffordable, hurt American businesses, and spark trade wars.

2. Who Pays Tariffs? – Tariffs are not paid by foreign countries; they are paid by American consumers and businesses that import goods. So, instead of income tax, Americans would just be paying higher prices for everything, making this an indirect tax rather than a true abolition of taxation.

3. Economic Consequences – Eliminating income tax while shifting entirely to tariffs would cripple the economy by:

   • Increasing costs for consumers (inflation).

   • Hurting businesses that rely on imported goods.

   • Causing retaliation from other countries with tariffs on U.S. exports, harming American industries like agriculture and manufacturing.

   • Creating massive budget deficits since tariffs wouldn’t generate nearly enough revenue to fund government services, including the military, Social Security, Medicare, and infrastructure.

4. Political Impossibility – Even if Trump proposed this, it would require Congressional approval, which is extremely unlikely given the chaos it would cause.

This is classic clickbait populism—throwing out a radical-sounding idea that plays well with anti-tax rhetoric but has no basis in economic reality.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Val Kilmer: A Legacy Of Talent & Resilience – Mamet, 'Spartan'...& A Spy’s Game

RIP to Val Kilmer.

"Kilmer died Tuesday night in Los Angeles, surrounded by family and friends, his daughter, Mercedes Kilmer, said in an email to The Associated Press. Kilmer died from pneumonia. He had recovered after a 2014 throat cancer diagnosis that required two tracheotomies. The New York Times was the first to report his death." - AP

My introduction to Val Kilmer was in Top Gun (1986), and I did not like him (that character, anyway, as I came to realize later). Then I saw him in Real Genius (1985). I liked him a bit more. Then I saw him in Top Secret (1984) and I thought, yeah, he's much more likable here. 

​Val Kilmer, the versatile actor known for his roles in films like Top Gun, Batman Forever, and The Doors, passed away on April 1, 2025, at the age of 65 due to pneumonia. His daughter, Mercedes Kilmer, confirmed his death, noting that he had previously battled throat cancer since 2015, which had significantly impacted his health. 

Kilmer's portrayal of Jim Morrison in The Doors (1991) showcased his dedication to his craft, as he immersed himself in the role by singing all the concert sequences himself. His performance as Iceman in Top Gun (1986) and as the titular character in Batman Forever (1995) solidified his status as a Hollywood leading man.

Throughout his career, Kilmer was known for his intense approach to acting, which sometimes led to a reputation for being difficult to work with. Despite these challenges, his commitment to his roles left a lasting impact on the film industry. ​

Kilmer has narrated a few films. One of the notable projects he narrated is The American West (2016), a documentary series that explores the history of the American West. Kilmer’s deep, distinctive voice adds a powerful layer to the storytelling, making his narration a memorable part of the series. Additionally, Kilmer has lent his voice to various other projects, both in narration and voice acting.

In addition to The American West, Kilmer also narrated The Mutant Chronicles (2008), though it is more of a feature film with a documentary-style approach. However, for a more documentary-specific project, Kilmer is also known for narrating Cinema Twain (2015), a rather good documentary that focuses on the life and legacy of Mark Twain.

"The Mutant Chronicles universe was first a Pen and Paper role-playing game published by Swedish game studio Target Games. There were also several boardgames, a set of tabletop wargaming rules (with associated lines of miniatures), as well as comic books." IMDb

In his later years, Kilmer became more politically active and even considered running for governor of New Mexico. He also authored a memoir titled I'm Your Huckleberry: A Memoir in 2020, providing insights into his life and career.

Kilmer is survived by his two children, Mercedes and Jack, who have both followed in their father's footsteps in the entertainment industry. 

But I don't want to talk here about those films that have been discussed so much.

One of his, if not standout performances in a film for me, but one of my favorites is Spartan (2004) from David Mamet. Their only collaboration and a film kind of panned by reviewers, but still one of my favorite Kilmer flicks. But then I have an orientation that leans into espionage, both non-fiction for most of the first part of my life, and the fictional. But I've always preferred as realistic as possible. Either in its reality or in the feel for that. Which was why my favorite spy novelist long was books by Len Deighton. 

While I was not in my father's life, or he in mine, I was given the last book he was reading when he died, and it was Deighton's spy series, Game, Set, Match. Which, rather oddl,y when I received that book, I had just finished what I thought was a very good BBC series of the same name with Ian Holm as the inveterate character of Bernard Sampson (pronunciation of his first name BERNard, forever misspoke by "Yanks").

