• Search for:
    17Sep, 2025
    Wake the Hell Up, America: Democracy Is Dying While You Scroll

    Invisible and Dehumanized

    Imagine carrying everything you own in a backpack, waking each day with no place to call home, no safety, no certainty about your next meal. Every step feels heavier than the last. You see people pass by, laughing, scrolling on their phones, pretending you don’t exist. And then someone nearby says, loud enough for everyone to hear: “Just kill the homeless. Problem solved.”

    You don’t feel anger in that moment. You feel crushing worthlessness. You want to disappear. You question whether life is even worth living. I haven’t just been there—I’m still there, mentally from the damaged done. This is my reality. This is the reality for thousands of people America claims to care about but actively ignores.

    The invisible despair you feel in these moments is not abstract. It is concrete. It is daily. And it is being mirrored across our society: people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, immigrants, the mentally ill—they are all being told, in policy, rhetoric, and action, that their lives are expendable.

    The Machine That Is Eating Us Alive

    This is not politics as usual. Look at the evidence. Charlie Kirk was assassinated. Instead of mourning a life lost, the right-wing apparatus used the moment to deepen fear, consolidate power, and justify targeting those outside their narrow ideal: rich, white, straight, and conventionally attractive.

    Trump and his allies have weaponized fear and legislation. Laws targeting trans kids, immigrants, and voters are not isolated events—they are pieces of a broader authoritarian strategy. Every restriction, every executive order, every threat against journalists chips away at democracy.

    Disproportionate violence is rampant. My last research shows right-wing actors overwhelmingly commit attacks, harassment, and propaganda. Not Democrats. Not progressives. But narrative control masks the truth, painting it as “both sides.” That is deliberate. That is dangerous.

    And still, inside our movements, we squabble over petty ownership of groups and logos while authoritarian forces erode the foundations of democracy. This infighting is lethal. Stop it. Now.

    The Shock of Betrayal – When Democrats Turn Violent Online

    I opened social media one morning and was hit like a punch to the gut. Posts filled with hate. Calls for violence. People claiming to be Democrats, people I thought were on the side of reason and justice, advocating harm against others. And in that moment, I realized: this is not the America I recognize.

    I grew up believing that Democrats fought for people’s rights, for fairness, for peaceful solutions. They were the party that valued justice without resorting to guns or threats. They were the ones I thought would always protect the vulnerable and uphold moral and ethical standards.

    Seeing people I once trusted call for violence, suggesting we “lower ourselves to his level,” left me stunned and disappointed. History and childhood lessons teach us that responding to cruelty with cruelty never works. It never solves a problem; it only perpetuates cycles of harm.

    I refuse to accept that as a solution. We cannot abandon our principles because the opposition abandons theirs. If we do, we stop being a force for positive change. We stop being the side that acts with integrity, strategy, and moral clarity.

    The Moral Outrage of Living on the Edge

    I have spent decades educating, organizing, and building platforms. I have avoided profanity in print, avoided sensationalism. But I am exhausted, enraged, and livid. People refuse to wake up. They argue over group names, logos, or status while ignoring the systemic attacks on real lives.

    This is not a time for polite disagreement. It is a time for moral clarity. The rage I feel is not for show—it is righteous, it is informed, and it is rooted in survival. Every marginalized life at risk is a personal wound. Every ignored warning is a betrayal of the very principles America claims to uphold.

    If you are safe, if you are privileged, use it. Protect those who cannot protect themselves. If you are angry, channel it into action, not social media performativity or internal squabbles. That is how change begins.

    Violence Begets Violence – Stop the Cycle

    Let us be clear: violence is never the solution. Violence escalates. It divides. It empowers authoritarian systems. The Charlie Kirk assassination did not solve problems—it amplified fear and justified further control. Threats, attacks, and intimidation only deepen societal fractures.

    Every act of violence, real or incited, leaves a wound in our democracy. Stop pretending that shouting, punching, or threatening is enough. The fight is not won with fury alone—it is won with organization, trust, civic engagement, and community action.

    The smarter path is influence, education, and connection. Build alliances. Know your neighbors. Understand their perspectives. Mobilize with strategy, not only emotion. That is how authoritarian power is countered.

    Free Speech Under Siege – The Mao Tse Tung Parallel

    Mao Tse Tung controlled information, punished dissent, and rewrote reality for his people. Trump’s America mirrors this in unnerving ways. Media control, attacks on journalists, and narrative manipulation restrict the public’s ability to see truth. Independent voices are vilified or silenced. Critical coverage is painted as “fake” or “dangerous.”

    Free speech is the first line of defense against authoritarianism. When it is attacked, society weakens. Controlling narratives is not leadership—it is domination. It is absurd to see this in modern America, yet the danger is real. Democracy dies not with gunfire alone but with silence and submission.

    Historical Echoes and Contemporary Lessons

    History teaches that authoritarian control starts with narratives. Mao Tse Tung used propaganda to dominate the population, ensuring compliance through fear, isolation, and misinformation. Today, the parallels are chilling: targeted misinformation, media manipulation, and social pressure to conform are creating a society where truth is optional and obedience is rewarded.

    We cannot ignore the lessons of the past. The erosion of democratic norms in America is incremental but accelerating. Every policy that erases voices, every law that targets the marginalized, every media attack chips away at liberty.

    If we fail to recognize these patterns, we risk repeating history. Not in theory—but in our streets, neighborhoods, and homes.

    Call to Action – Protect the Vulnerable

    Wake up. Protect the vulnerable. People of color, queer individuals, trans folks, immigrants, the homeless, and mentally ill communities need shields. If you are safe, act. Use your privilege. Intervene where you can. Protect where you can. Organize where you can.

    Talk to your neighbors. Understand their concerns. Explain the stakes of elections. Build trust and relationships. Mobilize communities. The fight is local, personal, and relational. Action begins with conversation and grows into systemic influence.

    Call to Action – Organize and Educate

    Protests alone are insufficient. Social media outrage is insufficient. Action is about strategy, connection, and persistence. Canvass. Vote. Hold officials accountable. Support independent media. Expose lies. Build networks that endure beyond hashtags and tweets.

    The cycle of outrage and inaction must end. We cannot afford infighting while democracy collapses around us. We cannot afford passivity while vulnerable populations are dehumanized, criminalized, or targeted for elimination.

    Closing Rallying Cry

    If you are not angry, you are not awake. Democracy is collapsing while people scroll and argue online. Every ignored warning, every avoided conversation, every internal dispute gives authoritarianism another inch of ground.

    Wake the hell up. Protect those who cannot protect themselves. Organize. Educate. Build trust. Mobilize communities. Speak truth to power. And never, ever stop.

    We are not powerless. We are not invisible. And we are not alone. But if we do nothing, our democracy, our neighbors, and our very humanity will be lost.

    It is time to act. Not tomorrow. Not when it’s convenient. Now.

    Judy T.

    17Sep, 2025
    America, I Hardly Recognize You

    I am distressed. I am sad. I am shocked. Everywhere I turn, violence is in the headlines. Violence against police. Violence in our streets. Violence in our political spaces. We can’t even breathe under the weight of it anymore.

    This isn’t the America I grew up with. This isn’t the America I was proud to be from. Once, I believed we revered our Constitution, respected our courts, and valued peaceful disagreement. Today, I see people turning to threats, to rage, to violence — and it is tearing us apart.

    Even when I disagree completely with someone’s politics, I believe in compassion for their families when tragedy strikes. That’s why I called for sympathy for the loved ones of Charlie Kirk, even though I opposed his ideology with every fiber of my being. But then his own widow went on record, urging people to “fight.” She was guaranteeing more violence. That is not America. Or at least, not the America I thought I knew.

    To show just how far we have fallen, here is a sobering list of politically motivated violent acts from recent years. These are not rumors or social-media claims — they are documented, with evidence. And I’ve noted when the attacker came from the same party as their target, or the opposite party.

    Politically Motivated Violence in America

    Jan 6, 2021 — U.S. Capitol Attack

    • Victims: Congress, staff, law enforcement.
    • Perpetrators: Pro-Trump rioters.
    • Same/Opposite: Opposite (pro-Trump mob targeted lawmakers opposing Trump’s claims).
    • Evidence: Hundreds of prosecutions citing pro-Trump motives.
    https://www.cbsnews.com/video/david-depape-found-guilty-in-paul-pelosi-hammer-assault/

    Oct 28, 2022 — Attack on Paul Pelosi

    • Victim: Paul Pelosi (husband of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat).
    • Perpetrator: David DePape, radicalized by far-right conspiracies.
    • Same/Opposite: Opposite (right-wing attacker targeting Democrat leader’s home).
    • Evidence: Court records, his writings and statements.

    Dec 2022 – Jan 2023 — Solomon Peña shootings (New Mexico)

    • Victims: Local Democratic officials.
    • Perpetrator: Solomon Peña, Republican candidate who lost his race.
    • Same/Opposite: Opposite (Republican targeting Democrats).
    • Evidence: Indictment and sentencing reports.

    June 13, 2024 — Shooting at Trump Rally (Butler, PA)

    • Victim: Donald Trump and rally attendees.
    • Perpetrator: Thomas Matthew Crooks (killed at scene).
    • Same/Opposite: Unknown (motive not publicly established).
    • Evidence: Ongoing FBI investigation.

    April 13, 2025 — Attempted Firebombing at Gov. Josh Shapiro’s Residence (PA)

    • Victim: Josh Shapiro (Democratic governor).
    • Perpetrator: Cody Balmer, arrested; posted anti-Democrat sentiments.
    • Same/Opposite: Opposite (anti-Democrat attacker targeting Democrat governor).
    • Evidence: Police arrest reports.

    May 21, 2025 — Shooting of Israeli Embassy Staff (Washington, D.C.)

    • Victims: Two Israeli embassy staff.
    • Perpetrator: Suspect reportedly shouted “Free Palestine,” FBI labeled act of terror.
    • Same/Opposite: N/A (foreign policy motive, not U.S. partisan).
    • Evidence: FBI statement.

    June 14, 2025 — Minnesota Lawmaker Shootings

    • Victims: Democratic state legislators, including Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman.
    • Perpetrator: Vance Boelter; manifesto targeted Democrats and public officials.
    • Same/Opposite: Opposite (anti-Democrat attacker targeting Democratic lawmakers).
    • Evidence: Manifesto recovered by investigators.

    Sept 10, 2025 — Assassination of Charlie Kirk (Utah)

    • Victim: Charlie Kirk (conservative activist).
    • Perpetrator: Tyler Robinson, registered “unaffiliated,” writings reflected left-leaning views hostile to Kirk’s rhetoric.
    • Same/Opposite: Opposite (left-leaning attacker targeting right-wing figure).
    • Evidence: Charging documents, reporting from court.

    What This Tells Us

    The pattern is painful: people are crossing the line from politics into violence, and too often they are targeting those from the opposite side of the aisle. This is not debate. This is not dissent. This is destruction.

    And America, I hardly recognize you.

    We can disagree passionately. We can organize, we can protest, we can vote — but if we descend into violence, we lose the very soul of democracy. We lose the freedom that allows us to breathe.

    I feel like America is burning. I know I can’t put out this fire alone. But I also know we must try, together. Because if we give up now, there will be nothing left to rescue.

    Judy T.

    10Sep, 2025
    Violence Has No Place in Our Democracy

    I am appalled and deeply saddened by the killing of Charlie Kirk. This act of political violence shocks the conscience. More importantly, it should never have happened. Although I strongly disagree with his politics, I cannot ignore that a husband, a father, a son, and a friend was taken from his loved ones. Violence has no place in our democracy.

    What Happened in Utah

    On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk—a conservative activist and close ally of Donald Trump—was shot and killed during a Turning Point USA event in Utah. A single bullet struck him while he addressed a crowd, and he later died from his injuries. Because of the circumstances, the FBI and state officials launched an immediate investigation.

    Leaders from both major parties condemned the act within hours. Republicans and Democrats alike lowered flags, called for unity, and reminded the nation that political disagreements must never end in violence. Their swift response matters, because it reinforces that free speech is a right all Americans must protect.

    Rescue Our Democracy’s Position

    Rescue Our Democracy rejects political violence in every form. When bullets replace dialogue, democracy itself suffers. That is why we say without hesitation: violence has no place in our democracy.

    Charlie Kirk once claimed that empathy was “fake.” I see it differently. My Christian therapist has told me that I am an empath—not in the new-age sense, but as someone who feels other people’s emotions and pain deeply. Because of that, I grieve for Charlie Kirk’s wife, Erika, for their two children, and for the many family members and friends now in mourning. My empathy is real, and today it hurts for those left behind.

    A Time for Empathy and Unity

    This moment should shock every American. However, we cannot let violence harden our hearts or normalize political hatred. Instead, we must commit to listening, learning, and protecting each other’s right to speak freely.

    I grieve for Charlie Kirk’s family, and I pray they find comfort during this loss. His death is not only a personal tragedy—it also wounds the conscience of our nation. Therefore, we must use this moment to strengthen, not weaken, our shared democratic values.

    Moving Forward Without Violence

    We cannot build a stronger democracy if violence becomes our answer. Instead, let us recommit ourselves to compassion, to protecting free speech, and to rejecting hate in all its forms. Most of all, let us stand together and declare clearly: violence has no place in our democracy.

    I am appalled and deeply saddened by the killing of Charlie Kirk. This shocking act of political violence should never have happened. No matter how strongly I may disagree with his politics, I cannot ignore that a husband, a father, a son, and a friend was taken from his loved ones. Political violence has no place in our democracy.

    What Happened in Utah

    Charlie Kirk—a prominent conservative activist and close ally of Donald Trump—was shot and killed on September 10, 2025, during a Turning Point USA event in Utah. Authorities confirmed that he was struck by a single bullet while speaking to a crowd, and he later died from his injuries. The FBI and state officials are investigating.

    Leaders across the political spectrum, from Republicans to Democrats, immediately condemned this horrifying act. Their reactions remind us that no matter our ideology, free speech cannot be answered with violence.

    Rescue Our Democracy’s Position

    Rescue Our Democracy denounces political violence in every form. Free expression—whether we agree with the message or not—must be protected. When violence replaces dialogue, democracy itself suffers.

    Charlie Kirk once said that empathy was “fake.” I see it differently. My Christian therapist has told me that I am an empath—not in the new-age sense, but as someone who feels other people’s pain deeply and intuitively. And today, I feel sorrow for Charlie Kirk’s wife, Erika, for their two children, and for the family and friends mourning him. My empathy is real, and it breaks for those left behind.

    A Time for Empathy and Unity

    This moment should shock us all. We cannot allow violence to harden our hearts or normalize hatred in our politics. Whether Republican, Democrat, Independent, or otherwise, we share the responsibility of protecting life and defending democracy.

    I grieve for Charlie Kirk’s family, and I pray they find comfort in their time of loss. His death is not just a personal tragedy for those who loved him—it is a wound in the conscience of our nation.

    Moving Forward Without Violence

    We cannot build a stronger future for democracy if violence is the path we choose. Instead, let us recommit ourselves to compassion, to protecting free speech, and to rejecting hate in all its forms. Violence has no place in our democracy, and it never will.

    I’m actually crying as I put this together, right now.

    Judy T.

    8Sep, 2025
    Supreme Court Ruling on Racial Profiling

    What It Means for Our Communities

    How We Got Here

    For years, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Los Angeles were known to stop people who looked Latino, spoke Spanish, or worked low-wage jobs. A federal judge stepped in and blocked those tactics, saying they amounted to racial profiling and violated constitutional protections. During that block, ICE was forced to change how it operated, and the number of arrests dropped significantly.

    The federal government fought back. Their argument was simple: those restrictions made it too difficult to enforce immigration law. That fight made its way to the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority sided with ICE. The ruling lifted the lower court’s ban and gave agents the green light to return to old practices.

    What the Supreme Court Said

    Six justices formed the majority. Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained that it is “common sense” for officers to look at language, type of job, or location when deciding if someone might be undocumented. He claimed that if someone is here legally, a quick stop would prove it, and then they would be free to go.

    Three justices disagreed sharply. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote a fiery dissent. She warned that this ruling allows the government to stop people just because they look Latino, sound like they speak Spanish, or work in certain jobs. Her words were clear: this undermines the Fourth Amendment, which protects all of us from unreasonable searches and seizures.

    What This Means Right Now

    Because of this decision, ICE agents can once again stage sweeps in places like parking lots, car washes, and neighborhoods where many Latino residents live. Even U.S. citizens and legal residents may get stopped if an officer thinks they “look suspicious.” For immigrant families, that means living in constant fear of being pulled aside and questioned for no reason other than appearance or language.

    Civil rights groups responded quickly. The ACLU of Southern California called the ruling dangerous, saying it forces Latino communities into a “papers-please” world. MALDEF added that Justice Kavanaugh’s reasoning relies on stereotypes and opens the door for widespread discrimination. Their warnings echo what many families already feel: that safety and dignity are now at risk.

    What Happens Next

    This case is not finished. It will go back to lower courts, and new arguments will be heard. But while the case moves forward, ICE has free rein to use these tactics in Los Angeles. That means the fear and uncertainty begin now, not later.

    Congress could, in theory, pass laws to stop racial profiling. Unfortunately, the current political climate makes that unlikely. Until then, communities will need to rely on local organizing, legal support, and watchdog groups to track abuses.

    Summary Graphic: Please download and share with ALL people of color, so they understand what can and will happen.

    Moving Forward Together

    So what can people do? First, know your rights. You do not have to answer questions about where you were born. You do not have to show immigration papers unless you are driving. Second, stay connected. Organizations like the ACLU, MALDEF, and immigrant rights groups provide updates, resources, and legal support. Third, document and report abuses. If you are stopped unfairly, record what happened and seek help right away.

    The Supreme Court ruling on racial profiling is a setback for justice, but it is not the end of the story. Courts will hear more arguments. Communities will resist. Allies will step forward. The fight is not over, because our democracy depends on ensuring that no one is judged—or stopped—based on race, language, or where they work.

    Judy T.

    5Sep, 2025
    Week of Sept 1

    Executive actions & nominations (Sept 1 → Sept 5, 2025)

    Quick summary (at a glance)

    • The administration issued an executive order implementing the U.S.–Japan framework (15% baseline tariff; sector exceptions; retroactive to Aug 7). The White House
    • Japan is said to have committed ~$550 billion in investment; details and enforceability remain vague and disputed in reporting. ReutersCSIS
    • Several presidential nominations (and a few withdrawals) were formally sent to the Senate this week — including the BLS nominee E.J. “Erwin/E.J.” Antoni and multiple maritime, commerce, Treasury, and State nominees. The White House
    • The Western District of Virginia U.S. Attorney nomination/appointment situation remains messy after a sudden resignation — raising oversight questions. Department of Justice
    • The Department of Defense has been renamed to the Department of War — raising questions of why we seem to be going on the offensive and a precursor of what is to come. The Guardian

    Below I’ve laid this out day-by-day (Sept 1 → today), each entry short, clear, and with: (1) what happened, (2) why it matters, and (3) red flags / what to watch. I triple-checked the main facts against primary sources (White House / EO text), major news coverage, and official agency pages; links are at the end.

    Sept 1, 2025 — (week-opening notes)

    No single White House “presidential actions” item dated Sept 1 on the official feed. This week’s actions cluster on Sept 2–5.

    Sept 2, 2025 — Nominations (selected)

    What happened

    • The White House sent a batch of nominations to the Senate (examples reported earlier this week include Tammy Bruce to be Deputy Representative to the U.N., plus other ambassadorial and judicial nominations). The White House

    Why it matters (left-leaning lens)

    • Filling diplomatic and judicial slots shapes U.S. policy and how laws get applied for years. Ambassador picks affect trade, human rights enforcement, and global coordination on climate and labor standards.

    Red flags / What to watch

    • Check nominees’ records for corporate ties or past advocacy against labor or environmental rules. Senate hearings are the moment to demand documents, voting records, and recusals where conflicts exist.

    Sept 3, 2025 — Nominations (large, high-turnover batch)

    What happened (core items drawn from the White House list)

    • Erwin (E.J.) Antoni — to be Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 4-year term (replacing Erika McEntarfer). Reuters
    • Laura DiBella and Robert A. Harvey — to be Federal Maritime Commissioners (two FMC vacancies). The White House Lloyd’s List
    • Steven Haines — Assistant Secretary of Commerce (replacing Grant T. Harris, resigned). The White House
    • Trent Morse — Board member, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (5-year term). The White House
    • Joshua Simmons — General Counsel, CIA (replace Kate Heinzelman, resigned). The White House
    • Christopher Yeaw — Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Stability (replace Mallory Stewart, resigned). The White House Hudson Institute
    • Withdrawals sent to Senate (documents show a few withdrawals were formally transmitted) — including Terrence Gorman (Veterans’ Appeals), Penny Schwinn (Deputy Sec. of Education), and Christopher Gilbert (U.S. Attorney, Western District of Virginia). The White House

    Why it matters

    • The BLS commissioner is central to trust in labor and inflation data. A politicized BLS can distort economic policy debates and hurt working people. Reuters
    • FMC appointees shape port rules and shipping costs — important for supply-chain resilience and import/export fairness. Lloyd’s List
    • Appointing a State Arms Control lead with a strong defense/industrial background matters for treaty posture and arms-control diplomacy. Hudson Institute

    Non-MAGA critique & red flags

    • E.J. Antoni (BLS) — He comes from the Heritage Foundation; critics warn this could politicize federal statistics. The BLS needs technical independence. Senators should press for traceable evidence that nominees will not change data collection or revision processes for political ends. Reuters
    • FMC slate (DiBella / Harvey) — Both tied to Florida economic-development networks; the pattern looks like regional patronage. Watch for business or port-industry conflicts of interest. Public benefit must trump private port contracts. Lloyd’s List
    • CIA General Counsel (Joshua Simmons) — He’s a career legal adviser in State; the GC role requires both independence and a record on civil-liberties protections. Senators should probe his positions on surveillance, targeting, and whistleblower protections. The White House International Court of Justice
    • High turnover — Several positions are “vice X resigned.” Replacing many career or long-tenured officials quickly reduces institutional memory and weakens checks on power. That invites policy instability and potential cover-ups.

    What to watch in confirmation process

    • Demand full financial disclosures and recusal agreements.
    • For BLS: technical briefings showing no political interference with sampling methodology, seasonal adjustment rules, or revision policy.
    • For FMC: disclosure of port contracts, grants, and any ties to private investors who will benefit from tariff or regulatory changes.

    Sept 4, 2025 — Executive Order: Implementing the United States–Japan Agreement

    What happened (straight fact)

    • The President issued an executive order implementing the U.S.–Japan framework agreement. It: (a) sets a baseline 15% tariff on most Japanese imports (with sector-specific treatment for autos, aerospace, generics, and certain natural resources); (b) makes many aerospace products duty-free; and (c) applies retroactively to entries on or after 12:01 a.m. EDT on August 7, 2025. The EO text is posted on the White House site. The White House

    Public reporting & the investment pledge

    • The administration and press report that Japan agreed to $550 billion in U.S. investment commitments as part of the deal; reporting describes that figure as a mix of equity, loans, and guarantees, but details on legal commitments, timelines, and enforcement mechanisms remain thin in official documents. Reuters The White House

    Non-MAGA critique (what concerns should people have?)

    • Transparency & enforcement: The EO says Japan will “provide” investments selected by the U.S. government, but the EO itself does not include binding enforcement language, timelines, or independent audits. That leaves open the question: What counts as deliverable capital and who verifies it? The WhiteHouse Reuters
    • Retrospective tariff changes: Making the tariff change retroactive to Aug 7 could trigger refunds or complex customs reconciliations. Retroactivity can quietly shift who benefits (importers, large corporations) and who bears short-term costs (workers facing supply shifts). The White House
    • Delegation power: The EO delegates broad authority to Commerce and DHS to implement and to define “products of Japan.” That gives agency officials latitude — which can be necessary — but also raises risk of opaque rule-making without adequate public oversight. The White House
    • $550B — real or aspirational? Media reporting indicates the $550B figure has been repeatedly touted by administration officials, but independent analysts urge skepticism until commitments are legally documented. Watch for any “investment committee” structures, profit-sharing arrangements, or conditionality clauses that could hide giveaways to corporations or leave public oversight weak. Reuters CSI S

    What to watch next

    • The Commerce Department notice(s) to the Federal Register (they’re required within days under the EO). Those notices will show details — exclusions, HTS modifications, and timelines. The White House
    • Treasury / Commerce briefings or Japan government releases spelling out the $550B mechanics. Insist on documentation: who signs, what legal form the commitments take, and how compliance will be verified. Reuters

    Sept 5, 2025 — Notes & continuing developments

    • Press coverage and fact-checking are ongoing. Several outlets flagged the $550B number as a headline figure with sketchy public back-up and urged caution. Independent watchdogs will need to follow the Federal Register and any intergovernmental memoranda of understanding. Reuters CSIS
    • While this was being completed for posting, there was a news flash, Trump has changed the name from Department of Defense to Department of War. The Guardian

    Red flags across the week — grouped (short checklist)

    1. Data agencies at risk of politicization — BLS nominee comes from a partisan think tank; confirmers must protect statistical independence. Reuters
    2. Big trade deal with thin public enforcement language — $550B headline needs legal documents to be meaningful. Demand more than press statements. The White House Reuters
    3. Rapid turnover & withdrawals — multiple resignations and withdrawals reduce continuity and increase opportunities for back-channel deals. The White House Department of Justice
    4. Potential cronyism in nominations — regional and industry ties for FMC nominees warrant careful vetting. Lloyd’s List
    5. Delegated, fast rulemaking — the EO authorizes quick HTSUS modifications that could be implemented with limited notice. Watch the Federal Register for the rule text. The White House
    6. Potentially antagonizing the world — Changing the name of the Dept. of Defense to Dept. of War is peek at the hand of Trump’s plans.

    How to push for accountability (practical next steps)

    • Demand the Federal Register notices tied to the EO and bookmark them. The notice will show the exact tariff changes and any exclusions. The White House
    • Ask the Senate to hold thorough confirmation hearings that dig into conflicts, data-methodology protections (for BLS), and nominees’ ties to industry. Use the hearing record to request documents. The White House
    • Watch the Commerce Department for the investment documentation — e.g., MOUs, formal guarantees, or project lists. If nothing public appears, press for FOIA and independent audits. Reuters
    • Civil-society monitoring — labor, environmental, and procurement transparency groups should monitor how investments are selected and whether they create jobs with good wages and protections. CSIS

    Final notes — verification & sources

    I verified the EO text and tariff rules directly from the White House presidential actions page (executive order text). I cross-checked major facts about the Japan package and the $550B headlines against Reuters and independent policy analysts, and I used the White House nominations posting plus Department of Justice and reputable trade/port trade outlets for nominee backgrounds and the U.S. Attorney developments. Key supporting documents and reporting are below.

    Primary sources used (top references cited inline above)

    Additional reporting/background consulted

    All sources referenced above / used to triple-check facts

    4Sep, 2025
    Discrimination Disguised as Policy: The Attack on Trans Gun Owners
    Original Art by Shade B.

    The Justice Department under Trump is openly threatening to strip transgender Americans of their Second Amendment rights under the pretext of “mental health.” This is outrageous, dangerous, and transparently prejudicial. If the policy response is to single out transgender people because some bureaucrat decides — without due process or individualized proof — that they have a mental condition, then this administration is not protecting rights; they are weaponizing the law against a marginalized group.

    The Second Amendment is short, but its meaning and limits have been litigated and debated for centuries. At its core it establishes an individual right that courts have said must be treated with respect even as reasonable regulations are allowed. The U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) recognized the individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home. The Constitution, the Heller ruling, and basic principles of equal protection all demand that gun laws be applied in neutral, non-discriminatory ways — not used as a cudgel to exclude people because of who they are.

    There is a narrow, legally recognized way to restrict firearm access based on mental health: laws already prohibit possession by people who have been involuntarily committed or adjudicated as mentally defective. That statutory language (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4)) exists because the law tied limits to concrete legal findings — not to broad, subjective judgments about identity. What’s being proposed now, looks nothing like a careful, narrowly tailored law. It appears to be a shortcut to discrimination: brand a population as “mentally unfit” and deprive them of a constitutional right without individualized process or transparent criteria.

    History shows this exact pattern: laws and policies that outwardly appear neutral have often been applied in highly discriminatory ways. From post-Reconstruction “Black Codes” and Southern pistol ordinances designed to disarm Black communities, to discriminatory enforcement today, gun restrictions have too often tracked and enforced social hierarchies rather than neutral safety goals. Weaponizing “mental health” as a cover for targeting a vulnerable minority is not new — it is simply the latest permutation of an ugly playbook.

    If the government truly believes a mental-fitness standard should decide who may own firearms, then either adopt a neutral, universal policy applied to everyone — or don’t do it at all. Their suggestion is blunt but morally coherent: if mental fitness is a precondition for a constitutional right, apply that test equally to every citizen. Preferentially stripping a right from one group is not regulation — it is discrimination.

    That said, let’s be frank about the practical and civil-liberties problems with a blanket “mental test” for gun ownership: mental health assessments are complex, time-varying, subject to cultural bias, and can be weaponized by coercive or discriminatory officials; any such test would require ironclad due process, clear and narrow criteria, appeal rights, robust privacy protections, and an independent evidentiary standard. If your aim is public safety rather than exclusion, the smarter approach is to strengthen due process around existing mental-health-based prohibitions, expand access to mental health care, and invest in community-based violence prevention — not to create a blunt instrument that will almost certainly be used against those already marginalized.

    We should also be clear about where responsibility lies: this is not a debate about principles only; it’s a political decision being executed by an administration that has chosen to focus enforcement tools on people who are not wealthy, not white, and not politically powerful. That’s why civil-rights organizations, constitutional lawyers, and everyday Americans should be alarmed. The pattern is deeply familiar: limit the rights of the vulnerable today, and the erosion spreads tomorrow.

    If you want to push back, here are immediate, concrete steps people can take:

    • Contact your congressional representatives and demand hearings explaining the legal basis for any policy that targets transgender people for gun restrictions.
    • File or support legal challenges: encourage civil-rights groups (ACLU, Lambda Legal, Human Rights Campaign) to monitor and, if necessary, sue to protect due process and equal protection.
    • Support organizations providing legal help and rapid response for trans communities.
    • Amplify the story — factual pressure from voters and media can force transparency.
    • Use this precise, non-emotionally loaded message when contacting officials: “I oppose any rule that strips firearm rights from a group based on identity. If mental health standards are used, they must be narrowly defined, applied equally, and accompanied by due process and appeal.”

    In short: this is not safety policy — it’s a discriminatory shortcut. If the administration truly cares about public safety, it will stop scapegoating and start building policies that are evidence-based, neutral, and respectful of constitutional rights.

    “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” If we allow the government to single out one group for rights-removal under the guise of mental health, nobody’s rights are safe.

    Judy T.

    References:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/04/politics/transgender-firearms-justice-department-second-amendment
    https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
    https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 (District of Columbia v. Heller)
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922 (18 U.S.C. § 922)
    https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics (FBI — NICS background checks)
    https://giffords.org/ (Giffords Law Center — gun-policy research/history)
    https://www.aclu.org/issues/lgbtq-rights (ACLU — LGBTQ & trans rights resources)
    https://www.hrc.org/ (Human Rights Campaign — trans rights resources)
    https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/black-codes (historical context on discriminatory laws)

    29Aug, 2025
    Good Riddance, Joni Ernst

    Joni Ernst has built a career in Washington on snappy one-liners, cruel policy positions, and loyalty to special interests over the people of Iowa. Now, reports say she is preparing to announce that she will not run for re-election in 2026. If true, Iowa has every reason to breathe a sigh of relief.

    A Career Defined by Cruelty

    From the start, Ernst sold herself as a “tough Iowa farm girl” with that infamous pig-castration ad. The image stuck. However, behind the theater, she pursued policies that hurt working Iowans.

    When Iowans begged her not to slash Medicaid, she brushed them off with a shocking retort: “We all are going to die.” That moment crystallized her approach to governing—dismissive, callous, and unwilling to wrestle with the real consequences of her votes. For over 600,000 Iowans who rely on Medicaid, Ernst’s words were not just flippant. They revealed how little she cared about whether her constituents lived with dignity or not at all.

    What She Supported

    Over the years, Ernst consistently backed legislation that undermined social programs and tilted power toward the wealthy and well-connected. She supported deep cuts to Medicaid and Medicare, opposed expanding the Affordable Care Act, and embraced the privatization of essential safety nets.

    She pushed for abortion bans, voted to block Planned Parenthood funding even for cancer screenings and other vital health services, and stood in the way of wage increases for working families. Ernst also opposed environmental protections, denied climate science, and favored tax policies that benefited corporations over everyday Iowans.

    Taken together, her record shows a senator who valued ideology and party loyalty above the well-being of her state.

    What She Fought Against

    It wasn’t just what Ernst supported—it was what she stood against. She opposed restoring net neutrality, resisted marriage equality until it became politically impossible, and blocked even the most basic efforts to expand voting rights. Again and again, Ernst put herself on the wrong side of progress and on the wrong side of history.

    At every turn, her resistance to change slowed Iowa down. Instead of helping Iowa move forward, she clung to outdated talking points while ignoring the voices of those she represented.

    The Counter-Argument

    To be fair, some will argue that Joni Ernst gave Iowa a strong national profile. She rose quickly in Republican leadership, became the first woman elected to the U.S. Senate from Iowa, and often touted her military background as proof of toughness. Supporters will say she brought grit and authenticity to Washington, and they credit her with keeping defense spending high for Iowa’s bases and contractors.

    Yet, these accomplishments cannot outweigh the harm she caused. A senator should represent more than party slogans and defense contracts. Ernst’s “grit” too often translated into cruelty, and her authenticity blurred into dismissiveness. Even if her rise was historic, her legacy will be remembered as one of neglecting the everyday people who trusted her to fight for them.

    Why Iowa Is Better Without Her

    If Ernst truly does step aside, Iowa will finally have the chance to elect someone who actually listens. The state deserves leadership rooted in compassion, common sense, and responsibility. Ernst’s brand of politics has run its course.

    Iowa is good to be rid of Joni Ernst—not out of spite, but out of hope. Hope that the next senator will see Iowans as more than political props. Hope that the people’s voices will matter more than wealthy donors. And hope that the dignity of ordinary families will finally outweigh cruel one-liners.

    So yes, let the chair-dancing begin.

    Resources

    16Aug, 2025
    What More Do You Want Us To Do?

    First, my thanks for your patience and my apologies for my personal health issues getting in the way…

    I haven’t been able to keep up lately. My health has hit me hard, and I’ve been exhausted in every way — physically, mentally, emotionally. Still, even from the sidelines, I keep hearing the same complaint over and over: “Democrats aren’t doing enough.”

    And I have to ask… what exactly do you want us to do?

    Do you want us to start rioting? Do you want us to loot? Do you want us to set fires in the streets or start shooting at each other? Is that the answer? Because if it’s not — then explain to me what “enough” looks like.

    I see Democrats standing up. I see them writing bills, speaking loudly, refusing to play along with corruption. I’ve seen them go into hiding to stop gerrymandering. I’ve seen them take risks, even when it looks like nothing changes. And maybe it doesn’t feel like enough, but here’s the hard truth: we can’t actually change anything until the people who are complicit in the Trump agenda are voted out.

    That’s the part no one wants to hear. Real change doesn’t happen instantly. It doesn’t happen because we yell louder on Twitter or complain at each other. It happens when we replace bad politicians with better ones. Period.

    So when people say Democrats aren’t doing enough, I want them to answer me honestly: what more can be done, right now, before the midterm elections? What magic solution exists that I’m not seeing? Because all I see are two choices: give up, or keep fighting the only way we actually can — with votes, with organizing, with persistence.

    Yes, it feels slow. Yes, it feels like nothing’s moving. But burning it all down won’t save us. Tearing down the people who are trying won’t save us.

    So if you want more, then be more. Step up. Volunteer. Educate. Organize. Don’t just sit back and complain. Don’t attack the very people holding the line.

    Even better for us, join ROD today and help us teach about voter education, policies, and more. We NEED YOU.

    I’m tired. I’m sick. I’m frustrated. But I’m not blind. I know the only way out of this mess is through it — together, and with our ballots.

    Judy T.

    16Aug, 2025
    When Fear Became Policy Marketing

    History offers cautionary examples: take the U.S. internment of Japanese Americans during WWII—a policy sold through posters and propaganda films casting it as a national security necessity. Public reaction varied: early approval born of wartime panic, later shame and legal reversals, yet the messaging never fully unraveled. The law lived on; so did the spin.

    From War Boards to Messaging Machines

    Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Writers’ War Board and Office of War Information blurred the line between truth and hype, marshaling the media to rally support for government action—even when self-interest lay buried beneath patriotic slogans.

    And Now,… One Big Beautiful Bill Ads

    Fast-forward to today: Americans for Prosperity (AFP)—a Koch-backed libertarian advocacy group—has launched a national ad and grassroots campaign to “counter misinformation” and extol the virtues of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which is already law, by Americans for Prosperity. Their ads spotlight “permanent tax cuts, border security, lower energy costs, and Medicaid reforms” Americans for Prosperity. Social channels confirm it’s a sweeping digital, connected-TV, and event-driven blitz launched just last week Americans for Prosperity Facebook.

    During my illness, I was watching streaming services, binge-watching and I was inundated with these ads, which I personally find offensive. It’s already law, move the hell on, right?

    AFP’s real job? To ensure that lawmakers who backed the bill remain politically safe. As AFP’s Kent Strang admits, “we need to make sure this good policy is also good politically for the lawmakers who supported it” Americans for Prosperity.

    When Ads Quiet Debate, Democracy Suffers

    Let’s call it what it is: a post-law marketing campaign posing as civic education. The questions of merit and democratic debate vanish behind polished endorsements and emotional storytelling. The law isn’t standing on its logic—it’s propped up by commercials.

    Unfit to Govern: If You Must Advertise…

    When an administration can’t trust its own policy to win hearts without ads, democracy is on the ropes. Laws should stand on first principles, not focus-grouped slogans. If your policies are worth passing, they should be worth defending—without having to persuade through propaganda.

    25Jul, 2025
    QAnon Shaman is Shamin’

    Jacob Chansley, known as the QAnon shaman, led the January 6 assault. He donned horns and face paint. Trump pardoned him when he returned in January 2025. Chansley’s posts on X first praised Trump. They read: “THANK YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP…” Then he threatened: “NOW I AM GONNA BUY SOME MOTHA FU*KIN GUNS!!!” His tone seemed loyal and extreme.

    But months later, his tone shifted dramatically. He criticized Trump. He called Trump a “fraud” after seeing the mugshot. He used foul language against Trump and Israel. He deleted this post quickly. Yet screenshots spread widely on social media.

    His shift denotes deep frustration. Chansley questioned why Trump withheld Epstein’s client list. He typed: “What do you think Epstein & Isreal have on Trump???” He demanded answers from Trump’s inner circle. This public betrayal shocked many Trump loyalists. The shaman abandoned his mythic support.

    From Loyalist to Harsh Critic

    Chansley originally embraced Trump’s messages. He joined MAGA chants and conspiracy forums. He believed Trump would expose elite pedophiles. He called Epstein’s case pivotal for justice. Then Trump acted contrary. He offered pardons but not transparency. He ignored demands for Epstein files.

    Chansley’s anger mirrored broader QAnon disillusionment. Other fervent Trump backers began raising doubts. Marjorie Taylor Greene expressed frustration. Tucker Carlson questioned Trump’s secrecy. Influencers echoed similar suspicion online. Some cited Trump’s silence about Epstein. They asked for documents or public hearings.

    This quiet rebellion grew in July 2025. Chansley’s post had real impact. It landed attention across platforms. He became a symbol of disappointment and distrust.

    Why the Shaman’s Anger Matters

    Chansley’s defection carries weight. He was a living icon of Trump’s core base. If he breaks away, others may follow. His criticism risks weakening Trump’s grip. It fuels internal discontent in MAGA circles. It undermines the narrative of Trump as hero.

    Secrecy breeds suspicion. Trump’s refusal to release Epstein evidence hints at hidden deals. His supporters expected full disclosure. Instead, they got silence. That silence erodes loyalty fast. The shaman’s language reflects that erosion.

    Trump’s pardons also show hypocrisy. He pardoned violent actors while shielding the elite. His base sees injustice in those acts. Chansley’s betrayal highlights that tension.

    At the Turning Point

    The shaman’s defection marks change. It shows MAGA is fracturing. It signals possible collapse of faith. The base no longer trusts unquestioningly. They demand truth, not slogans. They want documents, not evasions. Trump may face deeper internal rebellions soon.

    @meidastouch

    Trump supporters post videos online of themselves setting their MAGA hats ablaze after Trump’s post about Epstein. 7/12/25

    ♬ Mysterious and sad BGM(1120058) – S and N

    The shaman’s furious posts spotlight deeper issues. His rage is not random. It stems from broader movement discontent. Other QAnon adherents echo his disappointment. This moment could define Trump’s legacy among conspiracist circles.

    Chansley’s shift demands attention. It warns of rising dissent. It urges scrutiny of Trump’s silent dealings. It reminds us that even staunch fanatics can turn.

    Resources