A Line in the Sand, that would be nice, too bad Taco Man is at the other end of the stick.
Skip to content
Bottom Line:
Mayor Muriel Bowser rejects the narrative of rising crime. She’s implemented youth curfews, and critics warn that Trump’s approach risks eroding democratic governance, not improving safety.
Posts in Category: Commentary
Gerrymandering: Why Do Rules Exist If No One Follows Them?
/
RSS Feed
Gerrymandering: Why Do Rules Exist If No One Follows Them?
If no one is playing by the rules, why do the rules exist?
That may sound like a rhetorical jab, but it’s an honest question. The United States was founded on principles designed to safeguard fairness, accountability, and representation. The Constitution and the framework of government were meant to ensure that no group could hoard power unchecked, and that citizens’ voices would shape the course of the nation.
But gerrymandering—when politicians redraw voting districts to give themselves an advantage—cuts against the very heart of those ideals. It is a quiet form of tyranny, a manipulation of the democratic process for partisan gain. Instead of voters choosing their representatives, representatives are choosing their voters.
When either party engages in gerrymandering, they are not just breaking some technical rule of fair play. They are undermining the moral foundation of democracy. The rules of representative government only matter if leaders commit to follow them in good faith. If they don’t, then how are we any better than the monarchs, oligarchs, and tyrants we once rejected?
Some defend the practice as just “part of the game.” But democracy is not a game. The purpose of elections is to reflect the will of the people—not to manipulate it. When politicians normalize bending or breaking the rules for personal advantage, they don’t just weaken their opponents; they weaken faith in the entire system. And once that faith is gone, it’s far harder to restore than it is to destroy.
The danger of gerrymandering is not only unfair maps. It’s the message it sends: that rules are optional, that power is the only goal, and that principles can be cast aside when inconvenient. If that’s the lesson, then the ideals written into our founding documents become nothing more than decorative words on old parchment.
So the question remains: if no one is playing by the rules, why do the rules exist? Perhaps the answer is that the rules are waiting—for us. They are waiting for citizens to demand better, for courts to enforce standards of fairness, and for leaders to rediscover the humility that comes with serving rather than ruling.
The rules still exist because they are the difference between democracy and tyranny. But they will only matter if we decide to make them matter.
Share this:
Gerrymandering, The Cowards Confession
On
- Commentary, Politics
/
RSS Feed
Gerrymandering: The Coward’s Confession
“Gerrymandering isn’t politics, it’s theft.”
“It’s how cowards confess they can’t win fair and square.”
“It’s cheating, dressed up in legal paperwork.”
Gerrymandering isn’t politics, it’s theft. It’s the art of stealing voters’ voices before they ever reach the ballot box. A strong leader convinces the people. A weak leader redraws the lines until only his loyalists remain.
MAGA, well the girly boys finally show their pedal pushers.
Let’s be clear: this isn’t clever strategy, it’s cowardice. It’s the political equivalent of moving the goalposts because you’re afraid to lose a fair fight. Even when done in retaliation, it’s still rigging — a confession that persuasion has failed, that truth has lost, and that the only path left is manipulation.
The real crime is not just that districts are warped beyond recognition. It’s that a president — the one person sworn to serve the whole country — openly asked for it. Not because it serves democracy, but because he knows he wouldn’t stand a chance in an honest contest.
Gerrymandering is not a show of strength. It is the signature of weakness, stamped across the map of our democracy.
It’s the Coward’s Tool
Gerrymandering as a politician’s admission that they can’t win a fair fight.
Line of attack: “It’s the political equivalent of asking to move the goalposts because you’re afraid of losing.”
Cheating the People
Compare it to rigging a casino — the house always wins, but the citizens are the ones paying.
It’s not just local greed, it’s a national power grab.
“Strong leaders convince the people. Weak ones redraw the lines until only their friends are left.”
Sorry MAGA but is this what Trump has turned you into?
Share this:
The Most Important Political Move You Can Make
/
RSS Feed
Check the Values and the Agenda of the Political Party You Think You Are
A long time ago, in a land far, far away, I found out my father was a Republican. And if he was a Republican, well, that’s what I was too.
For decades I voted the party line. There was only one box I shaded in, and it was the one that said “Republican.” After a while, I started to actually think about who I was voting for, not just what. I began making independent decisions — something most of us never do. But I’ll admit, on the issues I wasn’t up on, I still voted the party.
This little note about Charlton Heston — one of the actors I admired — makes sense to me. Not because he changed from being a Democrat to a Republican, but because of why he changed:
“By the 1980s, Heston supported gun rights and changed his political affiliation from Democratic to Republican. When asked why, he replied, ‘I didn’t change. The Democratic Party changed.’ In 1987, he first registered as a Republican.”
Now, let’s take a step back — because this isn’t about Democrats or Republicans. It’s about us.
When I look at MAGA and what they’ve done to the GOP, I feel despair. They’re so extreme I can’t feel ownership of that party anymore. Over the years I’ve probably become more liberal, or maybe I’ve just admitted it to myself. Either way, I don’t consider myself a Republican — not if being Republican means I have to be MAGA.
I have friends on the other side of the fence — long-time Democrats who are not “woke.” We’ve let the extremes take over on both sides.
So, back to the most important political move you can make: discover who you are, not who you thought you were.
There are plenty of political-leaning questionnaires online — some good, some just trying to get your money. Take a couple of them. Don’t be afraid of the labels. They don’t really matter. What matters is that they can give you some insight and help you find a direction based on your beliefs — not Bubba’s, and not Karen from the HOA.
Once you’ve found your center, celebrate. And if you feel generous for the push, I drink Jim Beam.
Share this:
The Hidden Cost of Calling Out the National Guard
On
- Commentary, The Fallout
/
RSS Feed
Okay, call out the National Guard, we can hear the echoing across our living rooms, in our cars and during breaks at work. But what does that cost and more importantly what does it do to the weekend warriors that aren’t trained for civil disorder or prepared financially to be forced to leave their paying employment so Trump can beat his chest and scream he saved us all, Yes, saved us from another overblown or made up crisis.
1. Cost to Guardsmen
A. Personal Income & Career Impact
-
Many Guardsmen are part-time reservists and also work civilian jobs.
-
When called to active duty, they may lose pay from their civilian employers if it isn’t fully covered. The federal law USERRA protects jobs, but gaps in pay and benefits can still occur.
-
For longer deployments, career projects, side hustles, or family responsibilities can suffer.
B. Stress & Mental Health
-
Sudden activation to a politically charged situation (like a presidential order) can cause stress and moral dilemmas, especially if the orders conflict with their personal beliefs.
-
Deployments can disrupt family life and schooling for their children.
C. Physical Risk
-
Guardsmen are trained, but they are often not equipped or trained for full-scale combat or civil unrest policing at the same level as active-duty soldiers.
-
Exposure to rioting, tear gas, or physical confrontations carries real risk.
2. Cost to Taxpayers / Public
A. Direct Financial Cost
-
Pay & benefits for Guardsmen during activation come from federal or state budgets. This includes base pay, hazard pay, travel, and per diem.
-
Activation costs include transportation, housing, equipment, fuel, and logistical support — often millions for large-scale operations.
B. Opportunity Cost
-
When Guardsmen are deployed, they are unavailable for their usual missions: disaster relief, local emergencies, and community support.
-
Local services may be understaffed, slowing responses to fires, floods, or other emergencies.
C. Political / Social Cost
-
Deploying troops for political purposes can undermine public trust in the Guard’s neutrality.
-
Using part-time citizen-soldiers in domestic political maneuvers can affect morale and recruitment long-term.
Example: Washington, D.C. (Jan 6, 2021 & other activations)
-
Guard troops were activated with little notice, often sleeping in parking garages or unheated gyms, sometimes for weeks.
-
Costs ran into tens of millions of dollars for housing, meals, and pay.
-
Many Guardsmen reported stress, PTSD symptoms, and resentment over being caught in politically charged deployments.
Bottom line: When Trump or any politician calls out the National Guard, the burden isn’t abstract — it hits individual soldiers, their families, local communities, and taxpayers. The part-time nature of the Guard amplifies these costs because they are not career combat troops; they are civilians asked to drop everything for politically motivated missions.
So, for concise recap:
The Hidden Cost of Calling Out the National Guard
Who They Are:
-
Part-time citizen-soldiers with civilian jobs, families, and responsibilities.
-
Not full-time combat troops — often under-equipped for large-scale civil unrest.
Cost to Guardsmen:
-
Income & Career: Potential loss of civilian pay or disruption of work.
-
Family & Life: Missed time with children, disrupted routines, and personal stress.
-
Physical & Mental Risk: Exposure to unrest, injury, and long-term stress/PTSD.
Cost to Taxpayers:
-
Financial: Base pay, hazard pay, per diem, housing, transport — millions per activation.
-
Opportunity: Guards unavailable for fires, floods, and disaster response.
-
Political / Social: Morale and recruitment take a hit; public trust erodes.
Example: Washington, D.C. (Jan 6, 2021)
-
Guardsmen slept in gyms and parking garages, deployed under stressful conditions for weeks.
-
Deployment cost tens of millions; personal and community disruption was immense.
Bottom Line:
Calling out the National Guard isn’t abstract theater. It’s a real burden on people, families, communities, and taxpayers, amplified when used for politically motivated missions rather than true emergencies.
During the January 2021 inauguration of President Joe Biden, thousands of National Guard troops were deployed to Washington, D.C., to provide security following the January 6 Capitol breach. Initially, many Guardsmen were housed within the Capitol complex itself, including the Capitol Visitor Center and other areas, where they rested between shifts. However, shortly after the inauguration, these troops were ordered to vacate the Capitol and were relocated to a nearby parking garage. Reports indicated that the garage lacked adequate facilities, with only one electrical outlet and two bathrooms for thousands of soldiers, leading to widespread criticism.
After bipartisan outrage from lawmakers, the Guardsmen were allowed to return to the Capitol complex and were provided with better accommodations. Some were also allowed to rest in nearby hotels. These events highlighted concerns about the treatment and conditions faced by National Guard members during domestic deployments.
In ending, Guardsmen are not full time soldiers, they are not trained for insurrection and most importantly, they are forced to make their friends and neighbors the enemy.
But if it makes potus feel the mostus, go for it.
Putz, oops, did I say that?
Share this:
Trumps Line in The Sand
/
RSS Feed
So there you have it, short, sour and simple. You do know we have enabled comments. If you want to spew hate, stay away. And that doesn’t matter which side you hate. If you want to discuss solutions, then welcome.
Share this:
When Crime Is a Convenient Excuse: Trump’s Selective Martial Law Target List
On
- Commentary, The Fallout
/
RSS Feed
When Crime Is a Convenient Excuse: Trump’s Selective Martial Law Target List
Donald Trump’s recent threats to impose martial law have sent chills through the nation. But behind the bluster and fear-mongering lies a disturbingly clear political agenda: targeting cities that dare to resist his authority while ignoring those that align with it — no matter their crime rates.
Take a look at the cities Trump has publicly set his sights on: Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle. These are places branded as “woke,” fiercely protective of immigrant rights, and openly hostile to the kind of mass deportations and ICE raids Trump champions. For him, these cities aren’t just trouble spots — they are the heart of an “Evil Empire” that must be brought to heel.
The justification? Sky-high crime rates. Trump and his allies wield “crime” like a weapon, confident that most Americans won’t bother checking the facts. But here’s the inconvenient truth: violent crime in these cities has often been declining in recent years. While not crime-free by any means, these urban centers aren’t the out-of-control war zones Trump portrays.
Meanwhile, some of the most dangerous cities in America fly under the radar. St. Louis, Missouri, with violent crime rates far exceeding those in Seattle or Portland, remains off Trump’s radar. Little Rock, Arkansas, another high-crime city nestled in a deeply Republican state, doesn’t warrant a mention in Trump’s crackdown plans. Why? Because these cities don’t challenge his authority. They don’t defy his immigration policies. They are loyal to the political order he demands.
If crime were truly the issue, the list of cities facing martial law would look very different. But it doesn’t. Instead, the threat of military intervention is wielded as a blunt instrument of political control — reserved for cities that resist, ignored where loyalty prevails.
This is not about safety or justice. It’s about power.
The real danger lies not in the streets of America’s “woke” cities but in the unchecked ambitions of a man eager to silence dissent under the guise of law and order.
So next time you hear “crime” used as a reason to militarize a city, remember: crime only matters when it votes blue.
Share this:
Martial Law, if you Allow It. Kiss Freedom Goodbye
On
- Commentary, The Fallout
/
RSS Feed
He is doing it again, he tried it in Los Angeles and was pushed back. He was swamped with No King protests and changed the subject, deflection 101. He let it cool down. You have to remember that Trump relies on the proven two week rule. That we have an attention span that’s less than two weeks, and we are stupid.
Trump has repeatedly declared he is the smartest man in the room and in his words. “They don’t know what the fuck they are doing” and you thought he was talking about the Middle East.
It’s time to get those no king signs out of the garage or trash because it has just begun again and he isn’t going to stop trying.
Let me ask you one question, “What idiot would spend two hundred million dollars to add a Ball Room nobody else wants if he wasn’t planning on using it for a long, long, time?”
What is to be talked about in a moment should have just a little preface.
-
What the Data Tells Us About Washington DC
Crime Is Actually Falling
Violent crime in D.C. is down significantly:
26% drop in 2025 compared to last year
12% decline in homicides, 29% drop in robberies
The city hit a 30-year low in violent crime in 2024 (The Biden Administration)
What’s Trump Saying and Proposing
Federal Takeover Talk …
Trump has publicly threatened to federalize D.C.—essentially overriding the Home Rule Act if city authorities don’t get crime under control. He’s exploring whether Congress could revoke local autonomy
National Guard & Police Control …
He has floated deploying the National Guard, potentially taking control of D.C.’s police force, and even sending homeless individuals out of the city. Flyers on Truth Social warn of making the city “safe” by replacing local with federal order
Crime Surge Claims …
Trump framed the city as being “out of control,” referencing a high-profile attempted carjacking of Edward “Big Balls” Coristine, to justify his hardline approach.
Now to repeat the preface.
What the Data Tells Us
Crime Is Actually Falling
Violent crime in D.C. is down significantly:
26% drop in 2025 compared to last year
12% decline in homicides, 29% drop in robberies
The city hit a 30-year low in violent crime in 2024
Local Officials Push Back
Mayor Muriel Bowser rejects the narrative of rising crime. She’s implemented youth curfews, and critics warn that Trump’s approach risks eroding democratic governance, not improving safety.
What’s Actually Happening On the Ground
Federal Law Enforcement Surge
The White House has ordered a weeklong deployment of federal officers from over a dozen agencies—including the FBI, ATF, DEA, and Capitol Police—in “high-traffic tourist areas” of the city
Minimal Visible Impact So Far
Early observations found little overt difference from usual policing levels. However, one report indicates 450 federal officers were active on a recent Saturday night, though city police say the situation remains stable.
Bottom Line
While Trump is ramping up rhetoric around an alleged crime wave in D.C., the actual numbers tell a different story: crime rates are falling, not rising. His push for federal control—via the National Guard, eviction of homeless camps, and taking over local policing—appears to be a power play rather than an urgent safety measure. Whether Congress or courts would allow such actions remains highly uncertain.
So back to Martial Law, Washington DC is not a State and it has considerably less control over actions that can be taken by Trump, But what Washington D.C. does have, is us. The people of the United States of America. Don’t just sit there and say that this is their problem because it is a problem for all of us.
We stopped him in Los Angeles, we need to stop him in Washington D.C. Oh, hell, we just need to stop him.
Share this:
Martial Law, The Beginning of the End
On
- Commentary, The Fallout
/
RSS Feed
Historically, authoritarians rarely start with sweeping power grabs. They start with one example that “makes sense to the public” and then expand it until it becomes the new normal.
Here’s the blunt truth:
If Trump uses crime in Washington, D.C. as his pretext for asserting direct federal control, the concern is that it could be less about solving the crime problem and more about creating a legal and political foothold to normalize bypassing local authority.
