One Motto, One People: Reclaiming E Pluribus Unum to Heal America

With the concern of Christian Nationalism and the recent orientation of forcing "God" into our government, we have to start looking at what the problem is, where it started, why it started, and how to end it. Another concern is how Donald Trump has weaponized things like religion to regain power and get re-elected.

Worries over him and his desires for autocracy, power, greed, and kleptocracy with people like Elon Musk are a serious concern now more than ever.

From the Center for Religion in Public Life - Why E Pluribus Unum Is a Better Motto for Today than “In God We Trust”

1. Embracing True Diversity and Unity

The motto E Pluribus Unum was chosen by the Founding Fathers as an ideal that would unify a country of people from various places, backgrounds, and beliefs. The phrase encapsulates the American experiment: a diverse group of individuals coming together to form a stronger whole. It tells us that every American, no matter where they come from or what they believe, is part of that “One.”

Today, with even greater diversity in the United States than in the past, the meaning behind E Pluribus Unum is as relevant as ever. It serves as a reminder that our differences don’t divide us but make us stronger when they’re harnessed for a common purpose.

In contrast, In God We Trust doesn’t convey the same inclusivity. It implies a shared faith in a single religious concept, which isn’t true for everyone. America is home to a wide array of faiths, as well as people who don’t adhere to any faith at all. While “God” has different meanings for different people, In God We Trust is often interpreted as favoring a specific monotheistic view, alienating those who don’t share that view. In short, E Pluribus Unum brings people together, while In God We Trust can unintentionally create distance between them.

2. Reflecting the Constitution’s Religious Neutrality

One of the cornerstones of American identity is the freedom of religion enshrined in the First Amendment. This amendment ensures that individuals are free to practice any religion or none at all, and that the government doesn’t endorse any particular faith. By choosing In God We Trust as the national motto, the government has unintentionally aligned itself with a specific religious sentiment, creating tension with the very freedoms our Constitution is built to protect.

E Pluribus Unum, on the other hand, doesn’t favor any one religious belief. It’s a motto that respects both religious and secular viewpoints equally, making it a better fit for a country founded on the principle of religious freedom. Returning to E Pluribus Unum would reaffirm our commitment to a government that serves all its citizens, regardless of their personal beliefs.

3. Avoiding Division and “Othering”

Sadly, In God We Trust has sometimes been used to define what it means to be a “real” American, creating an “us vs. them” mentality. This mentality has led to a pattern of "othering" fellow citizens who don’t identify with that phrase—whether they are atheists, people of minority faiths, or those who interpret “God” differently. This approach risks dividing us along lines of belief when what we need, especially now, is unity.

The language of E Pluribus Unum shifts us away from viewing people as “insiders” and “outsiders.” It reminds us that we’re all part of one nation, and even when we disagree, we still share a commitment to one another. As a motto, it leaves no room for creating enemies out of fellow citizens. Instead, it creates a sense of common purpose that helps bring people together.

4. A Return to American Values

E Pluribus Unum has deep historical roots, representing the original vision of the Founding Fathers. It reminds us of what they hoped America would be—a united country formed by people of all backgrounds. Adopting In God We Trust as the motto in 1956 was a Cold War move to distinguish the U.S. from the atheistic Soviet Union. While it served a purpose at the time, the Cold War is over, and today we face different challenges that call for a more inclusive approach.

By returning to E Pluribus Unum, we can return to a motto that reflects the diversity and openness our country was built upon. It’s a step back toward the founding principles that united people from all walks of life in the first place, and it can help us create a national identity that’s positive, inclusive, and forward-thinking.

5. Promoting a Motto for All Americans

In a nation that prides itself on democracy, a motto should be for everyone. A motto that only reflects the values of certain groups isn’t fully representative. While In God We Trust speaks to a large portion of Americans, it does not speak to everyone. There are millions of Americans who don’t connect with it and may feel left out or excluded from the national identity it represents. This isn’t just a minor concern; feeling excluded can lead to greater disillusionment with government, less civic engagement, and a more fractured society overall.

In contrast, E Pluribus Unum speaks to every American. It focuses on our common humanity and the shared commitment to creating a unified nation from many backgrounds, cultures, and perspectives. This kind of unity is essential to strengthening our democracy and ensuring that all citizens feel valued and included.

6. Focusing on Civic Values Over Religious Identity

E Pluribus Unum emphasizes civic unity, not religious unity. It doesn’t ask us to believe the same things or see the world the same way, but it does ask us to work together as one people. In times when polarization is high and public trust is low, a national motto that focuses on our civic values rather than our religious identity could help to bring people back together.

It would encourage Americans to see themselves, first and foremost, as citizens who are in this together—not as people divided by religion, politics, or ideology. At a time when we need less division and more common purpose, E Pluribus Unum offers an ideal that transcends our differences.

---

In sum, returning to E Pluribus Unum would help us refocus on the importance of unity across diversity, respect religious freedom, avoid divisive “othering,” and foster a civic identity that includes all Americans. It reminds us that no matter who we are or what we believe, we’re stronger when we’re working together as “One.”

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.

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.

North Korea isn't what you think anymore

I just finished watching a Frontline episode titled, "Secret State of North Korea (2014). What a report!

North Korea's government's iron grip on its people is crumbing. Slowly. But it's beginning to happen, mostly because media creeping into the country. And we all know how hard it is to stop something like that, once it starts. However since like previous rulers, the current regime of Kim John Un is quite willing to indiscriminately kill people to maintain its grip, it may still survive for a long time.

Without help from outside. And there is outside help.

There is a South Korean TV show of North Korean defectors. There are people smuggling in media. It's reported there may be a million people there watching these smuggled in shows, films and radio shows available on wind up powered radios. Children of the top leaders even have seen these shows and many desire to defect.

All the current regime need do is to open up the country and give their people their freedom. If Kim Jong Un would only steal millions of dollars to guarantee he would live his life out in comfort, he could allow his country to open up to the world. He could even do it "legally". He would lose his power, but he could also live a very comfortable life until he dies. Is it ethical? No. But wouldn't it be worth it to his country for them to pay him off to give them the lives they deserve? Yes, quite so.

If he played his cards right he could end up being beloved by his people even more than his recent ancestors in giving his people their freedom. He could be viewed in the future as the new "founder" of North Korea. But he's been brainwashed himself and I don't have high hopes for this. People there believe that Kim Il-Song (Kim Jong Un's Grandfather) was much more compassionate a leader than either of his two descendants following him as North Korean leaders.

The NK people are starting to know about the world at large and actually are beginning to question their authorities. Even their authorities are questioning the authorities. Kim Jong Un has most likely been so cruel and iron-fisted because it's quite obvious to the regime they are losing control. Whenever that happens regimes tend to crack down, not realize the progression as it moves along, until finally there is a revolution, or other countries step in. Or millions may die, as in Cambodia with the Khmer Rouge where four million were lost overall.

One of the North Korean leaders who was under the previous regime and also a revisionist, and perhaps the West's best hope in positive change coming about, Jang Song Thaek, was the current leader's caretaker and guardian, and was executed recently on 12 December 2013. He was also Kim Jong Un's uncle.

The UK paper, "The Telegraph" has reported that the Kim family's former sushi chef has said that the uncle was executed over the 'pleasure brigade'. Kenji Fujimoto, a sushi chef who worked for the Kim family between 1989 and 2001, said that Jang Song Thaek was tasked with procuring young women for late dictator.

The UK newspaper also reported: “[Kim Jong Un] hates that kind of thing the most. His grandfather Kim Il Sung did similar things. His father also had quite a history with women. So having seen them, he wanted to prove that he’s different and that he would eradicate such practices,” Mr Fujimoto said.

It's questionable how wonderful a thing this is. So he may have some morals, but his own actions have made this questionable. When a rumor went around about his ex-girlfriend and a sex tape, she was among a dozen well-known North Korean performers who were executed by firing squad. 

From the Telegraph once again: "The 12 who were executed were singers, musicians or dancers with the Hyon's band, the Unhasu Orchestra or the Wanghaesan Light Music Band and were accused of making videos of themselves performing sex acts and then selling the recordings. All 12 were machine-gunned three days later, with other members of North Korea's most famous pop groups and their immediate families forced to watch. The onlookers were then sent to prison camps, victims of the regime's assumption of guilt by association, the reports stated.

On another who was executed: "Kim Chol, vice minister of the army, was executed with a mortar round in October 2012. On the explicit orders of Kim Jong-un to leave "no trace of him behind, down to his hair," according to South Korean media, Kim Chol was forced to stand on a spot that had been zeroed in for a mortar round and "obliterated.""

Kim Jong Un, is not a nice guy. But he is feeling the strain of losing control and things may only get worse. And since he's not that old, he's not that knowledgeable about being a leader. And he's failing. But before the regime falls, many more will die.

What can we do?

Others are doing their best in China and South Korea. the ex-patriots of North Korea have a definite iron in the fire in that they grew up in North Korea and still have relatives there, unless they have been imprisoned or killed already since committing a crime such as being related to a defector, which can lead to your family also being imprisoned up to three generations. In one example, family were rounded up who didn't even know they were related to a "state criminal" as he was only a "9th cousin" to them, and yet, they all went to prison camps. One of these many prison camps that echoes back to the old gulag style Soviet camps days is fairly new since Kim Jong Un took over and three times the size of Washington DC.

I think it's time we helped. It's not that I don't think we already are, I just think we need to step up our game.

There is already a radio station (so no need for a "Radio Free Europe" program) , TV show and locals doing what they can to open the minds of the North Koreans by smuggling in cell phones, laptops and thumb-drives with media on them. How about if the CIA started sending in cell phones with twitter capability hidden within them. The CIA itself has been bastardized these past ten years or so since 9/11 and it's gone from an intelligence gathering and subversion organization to pretty much an active paramilitary group. Recently this was attempted to be rectified by a bill submitted in Congress to give the drone program to the Pentagon, yet the Republican Congress blocked the move. Well, they are broken too.

We do have our own problems.

Some of the things they don't have in NK is social networking like Facebook and Twitter. The latter of which was so important recently in evoking serious change in other countries like Egypt, Libya and elsewhere. Already North Koreans have found through the availability of cell phones, that even though they can only make calls internal to the country, with changes made to the SIM cards, they can call out, instantly getting information and sending it out of country. There are high punishments for this and still, some of them keep trying. When cell phone first became available in North Korea it took two years for a million people to have one, the next year it took a year for another million and it's projected next there will be another million in six months time. It's not going to stop. So let's use it.

If the CIA were to start giving local ex-patriot North Korean black marketers to smuggle into the internal North Korean black marketers, supplying them with these altered cell phones, they could then wait until after enough of them have made it into the country. Flood the country with them. They could then "leak" information on how to enable an "Easter egg" in the phones, allowing a new capability suddenly available on any of these phones so that there would be millions of North Koreans who would have access to Twitter, or something like it.

It's really something to think about. And if Twitter isn't workable, I'm sure something could be set up to make this function available in the closed off country.

The biggest weapon against the North Korean child despot and his repressive regime is information and the active coordination of its citizenry, by themselves.

Think outside the box. Make it happen.