Libera Voce

“How many are worried about a government shutdown? How many are more worried about it starting back up?” Jay Leno

Humor has a way of clarifying perspective and giving us another way to look at something that relieves the angst created by the media, in this case about yet another government shutdown. I don’t even think of this current shutdown as a problem, but more like an opportunity to see through the deceptions of all the partisan posturing. I wish I could remember the author of the COVID era joke about how “The government accidentally shuts itself down with the ban on non-essential businesses.” Perhaps as Leno says, we should be more worried about the government starting back up again.

In this latest edition of a shutdown, we are again treated to a “Continuing Resolution” (CR), a seemingly simple idea of allowing more time to reach a budget agreement by doing the same thing that’s been going on since the last administration. The catch here as Rand Paul points out is that it’s not what the current administration was elected to do; Trump et al promised that this time things would be different with no more kicking the can down the road, no more deficits with irresponsible spending adding to an already unsustainable debt.

Curiously, as politics again shows us the phenomenon of strange bedfellows, we have the aging perennial Democratic leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, and the voice in the wilderness libertarian, Rand Paul, voting against the CR, but for very different reasons; Schumer fears the mob backing AOC to take his seat, and Paul fears the inevitable, and perhaps this time the irreparable damage additional deficits will cause. Oddly enough, Schumer’s fears are the more likely outcome as the shutdown provides the Trump administration with the opportunity to shrink the Federal government, something Schumer is against, and Rand Paul would welcome.

The Democratics are using a parliamentary tactic known as a filibuster, which is basically talking to no end other than to prevent a vote, in this case on the CR. There are two main issues that the Democrats have in doing this; one is that it’s literally obstructionist, and two, they have voted for CRs thirteen times during the Biden Administration so not doing so here seems like just more TDS. The Democrats’ proposal to end the filibuster requires adding $1.5T to the CR, which is not only contrary to the very definition of a CR, but also fiscally suicidal as there are no funds to support that; to do so would require even more deficit spending which would increase an already unsustainable debt.

The Republicans are understandably concerned with the perception that the shutdown happened on their watch and have found themselves in a media battle focusing on the fallacies of the Democrats’ position that the Big Beautiful Bill is a threat to healthcare. Whether or not that happens would be addressed not in a CR, but the negotiations and reconciliations in the budget process that follows. The problem for the Republicans is that they don’t have support in the legacy media for anything, and the problem for the Democrats is their obstructionist tactics are obviously in the interest of self-preservation; Schumer and others represent the old guard Democratic Party at odds with the socialist movement represented by AOC, which they fear will alienate many Americans, particularly those who are independents. 

Translation of all of this is that it’s another power play, not just between the two main political parties, but also within them. The Republicans came to power over immigration and inflation; the latter is a result of years of irresponsible monetary and fiscal policies of all prior administrations, but most egregiously during the Biden administration; they can’t blink, or they will be seen as powerless to fulfill what they promised. The Democrats are in an existential crisis between the socialist movement within their party, and their traditional base.

What we have here is an old fashion game of chicken, contrary positions on a collision course; the trick in playing chicken is knowing when to blink. The problem with the CR stalemate is that neither party can afford to blink; maybe that’s a good thing as it strips away the veneer of what we’re told government should be compared to what common sense shows otherwise, and how little we get of either compared to the taxes we pay. For those who think that a compromise here would be a good thing, remember what Arthur Block, the author of “Murphy’s Law” said: 

“The compromise will always be more expensive than either of the suggestions it is compromising.”

“When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into a lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to differentiate between good and evil.” Hannah Arendt

The stated mission of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security in order to develop friendly relations among states; it was to do so by promoting international cooperation by providing a forum in which nations could peacefully discuss, debate and resolve issues rather than resort to the barbarous historical means of the past with armed conflict. It was made apparent again yesterday by the shameful and cowardly exodus of most of the General Assembly of the UN in protest to the speech by the Prime Minister of Israel that it is incapable of fulfilling its mission.

The UN was never intended to be a police force, although at times it attempted to do so by posturing that such actions were in the cause of peace, which we were to believe made it the lesser evil, when in fact it perpetuated the very evil it was meant to avoid; in the cause of peace it failed miserably. Over the years, especially in more recent times, it has become something even worse as grotesquely illustrated by its support for the very evils that provide for conflict.

Since it was created to provide an alternative to war by providing a forum for communication, how can there be communication if the majority of its members refuse to listen to one of their own? One of the first actions of the UN at its inception was to recognize the State of Israel, yet now it wants to create a new state of Palestine whose declared mission is the annihilation of Isreal. It is apparent that the majority of the UN members, including many nations in the West, lack “…the capacity to differentiate between good and evil.”

It is time for the US to reconsider its membership in the UN given the simple fact that the organization is not only incapable of fulfilling its mission but supports the very toxic policies promoted by terrorist organizations, especially in regards to Israel, and American interests in general. Given the fact that the US pays approximately 23% of UN revenues, its departure would at least reduce the funds various UN agencies have been found to use in support of some terrorist organizations. Discussions in Congress to do so have been relatively muted since Ron Paul’s proposed bill, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, which would withdraw the US from the treaty known as the UN Charter. If ever there was a case for the US to leave the United Nations, it is this latest episode of involving an action that rewards terrorism.

The very notion of a two state solution that the UN General Assembly has supported for awhile now is a failure to even see the reality that there are already actually two Palestinian States involved, one ruled by Hamas in Gaza, the other by the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) in the West Bank, and in between there’s Israel. If you are going to recognize a state, you should be able to identify what it is both geographically and politically; by that simple logic, you have to either deal in this case with both existing Palestinian states, or declare who exactly you are recognizing as the “legitimate” one. No matter what construct of “state” is proposed for Palestine, neither Hamas nor the PNA will agree, causing yet another conflict added to what is already a region in chaos.

The UN was an early consequence of the globalist ideology born of the post war period; it is an ideology that promotes separating political sovereignty from the people of its member nations, which for many of the evolving countries of that time allowed for tyranny by creating an overlord environment, with the UN as the new monarchy and member nations its vassals. If this sounds Medieval, it’s because it is, complete with the alliances, intrigues, violence and betrayals of such a system. As history has shown, including that of the UN, such systems are unsustainable as the result isn’t greater solidarity but polarization of competing factions, each with its own ethos. We have seen the chaos that such organizations eventually devolved, as with the League of Nations, which only exasperated the conditions that led to WWII.

There is an inherent moral hazard created by such treaties that created the League of Nations, and its successor the United Nations, which is present at any time, and that is that any party has the opportunity to gain from acting contrary to the principles of the agreement, especially if there are no consequences if it does so. This is where the UN is at, which should inform the US that it belongs to an organization that has become the antagonist to the very principles upon which it was created; while this may be an example of the “Law of Unintended Consequences”, it doesn’t mean that the US should continue to tolerate it, or it may find out too late why Washington and Jefferson argued for a careful foreign policy “…of friendly neutrality that would avoid creating implacable enemies or international friendships of dubious value, nor entangle the United States in foreign alliances.”

“Everybody, sooner or later, sits down to a banquet of consequences.” Robert Louis Stevenson

“Beneath anger is always fear.” Anonymous

How do we not know the author of this quote, but know the quote? This happens often but is still kind of odd; I came across it in a TV interview with some retired US military officers who served in NATO operations over the last few decades and wrote it down as it struck me that this obvious correlation and often causation of aggression is overlooked. Much of the anger and hatred directed against Israel and the West comes not only from the Muslim world, but from within Western countries themselves; it’s simplistic to say this is just more antisemitism as that has always infected Western society since the Diaspora. There’s something more sinister about the current rise of antisemitism, something that also permeates the growing negative societal attitudes toward liberty in general.

It’s no coincidence that hatred, and the anger it spawns, is nurtured by fear itself; in this case the fear is that people may not agree with your point of view, and even further, that they are “allowed” to do so. Liberty is historically associated with Western society and its Age of Enlightenment with the focus on humanity’s basic rights in natural law. While Americans understand that slavery violates basic human rights, many do not seem to understand that the basis for a functioning socialism is a form of slavery; when Americans hear a politician promise free things if elected, what they don’t hear much is that there’s no such thing as free, unless of course you abuse someone’s liberty by taking what’s theirs.

This disconnect between the desire to have what’s not yours and the reality that “free” means someone else is at risk of enslavement to serve such desires constitutes a culture of death because you are denying the right to life, liberty and property; this applies to all human beings no matter what their economic status may be. Socialist societies are inherently parasitical based on the very premise of their existence regarding humanity, i.e., “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” The previous quote is erroneously attributed for Karl Marx, but correctly attributed to the 19C French socialist, Louis Blanc; just a note for those that keep score on who came up with such really horrible ideas. What Karl Marx did say was that “Democracy is the road to socialism.”; that previous quote is for those that don’t know the most important difference between a democracy and a republic.

What socialists fear most is that liberty means we are responsible for our life, and our production of services and goods that will sustain it; sounds like work and it takes a lot of that to survive, and a lot more to prosper. Since time is money, then those that would seek to live off your work are taking time from your life; that is a form of slavery no matter what the rhetoric used to disguise it. One of the curious current phenomena politically is the uproar about Zoran Mamdani likely being the next mayor of New York City; what’s curious is that, as was the case with Bernie Sanders, the Democratic Party looks upon one of their own as radioactive. Remember Marx on democracy above which helps explain the alienation between Mamdani and many of the Democratic Party’s leaders is that he used the “S word”; what this alienation exposes is hypocrisy as Mamdani is exactly the product of what “liberal” and “progressive” Democrats have fostered since Woodrow Wilson (whose great accomplishments were income tax, central banking and world war), i.e., socialism.

With the case of all fears that foster hatred, which in turn fosters anger and often violence, it creates for everyone, especially the most vulnerable, a loss of safety and security. When I say everyone, consider yesterday’s tragic event of the assassination of Charlie Kirk; I was not much of a fan, but have heard him speak and debate. He was obviously devoted to civil discourse and open debate as that was his passion, and of course his livelihood; he was always direct, sincere and civil as a political advocate. What should horrify us, regardless of the assassin’s motives, is that anyone can be targeted for their beliefs if different from some deranged adversary; to say as some in mass media have said that the victim brought this on himself for expressing his ideas is an inherent trait of fascism, as is socialism. What Zoran Mamdani, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, and a growing host of parasitical politicians did to alienate the Democratic Party’s leadership is to call themselves what they are, i.e., socialists; they dropped the fig leaf of identity that uses “Progressive” or “Liberal” and simply admitted what those labels actually mean. For those in the Democratic Party like John Fetterman who correctly see this for what it is, calls out the moronic nature of it, risk much, perhaps as much as Charlie Kirk did.

Today we commemorate the tragic events of 911, in a country now where some politicians support the cause of terrorism, stating that the US brought that horror on itself, as if the victims are responsible but not the perpetrators; then you have some media morons like Matthew Dodd of MSNBC who blame Charlie Kirk for his own assassination, again making the victim responsible, but not the perpetrator. Isolated, such obscenities are a concern, but taken together we have a dangerous growing malignancy eating away at liberty as evidenced by the attacks on free speech and free markets. Those attacks usually include denouncing someone with name calling for having a position contrary to your own without addressing what is wrong with their position, an obvious indication of fear coupled with a lack of intelligence, as if anger is an argument.

“In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.”  Siddhartha Gautama

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” Thomas Paine

The Federal Reserve has been purchasing huge amounts of USTs over the last few years; this happens more often than we would think and has been a habit of the Fed since its inception. The Fed buys these bonds from major dealers in the financial markets that have trading relationships with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Fed’s regional district bank for such activities; it goes through this circuitous process since it is not allowed by law to buy directly from the US Treasury because that would be in violation of its independence from the Federal government. Really!?!? Follow the money.  

The Fed, on a Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) basis, is technically insolvent; while it is the entity that conducts stress tests on banks in the private sector to determine their financial health, it itself is bankrupt. So where then does it get the money to buy such huge quantities of USTs? The Fed directs the US Treasury regarding when and how much money the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) should print; the money gets delivered to the Fed who then distributes it to its regional offices for distribution to banks and credit unions, and of course funds its purchase of USTs. While the Fed is subject to audit by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), it is under law accountable to no one. As Thomas Paine so eloquently observed, it is in fact that body nobody ought to trust.

Prior to the FDR and Nixon administrations that effectively killed the US Dollar as commodity money, this was not so much a problem for foreigners, including sovereign governments, to buy our debt because it was by definition sound money. When it became just another fiat currency, things changed, and over time, not for the better. Eventually, as has been the historical problem with all fiat currencies, it will implode from the weight of its own debt. The problem for any new administration is that they inherit the sins of the prior administrations’ policies that added to the problem bringing the tipping point closer to the inevitable. Whomever that administration is currently, in this case Trump’s, will have to deal with this existential threat to our economy.

It would seem obvious to any administration that this is something they do not want to happen on their watch, and since its inception, the Fed has accommodated the preference for the kick the can down the road option, as has been the case over the last hundred years. The problem for Trump is that we’ve run out of road on his watch; this is not some obscure situation, although the legacy media has reported little about it. There are various elements as to the pending tipping point that are known and to some extent mentioned by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, but little done to address it.

Ever since the end of WWII, USTs have been the go to safe haven for many of the foreign sovereign central banks in the world. The first major hit to this paradigm was Nixon ending the US gold standard; so bad was this hit that for the immediate future the US had to issue USTs denominated in Swiss Franks as the world correctly viewed Nixon’s move as a default on the dollar. The US went into a prolonged, deep and difficult recession; not since the Great Depression, and before that the 1837 Depression, had similar factors to today’s combined to trigger the tipping point.

What had renewed the purchasing of USTs since Nixon’s ignorant and unconstitutional end to the gold standard was Volker’s 1979 Fed policies that stabilized the dollar, but also resulted in a predictable recession with higher interest rates and monetary deflation. The subsequent Reagan and Clinton administrations’ policies, aided by a stable dollar, had solid periods of growth, lower deficits and even some surpluses. Since then it has been downhill triggering the Global Financial Crisis and the Great Recession. Both the Bush and Obama administrations went back to the old play book option to kick the can down the road, and the Fed accommodated them; monetizing debt is a great deception and disservice to the American people.

How many times can you do the same thing over and over again and expect the same results? The answer is every time until you drive your currency off the cliff at the end of the road. The two biggest holders of USTs have been Japan and China. Japan’s purchasing has been steadily decreasing over the years but remains the largest holder, while China used to be an even larger holder; since 2018 when China held $1.3T, it has decreased its holdings to approximately $.75T today, a decrease of nearly 40%. At the same time China has become the world’s largest buyer of gold and silver. Similar situations have evolved in the EU and other countries. The yield on bonds is inverse to its price, so the higher the yield, the lower the price; 2 year UST bonds yield just under 4% and the 10 Year just over 4%, making these bonds relatively attractive, but what concerns prospective buyers is the underlying dollar risk.

In the age of fiat currencies, a country’s credit worthiness is based on belief, i.e., it’s a matter of trust in that country’s good faith efforts to maintain a stable currency. One of the metrics economists use to measure a county’s credit worthiness is the Debt-to-GDP ratio; when the debt exceeds its GDP, a country is deemed a credit risk because such economic instability inhibits growth, reducing revenues, which creats the need for further borrowing to meet a country’s financial obligations; this is where the US is at, and when a bond auction goes poorly, as it has been doing over the last few years, you see the Fed jump in, buy the disregarded USTs with yet more inflated dollars. It’s a viscous cycle as the US now has a debt service absorbing 23% of tax revenues.

Trump ran on many campaign promises, most of which he has kept, but the most critical one was to cut spending to decrease deficits and pay down debt; he has betrayed that promise with the so called “Big Beautiful Bill”, one beautiful on taxes, but big on spending with a potential add of $5T to the debt. Adding fuel to the fire are his trade policies; tariffs are not only taxes on your own country, but inevitably create trade barriers, especially with those considered allies, which in turn alienates them, providing no incentives to take risks, like buying sovereign bonds denominated in an ever inflating currency. It breaks the bonds of trust worse between friends than enemies.

Trump also promised the end to the “Forever Wars” that have plagued the US since the end of WWII; while he has been a force for peace in many recent conflicts, he recently committed the US to support the EU if it becomes involved directly in the Russo/Ukrainian War. His threat to Putin has been to get with the peace negotiations or find yourself hit with more crippling tariffs and sanctions; not only will such threats not work, but there is no need for this as the US has no obligations other than under NATO, and that doesn’t apply here.  This is a European issue and every time we get involved with their issues, Americans find themselves at war, the single biggest threat to a currency already on life support.

The trade wars of the late 19C and early 20C were the root causes of WWI; the assassination of some royalist head of state just the excuse. The same protectionists’ trade wars of the 1920-30s gave rise to the economic crises that created the authoritarian regimes in Japan, Spain, Italy and Germany, and even to some degree here in America; those trade wars evolved into another world war. With trade wars, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insanity. The briefest and the best definition of economy ever is Mises’ “Human Action”; it relies on trust, so when you destroy the trust in money, you destroy the trust in trade, the human action we call the economy. Americans need to send a message to all politicians that the Fed and the national debt it has accommodated needs drastic reform and that this is the single most critical issue of our time…and time is running out.

“It is only prudent never to place complete confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived.” René Descartes

“We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.” Barack Obama

Approximately 15K years ago, migrants from Asia crossed the Bering Land Bridge, and from Alaska spread across the Americas, a migration encouraged by growing populations looking for basic stuff, like food; unlike Asia, there were no human competitors, and plenty of good hunting. These “Native Americans” were nomadic hunter-gatherers, but except for some advanced cultures in Central and South America that arose about a millennia ago, remained so until the European (ethnic descendants of both Asian and African migrations) began the era called “The Age of Exploration” (like the Goths invading Rome, or the Mongols invading almost anywhere).

Much of what Obama said in 2018 in the opening quote sounds like what Reagan said before him, and numerous presidents before them. The US has always had an immigration “problem”; the quotes are there because while that’s how Americans (whoever got here before the ones that came after) view immigration, i.e., as a problem. Depending on when your grandparents, or great grandparents, or however many greats go back, they all came here from somewhere else, but they all had one thing in common, they chose to come here.

Immigration has become a polarizing issue since Obama; just that short while ago it was a bipartisan issue for Democrats and Republicans, but just a few years later it has become an extremely divisive one. Under Obama there were 1.57M deportations in the first administration, and 1.49M in the second; under Trump there were 1.2M in the first administration, and so far about 200K in the second. The Biden deportation numbers are difficult to determine as many had to do with Covid procedures, but even so they were far lower than Obama’s, which are the highest number of deportations on record. Further, about 83% of Obama’s deportations did not involve any judicial procedures; most of those that did resulted in deportations.

The huge differences in these statistics don’t support either Trump’s assertions of mass deportations or critics maintaining that Trump is acting unconstitutionally; if either were true, then Trump on an annualized basis would be about 50% behind Obama, and Obama would be constitutionally in violation on immigration more than any other president in history. Further, considering the immigration crisis under Biden with anywhere from 12M to 20M illegal immigrations (depending on who is doing the counting) Trump has a lot more catch-up to do to even match Obama’s records. What’s lacking in all the various narratives on immigration is clarity on statistics, economics, and authority regarding policy and procedures.

What is clear is that the US Constitution specifically enumerates immigration as a federal power, making Congress the sole determining entity of immigration and naturalization laws, and the executive branch responsible for the enforcement of those laws; since the constitution of 1787 there have been about fifty immigration and naturalization laws passed by Congress. It is clear given the number and history of immigration laws that Biden’s position of needing a law to secure the border was a deflection of his failure to do so. What is also clear is that there are both illegitimate and legitimate reasons and procedures for immigration. What no one can deny who has any economic intelligence is that the US needs immigration in order to survive.

Since the Obama years we have seen the growth of forced displacement, a growing phenomenon both here and in Europe by foreign bad actors to destabilize an adversary, profit from accommodating illegal immigration, expelling peoples they consider undesirable, or any combination of all these. We’ve seen this in France, the UK, Germany, etc., and the results have been as catastrophic as here in the US. The change in the US from political bipartisan concern and cooperation up to and during the Obama years to the irrational and often violent reactions now can’t be explained solely because of the distinctions between Obama and Trump as they are distinctions without a difference as far as the constitution and the role of the executive branch are concerned. Further, while Obama had to deal with fewer illegal immigrants but executed a much higher level of deportations than Trump, makes the situation baffling.

While TDS is likely a part of this, there’s something even more important, less discussed but more insidious involved. While the role of foreign bad actors, whether they be Islamic extremists, drug cartels, Russian proxies, etc., would never have been as successful even at the lower range of 12M illegal immigrants without the unintentional (Useful Idiot) or even intentional (Manchurian Candidate) complicity of domestic bad actors. Seeing Congressional members supporting the worst criminals among illegal immigrants is bad enough, but it is obvious that the organized rioting and assaults on immigration officials is clearly being orchestrated and funded from within. Then there are documented instances of government officials disclosing specific plans of immigration enforcement.

Why some governors and mayors, together with their legislators, declare some states and cities as sanctuaries for illegal immigrants is bewildering since many of them are lawyers or with experienced government backgrounds who should know that they have no constitutional standing regarding immigration; it is not an organic reaction to the immigration crisis, but clearly an intentionally destabilizing act not only against our Republic, but American society itself.  What such posturing exposes is a manipulation of circumstances to benefit power lust through population control as the Democrats assume immigrants will repay their support with votes.

The procedures by the Trump administration do need some reconsideration and changes. Controlling the border and deporting known criminals are not only essential actions but required by law; those same laws require the detention and deportation of all illegal immigrants regardless of any other criminal status as it’s illegal to enter the US…well…illegally. However, there should be a procedure for those illegal immigrants who have been here prior to the Biden administration who have gainful employment, no criminal record and do not present a burden to society to be eligible to immediately apply for legal residency; we have always needed an entry level labor force as they will eventually become the productive citizens the US needs, especially as the birth rate among current citizens continues to fall, and we are short the entry level labor a healthy economy requires. The reason for starting with pre-Biden immigration is that there are too many complications for those who came through that administration’s negligence that created the crisis, and earlier immigrants have established family and community ties that benefit our society.

The worst of the ignorant and usually the loudest of those who denigrate this country in the name of open borders, both citizens and immigrants, should reflect on the simple fact that immigration is not a right, but a privilege granted by your adopted land; as James Baldwin said, once granted, “The making of an American begins at the point where he himself rejects all other ties, any other history, and himself adopts the vesture of his adopted land.”

“Americans have a one-party system, and, just like Americans, they have two of them.” Alexander Cockburn

I could not remember the author of the above quote until I was re-reading P. J. O’Rourke’s hysterical account of the 2016 Presidential Election, in which he wrote about his conversations with Cockburn, a fellow journalist. What prompted me to re-read “How The Hell Did This Happen” was the news about Tulsi Gabbard referring the intelligence report to the DOJ about the Russian collusion hoax last week; I really didn’t want to hear about all this again but wondered what would be different this time.

Admittedly, as I had written in my blogs back then, I took the Muller Report, the Steele Dossier, and the mass media accounts of Trump’s love affair with Putin as fact. I realized subsequently that I was guilty of what is now known as TDS. It took me some time, and a lot of introspection to understand that my dislike of Trump was affecting my judgement; what I believed was my objectivity in the empirical was a failure to see the illusion. While I don’t like Trump anymore than I did back then, I have come to realize we may all have been played for fools.

What really tested my admittedly overly optimistic view of America’s future were the current alternatives to Trump; Biden’s brain died, and Harris apparently didn’t have one, so Trump couldn’t loose unless he tried…which on occasion he appeared to do. Thanks to Suzie Wiles, Trump managed to overcome his usual bar room bravado (and he doesn’t even drink), stick to the script and propose actual policies. Harris in the meantime had neither a script or policies other than sounding like Biden and avoiding proposing any coherent policies; it was the proverbial no brainer and she excelled at it.

Then the totally unexpected happen…no, not the election results…but Trump making good on his promises, which was something that he avoided in his business career to great effect; not all of that is good news however, unless you believe tariffs aren’t taxes, foreign aid and meddling is a good idea, or deficit spending helps reduce debt. I love tax cuts, spending cuts, border control, safety and security and protecting women in sports, so why not find some more good stuff like that rather than get in the muck of what could be perceived as pay-back?

The answer provided is that now there’s documentary evidence of conspiracy orchestrated by Obama while he was president; the same was already true in 2016 of candidate Hillary Clinton and the DNC with the fabricated Steele Dossier and yet in all these years nothing happened, so why should we think this time is different? The difference this time is that “the other party” is in power, and power is the common denominator and primary motivator with political parties, principles being at best a distant third after money; however, in order to avoid the cynical approach, I would like to see what comes of this sequel to the “Russian Collusion Hoax”, and hopefully not a re-run of the previous soap opera version.

While we were warned by Washington, Madison and other Founders against political parties, we’ve always been burdened with them; they all assume unconstitutional powers when in office, as if there’s a new version of the “Divine Right of Kings” because they got elected. More to follow on this as it unfolds. In the meantime, as P. J. O’Rourke humorously observed, “The Democratic Party and the Republican Party may think they are integral parts of the US government, but in fact they are private organizations with no more constitutional standing than motorcycle gangs.”

“The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it.” P. J. O’Rourke

I recently reread P.J. O’Rourke’s “The Parliament of Whores”; it is a sobering and seminal work so currently relevant as to be required reading in both high school and college curriculums. O’Rourke is difficult to categorize politically, but I doubt the leadership of either of the two political parties would embrace him; he died in 2022 after years of combating cancer and will be sorely missed as one of the premier journalists in America. Anyone who has ever read his work, regardless of their politics, knows that he was faithful to the simple proposition that facts make for great humor, entertainment, and real journalism.

There were earlier editions of political parties that had “republican” as part of its name, but the one that continues today was founded in 1854 from the “Abolitionist Movement”, and early on was often referred to as the “The Party of Lincoln”. In the 1870s various newspaper editors referred to the Republican Party as the “Grand Old Party” (GOP), “Grand” for its stand against slavery and preservation of the Union, and “Old” as a reference to the founding of the Republic, not the age of the party itself which was comparatively young.

Following the Civil War, the party became a national political force, except in the South where the Democratic Party retained its dominance despite the defeat of the Confederacy; in fact, it remained so strong as to force the “Compromise of 1877” which ended Reconstruction, saw the birth of “Jim Crow Laws”, and successfully challenged the Republican Party in gubernatorial elections in the Southern States.

Except for Cleveland, the GOP won the presidency and dominated national politics for the remainder of the 19C; unfortunately, it became susceptible to cronyism, a corruption of power politics and big business. This association of a business elite who were hardly champions of free markets and politicians who put power before principle, would hamstring the GOP as the “…party for the rich…” at a time of the rise of the socialist movements in America. This decline of the Republican Party contributed to the rebirth of the Democratic Party as a national influence with Wilson and especially FDR.

What followed was a very chaotic period where the labels for politicians became a distorted argument of left versus right, where partisan politics became a “cause” rather than a coherent discussion of principles and policies. Both the Democratic and Republican Parties in some ways became populist’s movements almost indistinguishable at times with meaningless slogans and horrible fiscal policies; the uniting factors were a bipartisan ability to wage war and the growth of presidential power.  

There were two notable milestones in the modern populist era summarized with the name of two presidents, Reagan and Obama; while both had a huge influence on their political parties with dominant elections, both were followed by periods of failed leadership and polarizing partisanship. The evolution of the Republican Party depends on its ability to be more than just the MAGA slogan and the overpowering ego of Trump; it was handed a victory in the 2024 election by the Democratic Party that found a way to alienate Americans by embracing a cultural position toxic to a civilized society.

Whatever comes of the Democratic Party going forward is uncertain, but it is not a given that the Republican Party can count on them making the same mistakes. What is needed more than the polarizing partisanship of our main political parties is an evolution away from political parties all together. We were warned by many of the Founders that political parties were toxic to liberty and presented the greatest threat to the Republic, and it’s apparent they were right. We need an election that will be a win for the American people, and not just a political party.

“We will win an election when all the seats in the House and Senate and the chair behind the desk in the Oval Office and the whole bench of the Supreme Court are filled with people who wish they weren’t there.” P. J. O’Rourke.

“Democracy is the road to socialism.” Karl Marx

The shock expressed by the mass media that Zohran Kwame Mamdani won the Democratic Party’s Primary for NYC mayor is as much a display of historical ignorance as Marx’s understanding of economics; however, in practical political terms Marx understood that democracy would inevitably lead to socialism because of the principles underlying both. According to the NYT the main support for Mamdani’s candidacy does not appear to be an example of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” as it came from the wealthier elite of the city; elitists love setting the rules for everyone else.

Given the historical record of most NYC mayoral elections being won by the Democratic Party, many pundits expect Mamdani to win in November; however, it’s also been noted that Mamdani’s win over Cuomo helps Eric Adams given Mamdani’s lack of support among middle and lower income voters, especially the Black and Hispanic communities. The strangest statistic is among the city’s Jewish community, the largest of any city in the world, where he did better than expected despite his calls to “Globalize Intifada” and his support for Hamas.

While the Democratic Party establishment that supported Cuomo searches for answers, both in NYC and the country at large, the facts are staring them in the face; when you have nothing to offer voters but criticism of the opposition, they will look beyond the nihilism to those who have something more. On the national level in 2024, it was Trump, and on the local level in NYC in 2025 it’s Mamdani. There are huge differences in policies between these two politicians, but on a campaign strategy level, many similarities, and in both cases their opposition was politically inept.

The political cloak that Mamdani assumed is as a “Democratic Socialist”; on the one hand it is redundant but not original as the same is true of Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and more than thirty others in various public offices. These are the honest ones who are willing to call it like it is, but the vast majority in the Democratic Party are not; their support for the freedoms enshrined in our constitution is a pious fraud, a transactional necessity of promising free things in exchange for votes. The principal difference between these establishment Democratic politicians and Democratic Socialists is transparency.

None of this is historically new; from 1928 to 1948, Norman Thomas ran six times as the Socialist Party Presidential Candidate. He eventually concluded that given the Democratic Party’s platform and popularity, and the American people’s disdain for the label “Socialist”, such efforts were redundant and irrelevant. Overtime those in the Democratic Party used different labels, like “Liberal Democrat” or “Progressive Democrat”, but until more recently carefully avoided “Democratic Socialist”.

Now it seems that by using the prefix “Democratic” there’s an expectation that the American people will ignore the historical reality that in a democracy your individual rights don’t matter because you are outnumbered, or that socialism is totalitarianism because it can’t tolerate individual rights that stand in its way.

“Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and everyone knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter.” H. L. Mencken

“Once you’ve built the big machinery of political power, remember you won’t always be the one to run it.” P. J. O’Rourke

So much is being made about the recent bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities regarding whether or not Trump’s actions are constitutional that you would think this was a unique event, but it was anything but. The US Constitution is clear and unequivocal that only Congress can declare war, and although such presidents like McKinley and Wilson fabricated the reasons for the Spanish American and the Great War, they nevertheless observed the constitutional requirement for congressional approval; unfortunately, as perhaps an unintended consequence of the 1973 War Powers Act, FDR was the last president to do so.

There have been many military conflicts since the end of WWII involving the US, but in none of them do we find a congressional declaration of war; Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Obama and now Trump have exercised “War Powers” without having a congressional declaration of war. Given the constitution’s unequivocal enumeration of war powers for congress alone, and the fact that these presidents, with the exceptions of those prior to 1973, relied on the War Powers Act of that year, raises the commonsense question as to why we needed a “War Powers Act” to begin with?

Truman relied on the UN resolution for an “International Police Action”, involving almost 300,000 US troops, as if the UN had US congressional power. Kennedy and Johnson relied on the “Domino Theory” as a substitute for a congressional declaration of war, committing 550,000 US troops. All subsequent presidential actions involving war relied on this curious legislation whose stated intent was to limit such action, despite the fact that the US Constitution already made it an enumerated power for congress alone; the President is not a king.

Among the constitutions executive powers is for the president to be the commander-in-chief; however, he is that for everyone in the executive branch, not just the military, but that is not a legislative power. Using the “shared powers” argument for presidential war powers is at best disingenuous. The president’s role regarding war powers is to sign or veto a congressional resolution for war, as is the case for all legislation. Curiously, given Nixon’s penchant for power lust, it was surprising that he initially vetoed the War Powers Act; which brings us back to the question as to why we needed it to begin with?

Among the reasons given for this act was the clear and present danger doctrine that the constitution requires the president to protect the US from foreign attacks, and even imminent danger of attacks against the US, but the War Powers Act goes further by extending to the president a considerable period of time before he needs congressional approval. Even way back in the ancient times of 1973 we had sufficient information technology to make such latitudes questionable; the act does require that within 48 hours the president must advise congress of such actions, but for 60 days does not need congressional approval to wage war. Despite Nixon’s reticence to sign the War Powers Act, what it did was provide presidents with what the constitution did not, the power to wage war.

If the argument against Trump’s action is reduced to a quantitative analysis, then we have to compare it to what others have done.  For example, the strike against Iranian nuclear facilities consisted of a one-day event involving high tech bombs and cruise missiles on one country, whereas over the course of his presidency, Barack Obama authorized more than 26,000 bomb drops against seven countries.  If the argument in support of Trump’s action is raised to a qualitative analysis, we are relying on the intelligence assets of the US that Iran presented a clear and present danger to the US, i.e., an imminent nuclear attack.  Obama’s attacks on such countries like Libya and Syria are not supported by any facts that they represented a clear and present danger to the US. Skepticism about US intelligence in relation to clear and present dangers is supported by such things like the “Gulf of Tonkin Incident”, “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, or “Remember the Maine”.

We are told that Israel has solid intelligence regarding Iran’s nuclear capabilities and intentions of imminent attacks on Israel and the US. If so, and assuming we are not dealing with another WMD episode, what then prevents Trump from going to Congress for a declaration of war against a clear and present danger? It is reported from that same intelligence source that Iran moved their enriched uranium out of the facilities that the US bombed; do they know where to?  As far as what happens next, it’s not a question as to whether or not the US is in a war with Iran because bombing a foreign country is an act of war; we can sugar coat it with descriptions of a precision strike, saving democracy, or any other evasive language, but war is still just war.

“The object of waging a war is always to be in a better position in which to wage another war.” George Orwell

“That’s too coincidental to be a coincidence.” Yogi Berra

Most conspiracy theories are to some degree based on coincidences theoretically related but lacking empirical evidence to establish a factual basis. As awkward as a “Yogi-ism” can be, it has a humorous insight that will make you think about stuff, and there was some recent stuff that is just too coincidental to be a coincidence; for instance, we have the US Army Founding parade, the ICE riots, and the war between Iran and Israel. While none of the coincidences involved with any of these events represent empirical evidence, they do qualify for coincidences that are just too coincidental.

The Battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, as promoted in the announcement for the US Army Founding parade, did not involve the Continental Army; those conflicts occurred before there was a Continental Army, involved Colonial Militias and didn’t qualify as a battle, but skirmishes. The parade was by no means unique historically as there are four regularly scheduled parades in the Capital involving the military, i.e., Inaugural Day, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and Independence Day. There were also special parades like the one to celebrate the end of the Civil War and VE Day. What was special about this one was the coincidence with Trump’s birthday; the day of the parade was June 14, 2025, whereas the founding of the US Army was June 15, 1775. The birth date of Donald Trump is June 14, 1946.

The numbers don’t lie, the date of the US Army Founding parade was scheduled on Trump’s birthday; this huge parade was less about the US Army than the ego of a narcissistic birthday boy, and “…too coincidental to be a coincidence…”. It was also not in the tradition of this Republic to have such a huge militaristic Soviet-like parade, and one that wasted millions of taxpayer dollars. I agree with those Republicans like Rand Paul and Thomas Massie who expressed their distaste for such an ostentatious display, especially from an administration that preaches against wasteful spending. Clearly hypocrisy is a non-partisan trait as most of the Democratic criticism is opportunistic partisan hype, especially given their support for a lot of wasteful spending.

It was not a coincidence that the ICE rioters knew when and where the immigration enforcements were taking place; not only were they well organized, funded and prepared, but more critically, well informed. The administration’s position that the immigration enforcement leaks have been addressed doesn’t appear to be the case; this doesn’t only apply to the rioters, but to elected officials who were all too well scripted for grandstanding, and in some cases obstruction and even assault.

As Trump’s deadline for Iran to agree to a deal expired, Israel was all over Iran with its air force, destroying both its nuclear infrastructure and its command and control. While massive barrages of missiles, drones, air strikes and propaganda followed, and contrary to what Secretary Rubio and others said, our government was involved; true, no Americans were part of the air strikes on Iran, we just supplied the munitions, technical assistance and intelligence. The truth came out when Trump admitted that Netanyahu had told him this was going to happen after Iran passed on Trump’s deadline; sometimes the coincidence is so obvious as to be just too coincidental.

One of Trump’s campaign promises was that he would never allow the US to be drawn into a war unless the US itself was attacked by another country; that’s kind of vague as the US has more foreign military bases than any other country in the world, so is an attack on them the same as on the US?  This particular coincidence historically is that those who promise what they can’t deliver find themselves in an awkward position they themselves created; Trump has stated that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, but we are told by mass media that the only way to assure that is for the US to deploy the only weapon that can make that happen.

Remember please the WMD in Iraq, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Maine, the Lusitania, the Domino Effect and all the other lies we were told to justify the war mongering propaganda of failed leadership, and hope that Trump’s promise is just not another political coincidence.

“History is just new people making old mistakes.” Sigmund Freud