D.C. is unique — it’s not a state, so Congress already has extraordinary oversight powers. That makes it a tempting testing ground for executive overreach. If a president successfully assumes direct operational control of its government or police under the banner of “restoring order,” it could set a precedent for similar moves elsewhere, especially in Democrat-led cities.
The risk here isn’t just what happens to D.C. — it’s the potential for a proof of concept for federalized policing or even quasi-martial law in targeted regions. If crime statistics are manipulated or selectively publicized, he could manufacture justification for interventions in other cities by declaring them “failed” or “in insurrection.”
That’s why civil liberties lawyers, local leaders, and constitutional scholars are already warning that the real fight isn’t over crime numbers — it’s over whether we accept the normalization of federal takeovers of local governance. Once that door is cracked open, closing it again could be nearly impossible without a major court battle or political shift.
If Trump used crime in D.C. as the opening wedge for federal intervention, the big question is whether it would be a contained, temporary measure or the start of a broader power grab. Based on his past rhetoric, his leadership style, and the constitutional tools available to him, here’s how it could unfold:
Step-by-Step Risk Progression
| Step | What Could Happen | Why It Matters | Risks of Escalation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Targeted D.C. Takeover | Federalizes D.C. police, replaces local leadership, suspends city control “to restore law and order.” | Sets precedent for bypassing local government. | Establishes legal and political justification for further interventions. |
| 2. Expansion to Other Cities | Uses similar “emergency” declarations in Chicago, Philadelphia, Atlanta, etc., citing rising crime. | Selective targeting of cities could be politically motivated. | Blurs the line between legitimate crime control and partisan enforcement. |
| 3. Creation of a Federal Security Force | Deploys DHS, DOJ task forces, or even military units in urban areas. | Federal policing on a broad scale is rare and controversial. | Public acceptance could normalize permanent federal presence. |
| 4. Invocation of the Insurrection Act | Claims civil unrest or political violence requires military deployment inside U.S. borders. | Law allows bypassing governors and legislatures. | Opens door to nationwide martial-law-like conditions without declaring martial law. |
| 5. Soft Martial Law | Controls protests, media access, curfews, and assembly rights “for public safety.” | Framed as temporary, but lacks clear end date. | Can become permanent under “continuing emergency” logic. |
| 6. Consolidation of Power | Redefines “domestic threats” to include political opposition or journalists. | Destroys checks and balances at the practical level. | Moves from crime control to authoritarian rule. |
Why This Isn’t Far-Fetched
-
Past behavior: Trump has already floated ideas of “sending in the military” during protests, and praised leaders who used harsh crackdowns.
-
Legal mechanisms exist: The Insurrection Act and certain emergency powers are broad enough to be abused if courts don’t act quickly.
-
Psychological strategy: Framing the moves as “temporary safety measures” makes them easier for the public to accept.
-
Weak local defenses: D.C. is not a state, so it has fewer legal protections against federal takeover.
10% government stake in Intel – Good or Bad
1. What Trump Did
The administration reportedly secured a 10% government stake in Intel, and has intervened directly in markets.
This marks a shift from the Reagan-era conservative doctrine of deregulation, privatization, and “government out of the way.”
Instead, it leans toward industrial policy—the government actively picking winners and reshaping industries.
2. How It Changes Things
Potential Benefits
Strategic control: In critical sectors like semiconductors, government ownership could ensure national security and reduce reliance on foreign supply chains (esp. China).
Public leverage: A stake means taxpayers share in profits, not just subsidies. If Intel succeeds, the public could benefit directly.
Rapid mobilization: In crises (like war or supply chain breakdown), the government can direct resources more efficiently.
Potential Risks
Erosion of free-market discipline: When government owns part of a company, it can distort competition and reward political allies rather than the best performers.
Politicization of business: Decisions might be driven by electoral or partisan considerations, not long-term stability.
Crony capitalism: The line between legitimate national security intervention and favoritism for friends/donors becomes blurry.
3. Implications for Democracy
This is where it gets tricky:
Better for democracy (if done transparently):
If citizens see that government stakes mean accountability, profit-sharing, and national resilience, it could rebuild trust that democracy delivers.
Industrial policy, done openly, shows government is actively trying to protect workers, jobs, and sovereignty.
Worse for democracy (if done opaquely):
If Trump (or any leader) can direct state capital toward allies, donors, or politically useful industries, it becomes a tool of authoritarian-style control.
Concentrated power in the executive branch—deciding which companies thrive—weakens the role of Congress, markets, and watchdog institutions.
Citizens could lose faith that the economy is fair, seeing it instead as rigged by political power.
4. Historical Context
Reagan: Deregulation + belief in private sector efficiency.
FDR / WWII: Heavy government involvement in production—seen as necessary in an existential crisis.
China today: State-capitalist model—government directs investment, controls key industries, uses companies for geopolitical leverage.
Trump’s move edges the U.S. slightly toward the China model, away from the Reagan model.
5. The Democratic Bottom Line
If transparent and accountable → could strengthen democracy by showing government works for the people.
If secretive and politicized → could weaken democracy by concentrating power and blurring public/private interests.
So the real test isn’t just the Intel stake itself—it’s whether it’s managed with checks, balances, and public oversight, or whether it becomes another lever of personal power.
Trump’s Economic Shift: What It Means for Democracy
The Change
Trump is moving away from Reagan-era free-market conservatism by having the government take direct stakes in companies (Intel being the headline example) and intervening in markets.
Potentially Strengthens Democracy (Pro Case)
Shared Prosperity – If taxpayers hold equity, the public—not just private investors—benefits from profits.
National Security – Strategic industries (like semiconductors) stay resilient and less dependent on adversarial nations (esp. China).
Visible Action – Citizens see government actively solving problems, restoring some trust that democracy “delivers.”
Crisis Readiness – In moments of emergency, government stakes allow faster mobilization than free markets alone.
Analogy: FDR’s New Deal and WWII mobilization — heavy government involvement, but ultimately seen as strengthening democracy by protecting people and the nation.
Potentially Weakens Democracy (Con Case)
Politicized Economy – Leaders may favor allies, donors, or swing-state industries, eroding faith in fairness.
Crony Capitalism – Public stakes become a cover for funneling wealth or contracts to insiders.
Erosion of Checks & Balances – The executive, not Congress or independent regulators, ends up controlling major sectors of the economy.
Authoritarian Drift – Citizens may see government as a tool of one leader’s power rather than an impartial institution.
Analogy: China’s state-capitalist model — stability and strength for a time, but at the cost of transparency and individual freedom.
The Democratic Bottom Line
If transparent and accountable → this could look like a 21st-century New Deal: democracy showing it can adapt, protect, and deliver for its people.
If opaque and self-serving → this could be one more step toward government by strongman, where the economy is bent to political loyalty instead of public good
Here’s what public sources indicate regarding whether Donald Trump or his family personally hold any financial interest in Intel:
No Personal Financial Stake Reported
All credible reporting confirms that the 10% stake in Intel is held by the U.S. government, not any individual, including Trump or his family.
Financed through grants: The government converted roughly $11 billion from previously allocated CHIPS and Secure Enclave grants into a non-voting equity stake—approximately 9.9% to 10% of Intel.
Passive investment: The government’s ownership is described as passive—no board seats, no governance or information rights, and agreement to vote with Intel’s board in most cases.
Not Trump-family property: None of the reports mention any personal ownership by Trump or his family. The capital involved came strictly from federal funds, not private assets.
Financial Disclosure Context
Trump’s known investment profile: Public records and reporting show he has diversified holdings across multiple sectors (stocks, real estate, funds, etc.), including historical past holdings in companies like Intel. Yet, there is no indication that he or his family currently hold private Intel stock or a stake in this government-led deal.
The recent Intel stake is clearly portrayed as a federal government transaction, with no intermingling of Trump’s personal finances.
Summary Table
Bottom Line
There is no public information or credible report showing that Trump or his family has any personal financial interest or greed in Intel related to this deal.
The 10% stake is strictly a federal government investment, backed by grants—not private funds.
.
Share this:
Like this: