America's "National IQ" in Trumpian Freefall

America's "national IQ" in freefall—rejecting history, reason, freedom for all rather than the few & democracy by re-electing convicted felon Donald Trump who undermines institutions, foments chaos, & pardoned violent insurrectionists and sides with our international autocratic enemies like war criminal Vladimir Putin. 

A nation embracing autocracy is a nation in decline. 

If we were to imagine a "national IQ" as a metaphor for collective reasoning, decision-making, and long-term planning, the trajectory of the U.S. would suggest a severe decline in critical thinking and civic responsibility under the scenario you describe.

After the Obama and Biden administrations—both of which emphasized democratic norms, institutional stability, and a return to global alliances—the re-election of a convicted felon with autocratic tendencies and a history of undermining democratic institutions would indicate a failure of national judgment. It would suggest that a significant portion of the electorate is either unable or unwilling to recognize the dangers of authoritarianism, misinformation, and corruption, despite the clear historical warnings.

The pardoning of convicted violent criminals from the January 6 insurrection would further signal a breakdown in the rule of law and an embrace of political violence as an acceptable tool of governance. This would mark a shift from a nation that values democratic principles to one that tolerates or even encourages lawlessness when it serves the interests of those in power.

If a nation’s IQ were measured in its ability to uphold democratic values, sustain rational governance, and protect its institutions from internal sabotage, then under these conditions, the U.S. would be in intellectual and moral freefall. It would indicate not just ignorance, but an active rejection of wisdom, history, and accountability—factors that typically lead civilizations into decline.

The terms disease and malady are often used interchangeably, but they have distinct meanings and connotations:

1. Disease – A specific pathological condition with identifiable signs, symptoms, and causes, often related to infections, genetic disorders, or environmental factors. It typically implies a medical diagnosis.

   • Example: Diabetes, tuberculosis, and cancer are diseases.

2. Malady – A broader term that can refer to any kind of disorder, affliction, or condition affecting health, including physical, mental, or societal issues. It has a more general and sometimes metaphorical use.

   • Example: Anxiety, corruption, or social unrest can be called maladies.

Key Differences:

• Medical specificity: "Disease" is more medically precise, while "malady" is more general.
• Formality: "Disease" is the preferred term in medical and scientific contexts; "malady" is often used in literature or philosophy.
• Scope: "Malady" can refer to non-medical afflictions (e.g., "the malady of greed"), whereas "disease" does not.

People susceptible to authoritarian or extremist ideologies, including MaGA’s more extreme elements (or perhaps any element), often share specific psychological traits and cognitive tendencies. While not all supporters fit this mold, those who become deeply entrenched in authoritarian thinking or conspiratorial beliefs tend to exhibit some of the following characteristics:

Psychological Traits Susceptible to "Mind Worms" Like Authoritarianism

1. High Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) – Prone to submission to perceived authority, aggression toward outsiders, and conventionalism.
2. Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) – Preference for hierarchy and dominance over perceived lower-status groups.
3. Low Cognitive Reflection – Quick to accept intuitive (but often incorrect) answers instead of engaging in deeper analysis.
4. Need for Cognitive Closure – Discomfort with uncertainty, leading to a preference for black-and-white thinking.
5. Fear-Based Thinking – Higher susceptibility to fear messaging, often linked to personal or societal insecurity.
6. Low Openness to Experience – Resistance to new ideas, cultures, or perspectives, preferring familiar and traditional norms.
7. High Conspiratorial Thinking – Tendency to believe in grand conspiracies that explain complex realities in simple terms.
8. Collectivist vs. Individualist Loyalty – Often prioritizes group identity (e.g., party, nation, race) over independent moral reasoning.

Why "Mind Worms" Work on This Personality Type

• Repetition & Echo Chambers – The more a claim is repeated, the more it feels true (illusory truth effect).
• Identity-Driven Politics – When ideology is tied to personal identity, questioning it feels like an attack on the self.
• Emotional Manipulation – Fear, anger, and grievance are powerful motivators, often overriding logic.
• Us vs. Them Mentality – Encourages tribalism and distrust of "outsiders" or "elites."

This isn’t exclusive to MAGA—historically, all forms of authoritarianism (left or right) thrive on these traits. But MAGA’s blend of nationalism, grievance politics, and anti-institutional rhetoric makes it particularly effective at exploiting these vulnerabilities.

If the U.S. were in full democratic crisis (as it is nnow)—facing an autocrat in power, the erosion of institutions, replacing agency and department heads with sycophants loyal to Pres. Trump and not the US Constitution or the People, in the pardoning of insurrectionists to send the message, "Break the law for ME and you'll be protected"—the emergency path to restoration would require immediate and decisive action. 

Here’s what should happen right now:

1. Mass Mobilization & Public Pressure

• Organize nationwide peaceful protests and strikes to demand accountability.
• Pressure Congress, state legislatures, and courts to act swiftly against authoritarian moves.
• Mobilize civil society groups to coordinate resistance against anti-democratic actions.

2. Legal & Congressional Action

• Invoke the 14th Amendment, Section 3 to bar insurrectionists from holding office.
• Fast-track impeachment or constitutional remedies if abuse of power escalates.
• State attorneys general must challenge unconstitutional actions through lawsuits and injunctions.

3. Protect Elections & Voting Rights

• Secure upcoming elections by fighting voter suppression laws and ensuring election oversight.
• Fund and mobilize voter turnout at unprecedented levels.
• Challenge any fraudulent election interference in courts immediately.

4. Federal & State Resistance

• Governors and state officials must refuse to enforce unlawful federal orders that undermine democracy.
• States can pass emergency laws protecting election officials, judges, and prosecutors from political interference.

5. Whistleblower & Insider Resistance

• Federal and state employees must document and expose illegal or unconstitutional directives.
• The judiciary and military must uphold the Constitution over any authoritarian commands.

6. International Pressure & Sanctions

• Allies must be engaged to condemn anti-democratic moves and threaten economic/political consequences.
• The UN, EU, and other democratic nations must apply diplomatic pressure and sanctions if necessary.

7. General Strike as Last Resort

• If democracy is being actively dismantled, a coordinated nationwide general strike could cripple the economy and force change.

This is not a time for passive hope—it’s a time for organized, legal, and relentless action to defend democracy before it's too late.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Veterans Day - Echoes from the Past: Ben Franklin on Pres. re-Elect Trump & America

Today is  Veteran's Day. I'm a vet. I wish all veterans a better future than we now seem to be diving into. I know, that against all rationale, reality, and proof to the contrary, many believe in Donald Trump. What the Hell America? 

First...Thomas J. Brennan - Military Journalism in “The War Horse” & “Shadows of Fallujah” | The Daily Show

We look at the entirety of someone in their character, actions, beliefs, and how they (and we) treat our weakest citizens. And it hasn't been well. 

Mahatma Gandhi is often quoted as saying, "The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members."

Hubert H. Humphrey, former U.S. Vice President, also famously stated: “The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.”

Fyodor Dostoevsky, the Russian novelist, wrote in The House of the Dead: “A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals.”

The election of Trump spawned the foul and disgusting: "Your Body My Choice", response from the worst of Trump's supporters.

We can do better. Far better. Eventually, we will.

Moving on...

Considering Donald Trump's history, demeanor, felony convictions, being an adjudicated sex abuser, an insurrectionist, malignant narcissist & a famous pathological liar, what might Ben Franklin say about such a person being elected?

The actor and producer Michael Douglas, having played Franklin in a very enjoyable series recently, was asked, "What would Ben Franklin say about the state of America today?"

Douglas' response?

"Oh, I think he'd have another drink."

If Benjamin Franklin, one of America’s founding fathers, were to witness a figure like Donald Trump being elected president, he might have strong reservations, given his well-documented views on public virtue, integrity, and democratic principles.

Franklin believed deeply in the importance of character, humility, and public responsibility. He saw democracy as fragile, needing a foundation of informed, virtuous citizens and leaders to flourish. His famous response to the question about what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had created:

— "A Republic, if you can keep it" — speaks to his concerns about protecting the new democracy from corruption, power grabs, and the erosion of public virtue.

For Franklin, leadership required moral fiber and self-restraint, values he articulated through his writings and public actions. He warned against leaders who pursued personal gain or who lacked humility and honesty. He often highlighted the dangers of pride and self-interest, considering them pitfalls for both individuals and society. Given Trump’s documented behavior and legal issues, including instances of dishonesty, personal attacks, and various convictions, Franklin would likely view him as an embodiment of the qualities that threaten democratic governance.

Franklin’s views on narcissism and personal ambition were also critical. In his Poor Richard's Almanack, he wrote about the risks of excessive pride and selfishness, warning that such traits could mislead leaders and erode public trust. Given Trump’s self-promotional style and contentious relationship with truth, Franklin might see him as potentially destabilizing, particularly due to his challenges with accountability and divisive rhetoric.

In short, Benjamin Franklin would likely express concerns about a leader like Trump, fearing that such a figure might prioritize personal gain over the public good, challenge the balance of democratic institutions, and weaken the very "republic" that Franklin and his peers sought to establish.

But what about Americans electing Trump because of the economy, casting off values of honesty, integrity, decency, humanity out the window to do so?

Americans, in electing a leader primarily for economic reasons while disregarding qualities like honesty, integrity, and decency, Benjamin Franklin, as a moral philosopher, would likely have viewed this as a grave concern for the health of the republic. Franklin and many other founding figures believed that the moral character of leaders directly impacted the wellbeing and ethical grounding of society as a whole. For them, good governance wasn’t just about material prosperity; it was about promoting civic virtue and ensuring leaders upheld values that aligned with the nation's founding principles.

Franklin viewed democracy as something inherently fragile and requiring continual effort and vigilance. His belief in the importance of civic virtue is evident in his writings, where he emphasized that the success of the American experiment depended on the moral character of both its citizens and leaders. To him, sacrificing ethical standards for economic promises might weaken the republic's foundation and lead to a leadership that pursues self-interest over the public good.

Furthermore, the founders warned about the dangers of prioritizing immediate gains over long-term integrity. John Adams, another prominent founder, famously said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” This suggests that when a society sacrifices moral standards — even for economic stability — it risks undermining the very framework that upholds democratic governance and freedom. For Franklin and others, the erosion of values could lead to a citizenry more vulnerable to authoritarianism or corruption.

In Franklin's view, democracy was an ideal rooted in trust, transparency, and respect for each citizen's inherent worth. Leaders without these values, no matter their promises, could ultimately compromise the republic by fostering division, undermining democratic norms, and destabilizing the very economic systems they claim to protect. Thus, he would likely urge Americans to consider both character and competence, as an honest, ethical leader would be more likely to truly serve the nation's best interests.

So, what might Franklin say about Donald Trump?

If Benjamin Franklin were to comment directly on a leader with Donald Trump’s characteristics — including the issues of integrity, accountability, and divisiveness — he might express his concern in strong terms, emphasizing the importance of moral character in leadership. Franklin was a pragmatist, but he held firm beliefs about the need for leaders to embody virtues like honesty, humility, and public-spiritedness. Here’s a potential statement Franklin might make based on his principles and writings:

"A republic cannot stand if it places wealth or economic gain above virtue, for what is sacrificed in integrity shall be paid tenfold in discord. The pursuit of power devoid of honor or honesty is not leadership, but tyranny by another name. When we elevate those who scorn decency, truth, and unity, we invite the decay of our own liberty. A society governed by self-interest and bereft of moral character is a society undone."

This hypothetical statement captures Franklin's likely concerns that prioritizing material gain over moral integrity could weaken the republic. He feared that without an ethical foundation, leaders might exploit their positions, and citizens might become more divided, thus endangering the democratic fabric of the nation.

In his writings, Franklin frequently warned against pride, deception, and selfishness. He believed these traits, if present in leaders, could harm the public and set a dangerous example. If Franklin saw a leader who rejected norms of honesty and respect, he might argue that such a person’s influence could corrupt civic life, encouraging citizens to adopt similarly divisive and self-serving attitudes, ultimately weakening the democratic system.

What might Franklin say about the close support of Elon Musk and of both of their collusion with Vladimir Putin, considering that man's murderousness, war criminality, and abuse of American culture and social media intrusions?

If Benjamin Franklin were to observe a close alliance between powerful figures like Elon Musk and a leader aligned with Vladimir Putin’s actions, he would likely express deep concern over their influence on American values, democracy, and sovereignty. 

Franklin was committed to principles of independence, civic responsibility, and an aversion to alliances that could threaten the integrity and self-governance of the fledgling American nation. His writings make clear his skepticism of unchecked power and his fears about foreign influence corrupting the republic.

Franklin might specifically highlight a few key concerns:

1. The Dangers of Aligning with Autocrats: Franklin was highly wary of foreign influence on American affairs, especially from powers that opposed democratic values. His views align with George Washington’s later warning against “entangling alliances.” Given Putin’s record — including war crimes, alleged election interference, and human rights abuses — Franklin would likely view any collaboration with him as endangering democratic principles and aiding a regime that opposes freedom. He would be particularly troubled by the possibility of American leaders or influential figures giving moral or strategic support to someone he would consider a tyrant.

2. Wealth and Power Over Public Good: Franklin believed strongly that leaders should be motivated by public welfare, not self-interest. If he saw a figure like Musk prioritizing economic or strategic gains from foreign alliances over loyalty to democratic principles, Franklin might argue that such behavior exemplifies the kind of greed that undermines public trust and threatens the stability of the nation. He wrote extensively about the moral obligations of the powerful, believing that those with wealth and influence bore a duty to uphold civic virtue and set an example for society.

3. The Erosion of American Values: Franklin valued the American experiment as a beacon of democracy and enlightenment ideals. He would likely view any support for autocrats or human rights abusers as a betrayal of those values, fearing it could lead to an erosion of American identity. Furthermore, he would be wary of social media’s potential for manipulation and division, viewing it as an affront to reasoned public discourse and civic harmony, which he valued deeply.

4. Manipulation of Information: Franklin, a proponent of a free press and transparent communication, would likely view foreign exploitation of American social media as a threat to the republic’s informational integrity. His experience with print and public discourse would inform his stance on the dangers of propaganda, misinformation, and foreign meddling. He might see social media manipulation as undermining an informed electorate, which he viewed as essential to democracy’s survival.

Here’s a hypothetical statement Franklin might make:

“To serve the interests of tyrants, whether by open support or silent collusion, is to forfeit one’s allegiance to liberty itself. Wealth and influence should not grant license to betray the principles that uphold a free people. If we are to maintain a republic, we must guard against those who would place profit above patriotism and power above public virtue. To consort with despots, or to aid in the degradation of our own information and discourse, is to invite tyranny upon ourselves.”

In short, Franklin would likely condemn any alliance that prioritized personal or economic advantage over democratic values, viewing it as a serious threat to both the republic and the moral integrity of American society.

If Benjamin Franklin observed the modern situation of Donald Trump re-elected amid ongoing controversies, legal evasions, and allegations of undermining democratic principles, he would likely be deeply troubled. Franklin, a staunch advocate for the ethical conduct of public servants and a critic of unchecked power, would see such developments as a dangerous erosion of the democratic values he and other founders fought to establish. Franklin’s writings reflect his strong views on the necessity of integrity, accountability, and civic virtue in leadership, as well as his deep distrust of those who wield power irresponsibly.

Here’s how Franklin might have responded to these circumstances:

1. Defense of Accountability and the Rule of Law: Franklin believed that a government’s legitimacy rested on the rule of law. In fact, he advocated for laws and systems that could hold leaders accountable. In this scenario, he would likely argue that Trump’s avoidance of judicial responsibility compromises the integrity of the American justice system. Franklin’s sense of justice was rooted in fairness and accountability, principles he would expect leaders to uphold above all. He warned against leaders who believed they were above the law, recognizing this as a pathway to tyranny.

2. Safeguarding Elections and Democratic Institutions: As a staunch defender of democracy, Franklin would be alarmed at any efforts to subvert the electoral process. He viewed free and fair elections as the cornerstone of the republic, essential for maintaining the consent of the governed. If he saw efforts to subvert elections or avoid accountability, Franklin might have advocated for measures to reinforce the resilience of electoral institutions. He was also keenly aware of the dangers of factionalism and would have seen election interference as a divisive, destabilizing force on the republic.

3. Moral Character as a Requirement for Office: Franklin was a fervent advocate for the moral character of leaders. He believed that personal integrity was a foundation for public service, famously quoting that “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” Given Trump’s history of accusations regarding personal conduct, including alleged assaults and disparagement of adversaries, Franklin would likely criticize the acceptance of such behaviors as setting a dangerous example for the nation. He believed that the character of leaders influenced the character of society, making personal ethics inseparable from public service.

4. Speaking Out Against Corruption and Abuse of Power: Franklin consistently spoke out against corruption, both in public office and private conduct. His life was marked by efforts to limit the influence of those who would use power for personal gain at the expense of public welfare. He would have likely called for those who witness abuses to speak out and take action, viewing civic engagement as essential in preventing the rise of autocracy. Franklin famously cautioned that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety,” a sentiment he might extend to those willing to compromise democratic principles for personal or political gain.

A potential statement Franklin might make under these circumstances could be:

“A republic built on the principles of liberty, justice, and virtue cannot endure under the weight of self-interest and corruption. To preserve our democracy, we must demand accountability from all who hold office, lest we descend into the very tyranny we once fought to escape. The freedom of the people is safeguarded not by wealth or power but by the unwavering commitment to truth, honor, and the rule of law. When a leader disregards these values, they invite the downfall of the republic.”

In essence, Franklin would see today’s events as a profound warning about the fragility of democratic institutions and the necessity of an informed, vigilant, and virtuous citizenry to preserve the republic. He might call on Americans to actively oppose corruption, strengthen democratic norms, and demand accountability from their leaders, reminding them that the ultimate power lies in the hands of the people.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Changes in American Conservatism Over the Past 50 years

I've been pointing out how conservatism today is not the conservatism people think of it as. This has led to some very bad things until finally someone as morally corrupt as Donald Trump was able to convince just enough people to elect him as POTUS45 in 2016, with some help from a confluence of situations like Russian disinformation in social media, and various social and governmental issues. Like FBI Dir. James Comey speaking out about an investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails, to protect the institution of the FBI, rather than the nation as a whole. 

The Republican Party has been positioning itself to win elections regardless of thought about the wellbeing of the country or its citizens, but to the benefit of the Party and at any or all costs to any or all others, regardless of the damages, as long as it does not hurt the party or its leadership.

 That is not a political party. That tends, to lead sooner or later, to devolve into a political cult of personality. As it finally has done in Trump's MaGA club of abuse.

The evolution of American conservatism over has raised several concerns among critics and even some within the conservative movement itself. In 2012 when the GOP lost the presidency to Barack Obama, again, they called for an "autopsy" of the party which offered some very good observations and changes that need to be made if they wanted to win an election again. They doubled down on the bad and ignored the good.

This is a party that is in "win at all costs" mode. Ethics didn't matter, morals didn't matter, lies, dishonesty, criminal activity don't matter. That is still being adjudicated over the Donald Trump presidency today in the courts and when Trump loses this 2024 election, he will see justice served.

Should he somehow bizarrely win the election, he will disable the DOJ, end the trials against him, and get back to his original intent of wrecking the US government and building his autocracy. The GOP set themselves up, all of us up, for this to eventually happen, one way or another.

But what has changed about conservatism in the past 50 years?

Here are some potential negative aspects of these changes:

1. Polarization and Division

• Increased Partisanship: The shift towards populism and identity politics has contributed to a more polarized political landscape. This division can lead to gridlock in government and a lack of bipartisan cooperation on critical issues.

2. Erosion of Traditional Conservative Values

• Departure from Principles: Critics argue that the embrace of populism has led some conservatives to abandon foundational principles like fiscal responsibility and limited government in favor of more reactionary and populist policies.

3. Distrust in Institutions

• Anti-Establishment Sentiment: The rise of anti-establishment rhetoric has fostered distrust in key institutions, including the media, judiciary, and electoral processes. This can undermine democratic norms and civic engagement.

4. Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation

• Acceptance of False Narratives: The increased reliance on alternative media has facilitated the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories. This can lead to a misinformed electorate and harm public discourse.

5. Reduction in Civil Discourse

• Hostility and Aggression: The combative style of leadership and rhetoric prevalent in modern conservatism can contribute to a more hostile political environment, making constructive dialogue more challenging.

6. Focus on Cultural Wars

• Diverting Attention from Economic Issues: A strong emphasis on cultural and identity politics can detract from addressing pressing economic concerns such as income inequality, job creation, and healthcare access, which affect many Americans across the political spectrum.

7. Impact on Governance

• Populism Over Policy: The focus on populism may prioritize short-term political gains over long-term policy solutions, potentially leading to ineffective governance and neglect of critical issues like climate change and healthcare reform.

8. Marginalization of Moderate Voices

• Decline of Centrism: The rise of extreme viewpoints may marginalize moderate conservatives, making it difficult for those who advocate for compromise and pragmatic solutions to find a place in the party.

9. Undermining Rule of Law

• Challenging Judicial Independence: The distrust in the judiciary and calls to undermine its authority can threaten the rule of law and the independence of the judicial system, essential for a functioning democracy.

10. Cultural Backlash

• Resistance to Progress: A strong focus on preserving traditional values can lead to backlash against progress on social issues, potentially hindering advancements in civil rights and equality.

Overall, while the evolution of American conservatism reflects changing societal dynamics and concerns, critics argue that these changes can lead to increased polarization, a decline in democratic norms, and a shift away from traditional conservative values, potentially harming both the party and the broader political landscape.

I have to say, I've always been a progressive. From birth. My life has been all about  moving forward, making positive changes, and taking risks. I've done some very dangerous things in my life. Search and Rescue. Street racing. SCUBA and sky diving. It goes on and on. I've had people ask me at times if I was trying to kill myself or had a "death wish". For part of the first part of my life, I really wasn't sure.

But I came to realize that wasn't the case at all. I started testing my limits very young. Some guys haven't done that util they were adults and some never have. I've always challenged myself, pushing beyond what I found difficult or frightening. There were a lot of things as a young child that I found scary. 

At some point, I decided I had enough of that. I would face my fears. Those guys I've met who haven't challenged themselves when they were young? A lot of those types were the guys I ran into as adults who were bullies, or challenging others to match up to them. Maybe being aggressive, or starting a fight. I felt sorry for them. I had no need to challenge myself against others. 

I'd done that decades ago. While they were riding their bikes a kids, I was hanging off a damn mountain. When they were in high school racing their cars, I was too actually...but I was also jumping out of a plane, SCUBA diving by myself in Puget Sound, backpacking in the Cascades, alone.

Eventually my comment to those thinking I was nuts has been that, yes, I do some very dangerous things, but as professionally as possible. I was taught from childhood to always find the best teachers in their field and learn all you can.

My point in all that is I always felt being conservative was not something you admit to others because it involves being overly careful, safe..."conservative". If we had been conservative during the founding of this nation, or the Revolutionary War, we'd still be a British colony today. 

How is being conservative something got be proud of? OK. But I also recognize we need both sides, both sides being functional, to balance out our nation. Being all on or the other is going to get someone killed. And it has. On Jan. 6th in Trump's instruction. 

Let's not do that again.

Now about our Founding Fathers, the Framers of our Constitution...

The Founding Fathers of the United States are often seen as both conservative and liberal figures, and their classification can depend on the specific context and criteria used. Here are some points to consider regarding their ideological leanings:

Conservative Aspects

1. Tradition and Order: The Founders valued certain Enlightenment principles and sought to create a government that balanced individual freedoms with social order, drawing heavily on established political thought and practices of their time.

2. Limited Government: Many of the Founders, particularly figures like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, advocated for a government that was limited in scope, reflecting a conservative desire to prevent tyranny and preserve personal liberties.

3. Property Rights: The emphasis on protecting property rights and the interests of landowners and merchants indicates a conservative approach to economic and social order.

4. Federalism: The establishment of a federal system was designed to maintain a balance of power, which can be seen as a conservative effort to prevent any one group or faction from gaining too much control.

Liberal Aspects

1. Rebellion Against Authority: The very act of declaring independence from Great Britain was a progressive move, challenging the authority of a distant monarchy and asserting the right to self-governance and individual liberty.

2. Natural Rights Philosophy: The Founders, influenced by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, believed in natural rights—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—as inherent to all individuals. This reflects a more liberal view on human rights and the role of government in protecting them.

3. Democratic Principles: The creation of a government based on popular sovereignty and representative democracy was a radical departure from the aristocratic and monarchical systems that preceded it, aligning more closely with liberal ideals.

4. Social Contract Theory: The idea that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed is a progressive notion, emphasizing individual agency and rights over traditional authority.

Conclusion

In summary, the Founding Fathers embodied a complex blend of conservative and liberal ideas. They were revolutionary in their quest for independence and individual rights, reflecting liberal values, while also seeking to establish a stable and orderly government that adhered to certain traditional principles. Their legacy can be seen as a foundation for both modern conservatism and liberalism in America, depending on the aspects of their philosophy and actions that are emphasized.

This duality is part of what makes their contributions to American political thought so significant and enduring, as they laid the groundwork for a dynamic and evolving democratic system that continues to grapple with the balance between liberty and order.

To end, we need balance. The Republican Party anymore just wants to win. Only they know best. Nonsense. We need to work together and work to gether to end this polarization that Donald Trump is so addicted to in order to put or keep himself in power.

It's not democratic, it's not American, and it's' not functional. But it does make for some very terrifying autocracies. I don't want America to turn into North Korea, or Russia, or China. I don't want a cult of personality running things here. I don't want a dictator or a tyrant, which Trump would be more than happy to be.

What we have here is a pretty sweet thing. Which is what Ben Franklin was sayig when he said, "A republic...if you can keep it."

"The source of this quotation is a journal kept by James McHenry (1753-1816) while he was a Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention. On the page where McHenry records the events of the last day of the convention, September 18, 1787, he wrote: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy – A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” Then McHenry added: “The Lady here alluded to was Mrs. Powel of Philada.” The journal is at the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress." LOC Blogs

Mr. Franklin, by the way...was an independent. So am I.

Finally...

What do you call someone who is a blank slate for followers, using confusing and manipulative language that lets supporters project whatever they want onto them? 

Does this describe Donald Trump?

ChatGPT:

Yes, this description can apply to Donald Trump. His rhetoric often blends ambiguity with bold or polarizing statements, allowing followers and critics alike to project their own interpretations onto his words & actions. His statements are sometimes contradictory or open-ended, giving supporters room to see what aligns with their own views or to explain away inconsistencies. This approach can create a strong sense of loyalty among his followers, as they feel he represents their ideals, even if those ideals vary widely.

This kind of person could be considered a Rorschach figure or projection surface, terms that highlight how followers can "read into" or project their own values, ideas, or hopes onto them, much like interpreting a Rorschach inkblot test. The person's ambiguous or confusing communication style allows people to fill in the blanks with what they want to see, making them relatable to a wide range of supporters while still avoiding clear accountability or transparency.

Additionally, some terms that might capture aspects of this behavior are:

Gaslighter: Someone who uses manipulation & confusing language to cause doubt or to control perception.

Cult of Personality Leader: This applies when the person cultivates an image that others idealize, often through manipulation or charisma.

Enigmatic Figure: An intentionally confusing or mysterious figure who leaves followers guessing.

These figures often blend ambiguity with abusive language or manipulation to create a kind of “mirror” effect, allowing followers to see what they want while maintaining control over their narratives.

For more, see my 2016 blog on "Food vs Nationalism" with a critique by ChatGPT on its accuracy compared to today.

Also...

As of recent reports, over 40 former Trump officials and associates have publicly stated they will not support him in the 2024 election. This includes individuals from a range of positions, from high-profile cabinet members to advisors, communications staff, and former campaign aides. 

Here's a breakdown of the types of officials:

-Cabinet Members: At least 5 former cabinet members (e.g., John Bolton, Bill Barr, Rex Tillerson).

-Senior White House Staff: Around 10 former chiefs of staff, advisors, and communications directors (e.g., Gen. John Kelly, Alyssa Farah Griffin).

-Former Campaign Aides: A few campaign staffers from both the 2016 and 2020 campaigns have also spoken out.

-Other GOP Politicians and Allies: Various Republican politicians who previously endorsed Trump, like Chris Christie, have switched their stance.

This number could increase as more former officials choose to speak out in the lead-up to the 2024 election.

Several former officials and close associates of Donald Trump have publicly stated they will not support him in the 2024 election. Here are a few prominent names:

John Bolton – Trump's former National Security Advisor has been a vocal critic since leaving the administration and is outspoken about not supporting Trump's 2024 run.

Bill Barr – The former Attorney General, once a staunch defender, has criticized Trump’s actions post-presidency, especially regarding January 6 and election interference, and said he would not vote for him.

Gen. John Kelly – Trump's former Chief of Staff has expressed disapproval of Trump’s behavior and leadership style and has publicly criticized him.

Rex Tillerson – The former Secretary of State has criticized Trump’s handling of international relations and stated that he cannot support him.

Chris Christie – Former New Jersey Governor and once a close Trump ally, Christie is now one of Trump's most vocal Republican critics and is running against him in the 2024 primary.

Mick Mulvaney – Former Acting White House Chief of Staff has been critical of Trump, especially following the January 6 Capitol riot, and said he would not support him.

Alyssa Farah Griffin – Former White House Director of Strategic Communications has openly criticized Trump since January 6 and is against his 2024 campaign.

These individuals, among others, have voiced concerns over Trump’s leadership style and his actions related to the 2020 election and the January 6 Capitol attack, which have influenced their public opposition to his 2024 candidacy.

All the best to us all...

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Authoritarian Parallels: Comparing Trump to Putin's Rule in Russia

Donald Trump’s political style and desires for governing America can be described as exhibiting authoritarian tendencies, though the U.S. retains a robust democratic system with strong institutions that counterbalance executive power. Trump's autocratic orientation follows the tyrant's playbook of disinformation and all that encompasses. First and foremost in combatting this kind of person and orientation is knowledge, facts, fact-checking, and educating the public.

Jon Stewart with Bill Adair of Politifact - “Beyond the Big Lie” | The Daily Show. PolitiFact.com was started in August 2007 by Times Washington Bureau Chief Bill Adair, in conjunction with the Congressional Quarterly. - Wikipedia

It's important to note that Donald Trump is, aside from being an exPOTUS, twice impeached and also a convicted felon of "all 34 charges in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through a hush money payment to a porn actor who said the two had sex."

Vladimir Putin is a war criminal for his invasion of Ukraine. To be fair, he has committed war crimes in other countries over this far too long rule of Russia since 1999. 

See sections II and III below for more on Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin's international or national crimes.

Section I - Trump/Putin, a comparison

To draw parallels between Trump’s approach and Russia under Putin, there are a few key areas to consider:

1. Concentration of Power and Undermining Checks and Balances

• Putin: In Russia, Putin has significantly centralized power, weakening democratic institutions and neutralizing checks on his authority.
• Trump: Trump has shown a desire to centralize power, often expressing frustration with checks on his authority by the judiciary, Congress, and state governments. For instance, he frequently criticized judges who ruled against him and pushed for loyalty from government officials, including the Justice Department. His refusal to concede the 2020 election and attempts to overturn the results through legal challenges, pressure on state officials, and ultimately the January 6 Capitol riot demonstrate this desire to weaken checks on executive power.

2. Disregard for Democratic Norms

• Putin: Putin has been accused of manipulating elections, suppressing opposition, and curbing political freedoms.
• Trump: While the U.S. elections remain competitive, Trump frequently spread misinformation about electoral fraud, especially after the 2020 election. His claims of a "stolen election" culminated in efforts to delegitimize the democratic process. Critics argue that this behavior undermines trust in democratic institutions and erodes democratic norms.

3. Attacks on Media

• Putin: The Russian media is tightly controlled, and independent journalism is often met with intimidation, censorship, or violence. The Kremlin exerts control over the flow of information.
• Trump: While the media in the U.S. remains free, Trump frequently attacked the press, calling it the "enemy of the people" and discrediting news outlets critical of him. This rhetoric created a hostile environment for journalists and fostered distrust in the media, similar to how authoritarian leaders delegitimize independent scrutiny.

4. Nationalism and Populism

• Putin: Putin’s governance has been marked by strong nationalism, emphasizing Russia’s unique identity, traditional values, and its role as a great power, often positioning himself as the protector of these values.
• Trump: Trump’s “America First” rhetoric shares a parallel with Putin’s nationalism. Trump positioned himself as a populist leader fighting against elites, promising to restore American greatness and protect American jobs, borders, and values. His appeal to a populist base often involved stoking fears about immigrants and foreign threats, much like Putin uses similar rhetoric to consolidate power.

5. Desire for Loyalty and Weakening of Institutions

• Putin: Putin’s political system is heavily reliant on personal loyalty, with political figures, oligarchs, and state officials expected to align closely with the Kremlin’s interests or face repercussions.
• Trump: Trump often demanded personal loyalty from key figures in government, firing officials who disagreed with or criticized him, such as FBI Director James Comey. He was also critical of those within his own administration who did not publicly support his claims, particularly regarding the 2020 election.

6. Cult of Personality

• Putin: In Russia, Putin has cultivated a cult of personality, presenting himself as a strongman leader who is indispensable to Russia’s future.
• Trump: Trump similarly cultivated a personality-driven political movement, with much of his appeal stemming from his personal brand, charisma, and outsider status. His ability to maintain strong loyalty from a significant portion of the electorate reflects a similar phenomenon, where support for the leader sometimes eclipses traditional party or policy loyalties.

Key Differences:

Despite these parallels, the U.S. system of government has far stronger checks and balances compared to Russia. The U.S. Congress, judiciary, free press, and civil society institutions have, to date, successfully restrained Trump’s more authoritarian-leaning tendencies. Elections in the U.S. remain free and competitive, and Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election were ultimately unsuccessful due to these institutional safeguards.

In summary, while Trump has exhibited certain authoritarian tendencies, the U.S. remains a functioning democracy with stronger safeguards against the concentration of power, in contrast to Putin’s much more consolidated, authoritarian rule in Russia. 

The concern, as some see it, is that Trump’s political style may continue to erode democratic norms and institutions if left unchecked.

Section II - Donald Trump, crimes

Since Donald Trump’s election as President of the United States in 2016, there have been numerous allegations of unlawful actions, ethical violations, and efforts to undermine democratic institutions, though these have largely played out in domestic legal and political arenas rather than in the realm of international criminal law. Below are the key controversies and legal actions related to Trump’s conduct during his presidency and after:

1. Obstruction of Justice (Mueller Investigation)

• Context: The Mueller investigation (2017-2019) examined Russian interference in the 2016 election and potential collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report documented numerous instances where Trump may have attempted to obstruct the investigation.
• Key Allegations:
  • Trump allegedly directed aides to fire Mueller and sought to limit the scope of the investigation.
  • The report outlined at least 10 episodes of potential obstruction of justice but concluded that a sitting president could not be indicted based on Department of Justice policy.
• Outcome: Mueller’s report did not explicitly recommend charges but left the door open for Congress to pursue impeachment or other actions, stating, "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

2. Ukraine Scandal and Impeachment (2019)

• Context: In July 2019, Trump was accused of withholding military aid to Ukraine while pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Trump’s political rival, Joe Biden, and his son Hunter.
• Key Allegations:
  • Trump allegedly used the promise of $400 million in military aid to coerce Ukraine into announcing investigations into Biden, a potential 2020 opponent, in what many considered an abuse of presidential power.
  • This led to his first impeachment by the House of Representatives in December 2019 on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
• Outcome: Trump was acquitted by the Senate in February 2020, with the majority of Republican senators voting against conviction, arguing that the charges did not rise to the level of removal from office.

3. Incitement of the January 6 Capitol Insurrection (2021)

• Context: After losing the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden, Trump repeatedly made unfounded claims that the election had been "stolen" due to widespread voter fraud. On January 6, 2021, Trump gave a speech to his supporters in Washington, D.C., urging them to "fight like hell" and "stop the steal," shortly before they stormed the U.S. Capitol.
• Key Allegations:
  • Trump was accused of inciting an insurrection aimed at preventing Congress from certifying the Electoral College results.
  • His actions and rhetoric were seen as an attack on the peaceful transfer of power and a violation of democratic norms.
• Outcome: Trump was impeached for a second time by the House of Representatives, on charges of incitement of insurrection. However, he was acquitted by the Senate in February 2021, as a majority of Republican senators voted against conviction.
• Legal Fallout: While Trump was acquitted, investigations into the events of January 6, 2021, are ongoing, and some individuals close to Trump, including advisors and supporters, have faced legal consequences.

4. Election Interference and Legal Challenges Post-2020 Election

• Efforts to Overturn Election Results: Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election through baseless claims of widespread voter fraud led to dozens of lawsuits, none of which successfully overturned any state’s results. Many of these lawsuits were dismissed by courts due to lack of evidence.
• Georgia Election Interference: Trump pressured Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in a phone call to "find 11,780 votes" to overturn Biden’s victory in the state. This led to investigations into potential election interference.
• Investigations: The Justice Department, state authorities, and the January 6 House Select Committee have investigated Trump’s post-election actions, including his role in promoting false claims about the election and his involvement in the January 6 insurrection.

5. Financial Crimes and Tax Evasion

• New York Investigations: Trump and his businesses have been under investigation in New York for years. These investigations include:
  • Manhattan District Attorney’s Investigation: Examines Trump’s business practices, focusing on potential bank, tax, and insurance fraud. In 2021, Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, and its chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg were charged with tax fraud.
  • New York Attorney General’s Investigation: This civil investigation looks at whether the Trump Organization inflated the value of assets to secure loans and understated them to avoid taxes.
• Tax Evasion Allegations: A 2020 New York Times investigation revealed that Trump had paid little to no federal income tax for several years, raising questions about his financial practices.

6. Classified Documents Investigation (Mar-a-Lago Raid, 2022)

• Context: After leaving office, Trump took classified documents, including top-secret materials, to his residence at Mar-a-Lago in Florida. Despite repeated requests from the National Archives and the FBI, he failed to return all of the materials.
• FBI Investigation: In August 2022, the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago, recovering hundreds of classified documents, leading to an ongoing investigation into whether Trump violated the Espionage Act, mishandled classified information, or obstructed justice by withholding documents.
• Legal Outcome: In 2023, Trump was indicted on federal charges related to the mishandling of classified documents, including willfully retaining national defense information and obstructing justice.

7. Hush Money Payments and Fraud Allegations

• Stormy Daniels Case: Trump was accused of directing his lawyer, Michael Cohen, to make hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election to silence claims of an affair. This led to investigations into whether these payments constituted campaign finance violations.
• Legal Fallout: Cohen was convicted and jailed for his role in the scheme, but Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

8. Civil and Sexual Assault Lawsuits

• E. Jean Carroll Case: In 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation against E. Jean Carroll, a journalist who accused Trump of assaulting her in the mid-1990s. The case was a civil lawsuit, and Trump was ordered to pay damages, though he continues to deny the allegations.

9. International Violations

While Trump’s controversies are primarily domestic, some of his actions have raised international legal concerns:

• Withdrawal from International Treaties: Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from several key international agreements, including the Iran Nuclear Deal and the Paris Climate Accord, sparking concern about the violation of international commitments.
• Targeting of Qassem Soleimani: In 2020, Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq. The strike was controversial and raised questions about its legality under international law, with critics calling it an unlawful assassination.

Conclusion:

Donald Trump’s tenure as President has been marked by numerous legal and ethical controversies, ranging from obstruction of justice and abuse of power to financial crimes and incitement of violence. While some investigations are still ongoing, Trump has faced two impeachments, criminal indictments, and multiple civil lawsuits, though he has largely evaded direct legal consequences while in office. The fallout from his presidency continues to play out in courts and public opinion.

Section III - Vladimir Putin, crimes

Since Vladimir Putin took power in 1999, there have been numerous allegations of international crimes and serious human rights abuses attributed to his government, both domestically and internationally. These are often categorized as crimes under international law and include:

1. War Crimes in Chechnya (1999-2009)

• Conflict: During the Second Chechen War, Russian forces under Putin’s command were accused of committing war crimes, including indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas in Chechnya, summary executions, torture, and disappearances.
• Key Allegations: The bombing of Grozny, the Chechen capital, led to mass civilian casualties and destruction, drawing international criticism. Human rights groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented widespread abuses by Russian forces in the region.

2. Assassinations and Poisonings of Political Opponents

• Pattern of Attacks: Under Putin’s rule, several political opponents, journalists, and former intelligence agents have been assassinated or poisoned, often with radioactive or chemical agents. High-profile cases include:
  • Alexander Litvinenko (2006): A former Russian FSB officer poisoned with polonium-210 in London.
  • Sergei Skripal (2018): A former Russian spy poisoned with the nerve agent Novichok in the UK, leading to international sanctions.
  • Alexei Navalny (2020): A Russian opposition leader poisoned with Novichok, a nerve agent banned by international treaties.
• Responsibility: While Russian authorities deny involvement, investigations in the UK, Germany, and other countries have implicated the Russian state, including its intelligence agencies, in these attacks, which violate international law prohibiting assassination and the use of chemical weapons.

3. Annexation of Crimea (2014)

• Crime: The annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 violated international law, including the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, which guarantee territorial integrity and sovereignty. Russia’s seizure of Crimea was widely condemned by the international community, and many countries, including the U.S. and EU, imposed sanctions on Russia.
• Consequences: The annexation led to the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine, and it is considered a breach of the international norm against territorial conquest.

4. War Crimes in Syria (2015-Present)

• Russian Involvement: Russia’s military intervention in the Syrian Civil War to support Bashar al-Assad’s regime has led to allegations of war crimes. Russian airstrikes have targeted civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, and markets, causing widespread civilian deaths.
• Key Incidents: Human rights organizations and UN bodies have documented the deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian objects in Aleppo and other parts of Syria by Russian forces, which could constitute war crimes under international law.

5. War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity in Ukraine (2022-Present)

• Invasion of Ukraine: Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has been characterized as a violation of the UN Charter and other international laws prohibiting aggressive war.
• War Crimes: Russian forces have been accused of committing war crimes during the invasion, including:
  • Deliberate targeting of civilians: Bombing of residential areas, schools, hospitals, and shelters, such as the bombing of Mariupol’s maternity hospital and theater, resulting in civilian deaths.
  • Mass atrocities: The discovery of mass graves and evidence of executions and torture in towns like Bucha, where Russian forces allegedly committed systematic atrocities against civilians.
  • Forced deportation of civilians, including children, to Russia.
• International Response: Several investigations are underway, including by the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has issued an arrest warrant for Putin for war crimes related to the illegal deportation of Ukrainian children.

6. Cyberattacks and Election Interference

• Election Meddling: Russian state actors have been accused of interfering in the elections of several countries, most notably the 2016 U.S. presidential election, where Russian hackers and social media campaigns sought to influence the outcome.
• Cyber Warfare: Russian-linked cyberattacks against critical infrastructure in other countries, including Ukraine, Estonia, and the U.S., have been seen as violations of international law, particularly under norms against interference in sovereign states.

7. Support for Separatists and Proxy Wars

• Ukraine (Donbas Conflict): Since 2014, Russia has supported separatists in Eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region, supplying them with weapons, funding, and military personnel. This support contributed to the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 in 2014 by a Russian-supplied missile, killing all 298 people on board. International investigations have concluded that Russia bears responsibility for this crime.
• Other Conflicts: Russia has been involved in backing separatist movements and authoritarian regimes in countries like Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) and Moldova (Transnistria), in violation of international sovereignty norms.

8. Human Rights Abuses Against LGBTQ+ and Minority Groups

• Domestic Repression: Russia under Putin has seen widespread violations of human rights, including:
  • Crackdowns on political dissent.
  • Persecution of LGBTQ+ individuals, especially in regions like Chechnya, where gay men have reportedly been abducted, tortured, and murdered in anti-LGBTQ+ purges.
• Suppression of Ethnic Minorities: Russia has been accused of committing crimes against minority groups within its borders, particularly in the North Caucasus region, with reports of torture, extrajudicial killings, and disappearances.

9. State-Sponsored Extraterritorial Killings

• Pattern: Beyond high-profile poisonings, there is a broader pattern of extraterritorial killings of Putin’s critics or former Russian agents abroad. These acts violate international laws prohibiting political assassinations on foreign soil.

International Legal Responses:

While there have been sanctions, diplomatic condemnations, and ongoing investigations, Putin and other top Russian officials have largely evaded accountability through legal mechanisms like the International Criminal Court (ICC), as Russia does not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction. However, the ICC’s 2023 arrest warrant for Putin for war crimes related to the deportation of Ukrainian children marked a significant legal step.

Conclusion:

Vladimir Putin’s government has been linked to a wide array of serious international crimes, from war crimes in Chechnya, Syria, and Ukraine to assassinations, election interference, and human rights abuses. Although international legal consequences have been limited, ongoing investigations by the ICC and other bodies could bring further charges in the future.

Summary

Putin and Trump must both be barred from and/or removed from, any positions of public office or leadership, now or in the future. They must also be convicted of their crimes by a fair and partial and actual appropriate judge and jury of their peers in such a way that those things actually happen so they can be properly adjudicated for their actual and to be fair, quite obvious crimes.

---

Information generated using ChatGPT, an AI language model by OpenAI.

Walkabout Thoughts #74

Thoughts & Stream of Consciousness, rough and ready, from an award-winning filmmaker and author you’ve never heard of, while walking off long Covid, and listening to podcasts…walk day 5/12/2024 Mother's Day

Weather for the day… starting out, 59° nice sunny day starting out About 69° when I got home.

Podcast Prosecuting Donald Trump, ep. It's Not About Sex

I felt pretty horrible yesterday when I was walking. I went on the antivirals for long Covid for three days starting yesterday, a pill every 12 hours. I am already feeling better.

Quote for the day: "Any Great Stupid is still dangerous until it stops moving."

I have asked Copilot AI to summarize in a couple of paragraphs of what Al Capone would have been like as POTUS. Then compare and contrast that to the Donald Trump 45 administration. "POTUS" Al Capone vs FPOTUS Donald Trump

I’m so sick of hearing about Donald Trump. It makes me even more nauseous that we give so much attention to the narcissist (any narcissist) who so lives for the attention. For a grown man with his own version of Oppositional defiant disorder. For a national leader who claims victimhood as a form of being macho. Who lies constantly. And when he tells the truth, generally speaking, he’s just telling us what he’s going do or will make a joke of it once it's ralized what he's doing. And then? He does it anyway. He projects onto others his own crimes and current actions. I find this so vile. We see the GOP doing this of late, also. How can one not find this vile? And who would see such a person (or party) as having the material or character ever to be a national leader(s)?

The podcast now is talking about Stormy Daniels sometimes having to wanted to make money off of her story, sometimes not. And how that may appear to the jury as inconsistent or suspect. Maybe a jury of our peers should only be psychologists? I alwyas thought a "jury of your peers" was kind of nonsense anyway. What IF they did get that, peers of the defendent who really understand that person and their job and orientation? I wonder if there'd be more, or fewer guilty judgements?

We have in general very perverse belief about memory, recall, eyewitness accounts, etc. I’ve pushed forward on projects myself that I stopped and then went forward on after a while (referring to Stormy, wanting to sell her story, then not, etc.), all because of at one time, feeling strong enough to have the audacity to think it was a worthy project but at another time feeling weaker because of something that happened. I’ve been able to take a breath for a few days, collecting my wits and then moving forward again. So I don't see how that isn’t reasonable for what happened with Stormy Daniels. She's a person after all. Not to mention she had been threatened. Donald Trump is a scary little punk much fo the time with a bunch of money and more power than his money should portend. Then as POTUS we foolishly gave Donald Trump a shield against his criminal behaviors and one that is ongoing and ridiculous. I would argue anti-democratic, and has proven to be anti-American-citizen and anti-America.

Are “American citizens" actually American citizens if they are seditious and insurrectionist? Certainly treasonous would indicate no. So at what point are they not actual citizens? People are trying to claim that Palestinians are all Hamas and therefore the enemies of Israel. So are MAGA America’s enemies? Are they not?

It seems yet again binary thinking is the enemy of America. So, a porn star, now porn director cannot be surprised when that she walks out of a bathroom in a hotel room, after being invited to a dinner, that wasn’t gonna happen, and upon arriving meets Donald Trump in silk pajamas. Tells him to get dressed (because they were going to dinner, right?), certainly in her mind. He HAD said, or his Representative had told her that. So he gets dressed at her request, implying he’s playing along with the act that they’re going to have dinner. Then they never have dinner. Instead she gets cajolled into having sex.Thing is, had you asked her upon arrival, "want to have sex with Donald Trump, this old guy (remember at this time she's 27)?" I suspect she'd have said no. So how could she not have been fully cognizant and aware that what happened was going to happen? Please. Perhaps because she was a woman? Because you want to believe the best about others and for yourself? And to stereotypically presume otherwise, is just more toxic binary thinking in hindsight. About a stiuation we weren't ever in and Stormy was, and it’s just the worse form possible for us, for others? And why are we referring to her as Stormy Daniels, her stage name? She is Stephanie Gregory Clifford. As someone pointed out, Nikki Glaser maybe, we don't refer to an actor in court by his stage name in his latest film.

America’s problem, especially with Trump, seems to be a kind of flip-flopping in binary thinking in order to rationalize the best situation possible, in order to offer an ex-POTUS (and career criminal) so we can then be surprised in a kind of, “Casablanca style" retort as by Captain Renault, "I’m shocked to hear there’s gambling going on in this establishment.“ Please.

I decided to add into my previous Mother’s Day "walkabout thought" blog the Rosemary‘s baby meme, and the comments I posted elsewhere about my own oldest son. Maybe also the post I did today on Facebook about my and my siblings problematic relationship with our mother.

Did I add the Instagram post I made yesterday. No. But I just did.

I watched the entire first season of “Action “on Peacock streaming. I do hate the commercials every so often. But as I posted around social media the other day, if you’re regularly on a film set and there’s any action involved whatsoever, or you’re just a fan of action films, you really wanna watch this series. References go back to the first Matrix movie and the first "John Wick" and the guys who worked on those and then built their own company. Which where they’re now working on and they focus on in the series, like “Violent Night “and the one in theaters, “The Fall Guy“film, a version of the old 80s TV series with Lee Majors, the previous star of the $6 Million Man show, not to be confused with The Man Show.

End of mile one

Regarding long Covid lately, it’s been a rough 2024 so far. I’ll be 69 end of August and so far not enjoying the last few years at all. I expected old age to be much more entertaining and enjoyable. I’ve always had my health, so what the fuck happened? I blame Covid for this and my three infections from it. Even though I’ve gotten all the shots and boosters. Three weeks after I caught the last bout this year VA health came out and said "get your booster." Thanks guys. Great timing!

I’ve also had this weird thing going on for a couple of months on my right hand, ring finger, largest knuckle. Actually it's the proximal phalege. I don’t know, second phalange first phalange, I can never figure it out. But I woke up one morning to close my hand and that finger locked at that knuckle as I closed my hand. And it’s been catching like that. I figured it has to do with a lack of exercise. So I bought a gel exercise ball to fit my hand. Couple inches in diameter. Every day I’ve tried to do 10 squeezes with each hand and then nine, down to one. Tried to do that a few times a day. I don’t know, seems to be helping? I’ve got arthritis so it may have something to do with that. I’ve been eating 9 gin raisins every morning for a few years now. When I stop eating those, I feel the arthritis pain in my body, worse. I’ve seen some really old women in the news piecers replying to the question of "what do you credit your longevity to" and they said "Gin raisins". I don’t know, but can’t hurt.

Why does Stormy Daniel say that she’s not a "me too!" victim with Donald Trump? Because she’s a strong, intelligent woman. And yes, even those are susceptible to a guy conning them into a bad situation, or even sex. This has inevitably happened to millions of women throughout the history of humanity. Let’s turn this around. If this was Donald Trump rather than Stormy he would be screaming. "I’m a victim. I’m a victim. Me too! Me too!", to the high heaven. Don’t think that’s not true. 100%! And he would especially be claiming that if it was a lie because he’d be getting some kind of salacious deliciousness out of his fetish of lying to the public or anyone. Damn, this guy...

In Trump’s criminal court trial his defense attorney a shameless woman who said to Stormy in the witness box that she’s a strong woman when at 27 years old when all this happened and she should’ve been able to deal with it appropriately. Stormy‘s reply? “I’m a stronger woman now." Why? Because our worst experiences should inform our future selves.

I don’t usually eat sugar. Stopped that years ago, decades ago? I use agave. I’ll eat a little sugar as a treat once in a while. But I read in a study last year that it's a long Covid symptom, or certain aspects of it, that evokes a craving for sweets. I have to admit this past month or two, way too many sweets. No need to be putting on weight, even a few pounds. Dinner has been a cup of yogurt, lately, so I’ve been maintaining. But I seem to feel better and finally getting more exercise, so this feeling is diminishing. I’m really pushing myself to get in more exercise now that I’m feeling better and the weather is better. My lungs are still not fully healed from the last Covid infection though. Getting there, I suppose but it takes forever. I thought they would be better healed by now.

I know the court has to run how it runs, but claiming anything is abusive toward Trump in his court trial, this side of jumping over the witness stand and blowing his brains out, I would argue at this piont might be considered fair game. Now that’s not the case legally. Just morally and ethically, considering his utter disrespect he gave to our office of the president, to American citizens, to our US Constitution and our liberal democratic republic, so Trump pretty much deserves anything that happens to him in negative repurcussions he's earned. I do prefer to do this through the courts, but we're suffering fools here. I suspect we need some new laws for the next more enhanced version of a Donald Trump, career criminals made POTUS. Or we're fucked.

Little nugget of information… "Wicked Pictures" is one of the only adult film companies that require use of a condom onset. We know this because a FPOTUS is on criminal trial for election fraud and that's Stormy Daniel's company she has worked for. Why do you need to know anything more than that? 

Trump in his own words said a candidate in this situation shouldn’t be allowed to run. He said that in 2016.

End of mile two.

Damn. I just realized. My last podcast was on comedy and social issues and this one is on politics again. Sigh…

Here’s a thing about this Trump criminal trial. Had he not broken the law that requires this trial and information about Stormy Daniels, after the Access Hollywood recording came out, he would not have ended becoming POTUS. Director of the FBI Comey, pulling his bullshit about protecting the FBI over, protecting a national candidate in Hillary Clinton for POTUS, is another matter. I suspect we’re seeing that kind of crap with AG Garland. These people need to stop protecting their institutions and start protecting the US Constitution and the American citizen. YES, protect the FBI and the DOJ but when it's between them and citizens...CITIZENS! Between America and MAGA? Fucking AMERICA!

If God really existed, his (best) fake (worst) acolyte Donald Trump would immediately have a really bad stroke. So there that is I guess...

Donald Trump always negotiates his bills. Regardless that he OWES that money, he often gets reductions. Or he doesn’t even pay! I was once ONE week late, owed $7 on my home electric bill and the local small electric company put a lien against our house! The day I found out I paid it off. HAD they just called me I would’ve driven in and paid it off. It took some effort to get the lien off the house after that. So stop treating Donald Trump like a fragile glass object. He’s a career criminal. He ONCE was POTUS, AND? Deal with it!

Trump‘s accountant Allen Weisselberg prefers to sit in jail than testify against his former and current boss. As with Trump, who has plenty of money to pay penalties, you need to hit these people at a level they understand to feel the pain. While we would feel the pain as normal citizens, they won’t. Try giving Weisselberg 20 years in prison and see if he talks. Or  confiscate everything he owns and make it so that he can receive no further funds from Trump or anyone associated with him. Perhaps do what Trump does, and go after his family.

Yes, we don’t do that kind of thing because were the US government and we have a Constitution, and protections for our citizens (not that Trump cares if he can abuse us for his own good) and democracy, which Trump is trying to kill and that MAGA wants to kill and that the GOP is working to kill. But there has to be work arounds and we have to learn ASAP how this shit needs to be done... yesterday, not a year or 10 from now, as our jurisprudence tends to go sometimes.

Must be feeling better I’m getting rather long-winded and these blogs are getting longer. That’s a good sign. For me anyway.

Here’s an idea about Judge Cannon with the Mar y Lago documents trial for Donald Trump… Request of whomever you would request this of, that she not be replaced, so much as another judge is put into place for this, one who has a docket better capable of handling this, who is willing ready and able to act, before the election... because the American people have a right to due process and a speedy trial. Donald Trump and Judge Cannon do not have a right to delay tactics to avoid that situation. Or maybe they do.

While Judge Cannon's scheduling order is on her purview and requirements, I would say there’s an overarching requirement of the American people, who own the courts who are responsible to US, to get this trial done before further damages are done to the Constitution and the country.

I know the standards are high for replacing a judge on a trial, but we’re in new territory and the government has got to get its shit together and they've got to do it ASAP, or this country is going down. I don’t see things like MAGA who thinks they have to take guns to take over the government. It’s not how America is. That's how criminals work. And you may have noticed that MAGA are the ones who attacked Congress...

And so I’ll leave you with wishing you all the greatest success and health! 

Until next time! Sigh...

Cheers! Sláinte!