What Did The "No King" Protests Accomplish?

So, what did we accomplish?

Several Trumpists mockingly brayed that Trump was still the president.

Well...yeah...did they think we were attempting a coup? 

No, we were exercising our First Amendment rights

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.

At least while we still can. 

I have seen criticism, including from one of the speakers at our gathering here in Lincoln, that we should be doing more, that in order to affect real change we need to make the regime uncomfortable, and we need to make ourselves uncomfortable. The individual who led the invocation at our rally noted the paucity of Black and Brown faces—and suggested that White faces were absent during Black Lives Matter protests—and thought the atmosphere seemed more like a party than a protest. He opined that Black, Brown and Native people put their lives on the line for protests like Black Lives Matter, and that Native people were suffering oppression even under Democratic administrations. Many leftists thought the protests were unfocussed and lacked specific demands. One day of protest every few months isn't going to fix anything. 

True enough.  

There is always more that can be done. There is no shortage of things to be outraged about. 

This is the problem I see with progressive/liberal/leftist voices in this country. We're enthralled with the idea of ideological purity. We excoriate Democrats who aren't completely on board with whatever our corner of liberalism has decided is important. Institutional Democrats undermine left-leaning office seekers; leftist activists inveigh against moderate Democrats. Voters stay home or vote third party because a Democratic candidate falls short of fully supporting their favorite cause. We eschew coming together against a common foe, preferring instead to huddle in our nice warm nest of political spotlessness. 

How about we celebrate the No Kings rallies for what they are, instead of booing them for what they aren't? Millions of people stood up and expressed their opposition to authoritarianism, to dictators, to fascism...to kings. Thousands in medium sized cities, hundreds and dozens in tiny municipalities in Trumpist strongholds. Millions of people who recognize that what's happening isn't simply political differences, but an assault on the Constitution and a betrayal of our founding principles. 

We all have to do what we can, which is going to vary from person to person. Some people can run for office, others can organize locally. Those with means can contribute financially. I, like others with blogs, podcasts, or media platforms, use our words. Keep up the pressure, and don't forget to vote.

Do We Have a King?

On Saturday people across the country, and even in other countries, gathered for the "No Kings" protests. I attended the one here in Lincoln Nebraska for a few hours. Afterwards I spend some time perusing social media to see what "the other side" had to say about them Of course, the fact that the Trumpers, and Trump himself, would downplay, and even misrepresent them, came as no surprise. At the nadir of disgustingness, also no surprise, was the Truth Social post by Trump himself. The post featured a video of The Dotard at the controls of a military jet, which had the words "King Trump" emblazoned on the side, bombing the protesters with shit. Most of the other comments sunk merely to the level of childish taunts. 

The commenters who attempted to explain why the protests were a waste of time tended to focus on the fact that, literally, Trump is not a king. He is not a member of a royal family, nor did he inherit his position. He was elected to it. Variations on the theme included references to July 4th being the real "No King" day, or that we haven't actually had a king since 1776. All of that is true, so why have we, the Trump opposition, latched on to the "No King" label? One of the reasons comes from Trump himself. After inserting himself into the congestion pricing debate in New York, he declared that he was canceling it, and added "The King has spoken". He has also posted pictures of himself wearing a royal crown. Most of us, hopefully all of us, realize that Trump is not a literal king. We are using the term as shorthand for the kind of absolute ruler archetype that Trump is aspiring to become. Even those who rebelled against Great Britain in 1776, while using the language of opposition to a king, were in reality opposing the British parliament, since the actual king was at that time in their history not an absolute monarch, and parliament made the rules. It's shorthand, it's an image, intended to convey our protestation against rule by one man. The Trumpers' attempt at cleverness portrays their ignorance of symbolism and nuance. 

There are a number of other words that have been used to describe the Trump presidency: fascist, dictator, Nazi, authoritarian. I have seen some Trump opponents object to some of these because they aren't completely accurate in painting a picture of the regime. Some Jewish friends have pointed out that Trumpism hasn't yet sunk to the level of depravity of the Nazis in World War II; Fascism has a specific meaning that includes the economic in addition to the political side of things. There are even technical differences between an authoritarian and a dictator. This article lists the differences between the two. In short, while both are essentially one-man rule, an authoritarian relies somewhat on a constitutional structure and a dictator controls all aspects of the state and society. The article presents the differences in more detail; Trump's regime resembled the authoritarian model more closely (although I believe the author has defined "dictator" in a way that only the very extreme cases qualify). I have chosen to characterize Trump as a dictator, rather than an authoritarian, mainly because the word has more impact—doesn't sound as academic—and is more recognizable. 

I have had people argue with me that the fact that Trump was elected disqualifies him from the category of dictator, although it is pretty easy to find dictators who were initially elected but eventually accreted all power to themselves, like Putin in Russia. Others have maintained that the fact that we have been able to hold mass protests like Saturday's, or can publicly criticize the regime means that we aren't a dictatorship. I argue that a dictatorship exists on a continuum—not very dictator starts by going full Stalin—but that it builds and gets steadily worse. Yes, the protests were allowed to happen, and our social media accounts haven't been shut down, but the attacks on the First Amendment are already happening—universities are being threatened, former high-ranking officials are being indicted, and the arrests have started with non-citizens. It's only a matter of time. 

In my opinion the defining characteristic of dictatorship in Trump's second term is the fact that he is unilaterally making decisions that are either should be decided jointly with Congress, or are Congress's sole purview. This is entirely separate from the issue of whether what he is doing is beneficial or is harmful for the country, but goes to the question of whether he has the authority to do what he does on his own. This blog post of mine outlines in detail why I think we are now under a dictatorship. But whether you call him a dictator, an authoritarian, a fascist, a Nazi, or a king, the bottom line is that he is acting illegally and extra-constitutionally. He is making unilateral decisions and claiming that, as president, he "can do whatever he wants". This is not how a representative democracy works, not how a constitutional republic works. 

The defenses of Trump have fallen into two main camps. One type of Trumper is fully on board with his policies and is willing to accept anything that puts those policies in effect. A Trumper friend the other day rationalized the blowing up of boats alleged to be smuggling drugs to the United States by stating how reprehensible drug dealing was. I don't disagree with his assessment of drug dealers, but there are several illegal things happening with these attacks. We are using the military in what is essentially a law enforcement capacity. Trump has declared the drug cartels, not just a criminal conspiracy, but a terrorist group supported by the Venezuelan government. We have not be shown any evidence that these boats are running drugs, or in any way connected with drug cartels—we are summarily executing people from a country with whom we are not at war and have not been accused of, let alone convicted of, a crime. We also already have a method to stop drugs coming in by boat: the Coast Guard stops and searches them, and if carrying drugs, subjects them to the legal system. Yet my friend believes the end justifies the means. The other camp believes that the actions that Trump has taken are legal, and believe his assertion that he can do whatever he wants. These people truly believe that the president has the authority to take whatever action he deems fit. They don't understand, and don't want to understand the constitutional nuances. 

So yes, if we are speaking figuratively, we have a monarch wannabe. We have a president who craves the unrestricted power that the absolute monarchs, exercising the divine right of kings, had once upon a time. That's why we march.

The "20 Point" Concept Of A Plan

Trump is once again claiming to have ended a war. Unlike previous claims, this one was actually a war, albeit pretty one-sided, with Israel bombing a territory that is theoretically under its control with little if any war being conducted from the other side, Hamas, the governing entity of Gaza. It's an unalloyed good thing that Gaza is not being bombed into the Stone Age at the moment and the Israeli hostages who aren't dead have been reunited with their families. But it's a long way from a lasting solution. 

Earlier this week I got into a disagreement with a friend who is a Trump cheerleader. I had mentioned in passing that there was a lot of work still to be done, and that we were effectively at the same place we were at January through March of this year when hostages and Palestinian prisoners were being released and a cease fire was in effect. He didn't see it that way, claiming that the two agreements were nothing alike. I'll concede that this week's full framework differs from what was negotiated in January, but there's no guarantee that we will progress past this initial phase, just as we didn't seven months ago. Something that is being overlooked, although it is being reported by reputable news sources, is that neither Israel nor Hamas were present at the signing in Sharm Al-Sheikh. The 20 Point Plan was presented by Trump to Netanyahu, who secured the Knesset's blessing, but Hamas was not given that opportunity; they have also announced publicly that several points were unacceptable to them.

Here are the Twenty Points:

The points themselves are in this font, my comments will be in italics

1. Gaza will be a deradicalized terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbors.

This is an aspiration, a vague goal, not a plan. 

2. Gaza will be redeveloped for the benefit of the people of Gaza, who have suffered more than enough.

This is an aspiration, a vague goal, not a plan. 

3. If both sides agree to this proposal, the war will immediately end. Israeli forces will withdraw to the agreed-upon line to prepare for a hostage release. During this time, all military operations, including aerial and artillery bombardment, will be suspended, and battle lines will remain frozen until conditions are met for the complete staged withdrawal.

This has been achieved

 4. Within 72 hours of Israel publicly accepting this agreement, all hostages, alive and deceased, will be returned.

This has been partially achieved; around a dozen remains have been returned to Israel, there have been problems with the rest

5. Once all hostages are released, Israel will release 250 life sentence prisoners plus 1,700 Gazans who were detained after October 7, 2023, including all women and children detained in that context. For every Israeli hostage whose remains are released, Israel will release the remains of 15 deceased Gazans.

This has been partially achieved; around a dozen remains have been returned to Israel, there have been problems with the rest

6. Once all hostages are returned, Hamas members who commit to peaceful co-existence and to decommission their weapons will be given amnesty. Members of Hamas who wish to leave Gaza will be provided safe passage to receiving countries.

Hamas has stated that they have not agreed to this point

7. Upon acceptance of this agreement, full aid will be immediately sent into the Gaza Strip. At a minimum, aid quantities will be consistent with what was included in the January 19, 2025, agreement regarding humanitarian aid, including rehabilitation of infrastructure (water, electricity, sewage), rehabilitation of hospitals and bakeries, and entry of necessary equipment to remove rubble and open roads.

This has begun

8. Entry of distribution and aid in the Gaza Strip will proceed, without interference from the two parties, through the United Nations and its agencies, and the Red Crescent, in addition to other international institutions not associated in any manner with either party. Opening the Rafah Crossing in both directions will be subject to the same mechanism implemented under the January 19, 2025 agreement.

Restatement of #7

9. Gaza will be governed under the temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee, responsible for delivering the day-to-day running of public services and municipalities for the people in Gaza. This committee will be made up of qualified Palestinians and international experts, with oversight and supervision by a new international transitional body, the “Board of Peace,” which will be headed and chaired by President Donald J. Trump, with other members and heads of state to be announced, including former prime minister Tony Blair. This body will set the framework and handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza until such time as the Palestinian Authority has completed its reform program, as outlined in various proposals, including President Trump’s peace plan in 2020 and the Saudi-French proposal, and can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza. This body will call on best international standards to create modern and efficient governance that serves the people of Gaza and is conducive to attracting investment.

Sounds like a good idea. Are there timelines? The major problem is that Hamas has not agreed to give up the governance of Gaza. 

10. A Trump economic development plan to rebuild and energize Gaza will be created by convening a panel of experts who have helped birth some of the thriving modern miracle cities in the Middle East. Many thoughtful investment proposals and exciting development ideas have been crafted by well-meaning international groups, and will be considered to synthesize the security and governance frameworks to attract and facilitate these investments that will create jobs, opportunity, and hope for future Gaza.

The concept of a plan?

11. A special economic zone will be established with preferred tariff and access rates to be negotiated with participating countries.

When will this be implemented?

12. No one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return. We will encourage people to stay and offer them the opportunity to build a better Gaza.

Okay

13. Hamas and other factions agree to not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly, indirectly, or in any form. All military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities, will be destroyed and not rebuilt. There will be a process of demilitarization of Gaza under the supervision of independent monitors, which will include placing weapons permanently beyond use through an agreed process of decommissioning, and supported by an internationally funded buy back and reintegration program all verified by the independent monitors. New Gaza will be fully committed to building a prosperous economy and to peaceful coexistence with their neighbors.

This looks like a restating of #'s 6 and 9. Who will be responsible for destroying the "terror" infrastructure? 

14. A guarantee will be provided by regional partners to ensure that Hamas, and the factions, comply with their obligations and that New Gaza poses no threat to its neighbors or its people.

What form will this take? Peacekeepers from the militaries of Arab nations?

15. The United States will work with Arab and international partners to develop a temporary International Stabilization Force (ISF) to immediately deploy in Gaza. The ISF will train and provide support to vetted Palestinian police forces in Gaza, and will consult with Jordan and Egypt who have extensive experience in this field. This force will be the long-term internal security solution. The ISF will work with Israel and Egypt to help secure border areas, along with newly trained Palestinian police forces. It is critical to prevent munitions from entering Gaza and to facilitate the rapid and secure flow of goods to rebuild and revitalize Gaza. A deconfliction mechanism will be agreed upon by the parties.

An expansion or restatement of #14. Again, who will be in this ISF? What authority will they have?

16. Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza. As the ISF establishes control and stability, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will withdraw based on standards, milestones, and timeframes linked to demilitarization that will be agreed upon between the IDF, ISF, the guarantors, and the United States, with the objective of a secure Gaza that no longer poses a threat to Israel, Egypt, or its citizens. Practically, the IDF will progressively hand over the Gaza territory it occupies to the ISF according to an agreement they will make with the transitional authority until they are withdrawn completely from Gaza, save for a security perimeter presence that will remain until Gaza is properly secure from any resurgent terror threat.

Nothing really wrong with this, although can you trust Israel to honor this point? They are in the process of effectively annexing the West Bank

17. In the event Hamas delays or rejects this proposal, the above, including the scaled-up aid operation, will proceed in the terror-free areas handed over from the IDF to the ISF.

A tacit admission that this "agreement" was put together without any input from Hamas

18. An interfaith dialogue process will be established based on the values of tolerance and peaceful co-existence to try and change mindsets and narratives of Palestinians and Israelis by emphasizing the benefits that can be derived from peace.

Good luck

19. While Gaza re-development advances and when the PA reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.

Not the first time, but it is nothing but weasel words

20. The United States will establish a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a political horizon for peaceful and prosperous co-existence.

Pretty much a restatement of #'s 18 and 19

Okay, there are six points that are restatements of other points, so it's really a Fourteen Point Plan. 

One of the belligerents (Hamas) had this "agreement" imposed upon them with no input from them, and they have been threatened that it's "comply or else". 

To boil this down to its essentials, this is what the "Plan" is all about:

• Cease Fire (in place for now)
• Repatriation of hostages (completed)
• Return of remains of deceased hostages (partially done)
• Hamas will disarm (Hamas will not do this)
• Hamas will step back from their governing role (Hamas will not do this)
• Humanitarian aid will recommence (started)
• Some kind of neutral governing body will be set up
• Some kind of international peacekeeping force will be set up
• Somebody will undertake rebuilding and redevelopment 
• Somebody will encourage Israelis and Palestinians to be nice to each other

...and implied, if noy actually stated in The Plan:

• If Hamas doesn't comply, Israel, backed by Trump, will recommence bombing Gaza back into the Stone Age

Hey, if this holds, I'll be glad to give Trump credit, I will even refrain from complaining if he gets a Nobel for it...if it holds. But how many "peace plans" have there been over the years? How many times have they been broken? The assumption seems to be, however, that Hamas is the only bad guy in this, with little consideration given to how Israel's actions have contributed to the violence. And even if there isn't any overt military actions, how often are Palestinians engaged in low level attacks on Israel and how often is Israel giving the Palestinians a pretext for those attacks? Outside of any arguments about the legitimacy of Israel itself, Israel has kept the Palestinian territories in limbo since 1967, and until that is redressed, the conflict will continue. 

A Lasting Peace (Again)

Let me start off by saying that anyone who thinks they understand fully the Israel-Palestine issues doesn't.  

Including me. 

Some specific events can unequivocally be categorized: Hamas' October 7th attacks against civilians were horrific. Israel's bombing of Gaza, killing tens of thousands, was horrific. Yet every act of violence can be traced back and rationalized as a response to previous barbarism by the other side. No matter how terrible the retribution, those exacting it always believe that they are justified. 

But you have to begin somewhere.

The beginning is the release of the surviving Israeli hostages (which as of this writing has been accomplished) and the cease fire, which started once the hostages were freed. Both of those things are unambiguously good. The hostages were nothing more than pawns in the hands of Hamas and the war was extremely one-sided in favor of Israel, reducing much of Gaza to rubble, and killing tens of thousands of civilians in pursuit of Hamas fighters. 

Trump is claiming credit for the agreement. How much he had to do with it is debatable. It's true that the United States was part of the mediation between Israel and Hamas, but so was Qatar, Egypt and Turkey. It's likely that Trump finally got tired of being played by Netanyahu, and decided to apply some pressure. If only he had chosen to so earlier. For all his talk about being the "Peace President" he made no effort to restrain Israel's government from their campaign of "kill 'em all and let God sort it out", even suggesting that the path to peace was through Israel's annihilation of Gaza's population. Even today, on a day that was supposed to be about celebrating the first phase of the peace accord, he commented about the contribution our weapons made to the effort.

It's pretty obvious that Trump thinks he should receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Despite his attack on Iran earlier this year and his continuing destruction of  boats of alleged drug traffickers in international waters near Venezuela, he regularly claims to be the "president of peace" and boasts about having ended seven wars (might be eight or nine by now). The problem with that claim is that none of them were actually wars, a few didn't even involve fighting (one was a disagreement over water rights), and one was entirely fictional, involving countries that were nowhere near each other. But we all know that Trump lies and exaggerates. If the killing stops, I don't care if he claims credit. I don't even care if he gets a Nobel. 

Trump has been touting this agreement as an "historic dawn of a new Middle East", and proudly characterizing it as an "end to the war" and a "lasting peace". Netanyahu called it simply a "proposal to end the war and free the hostages". It's not even clear what was in the document that Trump and leaders and representatives from Qatar, Egypt and Turkey signed. What is clear is that not only are there parts to the so-called 20-point plan that have yet to be agreed to, but the underlying conditions that led to the war and the terrorist attack that preceded it, still exist.  Without going into the history of the State of Israel in detail, or debating whether Israel is "legitimate", the current state of affairs is not one that can continue without violence erupting once again. Since 1967 Israel has occupied the West Bank and Gaza (which had previously been occupied by Jordan and Egypt) and the Palestinians have lived in a stateless limbo. They do not have their own state, nor are they citizens of Israel, and therefore have no civil rights. (Palestinians who live within Israel proper are citizens and can vote -- some are members of Parliament). In addition to the war in Gaza, the West Bank, ostensibly Palestinian territory, has seen increasing encroachment by Jewish Israeli "Settlers", often violently taking land and even whole villages from Palestinians, usually with no repercussions. Palestinians have no legal recourse against these depredations. None of this has changed. 

Let's not forget, before we get all giddy about lasting peace in the region, that Trump began his term with a similar "peace" deal in place that would facilitate the freeing of the hostages and a cease fire leading to an end of the war. Negotiations started during President Biden's term with a Trump representative joining the team towards the end, with Trump of course claiming credit for the agreement. Hostages were released, but the cease fire was soon broken with each side blaming the other. Israel is already saying that failure to deliver the remains of the deceased hostages would be viewed as breaking the agreement by Hamas. Hamas is claiming that they don't know the location of all the remains and will have to look for them. And how many cease fires have come and gone over the years that ended up being broken? 

We all hope that war doesn't break out again, but let's hope that justice for the Palestinian people breaks out in the aftermath. 

 

The Daisies in the Dell Will Give Off a Different Smell

This is an update of an article I wrote in July 2024

If Donald Trump were to drop dead of a heart attack today, this country would be a better place. 

In the days after the murder of Charlie Kirk, anyone pointing out how the world was a better place without him, or how he himself said that gun violence was a fair price to be paid for the Second Amendment, was accused of "celebrating" his death. I would imagine that the death of Donald Trump would inspire celebrating that would require no interpretation. 

No - I am not suggesting that political assassination is a good thing nor am I wishing that the bullet had struck a fraction of an inch to the right. I didn't make jokes about the attempt on Trump's life; nor am I sharing "clever" memes. It's not funny. Even as bad as things are now, that's not how to do things. (Although I have to wonder whether the assassination attempt was a false flag where the bystander was collateral damage)

But do I think Trump dying (of natural causes) is a good thing? Absolutely. 

Politics is, and always has been, a dirty business. Idealistic people of all political persuasions run for office but get caught up in the system and often are corrupted to greater or lesser degree. They spend so much time and effort raising money and campaigning for the next election that it's amazing that anything ever gets done. Members of the House of Representatives are up for re-election every two years! But Trump is an entirely different political animal. Policy is beside the point with him and his legions of followers are loyal to him no matter what he does and says. He is upfront about wanting to tear down any semblance of democratic institutions - the danger that he poses is well known and documented in detail. 

But what about Project 2025 and the many Trump supporters who have been taking over the Republican party? Wouldn't they still be a threat? Of course. The anti-abortion movement didn't suddenly spring up in 2017; Mitch McConnell was stealing Supreme Court seats during Obama's time in the White House. But the grass roots support, voters who will turn out for their guy, just wouldn't be there to the same extent without Trump. I was in a cult and have seen first hand what happens to a cult when their charismatic leader dies. And make no mistake about it, Trumpism, "MAGA" if you will, is a cult. Can you see anyone in MAGA-land who can energize the crowds like Trump does? Anyone who can, without fail, cause millions of people to believe their every lie? 

That person does not exist.

The reason that Project 2025 is such a threat is that its authors counted on Trump getting elected. They counted on Trump appointing 2025-friendly cabinet members and staff. Since the Republicans have a majority in both the House and Senate they are counting on Trump bullying members into supporting the program. If the Democrats had won one or both Houses of Congress they would have been counting on Trump using executive orders or novel constitutional interpretations to achieve their goals. It all falls apart without Trump. All the local MAGA election officials, school board members, county board members, they all lose interest and fade away without Trump. Even with Trump, Trumpism isn't the overwhelming choice of the electorate. Trump received more votes than Harris in the last election, but it was a statistical dead heat with Trump receiving slightly less than a majority of votes cast. 

As long as he is alive Trump is a threat. Even if he had lost we'd have seen a repeat of "Stop the Steal". It wouldn't have been Confederate Wannabes and Sentient Oakleys beating up cops with flagpoles, or Rudy Giuliani's hair dye running down his forehead - it would have been real lawyers flooding the zone with lawsuits and challenges just inside the boundaries of legality. Without Trump - no one cares. And you don't have the MAGA cult leader telling them to care. 

Will Project 2025 still exist, still embedded in the government? Will there still be Republicans intent upon dismantling our institutions? Will many rural Americans still be convinced that the Democrats are a bunch of baby-killing, gun grabbing communists? Yes, yes, and yes. But does anyone think that J.D. Vance (or whatever his name is) has the charisma to mesmerize the MAGA cult the way Trump does? In the religious cult that I was in, when the founder died, his top lieutenants fought among themselves and the cult splintered in many small groups, all claiming to be carrying on the legacy of the founder. That's what will happen to the MAGA cult. Vance will claim the MAGA banner, one of the Trump family will do the same; various Republicans will all shout from the rooftops that they are the true heirs of the orange buffoon. 

Trump can't live forever, and the poison that he has spread will take a while to dissipate, but there is no doubt that the country will be a better place without him in it. 

And the daisies in the dell will give off a different smell 'cause Donnie is underneath the ground. *

* Apologies to Rogers and Hammerstein

Filibusters and Government Shutdowns

Nobody likes the filibuster when the other guys are doing it, and everybody likes it when it prevents the other guys from doing things that you don't like. When Democrats were in the majority there was a lot of talk about eliminating the filibuster in order to enshrine a right to abortion in legislation, as well as accomplishing other Democratic priorities. But since Democratic Senators Manchin and Sinema were not in favor, it never got done. Now that the Republicans are in the majority, the Democrats in Congress love the filibuster. 

The Senate rules allow for unlimited debate on any bill. However debate can be ended by a three fifths (60 vote) "cloture" (Cloture = ending debate). A filibuster is an attempt to extend debate indefinitely, therefore effectively killing a bill since it will never be voted upon. In practice the threat of a filibuster is enough to kill a bill if it is determined that there are not 60 votes for cloture, which is why major legislation is said to require 60 votes in the Senate, allowing the minority to kill any bills they don't support. Or simply to hamstring the majority just because. As frustrating as the filibuster, and by extension the 60 vote requirement can be to getting anything done, I believe it serves an important function. 

I am well aware that the filibuster was long used by segregationists to stymie civil rights legislation. It's possibly one of the main reasons that this rule existed in the Senate. However, it is my belief that it serves as a brake on major changes that are supported by a slim or transient majority that might not represent a majority of the electorate. The founders couldn't think of everything (in fact they didn't include the filibuster in the Constitution, that was added later as part of Senate rules) but one thing that they included as part of the design of the new government was a framework to prevent things from preceding without due consideration. There were three branches. The executive and legislative had to come to agreement before legislation could pass and the judicial could override any legislation that was unconstitutional. Even within the legislative branch there were two houses of Congress which may not agree. (Originally Senators were appointed by state governments, not directly elected). Every part of the governing process served as an invitation to stop and think about what was happening and get buy-in from other stakeholders. 

We often hear the phrase, which I first heard from President Obama, "elections have consequences". It's true that whoever wins an election has the constitutional authority to carry out their agenda, but with majorities so thin that a case of the flu can leave the majority party without enough votes to pass their bill, and a president who won a majority of the electoral votes but beat out the main competition by a razor thin margin (with slightly less than 50% of the votes), should we be attempting a major restructuring of government, with changes affecting millions of ordinary Americans, on such a shaky foundation? And I'm not even factoring in the arguably unconstitutional power grab by the president who is attempting to rule by fiat. 

Currently the Senate majority (53 Republicans) is attempting to circumvent the filibuster, and therefore the 60 vote threshold, in order to push through their budget which includes huge changes in the government. A process called reconciliation allows a bill that includes only spending or taxes to proceed with limited debate and no option of a filibuster. One of the requirements is that it be revenue neutral over ten years. The Republicans in 2017 were able to push through their tax plan in this manner. They were able to claim that it was revenue neutral over ten years by having it expire in 2025. Yet here we are seeing an attempt to extend it past this year, so the original terms have been thrown out the window. This year's subversion is using similar creative accounting -- having aspects of the plan -- those that benefit ordinary Americans and not billionaires and corporations -- expire at the end of Trump's term. [Since I first wrote this in May 2025, the budget bill favored by Trump passed with no Democratic votes]

Government policy should embody at least some consistency. Our allies have no idea how to interact with us as each administration seesaws back and forth; domestically we have no idea what the next day will bring -- inflation and stock prices (and with them our 401(k)'s) are at the mercy of a man ignorant of economic reality, and Congress, at least the majority, willing to acquiesce to his whims.  Even aside from questions of constitutionality, we need some bulwark against the tyranny of the (bare) majority. The filibuster is one of those checks.

Right now, the first week of October 2025, we are dealing with a government shutdown. The reason we have government shutdowns at all is that the different factions in Congress usually can't agree how to fund government operations. Not just Republicans vs. Democrats, but disagreements within the majority party. The Republicans, including President Trump, are blaming the Democrats and the Democrats are blaming the Republicans. The Republicans in the House of Representatives, with one Democratic House member joining them, passed what is called a "clean" Continuing Resolution. A Continuing Resolution (CR)  is a bill which simply extends the budget levels from the previous fiscal year. (An essentially meaningless action, since Trump seems to believe he can simply ignore the budgets that Congress passes) A "clean" bill is one where there are no new items attached to it. The Democrats in this case are incorrect in calling it a "dirty" CR, since it doesn't have any new, hidden, Republican dirty tricks. 

Now the CR is in the Senate, where we have filibusters. (There is no option for a filibuster in the House of Representatives). So the Republicans cannot pass the CR with their majority of 53 alone. Assuming all Republicans sign on, they also need 7 Democrats or Independents to vote "yes". Democrats are using this leverage to demand that the ACA subsidies, which are expiring this year, be made permanent, and for cuts to Medicaid made earlier this year be repealed. Republicans are claiming that it is inappropriate to add anything to a clean CR and that ACA subsidies and Medicaid can be negotiated and voted upon separately, and it's the Democrats that are shutting down the government. The Democrats are maintaining that all the Republicans have to do is agree to these two things (in reality, they'd probably accept the ACA subsidies alone), so it's the Republicans who are shutting down the government. 

Two things to consider. First: why, since the Republicans have had control of both houses of Congress all year, were they waiting until the final week of the fiscal year to come up with a new budget...and fail to do so? Passing a CR is an admission that they couldn't agree on a budget, even within the Republican Party. Second: legislation has always been the art of compromise, despite the way the current administration is acting like a conquering army even though the electorate is virtually evenly split. factions within parties use their influence to extract concessions from the majority within their own party, the minority party doing the same to the majority when able. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party often holds the moderate institutional Democrats hostage, while the far right faction seems to call the shots in the more traditionally conservative Republican Party. In this case the Republicans need seven Democrats to vote with them. But why should they? They have the leverage they need to get something for their votes and they're taking it. Why should they believe that a "clean" vote on the ACA subsidies or reversal of Medicaid cuts will go anywhere? They have something that the Republicans need (seven votes) and want something in exchange. That's politics. 

Of course, there's nothing to stop the Republicans from changing the rules and eliminating the filibuster and passing the CR with 53 votes. 

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.