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

The War on Fair Taxes: How the Wealthy Rig the System at the Expense of Our Citizens

​As of March 2025, with Donald Trump serving as the 47th President of the United States, his administration has implemented policies that significantly impacted taxation and damaged our government and our most necessary social programs like social security, a: U.S. Federal Safety Net for Retirement, Disability, and Survivor Benefits.

Or skip all this for another more sane direction...Timothy Snyder @TimothyDSnyder - "The Imperialism Has no Clothes: JD Vance in Greenland" His latest essay

One more...

‘Never been done’: Why Republicans might approve a budget whose numbers don’t match up

​Tax Policies:

• Extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts: The administration has prioritized extending the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) provisions from 2017. This extension is projected to decrease federal tax revenue by approximately $4.5 trillion from 2025 through 2034. While proponents argue this could lead to a 1.1% increase in long-run GDP, critics highlight concerns about escalating deficits and the disproportionate benefits accruing to the wealthiest Americans. ​Tax Foundation

• Corporate Tax Rate Reduction: Proposals have been made to further reduce the corporate tax rate from the current 21% to potentially 20% or even 15%, aiming to stimulate economic growth. However, such reductions may exacerbate income inequality and increase the federal deficit. ​Doeren Mayhew

Impact on Social Programs:

• Budget Cuts to Social Safety Nets: The administration's budget proposals have included significant cuts to programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These cuts are intended to offset revenue losses from tax reductions but have raised concerns about increased hardship for low-income individuals and families. ​The New Yorker

• Social Security and Medicare: While President Trump has pledged to protect Social Security and Medicare, budgetary pressures from reduced tax revenues have led to discussions about potential reforms or cuts to these programs. Critics argue that the administration's involvement with initiatives like Project 2025, which aims at federal government reform, contradicts promises to safeguard these entitlements. ​The New Yorker

Economic Implications:

• Deficit and Debt Concerns: The combination of tax cuts and increased spending has contributed to a significant rise in the federal deficit, which has increased by 248% since the implementation of the 2017 tax cuts. This trajectory raises concerns about the sustainability of fiscal policies and potential long-term economic consequences. ​Axios

• Income Inequality: Analyses indicate that the benefits of the tax cuts have disproportionately favored the wealthiest individuals and corporations, potentially exacerbating income and wealth disparities in the United States. ​

President Trump's policies as of 2025 reflect a continuation and expansion of earlier tax reforms, emphasizing reductions that primarily benefit higher-income groups and corporations. These policies have significant implications for federal revenue, social programs, and economic inequality, prompting ongoing debate about their long-term impact on American society.

The toxic Christian right?

The Christian nationalist right has played a significant role in supporting Trump and shaping his policies, particularly those related to taxation, social programs, and government priorities. Their influence is rooted in a broader ideological goal of reshaping the U.S. government to align with their vision of a Christian-based nation.

How the Christian Nationalist Right Supports Trump’s Economic Agenda

1. Belief in Limited Government & Free Market Capitalism

   • Many Christian nationalists align with libertarian and conservative economic principles, advocating for lower taxes and deregulation.

   • They support Trump’s tax cuts and reductions in social welfare, believing government assistance should be replaced by church-based charity and private sector solutions.

2. Tying Capitalism to Christian Morality

   • Christian nationalist leaders often argue that wealth is a sign of divine blessing and that government redistribution (e.g., welfare, progressive taxation) is anti-Christian.

   • This belief justifies cutting social programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and housing assistance, while keeping tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.

3. Backing Project 2025 & Government Restructuring

   • The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a blueprint for a second Trump term, is heavily influenced by Christian nationalist ideology.

   • It includes gutting federal agencies, reducing the administrative state, and cutting safety nets, all while increasing executive power.

   • Many of its architects, like Russ Vought and Stephen Miller, are Christian nationalists who advocate for a government centered on their interpretation of Christian values.

4. Culture War as a Distraction from Economic Policy

   • While pushing tax cuts for the rich and budget cuts for social programs, Christian nationalist leaders focus public attention on issues like abortion bans, LGBTQ+ rights, and "anti-woke" policies.

   • This strategy diverts working-class and middle-class conservatives from noticing policies that economically harm them.

5. Strong Ties to Megachurches & Prosperity Gospel

   • Many evangelical megachurch pastors, such as Paula White and Franklin Graham, support Trump’s economic policies because they align with prosperity gospel teachings—the idea that wealth and success are signs of God's favor.

   • They push their followers to support Trump, portraying government assistance as a hindrance to self-reliance and faith-based solutions.

The Bigger Picture: Reshaping America

Christian nationalists view Trump as a vehicle to reshape the U.S. government into one that favors Christian dominance, enforces conservative social policies, and limits federal intervention in economic inequality. Their support helps justify tax cuts for the rich, reduced social programs, and deregulation, under the guise of religious and moral principles.

Doesn't it really come down to political priorities, power dynamics, and how narratives are shaped in public discourse?

1. Corporate Influence & Lobbying – Wealthy individuals and corporations spend vast amounts of money lobbying politicians and funding campaigns to ensure tax policies favor them. They have a direct hand in shaping laws that keep their tax rates low while cutting public benefits.

2. Trickle-Down Economics Myth – Since the Reagan era, there's been a persistent belief that lowering taxes on corporations and the wealthy leads to economic growth that benefits everyone. Despite repeated failures, this idea keeps being pushed to justify tax cuts for the rich and austerity for the rest.

3. Deficit Scaremongering – When it comes to social programs like Social Security, Medicare, or infrastructure, politicians (usually on the right) suddenly become fiscal hawks, warning that the government can’t afford them. Yet, they have no problem with tax cuts for the wealthy, which also increase deficits.

4. Media Framing – Corporate-owned media often downplays wealth inequality and shifts blame for economic problems onto the poor, immigrants, or government inefficiency—rather than on tax loopholes and corporate welfare.

5. Historical Context – During the mid-20th century, when tax rates on the wealthy were much higher (up to 90% under Eisenhower), the U.S. experienced economic stability, a thriving middle class, and major infrastructure projects. But since the neoliberal shift in the 1980s, tax cuts for the rich have contributed to skyrocketing inequality.

6. Manufactured Resentment – Some political forces work to pit middle-class and working-class Americans against each other, making them think that their tax dollars are being wasted on “undeserving” people rather than questioning why billionaires and corporations are dodging taxes.

Ultimately, the struggle isn’t just about taxation—it’s about power. The wealthy and corporations have the influence to shape policies that benefit them, while everyday people are told they need to sacrifice. But history shows that when the rich paid their fair share, society was much more stable

Right now, the imbalance in tax policy and spending priorities is a result of both political parties, though in different ways. Here’s a breakdown of who holds power and who enables this system:

1. Republican Party (GOP)

• The GOP has long pushed for tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, arguing that it spurs economic growth (the trickle-down economics argument).

• Under Trump (2017), Republicans passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which slashed corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%—a massive giveaway to the wealthy while ballooning the deficit.

• Republicans also frequently call for cutting Social Security, Medicare, and other social safety nets, claiming that the country can’t afford them—yet they never say the same about tax cuts for the rich or military spending.

• Project 2025 (pushed by the Heritage Foundation) outlines an extreme agenda that includes privatizing Social Security, gutting social programs, and expanding corporate power even further.

2. Democratic Party

• Democrats typically oppose direct cuts to Social Security and Medicare, but not all of them are willing to push for higher taxes on the wealthy.

• Under Biden, there have been proposals to raise taxes on billionaires and corporations, but corporate-friendly Democrats like Senator Joe Manchin (WV) and Senator Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) helped block major tax hikes.

• Many establishment Democrats take corporate donations and don’t push hard enough for reforms. They sometimes offer compromises rather than fighting aggressively for economic justice.

3. Corporate Lobbying & The Billionaire Class

• Big corporations (Amazon, Google, Exxon, etc.) and billionaires (Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Charles Koch, etc.) fund political campaigns and lobby against tax increases.

• The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision (2010) allowed unlimited corporate spending in elections, meaning politicians are often more accountable to their donors than voters.

• Think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and Americans for Prosperity (backed by the Koch network) push for corporate-friendly policies and dismantling social programs.

4. Media & Misinformation

• Right-wing media (Fox News, The Daily Wire, etc.) convinces working-class people that tax cuts for the rich are good and that social programs are bad.

• Corporate-owned mainstream media (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) rarely challenges the status quo because their owners benefit from the system.

So, Who is Allowing This?

• Republicans push for tax cuts and social program cuts directly.

• Corporate Democrats don’t fight hard enough to reverse it.

• Lobbyists and billionaires buy influence to keep tax policies in their favor.

• Media distracts people from the real issue.

What Can Be Done?

• Elect leaders who support taxing the wealthy and corporations fairly.

• Push for campaign finance reform (to reduce billionaire influence).

• Demand protecting and expanding Social Security, Medicare, and safety nets.

• Fight against corporate-controlled think tanks and misinformation.

The good news? When people push back (like with recent strikes, protests, and voter initiatives), change can happen. The real question is: will enough people wake up to it before more damage is done?

Getting back to this mire of Church and State and who are the problematic individuals skewing America towards foolish beliefs and actions. Here are some key Christian nationalist leaders who have influenced Trump’s policies, particularly in taxation, social programs, and government restructuring:

1. Russell Vought – Architect of Government Cuts (Project 2025)

• Former Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Trump

• Played a major role in cutting social programs like Medicaid, food stamps (SNAP), and housing assistance

• Now leads The Center for Renewing America, which pushes Christian nationalist policies, including shrinking the federal government and cutting safety nets

• Influence on Trump: Helped write Project 2025, which includes mass firings of civil servants and replacing them with Christian nationalist loyalists

2. Stephen Miller – Driving Cuts to Social Safety Nets

• Trump’s top policy advisor, known for shaping immigration and economic policies

• Pushed to reduce government spending on “entitlements” (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) while expanding tax cuts for corporations

• Helped craft policies that redirected government resources toward Christian nationalist priorities, like religious freedom exemptions for businesses

3. Paula White – Megachurch Pastor & “Prosperity Gospel” Influence

• Trump’s spiritual advisor, led White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative

• Promotes Prosperity Gospel, which teaches that wealth is a sign of God’s favor, justifying tax cuts for the rich

• Preached that government aid weakens faith, aligning with Trump’s efforts to cut social welfare

• Her influence helped Trump push policies that benefit corporate donors and megachurches, like tax breaks for religious institutions

4. Ralph Drollinger – Influencing Republican Lawmakers

• Runs Capitol Ministries, a Christian nationalist Bible study attended by Trump officials like Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, and Betsy DeVos

• Advocates for eliminating social programs, arguing that the Bible opposes welfare

• Encourages Republican lawmakers to replace government safety nets with faith-based charity, helping justify Trump’s economic policies

5. Betsy DeVos – Pushing Religious Control Over Public Funding

• Trump’s Secretary of Education, known for trying to defund public education in favor of private Christian schools

• Part of Christian nationalist efforts to redirect government funds to religious institutions

• Worked to weaken worker protections and unions, aligning with Trump’s pro-corporate tax policies

6. Tony Perkins – Policy Influence Through the Family Research Council

• Leader of Family Research Council, a major Christian nationalist lobbying group

• Pushed for tax benefits for religious groups, aligning with Trump’s tax cuts

• Supports cutting social programs, arguing that government aid promotes “dependency” instead of Christian charity

7. The Heritage Foundation – Policy Arm of Christian Nationalism

• Think tank behind Project 2025, which outlines drastic changes to government under Trump

• Advocates for cutting taxes on the wealthy and eliminating social safety nets

• Supports Christian nationalist policies like mandatory Bible classes in schools and limiting LGBTQ+ rights

---

How This All Connects to Trump’s Policies

• Tax Cuts for the Wealthy → Justified by Prosperity Gospel & free-market Christian ideology

• Cutting Social Programs → Based on belief that churches should provide charity, not government

• Deregulation & Corporate Favoritism → Backed by megachurches and religious groups benefiting from tax breaks

• Expanding Religious Influence in Government → Using tax policy and executive power to redirect public funds toward Christian institutions

Stephen Miller, however, is not a Christian nationalist in the religious sense, but works closely with them and advances their policies because they align with his broader authoritarian, nationalist agenda.

Stephen Miller’s Role in Christian Nationalist Policies

• Miller is a hardline far-right nationalist, known primarily for anti-immigration policies like the Muslim ban and family separations.

• He collaborates with Christian nationalist groups because their vision of a hierarchical, theocratic government aligns with his goal of consolidating power.

• He supports cutting social safety nets because a weaker government benefits authoritarian control—fewer government services mean more economic desperation, which can be manipulated for political gain.

• While not religious himself, he weaponizes religious rhetoric (e.g., “protecting Christian values”) to push policies that benefit the wealthy and corporate elites.

So, while Miller isn't a true Christian nationalist, he's one of their most effective enablers, helping implement their agenda through economic and governmental restructuring.

Stephen Miller has long been associated with far-right, white nationalist, and eugenics-adjacent beliefs, though he avoids openly embracing the term "eugenics." His policies and rhetoric reflect a worldview that prioritizes racial hierarchy, demographic control, and exclusionary nationalism, often aligning with historical eugenics movements.

Miller’s Eugenics-Adjacent Beliefs & Policies

1. Hardline Immigration Policies Rooted in Racial Purity Ideology

• Miller designed Trump’s immigration policies to heavily restrict non-white immigration, reflecting beliefs similar to early 20th-century eugenics laws.

• He was the architect of the Muslim ban, family separation policies, and the push to end birthright citizenship—all of which disproportionately targeted people of color.

• His policies echo the 1924 Immigration Act, which was influenced by eugenicists and sought to preserve the racial makeup of the U.S. by limiting immigration from non-Northern European countries.

2. Connections to White Nationalists & Eugenicists

• Leaked emails (2019) show Miller regularly cited and promoted white nationalist sources like VDARE and American Renaissance, which advocate for white racial superiority and demographic control.

• He pushed “great replacement” conspiracy theories, warning that immigration would “replace” white Americans—a claim often linked to eugenics-based fears of racial decline.

• Promoted The Camp of the Saints, a racist novel that portrays non-white immigrants as an invading force, mirroring eugenics-era fears of racial dilution.

3. Public Health & Eugenics Thinking

• During the COVID-19 pandemic, Miller’s faction opposed protections for marginalized communities, reinforcing a survival-of-the-fittest mentality.

• He supported policies that let the virus disproportionately kill disabled people, the elderly, and minorities, which aligns with past eugenicist views on “weeding out the weak.”

• Trump’s administration sabotaged asylum-seekers' medical screenings and proposed denying visas based on medical conditions, echoing past eugenics-based immigration policies.

4. Support for Christian Nationalist Demographic Goals

• While not religious himself, Miller works with Christian nationalists who advocate for higher birth rates among white Christians and restrictions on abortion and contraception.

• This aligns with historical eugenics movements that sought to increase white birthrates while limiting non-white reproduction.

• Groups like the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 promote these demographic goals, which Miller supports through policy implementation.

Conclusion: Miller’s Eugenics-Driven Policy Influence

Stephen Miller isn’t a scientist pushing for sterilization programs, but his actions, rhetoric, and policy decisions align with historical eugenicist and white nationalist goals. He frames his policies in terms of national security and economic interests, but their impact is clear: restricting non-white populations, promoting racial purity, and reinforcing social hierarchies.

Let's be clear.

Isn't this all Donald Trump's doing.

The statement "This is all Donald Trump's doing" isn't entirely a lie, but it oversimplifies a much more complex situation. While Trump certainly played a central role in shaping and implementing policies during his presidency, especially in areas like immigration, tax cuts, and deregulation, many of the actions and ideologies associated with his administration were influenced by a range of people, organizations, and historical trends.

Here’s why it’s not entirely accurate to say it’s "all Trump’s doing":

1. The Role of Advisers & Political Networks

• Stephen Miller, Russell Vought, Betsy DeVos, Mick Mulvaney, and other figures shaped Trump’s policies, often working behind the scenes or directly advising him on key issues.

• Miller, for instance, is a primary architect of Trump’s hardline immigration policies, but he also aligns with far-right and eugenics-adjacent ideologies, which Trump endorsed but did not fully craft himself.

• Think tanks and groups like the Heritage Foundation and Family Research Council helped craft policies that Trump endorsed, but the foundations of those ideas existed before he took office.

2. The Influence of GOP Ideology & Historical Context

• Trump did not create the political ideologies of tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, or anti-immigration stances. These ideas were long-standing Republican positions that Trump capitalized on.

• Christian nationalist groups existed and pushed these agendas before Trump, even in earlier Republican administrations. For example, the Heritage Foundation’s tax proposals had been in play for years.

3. Institutional Support

• Trump’s policies were supported and often pushed forward by Republican-controlled Congresses, especially early in his presidency. The tax cuts for corporations and cuts to social programs were pushed by Congress members aligned with Trump’s economic vision, but it wasn’t solely his agenda.

• Executive orders, which Trump issued frequently, were crafted with input from a wide range of advisers, but many stemmed from ideologies and agendas within the Republican establishment.

4. The Role of Political Activism

• Christian nationalist activists, evangelical groups, and far-right networks were pushing their vision of America as a Christian nation and restrictionist immigration policies long before Trump took office. Trump amplified their voices, but the foundational goals of these groups didn’t start with him.

Conclusion: Trump as the Figurehead, Not the Sole Author

While Trump was incredibly influential in pushing these agendas and gave a platform to these ideas, it would be misleading to say that everything—especially in terms of policy ideology—was entirely his doing. He was a vehicle for these forces rather than the sole originator.

Trump's current administration has faced rational and reasonable criticism for its rapid and amateurish policy implementations, leading to unintended consequences. For instance, the swift deportation of migrants resulted in logistical challenges, such as the return of Venezuelan women to Texas due to inadequate facilities in El Salvador. ​WSJ

Additionally, incidents like the "Chatgate" scandal, where confidential military plans were accidentally exposed, have raised concerns about the administration's competence in handling sensitive information. ​news

Furthermore, may observers, both domestic and international, have expressed alarm over actions perceived as steps toward authoritarianism, including undermining judicial independence and suppressing dissenting voices. ​The Guardian

In summary, while President Trump has secured a significant portion of public approval, his administration's policies and actions have sparked debate regarding their effectiveness and alignment with democratic principles.​

Finally, Donald Trump's childish beliefs in how the economy works have and continue to be damaging to the American economy and international relations. 

Tariffs were one of the most notable aspects of Donald Trump's economic policy during his presidency, and they remain a key topic in evaluating his impact on the U.S. economy and global trade. Here’s a breakdown of how tariffs were used and their effects:

1. The Trade War with China

• Trump’s Imposition of Tariffs on China: In 2018, Trump launched a trade war with China by imposing tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods. His goal was to reduce the U.S. trade deficit with China and address intellectual property theft and unfair trade practices.

• Retaliation: China retaliated with tariffs on U.S. goods, particularly agricultural products, which hurt American farmers. This caused significant disruption in global supply chains, especially in industries like technology, electronics, and steel.

• Phase One Deal: In January 2020, Trump signed a "Phase One" trade deal with China, where China agreed to buy more American goods. However, the tariffs largely remained in place.

2. Tariffs on Steel and Aluminum

• National Security Argument: Trump imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, arguing that foreign-made metals threatened U.S. national security. The tariffs were set at 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum.

• Impact on Industry: While this benefited some domestic steel manufacturers, it led to higher prices for manufacturers that relied on foreign metal, including carmakers and electronics companies.

• Global Response: Several countries, including the EU, Canada, and Mexico, retaliated with tariffs on U.S. products. These tariffs led to trade tensions but also created uncertainty for industries in the U.S. reliant on foreign materials.

3. The Impact on American Consumers

• Increased Prices: The tariffs generally led to higher prices for goods like electronics, clothing, and machinery. This had a direct impact on American consumers, especially lower- and middle-class households, which bore the brunt of rising prices on everyday items.

• Economic Disruption: Although Trump's administration claimed the tariffs were needed to protect U.S. jobs, economists suggested that the costs outweighed the benefits. In particular, industries dependent on global supply chains were adversely affected by the uncertainty created by the tariffs.

4. Trump's Justification for Tariffs

• America First: Trump argued that the tariffs were a way to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. and shift away from the globalist trade agreements that he believed harmed American workers.

• Trade Balance: The tariffs were also meant to reduce the trade deficit, particularly with China, and force foreign governments to open their markets more to American products.

5. Long-Term Effects

• Global Relations: The tariffs contributed to a decline in U.S. relationships with several major trading partners. Countries like the EU and China felt that the tariffs were economically harmful and politically motivated, leading to retaliatory measures.

• Industry Shifts: While some U.S. industries benefited from reduced competition (such as steel producers), other industries struggled with the added cost of imports.

• Consumer Costs: Many economists argue that the tariffs did little to reduce trade deficits or protect jobs, and instead raised prices for American consumers.

6. Legacy and Ongoing Debate

• Trump's tariffs remain a point of debate. Some argue that they were a necessary tool for reshaping trade relationships and protecting U.S. industry, while others contend they damaged the U.S. economy and exacerbated the economic strain on working-class Americans.

Overall, Donald Trump's presidency, particularly his second term as POTUS47 starting in 2025, is marked by a continuation of his “America First” agenda, focusing on nationalism, economic protectionism, and law and order. While his policies and leadership have drawn strong support from his base, they have also sparked significant controversy, both domestically and internationally.

Key Aspects of Trump's Presidency:

1. Economic Policies: Trump's economic approach was centered around reducing the trade deficit, protecting American jobs, and boosting domestic manufacturing. This included implementing tariffs on imports, especially from China, and prioritizing policies that favored U.S. businesses. However, these actions led to trade wars and higher consumer prices, and while some sectors benefitted, others, like agriculture, suffered.

2. Immigration and Border Security: Trump's administration focused heavily on immigration reform, including building a border wall, implementing strict immigration laws, and taking a tough stance on undocumented migrants. These policies were divisive, with his supporters arguing they were necessary for national security, while critics viewed them as inhumane and discriminatory.

3. Foreign Policy and International Relations: Trump’s approach to foreign policy emphasized national sovereignty and America’s interests over multilateral agreements. His decisions to pull out of global pacts like the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Deal, as well as his isolationist stance on international diplomacy, alienated many traditional U.S. allies. However, his policies did strengthen ties with right-wing and populist leaders.

4. Authoritarian Tendencies: Critics of Trump argue that his leadership style and certain actions, like undermining judicial independence and press freedoms, reflected a shift toward authoritarianism. His handling of protests, attacks on the media, and attempts to suppress dissent caused concern about the future of democratic norms in the U.S.

5. Public Support and Controversy: Trump's approval ratings, while higher among his base, have been polarized. His statements and actions on issues like race, gender, and immigration fueled division in the country. His supporters view him as a champion of American values and working-class interests, while detractors accuse him of exacerbating cultural divisions and undermining democratic institutions.

6. Social and Cultural Issues: Trump’s rhetoric on issues like LGBTQ rights, abortion, and reproductive freedoms often aligned with conservative Christian values, garnering support from the Christian nationalist right. His administration took steps to limit rights on these fronts, creating significant social tension.

7. The Role of the Christian Nationalist Right: Trump’s popularity among the Christian nationalist right can be attributed to his support for conservative social policies and his alignment with evangelical values. This group supported his stance on issues like abortion and religious freedom, making him a key figure in their political efforts.

8. Election and Second Term: Trump’s victory in the 2024 election (POTUS47) was highly contested, with his rhetoric and policies continuing to appeal to a significant portion of the electorate. However, his second term has been marked by continuing polarization, with some Americans questioning his fitness for office and the direction of his policies.

Summary:

Trump's presidency has been one of extreme contrasts and an ongoing nightmare for MOST American citizens and many others: minorities, immigrants, and even undocumented or illegal citizens. 

"A country is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable and disenfranchised citizens," often attributed to Mahatma Gandhi.

While Trump's policies were allegedly designed to revive American industry, secure borders, and prioritize U.S. interests, on the other hand, they have often and purposely led to economic disruptions, political instability, and divisions within the country. His leadership was shaped by populism and nationalism, with a strong base of support from his followers but harsh opposition from many others, especially in terms of his handling of social issues, global diplomacy, and domestic governance.

In conclusion, there is little confusion in that Donald Trump was quite obviously and objectively not only not the "best choice" for POTUS47, but the worst as a convicted felon, adjudicated sexual abuser and career criminal. His presidency represents a divisive and polarizing period in American history, with lasting impacts on both domestic policy and international relations that may well take decades to heal from, both domestically and with our international security concerns and relationships.

Finally...

Russia benefited from a more isolationist U.S. foreign policy, a weakened NATO, and a less aggressive stance under Trump, allowing the Kremlin to expand its influence on the global stage. On the other hand, Trump's actions created both domestic challenges for the U.S. and increased global uncertainty, ultimately making Russia the bigger benefactor in the long run.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT