‘No Kings’ Isn’t a Gotcha

Looking back at fear, freedom, and what we were really fighting for

You may have seen a viral post making the rounds recently. It reads like this:

No kings, but put your mask on.
No kings, but lock us down.
No kings, but I’m firing you for not vaccinating.
No kings, but you can’t go outside.
…but you need 12,380 boosters.
…but you can’t worship the REAL King.
…but you’re responsible for my health.
…but no family gatherings over 10.

It’s meant to expose what some see as a contradiction: that people who claim to oppose authoritarianism were too comfortable with government control during the pandemic. And let’s be honest—many of us did feel powerless at times, confused, even angry. The rules changed quickly. Our routines were disrupted. Our sense of control was shaken. That frustration is real, and it deserves to be acknowledged.

But that post—and others like it—draw the wrong conclusion. It treats “No Kings” as a punchline, not a principle. It frames democratic decision-making during a crisis as the same thing as tyranny. And that’s where we need to pause, step back, and take a closer look at what “No Kings” actually means.

No Kings Doesn’t Mean “No Rules”

At its core, “No Kings” is about opposing unchecked, absolute power. It doesn’t mean no one ever tells you what to do. It means no one person decides everything for everyone.

In a monarchy, power is centralized in one figure. There are no votes. No accountability. No appeals. No participation.

In a democracy, even under strain, decision-making is distributed—among elected officials, public health agencies, school boards, local governments, and yes, even private businesses. The pandemic created pressure, urgency, and sometimes confusion. But the power was still divided. The decisions were still debated. And the people still had recourse.

If you disagreed with a rule, you could protest. People did.
If you thought a mandate went too far, you could sue. People did.
If you didn’t like how your leaders handled it, you could vote them out. People did that too.

That’s not tyranny. That’s democracy under pressure—still functioning, still flawed, but still ours.

You Had a Say. You Still Do.

That’s the key difference. In a real monarchy, you don’t get a say. There are no protests without punishment. No courts to appeal to. No elections to change the course.

But in our system—even when the stakes are high—you still have power. You may not get your way every time. No one does. But you are part of the system that shapes the rules.

That’s what “No Kings” is supposed to mean: that no one person gets to rule over you without limits or consequences.

And if our idea of freedom can’t coexist with shared responsibility, maybe what we’re calling freedom isn’t really that at all.

Some of This Wasn’t Even the Government

Another important piece often left out of the conversation: not all the frustrations people faced during the pandemic came from the government.

A lot of mandates and restrictions came from private companies—firings, customer policies, event rules, travel protocols. That’s not federal overreach. That’s private actors making decisions within a capitalist system that already gives them enormous latitude.

That doesn’t make it feel any better—but it does change the accountability equation.

If you’re angry about how much influence corporations have over your life, you’re not alone. That’s a conversation we should absolutely be having. But let’s not confuse that with democratic governance. In many cases, government was the only thing limiting corporate overreach, not causing it.

The Irony: Be Careful What We Call “Freedom”

Here’s what gives me pause: some of the loudest critics of the “No Kings” message today are cheering for a political figure who says things like:

• “I alone can fix it.”

• “I will be your retribution.”

• “If you come after me, I come after you.”

These aren’t the words of someone who believes in checks and balances. That’s not local control. That’s not collaborative governance. It’s unilateral power with vengeance attached.

And if we’re going to oppose kings, that opposition has to be consistent. It has to apply even when the would-be king shares your values—or your enemies.

Because history has shown us over and over: concentrated power never stays friendly for long.

What “No Kings” Really Means

So what does it really mean to say “No Kings”?

It means:

• No one person drags us into war.

• No one person jails us without trial.

• No one person decides what we believe, say, or do.

• No one person uses the machinery of government to punish dissent.

It doesn’t mean we always agree. It doesn’t mean the system always gets it right.

But it means we decide—together. Through law. Through debate. Through elections. Through systems designed to correct course, not cement control.

It’s slower. It’s messier. And in a crisis, it can feel frustrating.

But it’s not tyranny. It’s freedom with guardrails. And it’s worth protecting.

So yes:

No Kings.
Not then.
Not now.
Not from the left.
Not from the right.
Not from anyone.

The Real Cost of U.S. Wars by Party: 50-Year Breakdown

When politicians talk tough on foreign policy, it’s often framed as strength. But behind the patriotic rhetoric lies a more sobering truth: wars are expensive—devastatingly so.

Over the past 50 years, U.S. presidents from both major parties have initiated military operations abroad. But when we follow the money, a clear pattern emerges.

Republican administrations have consistently initiated more expensive conflicts—by trillions of dollars.

We examined the long-term costs of major armed conflicts started under Republican versus Democratic leadership. This includes not only direct military spending, but also long-term care for veterans, reconstruction efforts, and the interest accrued on war-related debt.

The Cost Breakdown

Conflict	President	Party	Estimated Long-Term Cost (2024 USD)
Iraq War (2003–)	George W. Bush	Republican	$2.5–3.0 trillion
Afghanistan War (2001–2021)	George W. Bush	Republican	$2.3 trillion
Gulf War (1990–1991)	George H. W. Bush	Republican	$30 billion
Panama Invasion (1989)	George H. W. Bush	Republican	$1–2 billion
Grenada Invasion (1983)	Ronald Reagan	Republican	$130 million
Lebanon Deployment (1982–1984)	Ronald Reagan	Republican	~$2 billion
Libya Air Campaign (2011)	Barack Obama	Democrat	$1.1 billion
Syria/ISIS Operations (2014–)	Barack Obama	Democrat	$40–50 billion
Kosovo War (1999)	Bill Clinton	Democrat	$5–10 billion
Bosnia Intervention (1995)	Bill Clinton	Democrat	~$5 billion
Drone Campaigns (2009–2017)	Barack Obama	Democrat	$10–20 billion

Estimated totals

• Republican-initiated conflicts: $4.8 to $5.5 trillion

• Democratic-initiated conflicts: $60 to $85 billion

Why It Matters

War doesn’t just cost lives—it also drains national resources that could otherwise be invested in healthcare, education, infrastructure, or debt reduction. These long-term financial commitments often extend for decades, long after the troops come home and the headlines fade.

Despite common narratives that portray Democrats as weaker on defense or Republicans as more fiscally responsible, the historical record tells a different story.

Final Thought

Before accepting any argument that equates military aggression with leadership, it’s worth asking: Who actually pays for these wars? Because the people making the decisions often aren’t the ones footing the bill—or living with the consequences.

Inequality

This is a good watch, I you want to see where things started to shift.

1955 vs 2025, who actually had it better?

[W]hat these lines all show is that 1980 was kind of this inflection point in our economy where the top earners kind of started to get in on most of the prosperity.

The period of expansion of the middle class that started in the 1940s, where most people in the workforce shared the gains in the economy equally, started ending in the 1980s. This isn’t an accident — this was policy.

The problem is, the party that wants to Make America Great Again isn’t talking about bringing us back to this era of American history — they want to fully restore the policies we had before then.

Theater of Cruelty: Why the Administration’s Immigration Crackdown Solves Nothing

The current administration wants you to believe it’s tough on immigration. They want headlines filled with arrests, detentions, and deportations. They want to project an image of control. But what they’re offering isn’t immigration policy — it’s political theater. It’s expensive, cruel, and completely detached from the root causes of the immigration challenges we actually face.

Let’s break this down.

Arrests Without Judges, Oversight, or Urgency

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is picking people up on administrative warrants — not criminal ones signed by a judge, but internal paperwork signed by ICE itself. There’s no immediate legal oversight, no court sign-off. In many cases, the people detained won’t see a judge for months or even years, because our immigration court system is so overwhelmed.

This would be like getting pulled over for allegedly speeding, then being jailed indefinitely without seeing a judge — all because a DMV official filled out a form.

Aggressive Tactics for Minor Infractions

Reports show ICE deploying militarized raids, midnight arrests, and detaining individuals for nothing more than civil infractions—expired visas, missed paperwork, or routine check-ins. In many cases, these actions are taken against people with pending asylum applications or Temporary Protected Status (TPS)—not violent criminals. One Los Angeles “military-style” operation resulted in over 40 arrests and was described by advocates as an “oppressive and vile paramilitary operation,” targeting nonviolent individuals in their homes or neighborhoods.

Immigration courts are no longer safe havens either: ICE has been arresting asylum-seekers in courthouse hallways, immediately following hearings or check-ins—even when a person has complied with all legal requirements. According to The Guardian, there were over 1,400 arrests at check-ins in the first month of the new term, mostly targeting individuals with no criminal history.

This isn’t targeted enforcement—it’s intimidation masquerading as policy, wielded against nonviolent, law‑abiding residents.

Due Process Denied

When people are deported — or detained for indefinite periods — without access to a timely hearing, that’s a due process failure. The Fifth Amendment doesn’t say “except for immigrants.” Everyone in this country is entitled to basic procedural fairness, especially when what’s at stake is a person’s freedom or life.

Instead, we have people being sent back to countries they fled from — without having their case properly heard. Or worse, we keep them locked in overcrowded detention centers for years while their case languishes in a backlog.

Congress Kept in the Dark

What’s happening inside those detention centers? It’s hard to say. Lawmakers have reported being denied access or limited to sanitized tours — in direct conflict with Congress’s oversight authority. In fact, the DHS recently imposed a new policy requiring 72 hours advance notice for visits to ICE facilities and explicitly reserving ICE’s “sole and unreviewable discretion” to deny, cancel, or reschedule visits—even when federal law guarantees unannounced access for oversight purposes. Critics argue this is a transparent attempt to shroud detention conditions in secrecy.

If there’s nothing to hide, why the secrecy?

Root Causes Ignored

Here’s what’s really happening: the current surge in migrants isn’t due to lawlessness. It’s due to failed states, violence, climate change, and economic collapse in parts of Central America and beyond. People are not “invading” — they’re fleeing. The U.S. system used to recognize this through legal protections like asylum and TPS.

But instead of investing in solutions — faster asylum hearings, more judges, legal representation, and regional diplomacy — the administration has chosen to invest in fear. Fear looks good on campaign ads, but it doesn’t solve the crisis. It just manufactures cruelty.

A Broken System Doesn’t Need More Punishment — It Needs Reform

Imagine this:

You’re accused of a traffic violation — let’s say going 10 MPH over the speed limit. But instead of getting a court date in a few weeks, you’re arrested on the spot. Then you’re told it’ll take 5 years to resolve your case because the courts are backed up. During that time, you sit in a crowded jail, even if you have a spotless record. You never get a trial. You can’t appeal. You might be sent somewhere you don’t know, without seeing a lawyer or judge at all.

That’s what’s happening right now — just swap the traffic court for immigration court.

We Need a Real Fix

We don’t need more agents, more raids, or more detention centers. We need judges, caseworkers, legal aid, and sensible timelines. We need a functional, humane immigration system — one that recognizes the difference between a paperwork violation and a criminal threat. One that lives up to America’s promise of fairness and due process.

What we’re doing now isn’t solving the problem — it’s just turning people’s lives into props for a political show.

If we truly care about justice, safety, and human dignity, we must stop treating immigration as a stage for cruelty — and start building a system that works.

It’s time to bring the curtain down and do some real work.

An Open Letter to Federal Agents: A Call to Conscience

To the agents of Homeland Security, ICE, and all others tasked with enforcing the laws of this nation:

You signed up to serve your country. You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States—not to obey a man, a party, or a political movement, but to defend the principles that have guided our republic since its founding. That responsibility comes with power, and that power demands accountability. In that spirit, I offer the following:

Don’t Hide Your Face

If you’re carrying out lawful orders in accordance with the Constitution, then you should have nothing to hide. In a democratic society, anonymity in enforcement is a red flag—not a badge of honor. Citizens have the right to know who is detaining them, questioning them, or searching their homes. If you obscure your identity, you erode public trust and make it harder for people to tell the difference between lawful authority and unlawful aggression.

Think for Yourself

It is not enough to follow orders. The law is not a shield for immoral action. You must know it, question it, and apply it judiciously. Study the Constitution. Read case law on unlawful orders and how to resist them within your chain of command. Learn how others before you—military and civilian alike—have stood firm in defense of principle when asked to do something wrong. History doesn’t look kindly on those who abdicate their conscience.

Treat Civilians with Respect

Your authority ends where someone else’s rights begin. The people you encounter may not know the law like you do. They may be scared or confused. But most are not your enemy—they are citizens, neighbors, or simply human beings who deserve to be treated with dignity. When you conduct yourself professionally, when you clearly identify yourself and your purpose, you help uphold the law. When you don’t, you undermine it. Ask yourself: if a group of unidentified men approached your family with weapons and refused to explain why—how would you respond?

Use Force Only as a Last Resort

You carry weapons. That is not a privilege—it is a grave responsibility. The power to detain, restrain, or harm another human being should never be exercised lightly or reflexively. De-escalation is not weakness; it is professionalism. Violence should always be the last resort, never the first instinct.

Every act of force you use is a message: to the person it’s used against, to the community that witnesses it, and to the country that you serve. That message should never be one of domination—it should be one of necessity, restraint, and accountability. Anything else diminishes the very rule of law you’re sworn to uphold.

Read the Constitution.
Read the Declaration of Independence.

Don’t just memorize the parts you’re told matter. Understand why these documents were written in the first place. Understand the grievances that led to their creation, the abuses they sought to prevent, and the balance of powers they enshrine. Remember: we were founded by people who resisted government overreach. The rule of law only survives when those who enforce it know where the line is—and refuse to cross it.

You are not just agents of the state. You are agents of the people. The Constitution needs guardians. Be one.

Further Reading and Resources

On Constitutional Rights and Civic Responsibility:

• U.S. Constitution (National Archives)

• Declaration of Independence (National Archives)

• Interactive Constitution (National Constitution Center)

On Lawful Orders and Accountability:

• Cornell Legal Information Institute – Search for relevant federal laws and legal commentary.

On De-escalation and Use of Force:

• NIJ: Use of Force Continuum

On Professional Conduct and Civilian Interaction:

• DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

• The Marshall Project

Whistleblower Aid

• Whistleblower Aid

No Kings

I’ve been struggling this past week to figure out what to write.

The immigration raids in Los Angeles. The protests that followed. The President sending in the National Guard — and then the Marines — to suppress what were, in large part, peaceful demonstrations. The political assassinations in Minnesota. The growing wave of “No Kings” rallies across the country.

It’s a lot.

Each of these events is heavy on its own, but together they form a storm of chaos and fear. And in trying to process it all, I keep returning to one underlying theme: there’s so much focus on what we’re against — but not enough on what we’re for.

This, more than anything, is the legacy of the conservative/MAGA movement and the opposition to it. Not policy or vision. Not even ideology, really. Just relentless opposition. It’s a politics of negation — built on grievance, resentment, and fear of change. What we get is a steady drumbeat of “Not That,” “Not Them,” and “Never This.”

But let’s be honest: they’re not the only ones guilty of this.

Across the political spectrum, our messages have started to mirror one another in tone — even if not in content. Our political climate has become a series of competing “anti” messages. “Not fascism,” “Not socialism,” “Not the establishment,” “Not the radicals,” “Not the elites.” Everyone is fighting against something. But who’s offering a real vision of what comes next?

Where is the leadership that shows us a future to move toward — not just more things to fear?

It’s not that people don’t care. It’s that everything around us — the algorithms, the cable news cycles, the clickbait headlines — is designed to amplify conflict, not resolution. To reward outrage, not understanding. To push virality, not vision.

In this environment, it’s easier to rally energy against something than to build momentum toward something. And that’s a problem — because if all we do is resist, we stay locked in place. Or worse, we spin in circles. We become like a fish flopping on the deck, reacting to every splash but moving nowhere.

At some point, we have to stop asking what we’re fighting against and start asking what we’re fighting for.

We need to find each other. Build bridges. Not in some vague, idealistic sense, but in a real, hard, uncomfortable way. We need to talk about where we’re going — together — because there is no going back. That’s a myth. The only path is forward.

And that path needs to be shaped by us — the people who still believe in democracy, dignity, and shared responsibility. People who believe we are all better off when we’re all better off. People who believe that “No Kings” doesn’t just mean resisting authoritarian power — it means rejecting the idea that any one person, party, or movement has all the answers.

“No Kings” means we govern ourselves. Together.

And that means it’s on us to define the future we want to live in — and then fight like hell to build it.

Two Fathers

A Reflection on Father’s Day and the Role of Government

Today is Father’s Day here in the United States — a moment to honor the men who raise, teach, and guide us. But it’s also an opportunity to reflect more broadly on what it means to lead, to care, and to nurture growth.

I want to offer a contrast between two very different kinds of fathers.

The first is a father who restricts. He tells his children what not to do. He lays down rules without explanation, limits their choices, and scolds them when they misstep. His love might be present, but it’s conditional and often cloaked in fear or shame. His children may obey, but they do so out of compliance, not understanding.

The second is a father who teaches. He explains why things are the way they are. He gives his children the freedom to make their own choices — and when they stumble, he’s there to help them learn from the experience. His love is steady and patient. Mistakes aren’t punished; they’re seen as necessary steps in the process of becoming wiser, stronger, more independent.

Now, imagine applying that contrast to something bigger: our country.

What kind of “father” is the United States?

Of course, this analogy isn’t perfect — a nation isn’t a parent, and citizens aren’t children. But the metaphor is still useful, especially when we consider how government functions in our daily lives. There are times when our policies, laws, and leadership resemble that first kind of father: controlling, punitive, suspicious of freedom. And there are times when we move toward the second: empowering, supportive, invested in helping people thrive, not just obey.

Some may bristle at the idea of thinking about a country in personal or familial terms. For many, government feels like an impersonal machine — bureaucratic, distant, and slow. But in a democracy like ours, that perception misses the point. Our system of government begins with three simple words: We the People.

We are not separate from the government — we are the government. Every law, every regulation, every program is a reflection of what we choose to value as a society. It’s how we decide to live together, to take care of each other, and to chart a path forward.

So on this Father’s Day, as we think about what it means to guide, support, and lead — let’s also ask what kind of country we want to be. Do we want a government that limits out of fear? Or one that empowers out of trust and compassion?

As with parenting, the answer will shape not just who we are today — but who we become tomorrow.

De-escalate. Redirect. Overwhelm.

Today’s Edition Newsletter

There is much to discuss regarding Trump's illegal and unconstitutional order nationalizing 2,000 California National Guard troops in response to protests in Los Angeles. I will not attempt to summarize breaking news. Instead, I will focus on the question, “What should we do?”

My answer: De-escalate. Redirect. Overwhelm.

Take Back Control — How We Fix a Rigged System

No one should have to buy a seat at the table in a country founded on liberty and justice for all.

That’s the promise we were raised to believe in—that this is a nation where everyone has a voice, where the government works for “We the People,” not just the wealthy, not just the well-connected.

But let’s be honest: it doesn’t feel like that anymore.

It feels like Washington takes care of its donors and lobbyists first—and working Americans last. Whether you live in a small town or a big city, whether you vote red or blue, most of us can agree: the system is rigged in favor of the rich and powerful.

The good news? We can fix it. But first, we have to understand how money is twisting the system—and then take action to stop it.

Step One: Shine a Light on Who’s Pulling the Strings

If someone’s spending millions to influence our votes or laws, we should know who they are. Period.

Right now, billionaires and political insiders use “dark money” groups to hide their names behind bland-sounding organizations—things like “Americans for Freedom” or “Citizens for Prosperity.” These groups run attack ads, push bills, and sway elections—and no one knows who’s funding them.

That’s not democracy. That’s deception.

We need full transparency. No more hiding behind loopholes. If you want to influence an election, your name should be on the record. As the Bible says, “For everything that is hidden will eventually be brought into the open” (Luke 8:17).

This isn’t a left or right issue—it’s right versus wrong.

Step Two: Break the Insider Money Cycle

It’s no secret that D.C. runs on connections. But did you know members of Congress and their staff often leave public service and immediately become lobbyists—sometimes for the very industries they were supposed to regulate?

That’s called the revolving door, and it’s spinning faster than ever.

We need real rules that say: If you serve the public, you shouldn’t be allowed to cash in on that service for years after you leave. And no more campaign donations from lobbyists while they’re trying to sway laws. Public servants should work for the people—not for a paycheck from Big Pharma or Wall Street.

Step Three: Put Elections Back in the Hands of the People

Right now, running for office is so expensive that many good people never even try. That leaves us with millionaires—or people backed by millionaires.

But some states are trying a better way:

• Maine and Arizona offer public campaign financing, where candidates can run competitive races without begging rich donors for help.

• Seattle gives every voter “democracy vouchers” they can use to support the candidate of their choice—no PACs required.

• New York City matches small donations 8-to-1, giving local voters more say than big-dollar outsiders.

These programs work. They boost voter participation, diversify the candidate pool, and reduce the influence of wealthy donors.

Imagine if more elections were won by ideas, not by ad budgets.

Step Four: What We Can Do—Right Now

This country doesn’t belong to billionaires. It belongs to us.

Here’s how we take it back:

• Vote in primaries—that’s where many decisions are made.

• Support candidates who reject PAC money and pledge to serve their constituents, not their funders.

• Call your representatives and ask: “Do you support campaign finance reform and transparency?”

• Talk about this with friends, at church, at work—because the more people understand how the money works, the harder it is for the powerful to keep hiding it.

And most importantly: don’t give up.

Conclusion: The System’s Rigged, But It’s Not Broken

Corruption isn’t new in America. But neither is reform. We’ve faced crooked politicians before. We’ve faced unfair systems before. And we’ve changed them—by organizing, by voting, by demanding better.

We can do it again.

Because this nation was never meant to be bought and sold. It was meant to be governed by the people. And as long as we still care—as long as we still show up—it’s not too late to make that promise real again.

“Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.” — Amos 5:24

Let’s make it so.

How Lobbying Shapes Laws More Than Elections

Elections may decide who gets the seat—but lobbyists help decide what they do once they’re in it.

In Part 1, we looked at how Citizens United unleashed a flood of dark money into U.S. elections, helping wealthy donors and special interests shape who gets elected. But the influence doesn’t stop there. In fact, campaign money is just the down payment.

The real returns come after the votes are counted—when lobbyists get to work.

What Lobbying Really Is—and Why It Matters

At its core, lobbying is the act of trying to influence lawmakers or government officials. It’s protected under the First Amendment as the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” And in theory, anyone can do it—citizens, nonprofits, trade unions, corporations.

But in practice, lobbying is a multibillion-dollar industry dominated by those with the money to hire professionals, make campaign donations, and get regular access to lawmakers.

Lobbyists aren’t just knocking on doors or handing out business cards. They’re:

• Writing the first drafts of legislation.

• Offering talking points and “model bills” to lawmakers and their staff.

• Sitting on advisory panels.

• Influencing which bills get committee attention or floor votes—and which quietly die.

The Numbers: Billions Spent, Year After Year

Lobbying isn’t a side game—it’s the main event. In 2023 alone, over $4.1 billion was spent on lobbying in the U.S. That’s more than the entire GDP of some countries.

And it’s not just a handful of players:

• Pharmaceuticals and health products: over $380 million.

• Insurance and finance: over $300 million.

• Big Tech: hundreds of millions across Facebook (Meta), Google, Amazon, and others.

• Fossil fuels and energy: major players like ExxonMobil and Koch Industries spend tens of millions annually.

Why spend so much? Because it works.

Case Studies: When Lobbying Shapes the Law

Big Pharma and Drug Prices

The pharmaceutical industry has long been one of the most powerful lobbying forces in Washington. It helped block efforts to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices for years. Even modest reforms have been delayed or watered down. One result: Americans pay far more for prescription drugs than citizens of any other developed country.

Wall Street and Financial Reform

After the 2008 crash, public pressure led to the Dodd-Frank Act, aimed at reining in risky financial behavior. But lobbyists for big banks worked overtime to weaken key provisions, secure loopholes, and delay enforcement through the rulemaking process. Today, many safeguards envisioned by the law exist only on paper—or not at all.

Big Tech’s Quiet Influence

Tech giants like Meta, Google, and Amazon have built bipartisan lobbying machines. They fund think tanks, sponsor events, and quietly shape data privacy laws, antitrust enforcement, and content moderation policy. Despite public concern, Congress has repeatedly failed to pass meaningful tech regulation.

Beyond Congress: The Hidden Influence

Lobbying doesn’t just happen on Capitol Hill. A huge amount of influence happens inside federal agencies—the ones tasked with writing the detailed rules that laws require.

This is called regulatory capture: when industries exert so much influence over the agencies meant to regulate them that the regulators become effectively beholden to the regulated. Think of the SEC working closely with Wall Street, or the EPA consulting fossil fuel lobbyists on environmental rules.

Then there’s the revolving door: members of Congress and agency officials retire—or are voted out—and walk straight into high-paying lobbying jobs. Their value? Insider knowledge, personal connections, and an open door to their former colleagues.

“Soft Power” and Astroturf

Not all lobbying looks like lobbying.

Sometimes, it looks like a concerned citizens’ group urging Congress to act—but the group is funded by an industry association. Other times, it’s a glossy report from a “neutral” think tank—written with corporate sponsorship.

This is known as astroturfing—fake grassroots movements created by powerful interests. The goal is to make industry-backed ideas look like they came from ordinary Americans.

Why Voters Can’t Compete

While voters get a say every two or four years, lobbyists have access every day. They don’t just donate—they educate (or spin), provide bill language, and serve as trusted advisers to understaffed congressional offices. In some cases, lawmakers openly admit they rely on lobbyists for technical details or policy advice.

Even when constituents flood phone lines or show up at town halls, they often struggle to match the daily presence, funding, and influence of professional lobbyists.

Reforms Have Been Tried—And Weakened

There are laws requiring lobbyists to register and report their activities, but many simply label themselves “strategic consultants” and sidestep the rules. Disclosure reports are vague, inconsistent, and often come long after the fact.

Attempts to curb the revolving door—like mandatory cooling-off periods—are limited and often ignored.

The ROI of Political Money

If campaign spending is the investment, lobbying is the return.

For wealthy interests, it’s a smart bet. A $10 million lobbying campaign can delay or defeat a regulation that would cost them hundreds of millions. And thanks to weak disclosure rules and insider access, they can do it quietly.

In Part 3, we’ll look at what can be done—what reforms are on the table, what’s working at the state level, and how voters can push back against a system where money talks louder than citizens.

Because democracy shouldn’t be pay-to-play.

Citizens United and the Rise of Dark Money

What if your vote mattered less than a billionaire’s donation?

That’s not just a cynical punchline—it’s the real-world result of a decade and a half of erosion in campaign finance law. The turning point? A 2010 Supreme Court decision that changed American politics forever: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Since then, the rise of “dark money”—undisclosed, often untraceable political spending—has made it harder than ever for voters to know who’s really behind the ads, the issues, and even the candidates themselves.

Before 2010: Limits, Loopholes, and a Fragile Balance

For much of modern history, federal campaign finance law tried to strike a balance between free speech and fair elections. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as McCain-Feingold) prohibited corporations and unions from using treasury funds to finance “electioneering communications” close to an election. It also strengthened disclosure requirements.

It wasn’t perfect—wealthy individuals and PACs still held disproportionate influence—but it offered some transparency. You could trace much of the money, and there were caps on how much different entities could spend directly or in coordination with campaigns.

That all changed in 2010.

Citizens United: The Floodgates Open

In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that corporations and unions could spend unlimited funds on independent political expenditures, under the First Amendment. In other words, money = speech—and corporations have the same speech rights as people when it comes to politics.

The Court drew a legal line: while direct donations to campaigns could still be limited, “independent” spending—that is, spending not coordinated with a candidate—could not. This distinction became a massive loophole.

Within months, so-called “Super PACs” were born: entities that could raise and spend unlimited sums, as long as they didn’t “coordinate” with candidates. Meanwhile, certain nonprofits, especially 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, didn’t even have to disclose their donors.

Enter Dark Money

“Dark money” refers to political spending by groups that aren’t required to reveal their funding sources. That means voters can be bombarded with political ads—often highly targeted, emotional, or misleading—without ever knowing who’s paying for them.

Here’s how it often works:

• A wealthy donor gives to a 501(c)(4) nonprofit like Americans for Prosperity.

• That nonprofit gives to a Super PAC.

• The Super PAC runs attack ads in a tight Senate race, helping swing the outcome.

• The donor’s name never appears in public records.

This isn’t just a theoretical concern. In 2006, dark money made up less than 2% of outside spending. By 2012, it was over 40%. According to OpenSecrets, more than $1 billion in dark money has been spent since Citizens United—and that’s just what we can partially trace.

Impact on Elections—and Democracy

Dark money doesn’t just influence general elections. It’s increasingly used to dominate primaries, where lower turnout and more ideological voters make it easier to sway the outcome. Candidates seen as too moderate—or too independent—often find themselves outspent by anonymous attack ads from outside groups.

It’s also being used in judicial races. In state supreme court elections, where most voters know little about the candidates, even a modest dark money campaign can flip the outcome—potentially changing how state laws are interpreted for years to come.

Meanwhile, everyday voters are left in the dark. When you see an ad from “Americans for Truth and Prosperity” or “Citizens for a Strong Future,” what does that even mean? Who’s behind it? What do they want? Increasingly, we don’t know—and that’s by design.

The Debate: Free Speech or Hidden Power?

Supporters of Citizens United argue that money is speech, and that more voices—even corporate ones—enrich the political conversation. But critics say it creates an uneven playing field, where the wealthiest players drown out everyone else and obscure the true sources of power.

Efforts to reverse or mitigate the ruling have repeatedly failed. The DISCLOSE Act, which would require dark money groups to reveal their major donors, has been blocked in Congress multiple times. Some states have attempted transparency laws, but legal challenges and lax enforcement limit their effectiveness.

What’s Next?

The rise of dark money has changed not just how campaigns are run, but how power is wielded behind the scenes. And this influence doesn’t end on Election Day.

In Part 2 of this series, we’ll follow the money from the campaign trail to the Capitol, exploring how lobbying—not voting—often shapes the laws that govern our lives.

Because in Washington, it’s not just about who wins the race—it’s about who writes the rules.

How Presidents Abuse Emergency Powers to Bypass Congress

Power Without Accountability

Emergency powers were intended to allow presidents to respond swiftly during genuine crises—wars, natural disasters, or financial emergencies. However, in recent years, these powers have increasingly been used to bypass Congress, sidestep public debate, and implement significant policy changes under the guise of national security.

Previously, we’ve examined the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the National Emergencies Act, two pivotal laws granting presidents extensive authority upon declaring a national emergency. Another critical statute in this context is the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, specifically Section 232, which empowers presidents to regulate trade if imports are deemed a threat to national security.

This post explores how these overlapping emergency powers have been stretched beyond their original intent, posing risks to the constitutional balance of power.

The Original Purpose of Emergency Powers

Emergency powers in democracies are designed for rare, urgent situations requiring immediate action. In the U.S., key laws include:

• The National Emergencies Act (NEA)

• The IEEPA

• The Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (TEA)

• The Stafford Act, addressing natural disasters

These laws often contain vague language and lack stringent safeguards, making them susceptible to misuse by presidents seeking to circumvent the standard legislative process.

When Trade Becomes a National Security Emergency

The Trade Expansion Act of 1962, enacted during the Cold War, allows the president to impose tariffs if imports threaten national security. Historically underutilized, this provision gained prominence when President Trump invoked Section 232 to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from allies like Canada and the EU. Critics argued this was a misuse of the law, but courts upheld the action, granting the executive branch significant discretion in defining national security threats in trade.

In 2025, President Trump further expanded the use of emergency powers by invoking the IEEPA to impose broad tariffs, including the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs. These actions faced legal challenges, and on May 28, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the president had overstepped his authority under the IEEPA, blocking the enforcement of these tariffs. However, the following day, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a temporary stay on the ruling, allowing the tariffs to remain in effect pending appeal.

Why It’s So Easy to Abuse These Powers

Several factors contribute to the ease with which presidents can exploit emergency powers:

• Vague statutory language: Terms like “unusual and extraordinary threats” (IEEPA) and “national security” (TEA) are not clearly defined.

• Lack of automatic expiration: Many emergency declarations remain active indefinitely without periodic review.

• Executive control over information: The president can classify or selectively release information to justify actions.

• Judicial deference: Courts often hesitate to challenge the executive on national security grounds, although recent rulings indicate a shift.

• Congressional inaction: Political divisions and reluctance to confront the executive branch hinder legislative oversight.

These systemic issues create an environment where emergency powers can be used to implement significant policy changes with minimal checks and balances.

This Isn’t Just an American Problem

Globally, the misuse of emergency powers has been a tool for democratic backsliding:

• Hungary: Prime Minister Viktor Orbán used emergency decrees to bypass parliament.

• India: Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared an emergency in 1975, suspending civil liberties.

• Turkey: President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan expanded his powers following a failed coup attempt.

In the U.S., similar patterns emerge. For instance, IEEPA has been used to target not only foreign governments but also companies and platforms like TikTok, extending the reach of emergency powers into areas like technology and information control.

How We Fix It

To prevent the abuse of emergency powers, several reforms should be considered:

• Implement time limits: Emergency declarations should expire after a set period unless renewed by Congress.

• Clarify definitions: Statutory terms like “national security” need precise definitions to prevent broad interpretations.

• Enhance transparency: Require detailed justifications and regular reporting on the use of emergency powers.

• Strengthen legislative oversight: Provide Congress with mechanisms to review and, if necessary, terminate emergency declarations.

• Ensure judicial review: Courts should have a clear mandate to assess the legality of emergency actions promptly.

These measures aim to restore the balance of power and ensure that emergency powers serve their intended purpose without undermining democratic governance.

It’s Time to Pull These Powers Back

Currently, the U.S. operates under numerous ongoing emergency declarations, some dating back decades. As recent events demonstrate, emergency powers are increasingly used to enact significant policy changes without congressional approval. To safeguard democracy, it’s imperative to re-evaluate and reform the legal frameworks governing emergency powers, ensuring they are used appropriately and with adequate oversight.

Is the Deep State Real—or Just a Symptom of a Bigger Problem?

Why Americans across the political spectrum feel ignored—and what we can actually do about it

For years now, the term “Deep State” has been tossed around in political conversations, mostly as a warning about unelected officials supposedly working behind the scenes to undermine the will of the people. For some, it’s a conspiracy theory. For others, it’s a common-sense explanation for why nothing in Washington ever seems to change—no matter who you vote for.

But what if the truth is more complicated—and more unifying—than either side has been told?

Let’s take a serious, fact-based look at what people mean when they talk about the “Deep State,” why those concerns aren’t just paranoia, and how Americans from the left, right, and center might actually agree on what needs to change.

What People Mean When They Say “Deep State”

When folks talk about the “Deep State,” they’re often referring to a mix of things: federal agencies, intelligence operatives, long-serving bureaucrats, and powerful elites who never seem to leave Washington. Some imagine secret meetings in smoke-filled rooms; others just mean the slow, stubborn resistance to change inside our government.

What’s important to understand is this: behind the label is a very real frustration. Americans across the political spectrum sense that their voices aren’t being heard—that decisions are made by insiders with their own agendas. That frustration is legitimate. But the idea that there’s a single secret cabal controlling everything? That’s a distraction from the real issue: systemic unaccountability.

Who Actually Has Power—and Why It Feels Out of Reach

The Career Bureaucracy

The federal government employs around 2 million civilian workers—career staff who keep the lights on in everything from Social Security to disaster response. They’re not political appointees; they’re supposed to serve the public regardless of who’s in charge.

But here’s the issue: while many are hardworking and essential, the system is rigid, slow, and often immune to feedback. It’s nearly impossible to fire poor performers. Promotions are based more on time served than on results. Rules are written in legalese few outside D.C. can understand.

Progressives worry that these agencies are too easily captured by corporate influence. Conservatives worry they’re biased against outsiders and reformers. Both are right to demand a system that’s more responsive to the people it serves.

Intelligence and Security Agencies

After 9/11, the U.S. intelligence system ballooned in size and power. Agencies like the FBI, CIA, and NSA gained sweeping authority, sometimes with too little oversight. Progressives recall the lies about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Conservatives point to abuses during the Trump years, like flawed FISA warrants and politicized investigations.

Both sides agree on this: government agencies that can operate in the dark should be subject to real, independent oversight. National security matters—but not at the expense of the Constitution.

The Real Elites: Lobbyists and Contractors

Here’s where the real power often hides—and where populists and progressives can find the most common ground.

The so-called “revolving door” between public office and private profit spins fast in Washington. A lawmaker writes rules for the banking industry, then takes a cushy job on Wall Street. A Pentagon official awards defense contracts, then joins the board of a weapons manufacturer. This isn’t conspiracy—it’s standard operating procedure.

This is the swamp. And it’s been allowed to grow for decades.

Why “Deep State” Rhetoric Can Backfire

Calling everything you don’t like “the Deep State” might feel satisfying—but it muddies the water. It turns valid concerns into a catch-all term that’s too vague to fix.

Worse, it can be used by bad actors to justify purging professionals and replacing them with loyalists—not reformers. That’s not draining the swamp. That’s turning it into a moat around one man’s power.

The goal shouldn’t be to burn it all down. The goal should be to rebuild a system that actually works for us.

How Americans on Both Sides Can Work Together

Despite our differences, many Americans—left, right, and in between—want the same basic things:

• A government that works efficiently and serves the people

• Fair rules that apply to everyone, not just the connected

• Agencies that protect, not spy

• Public servants who are accountable, not entitled

Here are a few reforms most Americans could support:

• Civil Service Reform: Make it easier to remove bad actors while protecting good employees from political purges.

• Intelligence Oversight: Give Congress real tools to monitor surveillance and prevent political abuse.

• End the Revolving Door: Ban former officials from lobbying the agencies they worked in.

• Boost Transparency: Strengthen public access to information, speed up FOIA requests, and enforce open meeting laws.

These aren’t partisan ideas. They’re pro-democracy.

It’s Not a Cabal—It’s a Broken System

Is there a secret government pulling all the strings? No. But is there a powerful, bloated, and often unaccountable system that puts its own survival ahead of public service? Absolutely.

And that’s something we should all care about fixing.

If we can stop shouting past each other and start asking the right questions—who has power?, how do they get it?, and who holds them accountable?—we might discover we’ve got more in common than we thought.

It’s not about choosing between left or right. It’s about choosing between a system that serves itself—and a system that serves us.

Words Matter: How Language Shapes Our Politics

More Than Just Semantics

In today’s political landscape, words don’t just convey ideas—they shape them. A term like “freedom” or “woke” can inspire pride in one group and provoke outrage in another. When words are used without clarity—or twisted to serve a political agenda—they can end conversations instead of starting them.

Certain terms have become emotionally loaded, weaponized for quick wins in the culture war rather than meaningful discussion. But if we want to repair our fractured politics, we need to stop and ask: What do these words really mean? Who gets to define them? And what’s lost when we don’t?

Let’s take a closer look at four words—woke, socialism, freedom, and patriotism—and unpack how they’re being used, misused, and misunderstood in today’s political conversation.

Woke: From Awareness to Weapon

Original meaning: In Black communities, “woke” originally meant staying alert to racial injustice, police violence, and systemic inequality—a moral vigilance rooted in lived experience.

How it’s used now: Today, “woke” is often used as a pejorative by conservatives to mock or dismiss progressive values and social movements.

Example: A school updating its curriculum to include more diverse authors is criticized for “pushing a woke agenda,” rather than fostering inclusion.

Left vs. Right:

• Left: A call for awareness, justice, and inclusion—though some on the Left now avoid the term due to backlash.

• Right: A catch-all insult for progressive culture, identity politics, or perceived overreach in social norms.

Why it matters: When “woke” is reduced to a punchline, it prevents real conversations about race, gender, or inequality. Worse, it creates a climate where acknowledging injustice is treated as more dangerous than the injustice itself.

Socialism: A Rorschach Test

Original meaning: A political and economic system advocating for collective or government ownership of key industries. In practice, it exists on a spectrum—from authoritarian models to democratic systems that mix markets with strong social programs.

How it’s used now: “Socialism” is frequently used by critics on the Right to label everything from the Affordable Care Act to student loan forgiveness—even when those programs exist comfortably within a capitalist economy.

Example: Universal healthcare in Canada is often dismissed in the U.S. as “socialist,” even though it functions within a broadly capitalist system.

Left vs. Right:

• Left: Democratic socialism as a tool for equity—investing in people through healthcare, education, and public infrastructure.

• Right: A warning label implying state control, high taxes, and a loss of individual freedom.

Why it matters: When “socialism” is used as a scare word, it discourages honest policy debate. Equating any public investment with tyranny erases the vast and successful middle ground that exists in most of the developed world.

Freedom: Whose Liberty Counts?

Original meaning: The foundation of American identity—freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and personal choice.

How it’s used now: “Freedom” is often invoked to defend personal choice, but inconsistently. It may be used to resist public health measures or regulations, while simultaneously supporting restrictions on voting, books, or bodily autonomy.

Example: Refusing to wear a mask during a public health crisis is defended as “freedom,” while banning drag shows or reproductive care is also framed as defending “freedom.”

Left vs. Right:

• Left: Freedom to live safely, access healthcare, marry who you love, and participate fully in society.

• Right: Freedom from government mandates, taxes, and perceived moral imposition.

Why it matters: Freedom should be a shared value, but it often becomes a zero-sum game. When one group’s “freedom” curtails another’s rights, we’re no longer talking about liberty—we’re talking about control.

Patriotism: Loyalty vs. Love of Country

Original meaning: Pride in one’s country and a belief in its potential. True patriotism involves both celebrating national strengths and acknowledging its flaws.

How it’s used now: “Patriotism” is sometimes equated with unquestioning loyalty to symbols—the flag, the military, traditional narratives. Critics of government policy are often painted as un-American.

Example: NFL players kneeling during the national anthem to protest police violence were labeled “unpatriotic,” despite acting on deeply held beliefs about justice.

Left vs. Right:

• Left: Patriotism means holding your country accountable, pushing it to live up to its ideals.

• Right: Patriotism means honoring tradition, national pride, and unity—even when that means avoiding critique.

Why it matters: When patriotism is used to demand silence or conformity, it weakens democracy. True love of country requires the courage to challenge it when necessary—not out of contempt, but out of hope.

The Stakes of Lazy Language

In a healthy democracy, words like “woke,” “socialism,” “freedom,” and “patriotism” should invite discussion, not shut it down. But in our current climate, they’re often used to signal tribal loyalty or end debates before they begin.

The next time you hear one of these terms, try asking:

• What does this person really mean?

• Is the word being used to clarify—or to inflame?

• Are we having an honest discussion, or hiding behind buzzwords?

Words are powerful. If we want to fix what’s broken, we have to start with how we talk about it. Because until we agree on what we’re saying, we can’t begin to understand one another—let alone find common ground.

“We All Are Going to Die”: Cruelty and the Gospel According to Joni Ernst

At a town hall this week in Parkersburg, Iowa, Senator Joni Ernst offered a response so callous it instantly went viral. Confronted by a constituent worried about Medicaid cuts in the GOP’s latest budget proposal, Ernst brushed it off with a smile and a shrug: “Well, we all are going to die.”

The room groaned.

That moment wasn’t just insensitive—it was revealing. It captured the flippant cruelty at the heart of the Republican Party’s so-called “big, beautiful” budget bill. And it highlighted how far removed today’s GOP is from both fiscal honesty and the values they so often claim to uphold—particularly when they wrap themselves in the language of Christianity.

The False Premise: Medicaid and Immigrants

Ernst, like other Republicans, tried to justify the cuts by claiming they only target people who aren’t eligible for Medicaid—especially undocumented immigrants. She parroted the number “1.4 million” as if millions of “illegals” are fraudulently draining the system.

Here’s the truth: undocumented immigrants are already barred from accessing full Medicaid. They’re only eligible for Emergency Medicaid—coverage that helps someone in life-threatening situations like childbirth or trauma, and only if they meet strict income limits. Emergency Medicaid accounts for less than 1% of the program’s total spending.

That “1.4 million” figure? There’s no reliable source backing it up. And even if fraud were happening at that scale (it’s not), uncovering it would require a larger budget and more oversight staff—not less.

This isn’t about rooting out fraud. It’s about justifying the unjustifiable: cutting healthcare from people who need it and can’t afford it.

The Real Impact: Kicking People While They’re Down

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the GOP’s Medicaid proposal could strip health coverage from up to 8.6 million people over the next decade. That includes:

• Low-income families

• Elderly Americans in nursing homes

• People with disabilities

• Working-class folks who earn too much for traditional Medicaid but can’t afford private insurance

These aren’t people abusing the system. They are the system—exactly the people Medicaid was designed to protect. But instead of helping them, this budget proposes we sacrifice their well-being to give more tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy and the corporations already hoarding record profits.

It’s Robin Hood in reverse. It’s cruelty by design.

The Gospel According to Joni Ernst

The kicker came after the town hall, Ernst posted a video on social media, filmed in a cemetery, where she offered a sarcastic apology and suggested that those concerned about mortality should “embrace my lord and savior, Jesus Christ”.

Seriously.

This is the same Jesus who healed lepers and the poor for free. The same Jesus who said, “Whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me.” The same Jesus who flipped tables over financial exploitation in the temple and told a rich man to give away everything to follow him.

Jesus didn’t cut Medicaid. Jesus was Medicaid.

Quoting scripture while pushing policies that punish the poor isn’t just bad policy—it’s spiritual malpractice. If Ernst and her colleagues want to invoke Christianity, they might start by actually reading what Jesus said about money, justice, and mercy.

Moral Clarity in a Time of Deception

This isn’t just about one senator, or even one party. It’s about a broader pattern of politicians using faith as camouflage for policies that are deeply anti-Christian—and anti-human.

We should call it what it is: a betrayal of the values they claim to hold.

The truth is, budgets are moral documents. They reveal what we value and who we’re willing to leave behind. And if this budget passes, millions will suffer so that billionaires can keep stacking wealth they’ll never use.

We don’t need hollow platitudes. We need compassion. We need truth. And we need leaders who understand that public service is about serving the public.

Because if “we’re all going to die” is the best defense our leaders can offer for stripping healthcare from the poor—then it’s time for new leaders.

The Media Isn’t Biased the Way You Think

Ask almost anyone whether the media is biased, and the answer will be yes. But how it’s biased is where things get messy.

Depending on who you ask, the media leans too liberal, or it’s been hijacked by conservatives. Some say it props up elites; others say it pushes a “woke” agenda. But what if most of these answers miss the point?

What if the real bias in the media isn’t about left vs. right at all?

What if it’s about something deeper—structural forces that shape the stories we see, the ones we don’t, and the way those stories are framed?

Let’s dig into four key sources of media bias that cut across partisan lines: corporate ownership, sensationalism, access journalism, and social media algorithms.

Corporate Ownership: The Invisible Hand

Most major media outlets in the United States are owned by just a handful of corporations. Comcast owns NBC. Disney owns ABC and ESPN. Fox Corporation owns Fox News. CNN is under Warner Bros. Discovery. These are entertainment conglomerates, not public institutions. Their core mission isn’t informing the public—it’s maximizing shareholder value.

That changes what gets covered—and how.

Are you likely to see hard-hitting investigative reporting on the financial sector from a media outlet whose parent company relies on big banks for financing or advertising? Will a network owned by a defense contractor really scrutinize arms sales or military interventionism with any consistency?

Even beyond direct interference, journalists and editors understand the unstated boundaries: some stories will get traction, others won’t. Some narratives bring in revenue or avoid conflict with advertisers and regulators. Others are just too risky.

This doesn’t mean every journalist is compromised. Most aren’t. But they work in a system where corporate priorities subtly shape what makes it to air, and what quietly disappears.

This isn’t about left vs. right. It’s about up vs. down.

Sensationalism: If It Bleeds, It Leads

There’s a simple rule in newsrooms: outrage sells. Fear sells. Conflict sells.

This has always been true, but the internet made it worse. Now, every headline competes for attention on a crowded screen. And what grabs us? Not sober policy analysis, but things that make us feel something—especially anger or fear.

So instead of nuanced reporting on economic trends or environmental degradation, we get:

• Endless coverage of viral crimes (especially if they’re caught on camera).

• Shouting matches between pundits.

• Clickbait headlines that stretch the truth just enough to spark debate.

This emphasis on drama over depth creates a distorted view of reality. It exaggerates division. It elevates fringe voices. It pushes people into tribal corners, because it’s easier to keep you engaged if you’re fired up.

It also squeezes out context. News becomes a series of disconnected flashpoints, not a coherent picture of what’s happening in the world. And we’re left feeling exhausted, confused, and cynical.

Access Journalism: The Price of Proximity

Covering politics, especially in Washington, often depends on access—private briefings, insider tips, scheduled interviews, and off-the-record scoops. But here’s the catch: access is a privilege, and it can be taken away.

If a journalist is too aggressive, too critical, or too confrontational, doors start to close. And if one outlet burns a bridge, another is happy to step in.

This creates an unspoken pressure: don’t rock the boat too much. Don’t ask the uncomfortable question. Don’t challenge the narrative. Keep your tone measured. Be polite.

As a result, powerful figures—whether in government or industry—can effectively shape their own coverage. And when reporters do challenge the system, their careers often suffer for it.

Access journalism favors insiders. It rewards conformity. And it helps protect the status quo from real scrutiny.

Social Media: The Algorithm Is the Editor

In the past, news editors decided what stories appeared on the front page. Today, that job increasingly belongs to algorithms—opaque systems that determine what shows up in your feed based on engagement, not accuracy.

And what drives engagement? Again: outrage, conflict, fear.

The rise of social media has fundamentally reshaped how we consume news. Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and X (formerly Twitter) don’t prioritize the most important or truthful stories. They prioritize what will keep you scrolling. That often means:

• Misinformation spreads faster than fact-checks.

• Opinion gets mistaken for reporting.

• The most divisive takes get amplified, while thoughtful analysis gets buried.

This feedback loop creates echo chambers. You see stories that confirm your beliefs and rarely encounter views that challenge them. The result is not just polarization, but a breakdown of shared reality. People aren’t just disagreeing—they’re living in parallel information worlds.

And because social media is where many people now start their news day, its distortions shape everything downstream.

So, What Can We Do?

The solution isn’t to simply “trust the other side” or pick new partisan heroes. It’s to understand the structures that shape what we see—and to actively resist them.

Here are a few steps anyone can take:

• Diversify your media diet—not just ideologically, but structurally. Include independent outlets, nonprofit journalism, and international perspectives.

• Support investigative journalism. Subscribe to outlets doing deep, difficult work. It’s not glamorous, but it’s essential.

• Question the frame. When a story outrages you, ask: who benefits from this framing? What’s missing? What’s the source?

• Be algorithm-aware. Don’t let the feed think for you. Visit news websites directly. Follow people who challenge your views. Seek out context.

Most importantly: resist cynicism. The media isn’t hopeless—it’s just a system, and like any system, it can be changed. But only if we stop fighting about whether it’s too “liberal” or too “conservative,” and start asking who it serves.

Because the real media bias isn’t about red or blue.

It’s about green.

What Liberal Leaders Get Right — and What They Keep Getting Wrong

A clear-eyed look at good intentions, broken promises, and why the left keeps losing trust.

In an age where the biggest political threat comes from rising authoritarianism, it’s easy to cast liberal leaders as democracy’s last line of defense. And in some critical ways, they have played that role—upholding norms, expanding civil rights, and offering science-based solutions to global problems.

But defending democracy isn’t the same as delivering for the people. When liberal leaders fail to address the root causes of disillusionment—economic insecurity, political alienation, and institutional distrust—they don’t just disappoint. They help pave the way for the very backlash they claim to oppose.

What Liberal Leaders Get Right

Let’s start with the strengths. Despite their shortcomings, liberal and progressive leaders have made real, measurable progress in several key areas:

• Protecting Democratic Institutions|
  They’ve respected peaceful transfers of power, supported voting rights, and generally followed constitutional processes even when under pressure.

• Expanding Civil Rights
  From LGBTQ+ protections to DACA to anti-discrimination laws, they’ve fought to widen access to the American promise.

• Following the Evidence
  On climate change, COVID-19, and public health, liberal leaders have largely grounded their policies in science and expert consensus.

• Attempting Redistribution
  Initiatives like the expanded Child Tax Credit, student loan relief, and Obamacare reflect a recognition—however limited—that economic inequality must be addressed.

These are not minor achievements. They matter. But they exist alongside failures that are just as real—and just as consequential.

What They Keep Getting Wrong

Too Close to Corporate Power

For all the talk of fairness and justice, liberal leaders remain deeply entangled with the donor class. Wall Street, Big Tech, and the pharmaceutical industry continue to fund campaigns and influence policy. The result is a government that often acts more like a service provider for the wealthy than a guarantor of opportunity for everyone else.

This isn’t just a contradiction—it’s a credibility crisis. When economic policy prioritizes market confidence over wage growth, it’s no wonder working people feel like nobody in Washington is really on their side.

Big Promises, Weak Follow-Through

Every election cycle, Democrats roll out sweeping agendas: universal healthcare, free college, bold climate action. But once in office, too many of those ideas are delayed, diluted, or discarded.

Sometimes it’s due to obstruction. Sometimes it’s self-sabotage. Either way, the result is the same: a long trail of broken promises and unmet expectations that leave voters jaded and cynical.

Disconnect from the Working Class

While the right stokes identity grievances, the left often responds with charts and policy briefs. But technocratic competence doesn’t inspire. Many liberal leaders struggle to connect with working-class voters—especially those in rural or post-industrial areas—who feel spoken down to or left out of the conversation entirely.

The values may be aligned, but the language, tone, and urgency often are not.

Inadequate Response to Authoritarian Threats

Faced with blatant attacks on democracy, liberal leaders too often reach for procedural tools rather than bold action. Filibuster reform, court expansion, accountability for criminal abuses of power—these options are routinely dismissed as too “divisive.”

But preserving democracy isn’t about preserving appearances. It’s about meeting the moment. And right now, the moment demands more than polite restraint.

Losing the Messaging War

Republicans dominate the political narrative around patriotism, freedom, law and order—even when their policies contradict all three. Liberal messaging, by contrast, often centers on what’s broken without offering a compelling vision of what’s possible.

Without a story that speaks to identity, dignity, and hope, even good policies get lost in translation.

What Real Leadership Would Look Like

Liberal leaders don’t need to abandon their values. They need to embody them more fully—in action, tone, and urgency. That means:

• Taking on concentrated wealth and power, not just regulating around the edges

• Delivering universal programs people can see and feel, without red tape or means testing

• Speaking plainly and directly, with moral clarity and a sense of shared purpose

• Treating democratic decline as a crisis, not just another legislative hurdle

This isn’t about moving to the center or chasing conservative approval. It’s about doing what the moment demands—and what the people deserve.

Demand Better—Don’t Give Up

Criticizing liberal leadership isn’t about helping the opposition. It’s about telling the truth, and pushing those in power to live up to the ideals they claim to represent.

If the left wants to be the alternative to authoritarianism, it must be more than “not Trump.” It must be bold. Effective. Honest. Human. And it must deliver not just protections, but progress.

Anything less risks leaving the door wide open for something much worse.

What MAGA Gets Right—And What It Gets Dangerously Wrong

America First. Drain the Swamp. Make America Great Again.

These slogans hit a nerve for a reason. They speak to something millions of Americans feel in their bones: that something in this country is broken. That the folks in charge don’t listen. That regular, hard-working people have been left behind while the elite keep getting richer and more powerful.

And you know what? That part is right.

What MAGA Gets Right

America has been hollowed out.

Factories have closed. Jobs went overseas. Entire industries disappeared. Towns that used to hum with activity have grown quiet. It didn’t happen overnight, and it didn’t happen because Americans stopped working hard. It happened because corporations found it cheaper to outsource, and our government didn’t do enough to protect American workers. While some got rich off those trade deals, many families were left behind to pick up the pieces.

This isn’t just about jobs—it’s about dignity. Work is about more than a paycheck. It's about purpose, pride, and providing for your family. When those jobs left, so did a way of life for millions.

The system feels rigged.

It’s not paranoia to feel like the system is stacked against regular people. When lobbyists write the laws, when corporations dodge taxes while working families scrape by, when campaign donors get access while everyone else gets excuses—of course people lose faith. From Wall Street bailouts to revolving doors between government and big business, there’s been plenty of evidence that power in this country often answers to money first.

This isn’t about left or right. It’s about the top and the rest of us.

Washington talks. Nothing changes.

Both political parties have promised change. And both have failed to deliver enough of it. There’s a reason so many Americans feel politically homeless. Politicians talk tough during campaigns, but once elected, too many go quiet or fall in line with the status quo. Real reforms get watered down. Corruption goes unpunished. The people who caused the problems often end up in charge of fixing them.

That kind of betrayal builds deep cynicism. It’s no wonder people look for outsiders, truth-tellers, or anyone who will finally break the cycle.

These are not made-up problems. They're real. And they deserve real answers.

Where MAGA Goes Dangerously Wrong

Being angry at a broken system is fair. But the way we respond matters. Anger is fuel—but where it takes us depends on who’s behind the wheel. And here’s where things start to go off course.

Blaming the wrong people.

It’s easy to point fingers. But immigrants didn’t write the trade deals that sent jobs overseas. Refugees didn’t close your factory or foreclose on your home. Most of them are here chasing the same American Dream—working hard, trying to provide for their families, believing in freedom.

When we blame the wrong people, we take our eyes off the real culprits: the corporate interests, the politicians who enabled them, and the systems that protected profits over people. Dividing working people against each other only helps the folks at the top stay in control.

Attacking democracy instead of fixing it.

It’s one thing to criticize a system that isn’t working—that’s our right. It’s another to tear it down completely. When leaders say elections are only fair if they win, or suggest jailing political opponents without trial, or call the press the "enemy of the people"—that’s not patriotism. That’s authoritarianism.

A strong democracy means fair elections, honest accountability, and freedom of speech. When we give all the power to one person, we don’t fix the system—we risk losing it entirely. And history shows that once democratic norms are gone, they’re hard to get back.

Following a strongman doesn’t make us stronger.

Some say we need a fighter, someone who breaks the rules and doesn’t care what the media thinks. But real strength isn’t about rule-breaking or bullying. It’s about leadership, responsibility, and putting country over self.

Our founders didn’t fight a king just to hand power to a new one. They built a system of checks and balances on purpose—so no single person could rule unchecked. When we elevate any leader above the law, we lose what makes America unique.

Fighting for the working class—but helping the rich.

MAGA talks a good game about standing up for forgotten Americans. But look closely at the record. Tax cuts that favored billionaires and big corporations. Attacks on unions that protect workers. Tariffs that raised costs for farmers and small business owners without delivering lasting manufacturing gains.

Words matter, but actions matter more. If a movement claims to fight for you but keeps helping the powerful, it might be time to ask who it’s really fighting for.

A Better Way Forward

Wanting to make America great again isn’t wrong. But greatness doesn’t come from fear, division, or tearing down our own institutions. It comes from building up what works—and fixing what doesn’t.

We can:

• Bring jobs back by investing in clean energy, advanced manufacturing, and infrastructure right here at home—not just by waving a flag, but by making smart choices.

• Fight real corruption by banning insider trading for lawmakers, closing lobbying loopholes, and holding officials accountable on both sides.

• Support working families with livable wages, access to health care, safe schools, and good roads—the basics that make everyday life better.

• Protect democracy by making sure every vote counts, strengthening election security, and upholding the rule of law no matter who’s in power.

None of this means giving up patriotism. It means making it real.

Final Thoughts

If you’re angry, you have every right to be. If you feel like no one’s listening, you’re not alone. But the answer isn’t to give up on democracy or pin the blame on our neighbors. The answer is to come together, fix what’s broken, and make this country truly work for all of us—not just the folks at the top.

Let’s fight for a country that’s fair, free, and strong. Not just for some, but for all.

Because deep down, we all want the same things: a good life, a fair shot, and a future we can believe in.

Court Limits Trump’s Tariff Powers Under IEEPA

Today (28 May 2025), the U.S. Court of International Trade made a big decision: it ruled that President Trump went too far when he used emergency powers to impose broad tariffs on imports from around the world.

This is a major development for anyone watching how U.S. trade policy works—or doesn’t—and it puts real limits on what a president can do without Congress.

A Quick Reminder: What’s IEEPA?

In case you missed it, we recently covered the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in this earlier post. IEEPA was passed in 1977 to give presidents tools to respond to national emergencies involving foreign threats—mostly by freezing assets or blocking trade with specific countries. But it wasn’t meant to be a blank check.

What the Court Said

The Trump administration had used IEEPA to put tariffs on a wide range of goods from countries like China, Canada, and Mexico. The justification? That the U.S. trade deficit was a national emergency.

But the Court wasn’t buying it.

“The ruling from a three-judge panel at the New York-based U.S. Court of International Trade came after several lawsuits arguing Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs exceeded his authority and left the country’s trade policy dependent on his whims.”
— AP News

In short, the Court ruled that IEEPA doesn’t let the president slap tariffs on whoever he wants just by declaring a trade emergency. That kind of decision belongs to Congress.

You can also read more from Axios and the Wall Street Journal if you want additional context.

Here’s what this Ruling Means

• The tariffs are struck down — Imports affected by Trump’s emergency tariffs are no longer subject to those extra costs.

• Trade deals may be shaken up — Negotiations with countries like the UK and China could be impacted since those tariffs are now off the table.

• Presidents can’t go it alone — The Court made it clear that major trade decisions need input from Congress, not just a presidential proclamation.

What Happens Now?

The Trump team is likely to appeal, and this could eventually end up at the Supreme Court. But for now, it’s a big win for those who believe in checks and balances.

Update

As of 29 May 2025, this ruling was appealed and there is a temporary stay leaving the tariffs in place. Parties have until June 5th to respond.

“The 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn’t say anything at all about tariffs,” Bruce Fain, a former US associate deputy attorney general under Ronald Reagan, told Al Jazeera.

Fein added that there is a statute, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows tariffs in the event of a national emergency. However, he said, it requires a study by the commerce secretary and can only be imposed on a product-by-product basis.

Why It Matters

This ruling isn’t just about trade. It’s about the limits of executive power. IEEPA was never meant to give any president a free hand to reshape the global economy. This decision reminds us that even emergency powers have boundaries.

Civic Education Is National Security

The Hidden Threat to American Democracy

In 2021, a poll found that nearly a quarter of Americans believed the government was hiding evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election. Many couldn’t explain how elections are certified, what the Electoral College is, or how the Constitution limits presidential powers. These gaps in knowledge aren’t just embarrassing — they’re dangerous.

We often think of national security in terms of military strength, cybersecurity, or border protection. But there’s another front line: the minds of everyday citizens. In an age of weaponized disinformation and algorithm-driven echo chambers, civic misunderstandings have become a national security vulnerability. A public that doesn’t understand how its government works is easy to mislead, divide, and manipulate.

Civic education — once a cornerstone of the American school system — has quietly eroded. In its absence, conspiracy theories flourish, extremism festers, and democracy weakens from within.

The Collapse of Civics in American Classrooms

In the mid-20th century, American students typically took multiple civics courses before graduation. These classes covered not just the three branches of government, but also constitutional rights, civil discourse, and community participation. Today, the picture is starkly different.

Only eight states require a full year of civics education. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) shows a steady decline in civic knowledge among students — and no real investment to reverse the trend. Many schools prioritize math, reading, and science scores tied to standardized testing, leaving civics behind. Budget cuts, political polarization, and curriculum wars have only made things worse.

The result? Millions of adults reach voting age without ever having learned the basics of how democracy works.

Why Civic Knowledge Matters

Civic literacy isn’t trivia. It’s foundational.

When citizens understand how laws are made, how courts work, and what the Constitution protects (and doesn’t), they are better equipped to recognize lies and defend their rights. They are more likely to vote, attend town halls, serve on juries, and hold public officials accountable.

Without that foundation, misinformation spreads like wildfire. People fall for viral claims that the government can “suspend the Constitution” or that presidents can rule by decree. Informed citizens act as a stabilizing force; uninformed ones become easy targets for manipulation.

Misinformation: A 21st Century Threat Vector

The collapse of civic understanding didn’t happen in a vacuum — and bad actors have taken notice.

Foreign adversaries like Russia have exploited our civic vulnerabilities through social media campaigns designed to divide, confuse, and inflame. Their strategy is simple: If Americans don’t understand the rules, it’s easier to convince them the game is rigged. Meanwhile, domestic political figures and media personalities have capitalized on this confusion to spin false narratives about stolen elections, immigrant invasions, or tyrannical government overreach.

We’ve seen the results: organized harassment of election workers, coordinated disinformation campaigns, and even violent attacks on democratic institutions.

This isn’t just about free speech — it’s about weaponized misinformation.

When Misunderstanding Turns Dangerous

Events like the January 6 Capitol breach didn’t happen in a vacuum. They were fueled in part by deep frustration, confusion, and a genuine belief by many participants that something had gone terribly wrong in the democratic process. For those who lack a clear understanding of how elections are verified, how power transitions work, or what legal avenues exist for redress, it’s easy to be swept up in narratives that feel patriotic but may be based on misinformation.

This isn’t about blaming people — it’s about recognizing a systemic failure in education and public trust. When civic knowledge breaks down, fear and anger fill the void. That confusion can be exploited by bad actors, both foreign and domestic, leading people to distrust the very institutions designed to serve and protect them.

We’ve seen similar effects in other areas too — from public health to local government — where unclear information or conflicting messages sow division. The result is often the same: people lose faith in the system and look for answers in places that might not have their best interests at heart.

Civic Education as a Strategic Investment

We need to start treating civic education the way we treat infrastructure, energy, or intelligence — as a core component of national security.

The Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security have acknowledged the threat of disinformation, both foreign and domestic. But defense can’t come only from tech platforms or government agencies. It must come from the ground up — from classrooms, communities, and public discourse.

Civics isn’t soft. It’s armor.

What We Can Do

Rebuilding civic resilience will take more than just a new textbook. Here are some key strategies:

• Restore Civics in Schools: Require at least one full year of civics education in all 50 states. Fund updated, participatory curricula that emphasize critical thinking, rights, responsibilities, and media literacy.

• Train and Support Teachers: Provide federal and state grants to train civics educators and give them the tools to navigate today’s polarized environment.

• Public Education for Adults: Launch nationwide civic literacy campaigns through libraries, community centers, and public broadcasting. Democracy doesn’t stop at graduation.

• Engage Students Actively: Use simulations, mock trials, student councils, and service-learning to make civics hands-on, not just textbook-based.

• Support Civil Discourse Programs: Teach students how to discuss controversial topics constructively — a skill as vital as algebra in today’s climate.

The Cost

America doesn’t just face external enemies. It faces internal disorientation. When citizens don’t understand their own government, they become easy prey for those who want to undermine it.

Civic education isn’t a luxury. It’s a shield.

If we want to defend democracy, we need to start in the classroom. Not with slogans, but with knowledge. Not with indoctrination, but with understanding. Because a citizen who knows their rights is a citizen who will defend them — and that is the ultimate line of defense.

Sources & Further Reading

1. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) – Civics Report Card

• U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics

• 2022 data show that only 22% of 8th-grade students performed at or above the proficient level in civics.

• https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/civics

2. CivXNow Coalition – State of Civics Education

• Tracks civics course requirements by state.

• As of 2023, only 8 states require a full year of civics education.

• https://civxnow.org/policy/

3. Annenberg Public Policy Center – Civics Knowledge Surveys

• Annual surveys showing that large portions of Americans cannot name the three branches of government or identify basic constitutional rights.

• https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/americans-civics-knowledge-survey-2023/

4. Stanford History Education Group – Evaluating Information

• Research on how students and adults struggle to identify credible information online.

• https://sheg.stanford.edu/

5. Office of the Director of National Intelligence – 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment

• Documents Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election through social media disinformation.

• https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

6. Department of Homeland Security – Strategic Framework for Countering Terrorism and Targeted Violence (2019)

• Recognizes online misinformation and radicalization as national security concerns.

• https://www.dhs.gov/publication/strategic-framework-countering-terrorism-and-targeted-violence

7. Pew Research Center – Misinformation and Social Media

• Studies showing how misinformation spreads online and who is most susceptible.

• https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/10/06/how-americans-navigate-news-on-social-media/

8. iCivics – Civic Education Resources

• Organization founded by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor to promote civics in schools.

• Offers teaching tools and research on civic learning.

• https://www.icivics.org/

9. We the People: Civic Engagement in a Constitutional Democracy

• Gain a foundational knowledge of American constitutional democracy while crafting your own civic voice and identity.

• https://pll.harvard.edu/course/we-people-civic-engagement-constitutional-democracy

• https://pll.harvard.edu/subject/government