Echoes of Tyranny: Then and Now

In 1776, the American colonies declared independence from King George III, accusing him of abusing power and ignoring their rights. The Declaration of Independence wasn’t just a breakup letter—it was a list of grievances, a warning about what happens when a leader puts himself above the law, silences critics, and treats democracy like a game.

Nearly 250 years later, many of those same complaints feel eerily familiar.

This post doesn’t name names, but it does invite you to think deeply. What happens when leaders today echo the very behaviors our country was founded to resist?

Let’s look at some of those original complaints and how similar issues have surfaced in recent years.

Blocking Good Laws

Then: “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.”

Now: Some leaders have ignored or tried to overturn laws meant to protect the environment, health care, or civil rights—laws passed by Congress and supported by the public.

Undermining Justice

Then: “He has obstructed the Administration of Justice…”

Now: Attempts to stop investigations, fire prosecutors, or publicly attack judges have raised real questions about respect for the rule of law.

Controlling the Courts

Then: “He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone…”

Now: When leaders pressure judges, question their legitimacy, or appoint loyalists over qualified professionals, the courts can’t do their job fairly.

Using the Military Against the People

Then: “He has rendered the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.”

Now: Threatening to use the military against peaceful protesters or to hold on to power undermines the idea that the military serves the people—not the president.

Undermining the Constitution

Then: “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution…”

Now: Cozying up to authoritarian leaders or bending constitutional norms for personal gain is the opposite of what democracy stands for.

Disrupting Trade

Then: “For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world…”

Now: Trade wars, tariff chaos, and sudden policy changes have hurt farmers, small businesses, and international partnerships.

Denying Fair Trials

Then: “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury…”

Now: From immigration detention without due process to talk of targeting political opponents, justice systems have been threatened or ignored.

Fueling Violence at Home

Then: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us…”

Now: When leaders spread lies, encourage mob behavior, or stay silent in the face of violence, they don’t just stoke division—they put the country at risk.

Why It Matters

These comparisons aren’t about left or right. They’re about democracy—or the loss of it. The Founders weren’t perfect, but they gave us a warning: watch for the signs of tyranny, even if it comes wrapped in a flag or holding a Bible.

History doesn’t repeat, but it often rhymes. When the same kinds of abuses show up in new clothes, it’s up to us to recognize them—and speak out.

Read: The Declaration of Independence

From Workers’ Rights to Corporate Power: The Fallout of Janus v. AFSCME

In 2018, the Supreme Court made a big decision that most people have never heard of—but it’s been quietly changing the country ever since.

The case was called Janus v. AFSCME, and it had to do with unions for government workers—like teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other public employees. Before the decision, even if you didn’t want to join your workplace’s union, you still had to pay a small fee to help cover the cost of negotiations and protections the union fought for. After all, you still got the benefits.

But the Court ruled 5–4 that this fee violated free speech rights. In short, they said no one should be forced to pay money to an organization they don’t agree with. That might sound fair on the surface—but it had serious ripple effects.

A Blow to Workers’ Rights

This ruling made the entire public sector “right-to-work,” meaning no government employee can be required to support a union in any way—not even through small fees.

What happened next? Thousands of public workers stopped paying. That meant unions suddenly had less money—less money to support members, less money to negotiate for better pay or working conditions, and less money to push for laws that protect workers.

Unions are one of the few tools working people have to push back against powerful employers. Without them, workers are often left to fight for fair treatment alone.

Who Benefits? (Hint: Not You)

Let’s be honest—this decision wasn’t really about protecting free speech. It was about weakening unions.

Big corporations and wealthy donors have been trying to break unions for decades. Why? Because unions give regular people a voice at the table. And when unions are strong, workers win better wages, safer workplaces, and more say in decisions that affect their lives.

The Janus decision tilted the scales even more in favor of corporate power and public officials who want fewer checks on their authority. It made it easier for companies and politicians to ignore workers—and harder for working people to stand together and demand better.

Harming Civil Rights in Disguise

Public-sector unions have also played a big role in advancing civil rights. They’ve helped protect workers of color, advocate for women in the workplace, and push back against discrimination. When unions lose power, these fights get harder.

So while Janus may have sounded like a technical court case about fees, its impact goes much deeper. It weakens the groups that fight for fairness—not just in the workplace, but across society.

Tilting Elections, Fueling Division

There’s another layer to this: politics.

Public unions tend to support candidates who fight for working people—often Democrats. So when those unions lose money and members, they also lose political influence. Meanwhile, corporate interests (which usually back Republicans) grow stronger.

This shifts the playing field even more, giving big money more control over our elections. It’s one reason politics in America feels so skewed—and so divisive. When one side is funded by billionaires and the other is defunded by court rulings, the playing field isn’t just uneven. It’s broken.

Why It Matters Now

Janus v. AFSCME didn’t just change a law—it changed the balance of power in America.

It weakened workers, strengthened corporations, hurt civil rights, and made our political divisions worse. And it’s still affecting millions of people today.

If we want a country where working people have a voice, where elections are fair, and where civil rights matter, we need to understand what happened—and what we can do to fix it.

Trump’s Use of Alien Enemies Act Explained

In March 2025, something shocking happened in U.S. immigration policy. The Trump administration revived a centuries-old law—the Alien Enemies Act—to justify the mass deportation of hundreds of young Venezuelan men, many of them asylum seekers. This law, originally created in 1798 for wartime emergencies, had not been used in over 70 years. Its sudden return raised serious legal, moral, and human rights concerns—and has sparked a fierce court battle that’s still playing out.

Here’s what happened, and why it matters.

What Is the Alien Enemies Act?

The Alien Enemies Act (AEA) was written during the presidency of John Adams in 1798. It gives the U.S. President the power to arrest or deport citizens of enemy countries during wartime. It’s only been used a few times in American history—during declared wars like World War I and World War II.

But in 2025, the Trump administration decided to use it… even though the U.S. isn’t at war.

Target: Venezuelan Migrants

By 2025, many Venezuelans were fleeing political and economic crisis under the Maduro regime. Some crossed the U.S. border seeking asylum. Among them were young men that U.S. officials suspected might have ties to Tren de Aragua, a violent Venezuelan gang.

Instead of handling this through regular immigration channels, President Trump—reportedly with advice from longtime aide Stephen Miller—signed a secret order using the Alien Enemies Act to declare these men “enemy aliens.” He claimed they were part of a foreign “invasion” backed by Venezuela’s government, even though no war had been declared.

That decision let the administration bypass normal legal procedures and deport people without giving them a hearing.

A Secret Operation to El Salvador

On March 15, 2025, ICE agents began rounding up hundreds of Venezuelan men held in immigration detention. Many had no criminal record in the U.S.—some were just teenagers who’d recently crossed the border.

Then, in a move kept secret from even some members of the government, the administration put around 250 men on planes and flew them not to Venezuela—but to El Salvador.

Why El Salvador? Because Trump made a deal with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele. In exchange for $6 million, Bukele agreed to hold the deported Venezuelans in CECOT, a mega-prison notorious for its harsh conditions. This facility is infamous for overcrowding, torture, and lack of basic rights.

The move stunned immigration advocates and sparked a flurry of legal action.

The Courts Step In—Too Late for Some

As news of the deportation flights leaked, lawyers rushed to stop them. A federal judge issued an emergency order to halt the deportations and demanded that any planes still in the air return.

But by then, the flights were over international waters—and the Trump administration refused to bring them back. Officials claimed the court had no authority once the planes left U.S. airspace.

The deportees landed in El Salvador, were immediately shackled, stripped, and imprisoned. The images, posted online by Salvadoran officials, were shocking. Civil rights groups and media outlets condemned the spectacle as political theater.

A few days later, the courts officially blocked any further deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, at least for now. Judges questioned the entire legal basis for the move, with one even saying that “Nazis got better treatment” than these men.

Why This Is So Alarming

This situation is more than just a fight over immigration policy. It’s a serious test of constitutional rights, presidential power, and basic human decency. Here’s why:

• No due process: These men were deported without a hearing. Some may not even be gang members. One example: a man was deported because officials misread his soccer tattoo as a gang symbol.

• No war: The U.S. isn’t at war with Venezuela. Using a wartime law in peacetime stretches legal boundaries in dangerous ways.

• Terrifying precedent: If the government can label a group as “enemy aliens” without a war and ship them off without trial, what’s to stop it from doing the same to others?

• Human rights concerns: The deportees were sent to a foreign prison known for abuse. That could violate international laws against torture and arbitrary detention.

What Happens Now?

The courts have blocked further deportations under the AEA, but 238 Venezuelan men remain locked up in El Salvador. Their lawyers are trying to bring them back. The Trump administration is looking for ways to keep them out.

This case could end up in the Supreme Court—and it could reshape how much power a U.S. President has in the name of national security.

Why We Should All Be Paying Attention

History has taught us what happens when fear and power override justice. From Japanese internment in WWII to Guantánamo Bay after 9/11, the U.S. has made grave mistakes when due process is pushed aside.

Using the Alien Enemies Act to bypass the Constitution in 2025 is another step down that path. Whether you support or oppose Trump’s immigration policies, this case raises a simple but vital question:

Should any president be able to declare a group of people “enemies” and deport them without a trial—especially when there’s no war?

That’s the battle playing out in the courts now. And the outcome could change the meaning of justice in America for years to come.

An Exercise in Power

Chris Murphy

the tariffs are a tool to collapse our democracy. A means to compel loyalty from every business that will need to petition Trump for relief.

This is a pretty dark take on the plan, but even if it is not intentional, it is just as dangerous.

Trump’s Tariffs Are a Disaster—And Congress Needs to Step In

What are tariffs, anyway?

Tariffs are taxes on goods coming into the country. If the U.S. puts a tariff on foreign-made cars, for example, that car becomes more expensive. The idea is to protect American-made products by making imports pricier. But in practice, it’s American consumers and businesses who often end up paying the price—literally.

Tariffs can sometimes help specific industries, but they usually lead to higher prices for everyone else. They can also spark trade wars, where other countries slap their own tariffs on U.S. goods, hurting our exports and the jobs that depend on them.

Trump’s 2025 tariffs: not just bad, but bizarre

President Trump recently launched a sweeping set of new tariffs under something he calls the “Reciprocal Trade Act.” Sounds fair, right? If other countries tax us, we tax them. The problem? The data used to justify the tariffs is wildly inaccurate. Instead of using actual tariff rates, Trump’s team used a made-up formula that treats trade deficits like tariffs. That’s not how trade works—at all.

The result? Tariffs on nearly everything from nearly everywhere, often with no logic. Some of the strangest examples include tariffs on goods from uninhabited islands and even on a U.S. military base overseas. It’s like declaring a trade war on penguins and our own troops.

Why it matters

These tariffs are a blunt instrument. They don’t target bad actors or fix specific problems—they just make imports more expensive across the board. That means higher costs for businesses, fewer choices for consumers, and potential retaliation from trading partners. In short: economic pain, with no clear gain.

Even worse, these sweeping tariffs were imposed by the president alone, under emergency powers. But there is no real emergency—just bad economics. Which brings us to the bigger problem…

Congress needs to take back control

Under the Constitution, Congress is supposed to have the power to set tariffs. Over the years, though, it has handed much of that authority to the executive branch. Now we’re seeing the consequences: one person can impose chaotic, damaging trade policies with no oversight.

It’s time for Congress to reclaim that responsibility. Tariffs shouldn’t be used as political stunts or based on fake math. They should be carefully debated, data-driven, and focused on protecting the broader economy—not just scoring points.

The economy is too important to be run on gut instinct and Google spreadsheets. Congress needs to act before we do more damage—not just to our economy, but to the idea of checks and balances itself.

Why Would a President Crash the Economy on Purpose?

…and What History Teaches Us About It

Imagine this: a president returns to power, full of fiery speeches about putting America first. Within weeks, they launch a trade war—not with enemies, but with longtime allies. The stock market tanks. Prices spike. Jobs are threatened. People start to panic.

And we all ask: Why would a president do this—on purpose?

As wild as it sounds, this kind of thing has happened before. Sometimes, economic chaos isn’t an accident. Sometimes, it’s a strategy. Let’s break down the reasons a leader might want to shake up the economy—and look at some historical examples that prove it’s not just a conspiracy theory.

It Looks Good to Their Base

Trade wars and tough economic moves can be framed as strength. A leader might say they’re protecting workers, bringing back jobs, or punishing countries that “took advantage” of us. It sounds patriotic. Tough. Decisive.

Example: Herbert Hoover & the Smoot-Hawley Tariff (1930)

During the Great Depression, Hoover raised tariffs on foreign goods to “protect American jobs.” It sounded good. But other countries hit back with their own tariffs. Global trade collapsed. The Depression got worse.

Example: Donald Trump & the U.S.-China Trade War (2018–2020)

Trump slapped massive tariffs on Chinese goods, claiming it would bring manufacturing back. Instead, American farmers and businesses took the hit. The government had to bail them out. But the trade war played well politically—it looked like he was “standing up to China.”

Chaos Creates Opportunity

Crashing the economy might give a leader more control. In times of crisis, people are more likely to accept extreme policies or give up freedoms. Fear is powerful.

Example: Hugo Chávez in Venezuela (2000s)

Chávez wrecked Venezuela’s economy with nationalizations and price controls—but he used the crisis to tighten his grip. He blamed outsiders, punished critics, and kept his supporters close with handouts… until everything fell apart.

Example: Vladimir Putin in Russia (2022–present)

Putin invaded Ukraine knowing full well Western sanctions would hurt Russia’s economy. But he weaponized the crisis. He restricted exports, blamed the West for hardship, and used it to justify repression at home.

They Want to Punish Opponents

Sometimes the goal isn’t economic success—it’s revenge. A president might target allies who criticized them, or international institutions they see as threats. Tariffs and trade restrictions become political weapons.

Example: Donald Trump & European Allies

Trump threatened tariffs on European cars and clashed with NATO partners. It wasn’t just about trade—it was about loyalty. Friends who didn’t show support were treated like enemies.

They Actually Believe It Will Work

Not every act of sabotage is intentional. Some leaders surround themselves with loyalists, ignore experts, and act on gut instinct—no matter the cost.

Example: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey (2010s–2020s)

Erdoğan insisted on keeping interest rates low, even as inflation exploded. Economists warned him. He didn’t care. His economic beliefs were treated like gospel—and Turkey’s currency collapsed.

Example: Hoover, Again

Despite pleas from hundreds of economists, Hoover believed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff would save American jobs. He was wrong—but refused to back down.

It’s a Distraction

A sudden economic crisis can shift the public’s attention. If a leader is facing legal trouble, corruption scandals, or growing opposition, crashing the economy can become a giant smoke bomb.

Example: Chávez & Inflation

As inflation spun out of control, Chávez focused attention on “economic war” with the U.S. and rich Venezuelans. He used the chaos to distract from corruption and mismanagement.

Modern-Day Parallels

Imagine a leader using trade fights and crashing markets to dominate headlines. Suddenly, we’re not talking about investigations or indictments—we’re talking about survival.

The Bottom Line

Crashing the economy might seem like political suicide—but sometimes, it’s a calculated risk. Whether it’s about consolidating power, punishing enemies, or rallying supporters, history shows that economic chaos can be a tool—not just a tragedy.

When we see a president sparking a trade war or tanking the markets, we shouldn’t just ask “what’s happening?”

We should be asking: “who benefits?”

Because the pain might not be accidental—it might be part of the plan.

What to Watch For

So how can we tell if economic chaos is just bad luck… or something more intentional? Here are a few red flags to keep an eye on:

Blame Games

When a leader blames foreign countries, the media, or “globalists” for economic problems they helped cause, it’s often a sign they’re trying to shift attention—and avoid accountability.

Ignoring Experts

If trusted economists, financial advisors, and central banks are sounding the alarm—but the president brushes them off or fires them—that’s a sign of ideology trumping reality.

Attacks on Allies

Watch for sudden trade fights or sanctions against long-standing allies. It might not be about policy—it could be personal, political, or part of a larger power play.

Crises That Conveniently Distract

Economic disruption that suddenly replaces coverage of investigations, scandals, or unpopular decisions is no coincidence. Ask yourself: What just got pushed off the front page?

Insider Profits

If people close to the president seem to profit from the chaos—whether through stock moves, government contracts, or shady business deals—that’s a major red flag.

Power Grabs During Panic

Pay attention when leaders ask for emergency powers, delay elections, or bypass normal checks and balances in the middle of an economic crisis. Chaos is often used as a cover for authoritarian shifts.

Stay Informed. Stay Sharp.

The economy is complicated—but the motives behind crashing it don’t have to be. History shows us that when power is on the line, some leaders are willing to burn the system down if it helps them stay in control.

So don’t just watch what they’re doing. Watch why. And ask yourself: Who gets hurt? Who gets richer? And who ends up with more power?

Hands Off!

NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION
SATURDAY, APRIL 5

Donald Trump and Elon Musk think this country belongs to them. They're taking everything they can get their hands on, and daring the world to stop them. On Saturday, April 5th, we're taking to the streets nationwide to fight back with a clear message: Hands off!

Trump’s Tariff Math May Come from Chatbots

Ars Technica

On social media, rumors swirled that the Trump administration got these supposedly fake numbers from chatbots. On Bluesky, tech entrepreneur Amy Hoy joined others posting screenshots from ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Grok, each showing that the chatbots arrived at similar calculations as the Trump administration.

This tracks.

Alien Enemies Act: A Dark Chapter in U.S. History

Imagine being arrested, locked away, or kicked out of the country—not because of anything you did, but because of where you were born. That’s exactly what happened to thousands of people in American history under a law that’s still on the books today: the Alien Enemies Act.

Passed in 1798, the law gives the U.S. government power to detain or deport people from countries we’re at war with—just because of their nationality. It’s rarely used, but when it is, the results have been dramatic and often deeply unjust. Let’s take a look at how this law played out during major wars in American history—and what it teaches us about power, fear, and fairness.

The First Test: War of 1812

The Alien Enemies Act got its first real test when the U.S. went to war with Britain in 1812. President James Madison declared British citizens in America to be “alien enemies.” Some were detained or forced to leave, but the action was limited. The government didn’t have a lot of resources, and the country wasn’t nearly as large or organized as it is now.

Even then, though, the basic ethical question was clear: Is it right to punish people not for what they’ve done, but for where they come from?

World War I: Fear Takes Over

Fast forward a hundred years to World War I. When the U.S. joined the war in 1917, President Wilson used the Alien Enemies Act to target immigrants from Germany and Austria-Hungary. Nearly half a million people were forced to register as “enemy aliens.” They had to carry special ID cards, follow curfews, and stay away from certain areas. Around 6,300 were arrested and locked up—most without any proof of wrongdoing.

This wasn’t about catching spies. While a few actual threats were found, most people caught up in this dragnet were just ordinary immigrants. The fear of the enemy—and a surge of anti-German hate—led to sweeping restrictions that upended lives and families.

World War II: Mass Internment on an Unprecedented Scale

Then came World War II—and the darkest chapter in the use of the Alien Enemies Act.

Right after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, President Roosevelt used the Act to label tens of thousands of Japanese, German, and Italian nationals as enemy aliens. They were banned from traveling freely, forced to register again, and had their assets frozen. Many were arrested—often based on rumors or stereotypes.

The numbers are staggering: about 31,000 people, mostly of Japanese and German descent, were interned in Department of Justice camps for years.

But it didn’t stop there.

Using a separate order (Executive Order 9066), the government also removed over 110,000 Japanese Americans—the majority of them U.S. citizens—from their homes and forced them into internment camps. The Alien Enemies Act didn’t directly apply to citizens, but it helped create the climate of fear that made this mass incarceration possible.

Legal but Unjust

At the time, all of this was legal. Courts mostly sided with the government. The Supreme Court even upheld the internment of Japanese Americans in the now-infamous Korematsu v. United States decision.

But being legal doesn’t make something right.

Decades later, the U.S. government admitted these actions were wrong. In 1988, Congress apologized and paid reparations to Japanese American survivors. And in 2010, the Department of Justice apologized for the treatment of Italian Americans. Still, the Alien Enemies Act was never repealed.

A Law with a Dangerous Legacy

What do we learn from all this?

That in times of war or crisis, fear can make us turn against our neighbors. The Alien Enemies Act gave presidents the power to round up immigrants based on nothing more than where they were born. And while it was used most aggressively during the world wars, the law still exists—and could be used again.

That’s why remembering this history matters. Because if we’re not careful, the next time fear rises, we might repeat the mistakes of the past.

What Is the Alien Enemies Act—and Why Does It Still Matter?

Most Americans have never heard of the Alien Enemies Act, even though it’s been quietly sitting in our laws since 1798. It sounds like something from a sci-fi movie, but it’s very real—and it gives the President the power to detain or deport people from “enemy” countries during wartime.

This law has only been used a few times in U.S. history, mainly during World Wars I and II. But recently, it’s made headlines again—this time not in a war against nations, but against gang violence. That sudden shift has raised serious legal and human rights questions.

So where did this law come from? What was it meant to do? And why is it still around more than 225 years later?

Let’s break it down.

A Law Born Out of Fear

Back in 1798, the U.S. was a brand-new country, barely two decades old and already feeling threatened. France, going through its own revolution, was fighting wars across Europe. U.S. leaders were afraid French spies or sympathizers might stir up trouble at home. To protect national security, Congress passed a group of laws called the Alien and Sedition Acts.

One of those was the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). It gave the President power to arrest, detain, or deport adult men (and later women) from enemy countries—but only during times of declared war or invasion.

The idea was simple: If the U.S. is at war, and there are people from that enemy country living here, the government should be able to act quickly if any of them pose a threat.

Not Just Another Law

Unlike the other Alien and Sedition Acts, which expired or were repealed soon after, the Alien Enemies Act never went away. It’s still part of U.S. law today. That’s because while the other laws mostly targeted political speech and immigration, the AEA was considered a wartime emergency measure.

Even President Thomas Jefferson—who opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts—let the AEA stay in place when he came into office. And in 1918, it was updated to include women, too.

From Dormant Law to Wartime Weapon

The Alien Enemies Act has only been used a few times, but when it has been invoked, it’s made a big impact:

• War of 1812: Used against British nationals.

• World War I: President Woodrow Wilson required German-born residents to register as enemy aliens. Thousands were detained.

• World War II: President Franklin D. Roosevelt expanded the law’s use to Japanese, German, and Italian nationals. Many were sent to internment camps—part of a broader and painful chapter in U.S. history that included the forced relocation of Japanese Americans.

Each time, the law was used to respond to wartime fear, often casting a wide net over entire communities based on nationality—not necessarily based on individual guilt.

A New Kind of War?

Fast forward to 2025, and we see the AEA being used in a very different way.

Former President Donald Trump issued an executive order labeling certain Venezuelan migrants as “enemy aliens” under the AEA. His administration claimed they were part of a dangerous gang, Tren de Aragua, and used the Act to detain and deport hundreds—without the usual legal hearings that most immigrants would receive.

This marked the first time the law was used without a declared war. Instead of responding to a conflict between nations, it was applied in what some called a “war on gangs.” That move has sparked lawsuits and serious concern from legal experts and human rights groups.

Why It Matters Now

The Alien Enemies Act is a powerful tool that was designed for very specific situations—wartime, when fast action might be needed to stop a real threat. But when it’s used outside of that context, it raises big questions:

• Who gets to decide who is an “enemy”?

• What rights do immigrants have in times of fear or crisis?

• How do we balance national security with individual liberty?

This 18th-century law still has the power to change lives in the 21st century. That’s why understanding its history and purpose matters—because how we use it today says a lot about who we are as a country.

Teen Deported to El Salvador

Texas Monthly

Eighteen-year-old Carlos Daniel Terán was taken from his home and shipped to a notorious prison on the charge that he is a gang member. The government hasn't produced evidence supporting the claim, says his lawyer.

Using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport a teenager is more than just extreme — it’s completely out of line. This law was meant to be used during declared wars, to remove people from countries we were actually fighting. It suspends basic rights like due process. Using it now, in peacetime, against a young person with no proof of any crime, is not only unfair — it’s dangerous.

April is Testicular Cancer Awareness Month

While it might not be a comfortable topic, it's an important one!

Testicular cancer is the most common cancer in young men (ages 15-44) — but not limited to just young men. Trust me.

The good news?  It's highly treatable—especially when caught early. 

• 👀 Look for changes in size or shape 

• 👐 Gently feel for lumps or swelling 

• 🤔 Notice any pain or discomfort? 

If something seems, off, don't Google it—see a urologist. 

Testicular Cancer Awareness Foundation

How a 2017 Tax Law Helped Divide America Even More

In 2017, Republicans in Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)—a huge tax overhaul that became one of President Trump’s biggest achievements. Supporters claimed it would help working Americans by giving businesses more money to invest in jobs and wages. But that’s not what really happened.

Who Actually Benefited?

The TCJA slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, and it also gave tax cuts to individuals—but most of the benefits went to the wealthy. Instead of raising wages or creating more jobs, many corporations used their tax savings to buy back their own stock (which boosts share prices) and give bonuses to CEOs. Regular workers? Not so much.

This move made the rich even richer. By 2021, the top 1% of Americans owned nearly one-third of all wealth in the country, while the bottom half owned just 2.6%. That’s a massive gap—and it’s growing.

Why This Matters for Civil Rights

When wealth is this unequal, it affects more than just bank accounts. Economic inequality often hits communities of color the hardest, making it harder for people to access housing, education, healthcare, and fair treatment. Civil rights aren’t just about laws—they’re about whether people have a fair shot at living with dignity. A tax law that concentrates wealth at the top only makes it harder for struggling communities to catch up.

Corporate Power and Political Influence

The TCJA also gave even more power to large corporations. With their tax windfalls, big companies not only rewarded their executives—they also spent more on lobbying and political donations. That means wealthy corporations can shape laws and policies in their favor, while everyday Americans have less of a voice.

And let’s not forget: the law added $1.5 trillion to the national debt. Now, some politicians are using that as an excuse to talk about cutting Social Security, Medicare, and other programs that millions of Americans rely on.

Division and Distrust

The TCJA didn’t just shift money—it deepened the divide in our politics. Conservatives often point to the law as proof of economic “growth,” while progressives highlight how it made inequality worse. This fight over who the government should serve—everyday people or the wealthy and powerful—feeds the anger and distrust that are tearing America apart.

What We Can Learn

Tax laws might seem boring or complicated, but they shape our lives in real ways. The TCJA helped widen the gap between rich and poor, strengthened corporate influence, and hurt efforts to create a more fair and equal society. If we want to move toward unity, we need policies that lift up everyone—not just those at the top.

Charlottesville and Platforming White Nationalism

In August 2017, something happened that shocked the country: a group of white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and far-right extremists gathered in Charlottesville, Virginia, for a rally they called “Unite the Right.” They said they were protesting the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. But what the world saw was something much darker—marchers with torches chanting racist and anti-Semitic slogans like “Jews will not replace us.”

Violence broke out. One of the white nationalists drove his car into a crowd of peaceful counter-protesters, killing a woman named Heather Heyer and injuring many others. The event was a clear and horrifying display of hate in the open. It reminded us that racism and extremism are still very much alive in this country.

A Divisive Response from the White House

Instead of bringing people together in the wake of the tragedy, President Trump made things worse. He said there was violence “on many sides” and that some of the marchers were “very fine people.” For many Americans, this wasn’t just a tone-deaf comment—it felt like he was defending racists. His words caused outrage and heartbreak for people who believe in equality and civil rights. But Trump’s supporters said the media twisted his words and claimed he was simply trying to be fair.

No matter which side you were on, one thing was clear: the country was more divided than ever.

Civil Rights Under Threat

The rise of white nationalism and the lukewarm response from national leaders have had real consequences for civil rights. Hate crimes have increased since 2017. Groups that used to be pushed to the fringes now feel emboldened. At the same time, laws meant to protect people from discrimination—like voting rights laws—have been weakened in many states. Communities of color, immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, and other vulnerable groups feel less safe and less supported.

When hate becomes normalized, civil rights take a hit.

Corporate Power and Hypocrisy

In the wake of Charlottesville, some big companies put out statements condemning hate. A few even cut ties with far-right groups. But here’s the thing: many of those same companies continue to fund politicians who support laws that make it harder for people to vote or protest.

This shows how corporate power can play both sides. On the surface, companies want to look like they stand for justice. Behind the scenes, they often support policies that deepen inequality. That’s not just hypocrisy—it’s part of the problem.

White Nationalism and the Ballot Box

Elections have also been affected. The same forces that showed up in Charlottesville have made their way into mainstream politics. Some candidates now openly use fear and division to win votes—talking about “invasions” at the border, spreading conspiracy theories, or promising to defend “traditional” values against so-called threats.

This kind of messaging is dangerous because it makes people feel like they have to pick sides based on race, religion, or culture. It turns neighbors into enemies. And it leads to voter suppression efforts that target Black and brown communities.

So Where Do We Go from Here?

Charlottesville was more than just a tragic moment—it was a warning sign. It showed us that ignoring hate doesn’t make it go away. It also reminded us that silence from leaders—or worse, encouragement—can make things worse.

If we want a more united America, we have to speak out against white nationalism and racism in all its forms. We have to protect civil rights, hold corporations accountable, and demand fair elections. That’s not about left vs. right—it’s about right vs. wrong.

We may not all agree on everything, but we should be able to agree on this: hate has no place in our democracy.

How the 2016 Trump Election Shaped a Divided America

The 2016 election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton wasn’t a normal campaign. It was full of anger, fear, and deep disagreement about what kind of country America should be. And the way it played out—and what followed—has had lasting effects on civil rights, corporate power, and how people feel about elections.

A Campaign That Made the Divide Worse

Trump ran as someone who would break the system and speak for people who felt ignored. Clinton ran as someone who knew how the system worked and wanted to improve it. Their campaigns couldn’t have been more different.

But instead of focusing on policy, the election became personal and hostile. Trump led crowds in chanting “Lock her up!” about Clinton. Russian groups spread lies on social media to stir up anger. The FBI reopened an email investigation just before the vote, creating more confusion. Meanwhile, Trump made many offensive comments about immigrants, women, and minorities.

These things made people more suspicious of each other and more distrustful of the political system. And when Trump won the Electoral College—but lost the popular vote by almost 3 million—it only made those feelings worse.

Civil Rights Were Weakened

After the election, millions of people protested. Many worried about what Trump’s presidency would mean for civil rights. During his time in office, those concerns grew.

The Trump administration rolled back protections for immigrants, LGBTQ+ Americans, and people of color. It took a more aggressive approach to immigration and ignored or downplayed issues of racism. It also placed judges in federal courts who were less likely to support civil rights laws.

For people who had been pushing for more equality, these changes felt like a step backward.

Big Business Got Bigger

Trump often talked about standing up for regular people. But many of the policies his administration pushed ended up helping corporations and wealthy donors.

He signed a tax bill that mostly benefited large businesses and the richest Americans. His administration cut back environmental rules, consumer protections, and other regulations meant to hold corporations accountable. He also brought in many officials who had close ties to the industries they were supposed to oversee.

As a result, big companies gained even more power during his presidency, while working people continued to struggle with wages, healthcare costs, and job security.

Elections Lost Trust

The 2016 election also raised big questions about how elections work—and whether they’re fair.

Even though Clinton won more votes nationwide, Trump became president because of the Electoral College. That made many people feel like their votes didn’t count. On top of that, Russian interference and online misinformation showed how easy it is for outside forces to influence public opinion.

These problems didn’t go away. In fact, distrust in elections grew over the next few years. More Americans began to believe that the system was rigged against them, or that elections were being stolen—especially when leaders repeated those claims without evidence.

A Country More Divided

Trump’s time in office made the country more divided than it already was. Some people saw him as a necessary change. Others saw him as a threat to democracy and civil rights. These sharply different views made it harder for Americans to talk to each other, even within families and communities.

The anger and mistrust that built up during and after 2016 is still with us today.

What We Can Learn

The 2016 election didn’t create all of America’s problems, but it made many of them more obvious. It showed how fragile civil rights protections can be, how much power corporations still have, and how important it is to protect fair and trustworthy elections.

These are issues that affect everyone—no matter which side of politics they’re on. If we want a more stable and fair country, we’ll have to face these challenges head-on and find ways to work through them together.

Trump’s first term had some limits. Many civil servants, military leaders, and agency officials still felt bound by their oath to the Constitution and worked to stop the most extreme ideas from becoming policy. But that guardrail is gone.

Now that Trump has returned to power, he’s made it clear that loyalty to him comes before qualifications or experience. Many of his new appointees were chosen not for their ability to govern, but for their willingness to follow orders and ignore norms. He and Elon Musk, working in tandem, are actively dismantling the very institutions that once held him back—often pushing the limits of legal authority or bypassing it altogether.

This isn’t just about politics. It’s about whether government still works for the people—or only for those at the top. What happens next depends on whether the public is paying attention, staying informed, and willing to push back when power is abused.

The SAVE Act Sounds Harmless. Here’s Why It’s Not.

There’s a bill moving through Congress called the SAVE Act—short for Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. With a name like that, it sounds like it’s about protecting elections and making sure only citizens can vote.

But here’s the thing: noncitizens voting in federal elections is already illegal, and it almost never happens. This bill doesn’t solve a real problem—it creates new ones. Big ones.

Let’s talk about what the SAVE Act would actually do—and why voting rights groups are sounding the alarm.

What the SAVE Act Would Do

If passed, the SAVE Act would require every single person to show proof of U.S. citizenship—like a passport or birth certificate—just to register to vote.

That means:

• No more simple online voter registration

• No more quick sign-ups at the DMV or through voter registration drives

• No registering by mail unless you show up in person with documents

• And if your name has changed (like many married women), you might have to bring extra documents to prove who you are

And if you don’t have those papers? You can’t register. Period.

Why That’s a Big Problem

Millions of eligible voters don’t have easy access to the kinds of documents the SAVE Act requires. Think about it:

• Military families stationed overseas

• Older Americans who were never issued birth certificates

• People displaced by natural disasters who lost important papers

• Low-income citizens who can’t afford to pay for copies of documents

• Married women or anyone whose names don’t match their birth certificates

Even if you’ve been voting your whole life, if you move and need to re-register, you’d be treated like a brand-new voter—and be blocked if you don’t have the right paperwork in hand.

It’s not just inconvenient. It’s a real barrier. And for some people, it means being completely shut out of the voting process.

What About Noncitizens Voting?

Let’s be clear: noncitizen voting is already illegal. Every voter has to sign an oath under penalty of perjury that they are a U.S. citizen. And states already have systems in place to keep the voter rolls clean.

There’s no evidence of widespread fraud. In fact, multiple audits have found that noncitizen voting is incredibly rare—we’re talking a handful of cases in millions of votes.

So the SAVE Act is trying to fix a problem that barely exists, while creating a much bigger one: voter suppression.

Who Does This Benefit?

Supporters of the bill say it’s about “election security.” But critics point out that it would make it much harder for everyday Americans to register and vote, especially if they move, change their name, or don’t have the right documents on hand.

And when voter turnout goes down, it often affects young people, people of color, low-income communities, and voters who move a lot. In other words, groups that some politicians might prefer to keep off the rolls.

Why This Matters

Voting is the foundation of our democracy. It should be accessible, safe, and secure—without putting up walls for people who are already eligible.

The SAVE Act isn’t about safeguarding anything. It’s about making it harder for people to participate in elections—and that’s a step backward.

Don’t just take my word for it:

SAVE Act Text

League of Women Voters

TL;DR

• The SAVE Act would require everyone to show a passport, birth certificate, or similar document just to register to vote

• Millions of eligible voters don’t have those documents handy

• It would hit military families, seniors, married women, people with low incomes, and disaster victims the hardest

• It tries to stop a problem that barely exists—while making it harder for real citizens to vote

Bottom line: Don’t let the name fool you. The SAVE Act isn’t about protecting your vote. It’s about taking it away.

How Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Changed America—For Better and for Worse

In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court made history with a decision called Obergefell v. Hodges. It ruled that same-sex couples have the same right to marry as straight couples. For millions of LGBTQ Americans, it was a huge win—finally being seen as equal under the law. It was a moment of joy, pride, and progress for civil rights.

But as we’ve seen many times in our history, big steps forward can also come with strong resistance. While many Americans celebrated, others felt the country was moving too fast, leaving their values behind. Social conservatives, especially in religious communities, saw this ruling not as progress—but as a threat to their way of life.

That clash created more than just a disagreement. It deepened the divide between two very different visions of America. One side was pushing for full inclusion, equal rights, and recognition. The other was pushing back, worried about losing traditions and religious freedom. You could see it in real-life conflicts—like bakers refusing to make cakes for gay weddings or county clerks refusing to issue marriage licenses. These moments weren’t just about cake or paperwork. They became symbols in a larger culture war.

But this isn’t just a story about marriage. It’s also about power—who has it, how it’s used, and how it shapes our country.

Corporate America Joins the Fight—But Why?

After same-sex marriage was legalized, many big companies were quick to show support. Rainbow logos popped up in ads and on social media. Pride events were sponsored by banks, tech giants, and clothing brands. On the surface, it looked like progress—proof that society was moving forward.

But there’s another side to that story.

Corporate support for LGBTQ rights wasn’t just about equality. It was also about profit. Supporting popular social causes makes companies look good, especially with younger and more progressive customers. But while they put rainbow flags on their ads, many of these same companies donated to politicians who were trying to roll back LGBTQ rights or pass anti-trans laws.

So the question is: were they standing up for justice, or just doing good business?

This mix of politics and profit has become more common, and it’s left a lot of people feeling distrustful. Some conservatives now see big companies as pushing a “woke” agenda. Some progressives see them as fake allies—saying the right things while funding the wrong people.

Elections and the Politics of Division

The legalization of same-sex marriage also changed the political landscape. It energized both sides. Progressives used it to push for more rights—like protections for transgender Americans. Conservatives, on the other hand, used the backlash to rally voters who felt left behind by a changing culture.

In many ways, same-sex marriage became a turning point. It marked a big win for civil rights—but also added fuel to the fire of America’s growing divide. Elections since then have reflected that split, with culture war issues playing a bigger role than ever.

It’s not that same-sex marriage caused the division. But it revealed how deep it already was—and how issues of identity, rights, and belief can shape not just personal lives, but national politics.

So Where Do We Go From Here?

We need to be honest about the complexity of progress. Legalizing same-sex marriage was the right thing to do. It brought dignity and fairness to millions of people. But we also need to understand how change—even when it’s good—can make others feel anxious or left behind.

One thing that doesn’t get talked about enough is what marriage actually means in legal terms. It’s not just about love or having a ceremony. Marriage comes with a long list of rights and protections that many straight couples take for granted—like access to a spouse’s health insurance, hospital visitation, financial decision-making, inheritance rights, and Social Security or veterans’ benefits after a spouse dies.

Before same-sex marriage was legal, LGBTQ couples often had to hire lawyers to create complicated contracts just to get some of those protections—and even then, they couldn’t get all of them. Health insurance through a partner’s job, for example, was often impossible without a legal marriage. Civil unions helped in some states, but they weren’t recognized everywhere and didn’t offer full equality.

That’s why marriage equality mattered. It wasn’t just symbolic—it changed real, everyday lives.

If we want to move forward as a country, we have to find ways to talk about these things without shouting. We have to hold both truths at once: that civil rights matter deeply—and that change often brings conflict. The challenge is how to keep pushing for justice without tearing ourselves apart in the process.

How Black Lives Matter Changed America

When Black Lives Matter (BLM) emerged in 2014, it wasn’t just a hashtag—it was a demand for justice. The deaths of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, and other unarmed Black Americans at the hands of police sparked protests across the country. People of all races joined together to call for police reform and racial justice. But just as quickly as support for BLM grew, so did the backlash.

Some saw BLM as a movement for equality. Others saw it as an attack on law enforcement. The phrase “Black Lives Matter” was met with responses like “Blue Lives Matter” and “All Lives Matter,” turning what should have been a conversation about justice into yet another political battle. Over the years, BLM’s impact has rippled across civil rights, corporate power, and even elections—deepening the divide in America.

The Civil Rights Impact: Progress or Polarization?

BLM forced America to confront systemic racism in policing and beyond. It led to policy changes in some cities, including bans on chokeholds and the removal of police officers from schools. It also increased awareness of racial disparities in criminal justice, housing, and healthcare.

But progress came at a cost. As protests turned violent in some cities, critics painted the movement as lawless and destructive. Right-wing media pushed a narrative that BLM was anti-police, fueling fear and division. Instead of leading to a national consensus on reform, BLM deepened political and racial tensions.

Corporate America: Genuine Support or Marketing Stunt?

In 2020, after George Floyd’s death, corporations rushed to show support for BLM. Major companies issued statements, changed their social media logos, and donated millions to racial justice causes. Nike ran ads against racism. Ben & Jerry’s called for police reform. Even NASCAR banned the Confederate flag.

But how much of this was real? Critics argue that corporate America capitalized on the movement to boost its image. While some companies made real changes—hiring more diverse employees or reviewing discriminatory practices—many did little beyond symbolic gestures. As time passed, much of this corporate activism faded, leading many to question whether BLM’s influence on business was just a passing trend.

Elections: Mobilizing Voters or Dividing the Country?

BLM also reshaped American politics. The movement energized Black voters and young activists, helping Democrats win key elections in 2020. Calls to “defund the police” became a rallying cry for progressives, while conservatives used it to paint Democrats as extremists.

Republicans seized on the unrest and fear, making “law and order” a central campaign theme. Donald Trump and others portrayed BLM as dangerous, using images of burning buildings to drive home their message. This strategy worked—while Black voter turnout increased in 2020, Trump also gained support among Latinos and white voters who saw BLM protests as a threat to stability.

A Movement That Changed America—But Not in the Way Many Hoped

BLM brought urgent issues to light and forced change in some areas. But it also became a political flashpoint, with both sides using it to rally their base rather than find solutions. Instead of uniting Americans in the fight for justice, the movement—like so many others before it—became another battleground in an already divided nation.

The question now is: Can we move past the division and focus on the real issues? Or will every movement for change be twisted into another reason for Americans to turn against each other?

How Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Expanded Corporate Power

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, deciding that certain businesses could refuse to follow federal laws if those laws conflicted with the owners' religious beliefs. Specifically, the case involved Hobby Lobby, a chain of craft stores whose owners objected to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employee health insurance include birth control coverage. The Court’s 5-4 decision said that closely held corporations (those owned by just a few people) could claim religious exemptions, just like individuals.

This ruling had far-reaching consequences, not just for health care but also for corporate power, civil rights, and even elections. It fueled tensions in an already deeply divided America. Here’s why:

Corporate Rights vs. Individual Rights

The decision strengthened the idea that corporations have many of the same rights as individuals. But in this case, the rights of the company’s owners were prioritized over the rights of employees. Critics argued that this gave businesses too much power, allowing them to impose their beliefs on workers and limiting access to contraception, a key part of women’s health care.

The ruling also set a dangerous precedent: If a company could deny birth control coverage based on religious beliefs, what else could they refuse? Could businesses reject coverage for vaccines? Mental health care? LGBTQ+ rights? This case blurred the lines between personal faith and public responsibility, sparking concerns that corporate religious freedom could override individual freedoms.

Expanding Corporate Influence

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby was part of a broader shift toward expanding corporate influence in American life. The ruling built on the controversial Citizens United decision from 2010, which allowed corporations to spend unlimited money in elections under the argument that businesses have free speech rights. Both cases elevated corporate power, reducing the ability of everyday Americans to make their own choices, whether in the workplace or at the ballot box.

When corporations gain more rights, they gain more control—not just over employees, but over society. Wealthy business owners can shape policies in ways that benefit them while making life harder for workers. This deepens economic and social inequality, fueling resentment and division.

Impact on Elections and Political Polarization

The Court’s decision also played into America’s growing political divide. Conservative groups celebrated it as a victory for religious freedom, while progressives saw it as an attack on women’s rights and a sign of corporate overreach. This added fuel to the ongoing culture wars, further splitting Americans into opposing camps.

Politicians and advocacy groups used the ruling to rally their bases. Conservatives framed it as protection against government overreach, while liberals pointed to it as an example of creeping corporate control over personal freedoms. This division made it harder to find common ground, as each side became more entrenched in its views.

The Bigger Picture

The effects of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby go beyond just contraception coverage. It’s part of a larger trend where corporations gain more legal rights at the expense of individuals, especially workers. When business owners can use their personal beliefs to deny services, it weakens protections for employees and chips away at civil rights.

This ruling also shows how the Supreme Court plays a key role in shaping America’s future. Justices serve for life, and their decisions have long-term consequences. Cases like this highlight why elections matter—who we vote for determines who appoints justices, and those justices make decisions that shape our rights for generations.

Corporate Power Over Worker Rights

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby was more than a legal battle over birth control; it was a major victory in the ongoing expansion of corporate power over worker rights. By allowing business owners to impose their personal beliefs on employees' healthcare, the ruling reinforced a pattern where corporations gain more legal protections while workers lose autonomy. This decision set a precedent that further erodes employee rights, widening the power gap between businesses and individuals. As corporate influence continues to grow in law and politics, the struggle to protect worker rights remains an uphill battle.

McCutcheon v. FEC: Giving Billionaires a Louder Political Voice

In 2014, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in McCutcheon v. FEC that changed the way money flows through American politics. It struck down the overall limits on how much a wealthy individual could donate to all candidates and political parties combined. Before, a donor was capped at around $123,000 per election cycle. After McCutcheon, that limit was erased, giving billionaires the ability to donate the maximum amount to as many candidates and committees as they wanted. This ruling may seem like a technical change, but its effects have been profound—especially on civil rights, corporate power, and the deepening divides in American politics.

More Money, More Influence, Less Democracy

Before McCutcheon, campaign finance laws attempted to put some guardrails on how much influence any one person could have. The decision removed those restrictions, allowing the wealthiest Americans to exert even more control over elections. This means that a small handful of ultra-rich individuals now have a much louder voice in politics than the average voter.

For civil rights, this is especially concerning. History has shown that progress in voting rights, racial equality, and economic justice often comes when everyday people band together to demand change. But when big money dominates elections, politicians are more likely to listen to billionaires and corporate donors rather than the communities fighting for fair wages, police reform, or better schools. As a result, policies that could advance civil rights and economic justice struggle to gain traction.

Corporate Power on Steroids

The McCutcheon ruling also reinforced the power of big corporations. While the decision technically applied to individual donors, the reality is that corporate executives and lobbyists often work in coordination to push their interests. This means more influence for industries like Big Oil, Wall Street, and pharmaceutical companies—sectors that already benefit from tax loopholes, weak regulations, and government subsidies.

Without meaningful limits on donations, corporate-backed candidates have a major advantage, while politicians who want to prioritize the needs of workers, consumers, and small businesses often struggle to compete. Over time, this tilts policies even further in favor of corporate interests, making it harder to address income inequality, climate change, and healthcare access.

Fueling Division in American Politics

One of the most damaging effects of McCutcheon is how it has contributed to political polarization. When politicians depend on a small group of ultra-wealthy donors, they often feel pressured to adopt extreme positions that appeal to these funders rather than seeking common ground.

This leads to a cycle where parties are less interested in compromise and more focused on pleasing their biggest financial backers. Instead of working toward solutions that benefit the majority of Americans, politicians cater to the ideological demands of the wealthiest donors. As a result, trust in government continues to erode, and Americans feel more divided than ever.

What Now?

McCutcheon v. FEC was another step in the wrong direction for campaign finance reform, following Citizens United in 2010. But it doesn’t have to be the final word. There are growing efforts to push back against big money in politics, from public financing of elections to constitutional amendments that would overturn these rulings.

Ultimately, democracy works best when everyone’s voice is heard—not just the voices of the wealthiest few. Until meaningful reforms are made, the consequences of McCutcheon will continue to shape our elections, our policies, and the divisions that threaten to pull us apart.

What do you think? Should there be stronger limits on money in politics, or is unrestricted giving a form of free speech?