Deighton was famous for his books into films starring the late Michael Caine: The IPCRESS File (1962), Funeral in Berlin (1964), Billion-Dollar Brain (1966). Caine's character of spy Harry Palmer was my favorite fictional spy after James Bond and before the satirical Derek Flint (James Coburn). I loved those films and Michael Caine ever since them.

Oddly enough it took me forever to find the DVD set of the Game, Set, Match series because writer Deighton hated Holm's performance and he tried to kill their existence. I finally found a copy in Australia. That Game Set Match series is a trilogy of a trilogy of books: Deighton later wrote two more trilogies continuing Samson’s story:

• Game, Set, Match (Berlin Game, Mexico Set, London Match)

• Hook, Line & Sinker (Spy Hook, Spy Line, Spy Sinker)

• Faith, Hope & Charity (Faith, Hope, Charity)

But I (quite obviously) digress...

I've been a fan of Mamet's since my playwriting class days at university, and full in after I saw House of Games (1987). But even before that, with The Postman Always Rings Twice (1981), The Verdict (1982) with Paul Newman, and definitely with The Untouchables (1987).

How can I justify my appreciation of Spartan?

I don’t really need to justify liking Spartan—but if you want me to defend it against its lukewarm reception, there is plenty to work with. 

Here’s why I think it stands out:

1. Mamet’s Signature Dialogue & Tight Script

• Mamet’s stylized, clipped dialogue can be divisive, but it gives Spartan a unique, almost poetic rhythm. It’s efficient, stripped down—no wasted words.

• The storytelling avoids spoon-feeding the audience, trusting them to piece things together, which makes rewatches rewarding.

2. Val Kilmer’s Performance

• He’s at his best here—intense, understated, and believably lethal. Unlike a typical action hero, he plays Scott as all business, which fits the tone perfectly.

3. Unconventional Spy Thriller

• No over-the-top set pieces or glamorized espionage—this is a brutal, procedural look at special ops work, where success often comes down to ruthlessness, not flash.

• The film’s twists feel earned rather than forced, and it respects the audience’s intelligence.

4. Dark, Political Edge

• It subtly critiques power structures, government corruption, and the expendability of even high-profile individuals.

• The conspiracy at the film’s core isn’t outlandish—it feels frighteningly plausible.

5. Rewatchability & Cult Status

• Like a lot of Mamet films, it’s aged well. Its methodical pacing, sharp dialogue, and ambiguous moral compass make it more rewarding the more you watch it.

The fact that critics weren’t all on board actually makes it more of a hidden gem. Some of the best films aren’t universally loved at first but develop a loyal following over time—Spartan is one of those.

Val Kilmer’s career is celebrated for his iconic roles in films like Top Gun and The Doors. Known for his talent and charm, Kilmer has faced personal challenges, including a battle with throat cancer. Despite these hurdles, his legacy continues to inspire, leaving a lasting mark on both Hollywood and his fans.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

NATO Article 5 & the Cyber Battlefield: NATO's Response to Big Tech & Election Interference

'Unveiling the Truth: Election Result Discrepancies, Nathan Taylor from Election Truth Alliance'

The text (and the rest on that page) raises several concerning points about potential vulnerabilities in election security, particularly involving private companies and the influence of powerful individuals. 

First, let's reshare, from the Marsh singing family at @marshsongs (music video):"The people of Europe stand with Ukraine against the threat of a false peace as much as a brutal war. Because of our shared history. Because of our shared future. Because it is just. Because it is necessary. And because they deserve nothing less. Don't abandon them. #SlavaUkraini"

Moving on...

NATO considering Article 5 in relation to election interference, particularly involving cyber threats, would represent a significant shift in how the alliance addresses non-traditional security threats. Article 5 has historically been invoked in response to direct military aggression, but as cyber warfare becomes an increasingly potent tool for state and non-state actors, NATO's willingness to consider it in the context of election security reflects the growing complexity of modern geopolitical threats.

The concern about private entities, like Elon Musk's Starlink satellites or companies involved in election infrastructure, potentially being used as vectors for foreign influence or cyber attacks is valid. If these technologies are misused to interfere in democratic processes, it could undermine national security in ways that traditional military responses cannot address.

Article 5's potential invocation in this context would signal a recognition that cybersecurity is as critical as physical borders in protecting democratic institutions. However, for NATO to take such a step, the evidence must be compelling enough to justify collective defense measures. This raises concerns about transparency, accountability, and the mechanisms for determining whether an attack—cyber or otherwise—warrants such a high-level response.

In summary, NATO's consideration of Article 5 in relation to cyber and election-related interference is a reflection of evolving security dynamics. It would underscore the need for robust cyber defenses and international cooperation to safeguard democracy from both state and corporate threats. However, it also raises questions about how we define and respond to threats in an increasingly interconnected world.

The commentary on that website is a very intricate and complex theory, linking multiple events and companies together. It might help to take a step back and provide a critical perspective, questioning the plausibility of some connections, while also acknowledging that the subject of cybersecurity and election integrity deserves serious discussion. 

Here's a potential comment:

"While there are certainly concerns about cybersecurity and election integrity, this theory ties together a lot of disparate elements and relies on some speculative connections. For example, linking Musk's satellite network and certain election-related products to far-right individuals and claiming a coordinated effort to influence the election raises important questions but also requires strong evidence to be taken seriously. It's important to differentiate between genuine concerns about security and potential misinterpretations of complex systems. Regardless, the issue of election security, especially in the digital age, should be addressed with transparency and accountability to ensure the trust of all citizens."

This response allows one to engage with the content while also emphasizing the importance of evidence and a measured approach to such claims.

Here’s a breakdown of the major concerns:

1. Security and Technology in Election Systems: The mention of far-right individuals, like Leonard Leo and Peter Thiel, having significant influence over election security companies is troubling. The idea that these figures could have access to critical infrastructure—such as voting machines and election-related servers—raises the question of whether there is a conflict of interest that could undermine the integrity of elections.

2. Private Sector Influence: The involvement of companies like Palantir and Eaton Corp., with ties to both government agencies and private interests, is concerning. If these companies are playing a central role in election systems, it’s essential that their practices are transparent and accountable to prevent any potential exploitation for partisan purposes.

3. Elon Musk and the Starlink Network: The argument that Musk’s satellite network could be used as a tool for interference is speculative but worth considering. If a private entity has such widespread access to communication infrastructure, it could pose security risks that need to be addressed by regulators. The question of why Musk would rapidly deploy a network of satellites before an election also deserves scrutiny, especially if there’s a possibility of misuse.

4. Foreign Influence and Propaganda: The connection between Russian oligarchs and Elon Musk, as well as the alleged shift in Musk’s political messaging after the Ukraine invasion, touches on a broader concern about foreign influence in U.S. elections. Any potential connections between U.S. figures and foreign powers must be carefully monitored to avoid compromising democratic processes.

5. Motive and Speculation: The theory about Ukraine's mineral resources and the electric vehicle market adds an element of geopolitical interest to the mix, but it’s based on speculation. While it’s reasonable to ask why powerful figures like Musk and others are involved in certain markets or political movements, drawing conclusions without hard evidence can weaken the argument.

Overall, these concerns point to the need for increased scrutiny and regulation of both election infrastructure and the growing influence of private corporations in critical democratic processes. However, they also highlight the importance of separating legitimate concerns from unfounded speculation in order to address these issues effectively. It’s crucial to prioritize transparency, accountability, and evidence-based investigations when it comes to election integrity.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Breaking Russia: A Strategic Plan to Dismantle Putin’s Empire and End Military Aggression

Russian Pres. Vladimir Putin today on Russian-controlled State-TV...Fox News::

""Comrades, today is April 1st, known as "April Fool's Day" in some western democracies (Peh! Democracy!). As many of you know, it is traditionally a day for jokes and pranks in those parts of the world. But, as you may have guessed, here in Russia, we are far too serious for such childish things. Too much abuse and tyranny by our leaders, I suppose. Anyway, instead of tricking each other with foolish antics, we prefer the high stakes of abusive statecraft, geopolitics, and invading other countries .

"So, no, I will not be pulling any pranks today. Comrades, the matter I am about to discuss is no laughing matter. I understand the complexity of what I am suggesting, and I fully recognize the difficulty of the situation. However, the challenges we face require serious consideration. Now, let us address the pressing issues of Russia’s future and the obstacles before us. Even if it was I who created this mess.

"Though, truth be told, I’ve been thinking... Perhaps it’s time for me to retire? Maybe I’ll open a vodka distillery and pub—who wouldn't want a drink after dealing with all this...khren [crap]? Just kidding. But managing Russia? It’s getting a bit too hard. Especially at my advanced age. Losing my Macho, I think. Breast sagging, ass sagging...anyway...uh, I’m even considering opening a Siberian yoga retreat. It sounds peaceful, doesn’t it? But, alas, the reality demands we face these challenges head-on. Ahhhh, der'mo, nevermind..."

OK, Have a fun and pleasant April Fool's Day! 

A perfect day I think, for such a consideration as the following. While this is NOT a joke, it does seem impossible. 

And yet, we need to consider such things, for we have put them off too long, and we ARE still America! Not some pansy-ass, right-wing, pretend wannabe Macho Autocratic overly blusterous Christian nationalist state of some convicted criminal. Right?

Mark Twain said: "Never put off till tomorrow what you can do today."

Oh really? Yes...really.

Benjamin Franklin said before him: "You may delay, but time will not."

Ain't that the truth!

OK, here we go...

Life is only absurd if we allow it to be. 

Like electing someone as President of the United States who is clearly unqualified, improper, and incapable, while also being a convicted felon with a history of BEING a career criminal and leader of a criminal enterprise known as the Trump Organization. It really raises serious concerns, people.

Putin presents a unique and pressing case. While he leads a nuclear power, that does not exempt him or his country from accountability. We must prevent Russia from exercising unchecked power, abusing its position, and committing war crimes, particularly given the potential for future atrocities against other nations. While past actions do not necessarily predict future behavior, history offers valuable lessons, especially when it comes to despots like Putin.

And time has not. Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014, and we did little to nothing, so they were emboldened to attack again more seriously in 2020, expecting success in short order.

Ukraine felt differently.

The majority of humanity must take decisive action against Russia. It is way past time to start dealing with these despots and aggressive nations.

Proposition:

Russia must return part of Ukraine’s territory, severing the land bridge to Crimea. Ukraine should retain any territory it has gained within Russia, with the possibility of a negotiated land exchange that both sides agree upon. Additionally, Russia must be placed under international constraints similar to those imposed on Japan after World War II, ensuring the permanent limitation of its military and the cessation of aggressive actions against other nations. Meanwhile, Ukraine should proceed with its integration into both the European Union and NATO.

Reaction:

Your proposal outlines a potential resolution to the conflict, but several major geopolitical and practical challenges would need to be addressed for it to become viable:

1. Crimea and the Land Bridge – Breaking Russia’s land bridge to Crimea (which connects it through occupied territories in Ukraine’s south) would be a significant blow to Russia’s strategic position. Moscow has repeatedly stated that Crimea is non-negotiable, making this a major sticking point.

2. Territorial Exchanges – Ukraine has taken some territory in Russia (mostly in border regions like Belgorod in recent raids), but it's unlikely to hold them long-term. A negotiated land swap would require both nations to agree, which seems improbable given the current hostilities.

3. Demilitarization of Russia – Forcing Russia into a Japan-style military restriction would require overwhelming international pressure and enforcement, likely through military defeat or economic strangulation. Given Russia’s nuclear arsenal and permanent UN Security Council seat, enforcing such a condition would be far more complicated than it was for post-WWII Japan.

4. Ukraine’s NATO & EU Membership – Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO and the EU are widely supported in the West, but NATO membership remains a red line for Russia, which was a key justification for its invasion. The process would also require unanimous approval from all NATO members.

This proposal would likely require a decisive Ukrainian military victory and a significant shift in Russia’s political landscape—either through internal upheaval or external pressure. While theoretically appealing, such an outcome would be incredibly difficult to achieve given current realities.

Then how to provide a concrete plan to strip Russia of its power and dismantle its military, ensuring it can no longer pose a threat. This strategy should include measures to break Russia into smaller, independent nations, as its vast size makes it unmanageable and prone to authoritarian rule. Additionally, Putin must be removed from power and held accountable for war crimes through an international tribunal or other means.

A more actionable and phased approach to dismantling Russia’s aggressive power and ultimately breaking it into separate nations would require a combination of military, economic, political, and internal destabilization strategies. Here’s a structured plan:

---

Phase 1: Immediate Strategic Objectives

1. Complete Isolation of Russia

   • Strengthen and expand existing sanctions to ban all trade with Russia, including critical resources like oil, gas, and rare metals.

   • Enforce secondary sanctions on any country (like China or India) that aids Russia’s war economy.

   • Sever all Russian banks from the international financial system.

   • Freeze and confiscate all Russian sovereign and oligarch assets held abroad and use them for Ukraine’s reconstruction.

2. Military Superiority for Ukraine

   • Supply F-16s, ATACMS, and long-range drones in larger numbers to neutralize Russian logistics and infrastructure.

   • Allow Ukraine to strike deep inside Russia, targeting fuel depots, command centers, and transport hubs.

   • Expand NATO’s military footprint in Eastern Europe to deter further Russian aggression.

3. Undermine Russian Stability from Within

   • Actively support separatist and independence movements within Russia (e.g., Chechnya, Tatarstan, Siberia, Bashkortostan).

   • Amplify discontent among Russian elites through cyber warfare, media infiltration, and direct support for opposition figures.

   • Expose war crimes and corruption among Russian leadership to weaken internal support for the regime.

---

Phase 2: Breaking Russia’s Military & Economic Power

4. Total Military Defeat in Ukraine

   • Push for Ukraine’s full liberation of occupied territories, including Crimea through direct military and intelligence support.

   • Destroy Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and deny it any further naval dominance.

   • Establish a demilitarized buffer zone on Russia’s western border enforced by NATO-aligned states.

5. Permanent Military Restrictions on Russia

   • Russia must be forced to sign a treaty reducing its military to a self-defense force, similar to Japan post-WWII.

   • International enforcement mechanisms, possibly UN/NATO military oversight, should be put in place to prevent future aggression.

   • Complete denuclearization of Russia by seizing or neutralizing its nuclear arsenal through international intervention.

6. Remove Putin & Hold Russian Leaders Accountable

   • A war crimes tribunal (similar to Nuremberg) should be established for Putin and top military officials in The Hague.

   • Targeted assassination or coup support to remove Putin and dismantle his power structure.

   • Confiscate all personal and state assets linked to Putin’s regime, redirecting them toward Ukrainian rebuilding efforts.

---

Phase 3: Breaking Russia Apart & Restructuring

7. Decolonization & Fragmentation of Russia

   • Support referendums and independence movements in various Russian regions to dissolve the Russian Federation into multiple smaller, more manageable states.

   • Establish a NATO-enforced no-fly zone over breakaway regions to prevent Moscow from using military force to suppress them.

   • Set up international peacekeeping forces to oversee the transition and prevent power vacuums that could lead to further instability.

8. Integration of Newly Independent States

   • Encourage new states to join economic and security partnerships with the West, reducing Chinese and Iranian influence.

   • Provide reconstruction aid and democratic institution-building support to ensure stability.

   • Guarantee security for former Russian regions through defense pacts with NATO-friendly nations.

---

Final Outcome: A Weakened, Non-Aggressive Former Russia

By executing these steps, Russia will be:
✅ Militarily crippled and incapable of future invasions.
✅ Politically fragmented, ensuring no single leader can dominate the region again.
✅ Economically dependent on Western-backed institutions, preventing another authoritarian resurgence.
✅ Under international oversight, permanently restricting its ability to build a threatening military.

This is a long-term process requiring relentless Western coordination, strategic military victories, and internal subversion—but it’s the only way to permanently neutralize Russia’s threat to global stability.

However, this highlights the ongoing and future challenges posed by Russia.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Would the Founding Fathers Be Republicans Today? A Look at the Constitution's Signers and Modern Conservatism

If you took the signers of the U.S. Constitution and transported them to today's political climate, very few—if any—would identify as modern Republican conservatives. The ideological landscape has shifted dramatically since 1787, and many of their views would not align neatly with today's political parties. However, let's break it down:

1. Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

   • The Federalists (e.g., Alexander Hamilton, James Madison—though he later became a Democratic-Republican) favored a strong central government, a national bank, and policies that resemble modern liberal governance in some respects. They would likely clash with today's small-government conservative philosophy.

   • The Anti-Federalists (e.g., George Mason, Patrick Henry—though he didn’t sign) were more skeptical of federal power and leaned toward state sovereignty, something that modern conservatives often champion.

2. Views on Government and Economy

   • Many of the Founders supported protective tariffs and infrastructure spending (like Hamilton), which resemble modern Democratic policies more than Republican free-market conservatism.

   • Most were pro-property rights and wary of too much democracy (e.g., the Electoral College was created partly to curb direct democratic impulses). That aspect might appeal to some modern conservatives.

3. Religion and Social Issues

   • Many Founders were deists or held Enlightenment views that leaned secular. While some modern conservatives emphasize Christianity in government, most Founders would likely reject that as inconsistent with their views on religious freedom.

   • Slavery was a major issue among the Founders, with many signers owning enslaved people. A few, like Gouverneur Morris, were abolitionists, but a strong percentage would be at odds with modern conservative rhetoric on equality and civil rights.

Bottom Line

If forced to choose, some Anti-Federalists and states' rights advocates might align with the Republican Party’s small-government wing, but many Federalists and early nationalists would likely reject modern conservatism's stance on government, economy, and religion.

A rough estimate? Perhaps 10-20% of the Constitution's signers would identify as Republican conservatives today, but even they would likely struggle to fit in perfectly.

 Compiled with aid of ChatGPT