As a youth my favorite hobby was building model airplanes. At that time in my life I was very jealous of my possessions. Once when a visiting relative, with my mother's permission, completed a few steps on a P-51 Mustang I had left unfinished on my work table, I saw red, ripped the offending parts off, then proceeded to reassemble the plane--my plane. It was petty and childish behavior, which I grew out of.

DonJohnny has the same problem in a big way, and even after nearly eight decades of life he has not grown out of it.

Just as he cannot stand the notion of someone having something that he does not or can not have, he hates knowing that others have done something that he has not. 

Remember the bizarre McDonald's publicity stunt during the campaign? The parasite who has never worked a day in his life tossing french fries in a carefully staged setting with vetted "extras?" That was done only because Kamala Harris had, in her college days, actually worked at a McDonald's. Yes, he really is that childish and petty.

Now he is doing his best to erase American history because he never had a hand in making it. Is that narcissistic enough for you? It reminds me of the destruction of antiquities undertaken by ISIS some years ago: 

Revered historic buildings and monuments that point to the glories of past civilisations are an ideological threat to the caliphate that ISIS believes surpasses them all. In ISIS' view there should be nothing that can challenge its legitimacy, whether Christian, Shia, Sufi or anything else. With a clean slate, ISIS seeks to present to future generations a new version of history, in which its binary narrative of ISIS heroes fighting evil will be able to flourish. Obliterating historic sites is an attempt to create a blank canvas for ISIS to build on: a new beginning.¹

 On April 30 Huffpost ran an insightful and troubling piece titled "Trump's First 100 Days: Destroying America Was The Plan All Along," by Paul Blumenthal.

In a disturbing anti-parallel to ISIS' blank slate mentioned above, Blumenthal writes that "Trump wants to be the anti-FDR," tearing down all the great accomplishments Americans achieved during the second half of the 20th century. One would expect it to follow that Trump would rebuild the country in his own image, but Blumenthal suggests he would more likely leave it in ruins:

  … the ordinary rules of democracy and the rule of law must be swept aside in order to turn back the clock to before the New Deal set America on its path of greater equality.

This is what Trump’s second term represents. His goal is to smash the country built during the 20th century and replace it with a country that is insular, less equal, less wealthy, less educated and anti-democratic. His supporters are quite explicit about this.²

Trump has taken to saying he is creating an American golden age. Perhaps; but his followers will soon discover it's all fool's gold.

During Trump's first term his miscellaneous psychoses were analyzed, debated and dissected ad nauseam. If Blumenthal is right, Trump's mental illness has ratcheted up into nihilistic territory, making it more likely that his administration will dissolve into chaos rather than engage in any rebuilding. I am hardly the first person to suggest this. Search on any combination of Trump and nihilism and prepare to be amazed.

It has become a serious question whether American democracy can survive a second ride on the Trump Coaster. Blumenthal concludes his article on a hopeful note, suggesting that "If there is any solace in Trump’s 100 days of destruction, it is that he has destroyed himself in the process." We can hope. As Hamlet says, "'tis a consummation/Devoutly to be wish'd."

But we must do more than hope and wish. We must act.

--- Diogenes, 2 May 2025

  ¹ Mubaraz Ahmed, "Why Does ISIS Destroy Historic Sites?" Tony Blair Institute For Global Change Newslatter, 1 Sept. 2015: https://institute.global/insights/geopolitics-and-security/why-does-isis-destroy-historic-sites. Accessed 2 May 2025.

² Blumenthal, Paul, "Trump's First 100 Days." HuffPost, 30 April 2025: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-100-days-destroy-america_n_68113057e4b0d4c3d8e32149/amp. Accessed 1 May 2025.

 

Defend The Resistance

Don Johnny and his minions have only two responses to truthful criticism: Ignore and downplay it or try to criminalize the act. The latter is a clear act of tyranny.

And in the face of it comes Illinois Governor JB Pritzker. Speaking in New Hampshire Sunday, he unleashed an anti-Trump call to arms that should be resounding from coast to coast. Pritzker spoke of "mass protests" and "disruption." Republicans certainly heard it, and responded predictably, using words like "inflammatory" and "inciting violence."

That's the problem with Republicans. Everything that sounds even vaguely like criticism immediately starts collecting labels meant to inflame the public. There's certainly nothing vague about Pritzker. He goes straight for the jugular. And so he should. 

Right now he is the only orator of significance standing straight up and telling truth to America. Republicans will do all they can to stop him, and they must not be allowed to succeed. 

Of course there are other voices. Bernie Sanders speaks out regularly and forcefully against Trump and his policies, usually from the Senate chamber. Bernie does it well and makes excellent points, but he's no longer the firebrand he once was.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz makes occasional appearances, but too few. He's not quite the orator that Pritzker is, but he sells the message. They must be heard and we must protect them.

This is a beginning, but there are other powerful voices that need to be heard, that need to bring the message of truth against Trump and MAGA and for the United States, its Constitution and its people. Kamala Harris, Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, and Mitt Romney--yes, three of them are Republicans--are nonetheless able to bring out the anti-Trump message, and they could do it powerfully.

So call out your most effective speakers, your organizers, your core of support, and let's get this resistance moving.

La lutte continue!

---Diogenes, 29 April 2025 

Not About Tariffs

 In October of last year The Atlantic ran an article by Charlie Warzel with the lead "I'm Running Out of Ways to Explain How Bad This Is."

The subject was the appalling number of Americans who were believing and buying into disinformation and conspiracy theories. And still are. Ask anyone you know who is not so afflicted, and there is a high probability they will tell you they know someone who is.

The phenomenon is one of the great conundrums of our time. When it started to make the news, I, like many other elitist snobs, assumed that anyone who could possibly believe such rubbish was a knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, uninformed lowlife of questionable mental capacity. But when I discovered that people I knew and respected were buying into such nonsense I was forced to change my mind.

My first response was shock. I had to ask them, "How can you possibly believe this crap?" I never got a credible answer. The answers I did get were mostly in the line of "Well, everybody says so," and when I asked "Who's 'everybody'?" the responses tended to be vague, ranging from the Internet to YouTube to TV personalities (mostly on Fox News; no surprise there.)

The "Everybody says so" line is of course one of DonnyJohn's favorite means of trying to establish credibility for his outrageous lies and overstatements.

One reason we at Vox Populi have been quiet the past several days, is that we've been researching the nature of conspiracy theories and the people who believe in them. It's been maddening. After reading several studies by sources that I trust* the only positive results have been that I'm vindicated in the kinds of questions I've personally asked of conspiracy theorists. And I've learned a new word: "conspiracist."

One graph** I analyzed was an ambitious attempt to conflate results from several studies about conspiracy theories into one package based on the number of theories individuals believed, sorted by 53 sociodemographic definers. I decided to look only at the median response set where slightly more than half of all results landed up. According to my thoroughly unscientific analysis, the majority of people who are very susceptible to belief in conspiracy theories are either Black, Hispanic, or White men or women aged between 18 and 55, without college degrees, and earning a household income lower than or equal to the national median. As with all studies of this sort there were a few outliers: some Black and Hispanic individuals had higher than median income and some Hispanic individuals had college degrees. No gender was specified for the outliers.

The nature of conspiracy theories is easily stated: "an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of an unknown powerful group that may or may not be affiliated with government."  

I may be way off base here, but that definition strikes me as being very similar to the generally accepted reason why early humans invented gods: as a means to explain and rationalize natural phenomena.

Let's look at two hypothetical events.

A conspiracist hears that the stock market has crashed. They say, "Well, there's those blasted deep state manipulators at work again." 

Then let's rewind to--say 70,000 B.C.*** Lightning strikes a nearby tree, creating a huge blast of thunder. Kush, a nearby witness, shaken, says, "Dang! There's the lightning god Mawa trying to spear me again." 

How are these different? Both ascribe fearful incidents to a shadowy party believed to have control over worldly events. Conspiracists blame the mythical deep state. Kush blames Mawa. Is it not the same urge to take control by giving the things we fear a name?

But from where does the urge stem? Conspiracy theories aren't new--I first remember hearing some when I was in fourth grade. Of course we didn't call them that then because most of us took them as gospel, but there they were. In my school I think the source was older siblings or just older kids who told us credulous children those "facts" for fun. In the adult world we call that disinformation.

Since then I've heard some strange things that I simply ignored. But remember that definition above? Conspiracy theories arise to explain "harmful or tragic events." There was a spike in them after the JFK assassination, and as our heroes continued to fall and the Vietnam War continued on its horrid way, conspiracy theories surrounded us, but settled down as the war came to an end and no one else was assassinated.

Then came 9/11 and a spike in conspiracy theories, which ultimately played out. Of course the world was still sane then. When COVID-19 hit, after Americans had suffered through three years of insanity, presidential gibberish, and conspiracy theories flowing from the government itself, the floodgates opened and have not closed.

Like most fabulations, conspiracy theories are based in part on fact. Let's look at the widely believed notion of "chemtrails." A great many people are convinced that contrails--those white cloudlike streamers that follow jet aircraft--contain toxins that are meant to brainwash the population, or change the weather selectively, or implant seeds of alien growth, or … fill in the blank with your favorite phobia.

Fact: Jet aircraft leave contrails, which are nothing more than water vapor that condenses around jet exhaust.

Fact: Governments have used aircraft to disperse a variety of materials from fire retardant to Agent Orange, a known carcinogenic and mutagenic chemical.

Consider: Jet aircraft leave contrails in the atmosphere; Aircraft are known to spray harmful chemicals; therefore Contrails are harmful. 

It's a nice syllogism. A is true; B is true; therefore C is true. The structure is at the heart of many if not most conspiracy theories. The argument is false because of the disjunction between A and B, but good luck telling that to a believer.

Let's have some fun making up our own conspiracy theory. I thought I had invented this one but it was hitting the Internet before I could blink. Here's the argument:

Fact A: JD Vance had an audience with Pope Francis about 11:30 a.m. Easter Sunday, 20 April 2025.

Fact B: Pope Francis died of an apparent stroke about 7:35 a.m. the following day, Monday, 21 April 2025.

Both facts are true. Therefore, …  {draw your own conclusion}

 ---Diogenes, 24 April 2025 

 

* Including The Pew Research Center, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Carsey School of Public Policy, UNH, Nature.com, and Statista.com.

** I am intentionally not naming the project or the publication. The conclusions I draw from it are valid for our purposes here, but are superficial and simplified, and do no justice to a broad, complete, and highly nuanced study.

*** The established date of the Blombos Cave Engravings of South Africa. No one knows when language developed, but the appearance of art suggests the pre-emergence of language. 

 

 

George and Don Redux

For the first time since we established Vox Populi in early 2017 we are repeating a post with very slight, but immensely important, emendations.

This post comparing the grievances of the colonists against George III to those of Americans today against Donald Trump has been updated by the inclusion of two additional paragraphs from the Declaration of Independence. We held off including them until we were certain they were factual. They appear in italics below.

 "A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."--The Declaration of Independence

 We all know that Donny John is a criminal, a crook, and a thug. We also know that he aspires to be another Vladimir Putin, i.e. to be ruler of his country for as long as the people let him get away with it. 

We say here, we will not allow him to get away with it. 

In 1776, when the American colonists were fed up with being bullied by King George III of Great Britain, they sent him a long letter defining how he had offended them. Then, ever so politely, they told him to piss off. We call that document our Declaration of Independence.

To get a little perspective on the nature of two tyrants, George III and DonnyJ, this post offers some comparisons.

From the Declaration, not in order, and in the original language:

1776: "He (George III) has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."

NOW: DOGE.

1776: "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us."

NOW: Beginning 1/20/21 and intermittently thereafter.

1776: "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent," and "For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world."

NOW: Reckless imposition of tariffs, which are in effect taxes on the American people, and have a dampening effect on international trade.

1776: "He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers."

NOW: This is admittedly a bit of a stretch, but relates to DJ and his minions denying election results and ignoring laws they don't like.

1776: "He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."

NOW: Not yet, but he's working on it.

1776: "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation."

NOW: Elon Musk.

1776: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: and
         For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

NOW:  Rendition of many people including American citizens to El Salvador and other places of imprisonment and inhumane treatment. (Added 11 April 2025)

And today we add our own list of grievances.

He (DJT) has elected to govern by fiat, arbitrarily and unilaterally using executive orders rather than adhering to properly debated and ratified legislation.

He has usurped the authority of Congress by arrogating unto himself the powers given to that body by the Constitution.

He has, on unnumbered occasions, openly and brazenly broken his oath to support and defend the Constitution.

He has appointed, contrary to custom and legislation, a foreign national to reduce the federal workforce haphazardly and brutally, without plan or reason.

He has, in violation of the Constitution and laws of this nation, worked to demonize and generally mistreat Americans whose race, color, culture, national origin, or sexual orientation are different from his own.

Having neither religion nor faith himself he criminalizes those who hold non-Christian beliefs.

He has robbed American women of the right to reproductive freedom.

He continues to attempt to overturn sections of the Constitution that guarantee equality and freedom for all.

He works to make the judiciary a tool of the Executive Branch in violation of the Framers' intent.

In clear violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution he has ordered symbols of Judaeo-Christianity to be placed in public school classrooms.

He attempts to make the education of American children a mission of the Executive Branch as a means of inculcating future generations into his cult following known as MAGA.

The Declaration has the last (slightly amended) word:

"The history of the [47th president of the United States] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

"When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government."

--- Diogenes, with an assist from Thomas Jefferson et al.,  3 April 2025

A Slight Hiatus

We apologize for being quiet for a while. Even here in the Vox Populi ivory tower it's necessary to prepare taxes--not that we expect to pay them.

We're also taking this time to catch up research on some foundational documents.

We suggest you use the time you might have spent reading our posts contacting your senators and representatives. Yes, we still believe that's critically important, and so should you. The ship of state is mighty slow to turn, which is why it needs a lot of pushing and persistence.

Keep the faith. We'll be back soon.

---Diogenes, 27 March 2025

 

Can He Do That?

Donny John, members of the Cabinet, his lawyers, who should know better, and his benighted followers are laboring under the misconception that the president has the unlimited authority to act unilaterally on behalf of the government and the people of the United States.

He does not.

Say that again: He. Does. Not.

Let it sink in.

Having endured the abuses of George III, the Framers of the Constitution did all they could to keep the executive weak. Proposals ranged from having multiple executives, to avoid unilateral action, to having none. A faction called anti-Federalists most strongly opposed a single executive fearing "that cabals would develop to ensure his reelection, and that the presidential veto power would be abused. They further feared that presidential power to grant pardons would allow the president to conspire with others in treasonable activities with impunity."¹*

Sound familiar? It took more than two centuries to develop, but the fears of anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry, George Mason, and Samuel Adams have been realized.

Sort of. It is not by accident that Congress is the first branch of government presented in the Constitution. Congress holds the most power in the tripartite government.

So what can the president legally do?

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: [and]

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. [and] 

"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."²

I've included virtually all of the language of Article II sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution lest I be accused of leaving out some critical bit of authority. If you take the time to parse the above paragraphs carefully you'll find the the president of the United States is constitutionally granted 12 powers (or 11 or 13, depending on how you interpret them), of which about half are ceremonial or administrative.

You might also note that he does not have the constitutional authority to do most of what he's doing, and that a lot of the authority he does have is contingent on the advice and consent of Congress. Call your senators and representatives to remind them of this fact and tell them they should stop letting Trump usurp their authority. 

Someone should be looking into that.

---Diogenes, 19 March 2025

 

¹ "The Debate Over The President And The Executive Branch," University of Wisconsin-Madison, Center for the Study of the American Constitution, https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/constitutional-debates/executive-branch/. Accessed 18 March 2025.  

* To get a sense of how great the fear and hatred of a single executive was, read the Declaration of Independence. Although it's couched in civil language it's still a massive putdown and the very essence of contemnation.  https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript .

² The Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Sections 2 and 3. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#page-header Accessed 19 March, 2025. 

Trump v. The Law

We've heard it all our lives: No one is above the law. Then along comes Trump. He is not above the law, but he chooses to act as if he is, and that suffices? No, it does not. So why is there not a stronger response to his defiance of a federal district judge's order not to deport a group of purported criminal Venezuelans?

1. He has the bully pulpit. Heads of state, for good or ill, have almost unlimited access to their country's media outlets, and they usually have at least one in their pocket--Fox News in this case. He also sits atop a pile of minions, sycophants, toadies, brown nosers and ass kissers. That is to say, the Cabinet and majorities in both houses of Congress, all of whom fan out to parrot his words and pronouncements on TV, radio, podcasts, and town meetings.
2. Those airwaves reach the ears of the MAGA Cult. I've learned some interesting things about cults, and the first one is, throw away the stereotypes. All cults are not full of slow witted knuckle draggers, although many have their share. Rather, it's not uncommon to find well educated middle- to upper-middle class people in them, who have the ability to make reasoned decisions about where to place their allegiance. They, including some members of Congress, choose to follow. Any federal officer who chooses to follow Trump by definition forsakes their oath of office. Among those are even some who purport to be Christians. They have obviously forgotten the admonition about serving two masters in Matthew 6:24. Those are the scary ones.
3. MAGA is a cult of personality, a specific variety of cult usually associated with authoritarian regimes. The term was popularized in our time by Nikita Khrushchev, who was concerned about the godlike treatment being given his late predecessor, Josef Stalin. It may seem odd to have one dictator playing down the fame of another, but that's the thing about tyrants. They don't like to share anything. Here's what the Encyclopædia Britannica says about them: "Since the 20th century, 'cult of personality' has been most often used to refer to charismatic leader cults, a type of personality cult which is based on a political leader and designed to enforce their power, magnify their ideology, and legitimize the rule of the government associated with them. Due to the association of these personality cults with autocratic systems such as fascist Germany and the communist Soviet Union [and North Korea, Belarus, et al.], they have developed a strong negative connotation."
   
4. Congress, which the Founding Framers designed as the strongest unit of the tripartite government, is embarrassing itself by perennially being the weakest. For years the two houses have suffered gridlock, partisan warfare, and plain nastiness. Congress has power, which Trump routinely usurps. When are we going to see those congressional muscles flex? Both parties have grievances about the issue, after all. But now the barely majority Republicans preen and gloat without reason and the Democrats quake and quail, afraid to rock the boat. Shame on them both. Between the party organizations, the long-in-the-tooth senior members, the cravens who grovel at Trump's feet, and the Democrats who spend more time praying for a miracle than acting to bring one about, there is (forgive the sexist language) not a man among them. And perhaps there shouldn't be. Wouldn't a Congress composed entirely of women be a wonderful departure?
   
5. The courts have the power of the law behind them. The question is, how robust is that power? If the Constitution has a weak spot it is its age. Not the physical age of the document nor the strength of the ideas it embodies, but its Age: the so-called Age of Reason that gave it birth. It was a time that celebrated the human intellect and finally turned the corner on medieval superstition; that elevated Everyman and deposed kings; that dreamed and imagined. The English term "gentleman" originally meant a social rank bestowed by land ownership. By the Framers' time the term reflected personal qualities rather than rank: honor, courage, and loyalty. The gentlemen who gave us the Constitution made the reasonable assumption that the offices of government would always be filled with people of equal or better quality than themselves. Then along came Trump.
6. The Law: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (Article 6. My emphasis.)

What else need be said? 

--- Diogenes, 18 March 2025

A Government of Pretenders (Part 2 of 2)

"To believe in democracy is to understand that each of our citizens has wisdom and has a voice."-- JD Vance (Yes, he really said that. EU security conference, 2/14/25.)

 John Nance Garner III, FDR's first vice president, bluntly said the office wasn't "worth a bucket of warm piss."

Colorful phrases aside, the vice presidency is well known as the black hole of American politics. Only the best, brightest, and most politically astute escape it intact, ready to fight another day. Vance is unlikely to be one of those.

On February 14 in an early post-inauguration speech to the EU security conference in Munich, Vance tested out his new role as Donny John's attack dog. It didn't go well.

After the requisite patter, JD delivered the punch: Dismissing Russia and China as dangers to Europe, he told the gathering that "what I worry about is the threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America.

"I was struck," he continued in Trumpspeak--long on innuendo and short on fact--"that a former European commissioner went on television recently and sounded delighted that the Romanian government had just annulled an entire election. He warned that if things don’t go to plan, the very same thing could happen in Germany, too."¹

Really? Just what might these "most fundamental . . . values shared with the United States of America" be? Well you may ask. We'll get there.

But first, if you can resist looking too far ahead, read the following paragraph and say the first politician's name that comes into your mind:

What presidential candidate has been described as "pro-Russian, anti-NATO and far-right, and has been described as a right-wing populist, ultranationalist, and conspiracy theorist"?²

If I were a betting man, I might go out on a limb and say that a lot of you named Donny John. If you did, you would be exactly right. But there is one other exactly right answer: Călin Georgescu.

Georgescu, who fits all the above descriptors, took first place in elections for the Romanian presidency held November 24, 2024. Because none of the candidates received more than 50% of the votes, a second round of elections was scheduled for December 8. But just two days before that second round, the Romanian Constitutional Court abruptly threw out the results of the first round and canceled the second.

The context was not the annulment of a completely decided election, as Vance implied, but something more akin to our primaries. The court action was taken December 6, 2024 after formerly classified evidence was brought forward of possible Russian interference in the election in support of Georgescu.

The unnamed former commissioner cited by Vance was Thierry Breton, a former French EU commissioner. His remarks quoted by Vance were originally broadcast on French channel BFMTV on January 9, 2025. Vance cited Breton's comments as "recent" on Feb. 14--more than a month later. That's hardly recent. It suggests that Trump and Vance thought the story would be a good way to ambush the Europeans for allegedly slipping away from those alleged "values shared with the United States of America."

But what did Breton actually say? At no point in the interview does he express "delight" at the annulment of the Romanian election. Rather, he spoke pragmatically about the EU response to election tampering: “The law is there" (and) "The European Commission, which is the guardian of these laws, must enforce them.”³ (The EU has no power to annul individual national elections, but it can prosecute election tampering anywhere within the union).

Breton's comments about German elections sounded nothing like a warning or a threat, and there is no hint of there being "a plan" afoot: “Let's wait and see what happens. Let's keep our cool and enforce our laws in Europe when their circumvention is at risk and non-enforcement could lead to interference.

The concern about the German elections was focused on the far-right AfD (German Alternative) party. As it turned out, AfD took second place in the contest for Bundestag seats, with no problems. At the time of Vance's speech the elections were slightly more than a week away. 

So why was Vance so heated up about German elections? Because the potential threat to them that was so worrying to the EU was none other than Elon Musk. Yep. Donny Boy's golden boy himself. Musk had been supporting AfD for months at the time of the elections, although the exact nature of his support is uncertain.

The Romanian annulment and challenge to the far-right Georgescu must have spooked Musk and/or Trump enough for someone to decide to send Vance to Munich as an intimadator.

The point, which I'm sure you've got by now, is that Vance, second in command of the most corrupt administration in the nation's history, was badgering the democratic states of Europe for not falling in line with Trump. Throughout the speech he picked out specific countries for having "anti-democratic" laws. This from the mouthpiece of the greatest enemy of democracy since Soviet times. In fact, at one point he used the old Soviet term commissar for the EU commissioners, claiming the European nations weren't acting like winners of the Cold War.

Too bad we don't have a mechanism to annul elections.

-- Diogenes, 12 March 2025

 

¹ All Vance quotes from "Full Transcript: VP JD Vance Remarks at the Munich Security Conference," The Singju Post, February 15, 2025 4:36 a.m. Accessed March 9, 2025.

² Wikipedia, Călin Georgescu entry, accessed March 10, 2025.

³ All Breton quotes from transcript of "On l'a fait en Roumanie..." interview with Apolline de Malherbe, Jan. 9, 2025. BFMTV, accessed March 10, 2025. Translation by DeepL.

*** URGENT *** Please Read And Act

Donald Trump has attacked the Bill of Rights.

At Trump's direction, ICE has detained and is now holding Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident of the United States, graduate of Columbia University, and holder of a green card.

Khalil, a Palestinian, was arrested for his alleged actions during protests over the Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza during the spring of 2024. Trump has called him a terrorist, claiming his protests were supportive of terrorism, although he has no known links to any terrorist organization.

He has not been charged with a crime.

The Bill of Rights protects all United States residents regardless of their immigration status. Moreover, despite the promise of über hawk Secretary of State Marco Rubio that "we will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported,” that threat cannot legally be acted upon without cause, and certainly not arbitrarily.

The old saying calling false criminal charges "trumped up" now has a new and sinister meaning. Trump and his administrative goons expect to move against a specific ethnic group in brazen violation of the Constitution and federal law.

It takes only a glimpse at history to see how autocracy gets its teeth into democracy. One seemingly small action, such as Khalil's arrest, begins the slide down the slippery slope that leads to tyranny.

There will be more arrests; the net will get wider, first targeting foreign activists, then native speakers against Trump, then your neighbor and mine.

Khalil's only infraction was to do something Donald Trump didn't like.

Contact your senators and representatives now. Tell them to inform the administration that Khalil's arrest was illegal. If you live in New York, flood the Columbia University switchboard at (212) 854-1754.

--- Diogenes, 11 March 2025

A Government Of Pretenders (Part 1 of 2)

When I was an adolescent trying to figure out what everything meant, I remember frequently encountering the phrase "pretender to the throne" in history books. I couldn't quite figure out the pretender part; as it turns out it has a slightly specialized definition. This is from the Britannica Dictionary: "someone who claims to have the right to a particular title or position (such as king or queen) when others do not agree." Hm--pretty dry. I mean, that bit about others not agreeing refers to wars in some cases; The Wars of the Roses come to mind, and that little thing called The Hundred Years' War was triggered by a thronal dispute. Some sources add that pretenders usually have at least a theoretical claim to the throne, being related to the royal line at some distance--third cousin, for example.

Okay--we're not dealing with the Middle Ages but with 2025 America. We wrote so much about the sins of the execrable Trump during his first term (I can't express how much I hoped I would never use that phrase) that one might think there is nothing left to say. Well, yes and no. Trump still lies, defrauds, obfuscates, inveigles, and deceives.

But does he pretend? Yes, in the broader sense. He claims to be the president of the United States, but there is nothing presidential about him. He may have snagged (legally?) enough votes to give him the title, but he is still nothing but another thuggish New York land developer who will do anything to anyone to stay atop the scrum. 

Trump claimed victory by a landslide. That may be his first pretense of the post-election period. Both major candidates actually received less than 50% of the popular vote; 49.8% for Trump, 49.3% for Kamala Harris. The difference, 2,284,952 votes, or 0.5% of the total, does not a landslide make. 

We all know that everything Trump does will be described in superlatives: best, biggest, fastest, greatest, perfect, etc. So any electoral victory, no matter how close, he will predictably hail as a landslide.

Another of Trump's pretenses is that he's a shrewd businessman, and so will be able to run the government like a business. That philosophy is at the heart of the weirdness called DOGE, which aims to reduce redundancies and bloat. That's where Trump has shown he has no knowledge of governmental processes. Not that our government doesn't have redundancies and bloat, it just doesn't have them to the degree he and Elon Musk are pretending.

Trump is, in fact, the very personification of the world's worst business leader. If I were to list even a small number of Trump's bad business practices this essay would rival a James Michener novel in length, so I'll just go with a few generalities spread over the Sultan of Shame's career: Six corporate bankruptcies; non-payment to innumerable contractors and others to whom money was owed, including Michael Cohen, his true-blue fixer until Trump unceremoniously tossed him under the bus;  tax evasion for uncounted years; scam upon grift upon swindle, trying to peddle everything from Bibles to vodka, even while in the presidency;¹ phony philanthropy: the Trump Foundation existed only to fill his own coffers; and finally, from way back in 1973, while still in his 20s, Trump's real estate company was sued by the Department of Justice for redlining.

Had enough? No? OK, one more.

Trump recently announced the development of a monetary strategic reserve based on cryptocurrencies. Strategic reserves are ultra-safe holdings of materials important to the survival or well-being of a country, or even the world. 

Examples in the U. S. are the National Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the United States Gold Reserve. During the Cold War the Soviet Union maintained a reserve of steam locomotives for use in case of a nuclear war.² In Europe there are reserves of seeds of (theoretically) every plant in the world, kept frozen in Scandinavia, and the Frozen Ark, which keeps viable cells and DNA of endangered animals.

Quick, now, what do all those things have in common?

Right. With no exception, every one of these and other similar reserves contain only tangible items. Crypto? Not so much, unless you want to spend a lot of time weighing subatomic particles.

The prefix crypto means "hidden," and cryptocurrencies are indeed hidden. They exist only as arcane algorithms in computers or stored in digital wallets. They have no intrinsic value and no physical form. Because they exist in digital environments they are subject to all the weaknesses of computers including hacking and EMP.

Some of you may remember a television series from around 2000 called "Dark Angel." The premise of the show's postapocalyptic setting is that terrorists have set off nuclear blasts in the world's money capitals, frying everything that relies on electricity to run--i.e. almost everything. So long, cryptocurrency.

Trump's pretense that he can protect the nation's wealth by creating a cryptocurrency reserve is getting mixed reviews from crypto nerds. 

Given cryptocurrencies' frailness, I suggest hanging on to your Krugerrands. And there's one more reason: If Trump expects to propose a cryptocurrency as legal tender for the USofA, he should consider this first:

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" and "To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States." 

If I were a congressperson I think I would quickly get tired of Trump usurping my authority. Despite what some people who should know better have said, the executive branch of government is not and was never meant to be the most important.

Trump's pretenses are those things he says he can or will do, but which he actually cannot, either due to personal weakness, overreach, or prohibition by law. Now don't go sniggering about the law being weak and the Constitution being only a piece of paper just yet. Be strong and keep the faith.

---Diogenes, 4 March 2025

 

¹ The Constitution, Article II, Section 1, clause 7: "The President shall . . . not receive within that Period [of service] any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them." I do not know if this clause, known as the "domestic emoluments" clause, has generated any case law re: self promotion. Comments are welcome.

² This was a surprisingly good idea from the Soviets.