💥 Burning Bridges and Breaking Treaties: Trump’s NATO Playbook

Donald Trump's actions and rhetoric as President of the United States have been criticized as undermining Article 2 of the NATO Treaty, which promotes economic collaboration among member states to reduce the risk of conflict stemming from divergent economic policies.

📜 What Article 2 of the NATO Charter Says:

“The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.”

This article is about more than just military defense — it emphasizes mutual economic cooperation and reducing economic tensions within the alliance.

---

💥 Ways Trump Has Been Accused of Violating the Spirit of Article 2:

1. Trade Wars with NATO Allies

Trump initiated and escalated trade disputes with key NATO members like Canada, Germany, and the EU by:

• Imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from allies under national security grounds (Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act).

• Threatening tariffs on European cars.

• Retaliating against French digital services taxes.

These measures sparked tit-for-tat tariffs, harming cross-border economic stability and undermining efforts to reduce economic conflicts.

2. Publicly Undermining Allies

Trump often framed NATO allies as economic "freeloaders", accusing them of taking advantage of the U.S. economically and militarily. This antagonistic framing:

• Soured economic relations between member countries.

• Undermined trust that underpins collaborative trade and development.

3. Discouraging Investment & Stability

Trump’s repeated threats to withdraw from NATO and his transactional approach to alliances created uncertainty in:

• Defense-related industries and transatlantic investment.

• The overall economic stability that NATO promotes.

Such uncertainty can discourage long-term planning and undermine cooperative projects, particularly in technology, infrastructure, and energy security.

---

🧠 The Bigger Picture:

While Article 2 doesn’t have enforcement mechanisms or binding legal clauses, it sets a tone of solidarity, peace, and shared prosperity. Trump's confrontational and unilateral economic policies weakened that solidarity and contradicted the spirit and purpose of economic collaboration in the alliance.

This doesn't mean Trump formally broke Article 2 in a legal sense — NATO articles aren't typically "violated" like criminal laws — but many critics argue that he betrayed its intent and undermined NATO unity.

While it's true that Article 2 of the NATO treaty doesn't contain enforceable legal mechanisms, its language is foundational in shaping the alliance's ethos — promoting peace, economic cooperation, and mutual respect among member nations. Trump's aggressive economic posturing, particularly his trade threats against allies and transactional approach to defense funding, ran counter to the spirit of collaborative partnership Article 2 seeks to uphold. These actions may not constitute a formal violation, but they eroded trust and unity within NATO at a time when cohesion was vital.

Supporters of Trump’s approach often cheer his tough talk, seeing it as a businessman’s no-nonsense strategy to make allies “pay their fair share.” But even from that perspective, his tactics backfired. Instead of strengthening America’s position, they alienated key allies, made coordination harder, and gave adversaries like Russia and China an opening to exploit divisions. Undermining trust within NATO doesn’t just hurt European partners — it weakens the very alliances that give the U.S. global leverage, intelligence sharing, and strategic reach without having to bear the burden alone. So even if someone dismisses NATO’s idealistic goals, it’s still a bad deal for America’s power and security.

Compiled with aid from ChatGPT

Trump’s 24-Hour Ukraine/Russia Peace Plan Just Expired - 82 Days Ago

Let's see.

​As of today, Sunday, April 13, 2025, it has been approximately 2 years, 1 month, and 19 days since Donald Trump first claimed he could end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours. He made this assertion during his presidential campaign in May 2023 .​

Call to Activism

​As of today, April 13, 2025, it has been 82 days since President Donald Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2025. During his campaign, Trump claimed he could end the Ukraine war within 24 hours of taking office. However, the conflict continues unabated, with recent events such as a Russian missile strike in Sumy resulting in significant casualties. This underscores the unfulfilled nature of Trump's initial promise regarding the swift resolution of the Ukraine conflict.

What Trump did by later calling his ability to "end the Ukraine war in a day "claim“ as a little bit sarcastic” doesn't at all fit the definition of sarcasm. ​

Sarcasm involves saying the opposite of what you mean, often with irony or mockery.

Yet again, his speech is inaccurate, to the point of none. His original claim wasn’t ironic—it was confident and declarative.

What he actually did could be described in a few ways, depending on how charitable or critical one wishes to be, when charity here is utterly unnecessary:

• Backpedaling: Retreating from an earlier bold claim once questioned.
• Retconning (short for “retroactive continuity”): Changing the meaning of a previous statement after the fact.
• Walking it back: A common political term for softening or reversing a strong previous position.
• Reframing: Trying to shift the perception of the original comment to make it seem less literal or problematic.
• Gaslighting (most accurate): If he insists he never meant what people clearly heard him say (as he's done in claiming his backpaddling on tariffs was originally in the plan to begin with)—trying to make others doubt their perception.

🔹 DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender)
A coined acronym particularly useful in abuse and assault cases:

• Deny the behavior
• Attack the accuser
• Reverse Victim and Offender by portraying oneself as the real victim

Example: An abuser claiming, "She’s ruining my life with these lies."

When they are merely accurate observations.

Getting back down to "brass tacks" how has his method to end the war failed already?

