John Roberts, Taxes, and the International Fascist Oligarchy

 

The issue of the President's power to use tariffs, which is currently under consideration by the Supreme Court, might cause thoughtful observers to wonder at how some Court decisions are reached. More to the point, it might cast real doubt on the notion that the Court is always seeking the good of the American people.

Remember back to how John Roberts, and the Court he is Chief Justice over, found a way to approve of the Affordable Care Act. It was challenged by arguing that it mandated individuals must do business with designated companies, which was unprecedented and without constitutional warrant. The Court agreed with the Obama administration that the ACA,(Obama Care) was not an unwarranted mandate, but was instead a tax, which during the legislative process the advocates had specifically denied.

The Roberts Court seemed to want to find a path to accept the ACA, so they bought the taxation argument, even though calling it a tax immediately rendered it unconstitutional. That is because the ACA originated in the Senate, and Article 1, section 7 of our Constitution requires that all bills to raise revenue (taxes) shall originate in the House of Representatives. Maybe the Court was guided by simple human compassion, or maybe the Roberts Court rather liked the federal government overreach that the ACA portended, but at any rate, they missed that little constitutional detail.

That was 2012, and this is 2025. America is under withering fire from all over the world, on many fronts. We are under attack economically, culturally, technologically and politically. It has gotten so bad that some foreign billionaires are financing the election of corrupt district attorneys in some American jurisdictions.

Into this fray President Donald Trump has entered, creatively and constructively using tariffs, under what he has termed an emergency, to strengthen America. Trump's approach has worked and will work to strengthen our economy. Surprisingly, he has also used tariffs to improve our position militarily, diplomatically and technologically.

But the Roberts Court is currently considering if he has overstepped his constitutional role, and should maybe have to get congressional approval for any changes in our tariff structure. Some of their questioning causes some Court observers to speculate that they will call his tariffs a tax, and rule that he must get congressional approval. One of the pointed questions seeming to lean in that direction was asking the administrations lawyer, “Who has to pay it?” That seemed to imply a tariff is a tax. The correct response to that question is that only those who want to pay it have to pay it. It is a voluntary payment. If one does not want to pay the tariff, one can choose to purchase some domestically produced version of a similar product which is not under tariff.

The point here, however, is not the validity of tariffs, but rather how and why the Court seeks certain outcomes in its rulings. America has come under increasing siege in the last few decades. Even though we are holding a hand full of aces, no one seemed to want to play those cards in a way that benefits the American people. Donald Trump has come along, and with his election as our President, found a way to play those cards aright; to mobilize our economic power in a way that strengthens the American nation. If he has to get congressional approval for every change in tariffs, it puts us at a severe disadvantage relative to some hostile, authoritarian regimes. We simply must be more flexible and supple than that to beat them at this game, especially with the kind of influence some wealthy foreign actors might exert on some members of congress.

Maybe the Court is concerned that every “i” be dotted, and every “t” be crossed, lest the American people be poorly served. Maybe, at this time, unlike in 2012, when the purposes of big government were better served without it, they have come to that stance, one that is hyper-vigilant regarding our Constitution.

Or maybe, and this is troubling to think of, some on the Court have long since come to the opinion that the time of the American people being truly self governing is over, and that we should instead, for our own good, be put under the power and control of a well disguised international fascist oligarchy. If that is the case, it might go a long way toward explaining much of the mysterious reasoning of the Roberts Court.

.

Jesus and Revolution

 

In the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination, and the way it rolled into the ongoing cultural conflicts engulfing America, some are claiming to see, or at least hope to see, what they deem the three “R's” of renewal, revival and reformation. We might share those hopes, but even if fulfilled, they are not what America needs today.

“Renewal” obviously means to make something, such as the Christian faith of some believers, new and fresh again. It usually amounts to a good pep talk kind of sermon. “Revival” literally means to bring to life again. While it seems to imply a benefit greater than just a renewal, that might be because it also implies that the faith of the people being revived has been dead, or at least near death. “Reformation” involves going deeper into the beliefs and worldviews of the community, and changing those to conform more fully to God's will. This is a much more rare and world changing phenomenon than the two previously mentioned Christian community changes, but there really does not seem to be the theological tectonic plate shifting going on right now that would indicate such a powerful change is coming soon.

There is another, much more important “R” word they don't mention, even though it is the most blessed Christian social movement we could hope for. That unused term is “revolution.” Most folks probably cringe at the thought of revolution, thinking it requires some terrible violence. They are repulsed by the suggestion that it has anything to do with Christianity. They could not be more mistaken.

First of all, we need to develop a usable, real world definition of “Revolution.” Then we will explore this definition by applying it to historic incidents of so called revolution. Then we can see that revolution is at the heart of Christianity, and definitely at the heart of what the church in America should be engaged in at this moment in history.

“Revolution” technically means turning, in the sense of a group turning from something to something else. The new political definition of “Revolution” goes like this. Take a look at the long history of the group, whether a church, a town, a state, a nation, or the entire human race. Figure out what we did wrong, and quit doing it. Figure out what we did right, and do more of it. Then carry on, putting those conclusions into action. Kind of short and sweet, huh?

While this might not fit the idea that most people have of revolution, that it must involve some kind of bloody carnage, look at what most bloody so called revolutions have actually done. If those times of war and destruction don't result in the kind of honest dialogue mentioned in the definition, a period of honest reflection, then that group of people have not really turned at all. For the most part they have merely exchanged one brutal dictator for another. This is what most “revolutions” have consisted of, and why the word has a bad reputation. Even revolutions that did involve violence, such as the American revolution, were only truly revolutionary because they resulted in that time of honest, constructive dialogue, such as our constitutional convention and the years of social revolution that followed..

On the other hand, if a people can arrive at that moment of honest dialogue without resorting to violence, that is still a time of true revolution. In fact, those episodes of peaceful social change are the most revolutionary times on record. Think about episodes like what is called the “Velvet Revolution” in the former nation of Czechoslovakia. That revolution resulted in a peaceful disuniting under the enlightened leadership of Vaclav Havel. No shooting or hatred was needed, just a civilized separating of two nations, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, which no longer fit well together.

With that dialogue based definition of revolution in mind, just a cursory look at human history reveals that many of the social reform movements, especially in the West, and in the last few hundred years, have actually been revolutionary, both in their approach and in their outcomes. The ongoing positive results of that kind of revolution is probably due to the fact that it is actually just a society wide manifestation of the Christian call to personal repentance.

Think about it. A sincere Christian, seeking to live as God's obedient child will, on a regular basis, practice the discipline of thinking about what they did wrong, and repenting, and thinking about what they did right, and seeking to do that even better. That is the way, as an individual believer, we come more and more into God's will.

We should hear the call for revolution not as a call for violence, or civil war, but rather as a call to a kind of national repentance. To enter into a time of national soul searching. To figure out what we have been doing wrong, stop doing it; and figure out what we are doing right, or did right in the past, and do more of it.

There are a plethora of issues that we should deal with in this nation, at this time, using that framework of national revolutionary repentance. Many of them will be considered in coming blogs, but probably the most important to mention at this time is the idea of establishing some kind of national religion. What is called Christian Nationalism.

This looms as a concern because in actuality we have long suffered under an official national religion, a belief system known as Secular Humanism. Many of our current social maladies have resulted from our unknowingly accepting (via a wrong headed decision from the Supreme Court, Everson v Board of Education, in 1947) the establishment of that official national religion. What's more, with, once again, the spiritual uplift in the wake of Charlie Kirk's murder, the sentiment has arisen that the remedy to this illegitimate Secular establishment is to instead turn to a national Christian establishment.

That is where a revolutionary dialogue can serve us well, because a close examination of history shows us that national religious establishments don't work well, whether they be Secular or Christian. Look at how badly official Christian establishments have suffocated the Christian faith in Europe. On the other hand, American history reveals that allowing religious establishments on the state level, as we did before the Supreme Court's blunder in 1947, did work well, and should be done again.

So in this time of spiritual and cultural upheaval, along with renewal, revival or even reformation, let's pray for a true peaceful revolution.

Are the Democrats Unfit to Govern?

 

Just prior to the '24 election, a friend asked my advice on who to vote for. I told her that the Republicans were the safer choice, because, as was shown in the Watergate scandal, they, or at least some of them, will break ranks when a vital principle is at stake. The Democrats never do that, and they wear it as a badge of honor. That is what makes them unfit to govern.

The latest kerfuffle around Jimmy Kimmel proves the point. Kimmel was suspended from his show for remarks that seemed to besmirch the memory of the recently murdered Charlie Kirk (RIP). What's more, it seemed like the Trump administration had exerted pressure to cause that suspension to happen.

Some Republican leaders, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz among them, loudly objected to that kind of censorious pressure being applied by government. That old saying from Voltaire, that, “I might not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it?” It seems some Republicans actually mean that. Mr. Kimmel was shortly reinstated to his show.

The contrast with the Democrats could not be starker. Even though it has now come to light that many of the COVID restrictions, such as social distancing, and mask wearing, were of little to no use, the Democrats can still not find the voice to say so. More importantly, during the crisis, when it really could have counted, nary a whimper of objection was heard from that quarter.

It is not just about COVID or the latest crisis either. The Democrats seem to be under the mistaken impression that moving in lock step with each other at all times is a sign of political strength. So much so that during the last state of the union speech, they could not bring themselves to applaud a young man courageously facing terminal cancer. Not going to clap for that, not if a Republican, especially not if a MAGA Trump guy, brings it up.

This lock step mentality disqualifies the Democrats from governing for two reasons. First of all, at times like these, when they are in the minority, it causes them to unthinkingly scuttle any and every thing the Republicans try to do, even if it is a good and compassionate thing that is proposed.

For instance, with the rapidly changing situation regarding tariffs, some farmers are getting caught in the squeeze. Specifically, many farmers planted soybeans, but because of the tariff battle with China, the Chinese market for soybeans has collapsed. This is going to really hurt some farmers this year. Next year, if they are still in business, they can plant some other crop, or the Chinese market for soybeans might recover. Nonetheless, this year they could use some relief.

Given all that, it is likely that the Republican run congress will propose some short term relief for the affected farmers. Any such legislation will, however, be dead on arrival because the lock step Democrats will filibuster it in the Senate in the same way they lock step filibuster everything the Republicans propose. They remain in lock step, opposed to any Republican initiative, no matter how important, timely and compassionate it may be. That is why the Republicans had to go with the one big beautiful bill, since the extraordinary path of reconciliation was the only way to get anything past the automatic lock step filibuster the Democrats are dedicated to.

Secondly, when, and if, the Democrats ever get back in control, the situation will be much worse. It has come to light, via testimony from Mark Zuckerburg, that some agents from the FBI, (deep state operatives, since Trump was nominally in charge at that moment) pressured him to have Facebook censor any information about Hunter Biden's laptop just prior to the election in 2020. This is horrendous, 1984 kind of stuff, and yet the Democrats are remarkably silent about it. As though the threat of a king or dictator is serious only if it comes from the political right.

This has to be seen as in addition to them ignoring, at the time, the possibility that COVID grew out of our own (or at least Dr. Fauci's) misbegotten research in to gain of function. Likewise, it seems to have escaped the notice of the Democrats that the so called COVID vaccine might have caused more medical problems than it solved.

In all of that, the lock step mindset of the Democrats looms, in the minds of thinking people, as a great threat. Some will respond that we were in a crisis, so some excess in the name of unity can be forgiven. But “crisis” is always the battle cry of emerging dictators. It is at the moment of crisis that clear thinking, truth guided leadership is most needed.

It is in moments of crisis that the cries to censor “disinformation” will be the loudest. It is in times of crisis that the demands grow that the populace, for their own good, must obey the dictates of government without thinking. It is in times of dire crisis that marching in lock step (which the Democrats pretend is such a strength) becomes the most likely path to tyranny and dictatorship.

That is why this current generation of Democrats, with their lock step mode of thinking, are unfit to govern. We should keep them from real power unless and until they change their thinking.

A Lesson From Charlie's Murder

 

With the vicious murder of Charlie Kirk, this child of the 60's is once again dealing with long forgotten bad feelings. Here we go again is how it seems.

Looking back at the 60's, I came to different conclusions than others did. While most, after living through the grief of the deaths of John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Bobby Kennedy, focused on who to blame, I went in a different direction. Observing the fact that anyone who seemed to be leading this nation in a good direction soon became a target of assassination, I realized that the deep lesson to be learned out of the 60's is that the people have to find a way to lead themselves.

The assassination of Mr. Kirk should teach us that same lesson. He boldly upheld Christian, conservative, American values, but he did so in a way that built bridges. He was starting to make great inroads with young people, rebuilding a culture of civil debate. That is probably what put a target on his back.

It is said that the death of a tyrant ends his reign, but that the death of a martyr begins his reign. Charlie Kirk is without a doubt an American martyr, and so it can be hoped that many will grow his reign by following his example. However, that will entail more than just looking for the next Charlie Kirk. Instead, those of us who value his life must strive to become like him, to seek truth, stand up for America and Christ, but do it in a constructive, positive way. Just like after the violence of the 60's, we have to find a way to lead ourselves, and Charlie has given us a good example. Let's take it.

Finally, my contribution to our becoming a self leading populace has been to analyze what has gone wrong with America, and developing ways to fix our problems. The most important dysfunction our system has endured is that our free press, the media, was long ago put under the control of an entrenched oligarchy. Breaking the back of that media control has to be our first item of business, if the people are to find a way of leading themselves. The plan I came up with to do that is to establish a true public forum. Here is a link to that plan.

https://lifeinafascistcountry.blogspot.com/2025/02/the-open-media.html

MAGA Has a Paradox

 

I saw a couple factoids on the media today that made me realize MAGA is facing a tough but real paradox in the coming midterm elections. It all relates to what was discussed in my recent post about immigration.

The paradox grows out of these two new factoids. One, the numbers of those being deported is woefully short of what some folks have been expecting and hoping for. At this rate the numbers of illegal resident aliens will barely be affected, let alone reduced to zero, by the end of the Trump administration.

The other side of the paradox is that the historically high support among Hispanics for the Trump administration's deportation policy is declining steeply. This puts the entire MAGA agenda in jeopardy.

The gist of the paradox is this. The only way for the Republicans to actually carry out an effective reform of our immigration system is to increase their majority in Congress. That way President Trump can be empowered by actual laws, and not be limited to executive orders. The only way, however, for the Republicans to increase that majority, to actually enact those new laws, is to increase, not decrease, their support among Hispanics.

Our Hispanic friends and neighbors see that they have been dealt, by time and political circumstance, a strong hand, and they seem intent on playing it well. At the same time, we should see that they collectively want to live in a nation of laws, many having come from nations that don't have that advantage. But they also insist on our being a nation with respect for family, and clear headed compassion based on reasonable compromise.

So we face a difficult paradox. We can just sit and moan, woe is MAGA, life is unfair, and all that. Or we can wake up, grow up, and realize it is time to assert ourselves in our own governance. There is a way, an agenda we non Hispanic Americans can choose, which will settle the issue of illegal immigration, reinforce the rule of law, and enable us to complete the agenda of making America great again. That plan is detailed in the already mentioned previous blog linked

here  https://lifeinafascistcountry.blogspot.com/2025/07/maga-red-wave-in-26-and-immigration.html

But we had better get after it, because the midterms are a month and a half closer than they were when I first wrote that blog. Time is short and getting shorter, so it is high time for us to stand up, step up, and insist our elected officials follow our lead. That is, if we really love this nation, and want to pass a viable future on to coming generations.

Liberate Hemp to Revive Small Farms

 

I recently had an epiphany about all the anti marijuana hysteria we are being bombarded with lately. We have all heard the arguments. The smell permeating the air in legal states, the dangerous potency of modern strains, and all that. There might be some validity to those points, but it mostly smells like phony hysteria. Try living downwind from a feed lot, or a sewer works, or a freeway, or just on a typical downtown street. Lots of objectionable smells and fumes there, and yet no one wants to hear about it, or base policies on it..

I bought my first hemp t-shirt the other day and, unexpectedly, it launched an episode of eye opening revelations. I was surprised at what a superior cloth it is compared to the cotton or polyester shirts I am used to. It just feels better. More solid, less sweaty, and all the other things it was advertised to be. So much so that I have started to consider investing in small scale hemp cloth production.

As I consider investing in hemp cloth, some real social benefits of hemp come to mind. First of all, it could produce a lot of jobs, whether in cloth production, paper production, or a myriad of other products. That is in addition to the jobs on the farms that grow it. Most of the jobs, and money, would stay in the local region, and certainly stay in the national economy.

Another benefit would be that it could be grown in small batches by small farmers. That is if hemp were not so tightly regulated (which makes it both risky to grow, and prohibitively expensive). However, with those severe regulations, and the high cost of getting a federal license to grow it, that happy dynamic of small farm cultivation is not likely to get traction. With all the federal regulation it is rendered into just another crop that will be economically viable only when grown in large plots on mono culture agri business “farms.” So the dream of a small scale hemp facility operating in close cooperation with local small farmers will remain just that; a dream, until the reefer madness hysteria around cannabis is overcome.

The big ramification of the anti cannabis hysteria is the THC content allowed in hemp plants. It has to be no more than .3%, and that has to be measured by dry weight, with the tested sample coming from the flowering top of the plant.

To put this in context, top shelf cannabis, sold out of dispensaries in states where it is legal, tests out at between 25-30%. Low end flowers and what is known as popcorn tests out at 10-15%. There is almost no market for anything less than 5%. So .3% is a ridiculously minuscule standard, far less than just one tenth the potency of anything of marketable quality.

What's more, farmers who have tried to raise a compliant hemp crop find that the THC level peaks just at the end of the season. If, just before harvest, (when it must be tested) it goes over that standard, the crop must be destroyed in an expensive process. The upshot is that few farmers will take the risk. So those who would set up hemp processing plants are likewise put under an artificially risky government regimen, with undependable supply lines, and thus are also not likely to enter into the business.

Over the years, “deep thinking” pot heads have conjectured that it was the tobacco and alcohol industries that worked so hard to keep pot illegal, to eliminate that form of competition. Other, even “deeper” thinkers speculated that it was the cotton and lumber interests who were using anti cannabis hysteria to keep hemp from competing with their products.

All of that thinking seems conspiratorial and suspect, because those concerns are run by hard headed business people. Business will, if there is profit to be made in some alternative to their product, usually put some of their eggs in that competitive basket. Tobacco and alcohol producers could, and probably do, buy marijuana farms. Lumber and cotton growers could also invest in hemp production, and would be hyper-aware of any emerging stream of profit.

Leaving those pot induced brain storms behind, there still must be some reason behind the reefer madness hysteria, and that reason does seem to be directly tied to preventing a free market for hemp. It is asserted here the reason is that the quasi prohibition of hemp is a wicked, long term attack on the small, self sufficient family farm.

For someone with a small, self sufficient, farm the traditional practice was to grow most, if not all, of the food for your own consumption, and then sell any excess. It is a feasible plan in most places, but what is needed to make the plan work is a dependable cash crop so that cash needs of the otherwise self sufficient farm can be met.

Hemp was always that dependable cash crop. It is extremely drought resistant, and when it was legal, there was always a ready market for the crop, because paper gets used up, and clothes wear out. In many ways, legal hemp was an economic pillar of the small family farm. It truly appears that ginning up this anti marijuana hysteria has always had the nefarious purpose of making small, self sufficient, sustainable family farms not economically viable.

Which contributes to making healthy rural communities not viable. Combine that with federal farm price subsidies, which drive up the cost of land by making farming less risky for corporations, and the decline of the family farm and rural communities seems inevitable, if not intentional.

All of this seems to have had the goal, long since accomplished, of literally changing the American landscape. The mass of the people have been driven into the cities, making almost everyone dependent on corporate controlled food supplies. Much of that food is artificially unhealthy, which also drives the people into dependence on the dubious blessings of the petroleum based medicines produced by the big pharmaceutical companies. All of this is very bad for the health, of both the people and the natural environment.

We need to rethink this whole system, and we should start by rethinking hemp. Stop allowing the truly hysterical voices opposing marijuana to bamboozle us into effectively prohibiting the cultivation of hemp. Liberating hemp can be a vital first step in re-invigorating the small family farms and rural communities of America.

MAGA Red Wave in '26 Conclusion

 

“To sum up, solving the housing crisis with freedom, like solving the immigration mess with compassion, could both be factors in a MAGA red wave in 26.”

I finished off the previous two posts about a possible red wave for MAGA in '26 with that sentence, but the operative word there is “could,” because there is only a slight chance that we will do the right thing on either issue.

I say “we,” but in all honesty I am only semi MAGA. I didn't even vote for Trump in '24, although I did vote (with trepidation) for him in '16, and (with some enthusiasm) in 2020. My mixed feelings toward the MAGA movement is because it resembles a cult of personality. That is, most of the folks involved are continuing their life long lazy habits of not engaging as citizens, and not really formulating plans about what we should do as a country. They are content to let Donald Trump do their thinking for them, just as they let the George Bushes and Ronald Reagan do in years past. In other words, most of my fellow conservatives act like dependent children, not realizing they have a duty to shoulder some of the ideological weight of citizenship.

The two issues brought forth in the previous two blogs are good examples of how we could, if we had the sense and determination, really bring our nation back to greatness. It is, however, highly unlikely that either approach will be tried mainly due to the fact that no one of real influence, meaning no one in the country club wing of the Republican party, is going to take the MAGA folks by the hand and walk them through it.

That is the real tragedy of this moment. Donald Trump has done us a great service in demonstrating that with strong leadership, the common folks, the backbone of this nation, can defeat the country club, establishment Republicans. Then, once we win the party, we can win the nation. However, while he won, and is President, long term he has only opened the door. It is up to us to walk through it, and this time we are not going to have the country club set helping us, because it is them we have to defeat.

Take the issue of illegal immigration. I know, the approach I talk about, of tempering a drive for justice with some hard headed mercy and compassion offends many. Even though it is actually straight from the heart of a Christian mind, it sounds to a lot of MAGA folks kind of vaguely un-American.

So what will probably happen is we will get a year or so of intense mass deportation. We will try to deport everyone in sight. In a typically misguided American manner, we will look like someone furiously trying to bale water with a sieve. When that effort exhausts itself, after a lot of unnecessary brutality and following the script, the next stage of the plan will unfold.

There will then be a slow curtailment of such actions, as both the Democrats take back the House, and big business takes back control of a demoralized Republican party. Already, we hear the case being made to not enforce immigration law in agriculture. Those voices will eventually carry the day. Then, there will have been two or three million deportees, and some few Americans who will have gained some jobs, but mostly things will go back to the way they were. Most of the workers will still be illegal, and working in the legal margins. Just the way the country club Republicans planned it. They don't want to get rid of those low paid workers, and they definitely don't want them to have the full rights of Americans.

Likewise, the housing crisis will most likely play out in a way that pleases the country club establishment. The ideas I proposed could work, but they are not the only free market ways to deal with the housing crisis. However, none of these ideas will get any real support because they would step on the wrong toes.

There will be a lot of crocodile tears and hand wringing, but at most we will see some ill fated rent control schemes, or another wave of government housing projects. Those will be overpriced, restricted to renting to the poor,(not allowing the positive dynamic of personal ownership to get traction) and quickly become crime infested hellholes.

Housing will remain wildly overpriced, with rent even worse. Crime and immorality will get worse. Just the way the country club establishment (the bankers, developers and mortgage brokers) want things to be. Their toes must not be stepped on since they are sacrosanct, much more precious than the hearts, minds, and lives of lesser Americans.

When the '26 midterms come and go, we will probably find ourselves once again in a 50-50 divided nation, with the polity balanced against itself on a razors edge. So there will once again, unlike this rare moment which we are allowing to slip through our fingers, be no time or intellectual space for new ideas to come forward. Like it has seemingly always been, we will be told to shut up and keep in step if we are to defeat those terrible folks on the other side. Just the way the country club Republicans like it.

We can expect the Deep State, and every other foul manifestation of the uniparty to once again raise their ugly heads. Just as the establishment wants it.

Then the globalism, and the slow decline of either secular or Islamic corrosion of our national culture will continue unabated, just as the establishment wants it to.

In other words, we had better wake up and recognize that the next 18 or so months could be, that is COULD BE, the era during which we take our country back. The bad stuff that has been happening will just keep happening, unless we have the sense to stand up and change the national course.

It really isn't about our sense though, is it? We are plenty smart, as a people. We have the intellect to figure out the truth, what we lack it the intellectual integrity. Along with the moral integrity. We just can't figure out how to hold on to the truth, and at the same time hold on to the material ease and privilege we have seduced ourselves with. So we abandon the truth, and pretend to not understand.

To stand up for the truth might lose us the esteem of the big boys, the movers and shakers (the country club types) in our local circles, in the state house, in the business agreements, and on the national scene. So if we dare to speak the truth, (or really even allow ourselves to think it) it is in hushed tones at coffee or family gatherings, with the inevitable caveat of, “I don't know,” at the end of every discussion.

Let's face it, we, the people, have lost our courage, or at any rate, the most vital component of courage, our intellectual courage. We, the people, have become intellectual cowards. We probably still have enough physical courage to stand up and defend our families, but without the fearless ability to look at the truth, what does that really get us? Without intellectual courage, as a people, and as individuals, we will continue to be reduced to what DeToqueville warned we would become, timid and hard working beasts, with a tyrannical corporate/ socialist government as shepherd.

In conclusion, and this is the last I want to say on this because it is starting to get me (and hopefully you) angry, you, the individual MAGA backer, had better get over your shallow triumphalism about Trump being in power. Instead, it is high time for you to take up your duty of doing the hard work, the courageous work, of actually rebuilding this nation of freedom. If you don't have the integrity, the intellectual courage, to stand up and do that, as an individual, (even if you stand alone at first) then you should get ready to wave guh'bye-bye to your quaint little pipe dream of ever making America great again.