Posts in Category: Commentary

USAID and Those That Will Die

On - Commentary, The Fallout

Michael and Sarah Walker

USAID and Those That Will Die

00:00 / 3:35

When Reform Is Needed, But Retraction Becomes a Death Sentence

No one is denying it: serious misconduct has occurred inside USAID. There have been failures of oversight, mismanagement, and moments of corruption that rightly demand accountability. Some officials abused public trust, others looked the other way, and safeguards that should have protected taxpayer dollars often failed to do so.

But there is a profound difference between cleaning house and burning the house down. And by choosing to freeze, dismantle, or politically sideline USAID rather than reform it, we are not punishing the guilty — we are abandoning the innocent.

Corruption is Real — But So Is the Need

Yes, the system must be fixed. But when the U.S. government pulls back aid in response to internal wrongdoing, the ones who suffer aren’t the bureaucrats in D.C. — they are families in Sudan, Gaza, Haiti, and dozens of fragile states.

These are people who depended on shipments of food, vaccines, water purification, and basic medical supplies. To them, USAID was not a political entity. It was hope.

Reform Is Possible — and Necessary

Every institution with global reach eventually confronts its own failures. The answer is not to dismantle it, but to build back better — with transparency, accountability, and structural integrity.

Reform could mean:

Independent auditing and reporting,
Whistleblower protections,
Contracting transparency,
Career experts, not political appointees, in charge of field decisions.

These are not radical ideas. They are the very practices that prevent corruption from becoming systemic.

The Cost of Retraction

If the decision to punish a few leads to the withdrawal of aid from millions, then the punishment is not justice — it is negligence.

When vaccines spoil in warehouses, when famine goes unaddressed, when clean water systems shut down because funds are frozen, the cost is counted not in dollars, but in deaths. Quiet deaths. Children who never make the news. Entire regions that fall further into desperation.

What We Stand For

The United States doesn’t have to be the world’s savior. But it should not become a silent bystander to suffering it once helped prevent. A tarnished agency can be repaired. A global reputation — and the lives lost along the way — may not be so easily recovered.

In Closing

Yes, there was wrongdoing. Yes, there must be consequences. But if we confuse justice with abandonment, we risk turning a scandal into a catastrophe. USAID must change — but it must survive.

Because in much of the world, our ability to help is not a symbol of power.
It’s a lifeline.

ICE and the Gestapo: Structural Parallels in Authoritarian Policing

On - Commentary, The Fallout

Michael and Sarah Walker

ICE and the Gestapo: Structural Parallels in Authoritarian Policing

00:00 / 5:41

ICE and the Gestapo: Structural Parallels in Authoritarian Policing

The comparison between ICE under the Trump administration and Nazi Germany’s Gestapo is not a moral equivalency — it’s a historical warning. The two agencies differ enormously in scale, ideology, and brutality. But understanding the tactical similarities in how they enforced policy through fear, secrecy, and dehumanization is essential in preventing future abuses of government power.

1. Purpose-Built Agencies for “Internal Threats”

The Gestapo (Geheime Staatspolizei) was created in 1933 to suppress dissent and control populations deemed dangerous to the Nazi regime.
ICE, formed in 2003 under DHS, intensified under the Trump administration, expanding its mission from immigration enforcement to include aggressive workplace raids, mass deportations, and surveillance.

Similarity: Both agencies were designed or adapted to target specific populations deemed threatening — often based on identity, ideology, or origin.

2. Fear-Based Compliance and Raids

The Gestapo operated without judicial oversight, conducting raids, detentions, and interrogations often without evidence or warrants.
Under Trump, ICE carrys out high-profile raids in homes, schools, hospitals, and workplaces — often with vague warrants or none at all. Family separations at the border added to the psychological warfare.

Similarity: Both institutions wielded fear as a tool of social control, where the possibility of arrest was enough to drive people into hiding or silence.

3. Dehumanization of the Target Population

The Gestapo labeled Jews, Roma, LGBTQ+ individuals, and political dissidents as Untermenschen — subhuman — to justify extrajudicial brutality.
Trump-era rhetoric around immigrants often uses dehumanizing language: “animals,” “infestation,” and “invaders.” This language gave ICE cover to operate with public tolerance, if not support.

Similarity: Dehumanization served as a precursor to policy justification — once a group is seen as “less than,” extreme actions against them feel permissible.

4. Legal Loopholes and Lack of Oversight

The Gestapo had full power to arrest without judicial review under the 1936 Gestapo Law.
ICE under Trump operates in legal gray zones: detaining asylum seekers indefinitely, fast-tracking deportations, and sidestepping local law enforcement cooperation through federal supremacy.

Similarity: The erosion of checks and balances enabled both to act beyond typical rule-of-law constraints.

5. Public Spectacle and Message Control

The Gestapo used visible arrests and disappearances as deterrents.
ICE’s public raids — especially those timed near political moments — created a media spectacle, reinforcing political narratives about crime, sovereignty, and national identity.

Similarity: Both systems used public visibility to spread fear, not just enforce law.

Important Distinctions

Scale and intent: The Gestapo enforced a totalitarian regime, committed genocide, and worked outside any ethical framework. ICE, despite its excesses, operated within a constitutional democracy.
Resistance and visibility: ICE faces ongoing resistance from U.S. courts, media, advocacy groups, and whistleblowers. The Gestapo operated with near-total impunity.

Why These Comparisons Matter

Comparing modern agencies to past authoritarian tools doesn’t mean they are the same — it means we must recognize when democratic institutions begin to drift toward unchecked power.

ICE’s trajectory under Trump wasn’t inevitable — it is policy-driven. And history reminds us that authoritarianism isn’t always born in revolutions — it often grows through bureaucracy, fear, and “just doing my job.”

Conclusion

The Trump-era ICE is not the Gestapo. But it sometimes acts with disturbing echoes of how authoritarian regimes uses policing agencies to enforce ideology, sow fear, and target vulnerable populations. Drawing those lines isn’t hyperbole — it’s a democratic responsibility.

Balancing Green Ambitions with Real-World Energy Needs

On - Commentary, purple

In the race toward a cleaner, more sustainable future, renewable energy has emerged as a powerful symbol of progress. Solar, wind, hydro, and other green sources promise lower emissions, energy independence, and long-term cost savings. But as the world transitions, it’s important to acknowledge a reality that often gets lost in the noise: fossil fuels aren’t going away overnight.

The responsible path forward isn’t about choosing one over the other — it’s about balance.

Renewables are growing rapidly, but they face limits: energy storage remains expensive, wind and solar are intermittent, and our existing infrastructure wasn’t built to accommodate them at scale. Meanwhile, fossil fuels—especially natural gas—still provide critical baseload power, keep transportation systems moving, and heat millions of homes during extreme weather.

Rather than vilifying fossil fuels entirely, we should demand smarter use. Cleaner-burning technologies, stricter emissions standards, and investments in carbon capture can reduce their impact while giving renewables time to scale. Likewise, green energy advocates must continue pushing for innovation, better grids, and more equitable access.

This isn’t a war between old and new — it’s a relay. Fossil fuels carried the baton for centuries. Now, we need them to hand it off responsibly while renewable energy systems build the strength to run the next leg. Balance is not compromise — it’s the only way forward.

After the initial post I recieved 2 thoughtful replies, both with merit. I could rewrite the article to address the validity of what was brought up, or post the the replies here and my response. I will do the latter.

@nerd7132.bsky.social‬

they use gas plants in the US for baseline nowadays

‪@mpellatt.bsky.social‬

An opinion piece with no recognition of how the fossil fuel industry has behaved anything but “responsibly” to date, and offering no evidence that the leopard can change its spots. Also misunderstands current use of fossil fuel (at least in UK) – CCGT gas plants are used for peaking, not baseline.

Reply from me

Thanks for the thoughtful replies — really appreciate the added perspective.

You’re absolutely right that the role of gas plants varies by region. In the U.S., many combined-cycle plants are still used for baseload, while in the UK, natural gas has shifted more toward peaking support as renewables take the lead. It’s a good reminder that energy strategies aren’t one-size-fits-all.

And yes — the fossil fuel industry’s track record of resisting change deserves criticism. I wasn’t trying to gloss over that history, just focusing on how we move forward now with the tools and systems we still rely on. Calling for responsible use shouldn’t be confused with giving anyone a free pass.

The main point stands: this is a transition, not a binary switch. Balance and accountability can — and should — coexist.

It’s Not About Zelensky — It’s About Stopping Putin

On - Commentary

Michael and Sarah Walker

It’s Not About Zelensky — It’s About Stopping Putin

00:00 / 2:40

As war fatigue sets in and political narratives twist public perception, it’s important to clarify one thing: supporting Ukraine is not about idolizing President Volodymyr Zelensky. It’s about stopping Vladimir Putin.

You don’t have to romanticize Ukraine’s government or approve of every decision it makes. Like any young democracy, Ukraine has flaws — corruption, internal divisions, and growing pains. But that’s not what’s at stake here. What’s at stake is the world’s response to a violent, revisionist autocrat using brute force to redraw borders and extinguish a sovereign nation.

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine wasn’t provoked by NATO expansion or western meddling — it was fueled by a belief that smaller, weaker neighbors don’t deserve true independence. That belief has no place in a modern world. If left unchecked, it sends a dangerous message to other authoritarian regimes: you can crush your neighbor, massacre civilians, and still be tolerated on the world stage.

This isn’t a regional squabble. It’s a test of whether democratic nations will still stand together in the face of naked aggression. It’s about whether might makes right becomes the new normal.

Zelensky, for all his flaws, has become a symbol of national resistance — not because he’s perfect, but because he stayed and fought while bombs fell on his capital. He didn’t start this war. Putin did. And when the dust settles, history won’t ask whether Zelensky’s approval ratings were high. It will ask whether the world let a dictator conquer a free nation by force.

This is bigger than one man. This is about defending the basic idea that borders aren’t erased by tanks, and that people have the right to choose their own leaders, even in countries far from our own.

You don’t have to love Zelensky to believe in Ukraine’s right to exist — and in the world’s duty to say: no more.

Part 2 – The Awakening of the Woke

On - Commentary, purple

I’m building a political cartoon arc that speaks to the people everyone else has forgotten — the voters who are done with performative politics and ready to rebuild, quietly and seriously.

Through 3 six-panel series (and growing), I show the parallel awakenings of MAGA and Woke Americans — not to each other’s flaws, but to their shared betrayal. From there, they move toward reluctant cooperation.

Part 1 – When MAGA Loyalty Meets Reality

Part 2 – The Awakening of the Woke Here

Part 3 – Come Together

Collaborate or feature this work through your channels to reach Americans ready to engage from the middle.

“The Awakening of the Woke”

They marched for justice.
They voted with purpose.
They believed in something better.

The Woke generation wasn’t born from privilege or apathy — it was built from protest, passion, and principle. They wanted a world that was more fair, more kind, more conscious. And for a while, it felt like progress was finally being made.

But the deeper they went, the more the cracks began to show.

Words like “equity,” “representation,” and “inclusion” became currency — not values.
Corporate sponsors, celebrity hashtags, and carefully scripted candidates told them exactly what they wanted to hear — while behind closed doors, very little actually changed.

Student debt ballooned. Housing costs soared. Foreign wars expanded.
And the people who promised change?
They padded their resumes, their portfolios, and their polling numbers.

What began as a moral movement slowly became a marketing campaign.

And then the disillusionment set in.

This isn’t a story about flipping sides or giving up.
It’s a story about waking up — about realizing that being “on the right side of history” means little if history keeps repeating itself.

This cartoon series doesn’t mock idealism. It mourns what was done to it.
And it dares to ask: what happens when the Woke stop performing and start rebuilding?

The answer, as it turns out, may be the same one their so-called opponents have already begun to discover:

That truth is louder than branding.
That justice isn’t handed down — it’s built together.
And that real change doesn’t begin in party headquarters.
It begins at a table — across from someone you were once told to hate.

“Voices of Promise” (The Idealism)

We believed in justice. We believed we were being heard.

“The Curtain Falls” (The Betrayal)

We believed the words. But we watched what they did.

“Off the Podium” (Facing the Truth)

We were never enemies. Just two sides of a broken promise.

“Identity Inc.” (Realization of Exploitation)

“They didn’t co-opt our values. They monetized them.”

“The Bubble Bursts” (Disillusionment Becomes Anger)

“When slogans became sedatives.”

“Hard Conversations” (Facing Reality Together)

“Real change starts when the scripts stop.”

Part 3 – Come Together

On - Commentary, purple

I’m building a political cartoon arc that speaks to the people everyone else has forgotten — the voters who are done with performative politics and ready to rebuild, quietly and seriously.