Yes indeed. I will write my representative again. And I won’t stop talking to MAGA friends and family. Questions work better than assertions, as openers - even loaded questions. “What if Biden’s library were accepting a 400m gift from Qatar, while he was aiming to gut social security?” “Who do you think pays tariffs?” “Do you really think America should replace China’s sweatshops with its own?” “Do you really think we should abandon our allies and alliances to Russian aggression?”
I’ve been saying all along that the end game for the evildoers “behind” all this is one-party corrupt rule & a long-envisioned rewrite of the Constitution to establish permanent autocracy.
Aye. Oligarchy is their aim. And Trump is following Putin’s playbook all the way. But the level of willful stupidity in the public is something to behold.
This is a phenomenal piece. You captured both the big picture of Republican policy over time and the extraordinary destruction this bill promises to deliver. I appreciate your years of experience in political commentary, because I had no gauge on how horrible this budget bill is, compared to ones from the past. I knew it was awful and would rip care from the most vulnerable while delivering a bonanza to the ultra-rich. But you put it in perspective. It's ugly and cruel, and I have been thinking the same thing - the only way Republicans would be so devoid of concern about mid-terms is that they believe elections are a thing of the past. Shame on every one of them.
Karen, your kind words mean a lot to me. I enjoy engaging with comments because only by listening can I gauge the impact of my work. We unfortunately live in a world of instant fixes. Unfortunately, there is no instant solution to this problem. It's likely to take a generation to unravel this mess, and sadly, that's not something people like to hear. However, the truth hurts sometimes, and it's not my job to offer a tissue for your tears, though I'm quite happy to do so. It's about forensically examining the chessboard and providing the history and context for you, the reader, to engage in critical thinking on the issues at hand. As you can see from the comments, big picture thinking does not always resonate, but that's the beauty of engaging in conversation.
Thanks again for your contribution. I appreciate it.
I appreciate you engaging with your readers. There's enough breaking news and political analysis of discrete events out there already. We need all that, and I enjoy reading on those topics too. But if we ever hope to build a renewed future for our nation, we have to understand the whole picture. How we got here. Who it benefits. And how we can solve the underlying problems that delivered us to this moment. I wish it were as "simple" as removing Donald Trump from power, but it's not. As depressing as it is, we are part of a global trend, and we have some serious systemic issues here at home. The problems run deep. I think that addressing them will be the life work of our younger generations, assisted by the rest of us. Keep up the fine work.
This puppet ain't "challenging the norms," he's violating Ethics and destroying the integrity of the office and risking the nation's security. You're tired and you seem resigned. Take a break from your normalizing all this! If you're not mad enough to challenge normalization, take a pause! Legitimate authority can and must challenge norms. This is illegitimate and a violation of the Constitution that protects the nation from exactly this! Don't normalize it!
I appreciate your comment, not because I think you're right, but because outrage is understandable in this current climate. I must admit to feeling a bit hurt at being described as a puppet, but you have every right to your opinion.
In these times of performative politics and rage tweets, I learned long ago that rage limits a message to the echo chamber comfort blanket some liberal voices need to obtain affirmation for their rage. Mine is a very deliberate approach, which I understand may not appeal to your moral outrage, but believe me, there is an art to distil that outrage into a message that can be more widely received.
Rest assured, I am beyond outraged, but I have learned in the university of life that being loud is not the answer. We find ourselves in this mess because too many voters disengaged, and Democrats have to own that. I don't have the answer, and anyone who claims to do so is deceiving you.
I certainly won't be taking a break because voices of reason are essential right now. I am NOT resigned, that is for sure. As for normalising it, I refute that accusation outright. Take a look at this https://youtu.be/PV-dcR--5rE
There are plenty of niche, firebrand contributions out there if that's what you're looking for. It's just not me, I'm afraid, but I value your contribution, which I thought merited a response.
I appreciate your articulate and thoughtful post, Truth Matters! I do! I wish I had conveyed my frustrations more constructively as it was or felt meaningful to do so on your page. I do want yo point that the puppet referred to is the puppet occupant in the WH Oval Office. That's who I was referring to. I do own my commenting and will strive to pause rather than proverbially shooting from the hip with only half the understanding required to articulate a response that I realize is not often needed from me. I should have phrased it more supportively even if it is in itself splitting hairs.
I totally disagree that the author is normalizing things. Quite the opposite. Yes, there is far too much normalizing going on in much of the news we see. However, the author's voice does not have to be filled with emotive outrage to make very strong points that emphasize the abnormality and lawlessness of Trump and the Republican Party. I would argue it's easy to find the outrage anywhere, and I enjoy feeling my own rage reflected in some of what I read, but it can become exhausting. I seek out quieter insights that cut to the heart of the matter as well, and the author delivers on that. Frankly, I have more trust in a steady but firm voice that lays out the points of an argument with clarity.
Fair point! But Truth Matters does not need to pussyfoot as if it were a beholden captive corporate news network with softened newspapers. No, you're right, he doesn't need to be an exhausting angry firebrand but at the same time, he doesn't need to be inundated and despondent. He simply needs to deliver and state unequivocally without softening his language.
I will have to go back and re-read it so I can see the piece from your perspective. It’s interesting that you had such a different take on its tone. Thanks for responding with your follow-up comments!
Use this spreadsheet to call/email/write members of Congress. Reach out to your own, as well as those in other states on a specific committee important to a topic you’re sharing. Use your voice and make some “good trouble.”
Another great article. You touched on everything succinctly and put into calm words the things that rage in my heart and mind. I am truly worried that there is something in play to make the GOP not worry about reelection. How else can they think they can get by facing their constituents once they finally realize the effect of this bill is NOT what the propaganda machine has made them believe?!
That is my fear, Manda. Having read an alarming article about voter suppression in 2024 that has gone largely unreported, I worry that there might well be a detailed plan in 2026.
This essay is a reasoned and thorough analysis of a disastrous regime and a disastrous time in America’s history. We citizens from around the world see it unfolding in real time and can hardly believe how fast things are devolving. Yes the oligarchy has been in power at other times but the threat to basic Democratic structures has never been this overwhelming. The Supreme Court’s Presidential immunity ruling has tied the hands of the legal system to act as a check on power.
I have no idea how things will turn out in the short term - it seems Project 2025 has got their ducks in a row. But in the long term corruption and tyrannical rule always fail. And empires fall.
And … the Constitution's intent is to allow lower courts to apply a brake to any executive action deemed to be a violation of the Constitution, a breach of the law, or executive overreach.
Not exactly. The constitution doesn’t speak to the ability of courts to render executive actions, or congressional legislation, null and void.
Marbury v Madison 1803 established the doctrine of judicial review, which allows courts to overrule legislation they determine is repugnant to the constitution.
And the Republicans hate this - except when they agree with the court’s decision to uphold the EO or law. Which is why they’re hoping to pass the No Rogue Rullings act. This is not surprising because their commitment to “states rights” very much depends on the issue at bar. As in, states can regulate abortion, but not firearms.
Imagine if Democrats were in power and the president issued an executive order suspending Article 2 of the Constitution. Without the ability to apply an initial nationwide injunction to halt the executive order, the government could begin seizing guns, knowing it might take months for the matter to reach the Supreme Court.
You meant the second amendment of the Bill of Rights. Not article 2 of the constitution. Article 2 describes the executive branch. No president, Democratic or Republican, would ever issue an EO shuttering their own branch.
Edit better. Or become better familiar with our foundational documents.
I don’t need any attribution. Just get it right the first time.
Obviously, you did not go to an American law school. Our Bill of Rights is very similar to, and was partially based on, England’s Bill of Rights of 1689. As an Englishman, I would think you’d be more familiar with it than the US version.
But just so you know, the US Constitution itself actually says very little and is really vague. It is scaffolding that has been built up by more than 200 years of appellate and Supreme Court precedent. For instance, what constitutes an “unreasonable” search and seizure thus that it becomes a fourth amendment violation? And what is the effect of an unreasonable search?
The founders must have meant for an unreasonable search to have consequences, otherwise why mention it at all. The constitution itself does not detail what results from an unreasonable search. The Supreme Court has told us what unreasonable means in this context, and what the result is of evidence seized from an unreasonable search.
If you are interested, it’s called the exclusionary rule, or “fruit of the poisonous tree,” and it means that any evidence obtained as a result of a bad search is inadmissible. Katz v United States, 1967, etc. But the constitution itself does not require this so the Supreme Court had to make meaning of the fourth amendment.
I’m not telling you any of this to show off, but so you know that repeated references to what the constitution “says” or “means” are inapt. And if your goal is to educate people, which is always laudable, broad statements that are not quite completely accurate or only partially correct, kind of defeats your purpose. In constitutional law, nothing is black and white.
My worst fears are being realized. My representatives in Florida are pro trump and deaf to the hundreds of petitions that I’ve signed and were sent to them, only to get form letters back saying blah, blah, blah. I would love to have some optimism about our life as Americans in the near future but I have none.
Excellent Substack- really appreciated the following, “This is why the United States is in a constitutional crisis. The system is unable to contain Trump’s rampant corruption and his malign ambition to dismantle the federal government and remove any obstacle to his absolute power. It is this pervasive ingress of malign intent that is driving his budget bill to the exclusion of social responsibility and any sense of moral decency.”
I have been calling my Senator at least once a week. His worth is stated at 78+millions and counting. And, yes he is for tax cuts for the wealthy and to hell with the rest of us. How much money is enough for the people? Or is there ever enough to fill that hole in their soul? Call often to your reps and remind them of their oath to abide by the constitution. They are complicit in this destruction of America. They all GOTTA GO!!@
Trumps is easy to understand. To live at the highest level of luxury other peoples money can buy.
Receiving a solid gold toilet as a gift would please him, but it would mean so much more if he tricked you out of it. Plus once it was his, he would melt it down and replace it with gold plate, because no one needs a solid gold toilet! It’s only value is if other people think you have one. The appearance of living a life of unlimited wealth but he will never pay for it. He is a cheap skate, a penny pincher, a spendthrift. The life of a king with the heart and mind of a kleptomaniac
If he was truly a Billionaire with an unlimited income he would not be satisfied.
He’s the 3rd generation of liars & grifters. He learned racism, misogyny & thievery at his father’s & grandfather’s knees. The apple didn’t fall far from the tree.
Yes indeed. I will write my representative again. And I won’t stop talking to MAGA friends and family. Questions work better than assertions, as openers - even loaded questions. “What if Biden’s library were accepting a 400m gift from Qatar, while he was aiming to gut social security?” “Who do you think pays tariffs?” “Do you really think America should replace China’s sweatshops with its own?” “Do you really think we should abandon our allies and alliances to Russian aggression?”
Every word true and resonant. Thank you.
I’ve been saying all along that the end game for the evildoers “behind” all this is one-party corrupt rule & a long-envisioned rewrite of the Constitution to establish permanent autocracy.
Aye. Oligarchy is their aim. And Trump is following Putin’s playbook all the way. But the level of willful stupidity in the public is something to behold.
This is a phenomenal piece. You captured both the big picture of Republican policy over time and the extraordinary destruction this bill promises to deliver. I appreciate your years of experience in political commentary, because I had no gauge on how horrible this budget bill is, compared to ones from the past. I knew it was awful and would rip care from the most vulnerable while delivering a bonanza to the ultra-rich. But you put it in perspective. It's ugly and cruel, and I have been thinking the same thing - the only way Republicans would be so devoid of concern about mid-terms is that they believe elections are a thing of the past. Shame on every one of them.
Karen, your kind words mean a lot to me. I enjoy engaging with comments because only by listening can I gauge the impact of my work. We unfortunately live in a world of instant fixes. Unfortunately, there is no instant solution to this problem. It's likely to take a generation to unravel this mess, and sadly, that's not something people like to hear. However, the truth hurts sometimes, and it's not my job to offer a tissue for your tears, though I'm quite happy to do so. It's about forensically examining the chessboard and providing the history and context for you, the reader, to engage in critical thinking on the issues at hand. As you can see from the comments, big picture thinking does not always resonate, but that's the beauty of engaging in conversation.
Thanks again for your contribution. I appreciate it.
Martin
I appreciate you engaging with your readers. There's enough breaking news and political analysis of discrete events out there already. We need all that, and I enjoy reading on those topics too. But if we ever hope to build a renewed future for our nation, we have to understand the whole picture. How we got here. Who it benefits. And how we can solve the underlying problems that delivered us to this moment. I wish it were as "simple" as removing Donald Trump from power, but it's not. As depressing as it is, we are part of a global trend, and we have some serious systemic issues here at home. The problems run deep. I think that addressing them will be the life work of our younger generations, assisted by the rest of us. Keep up the fine work.
This puppet ain't "challenging the norms," he's violating Ethics and destroying the integrity of the office and risking the nation's security. You're tired and you seem resigned. Take a break from your normalizing all this! If you're not mad enough to challenge normalization, take a pause! Legitimate authority can and must challenge norms. This is illegitimate and a violation of the Constitution that protects the nation from exactly this! Don't normalize it!
I appreciate your comment, not because I think you're right, but because outrage is understandable in this current climate. I must admit to feeling a bit hurt at being described as a puppet, but you have every right to your opinion.
In these times of performative politics and rage tweets, I learned long ago that rage limits a message to the echo chamber comfort blanket some liberal voices need to obtain affirmation for their rage. Mine is a very deliberate approach, which I understand may not appeal to your moral outrage, but believe me, there is an art to distil that outrage into a message that can be more widely received.
Rest assured, I am beyond outraged, but I have learned in the university of life that being loud is not the answer. We find ourselves in this mess because too many voters disengaged, and Democrats have to own that. I don't have the answer, and anyone who claims to do so is deceiving you.
I certainly won't be taking a break because voices of reason are essential right now. I am NOT resigned, that is for sure. As for normalising it, I refute that accusation outright. Take a look at this https://youtu.be/PV-dcR--5rE
There are plenty of niche, firebrand contributions out there if that's what you're looking for. It's just not me, I'm afraid, but I value your contribution, which I thought merited a response.
Martin
I appreciate your articulate and thoughtful post, Truth Matters! I do! I wish I had conveyed my frustrations more constructively as it was or felt meaningful to do so on your page. I do want yo point that the puppet referred to is the puppet occupant in the WH Oval Office. That's who I was referring to. I do own my commenting and will strive to pause rather than proverbially shooting from the hip with only half the understanding required to articulate a response that I realize is not often needed from me. I should have phrased it more supportively even if it is in itself splitting hairs.
I totally disagree that the author is normalizing things. Quite the opposite. Yes, there is far too much normalizing going on in much of the news we see. However, the author's voice does not have to be filled with emotive outrage to make very strong points that emphasize the abnormality and lawlessness of Trump and the Republican Party. I would argue it's easy to find the outrage anywhere, and I enjoy feeling my own rage reflected in some of what I read, but it can become exhausting. I seek out quieter insights that cut to the heart of the matter as well, and the author delivers on that. Frankly, I have more trust in a steady but firm voice that lays out the points of an argument with clarity.
Fair point! But Truth Matters does not need to pussyfoot as if it were a beholden captive corporate news network with softened newspapers. No, you're right, he doesn't need to be an exhausting angry firebrand but at the same time, he doesn't need to be inundated and despondent. He simply needs to deliver and state unequivocally without softening his language.
I will have to go back and re-read it so I can see the piece from your perspective. It’s interesting that you had such a different take on its tone. Thanks for responding with your follow-up comments!
To be honest, as I wasn't being fully honest, I need to actually FULLY read the entirety of the article and not just drop it because of a phrasing!
I appreciate that honesty. Believe me, I've done the same thing!
Use this spreadsheet to call/email/write members of Congress. Reach out to your own, as well as those in other states on a specific committee important to a topic you’re sharing. Use your voice and make some “good trouble.”
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13lYafj0P-6owAJcH-5_xcpcRvMUZI7rkBPW-Ma9e7hw/edit
Another great article. You touched on everything succinctly and put into calm words the things that rage in my heart and mind. I am truly worried that there is something in play to make the GOP not worry about reelection. How else can they think they can get by facing their constituents once they finally realize the effect of this bill is NOT what the propaganda machine has made them believe?!
That is my fear, Manda. Having read an alarming article about voter suppression in 2024 that has gone largely unreported, I worry that there might well be a detailed plan in 2026.
This essay is a reasoned and thorough analysis of a disastrous regime and a disastrous time in America’s history. We citizens from around the world see it unfolding in real time and can hardly believe how fast things are devolving. Yes the oligarchy has been in power at other times but the threat to basic Democratic structures has never been this overwhelming. The Supreme Court’s Presidential immunity ruling has tied the hands of the legal system to act as a check on power.
I have no idea how things will turn out in the short term - it seems Project 2025 has got their ducks in a row. But in the long term corruption and tyrannical rule always fail. And empires fall.
Praying for the American people. 🇨🇦
Thanks, I'm poor and am lucky to have Internet access.
I'm on x because that's where the fight is.
I want to know what's what with Maga.
I read and listen as widely, as I know how to.
And I vote, early and in person. Because I'm not able to stand in line...tho last year I got a rolater.
61 and disabled...1,208 per month.
And … the Constitution's intent is to allow lower courts to apply a brake to any executive action deemed to be a violation of the Constitution, a breach of the law, or executive overreach.
Not exactly. The constitution doesn’t speak to the ability of courts to render executive actions, or congressional legislation, null and void.
Marbury v Madison 1803 established the doctrine of judicial review, which allows courts to overrule legislation they determine is repugnant to the constitution.
And the Republicans hate this - except when they agree with the court’s decision to uphold the EO or law. Which is why they’re hoping to pass the No Rogue Rullings act. This is not surprising because their commitment to “states rights” very much depends on the issue at bar. As in, states can regulate abortion, but not firearms.
Details matter.
Appreciate the clarification
Imagine if Democrats were in power and the president issued an executive order suspending Article 2 of the Constitution. Without the ability to apply an initial nationwide injunction to halt the executive order, the government could begin seizing guns, knowing it might take months for the matter to reach the Supreme Court.
You meant the second amendment of the Bill of Rights. Not article 2 of the constitution. Article 2 describes the executive branch. No president, Democratic or Republican, would ever issue an EO shuttering their own branch.
Edit better. Or become better familiar with our foundational documents.
I have made amendments to the piece and attributed you for the clarifications, so thank you again
I don’t need any attribution. Just get it right the first time.
Obviously, you did not go to an American law school. Our Bill of Rights is very similar to, and was partially based on, England’s Bill of Rights of 1689. As an Englishman, I would think you’d be more familiar with it than the US version.
But just so you know, the US Constitution itself actually says very little and is really vague. It is scaffolding that has been built up by more than 200 years of appellate and Supreme Court precedent. For instance, what constitutes an “unreasonable” search and seizure thus that it becomes a fourth amendment violation? And what is the effect of an unreasonable search?
The founders must have meant for an unreasonable search to have consequences, otherwise why mention it at all. The constitution itself does not detail what results from an unreasonable search. The Supreme Court has told us what unreasonable means in this context, and what the result is of evidence seized from an unreasonable search.
If you are interested, it’s called the exclusionary rule, or “fruit of the poisonous tree,” and it means that any evidence obtained as a result of a bad search is inadmissible. Katz v United States, 1967, etc. But the constitution itself does not require this so the Supreme Court had to make meaning of the fourth amendment.
I’m not telling you any of this to show off, but so you know that repeated references to what the constitution “says” or “means” are inapt. And if your goal is to educate people, which is always laudable, broad statements that are not quite completely accurate or only partially correct, kind of defeats your purpose. In constitutional law, nothing is black and white.
Duly noted
Thank you again, bad edit, I will do better
My worst fears are being realized. My representatives in Florida are pro trump and deaf to the hundreds of petitions that I’ve signed and were sent to them, only to get form letters back saying blah, blah, blah. I would love to have some optimism about our life as Americans in the near future but I have none.
Thank you for a rational and accurate assessment of the state of affairs these days.
Excellent Substack- really appreciated the following, “This is why the United States is in a constitutional crisis. The system is unable to contain Trump’s rampant corruption and his malign ambition to dismantle the federal government and remove any obstacle to his absolute power. It is this pervasive ingress of malign intent that is driving his budget bill to the exclusion of social responsibility and any sense of moral decency.”
"Everything faded into mist.
The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth."
George Orwell
(1984)
I have been calling my Senator at least once a week. His worth is stated at 78+millions and counting. And, yes he is for tax cuts for the wealthy and to hell with the rest of us. How much money is enough for the people? Or is there ever enough to fill that hole in their soul? Call often to your reps and remind them of their oath to abide by the constitution. They are complicit in this destruction of America. They all GOTTA GO!!@
Trumps is easy to understand. To live at the highest level of luxury other peoples money can buy.
Receiving a solid gold toilet as a gift would please him, but it would mean so much more if he tricked you out of it. Plus once it was his, he would melt it down and replace it with gold plate, because no one needs a solid gold toilet! It’s only value is if other people think you have one. The appearance of living a life of unlimited wealth but he will never pay for it. He is a cheap skate, a penny pincher, a spendthrift. The life of a king with the heart and mind of a kleptomaniac
If he was truly a Billionaire with an unlimited income he would not be satisfied.
He would still want everything you have.
That’s Donald Trump
He’s the 3rd generation of liars & grifters. He learned racism, misogyny & thievery at his father’s & grandfather’s knees. The apple didn’t fall far from the tree.
"Democracy"?