​President Donald Trump has proposed a plan to end the ongoing conflict in Ukraine by negotiating directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin, aiming to achieve a resolution within 24 hours. However, this proposal has faced criticism from various quarters.​

Criticism from Ukrainian Leadership:

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has expressed skepticism about Trump's plan, cautioning that a hasty agreement could be detrimental to Ukraine's sovereignty. He emphasized that while ending the war is a priority, it should not come at the expense of Ukraine's independence and territorial integrity. ​

Rejection by Russian Officials:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has dismissed aspects of Trump's peace proposal, particularly the suggestions to delay Ukraine's NATO membership and the deployment of European peacekeepers in Ukraine. Lavrov stated that these elements are unsatisfactory and do not address Russia's core security concerns. ​

Continued Hostilities Despite Diplomatic Efforts:

Recent events have raised questions about the effectiveness of Trump's peace initiatives. On April 13, 2025, a Russian missile strike in the Ukrainian city of Sumy resulted in at least 31 civilian deaths, occurring shortly after U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff met with Putin to discuss a cease-fire. This attack has led to further skepticism regarding the viability of Trump's proposed peace plan.

These developments suggest that Trump's strategy to swiftly end the Ukraine conflict through direct negotiations with Putin faces significant challenges, including resistance from both Ukrainian leadership and Russian officials, as well as ongoing military actions undermining diplomatic efforts.

Trump’s claim that he could end the Ukraine war in 24 hours by negotiating directly with Putin was a bold promise that has proven to be false. His repeated assertions about resolving complex international conflicts in such a short time frame only served to mislead the public. As the war continues, it’s clear that his promises were less about practical diplomacy and more about self-serving rhetoric. 

This pattern of gaslighting—where he twists reality to avoid accountability—has been a hallmark of his leadership style. His attempt to rewrite his own statements, coupled with unfulfilled claims and shifting narratives, further exposes a tendency to manipulate facts for personal gain, even at the expense of national and global stability. The failure of his "peace plan" reflects not just a diplomatic shortcoming but a deeper issue of trust and integrity in his approach to foreign policy and leadership.

Additionally, Trump’s tariff system, initially framed as a way to protect American interests, has devolved into a mechanism of corruption. He was notably soft on Russia, with tariffs that often seemed to favor Russian interests or those of entities tied to Russian investments, while imposing harsher tariffs on U.S. allies and partners. 

This selective approach not only undermined America’s global relationships but also raised questions about his personal and business connections with Russian oligarchs. Meanwhile, his policies toward Ukraine were less about diplomacy and more about using Ukraine as a tool to maintain a hardline stance, despite the lack of meaningful peace progress. By manipulating tariffs for political leverage and economic gain, he blurred the lines between public service and personal profit, revealing how his actions served both his political ambitions and financial interests, often at the expense of U.S. global influence and credibility.

​Ultimately, if Trump continues to hold power, his pattern of corruption, dishonesty, and self-serving policies will only deepen the fractures within the nation and the world, and we will suffer even greater losses—both diplomatically and morally. It’s time for a change, or the consequences will be far-reaching and irreversible.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Putin, Dugin, and Trump: The Geopolitical Challenge Facing America

Alexander Dugin is a Russian philosopher, political theorist, and strategist known for his far-right and nationalist ideas. He is considered one of the most influential intellectuals behind Vladimir Putin’s geopolitical vision and has developed a distinctive worldview that challenges Western liberalism, democracy, and globalism.

Who is Alexander Dugin?

Dugin is often associated with the ideology of Eurasianism, which emphasizes the idea that Russia, rather than being a part of Europe or Asia, should lead a unique Eurasian civilization. He is a vocal critic of liberal democracy and Western values, seeing them as threats to the survival of traditional Russian culture, values, and political systems. His philosophy blends Russian Orthodox Christianity, traditionalism, nationalism, and anti-modernism. Dugin is also a prominent advocate for an authoritarian system that rejects the principles of liberal democracy, which he believes lead to decadence, moral decay, and societal breakdown.

Dugin’s work, particularly his book "Foundations of Geopolitics", has been highly influential within certain circles of Russian politics and military strategy. His vision of a "multipolar world" contrasts with the Western-led "unipolar" world order, which he sees as dominated by the U.S. and its allies. He advocates for a new international order, where Russia plays a central role, asserting itself against the West.

Putin’s Relationship with Dugin’s Beliefs

Putin’s policies and rhetoric, especially in recent years, reflect a certain alignment with Dugin’s ideas, particularly regarding nationalism, anti-liberalism, and anti-Western sentiments. Although it’s difficult to say how directly Putin subscribes to Dugin's specific philosophy, Dugin has been described as a key ideological figure whose ideas resonate with the Kremlin’s foreign and domestic policies. Here are the key ways Putin has embraced Dugin’s beliefs:

1. Anti-Western Sentiment:

   • Both Dugin and Putin are staunchly critical of Western liberalism, seeing it as morally corrupt, decadent, and a threat to Russia’s traditional values. Putin has positioned Russia as a defender of conservative and Christian values in opposition to what he perceives as the permissiveness and liberalism of the West.

   • Dugin’s ideas, particularly the rejection of liberal democracy, mirror Putin’s own distrust of Western-style political systems and his promotion of a strong, centralized state under his control.

2. Eurasianism and Russia’s Role in Global Politics:

   • Dugin’s philosophy of Eurasianism calls for Russia to assert its dominance over the Eurasian landmass, rejecting the West's political and cultural dominance. This has been reflected in Putin’s foreign policy, especially in his actions in Ukraine, Georgia, and other former Soviet republics, where he has sought to reassert Russian influence and challenge Western power.

   • Dugin envisions Russia leading a coalition of countries (often referred to as the "Eurasian bloc"), which would challenge the global order dominated by the U.S. and Europe. Putin’s actions in Ukraine and Syria can be seen as part of this broader vision of establishing Russia as a counterbalance to U.S. hegemony.

3. The Rejection of Globalism:

   • Dugin is a vocal critic of globalism, the idea that countries should be governed by global institutions and international norms. He believes that this undermines national sovereignty and leads to the erosion of cultural and religious identities.

   • Putin has positioned Russia as a champion of national sovereignty, particularly in opposition to Western-led international institutions like the European Union (EU) and NATO. He has used rhetoric that positions Russia as a defender of the "multipolar world," a world where power is not concentrated in the hands of a few Western countries.

What They Are Doing to Support These Beliefs Against America and for Russia

1. Ukraine and the "Eurasian Sphere":

   • One of the most significant actions taken by Russia under Putin that aligns with Dugin’s beliefs is the invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014, followed by the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine. This move was justified by Putin as necessary to protect Russian speakers and culture, but it also fits within the broader Eurasian vision of reasserting Russian influence in territories once part of the Soviet Union.

   • Dugin has openly supported these actions, viewing them as part of Russia’s rightful return to its place as the leader of a Eurasian bloc. He also sees Ukraine as a critical part of this vision, often referring to it as the "heartland" of Eurasia.

2. Promotion of Anti-Liberal Values:

   • Putin has sought to promote Russian Orthodox Christianity as a unifying force in Russia, positioning it against the secularism of the West. This resonates with Dugin’s traditionalist views, which stress the importance of religion in society and politics.

   • Russia’s opposition to LGBTQ+ rights, its push for conservative family values, and its crackdown on opposition movements all align with Dugin’s idea of a society that rejects liberal freedoms in favor of order and traditionalism.

3. Cyber Warfare and Disinformation:

   • Russia, under Putin’s leadership, has been accused of using cyber warfare and disinformation campaigns to destabilize Western democracies, particularly the U.S. during the 2016 presidential election. This aligns with Dugin’s idea of undermining Western influence and sowing chaos in the political systems of liberal democracies.

   • Dugin’s geopolitical ideas also encourage the use of unconventional methods to achieve strategic goals, including the use of information warfare to destabilize the U.S. and European Union.

4. Energy and Economic Influence:

   • Russia has leveraged its control over energy supplies, especially natural gas and oil, as a tool of geopolitical influence. By using energy as leverage, Russia under Putin has sought to deepen its ties with Eurasian countries while also undermining Western sanctions and economic influence.

   • This economic strategy is part of a broader effort to reduce Russia’s dependence on the West and assert its dominance within the Eurasian region.

Dugin’s ideas, particularly his vision of a multipolar world led by Russia and his rejection of liberal Western values, resonate with Putin’s worldview and have influenced many of his policies. While the extent of their personal relationship and alignment is not fully clear, it is evident that Putin has adopted certain aspects of Dugin’s philosophy, especially in terms of nationalism, anti-Western rhetoric, and the quest for Russian dominance in Eurasia. Together, they advocate for a Russia that pushes back against American global leadership and the liberal international order, positioning Russia as a defender of tradition, sovereignty, and an alternative vision for global politics.

Putin's connection to various philosophers and ideologies, including figures like Alexander Dugin, is often viewed through a complex and controversial lens. Dugin, in particular, is known for his far-right, nationalist, and anti-liberal views, advocating for Eurasianism, which emphasizes Russia's unique role in world history and its need to assert its power against the West.

Critics of Dugin and his philosophy argue that his ideas are deeply problematic, even dangerous, and foster a worldview that is deluded or extreme. They point out that his approach often relies on conspiracy theories, anti-democratic sentiments, and a rejection of modernity. Whether he is "stupid," "deluded," or "insane" largely depends on one's perspective. Some might argue that Dugin's ideas are misguided and dangerous, while others might see them as strategic in promoting a certain vision for Russia.

It's a highly subjective matter, with critics often calling his ideas intellectually dishonest or harmful, while supporters view him as a visionary seeking to challenge Western dominance. Ultimately, the label depends on the values and beliefs of those doing the evaluating.

The beliefs and actions of Trump, Bannon, Putin, and Dugin share certain themes, but they are not perfectly aligned, and the connections are complex.

1. Nationalism and Populism:

• Trump and Bannon: Both Trump and Bannon have espoused strong nationalist and populist rhetoric. Trump’s "America First" approach, with a focus on prioritizing U.S. interests, echoes a populist desire to challenge global elites and institutions. Bannon, as a strategist, championed similar themes, promoting a right-wing, anti-establishment ideology that sought to upend the liberal international order.

• Putin and Dugin: Similarly, Putin’s Russia under his leadership has embraced a form of nationalism, particularly in opposition to Western influence. Dugin’s philosophy, particularly his concept of Eurasianism, aligns with this by emphasizing Russia’s role as a unique civilization, distinct from the West.

2. Anti-Globalism:

• Trump and Bannon: Both Trump and Bannon have been critical of international institutions and agreements. Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Deal, along with Bannon's criticism of globalist elites, reflects a shared skepticism of global governance and institutions like the EU and UN.

• Putin and Dugin: Putin’s opposition to NATO and the European Union, alongside Dugin's advocacy for Russian supremacy in Eurasia, also fits into an anti-globalist narrative, though with a more explicitly authoritarian and imperialistic bent. Dugin often critiques liberal democracy as part of a Western-led globalist project that he believes undermines national sovereignty.

3. Anti-Liberalism:

• Trump and Bannon: Trump's actions often targeted liberal values, especially in areas like immigration, civil rights, and press freedom. Bannon has been a vocal critic of liberalism and often associates it with globalism and what he perceives as a threat to traditional values and sovereignty.

• Putin and Dugin: Putin’s governance in Russia has consistently undermined liberal democratic values, with crackdowns on dissent, the press, and LGBTQ+ rights. Dugin’s philosophy, with its rejection of liberal democracy, aligns with this anti-liberalism, advocating instead for a more authoritarian, conservative, and hierarchical society.

4. Relations with the West:

• Trump and Bannon: While Trump often expressed admiration for Putin and appeared open to closer ties with Russia, especially during the 2016 election, his administration maintained policies that were at odds with Russian interests, such as sanctions on Russia and support for NATO. Bannon, too, has expressed admiration for the strength and sovereignty of nations like Russia, although his strategic thinking was more focused on undermining Western globalism.

• Putin and Dugin: Putin, particularly under Dugin's influence, has seen Russia as a counterbalance to Western liberalism, viewing the U.S. and Europe as rivals in the ideological and geopolitical struggle for global influence. Dugin's vision calls for Russia to lead a broader Eurasian bloc to challenge the Western-dominated world order.

In summary, there are some overlapping themes, particularly the opposition to globalism, liberalism, and the embrace of nationalism, but the alignment between Trump, Bannon, Putin, and Dugin is not straightforward. Trump's and Bannon's views are more focused on national sovereignty and populism from a Western, American context, while Putin and Dugin’s philosophy is rooted in Russian imperialism and Eurasianism. The alignment tends to be more about shared anti-establishment, anti-liberal views, rather than an exact match in ideology or strategy.

In dealing with the rising geopolitical tensions involving Russia, particularly in the context of Putin's policies and the influence of figures like Dugin, there are several strategies that America could pursue to safeguard its interests and uphold democratic values. The role of leadership, especially in the presidency, is critical to how effectively the U.S. navigates these challenges.

What Should America Do?

1. Strengthen Alliances and Multilateral Cooperation:

   • NATO and EU Relations: A strong, united NATO is critical to countering Russian aggression and preserving global security. The U.S. must work closely with NATO members, especially in Eastern Europe, to ensure that collective defense is robust, and that Russia's attempts to weaken the alliance are thwarted.

   • Diplomacy with Allies: The U.S. needs to strengthen diplomatic ties with its European allies and other democracies around the world. This will help create a coordinated response to Russian expansionism and the spread of anti-democratic ideologies.

2. Countering Russian Influence and Disinformation:

   • The U.S. must continue to combat disinformation campaigns and cyberattacks originating from Russia. This includes protecting U.S. electoral processes, critical infrastructure, and countering Russian-backed propaganda both at home and abroad.

   • Cybersecurity should be a top priority, ensuring that both government and private sector systems are resistant to cyberattacks and influence operations.

3. Support for Democracy and Human Rights:

   • The U.S. needs to be a consistent voice for human rights and democratic values around the world, including pushing back against autocratic regimes like Russia’s. Supporting civil society organizations, journalists, and opposition leaders in countries like Russia and Belarus is essential to promoting freedom and democracy globally.

   • Sanctions should continue to be a tool for holding Putin’s government accountable for human rights abuses, corruption, and aggression toward neighboring countries. However, sanctions need to be strategically designed to target key figures and industries, while minimizing harm to ordinary citizens.

4. Energy and Economic Strategies:

   • The U.S. should focus on energy independence and strengthening its position in global energy markets. This will help reduce European dependence on Russian energy exports, making it more difficult for Russia to use energy as a geopolitical weapon.

   • Economic sanctions on Russian oligarchs and key industries that fund the Russian regime should be maintained and expanded to put pressure on Putin’s inner circle.

5. Support Ukraine and Other At-Risk States:

   • The U.S. must continue to support Ukraine in its defense against Russian aggression, providing military aid, economic support, and diplomatic backing.

   • Expanding partnerships with countries in Eastern Europe, the Baltics, and other former Soviet republics is vital in creating a buffer zone to prevent further Russian territorial expansion.

Do We Need to Avoid Having Someone Like Trump in Office?

The question of leadership in the U.S. is crucial in determining how effectively the country can respond to the current global challenges posed by Russia. Here are some key considerations:

1. Coherent Foreign Policy:

   • Under Trump, U.S. foreign policy was often characterized by unpredictability and isolationism. Trump's "America First" rhetoric led to withdrawing from international agreements and undermining multilateral institutions, such as NATO, and distanced the U.S. from long-standing alliances. This created openings for authoritarian regimes like Russia to exploit divisions and weaknesses within the West.

   • A more consistent and cooperative approach to foreign policy, with a focus on strengthening alliances and promoting democratic values, is critical to countering Russian influence. Leaders who prioritize diplomacy, multilateralism, and a commitment to global institutions are better equipped to handle the complexities of a world where authoritarian regimes are challenging liberal democracies.

2. Values and Leadership:

   • Trump’s admiration for Putin and other authoritarian leaders raised concerns about the U.S.'s commitment to promoting democracy and human rights globally. A president who is less sympathetic to autocrats and more committed to upholding democratic values would be better suited to leading the U.S. in the face of Russian and other authoritarian threats.

   • Leadership that is aligned with democratic principles, like rule of law and respect for human rights, would help restore credibility on the world stage. A leader who consistently supports the liberal international order and defends the rights of nations to self-determination is crucial for U.S. leadership in countering Russia’s geopolitical ambitions.

3. Diplomatic Engagement vs. Isolation:

   • Trump’s tendency toward unilateralism, such as withdrawing from agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal, undermined U.S. credibility and made it harder for America to lead global coalitions. A more engaged, diplomatic approach, where the U.S. works with allies and partners to address shared challenges, is essential for confronting Russia’s growing influence.

   • The U.S. should prioritize engagement with both its allies and neutral countries, presenting a united front against authoritarianism, while avoiding isolationist policies that could embolden Russia and other adversaries.

4. Domestic Stability and Unity:

   • A strong domestic foundation is critical for addressing foreign threats. The divisions within the U.S. during Trump’s presidency—exemplified by polarized political discourse, misinformation, and attacks on democratic institutions—undermined America’s ability to project a coherent and united front internationally.

   • A president who can bridge divides within the U.S., promote civic trust, and work to restore the integrity of democratic institutions would strengthen the country’s resilience in facing external challenges, including Russia’s attempts to undermine democracy.

Conclusion

To effectively counter the threats posed by Russia, the U.S. needs to pursue a multifaceted strategy that includes strengthening alliances, combating disinformation, supporting democratic movements, and maintaining economic and military pressure on authoritarian regimes. The role of the president is central in shaping the U.S.'s response to these challenges. Leadership that emphasizes global cooperation, democratic values, and consistent foreign policy is essential to confronting Russia’s ambitions, especially when it comes to safeguarding American interests and the international order.

Given the complexities of the current geopolitical landscape, it’s crucial that the U.S. has a president who is committed to democratic principles and multilateral cooperation, which would suggest that a figure like Trump—who has shown a pattern of undermining these values—may not be the best fit to lead the country through these difficult times.

Trump, and those who support him... have GOT to GO, and do so, or be mean to do so...ASAP.

Trump suggests US join British Commonwealth... if offered by King Charles?

OMG!

What nonsense is this? 

How does this make any sense? 

Why so damn many weird distractions with this guy?

Why does Trump & his "administration" break or corrupt all they touch? Seriously...WTF?

Someone make this convicted felon and chaotic child, and his personality cult go away!

Why? 

Trump suggests US could join the British Commonwealth if offered by King Charles

​President Trump's recent suggestion that the United States could join the Commonwealth of Nations has raised eyebrows, given the nation's historical context and the Commonwealth's typical composition. The Commonwealth is a political association of 56 member states, most of which are former territories of the British Empire. Membership is voluntary and symbolizes shared values such as democracy and human rights. ​

The United States, having gained independence from Britain in 1776, has never been a member of the Commonwealth. However, there is precedent for countries without historical ties to the British Empire joining the organization. For example, Mozambique and Rwanda, both former non-British colonies, became members in 1995 and 2009, respectively. ​

Reports suggest that King Charles III might extend an offer for the U.S. to become an associate member of the Commonwealth during President Trump's upcoming state visit to the UK. This proposal is viewed as a symbolic gesture to strengthen the "special relationship" between the two nations. President Trump responded positively to this idea, stating on Truth Social, "I love King Charles. Sounds good to me!" 

"...strengthen the "special relationship" between the two nations"? WHY? Why would we need to strengthen our relationship with the UK...UNLESS Trump has done something to tarnish that relationship, damage it, or needlessly abuse it!

America is being led by an immature brat who needs to fix the things he continuously breaks, one thing after another!

And he has an unelected child in the richest clown in the world running around our government doing Trump and his own bidding.

WTHF America?

While the notion may seem unconventional, it aligns with efforts to reinforce diplomatic ties and shared values among member nations. The decision to admit a new member rests with the Commonwealth Secretariat and requires consensus among existing members. Therefore, any potential U.S. membership would undergo careful consideration and deliberation.​

There are several potential downsides to the idea of the U.S. joining the Commonwealth, even as an associate member:

1. Political and Historical Contradictions

• The U.S. fought the American Revolution to break away from British rule. Joining the Commonwealth—even symbolically—would be seen by many as a contradiction of that history.

• It could be perceived as an insult to American sovereignty, implying some level of subordination to a British-led institution.

2. Lack of Practical Benefits

• The Commonwealth is primarily a symbolic and diplomatic organization. It does not provide significant economic or political advantages to its members.

• Unlike the European Union or NATO, it does not involve military or trade agreements that would justify membership.

3. Diplomatic Tensions

• The move could create friction with other global allies who might see it as a shift in U.S. foreign policy priorities.

• Commonwealth members might resist U.S. involvement, fearing that its influence would overshadow smaller nations.

4. Domestic Backlash

• Many Americans, especially conservatives and nationalists, could see this as unnecessary foreign entanglement or an erosion of U.S. independence.

• Critics could frame it as Trump attempting to align the U.S. with a monarchy, which conflicts with core American republican values.

5. No Clear Path for Admission

• Commonwealth membership is typically reserved for former British colonies or nations with historical ties to the British Empire.

• The U.S. does not fit these criteria, and existing members might oppose its admission.

Ultimately, the proposal seems more symbolic than substantive, but even as a gesture, it could be politically divisive.

​President Trump's recent suggestion that the United States could join the British Commonwealth has raised questions about its seriousness and intent. Historically, Trump has employed sensational statements to dominate media coverage, often diverting attention from other pressing issues. This tactic, sometimes referred to as "flooding the zone," involves overwhelming the public with provocative remarks, making it challenging to focus on substantive policy discussions. ​

Given the symbolic nature of such a proposal and the logistical improbability of the U.S. joining the Commonwealth, it's plausible that this suggestion serves more as a media distraction than a genuine policy initiative. By introducing such unexpected ideas, the administration can shift public discourse, potentially sidelining more critical topics from the spotlight.​

In summary, while the notion of the U.S. joining the Commonwealth is unconventional and unlikely to materialize, it aligns with President Trump's pattern of using bold statements to capture media attention and influence public conversation.​

A mental and emotional two year old. Our POTUS is a toddler... 

 Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Tyranny of the Executive

We are currently suffering under the "Tyranny of the Executive" as Connecticut Representative John Larson said in blasting convicted Felon POTUS47 Donald Trump, his cohort Elon Musk and those autocrat's DOGE device to disable the American Government. Listen to his comments in the video, they are amazing, needed, and demand a response.

For what? Brief aside, see the section below at the bottom for a conjectured comment by our Founding Fathers on what might be their consideration of Donald Trump.

VIRAL: Trump exposed in SCATHING takedown

From the Foreign Affairs article, The Renegade Order: "Here, unfortunately, lies the real problem with the optimistic framing: it requires assuming that Trump, a man who assiduously nurses his personal and geopolitical grievances, will discover—at the very moment he feels most empowered—the best, most globally minded and most diplomatically savvy version of himself. All those in the United States and elsewhere with a stake in the survival of the liberal order should hope that Trump rises to this challenge. But they should probably brace for the prospect that Trump’s world could become a very dark place."

As I mentioned this week in another blog on the 25th Amendment or impeachment of Donald Trump, today, our first career criminal and actually convicted felon POTUS...things are exactly what they seem to most of the world about Donald Trump while being ignored by those who support him. 

In his interview with NPR's A Martinez, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, associate dean at the Yale School of Management, discussed how business executives are coping amid economic policy whiplash. Sonnenfeld noted that some executives choose to remain silent, waiting until situations worsen before speaking out. He emphasized that this approach can be detrimental, as early engagement is crucial for effective leadership and navigating uncertainties.

National security experts have expressed concerns regarding the impact of economic policy fluctuations on global stability. For instance, Ian Bremmer, a political scientist and founder of Eurasia Group, introduced the concept of a "geopolitical recession" to describe the current environment where the traditional U.S.-led global order is unraveling. He argues that deteriorating relations between the U.S. and its allies, coupled with China's rise and the creation of alternative political and economic structures, contribute to a fragmented approach to global governance. This fragmentation increases geopolitical risks and hampers effective responses to international crises.

Additionally, recent political and economic actions, such as cuts to government agencies and strained alliances, have raised investor concerns about the erosion of trust in U.S. institutions and assets. This erosion threatens America's "exorbitant privilege," a term referring to the benefits the U.S. gains from high global demand for its assets. While no major fractures are evident in long-term U.S. borrowing costs, declining equity prices and a weakening dollar signal growing unease.

These perspectives highlight the intricate link between economic policies and national security, emphasizing the need for stable and predictable economic strategies to maintain global stability.

SRSS POLL: More Americans Support Ukraine Than Support Donald Trump 68% of Americans support aid to Ukraine. 46% of Americans Approve of Trump. 

Recent polling data indicates that a majority of Americans continue to support aid to Ukraine, while former President Donald Trump's approval ratings are lower. A CNN/SSRS poll conducted from March 6 to March 9, 2025, found that 55% of Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of the situation in Ukraine, with only 41% expressing some level of approval.

Politico

Additionally, a Reuters/Ipsos poll revealed that over half of Americans, including 27% of Republicans, believe Trump is too closely aligned with Russia.

Reuters

These findings suggest that public support for Ukraine remains strong, while Trump's approval ratings on this issue are comparatively lower.

National security experts have raised significant concerns regarding President Trump's actions since his inauguration in 2025, highlighting potential threats to democratic institutions and national security:

Undermining Election Integrity: The Trump administration has been accused of efforts to destabilize free and fair elections. These actions include voter suppression initiatives, challenges to election protection measures, and the appointment of officials who have previously denied election results. Such measures are viewed as direct threats to the democratic process.

Trump Is Still Trying to Undermine Elections

Now that Trump has installed election deniers throughout his Administration, he has been busy dismantling the guardrails protecting voting and voters.

Weakening Cybersecurity Infrastructure: The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has experienced significant staff reductions and leadership challenges under the current administration. The loss of key personnel and the disruption of critical projects have weakened the agency's ability to defend against cyber threats, posing risks to national security.

‘People Are Scared’: Inside CISA as It Reels From Trump’s Purge

Employees at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency tell WIRED they’re struggling to protect the US while the administration dismisses their colleagues and poisons their partnerships.

Authoritarian Governance Proposals: The introduction of "Project 2025" has alarmed many experts, who argue that its implementation could lead to an authoritarian takeover. The plan proposes restructuring federal agencies and consolidating power within the executive branch, actions that could undermine the rule of law and civil liberties.

en.wikipedia.org

Foreign Policy Concerns: President Trump's approach to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has raised alarms among national security analysts. His willingness to negotiate directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin, potentially without Ukrainian involvement, and the suggestion of imposing tariffs and sanctions on Russia if a ceasefire is not accepted, have been criticized as undermining traditional alliances and emboldening adversarial nations.

Trump threatens sanctions if Russia does not accept ceasefire — as it happened

Trump administration adds to pressure on Russia to agree to truce after President Zelensky of Ukraine welcomed the US minerals deal and 30-day ceasefire

Collectively, these actions are viewed by experts as eroding democratic norms, weakening institutional checks and balances, and compromising the nation's ability to respond effectively to internal and external threats.

Top diplomats from G7 countries meet in Canada as Trump threatens more tariffs on US allies

The agenda for the G7 meeting includes discussions on China and the Indo-Pacific; Ukraine and Europe; stability in the Americas; the Middle East; maritime security; Africa; and China, North Korea, Iran and Russia.

National security experts and former officials have expressed deep concerns regarding President Trump's actions since his 2025 inauguration, highlighting potential threats to democratic institutions and national security. While there is no unified call for his removal, the apprehensions center around several key issues:

Authoritarian Governance Proposals: The introduction of "Project 2025," developed by the Heritage Foundation, proposes significant restructuring of federal agencies and consolidation of power within the executive branch. Experts argue that its implementation could lead to an authoritarian takeover, undermining the rule of law, separation of powers, and civil liberties. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a scholar of fascism and authoritarian leaders at New York University, described it as "a plan for an authoritarian takeover of the United States that goes by a deceptively neutral name."

en.wikipedia.org

Influence of Private Individuals in Governance: Elon Musk's prominent role in the current administration, despite lacking an official position, has raised alarms about the influence of private individuals on national policy. Musk's support for controversial policies, such as withdrawing from NATO and the UN, aligns with the ultraconservative Project 2025 plan. Experts warn that this could lead to increased unpredictability and danger in global affairs.

‘Crumble before our eyes’: Scary hint of what Donald Trump will do next

Billionaire Elon Musk wants the US to make a huge and “troubling” change – and the President shows every sign of agreeing.

Erosion of Democratic Norms: Analysts have observed a culture of sycophancy and fear within the administration, where loyalty to President Trump is enforced through blind obedience and cronyism. This environment suppresses criticism and manipulates facts, drawing parallels to historical authoritarian practices. Such dynamics are seen as detrimental to democratic institutions and the nation's international standing.

Sycophancy and toadying are de rigueur in Trump’s court of self-aggrandizement

Gestures of servility from administration members and world leaders alike are sickeningly common in the mad king’s court.

Collectively, these developments have led experts and former officials to voice concerns about the potential erosion of democratic norms and national security under President Trump's leadership. While discussions about the implications of these actions are ongoing, there is no consensus or coordinated effort among national security experts and former cabinet members advocating for his removal from office.

Donald Trump and Elon Musk Are Driving America Over the Edge

The president and his billionaire sidekick turned the White House into a makeshift Tesla showroom amid a recession scare—a perfect encapsulation of the Trump-Musk regime.

Billionaire Elon Musk wants the United States to quit the United Nations - And President Donald Trump shows every sign of agreeing.

Donald Trump and Elon Musk Are Driving America Over the Edge

The president and his billionaire sidekick turned the White House into a makeshift Tesla showroom amid a recession scare—a perfect encapsulation of the Trump-Musk regime.

Trump’s actions, particularly his erratic foreign policy and efforts to weaken alliances, align with the interests of international adversaries like Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump's undermining of NATO, his praise for authoritarian leaders, and his disdain for traditional alliances create openings for Russia to exert more influence in global affairs. Putin has long sought to weaken Western unity, and Trump’s rhetoric and policies play into this by fracturing international cooperation, which benefits Russia’s geopolitical goals.

National security experts and former officials warn that Trump’s actions since his 2025 inauguration pose serious threats to democracy, national security, and global stability. Concerns include efforts to undermine elections, weaken cybersecurity, appoint controversial officials, and alienate allies. While there isn't a unified call for his removal, many argue that his leadership—along with the GOP’s support—risks long-term damage to democratic institutions.

We all need to come to present and come together to save America as well as Western democracies and turn our backs firmly on these current Trumpian forms of toxicity in his autocracy, abusive capitalism, foolish kakistocracy, and its eventual fruition...Fascism. This isn't about tribalism or hatred of liberals by conservatives or conservatives by liberals or progressives.

It's about saving a long-respected nation, and all of Western democracy which as we all know, Winston Churchill mentioned in a 1947 speech:

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

Donald Trump and his silent partner, Vladimir Putin, need to be stopped in their attempts to undermine our previously great country. Their actions are a threat to our government and the values we hold most dear.

All others which benefit most greatly, the worst of us and the truly worst of all forms of government.

A Statement in the Spirit of the Founding Fathers on the Leadership of Donald Trump

First, how might they have referred to Donald Trump?

The Founding Fathers had a formal and often biting way of referring to those they disapproved of. If they were to name Donald Trump, they might use language reflective of their era, such as:

• "Donald the Dissembler" – A dissembler was someone who deceived or manipulated the truth, a term they often used for demagogues.
• "Trump the Pretender" – A reference to monarchs who falsely claimed a throne, as they deeply opposed rulers who sought unchecked power.
• "Donald of the House of Falsehoods" – They often framed names in a way that conveyed a person's character or legacy.
• "His Excellency, the Demagogue of Mar-a-Lago" – A sarcastic nod to his self-styled grandeur, much like they mocked those who sought to elevate themselves beyond republican principles.
• "Citizen Trump, the Profaner of the Republic" – They used "citizen" to emphasize equality, but in a critical tone when addressing those they saw as threats to democracy.

If they were feeling particularly cutting, they might even invoke comparisons to figures they despised, like calling him "Donald the Destabilizer, Heir to George III in Spirit."

Their statement on Donald the Destabilize, Heir to George III in Spirit:

We, the architects of this Republic, having studied the histories of fallen democracies and the rise of tyrants, issue this solemn warning: A leader who places personal ambition above the common good, who seeks to govern by division rather than unity, and who undermines the rule of law for his own benefit, is a danger to the liberties of a free people.

A republic survives only when its leaders uphold truth, respect institutions, and serve the public with virtue and restraint. A man who wields power through falsehoods, sows distrust in the very foundations of governance, and seeks to bend the law to his will, bears the hallmarks of the demagogues we so greatly feared.

The Constitution was designed to guard against such men—those who would inflame passions for personal gain, who disdain the limits of authority, and who, in the pursuit of power, endanger the fragile experiment of self-government. It falls to the citizens, and to the institutions we forged, to resist the creeping shadow of despotism, lest liberty be lost to the ambitions of one man.

Let history judge not by the fleeting passions of the moment, but by the enduring principles of justice, reason, and the rights of all to live free from the tyranny of a would-be monarch.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

If Trump Were Zelensky: From 2020 Russian Invasion of Ukraine Until Today

Timeline of Zelensky’s/Trump's Leadership From the 2022 Russian Invasion to the 2025 Oval Office Meeting

1. February 24, 2022 – Russia Invades Ukraine

• Zelensky's Response: Refused to flee Kyiv, rallied Ukrainians with defiant speeches, and secured international military aid.
• If Trump Were President of Ukraine: Likely would have tried to negotiate with Putin instead of resisting, possibly delaying military mobilization while claiming he could "make a deal."

2. March 2022 – Kyiv Under Siege

• Zelensky's Response: Walked the streets of Kyiv in defiance, rejected U.S. evacuation offers with "I need ammunition, not a ride."
• If Trump Were President: Would likely have fled to Western Ukraine or abroad while claiming the war would have never happened if he were in charge. Would have blamed NATO, the EU, or past Ukrainian leaders. He would have prioritized evacuation to ensure his personal safety, potentially accepting the "ride" offered.

3. April–May 2022 – War Crimes in Bucha, Defense of Mariupol

• Zelensky's Response: Exposed Russian atrocities, secured more weapons, and rallied Western nations.
• If Trump Were President: Likely would have downplayed war crimes, possibly saying "both sides have done bad things." Would have obsessed over who praised or criticized him, rather than military strategy.

4. September 2022 – Ukrainian Counteroffensive in Kharkiv

• Zelensky's Response: Oversaw one of the war’s most successful counterattacks, reclaiming occupied territory.
• If Trump Were President: Would have taken full credit for any success while attacking his own generals if anything went wrong.

5. December 2022 – Zelensky's Historic Speech to U.S. Congress

• Zelensky's Response: Addressed Congress in person, securing more military aid and strengthening U.S.-Ukraine ties.
• If Trump Were President: Would have demanded personal loyalty from Congress, attacked critics, and likely insulted allies who weren’t giving Ukraine “enough.”

6. 2023–2024 – Stalemate and Struggles for More U.S. Aid

• Zelensky's Response: Maintained global support, pressed Congress, and kept morale high despite heavy losses.
• If Trump Were President: Would have blamed NATO and Europe for not doing more, possibly considering deals with Russia to end the war on unfavorable terms.

7. February 2025 – Oval Office Meeting With Trump

• Zelensky's Reality: Berated and pressured while standing firm on Ukraine’s needs.
• If Trump Were in Zelensky’s Shoes: The meeting would have been a complete disaster:
• Trump would have taken everything personally, likely ranting about unfair treatment.
• He might have threatened to walk out, insulted Congress, or refused to take responsibility for Ukraine’s struggles.
• Instead of rallying support, he would have blamed allies and possibly hinted at withdrawing from the war altogether.

If the roles had been reversed—meaning Zelensky was in Trump's position as the U.S. president, and Trump was the leader of a nation at war facing Russian aggression—Zelensky would likely have handled the situation very differently.

Zelensky’s Likely Approach:

1. Respectful Diplomacy: Zelensky has consistently treated world leaders with diplomatic courtesy, even in difficult situations. Instead of berating Trump, he would have likely expressed firm support while encouraging a strong alliance.
2. Commitment to Aid: Given Zelensky’s track record, he would have reassured Trump that the U.S. remains committed to providing assistance, whether in military aid, humanitarian relief, or diplomatic efforts.
3. Clear Communication: Zelensky is direct but measured. He would have likely acknowledged Trump’s struggles while emphasizing the importance of international unity against Russian aggression.
4. Public Support: Rather than embarrassing Trump in front of the press, Zelensky would have reinforced a public show of unity, avoiding the kind of humiliation that Trump subjected him to in the real meeting.

In contrast, Trump’s actual behavior toward Zelensky was dismissive and condescending, showing little empathy for a wartime leader. Had the situation been reversed, Zelensky would have approached it with far more tact and leadership.

Final Takeaway

Zelensky has led with resilience, diplomacy, and unwavering focus on Ukraine’s survival. If Trump had been in his position, Ukraine might not have lasted this long, as his need for personal praise, deal-making tendencies, and lack of military strategy would have played into Putin’s hands.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT