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.

    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 (URLs only; I did not insert links into the body as requested):

    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

    24Jul, 2025
    Erosion of Democracy?

    Ok, I know you’re frustrated. Maybe even confused. You’ve read the headlines, heard the soundbites, and sat through the hearings—and you’re still wondering:
    How did Trump get away with welcoming foreign help in 2016? Why wasn’t he impeached then? And why, even now, with multiple indictments, does it still feel like justice is stalled?

    You’re not alone. Millions of Americans struggle to understand how our laws and systems have failed to hold a man accountable who openly invited foreign interference—and continues to manipulate the system.

    The Beginning of a Dangerous Pattern

    This didn’t start with the Capitol riot or “Stop the Steal.” It started in 2016, when a major party candidate publicly said, “Russia, if you’re listening…” and then accepted stolen data from a hostile foreign government. That moment should have disqualified him. Instead, it became his blueprint.

    The Mueller Report detailed extensive contacts between Trump’s campaign and Russian operatives. It outlined possible obstruction of justice. But prosecution required a high legal bar. The political will to act was low. Mueller’s chilling conclusion: “If we had confidence the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” Yet, nothing happened.

    Playing Loopholes, Not by the Rules

    These people don’t play by rules—they play loopholes. They don’t need to break the law outright when they can lean on ambiguity, delay, and chaos. It’s not about truth. It’s about distraction. If you flood the field with lies and spin, the public grows numb. The system overloads. Consequences fade.

    Despite damning reports, accountability has remained elusive. Trump’s team walks a tightrope—skirting prosecutable law, using misdirection and delay to escape full consequence. What happened in 2016 wasn’t just oversight failure—it was deliberate erosion of democratic principles. It set the tone for his post-presidency and current agenda.

    Where Things Stand Now

    As of July 2025, Donald J. Trump faces four active criminal cases:

    • Federal Election Interference (Special Counsel Jack Smith): Attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
    • Federal Classified Documents (Mar-a-Lago): Willful retention of national defense materials and obstruction.
    • Georgia Election Interference (Fulton County): Conspiring to overturn 2020 Georgia results, charged under RICO.
    • New York Hush Money Case: Falsifying business records to cover hush payments during 2016.

    These cases are historic. Yet trials face delays and appeals, pushing them past the 2024 election. This stalling is strategic—a legal chess game eroding public trust.

    The Epstein Files and the Shell Game

    Trump is also under scrutiny for another reason: in May 2025, former Attorney General Pam Bondi privately told him his name appears multiple times in DOJ files related to Jeffrey Epstein. These mentions are unverified and shrouded in secrecy because the DOJ refuses to release the files, citing victim privacy and the presence of child pornography in the records. Trump denies wrongdoing and is suing the Wall Street Journal for reporting this.

    But this isn’t just about allegations or court battles. It’s about distraction. As media and public attention zero in on Epstein’s shadowy files and Trump’s involvement, it gives space for other agendas to move forward quietly—laws get passed, policies shift, and powers consolidate while eyes are elsewhere.

    This is the shell game Trump excels at. Keep the public chasing one story, while the bigger, more dangerous plays happen behind the curtain. Whether it’s rolling back voting rights, weakening oversight, or reshaping institutions to his advantage, the Epstein files story diverts critical scrutiny away from ongoing threats to democracy.

    We can’t fall for this again. We have to look beyond the distractions, ask the tough questions, and demand transparency—not just about Trump, but about what else is being pushed through while our attention is stolen.

    Why This Matters

    This is not normal. This is not just politics. This is calculated manipulation—blurring legality and morality enough to get away with both.

    We are living through a historic moment of democratic erosion. Whether we stand by or stand up will define what comes next.

    23Jul, 2025
    Protect & Serve – Who? Yourselves? Not McNeil.

    When Compliance Isn’t Enough: A Call for Accountability and Protection

    I just watched the deeply disturbing video out of Jacksonville, Florida, from February 19, 2025, where 22‑year‑old Black student William McNeil Jr. was violently pulled from his vehicle and beaten—all after he calmly asked to speak with a supervisor and questioned why he was being pulled over.

    He was sitting with his hands visible, asking innocent questions—until officers escalated the situation: one smashed open his driver-side window, punched him in the face, and, along with others, dragged and beat him on the ground. There was no immediate threat, no weapon brandished, but the punches came anyway. AP News

    These actions go beyond enforcement—they’re outright aggression. They reflect a dangerous eagerness, a cavalier use of force that in any other context would be condemned. From my half‑white, half‑privileged viewpoint, it’s clear: this was excessive—and unacceptable.

    🔍 Here’s what happened with McNeil:

    • McNeil questioned why his headlights were off (it was daylight); the officer demanded he exit. McNeil asked for a supervisor and locked his door. CBS News
    • After three minutes of resisting exit, the officer smashed the window and used closed-fist strikes. McNeil was handcuffed, suffering a chipped tooth, stitches, and a concussion. People.com
    • Investigations followed: the State Attorney found no criminal wrongdoing, though administrative reviews are underway and one officer was suspended. AP

    To every person of color—and to everyone who cares about them:

    If dash cams and interior car cameras are within reach, get one. If you know someone who might benefit, this makes a powerful gift. These devices don’t lie—they capture truth when words fail.

    To car manufacturers:

    Let’s talk innovation. Outfitting side‑view or rear‑view mirrors with built‑in, high‑quality cameras is no longer optional—it’s essential. Vehicles equipped this way could offer critical evidence during interactions that escalate without justification.

    Because the system won’t always police itself, we must. We the people—with our cameras, our voices, our demand for transparency—will insist on accountability. One camera. One recorded moment. One truth. At a time when authority meets violence, it’s us who must hold the lens.

    In Solidarity always,

    -Judy T.

    22Jul, 2025
    The High Cost of the Spotlight

    How Trump’s Own Cameras Keep Betraying Him

    Fame is a tricky currency. It inflates egos, fuels ambition, and—if you’re not careful—documents every lie you’ve ever told. Donald Trump understood this early on. Long before reality TV or presidential campaigns, he paid the National Enquirer to publish salacious stories about his affairs. This wasn’t just about scandal—it was a calculated move to promote his name, his wealth, and his image to the masses.

    From those early tabloid gambits to gold-plated elevator announcements, Trump has relentlessly built a persona fueled by spectacle. However, when your life is a performance, every slip, contradiction, and untruth becomes permanent record. For a man obsessed with image, this has become a haunting reality.

    Chasing Fame, Forgetting Consequences

    Donald Trump didn’t stumble into fame—he pursued it relentlessly. From The Apprentice to a presidential campaign launched amid golden elevators, Trump has built his persona on bold declarations and brash theatrics. Yet, he never seemed to grasp that cameras don’t just capture moments—they preserve history.

    Fame isn’t free. It holds receipts.

    Lie #1: “I Don’t Know Who She Is”

    In 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll and defaming her afterward. Trump denied any relationship, claiming not to know her.

    Photographic and testimonial evidence show Trump and Carroll socialized publicly for years. The inconsistencies in his statements severely damaged his defense.

    Lie #2: “I Never Asked for Loyalty”

    Then-FBI Director James Comey testified Trump asked for “loyalty” in 2017 before firing him. Trump denied this, but multiple accounts and the released testimony support Comey’s claim, fueling the Mueller investigation.

    Lie #3: “The Election Was Stolen”

    Trump claimed widespread voter fraud in 2020, but his Attorney General William Barr stated the DOJ found no evidence of fraud affecting the election outcome.

    Additionally, transcripts and interviews reveal Trump privately admitted he lost the election.

    Lie #4: “I Took the Pandemic Seriously”

    Trump publicly downplayed COVID-19, but secretly admitted to Bob Woodward that the virus was dangerous and deadly.

    The Epstein Files: The Ultimate Lie of Denial

    Trump’s shifting stories about Jeffrey Epstein contradict decades of photos and flight logs showing their close association. Epstein’s “black book” and various investigations place Trump in Epstein’s circle multiple times.

    Trump’s claims the “Epstein Files” are a hoax clash with an overwhelming body of evidence.

    When Fame and Lies Collide, Cameras Become Prosecutors

    Trump’s decades-long relationship with Epstein, documented extensively in photos and public records, stands as a monument to the perils of chasing fame without accountability. His repeated lies are desperate attempts to rewrite history under the unforgiving glare of media and public scrutiny.

    Yet many older articles exposing these lies have vanished from mainstream platforms. This pattern reveals Trump’s influence over media channels, where controlling the narrative is as important as shaping it.

    The cameras don’t lie—but if the footage disappears or the stories vanish, does the truth get a chance to live?

    Final Thoughts: The Price of the Spotlight

    There’s a high cost to fame lived in front of cameras: every lie, every misstep, and every denial remains on permanent display. For Trump, this cost is credibility, legacy, and trust.

    The Epstein files are the culmination of a lifetime of carefully constructed falsehoods, exposed in vivid detail. In a world where cameras never stop rolling, the truth is both the most dangerous adversary—and the ultimate judge.

    Closing Thoughts: When Media Control Silences Truth

    Over the course of writing this editorial, I sought to back every claim with credible, publicly accessible sources. However, I repeatedly encountered broken links, missing pages, and 404 errors from major news outlets. These vanished articles are more than inconvenient—they reveal the immense power that Trump and his allies wield over media narratives.

    By quietly erasing evidence, restricting access, and influencing platforms, they attempt to shield their stories from scrutiny. This makes uncovering truth harder, but not impossible. It also shows why it is critical to preserve and share verified facts widely before they disappear.

    Below is a list of key articles and sources I initially tried to reference, now mostly unreachable, highlighting the ongoing battle between transparency and media control.

    404 Errors: Not So Silent Censors

    1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/10/04/trump-e-jean-carroll-photo-deposition/
    2. https://www.npr.org/2017/05/11/527595272/trump-asked-fbi-director-james-comey-for-loyalty-sources-say
    3. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/11/trump-comey-loyalty-238440
    4. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/barr-says-no-evidence-widespread-voter-fraud-2020-election-n1259685
    5. https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/15/politics/jonathan-karl-trump-abc-interview/index.html
    6. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/09/bob-woodward-trump-coronavirus/
    7. https://abcnews.go.com/US/times-trumps-appeared-epstein-files-doj-released/story?id=123848078

    By sharing this list openly, I emphasize that the battle to hold powerful figures accountable often includes a fight over which facts remain visible—and which are erased. Despite these obstacles, the truth behind the lies remains, waiting for those willing to seek it out.

    I hope you understand that this current President is a compulsive liar, who doesn’t take national security seriously. Just look at the reaction to “Signalgate”. It seems it’s all he knows how to do.

    -Judy T.

    Login