We've Become An Anti-Democratic, Anti-Constitutional Republic

What is a republic? What is a democracy? Are they different? Do the definitions overlap? If you engage at any level of political discourse you have probably had the phrase "We're not a democracy, we're a republic (or constitutional republic). Why the emphatic belief that they're different?

"Republic" comes from the Latin Res Publica, "a matter of the people", whereby the government is a public matter and not the private property of a monarch. In other words, in the strictest interpretation, a republic is simply "not a monarchy". The form that a republic can take is quite varied. In the United States, most people who refer to republics are talking about a representative-constitutional government, whereby the executive and legislators are elected by the people for fixed terms and are guided by laws, in our case, a constitution. However who "the people" are can be circumscribed quite broadly. In the early days of the United States only adult, white, male, landowners were permitted to vote in most states. This eventually gave the way to voting rights for all adults, except some felons. In a Socialist, or Communist, Republic, the will of "the people" is assumed to reside in the ruling party, which has elections, but decides ahead of time who may run. In an Islamic Republic, the Quran and the clergy empowered to interpret it decide what's good for the people. Ancient Greek republics limited voting to a citizen class. 

"Democracy" literally means power or rule of the people. The simplest form of this is Direct Democracy, often referred to as "Mob Rule", where every decision is voted upon by everyone. Obviously this could only work in very limited situations, such as (very) small towns, or people in small isolated groupings. Direct Democracy almost never exists. A less "pure" form of democracy would involve an elected administrator and/or hired technical people who would keep things running, while important decisions would be voted on. The other end of the democracy continuum would be a system indistinguishable from what we defined above as a representative, constitutional republic: you elect representatives for fixed terms, who are then responsible to run the government according to a constitution. Those who are careful about their words refer to this as a democratic republic, or just a democracy for short. Nobody who calls the United States a democracy really believes that it is a direct democracy or thinks that a direct democracy is a good thing for a large nation.

The terms "republic" and "democracy" are not mutual exclusive. 

But why would supporters of the Trump regime want to emphasize so vociferously that we aren't a democracy? 

It's pretty obvious to anyone who pays attention to politics that the United States Constitution, while providing for representative government, is a decidedly anti-democratic document. It was written in decidedly undemocratic times. Although the power of monarchs had been diluted over the previous century, the ruling classes represented only a small sliver of the population of any European country. The Constitution provided for the officers of the government to be elected, but did not define who would be allowed to do the electing. Individual states set the qualifications to be met by anyone who wanted to vote, and most of them restricted the franchise to white male landowners. Neither descendants of the original inhabitants nor enslaved people were considered "people", let alone allowed to vote. Even that restricted electorate was not trusted fully by the founders. The Electoral College system provided a check against "the people" making the "wrong" choice when electing the president. 

The Founders were men of their time. This is not to say that it was morally right to hold the positions that they did, just that it was not unusual. It was perfectly normal in that time to look down upon non-White people as "lesser races", or to believe that it was the natural order for the élite to rule and the common folk to be ruled. 

But times changed. People changed. 

Few seriously believe that only the élite should get to make the decisions for the rest of us, that women should have no rights, that certain people were not "people" within the meaning of the law. We have, in so many ways, moved beyond the ethics and morals of eighteenth century society. So why do we still deify the men who instituted the framework of a nation based on eighteenth century ethics and morals and worship the document that they created?

The Constitution provided within itself a means to change it. In addition to the first ten amendments we collectively refer to as The Bill of Rights it has been amended seventeen times. A few of those of been procedural: changing the way the Vice President is chosen, providing for the direct election of Senators, changing the date a new presidential term begins, limiting a president to two terms; others were hugely consequential: outlawing slavery, prohibiting the denial of voting rights due to gender; and of course alcohol prohibition and its subsequent repeal. 

Changes have been made, but antidemocratic features still persist.

The equal representation of each state in the Senate, where every state, no matter its population, receives two Senate seats, gives small states a voice well out of proportion to their population. The makeup of the House of Representatives is capped at 435 members, despite the overall U.S. population continuing to rise. Since each state is guaranteed at least one representative, no matter how small the population, the population of Congressional districts vary between around 500,000 to over 900,000. This discrepancy carries over to presidential elections where a state's electoral votes equal the total number of members in the House of Representatives plus two Senators. 

For a long time the arc of progress in this country has been toward more democracy. More people enfranchised, fewer barriers to voting, less decision-making in the smoke-filled back rooms. But lately this has been reversed, at least among the White, Christian, "conservative" electorate. Realizing that their hold on the democratic process has been eroded due to demographics they now proudly champion the anti-democratic features of the system. Gerrymandered state legislatures pass laws that make it more difficult to register to vote and eliminate polling places in majority Democratic areas. These same legislatures pass laws that a majority of their citizens are against, and draw electoral maps that guarantee their legislative majority despite receiving a minority of the votes. 

The cry of "We're not a democracy" is not just an argument over semantics. It's a mindset of a demographic that sees their ascendancy in our society reduced or even eliminated, and is determined to retain their power and influence even if they are numerically in the minority. They emphasize the nondemocratic aspects of our governmental structure and ignore anything that hints at honoring the wishes of the majority. 

This is one of the reasons the cult-like supporters of Trump ignore his dictatorial actions: his authoritarianism benefits them. 

Is Opposition to Trump a Cult?

Trump's MAGA movement started being called a cult during his first term, and it's only gotten clearer that his base is very clearly a cult. Standard operating procedure for the Trumpists is to accuse their opponents, or enemies, as they like to say, of the same thing they are being accused of. I'm not going to spend a lot of time backing up my assertion that Trumpism is a cult. I have done that numerous times over the years. Just type "cult" into the search bar for this blog and you'll see numerous articles supporting this thesis. I'm interested in examining whether groups who oppose Trump are in fact cultish also.

There is broad consensus among people who study cults that there are clear warning signs indicating whether a church or movement is a cult:

1. Absolute authoritarianism without accountability
2. Zero tolerance for criticism or questions
3. Lack of meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget
4. Unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions
5. A belief that former followers are always wrong for leaving and there is never a legitimate reason for anyone else to leave
6. Abuse of members
7. Records, books, articles, or programs documenting the abuses of the leader or group
8. Followers feeling they are never able to be “good enough”
9. A belief that the leader is right at all times
10. A belief that the leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or giving validation

Not all of these apply to Trumpism, #3 is a maybe, #6 - probably not, and #8, definitely not (as far as I know), so let's boil them down to the ones that I believe apply, re-number them, and see if they apply to Leftism or even opposition to Trump:

1. Absolute authoritarianism without accountability
2. Zero tolerance for criticism or questions
3. Unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions
4. A belief that former followers are always wrong for leaving and there is never a legitimate reason for anyone else to leave
5. Records, books, articles, or programs documenting the abuses of the leader or group
6. A belief that the leader is right at all times
7. A belief that the leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or giving validation

Some of these could reasonably be applied to Trump opponents:

#2 - there are some segments of "the Left" that are very doctrinaire about their articles of faith. Some anti-Trump people will never believe that Trump is even capable of doing anything right 

#3 - Trump supporters might characterize Trump opponents' fears as unreasonable

#4 - The hardcore Trump opponents might be adamant that changing "sides" is an indicator of insanity

The rest point to a leader, which "the Left" does not have, and opposition to Trump is definitely diffuse. 

Who is telling Trump's opponents to oppose him? The Democrats, the mainstream media? A good portion of Trump opposition don't like the Democrats any more than they like Trump, and trust in the mainstream media is hardly an article of faith among those on the Left. In my opinion, which agrees with the consensus of those who study cults, a true cult requires a leader, or at least a small oligarchy, that gives the orders and decides what constitutes "truth". Trump opposition does not have a leader, it is therefore, in my view, not a cult.

But is it cult-like, or are cult-like behaviors exhibited? Or is it something else? 

There are behaviors that when viewed in isolation or out of context seem similar to cult behavior, here are a few:

• Succumbing to peer pressure
• Self censorship due to fear of being labeled a bigot, racist, sexist, ableist, etc.
• Lack of relevant education (ignorance about the subject)
• Assuming everything a person or group does is bad based on past performance

One of the defining features of today's political climate is that someone's own political leanings often cause them to identify strongly or even exclusively with one political party. This identification is paired with a strong loyalty, similar to how many people feel for their favorite sports team. Like it or not, there are realistically only two viable options politically. The Democratic and Republican parties, for good or for ill, dominate elections. Even though alternatives exist, for a variety of reasons they never get much traction, especially in national elections. You realistically have only two choices. 

Before I get to whether being opposed to Trump is itself cult-like behavior, let's look at whether Leftist politics in general is characterized by cult-like behavior. 

My observation is that Liberals often are obsessed with purity tests. There is often no room for nuance. Office seekers are often held to a standard of either 100 percent support for a position or are excoriated for seeing some middle ground. I understand that for some issues there is no middle ground. You're either for or against, but many more positions require thoughtful examination of the big picture. While this isn't unique to Liberalism, the loudest voices often carry the most weight; and those loud voices are often the ones that are most eager to pin labels on those they disagree with. The result is often self-censorship. Rather than face the wrath of the mob, many people will withhold their opinions, stifle their own voices, because they know that their take on an issue will likely get them tarred as a racist, a transphobe or a Nazi. Peer pressure plays into this as well. Most people want to fit in; if your social group is overwhelmingly a believer in "A", you might hesitate to speak out about "B". 

The one defining non-cult-like characteristic of Liberals-Progressives-Leftists, despite any groupthink or lemming-like behavior they might exhibit, is fragmentation. While there might be factions that are unbending on their opinions on Gaza, or transgender athletes, or autism, there are other factions that disagree. There are Democratic politicians who are indistinguishable from moderate Republicans and there are those who are Democratic Socialists and everything in between. And there is a constituency for them all! You'd think if Liberalism was a cult they'd get their story straight!

Opposition to Trump isn't quite the same. Virtually all subsets of Leftists unanimously oppose him. I have heard Trumpists claim that this opposition is cult-like. I'll stipulate that some opposition to Trump is by people who don't understand the issues, or why he is a malign element, or who are going along with the crowd. Some people will oppose anything Trump does, even if it would have been supported if someone else had done it. Trumpists are convinced that opposition is due to "propaganda" by the mainstream media, or maybe by George Soros. I'm convinced that unalloyed opposition to Trump is justified simply by reading and listening to his own words and observing his actions. Many opponents (myself included) spend what could be described as an inordinate amount of time focusing on Trump because, as president, he's always there. A day can't go by without him saying or doing something objectively harmful as well as unconstitutional. I'll concede that occasionally he'll make a good decision, but those few are swamped by everything else he is doing to turn this country into a dictatorship. 

Labeling opposition to Trump as a cult is nothing more than an attempt by his supporters to deflect from their own cultish behavior, and to discount any resistance as irrational. 

Militarization of Police Functions (ICE, the Marines and The National Guard)

Do I think that we as a nation should control our borders, including apprehending those who attempt to enter without proper authorization? Yes, I do. There's various reasons, including national security, economics, legal issues and infrastructure. 

At the same time do I think that we should broaden the reasons for which we allow immigration, make asylum applications easier, speed up the process and expand the legal infrastructure needed to process the number of people who want to immigrate here? Also yes. 

Our current system is overwhelmed by the numbers of potential immigrants. Even without increasing the quotas and making the requirements for permanent residence more flexible, there aren't enough Border Patrol officers, there aren't enough immigration judges, and the system is too opaque for most people to successfully navigate. That's one of the reasons why we have so much illegal immigration. People who are so desperate to leave the situation that they're in that they will risk everything to sneak in and live under the radar for the rest of their lives, just so that their children can grow up in a safe environment. I also believe that instead of mass deportations we should be finding a way to integrate the undocumented people who are already here into the legal side of our society. If they've been here for decades, working and paying taxes, raising their children and contributing to the community, wouldn't we want them here? 

Something I hear from anti-immigration voices about the undocumented is that they've been here for years or decades, but have made no effort to legalize their status, so they should be unceremoniously deported. The problem with that stance is twofold: once you've come in illegally, if you make your presence known you run the risk of deportation, so many figure it's safer to just ride it out and hope they never get caught. The other side of the coin, at least in the current climate, is that people who have been "doing it the right way" are still being detained and deported. Legal permanent residents, visa holders, asylum applicants, all have been swept up in the ICE raids. Many of these regularly showed up for ICE appointments or court dates, only to be arrested there and subsequently deported. 

The policy of zero tolerance is bad enough, but the implementation has been compared to a secret police operation, and the comparisons are not too much of an exaggeration. 

On one hand ICE is simply implementing government policy. If the president and the Homeland Security Secretary have decided that the law will be enforced to the letter, they are just doing their jobs. Yet, the methods by which ICE is operating smell a lot like the secret police in a dictatorship. Bringing in the National Guard and the military to assist only strengthens this view. Every law enforcement agency in the country identifies its members to the public. If you're arrested, you know the name and badge number of the police officer or sheriff's deputy. Even the FBI, if executing a warrant or an arrest,  will identify themselves. Not ICE. They are wearing masks, not wearing any kind of uniform, nor anything that identifies them as law enforcement officers. They violently restrain people without verifying that they have the right people, they operate without judicial warrants, they violently attack people who film or protest their actions. (Of course, the promised focus on violent criminals isn't happening, they're going after people who go to work, take their kids to school, and show up for court) They refuse to allow (legally mandated) Congressional oversight of their facilities. They are a shadowy outfit with no visible accountability. Pair this with how the National Guard is being sent in to conduct law enforcement support (or trash pickup and gardening duties) in several cities in addition to their partnering with ICE in California and you can see the beginnings of a national police force, even without squinting. 

It's illegal to use the military for domestic law enforcement you say? Well, the military has been at the southern border all year. Not sure what they are doing precisely, but in theory they are backing up the Border Patrol, which is a domestic law enforcement agency. Illegal or not, Trump is doing it and he isn't being stopped. As for the National Guard, when they are activated, they are active duty military. Even when a court ruled that the use of the military in Los Angeles was illegal, it didn't seem to stop Trump from pledging to use them in other cities. Is it so much of a stretch to imagine that the president who is operating as a dictator would use ICE as the template for a national police force to arrest those engaging in criticism of him?

Dictators gonna dictate. 

NOW Do You Believe We're In a Dictatorship?

Occasionally a Trump sympathizer will tell me, along with a laughing emoji, that I should stop watching CNN, or otherwise suggest that I am regurgitating opinions spread by "liberal media". I came down hard recently on a friend who couldn't believe that any objective viewing of the facts wouldn't lead to the same exact opinions that he had. But anyone who follows this blog knows that, if anything, I have been ahead of the curve when it comes to identifying cult-like behavior and authoritarianism within Trumpworld. Sometimes I wonder what took the New York Times and other supposedly liberal media so long to see the light. 

In Trump's first term, it was obvious that he wanted to rule as an authoritarian. His background, both as the head of a privately owned business and an entitled rich kid, caused him to act with impunity and unaccountability. What kept him from going full dictator was the people he surrounded himself with. While it is true that he had the Republican members of Congress cowed, and there were certainly sycophants in his cabinet, there were enough people in positions of responsibility who would not let him do what he wanted to do if it was illegal or unconstitutional. There were a few "adults in the room". The second term is another story. There are few if any responsible people who are willing to put the country's wellbeing over fealty to Trump. The danger is twofold: in addition to the obvious incompetents like Robert Kennedy and Pete Hegseth, the next layer of officials below those requiring Senate confirmation are conservative policy geeks from think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, the creator of project 2025. These people have been planning for decades for the time when they had a president who would be willing to enact their radical agenda of "dismantling the administrative state". They are also architects of the "Unitary Executive Theory" (Some thoughts on those items here: "Dictators Gonna Dictate") 

The second source of danger is Trump's volatile personality. His staff kept him provided with a steady stream of Executive Orders, which despite Trump's insistence that he knew nothing about Project 2025, were straight out of the Project 2025 playbook. But in addition to the precision strikes against the structure of government and the unilateral reversal of decades of Congressional action, Trump is still a loose cannon who makes decisions with little regard, not only for the consequences, but for easily verified facts. His entire tariff policy, for example, is based upon his ignorance of what balance of trade is. 

I first identified Trump's actions as dictatorial on January 20, 2025. The flood of Executive Orders overturned existing laws; virtually dismantled whole departments; fired people he had no authority to fire, including government lawyers and military JAG officers who might be tempted to point out illegality; opened up IRS records to a bunch of computer hackers under the leadership of a businessman with a questionable grasp of reality; nullified the 14th Amendment to the Constitution; in addition to actions that were certainly not priorities, like renaming the Gulf of Mexico. All of this was being done on his sole authority. 

But wait, there's more!

Trump, during his campaign last year, was very vocal about exacting retribution against his perceived enemies. He walked his stance partly back by saying that the retribution would be his election victory, but he and his main aides constantly talked about investigating and prosecuting those who stood against him, including President Biden. His supporters sometimes cheered on this promise of revenge, while elected officials usually downplayed his words as merely campaign rhetoric. This was somewhat believable in that, for all his yelling about "locking up" Secretary of State Clinton for imaginary crimes, he did not follow through during his first term. The second term would be different. 

In the last few months Trump has pushed his Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate anyone who investigated or prosecuted him, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, former FBI Director James Comey and Special Counsel Jack Smith. At least one prosecutor who declined to continue an investigation due to a complete lack of evidence was summarily fired. Scores of FBI and DOJ agents and lawyers were fired or demoted because they were part of investigations into Trump. His FBI Director Kash "Crazy Eyes" Patel is infamous for publishing a Trump "enemies list" is his book. William Pulte, head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, is using his access to mortgage records to provide the DOJ with potential targets for mortgage fraud allegations. Trump has been very vocal about his reasoning for this push: they investigated him, they indicted him, they impeached him -- it's time for payback. Turning our law enforcement agencies into vehicles for personal revenge is a sure sign that we are in a dictatorship. 

The apparent transformation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) into an unaccountable secret police organization is another sign of dictatorship. I haven't spent a lot of keystrokes on that subject yet, but anonymous masked men in unmarked vehicles, deporting people without due process, scooping up legal residents and even citizens in their nets, is turning out to be not what we thought it would be. To give this subject the attention it deserves, I'll devote a separate article to it. 

Finally, the one that blew up this week: free speech. 

I wrote a few words about free speech and the First Amendment in the article The Cost of The First Amendment. In just a few days it has gotten worse. Most of what we have seen is a right wing version of cancel culture. As abhorrent as attempts by private citizens to stifle free speech can be, it's still legal in most cases. What's not legal is the government, or any part of it, abridging freedom of speech. That's exactly what happened in the case of Jimmy Kimmel. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the government agency tasked with regulating broadcasting, threatened the network Kimmel was on, ABC, and its parent company, Disney, with "doing things the hard way" if Kimmel was not fired. Kimmel was supposedly removed for "celebrating Charlie Kirk's death", when in reality all he did was criticize "the MAGA crowd" for doing everything they could to convince themselves the killer wasn't one of them, he subsequently mocked Trump for focusing on the ballroom construction when asked about the shooting.  But even if Kimmel had overtly mocked Kirk and celebrated his death, that's not illegal! 

Follow up remarks from both Bondi and Trump are concerning, even frightening. Bondi initially drew a distinction between "free speech" and "hate speech", but changed her tune later, correctly pointing out that there is no legal definition of hate speech, and it's not illegal. Trump and his most vocal supporters are defining "hate speech" as anything critical of Trump. He has stated that critical coverage of him is illegal, and that "...when 97 percent of the stories are bad about a person, it's no longer free speech". He has been emboldened by several settlements in response to his lawsuits against media companies (falsely claiming to have "won" his suits). He has come out in favor of "canceling" other late night comedians as well. He is mulling over taking away broadcast licenses of companies that offend him. Stephen Miller is calling liberal organizations a "vast terror movement" and vowing to "identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy" them using every resource of Homeland Security and other government agencies. It's no longer a matter of "oh that's just campaign rhetoric", it's happening now. 

Ironically, the only thing that reliably moderates Trump's dictatorial actions is Trump's personality. He is ignorant, incompetent, and inconsistent, and frequently doesn't follow through on his threats. But I wouldn't put too much hope in that. The dictatorship is already in full swing. 

The Cost of the First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

~~ First Amendment to the United States Constitution

The newest craziness coming out of the Trump Regime involves "abridging the freedom of speech". They want to see people who speak or write negatively about Charlie Kirk to "suffer the consequences" of their words. They're on the lookout for anyone who posts anything on social media "celebrating" Kirk's murder and are sending that information to employers, urging them to be fired. As reprehensible as this is, in many places it's completely legal. It's usually perfectly legal in most jurisdictions to fire someone for any reason, as long it's not for being part of a protected class. The federally recognized protected classes are:

• Race and Color
• Religion
• National (or Ethic) Origin
• Sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation and gender identity - although I suspect the last one will be ended by the regime)
• Age Over 40 (in employment)
• Disability
• Genetic Information
• Veteran/Military Status

The use of the term "protected class" is often misunderstood. For instance, within the "Race and Color" class, it does not mean that a minority race is a protected class of people; it means that race is a prohibited reason for discrimination in employment. Same for "Sex"; it does not mean that women are a protected class, but that the sex of an employee cannot be the basis of discrimination. 

Note that "Political Beliefs" is not a class protected from employment discrimination. Nor is "Saying Offensive Things on the Internet". At one of my past jobs I was written up for some of my internet activity, although it was not for political opinions and I wasn't fired for it. You can be summarily fired in most states for saying things on social media, whether about Charlie Kirk or not, and you have no recourse. Your neighbors can take offense at your posts and alert your employer, and there's nothing you can do about it. 

What I find hypocritical about all of this, is that not long ago the right wingers in the United States were mostly opposed to this kind of behavior. They were dead set against "cancel culture" and were in the main First Amendment absolutists. During the 2024 election I had several discussions with a Trumper friend on his Facebook page. He was very concerned about remarks Vice President Harris had made years before that he interpreted as censorship. The article I wrote about it can be found here. My friend, and people like him, were very much up in arms about this supposed censorship. Right wing Twitter ("X" by then) was overflowing with outrage about how the Democrats would take away our First Amendment right to free speech. Elon's takeover of Twitter was partly fueled by anger over harmful  disinformation being flagged and removed, as well as Trump's ban from the platform. Now, in the aftermath of the murder of one of their own, they have changed their position and are fervent cheerleaders for, not only cancel culture, but government censorship. 

A word about cancel culture:

We mostly heard about people, usually celebrities, being "canceled" because they said or did something that some people found offensive. The offended would spread the word, and before you know it tours get canceled, book sales drop, or in the case of politicians, their career is ended. But the thing is, whatever the motivation of the "canceler", it was just information. I could hear about some stupid thing my Senator did or said when he was in college and decide whether he still had my vote. I could read about the comedy routine from years back that wouldn't fly today and make my own decision whether I could let it slide. I could determine whether I thought that a joke was indeed hateful toward a subgroup of society or not. We could all take that information and act upon it or not. We could choose to give the information credence, resolve to assign it importance or just shrug our shoulders and move on. 

But that's all in the context of private citizens exercising their First Amendment right, even though they're attempting to negate another citizen's First Amendment right. What we have escalated to is the government targeting individuals for their speech. Trump, as well as several members of his dictatorial regime, have announced that they will be identifying anyone "celebrating" the death of Charlie Kirk. I don't know how they decide where the line is when defining "celebrating". If I say that the world is a better place without him, is that celebrating? If I quote his own hateful speech, is that celebrating? If I point out the moral vacuousness of he and his ilk, is that celebrating?  Trump Attorney General Pam Bondi has vowed to crack down on liberal "hate speech". To give an example of how hate speech might be defined this NY Daily News article recounts ABC reporter Jonathan Karl's question to Trump about where the line between "hate speech" and "free speech" lay. Trump's response was “She’d probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly, it’s hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart.”

There you go. Asking a question of the dictator is hate speech and the questioner will be "gone after". Trump followed up with: “Your company paid me $16 million for a form of hate speech, so maybe they’ll have to go after you,” - in apparent reference to the settlement where George Stephanopoulos described a judgment against Trump as rape, when the judgment was legally defined as sexual abuse, not rape. Vice President J.D. Vance (or whatever his name is) called on people to report their neighbors who "celebrate Kirk's death" to their employers to get them fired. Stephen Miller, another high ranking cog in the regime, called for the dismantling of left wing institutions, calling them a "vast domestic terrorist movement,". 

Funny how Trump's words on and leading up to January Sixth weren't incitement according to the right, but a liberal's or a Democrat's words of opposition are terroristic. 

Sounds like abridging to me.

Dictators gonna dictate.

The Cost of The Second Amendment

"I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."

~~ Charlie Kirk April 25, 2023

 On September 10, 2025, at 12:23 Mountain Daylight Time Charlie Kirk was shot and killed, allegedly by Tyler Robinson. I was on my way home, driving through New Mexico and listening to a podcast about the band Deep Purple, so I was completely in the dark about the killing. When I continued my journey the next day I started to notice that flags were at half mast and assumed that it was in recognition of 9-11. It was not. Trump had ordered flags to be lowered in honor of Kirk. Late in the day I checked messages on Facebook and saw numerous references to the murder. (I won't call it an assassination, which implies the killing of a political leader: a president or other high government official. It is however, a murder).

As of today, we do not know the motive for the killing. It is reasonable to assume that it had something, indeed everything, to do with Kirk's politics and the way that he communicated those politics. Since Kirk was such a prominent voice on the right, is was reasonable to assume that the motivation of the killer was leftist ideology, or at least opposition to Kirk's ideology. 

Reasonable to assume. 

It's nothing more than an assumption.

We don't know.

Right now, everyone is grasping at straws, flailing around, trying to interpret the meager evidence that is publicly available. Certain phrases inscribed on the bullet casings suggest leftist anti-fascist ideology, which alternatively may have been online gaming references; someone suggested that these same phrases indicated that the killer was a supporter of a rival right wing figure. A family member supposedly told law enforcement that Robinson claimed that Kirk was "spreading hate". Robinson was registered to vote, but unaffiliated with any political party and had not voted in any election. He's reportedly not cooperating with law enforcement. 

Summary: WE DON'T KNOW

But what if we did know? What should we do? 

The same thing we're doing now: charge the alleged killer with murder and whatever related pile-on charges they can come up with, and put him on trial. And if he's convicted by a jury of his peers, enact whatever penalty the law requires. Does it matter what his motivation was? Whether he was "radicalized" by "leftist ideology", or by allegiance to another right wing figure, or if he was just a freakin' nut, Robinson was the one who made the decision to pull the trigger and kill another human being and he's the one who should be held accountable. No one else.

But what about "the left's" incitement to violence, to "dehumanizing" the Trumpists? There's a lot of discussion about the proper use of the descriptors Nazi, Fascist, Dictator, and Authoritarian as applied to Trump and his coterie. A friend recently wrote about why what the Trump regime is doing doesn't sink to the level of Nazism, and she had a point. Fascism, includes Nazism, but they aren't identical. I know there are some technical definitions of Fascism that don't fit the current administration either. I have consistently use the term "dictatorship" from Day One. Trump's attempts, sometimes successful, sometimes not, to institute one-man rule over the machinery of government certainly fit even the strictest definition of dictator. Most publicly available comments by progressives range from calling-it-like-they-see-it labeling of Trump as a Nazi or a Fascist to mockery of his disjointed speaking style, to pointing out the harm that his policies bring. Democratic "leaders" don't even do that, still lulled into the dream that "we can all get along". Maybe there's fringe figures calling for violence, but I haven't seen them. 

In contrast, the right, including Republican party leaders and elected office holders and including the President of the United States, have incited violence, mostly ambiguously worded, but in some instances quite overtly. These instances are well documented. Violence against opponents of the regime is well documented also. The attack on Paul Pelosi, which Republican leaders laughed about and mocked; to the assassination of a Minnesota legislator and her husband and the non-fatal shooting of her colleague, which Trump ignored, declining to attend the funeral; the attack on the Capitol in 2021; and the plot to kidnap the Governor of Michigan. It's quite disingenuous and hypocritical for the Trumpublicans to wring their hands over hate speech. 

Trump is a dictator. Not a particularly effective one, but a dictator just the same. One thing any dictator worth his salt will do is turn a tragedy into an excuse to crack down on dissent, to exert more control. And that's what he's talking about doing. Even before we knew who the killer was, let alone why he did it, Trump and his cult were raging about "dismantling and uprooting" left-wing groups. "Major investigations are underway" into leftist groups supposedly tied to the murder. Supposedly. More assumptions. 

Adjacent to official actions, Kirk stans are mobilizing to expose anyone who publicly speaks disrespectfully of Kirk, calling for them to be doxed or fired from their jobs. In many cases these people are simply quoting Kirk, or pointing out the hatefulness of his words and positions, not celebrating his death. What's hypocritical is that most of these right wingers were First Amendment absolutists until recently. They were in favor of the waves of disinformation on Twitter and were rabidly against any infringement of free speech, at least against their own kind.  Cancel culture was reviled. They even claim that Kirk was killed for exercising his right to free speech. Yet here they are, advocating for  "cancelling" those that they disagree with. 

Charlie Kirk was a horrible human being. Over and above his support for the dictator-in-chief, he showed zero empathy for the people killed in gun violence every year, including the many school children. In fact he claimed that empathy was "harmful and made up". He said birth control made women angry and bitter; 10 year old rape victims should be forced to give birth; he assumed that if the pilot was Black he was probably unqualified; the 1965 Civil Rights Act was "a mistake"; "Jewish money" was ruining America; gay people were destructive and should be put to death; he encouraged his followers to bail out Paul Pelosi's attacker. His so-called campus debates were anything but. He did take questions from people who disagreed with him, but it was usually just a setup for public humiliation of "woke" students not used to public speaking or debate. Like a comedian handling a heckler. 

Despite my belief that he was a loathsome feeder upon hate and divisiveness, he had every right to say what he said, and had every expectation that he wouldn't be murdered for speaking his mind. I'll never celebrate someone being killed like a rabid animal in the street...but you know what? Charlie Kirk thought it was part of the cost of having the Second Amendment.