The Kremlin Connection: Does Trump After All Owe to Russian Backers?

Russia. Trump. What now?

Many Americans HAVE found convicted felon, adjudicated sex abuser, malignant narcissist/pathological liar, and career criminal, (twice imperfectly impeached, 30,000+ lies told to American citizens as POTUS45), Donald Trump... winning the 2024 election, BEING curious, if not, SEVERELY Bizarre.

Matt Gaetz for AG? Then he resigned Congress. Well, on that latter part, Yay!

Some very bizarre Trump nominations for his "administration". Look, you CAN put unqualified or even stupid people in charge, but that burdens all those beneath them. Our government deserves better. As do we all.

Janes: North Korea - The hardest OSINT environment? (audio 46mins)

Oh, by the way...Blast from the past...2023:

Medvedev suggests that Elon Musk launch campaign to amend US Constitution

Many of us feel there is something untoward going on, but we can't put our fingers on it. DOJ, SCOTUS and Congress have repeatedly let America down on curbing or putting away a convicted criminal, twice impeached (crippled by the MaGA GOP as it was), Donald Trump. Autocracy and autocratic methodology seems to have a maze-like path through democracy toward crumbling it from the inside, deluding those who have traditionally and historically stood against it (like the GOP, the once and no longer "Grand Old Party").

We will find out what happened years, or decades later. But we're in dire straits, NOW.

So then, what is this?

From Kefkaroth Sephka on "X" (Elon's infected Twitter)

Kefkaroth Sephka with 88 followers, is an odd account. Russian disinfo? Or sharing something we should know?

From Kefkaroth Sephka on "X"

Interesting?

From Kefkaroth Sephka on "X"

OK, so what the hell does all that mean?

Analysis of Russian presidential aide and Chairman or the Russian Maritime Collegium Nikolai Patrushev said Trump owes after winning the US elections.

Patrushev: "Trump relied on forces to which he has obligations."

Speaking with the Kommersant newspaper, Nikolai Patrushev said:

"And as a responsible person, he will be obliged to fulfill them."

Which is a compliment in rhetoric that indicates he's not critiquing or denigrating Trump, but reminding him, praising him. Thus he's talking about Russian influence, not anti-Russian American, or world power influences aligned against Russia. 

This is disturbing.

What is Kommersant? Kommersant (Коммерсантъ) is a prominent Russian newspaper known for its in-depth reporting on business, politics, and international affairs. It was founded in 1989 and is one of Russia’s oldest and most respected private publications. Kommersant is well-regarded for its coverage of the Russian government and global events and is considered to have a relatively balanced perspective, though it operates under certain constraints common to Russian media. The paper publishes a wide array of content, including investigative journalism, economic reports, political analysis, and interviews with Russian and international figures. Its tone and quality are often comparable to major Western business and political publications.

Nikolai Patrushev, Secretary of Russia's Security Council, recent statement that Donald Trump owes "obligations" to certain "forces" after his 2024 U.S. election victory are widely seen as suggesting that Trump's success was bolstered by influential groups within the U.S. to which he might feel indebted. This implication aligns with Russian critiques of American politics, particularly around the influence of elite or interest groups shaping U.S. policy.

However, Patrushev did not specify which "forces" he was referring to, leaving room for speculation and interpretation, particularly among analysts who often interpret these statements as part of Russia's broader narrative criticizing Western democracies and their leadership dynamics. Patrushev has frequently suggested that U.S. leaders, including Trump, are beholden to powerful domestic influences, which he views as detrimental to global stability.

For further context on this statement and how it fits into Russia's ongoing critique of the U.S., see sources like EADaily, The New Republic, and others reporting on recent Russian official statements.

How is this not about Russian forces helping Trump get elected?

We know Putin finds Trump as many of us do with reality in our eyes and ears as a cheap criminal who sows chaos and corrupts all he comes into contact with. But Putin loves to sow chaos in Western democracies. It aids his efforts in a force multiply dynamic.

Patrushev’s comments did not specifically state that Russian forces assisted Trump in getting elected in 2024, but rather vaguely suggested that Trump “relied on forces” and now has “obligations” to them. This phrase could be interpreted in different ways, but Patrushev's language aligns with a broader Russian critique of American political dynamics, implying that Trump, like other U.S. leaders, may owe favors to influential groups within the U.S. itself.

To be clear, Russian officials often frame U.S. politics as heavily influenced by powerful domestic interests—be it corporate elites, political lobbies, or other internal actors. By using the term “forces,” Patrushev may be pointing toward these internal influences rather than suggesting Russian intervention. This is consistent with Russia's recent narrative, which downplays its own role in U.S. elections while casting doubt on the independence of American leaders due to their reliance on domestic power groups​.

Without a direct accusation or evidence, Patrushev’s comments remain speculative. Or do they? While this could provoke interpretations about Russian interference, the statement’s ambiguity suggests it’s more a part of Russia’s rhetorical stance rather than an admission of direct involvement.

But this also sounds very much like a mafia-style, indirect threat which would also fit Russian government style.

Patrushev’s language can also and easily be interpreted as carrying an implicit, even “mafia-style” tone, something often observed in Russian diplomatic rhetoric. Russian officials sometimes use vague but pointed language, leaving their statements open to interpretation while signaling a message that may seem menacing or suggestive of influence. In this case, Patrushev’s comment that Trump “relied on forces” to whom he “has obligations” sounds intentionally ambiguous, which leaves room for multiple interpretations, including one that hints at an indirect warning.

This style aligns with broader Russian messaging that often critiques Western politics as being influenced by powerful interests, while subtly implying that Russian knowledge of such influence could affect future relations. Patrushev’s comments might be designed to foster uncertainty about who holds sway over U.S. leaders like Trump, while also subtly conveying that Russia has insight—and perhaps leverage—regarding these dynamics.

That's very Russian from a country who are experts in long-term efforts against their enemies, and in cloaking reality in obfuscation and distraction.

Russian officials have used similar language in the past to suggest that Western leaders are not fully autonomous and may owe their positions to certain interest groups, subtly casting doubt on their independence. This rhetorical style can serve multiple functions: distancing Russia from accusations of interference, casting aspersions on Western political systems, and creating a sense of strategic ambiguity that can be read as a veiled warning or signal to other nations.

In this case, it’s reasonable to view Patrushev’s statements as potentially serving these dual purposes: as part of a long-standing critique of U.S. politics and as a reminder of Russian awareness and potential influence in global affairs​.

Telling the Kommersant newspaper, Nikolai Patrushev said:

"And as a responsible person, he will be oblighed to fulfill them", which is a compliment in rhetoric that indicates he's not critiquing Trump, but praising him. Thus he's talking about Russian influence, not anti-Russian American or world power influences aligned against Russia. 

This is disturbing.

The additional context from Patrushev’s statement to Kommersant—that Trump, “as a responsible person, will be obliged to fulfill” his obligations—does indeed shift the tone. Instead of sounding critical or cautionary, this phrasing can be read as supportive, suggesting that Trump’s responsibilities are aligned with groups Patrushev views favorably. Such language could imply Russian influence or expectations of Trump, especially if Patrushev is indicating he trusts Trump to fulfill obligations that benefit Russian interests or are aligned with Russia’s geopolitical goals.

This interpretation aligns with a broader Russian diplomatic approach that often uses indirect language to signal shared interests or mutual understanding with foreign leaders. If Patrushev is indeed hinting at Trump being "obliged" to Russia or Russia-aligned groups, it would reflect a complex dynamic. 

While Russia has officially denied interference in U.S. elections, Russian officials have sometimes hinted at understanding or even approval of Trump’s policy directions that align with Russian interests, such as questioning NATO’s role or opposing certain sanctions. We know, American intelligence community has clearly stated that Russia, China, and Iran specifically have interfered in our 2024 election in various ways.

• As the U.S. election nears, Russia, Iran and China step up influence efforts
• FBI reports new hoax videos, after warnings that Russia is trying to undermine election

These statements certainly could be disturbing, as they imply a confidence that Trump, even as a U.S. president, might prioritize commitments aligned with Russian interests. Such confidence could be interpreted as Russia expecting that Trump’s actions will favor or accommodate Russia if he follows through on these so-called “obligations.” This perception can lead to concerns about foreign influence on U.S. leadership, especially given the ambiguous but suggestive rhetoric Patrushev employs​.

Buckle up America. Four more years of the nightmare grifter in the White House and remember...

We did this to ourselves!

Looking for hope? Jon Stewart on The Daily Show: "This isn't forever."

Cheers! Sláinte!

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Would Pres. George Washington Shake Donald Trump's Hand?

I wondered, what an AI might think of Donald Trunp and how Pres. George Washington might view what we're going through, now that Trump has been re-elected with all the baggage and issues he brings along with him.

George Washington

And no, I'm not going to talk about Pres. Washington shaking Donald Trump's hand. Make up your own mind at the bottom of this article. I find it either interesting or entertaining to see what ChatGPT thinks of things. So...

What would Pres. George Washington think of POTUS47 Donald Trump just re-elected with all the baggage he brings along with him?

"In God We Trust" is Christian Nationalism unacceptable

ChatGPT said:

If George Washington were to look at Donald Trump’s actions, particularly through the lens of his own principles, he would likely find many aspects troubling. Washington was deeply committed to ideals of integrity, humility, and respect for democratic principles, seeing them as critical to the success of the new American republic.

Washington valued truthfulness and saw public service as a selfless duty, not as a means for personal aggrandizement. His farewell address famously warned of potential threats to democracy, such as the dangers of political factions (or parties) and foreign interference in national affairs. He would likely see Trump’s approach, particularly with its intense partisanship and divisive rhetoric, as undermining national unity and stability. His reported praise of adversarial leaders like Vladimir Putin over U.S. intelligence would especially have jarred Washington, who emphasized loyalty to the nation and independence from foreign influence.

Washington was known for refusing excessive power, famously stepping down after two terms to reinforce a precedent of limited executive authority. Trump’s approach, marked by assertions of strong executive power and a disregard for certain institutional norms, could likely strike Washington as authoritarian. Trump’s public statements, including his prolific use of falsehoods as documented by fact-checkers, would likely trouble Washington, who held honesty in high regard and believed a leader should embody moral virtue to inspire and uphold the nation's values.

In sum, Washington would likely have found Trump’s conduct in office at odds with the ideals he fought to instill in America’s early government—principles intended to foster a fair, humble, and principled democratic system.

"The Paradox of Tolerance"

Right-wing authoritarian leaders celebrated Trump's win. That SHOULD give everyone pause, not celebration here. Ben Franklin would be throwing a FIT:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

America is like the Ferrari of world democracies—powerful and complex, but under someone like Trump, whose lack of focus or understanding, impulsiveness, and emotional decisions could derail long-term success, it risks being ruined when it could thrive with the right leadership.

I then asked:
What action would Washington have taken if Trump were say, the 2nd/3rd President?

ChatGPT said:

If Trump had been the second president, following directly in George Washington's footsteps, it’s likely that Washington would have taken firm and immediate action to protect the young republic from any perceived threats to its stability, integrity, and foundational principles.

1. Public Denouncement and Cautionary Warnings: Washington would almost certainly have publicly condemned any actions that he believed threatened the republic, just as he did in his farewell address, where he warned of factionalism, foreign alliances, and the corruption of democratic principles. He might have delivered a formal address or written an open letter urging the nation to reject any authoritarian tendencies or disregard for truth and the law.

2. Private Advice and Guidance: Washington valued diplomacy and caution, so he might initially have tried to privately advise Trump, as he did with some political contemporaries. Given Washington’s belief in a moral and principled presidency, he would likely have counseled Trump on the importance of humility, unity, and honesty. If Trump ignored this advice, Washington’s approach could quickly become more direct and public.

3. Support for Institutional Checks and Balances: Washington had immense respect for the Constitution and the separation of powers. He might have advocated strongly for Congress and the judiciary to exercise their powers fully to check Trump’s actions if he perceived them as dangerous or autocratic. Washington believed in the rule of law and the importance of each branch of government acting independently to safeguard the nation. This could include encouraging Congress to investigate any misconduct, hold Trump accountable for any abuses of power, or even consider impeachment if serious violations occurred.

4. Active Role in Political Organization: Though he personally disliked political parties, if Washington saw Trump’s actions as fundamentally threatening, he may have even reluctantly endorsed the organization of a political movement or faction aimed at protecting the Constitution and the values he held dear. While distasteful to him, this step could be seen as necessary to ensure the survival of the nation’s democratic institutions.

5. Appeal to the Public’s Sense of Duty: Washington deeply trusted the wisdom and patriotism of the American people, often urging them to prioritize national interests over personal loyalties. He would likely make a powerful public appeal to Americans, urging them to remain vigilant and uphold the principles of honesty, unity, and democracy in the face of any leadership that threatened these values.

In essence, Washington would likely feel morally obligated to do everything in his power to protect the integrity of the office he once held, using his reputation and influence to rally Americans and their leaders against any attempts to undermine the republic.

I asked:
If Trump continued his presidency into an autocracy and refused to ever step down what might Washington have done?

ChatGPT said:

If Trump had continued his presidency in defiance of democratic norms, even refusing to step down or attempting to establish an autocratic rule, George Washington would almost certainly have viewed this as a severe betrayal of everything he and the founders worked to create. Given Washington’s commitment to safeguarding the republic against any semblance of tyranny, he would likely have taken decisive action.

1. Mobilizing the Armed Forces: As a former general, Washington understood the importance of military loyalty to the Constitution rather than any one leader. If Trump attempted to use military power to retain control, Washington might have rallied patriotic military leaders to uphold the Constitution and refuse unlawful orders. Washington’s personal influence and legacy would likely inspire high-ranking officers and soldiers to resist any autocratic power grab.

2. Supporting Congressional Action and Impeachment: Washington respected the balance of powers established by the Constitution, which included Congress's authority to impeach and remove a president. He would likely encourage Congress to act swiftly and decisively, including impeachment and, if necessary, removal by force. Washington’s support of such actions would add moral weight and legitimacy, galvanizing lawmakers to act against Trump’s autocratic intentions.

3. Encouraging State Action and Unity: Washington believed in a union of states, and if Trump were attempting to maintain power unlawfully, Washington might appeal to governors and state leaders to uphold the Constitution. He could urge states to resist any unlawful federal directives, leveraging their local authority to ensure that the rule of law, rather than one man’s will, governed the land. In this scenario, Washington would likely champion states as protectors of democracy against autocratic overreach.

4. Calling Upon the American People: Washington trusted the American people’s sense of civic duty and moral judgment. He would likely call upon citizens to peacefully but firmly resist any attempts at autocracy, uniting them under the values of liberty, justice, and self-governance. He could encourage widespread, nonviolent protests and civil disobedience as a demonstration of the public’s rejection of tyranny.

5. Forming a Coalition of Former Leaders and Founding Figures: Washington might also rally fellow founding figures, like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, to speak out collectively. This united front of respected leaders, all advocating for the preservation of democracy, would be a powerful message that Trump’s actions were an attack on the entire legacy of the American Revolution and the rights it guaranteed.

6. Open Rejection and Civil Disobedience if Necessary: Should all else fail, Washington could lead a national movement of civil disobedience, mobilizing Americans and institutions to reject Trump’s legitimacy as president. This might include legal petitions, organized resistance to Trump’s directives, or supporting initiatives to paralyze his administration until a lawful transfer of power was achieved.

In short, Washington would likely do everything in his power to rally Americans against autocracy. He would consider Trump’s refusal to step down as an existential threat to the republic and a complete abandonment of American ideals. Washington's actions would be motivated by a steadfast commitment to preserve the democratic system he helped create, even if it required unprecedented measures to remove an autocratic leader.

I asked:
What if Congress and SCOTUS then, were as they are now, supporting Trump?

ChatGPT said:

If Congress and the Supreme Court were to fully support Trump’s continued presidency, even as he attempted to establish an autocratic rule, George Washington would likely consider this an even greater crisis, as it would mean the essential safeguards of checks and balances had broken down.

Here’s how Washington might have responded in such a scenario:

1. Appealing Directly to the People and State Leaders: With federal institutions compromised, Washington would likely emphasize the importance of state governments and the American people in upholding democratic values. He might appeal directly to governors and state leaders to maintain the principles of democracy, urging them to resist any unlawful federal overreach.

2. Leveraging the Military’s Constitutional Loyalty: Washington was clear that the military should serve the nation, not any single individual. If a president were attempting to hold onto power unlawfully, Washington would likely remind military leaders of their oath to the Constitution rather than to the president. He might encourage military leaders to act independently and refuse any orders that contradicted the law.

3. Rallying Former Leaders and Influential Figures: Given his respect for unity and the nation’s founding principles, Washington would likely convene other prominent leaders, even retired figures, to condemn the erosion of democracy. This coalition could exert significant influence over public opinion and reinforce a collective commitment to the rule of law.

4. Promoting National Civil Resistance: Washington might endorse widespread civil resistance, encouraging citizens to demonstrate peacefully but resolutely for the preservation of democracy. He would likely view civil action as a critical means to defend democratic values without resorting to violence, uniting the populace against autocracy.

5. Documenting and Defending Democratic Ideals: Washington would likely take steps to ensure that, if an autocratic regime took hold, the ideals of democracy would survive to inspire future generations. He might work to preserve democratic principles through written appeals and public statements, hoping to rekindle the ideals of liberty and self-governance in future resistance efforts.

Washington’s commitment to the integrity of the young republic was paramount, and he would view an unchecked autocracy as a dire threat. In such a scenario, he would likely use his reputation, influence, and moral authority to rally every 


available resource, from state leaders to citizens, in defense of the democracy he helped create.

I asked:
Would this lead to a coup?

ChatGPT said:

In this hypothetical scenario, George Washington’s actions, combined with widespread public resistance and the support of state governments or the military, could indeed lead to what might resemble a counter-coup or an uprising aimed at restoring constitutional order. However, Washington would likely avoid advocating any outright "coup" in the sense of a violent overthrow, as he was fundamentally committed to lawful governance and wary of armed rebellion after leading the country through the Revolutionary War.

Still, certain actions could escalate in a way that could resemble a power struggle to restore democracy:

1. Military Refusal to Follow Autocratic Orders: If the military leaders were to side with Washington, this refusal to follow autocratic orders might effectively isolate the autocratic leader, creating conditions where a peaceful or forceful resignation could occur. Washington would likely emphasize constitutional duty rather than encouraging military aggression, hoping that simply withholding military support would pressure the leader to step down.

2. Widespread Civil Disobedience: Washington might encourage a form of peaceful "coup" through massive, coordinated civil disobedience, effectively shutting down the government’s ability to function under autocratic rule. If enough of the population and state governments refused to recognize the authority of a self-appointed autocrat, the resulting paralysis could eventually force a resignation or restoration of democratic processes without armed conflict.

3. State-Level Resistance and Nullification: Washington would likely urge state governments to act independently to protect their citizens' rights, essentially forming a coalition of states that function as a counter-government until constitutional order could be restored. This type of state-led resistance, backed by Washington’s influence, could prompt a crisis that ends in the removal of the autocratic leader, either through resignation or a return to elections.

4. Ultimate Use of Force if Necessary: Though Washington would prioritize peaceful means, he might eventually endorse the use of limited force if no other option remained to restore constitutional governance. This would likely be a last resort, pursued only if all other methods had failed and the only way to protect democracy was through direct intervention.

In essence, Washington’s leadership could catalyze a broad-based, peaceful resistance that might resemble a coup in terms of its outcome—a change in leadership—but his guiding principle would be to restore constitutional governance, not to impose power by force. The emphasis on civic duty and lawful governance would make this an effort to preserve the republic, aiming to avoid the chaos and long-term instability that violent coups typically bring.

Well. There it is. It's not a time of giving up. But of bringing together. Of fighting for what we are and should be, against all that is brought to bear against us in attempting to make us into what we aren't and shouldn't be.

I wish us all well.

By the way...

What Trump did the other day in mimicking fellatio with his mic on stage at a rally was not original for a questionable national leader.

 

Another autocrat in the Philippines, Pres. Rodrigo Duterte made headlines for such an incident in 2018.

During August of that year in an incident in Tuguegarao, fmr Pres Duterte had placed the microphone between his legs mimicking the act of oral sex. This behavior was widely criticized for its vulgarity & inappropriate nature, especially coming from a sitting head of state.

The act was widely criticized for its inappropriate & disrespectful nature, esp. given Duterte's position as a head of state. It was seen as part of his often controversial & outspoken/vulgar style, which frequently included offensive jokes & remarks, particularly about women.

Duterte, known for his irreverent, blunt, & at times misogynistic behavior, often faced backlash for his comments and actions, though he remained a popular figure among certain segments of the Philippine population. His actions during this event drew condemnation both domestically & internationally for their crudeness & lack of decorum.

In 2021, Duterte withdrew the Philippines from the Rome Statute, which is the founding treaty of the ICC, in an effort to shield himself from an investigation into his administration's human rights abuses.

Lot's more to come from Trump, however. No matter how disgusting we think it is. Because it's all about him now.

Walkabout Thoughts #34

My thoughts, Stream of consciousness, rough and ready, while walking off long Covid and listening to podcasts…

Weather for the day… 60 degrees and light clouds, lots of blue sky

Podcast for the day podcast “Pod Save America“ episode, "MAGA King v. RINO Loser."

Instagram post for the day

So, still working on our streaming network, ThrlzTV. We're uploading more movies every day. Some very interesting ones. One investor I'm told just said some of the movies we have he can't seem to find anywhere else. Lots of oddities and fun stuff. We just started something we've wanted to do, planned to do, actually. Only two films in it right now but we have plans for more. Plans to shoot some films ourselves, or eventually to fund producing them. 

Right now in our "Thrilz Exculusives" category there's only two. Indie director Kelly Hughes' film, "It's Not The House It's My Mother": "After a childhood spent in a mental hospital, a young woman returns home. A doctor uses unconventional therapy to help the woman unlock the mystery of her past, unknowingly unleashing an evil force created by the mother years before."

And an award winning  film I made based on a true crime I wrote a horror story about years ago, that I had learend about in my abnormal psyche class at Western Washington University toward earning my psychology degree. The short horror story is, "Gumdrop City" (it's an audiobook, an ebook, and in a book). 

It's also the second movie in that category on Thrilz now: "Gumdrop", a short horror (as with Kelly's film, if you can't watch it it's because you need a subscription, but you can see the poster, anyway). We will be adding more filmmakers indie movies as time goes on.

There's a short I shot previous to this film, "The Rapping" (think Edgar Allen Poe, not music). I used a piece in this film. I thought I might put that up also. It's kind of cool to see a piece like that. If you've ever seen a film where they made a short to show on a TV in the film, and wanted to see the rest of that short, this is that kind of situation. It's only eight minutes long. 

I shot it as a test to see if I could do it. Figured I could, and I did. But it laid the groundwork for getting back into film. Which led to "Gumdrop" and some awards. Which led to "Pvt. Ravel's Bolero" which led to many more awards. I'll probably put that up on the service at some point in our "Thirlz Exclusives" category of films you can't see anywhere else..

So, you're up to date on that.

Now, this is a great podcast from Thursday, last.

"Hi...you look like my old cat Stanley?" Sorry I just walked by a cat sitting on top of a car with a street side…

Anyway the podcast is taking an aside, talking about shows to watch. Dan says he's gotten into watching Liaison. Hey, I just started watching that, on Apple+. He said it's like The Bureau, they're trying to claim some of that feeling. I watched that too. Liked it very much. Then Jon said he's watching "Shrinking". Love that show too! With Harrison Ford. Who said he liked it and watned to do it because the dialog was some of the best writing he's ever seen. 

Moving on, now they're pointing out the differences between Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis, and their running for POTUS in 2024.

I know I know, it’s ludicrous to think that either of these clowns would run for president (or worse, get elected), but you may be surprised by this… Donald Trump actually WAS president... for Four Years!
Impeached twice however, so...

I know I know… Amazing, right? But what are you gonna do? Some peoples children. Right? There’s just no comprehending how such a weak person is, as so many “strongmen“ are, or how people can’t see that at all.

I see, when I look at Donald Trump, as a weak man, a pathetic man, a very sad man, and a man whose family is very sad because of him, and very sad in the public eye. At least those of us who have an eye that is open, those of us who aren’t shortsighted, those of us who can see reality.

It doesn’t make me special that I can see this. Most of America is like that.

It’s just that we thought democracy was forever. Albeit after we’ve been told for hundreds of years that you have to fight for it every day. Gee, who knew? Who knew that history, philosophy, and wise people all through history should be listened to?

Remember Winston Churchill‘s quote about democracy? “Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.” 

You may see a lot of other forms of government you like, but the only one that’s been proven to actually work is democracy. You know, without all the murder and serious civil rights abuses like genocide.

I know I know, it’s looked highly defective at times because of people complaining about it... for their own wealth and power. Especially of late on the Republican side. But...that’s what toxic capitalism does when you get yourself in a position where you allow people to make laws which fertilize toxic capitalism. 

When you allow those in power to rule as they wish, more than we would wish to allow, because we forget about how important it is, and how important it is to monitor and fight for it. 

Guess what? It really appears to be really important!

Words to live by.

Cheers! Slainte!