Nigeria—A Real Crisis or a Distraction?

The Trump administration, following the President’s post, shared that the United States had attacked terrorists in Nigeria. To be fair, President Trump had warned Boko Haram that if they continued to carry out attacks on Christians that they would pay a heavy price. The question that should be asked is, “Are terrorist organizations in Nigeria targeting Christians in a jihad?” The answer should be easy to find in the news media. However, there has been little to no mention of a jihad against Christians in Nigeria, except in social media, blogs, and right leaning Christian media. Mainstream churches have not mentioned any concerns. Mainstream non-biased media had not covered any stories related to a Christian jihad. The Nigerian government, while struggling with political turmoil, did not report any targeted attacks on only Christians.

Questions need to be asked and researched, and the source of the reporting needs to be considered in any evaluation. I advise you to look to mainstream media that generally do not have a right or left leaning bias. To verify this check out the AllSides Media Bias Chart (allsidesmedia.com) or The Media Bias Chart (adfontsmedia.com).

Are Christians being killed? Yes, but so are Muslims and other Nigerians. Nigeria is a nation with mostly Christians in the north and Muslims in the south. There have been clashes between farmers and herders in central Nigeria, much like the former problems in our own country decades ago. The herders are primarily Muslim, while the farmers are generally Christian. Most of these disputes are over access to water and pasture. However, there is little evidence that either group is disproportionately at fault. Olajumoke Ayandele, an assistant professor at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs who specializes in conflict studies, told the AP that the violence in Nigeria represents widespread killings rather than targeted attacks against a specific group.

What are the neutral mainstream media saying? The BBC reports that there is NO evidence that more Christians are being killed than Muslims. Al Jazeera reported that there are reports of attacks by Boko Haram and other fringe groups. However, the attacks do not target only Christians. The attacks are not about religion. The Associated Press reports that analysis does not support the idea of genocide as defined by the United Nations. There is no one group dedicated to destroying a religious group. Reports claiming “Christian genocide” hide the fact that Nigeria is having an ongoing civil conflict.

Although less known, the Armed Conflict Location and Event (ACLED) organization reports that most of the victims of Boko Haram and the Islamic State have been Muslims. Since 2009, 53,000 civilians have been killed due to internal civil conflicts. The group reports that data from right wing Christian groups claiming that 100,000 Christians have been killed in Nigeria, is not supported by the data. Most deaths are attributed to political power grabs, land disputes, cult affiliations, and simple banditry. (acleddata.com March 15, 2024)

The issues in Nigeria are not about Christian genocide. The U.S. involvement appears to be another distraction from the political turmoil in Washington.

The Trump Hegseth War on Drugs

One the issues that the Trump administration campaigned on was the alleged out of control drug problem. Following President Trump’s lead, his Secretary of Defense (War) has declared a full-scale war on “narco terrorists.” Since July, Secretary Hegseth has ordered twenty-one strikes against the narco terrorists, blowing up boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean that were allegedly transporting illegal drugs to the United States. Nothing new! The war began under Richard Nixon.

As a police officer more than 50 years ago, I arrested drug users and dealers. I was often frustrated by the way the legal system handled many of these drug cases. I saw people die from overdosing! I wanted stronger penalties for those who sold drugs. Over the past decades various efforts have been made to curb drug abuse, with little or no apparent success.

The “War on Drugs”

In 1971, President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse “public enemy number one” and announced what would soon be known as the country’s “war on drugs”. The policy promised to cleanse streets of narcotics, dismantle trafficking networks, and deliver a safer environment for Americans.

Instead, according to estimates by the Center for American Progress, decades of punitive policing and militarized crackdowns left the U.S. with a record number of overdose deaths, one of the world’s highest incarceration rates, and more than $1 trillion spent, with little measurable impact on drug availability or demand. The war on drugs helped reshape policing and criminal justice, disproportionately sweeping Black communities into prisons. Internationally, it fueled a parallel conflict across Latin America, where U.S. backed operations deepened cycles of corruption and organized crime. Today, overdose deaths driven by fentanyl have reached historic highs.

Nixon’s administration laid the groundwork for a punitive system, including new federal agencies, tougher penalties, and a rhetoric that framed drug use as a threat to national stability. The political logic behind the move was later revealed by John Ehrlichman, a Nixon aide, who in 2016 told a reporter that the administration saw two main “enemies” – the antiwar left and Black Americans. Since the government could not criminalize dissent or race, it instead associated “hippies” with marijuana and Black communities with heroin, and then heavily criminalized both. The aim, he said, was to disrupt and discredit those communities by raiding homes, arresting leaders, and vilifying them on the news.

The campaign intensified dramatically in the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 toughened sentences for marijuana possession.

Through the 1990s and 2000s, successive administrations upheld these approaches. Bill Clinton’s 1994 crime bill expanded federal funding for prisons, led to more aggressive policing, and introduced a controversial “three-strikes” approach– a mandatory life sentence for a third violent felony conviction.

Not much changed under the Bush and Obama administrations. It was not until the 2010s that the conversation around drug use started to change, especially as cannabis legalization expanded, and the opioid crisis – driven by prescription painkillers – showed that punishment couldn’t curb addiction. “The War on Drugs turned out to be more of a war on America’s poor than an effective solution to rampant drug abuse in the United States.”

The war on drugs did not remain limited to the US and its borders. In the 1980s, Washington funded and trained military and police forces across Latin America to fight drug trafficking at its source. In Colombia, the US invested at least $10 billion from 2000 to the present under what was known as Plan Colombia, according to the Latin America Working Group.

According to Colombian human rights organizations and Columbia’s Truth Commission, while the government succeeded in weakening some armed groups, coca cultivation eventually returned to record levels, but civilians paid a high price. Between 1985 and 2018, an estimated 450,000 people were killed in the conflicts involving the cocaine trade.

In Mexico, a government offensive launched in 2006, supported by US intelligence and equipment, caused a wave of cartel fragmentation and turf wars. Since then, more than 460,000 people have been killed, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, and tens of thousands more have disappeared. Cartels diversified into extortion, fuel theft and human smuggling, while corruption spread among police forces as well as local governments. (This section on the Drug Wars is edited from Farah Najjar’s article in El Jazzar, published On 4 Dec 2025.)

A Real War?

Today, the US continues to carry out military operations targeting alleged traffickers. More than 83 people have been killed in 21 known military strikes. The U.S. alleges that these are drug smuggling vessels.

Currently, the Trump administration appears poised for military action against Venezuela over accusations that the South American nation’s government is driving narcotics trafficking into the U.S. Could Secretary Hegseth be right? Should the U. S. declare a real war that should be fought on all fronts, whether in drug producing nations, on the high seas, or here in the United States? Just a thought!! What could go wrong!

In a declared war, soldiers (police officers) would not have to allow for the rule of law. Law enforcement officers could “take out” those that they believe are narco terrorists. No need to make an arrest. There would be no requirements for due process or a right to trial. Justice would be served on the street. Speedy and final. The drug war can be won if only Americans would give full war powers to police officers! Kill the foot soldiers. These are frightening thoughts!

The Real Solution

The US has continued to fail in treating addiction as a public health issue. As enforcement ramped up, investment in prevention treatment, and mental health care fell behind. Instead of reducing use, the environment helped drive people into other forms of consumption. Today, the US faces its deadliest drug crisis ever. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, there are more than 100,000 overdose deaths each year, largely driven by synthetic opioids like fentanyl. Overdose is now the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18–44.

To address the US drug problem, there needs to be recognition that a war of arrest and punishment has limits. The root causes of alcohol and other drug addictions must be addressed. Treatment and recovery programs, to treat the disorder through public health initiatives, are essential.

Community engagement where citizens learn to trust their government officials and share information regarding illicit drug use should be improved. Communities need to find their own way to reduce the demand for illicit drugs. Government policies (federal, state, and local) must send the same message.

These strategies aim to reduce overdose deaths, improve treatment availability, and disrupt the drug supply chain, ultimately addressing the broader issues that contribute to the drug crisis in the United States. Some of these issues deal with poverty, associated with a low minimum wage. Too many jobs that do not pay enough to support a single person, and certainly not a family. Other issues include the need to rebuild our mental health support network and strengthen our drug rehabilitation programs.

We DON’T need a war! We need a socially based strategy to address the root causes.

Did Slotkin, Kelly, Houlahan, Deluzio, Goodlander, and Crow Say Anything Illegal?

Senator Slotkin and six others recently posted a video reminding our military that they can refuse illegal orders. President Trump’s team is upset, saying that the President is the Commander-In-Chief and his orders must be followed. He also said that Slotkin and her “co-conspirators” are traitors and should be executed. Did they cross the line? Can soldiers, police officers, and other line personnel refuse an order. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is clear for military personnel. And, as a police officer, I was taught the same material. A soldier or police officer can refuse illegal orders. The question is, what is an illegal order? Equally at issue is whether the Commander in Chief has issued any illegal orders that can be refused.

Members of the military have a right, and perhaps an obligation, to refuse illegal or unlawful orders. The oath that soldiers take provides a duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not a loyalty to the Commander-In-Chief or his subordinates. The UCMJ does not define what “lawful” means. The Rules for Courts-Martial say that an order is lawful, “unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders that are beyond the authority of the official issuing it.” The Rules go on to say, “This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.” Finally, the Rules say, “The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.” That determination can be made only after a servicemember refuses or obeys an order, in a court martial or a war crimes tribunal.

Has the Commander in Chief or his delegates issued any orders that are unlawful? To date, as far as the public knows, there has been no military action to ignore any of President Trump’s directives. However, there have been numerous orders/directives, which have come under scrutiny by Congress, retired military, and the media. The question yet to be answered is “If you were given orders to take part in any military actions or asked to deploy to support the ordered actions which are possibly illegal, what would you do?”

What action has the Trump administration taken that involve the military, and once adjudicated, could be found to be illegal? The first action during his second term occurred in Los Angeles. The military (guard and marines) were called to duty to support ICE officers. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement, with certain exceptions– primarily in the event of an insurrection. Thus, one has an arguable duty to refuse to obey an order to assist law enforcement personnel unless there is an “insurrection.” The use of guard units has continued in operations in other cities. The issue has met with stalled legal action.

Most recently the Secretary of Defense (War) has ordered the Navy to attack vessels in international or foreign waters. And this week, the Washington Post reported that the Secretary had ordered attacks on surviving crew members or passengers of vessels sunk at sea.

Also, this week the President has signaled a pending invasion of, or attack on, Venezuelan territory, vessels, or nationals. This action follows earlier suggestions that the United States might attack, invade, or attempt to seize control of the Panama Canal by force. President Trump has also not ruled out “preemptive” use of military force against China, Iran, or other countries, or to annex Greenland or Canada. International law prohibits the use of military force except in retaliation for a military strike or in the face of an imminent military strike.

Under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. Absent such a declaration, an order to deploy to in many situations is legally questionable. In the above situations, Congress has not declared war. However, no U.S. military action since World War II, including Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, has been the result of a declaration of war. In place of a declaration of War is the Gulf of Tolkin Act which requires that the President receive permission from Congress to continue military operations beyond 30 days. As for self-defense, none of these countries have declared war against the U.S., attacked the U.S., or is preparing an imminent attack. However, an order to deploy is presumed to be lawful. The question of whether an order to deploy in the absence of a constitutionally required declaration of war can only be decided by a military judge at a court-martial.

The Military Law Task Force urges anyone who is deployed or might be facing a future deployment or order or is facing court-martial for refusing an illegal order, to call The Military Law Task Force for a referral to a civilian attorney or counselor to discuss their options.

Did our six Congressional Representatives do anything that could be considered treason? Absolutely NOT! They simply noted that our military personnel need to know that they can refuse an illegal order.

We The People

I just finished reading In the Hands of the People: Thomas Jefferson on Equality, Faith, Freedom, Compromise, and the Art of Citizenship for the second time. Our small book club had decided to discuss it at our last meeting. While most of you probably do not need to hear the following, I am compelled to speak out to those who say, “It’s politics and I don’t want to get involved.” Or “I don’t want to have my life interrupted by all that bad news, so don’t talk about it.” Our Constitution starts with the familiar words, “We the People.” Our founding fathers’ vision was revolutionary. The government would be in the hands of the people, not kings or other individuals. They knew they were taking a chance. People were accustomed to having government make decisions for them, not having the option to make their own choices.

These same founding fathers, while holding doubts about the long-term viability of their creation, believed that a well-educated and informed people would make good choices in this republican system of representative democracy. Public education was supported by Washington, Jefferson, Adams and many others. Educated people who had access to information, whether biased or not, could and would make good decisions. With these dreams in mind, subsequent generations of Americans improved education and created a Fourth estate to provide good information even when it showed obvious bias. We the People were controlling our own destiny.

However, in recent years, complacency has become common. Many of the People have failed to keep fully informed, basing their judgment on biased or limited information. Our education system has reduced the amount of teaching in civics, history, and social sciences. There have been successful efforts to restrict information that does not conform to standards established by power groups. Too many citizens have failed to realize that the government that they are criticizing is a criticism of self. If you are not informed and engaged, if you fail to take part in your government, you have no justification for complaining.

Get informed. Know your sources of information. Research “hot topic” issues. Engage in civil discussions with your friends and acquaintances. Take time to know what your elected representatives believe. Take part in local, state, and federal elections. Don’t tell me “I don’t want to hear about it!”

The Supreme Court and the Shadow Docket

Introduction

In the past months the media has occasionally mentioned the Supreme Court and its Shadow Docket. This tool has become important to the Trump administration as it attempts to deal with lower court decisions that hamper the President’s agenda. Examples include the deployment of federal troops to support ICE operations, and the court ordered payments for the SNAP program.

The Merit Docket

The Supreme Court has used two approaches to hearing cases. The first is the merit docket. This traditional docket involves a Court review to determine on merit the 60 to 70 cases that the Court will consider during any given year. In making this decision, the Court hears briefs and holds oral arguments. If the case is heard, the Court then issues its opinion explaining its reasoning, usually with dissents and concurrences. The process involved transparency and shows informed decision-making.

The Shadow Docket

The second track is the shadow docket. The traditional view of the shadow docket is simple. The Supreme Court rules on procedural matters such as scheduling and injunctions. Most of the time these cases, as noted above, deal with due dates for briefs, or a request to halt a lower court’s orders. These cases are not under intensive review and do not require oral arguments. Generally, the decisions have no explanation and often lead to questions about the rationale for the decision. As noted by Stephen Vladeck in his testimony before Congress, “Owing to their unpredictable time, their lack of transparency, and their usual inscrutability, these ruling come both literally and figurative in the shadows.”

The Growing Problem with the Shadow Docket

The term “shadow docket” was first used by University of Chicago law professor Will Baude in 2015. He used it to refer to the docket of work at the Supreme Court that almost no one noticed. This work consists of thousands of decisions usually handed down as an “order” by a single judge, usually the Circuit Judge for a particular district. Sometimes, the order reflects the opinion of the entire Court. Of course, routine decisions can be made without all of the justices hearing all the arguments. The current issue is that the justices are sometimes granting relief in contentious cases. The problem is that cases which had been determined as significant are now being decided in the “shadows.”

Significant Issues Decided or Blocked by the Shadow Docket

The shadow docket decisions have included gerrymandering, environmental regulations, and abortion. And in many cases, the administration has filed an emergency motion where the administration seeks to suspend or reverse lower court decisions, even while the case is ongoing! Emergency actions are supposed to be rare. They are considered by the Supreme Court when the lower court ruling could cause irreparable harm. Justice Elena Kaga has said that the court has gone “astra” making the “Court’s emergency docket not for emergencies at all …… only another place for merits determination—except made without full briefing and argument.”

Why is This Change a Problem?

Use of the shadow docket process runs against the historic record of transparency and rule of law generally associated with the Supreme Court. The Court has historically allowed the lower courts to establish facts and make determinations on cases. The Court then receives full briefings on the lower court case, holds oral arguments from both sides of the issue, and decides on an outcome, providing details of the decision-making process (including dissenting and supporting opinions). This process has been the backbone of the Court’s legitimacy with the American people.

It is no wonder that the American public is beginning to question the Court’s objectivity. Shadow docket decisions do not have the transparent look of the merit docket. Decisions are being rendered with little or no reasoning given. This has fed the believe that the Court has become more political in its decision making.

In addition, the concept of case law, which has guided lower courts in their decision making, has become difficult to follow. Federal judges often cannot agree on what weight to give shadow docket decisions. This has played out in the confusion over Trump’s immigration policies and his use of the military to support ICE.

The Consequences

District Judges are not only having problems applying case law or knowing the Supreme Court’s message, but they are also resigning out of frustration. One example is Judge Mark Wolf, U.S. District Judge for the Massachusetts District, who has resigned after many years on the bench. He has expressed his frustration with the erosion of prosecutorial independence, attacks on the Constitution, and rule of law by the current administration. Wolf was appointed by President Reagan in 1989 and was a major jurist in the Watergate Affair.

Conclusion

The shadow docket is likely being misused as a matter of political expedience. It is up to the Justices to reign in this practice and recognize that matters which the administration views as emergencies should be allowed to play out through the normal appeals process.

Is President Trump Mentally Capable of Making Presidential Decisions?

Introduction

Over the past several years I have written about President Trump, expressing my opinions regarding his policies, politics, and character. I will repeat my opinion that some of President Trump’s policy initiatives are worthy of consideration. However, the political dynamics of the Republican and Democratic parties often fail to look for ways to move forward with these ideas.

Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the government are instruments of the People. We should not feel compelled to accept their lack of work in finding compromise to the budget crisis. Likewise, we have an obligation to protect America’s interests both domestically and internationally. It is my view that the legislative and judicial branches of government have been coopted by President Trump. Our “face” to the world, despite his own self-aggrandizement, is making America look dysfunctional. On the home front, the government is shut down, price inflation continues to be a problem, major initiatives to combat global warming have been shut down, and other significant government departments have been gutted. In my opinion, supported by numerous mental health professions, our president has mental and cognitive problems and should NOT be making policy decisions. While the policies may have sound foundations to build upon, President Trump’s egotistic “I have the answers” approach has far too often failed to consider the outcomes of his decisions.

President Trump is content to ignore the Constitution and Bill of Rights when they do not fit his vision. Blowing up boats in the Caribbean and Atlantic in international waters is a violation of International Maritime Law. It is also a violation of our Constitution. The increased use of ICE to control immigration may have been a good idea, but in Trump’s wisdom he has deployed the National Guard and Marines to support ICE officers under the manufactured idea that cities like Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago, and New York are “hotbeds of crime”!

Are these the actions of a stable genius as President Trump claims? In my lifetime, I have lived under ten presidents. While history may have found that each of these presidents had human failings, there have never been any that measure up to Trump’s poor decision making abilities! Richard Nixon may come close with his illegal efforts to control the Presidential election, resulting in the Watergate Scandal.

President Trump’s Character and Mental Status

Multiple mental health professionals have publicly raised concerns about President Trump’s mental health and cognitive functioning. These concerns are often expressed through collective publications and structured assessments, rather than formal diagnoses, due to ethical guidelines that prohibit diagnosing public figures without direct examination. Notable efforts include the 2017/2018 book, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, where 27 psychiatrists and mental-health experts argued that Trump’s behavior presented dangerous traits, such as patterns resembling narcissism and paranoia. They emphasized the need for public warning, despite the ethical convention against remote diagnosis. The voter didn’t listen!

However, in 2024 and 2025, some mental health experts have expressed alarm over Trump’s cognitive faculties, suggesting signs of cognitive decline. Observations include rambling speeches, erratic debate performances, and incoherent tangents during public appearances. Analyses of Trump’s public persona often highlight traits associated with narcissistic leadership, authoritarian tendencies, and transactional logic. As noted earlier in this piece, his behavior aligns with grandiose self-image, moral disengagement, and strategic aggression, which have shaped his presidency’s most controversial policies.

Despite extensive public discussion and expert commentary, Donald Trump has not received an official public psychiatric diagnosis. Formal diagnosis requires direct clinical evaluation, which has not occurred. Trump has recently reportedly passed cognitive screening tests (such as the MoCA), Still, some experts remain concerned about potential cognitive decline, citing speech patterns and memory lapses. Recent media reports have highlighted Trump’s MRI scans and increased scrutiny of his mental fitness, especially following public statements and social media activity that some interpret as signs of confusion or possible dementia. However, these claims remain speculative and are not supported by official medical documentation.

The 2024 stud, mentioned earlier, used a structured Psychodiagnostic Chart to compare leaders and reported that Trump’s scores fell into a severe mental illness and dangerousness range across multiple mental functions, alongside Vladimir Putin, and contrasted with a psychologically healthy Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The study presents quantitative profiling to support its conclusions. The methodology and the authors’ selection criteria a important considerations for interpreting the strength of this comparison.

Conclusion

Multiple medical experts have raised concerns about Trump’s mental health and cognitive abilities through published collections and structured assessments, and these works consistently highlight public-safety concerns. However, differences in methods, ethical debates about remote diagnosis, and potential political motives indicate that these warnings should be treated as serious signals warranting further, standardized evaluation rather than conclusive clinical proof. My readers must assess whether clinical concerns are amplified by political objectives.

The Trump Administration and The Bill of Rights

The Future is in the Supreme Court’s Hands

One of the most important written documents in American history is the Constitution. And within the Constitution is the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. These amendments spell out the limitations of our government by the people as well as the rights of the people. Has the Trump administration adhered to our founding father’s vision of a nation ruled by the people and for the people? A look at how well the administration has followed the tenants of the Bill of Rights gives a clear picture of an administration that has no interest in these important rights and limitations! It will be up to the Supreme Court to determine just how far the administration can push the letter of the law!

The First Amendment relates to religion, free speech, and assemblage. The government should make no laws establishing a preferred religion or prohibiting the exercise of religion. Today, Christian Nationalism fails to allow for the exercise of religion other than that of Christians. Laws requiring Christian references have been passed in several states. Usually, they are found unconstitutional when reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Free speech is guaranteed. However, under the current administration, speech which does not conform to the standards set by the President has been under attack. Comedians making jokes about the administration are regularly attacked by the President and his surrogates. Colbert, Kimel, and O’Fallon are just a few who have had to pay a price for making jokes about the President and his administration. The President has even issued an executive order that prohibits flag burning, despite a previous Supreme Court decision that makes it a form of free speech. In the last few days, he has reiterated that anyone burning the flag should be in jail for one year! Furthermore, the press is being stifled with threats from the Federal Communications Commission following our President’s disapproval of news coverage. ABC recently settled a lawsuit regarding free speech rather than paying the price to defend the corporation and jeopardize a pending multi-million-dollar merger with Nexstar.

Freedom of assemblage is being taken away as the President sends national guard and/or federal troops to Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago, and other cities where demonstrations around Immigration Customs Enforcement protest the government’s attack on immigration. As of this writing, federal judges have blocked the deployment pending hearing legal responses from the federal government.

The Second Amendment concerns the Militia (National Guard). The “Guard” is highly regarded and regulated by law and decades of precedents. Our President is using powers granted to him to control insurrections or enforce federal laws to create unrest where there are no insurrections and the enforcement of federal laws are not being forcefully ignored. The right to bear arms is not under attack by the administration.

The Third Amendment concerns quartering of troops. It has little application in today’s world. The administration, so far, has not tried to place troops in private homes or businesses. Although, ICE has trespassed on private property in the pursuit of illegals.

The Fourth Amendment provides for the security of people against unreasonable search and seizure. Probable cause is needed for searches and warrants. The amendment requires that warrants give a description of the place, persons, and things that can be seized. The ICE crackdown on immigrants has often failed to follow the simplest rules set forth in this amendment. People are arrested without probable cause as defined by our courts over many years. People are arrested because they do not look like “Americans”. Even children are being detained (arrested)!

The Fifth Amendment addresses the requirement for an indictment for crimes. A person must be indicted by a grand jury. In modern times, the prosecuting attorney can present the indictment. In 2025, individuals are being arrested without being indicted. There is no trial. This amendment also addresses double jeopardy; a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime. This amendment also provides for the right to not be a witness against oneself. It also requires due process before private property can be taken for public use. These three areas seem to be left alone.

The Sixth Amendment provides for a speedy and public trial by a jury of peers. This is the habeas corpus amendment. It provides for the right to call and confront witnesses. It also provides for the right to have an attorney. Many of the alleged illegal immigrants are not provided these basic rights. Many have been arrested and removed from this country without any formal hearing!

The Seventh Amendment is the double jeopardy rule. At this point this amendment is not being attacked.

The Eighth Amendment concerns bail. It cannot be excessive. It also says that the punishment cannot be cruel or unusual. In the case of ICE deportations, the charged crime of being an illegal immigrant has resulted in deportees being incarcerated in prisons in other countries or detained in deplorable detention centers here. Think Alligator Alley.

The Ninth Amendment reflects a deep philosophical commitment to the idea that liberty is not confined to what’s written in law. The rights of the people are not limited by the Constitution. The interpretation of this amendment may have bearing on current situations.

The Tenth Amendment says that the powers not given to the federal government belong to the states. Current actions regarding the use of national guard and federal troops are beyond what the founding fathers likely believed. Their creation of posse comitatus and the Insurrection Act have limited the use of our military. While there are exceptions to both, the current situations as viewed by our president go beyond what the rationale person would accept as insurrections or a need to enforce federal law.

In conclusion, the decisions made by the Trump administration need to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. We can only hope that justice prevails over political pressures!

Cents or Common Sense?

I often ask, “How much is enough?” How much wealth is enough for a person to live a good life? Is it $100,000, $1,000,000, billions, and now in some cases trillions? Most of our founding fathers were educated, skilled, and diverse in their financial status. They chose to create a constitution that guaranteed equality of opportunity and equal treatment of individuals. While slaves were not considered equals and women were not given any rights, these men were people of their time and represented a vision of the future where the people would govern themselves with equal voices. Is the pursuit of wealth what our founding fathers visualized when they established this great republic? NO, their vision was about equal opportunity, not the accumulation of vast wealth and the power that comes from having it.

The America That was Planned.

The Constitution, written by our founding fathers as our “blueprint,” stressed individual freedom through a representative democracy. The “people” were to be the government. The assumption was that an educated electorate would choose the best candidates to represent their interests. The founding fathers tried to draft a document that would allow the people to make decisions. However, several of these same authors also had a skeptical view of the future. They warned about greed and consolidation of power. Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Franklin were very vocal about their concerns. Franklin is quoted as saying, “We have a democratic republic, can we keep it?” Some people with wealth and power have been trying to control government decision making for decades. And in 1958, Dwight Eisenhower warned in his farewell speech, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.”

What is America About in the 21^st Century?

In the 21^st Century, success varies depending on the individual. Those with gifts for business control the decisions that Congress makes through lobbyists and PACTS. The control of government by vested business is not new. By 1900, “robber barons” influenced many government decisions. This influence was eventually limited during two presidencies—Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt. However, over the decades following WWII, business interests have once again been able to exert excessive influence over our leaders.

Do we value wealth over our freedom of expression, and the ability to live life as we choose as long as we do no harm to others? The relationship between money, happiness, and freedom is complex. Can money buy happiness? According to one study, the answer is “yes” for 59% of Americans (72% of Millennials and 67% of Gen Z). Most associate a “Return on Happiness” with on-time bill payment (67%), being debt-free (65%), affording everyday luxuries without worry (54%), and owning a home (45%). Half of people say contentment is found in spending on experiences with those they cherish (53%) and in optimism for what’s next, including retiring on their own terms (37%).

However, many also recognize that financial stress can hinder overall happiness, with 73% of Americans reporting that they experience financial stress. In the current environment, people estimate that they will have to delay their expected retirement by three years (to age 63), on average. Economic pressures like inflation (81%), rising costs (81%), interest rates (66%), and student loans (32%) are dampening a sense of prosperity. Half of the people say they carry debt (54% of Gen Z, and 72% of Gen X), and 36% state that they could not handle an unforeseen expense over $500 without real worry (Empower Press, November 20,2023).

Apathy

However, as Noam Chomsky said, “As long as the general population is passive, apathetic, diverted to consumerism or hatred of the vulnerable, then the powerful can do as they please.” When the average American could have a nice home, car, truck, boat, and the ability to take vacations, then no one paid attention to the what the government was doing unless it impacted them directly.

In America, political apathy is a problem. In the United States, turnout for presidential elections places the country in 31st place out of 49 nations where data is available. During the 1800s, on average, 70% of Americans voted in presidential elections. Since 1900 the average has been consistently around 62-64%. The highest turnout was in the Hayes/Tilden race of 1876 with an 83% turnout. By the 21^st Century, apathy was common.

Donald Trump entered the Republican primary in June 2015. His campaign slogan was “Make America Great Again (MAGA)!” He won! Still, while Trump accurately claimed the election saw the largest number of voters to ever vote, voter turnout, at approximately 60%, was not great. The MAGA movement believes the U.S. was once great but has declined due to foreign influence. It supports “America first” policies, economic protectionism, reduced immigration, and what it regards as traditional American values, some of which involve discriminatory policies. In 2016, the MAGA movement made it clear that many Americans were concerned about the “extreme liberal” direction of the nation and the impact that it might have on their lives. The leaders of the movement stressed the “good old days” when Americans were patriots with Christian values. Opportunity existed for all if they would just work for it. They believed that government had become a tool for the left thinking socialists/communists. These left leaning leaders gave handouts to, and created opportunities for those who were not prepared or deserving.

Under President Donald Trump, America has now arrived at a critical point in determining what this nation represents. Are we going to step up and be about personal freedom or are we going to allow monied interests to control our government and our lives? Americans need to decide what is the ideal balance of wealth and power versus happiness and freedom for all.

What Can You Do About an Unpopular President?

(Written August 24, 2025)

Recent polls show President Trump underwater with the American public. Reports show that voters believe the top three most important issues Americans are currently facing are inflation/prices, jobs and the economy, and health care. These issues are creating uncertainty in many people. In fact, Trump’s approval rating in a Pew poll shows a nine-point drop, giving him an approval rating that has dropped to a near-record low this month. The Pew Research Center poll, released Aug. 14, shows Trump with a 38% approval rating, down nine points since Pew’s February survey at the start of his second term. Sixty percent of respondents said they disapprove of his job performance. Pew attributes the decline to falling support from his 2024 voters and among adults who didn’t vote in November. Other recent polls show less dramatic but still concerning shifts. For example, The Economist’s latest poll shows a slight increase in approval, suggesting mixed public sentiment.

Presidential approval ratings were first conducted by the founder of the American Institute of Public Opinion, George Gallup, around 1935 to gauge public support for the president of the United States during their term. While Gallup has tracked presidential approval for 70 years, other organizations also conduct and release their own polls. A president’s approval rating reflects the percentage of Americans polled who approve of the president’s performance. Anything can impact a president’s rating, such as legislation passed, actions and elections. According to ABC News, an approval rating doesn’t just represent how well the administration is faring for the general public but could factor into the outcome of an upcoming election or how much they accomplish while in office. The following are the latest polls from numerous sources:

The Economist (Aug. 15, 2025):

Favorable: 42%
Unfavorable: 54%
Not sure: 4%

Morning Consult (Aug. 15, 2025):

Favorable: 45%
Unfavorable: 51%

Silver Bulletin (Aug. 15, 2025):

Favorable: 44%
Unfavorable: 53%

Rasmussen (Aug. 15, 2025):

Favorable: 49%
Unfavorable: 49%

New York Times (Aug. 15, 2025):

Favorable: 44%
Unfavorable: 53%

Pew Research Center (Aug. 14, 2025)

Favorable: 38%
Unfavorable: 60%

Quantus Insights (Aug. 14, 2025):

Favorable: 47%
Unfavorable: 49%
Not sure: 4%

CNBC (Aug. 7, 2025):

Favorable: 47%
Unfavorable: 51%

Real Clear Politics (July 28, 2025):

Favorable: 46%
Unfavorable: 52%

Reuters/Ipsos (July 25-27, 2025):

Favorable: 40%
Unfavorable: 56%

Navigator Research (July 25, 2025):

Favorable: 43%
Unfavorable: 54%

Emerson College (July 25, 2025):

Favorable: 46%
Unfavorable: 47%

Gallup (July 7-21, 2025):

Favorable: 37%
Unfavorable: 59%
No opinion: 4%

Quinnipiac University (July 16, 2025):

Favorable: 40%
Unfavorable: 54%

How does Trump’s approval rating compare to previous presidents at this point in their term?

Joe Biden (June 2021) – 56% approve
Donald Trump (June 2017) – 38% approve
Barack Obama (June 2009) – 61% approve
George W. Bush (June 2001) – 54% approve
Bill Clinton (June 1993) – 41% approve
George H.W. Bush (June 1989) – 70% approve
Ronald Reagan (June 1981) – 59% approve
Jimmy Carter (June 1977) – 63% approve
Richard Nixon (June 1969) – 63% approve
Lyndon Johnson (June 1964) – 55% approve
John F. Kennedy (June 1961) – 73% approve

It is worth noting that President Trump’s current 38% approval polls place him almost as low as his rating during his first term. President Trump’s rating during both terms is the lowest of any of the presidents listed above. (Freile, Victoria E., and Barnes, Emily, USA Today)

Other Ways to Evaluate a President

Although the polls indicate that the president is unpopular, other ways of viewing his presidency must also be considered. Trump’s net approval rating remains above water in 27 states. And Trump has a positive net approval rating in three 2024 swing states — Nevada, Georgia and North Carolina — and has an even rating in Arizona. The idea that he still has such support is troubling but not unexpected. These states supported the Trump candidacy and are larger MAGA strongholds. Trump is underwater in two states set to host big gubernatorial races this fall. In Virginia, 45% of voters approve of his job performance, while 52% disapprove. And in New Jersey, 44% approve of Trump, while 53% disapprove. Trump’s approval rating is underwater in Arizona, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In areas of the country where Trump still maintains a positive approval rating, his popularity has still slipped. For instance, in Oklahoma, it was +34 percentage points in January but has since fallen by 7 points. In Utah, his popularity has declined by 10 percentage points—from a +21-approval rating to +11.

What to do When a President is not performing?

It can be argued that when a majority of voters find an elected official following a path that is not desired, that elected official should be removed from office. The options to remove President Trump from office are limited, and three of them would likely fail. One option is impeachment. We have been there twice and failed both times. It is doubtful that another impeachment would succeed. The 25^th Amendment is a second option but would require the majority of his cabinet to declare him unfit. Since his cabinet has been selected for their personal loyalty, it is also doubtful that this option would be used. The third option would require Congress to step forward and bring President Trump’s abuse of the Constitution under control. This option should have been the first choice. However, the Republican controlled Congress has not stepped into the controversy. Instead, Republicans have supported Trump’s often unconstitutional moves. And while the Supreme Court could stop much of the abuse of Constitutional and legal rights, they have chosen to either send the cases back to lower courts for further adjudication, or when a decision has been made, it often reflects Donald Trump’s conservative majority view. The fourth option is an election. If a popular vote or vote of confidence were to be held today, Donald Trump would likely lose. However, there is no law allowing for a recall election for a president. Therefore, the earliest that the third option is available would be in November 2028.

If the majority who disapprove of President Trump speak with one voice, it is possible that in November 2026, Congress could be flipped from Republican control to the Democratic control. This change in control of the legislative branch could bring President Trump’s agenda to a quick halt. I am suggesting that whether you are Democrat, Independent, Socialist, Libertarian, other minority party, or even a disgruntled Republican, a vote for someone other than the current Republican holding office would allow for a change in support for President Trump. While demonstrations, emails, letters, blogs and other instruments are options, the most powerful option is the ballot box. Elon Musk recognizes this. Whether he follows through with his American Party candidates in key races waits to be seen. If he does as he suggests several critical Congressional seats could be removed from Republican Control.

Donald Trump’s Use of the Court System as a Tool to Implement His Objectives

It should come as no surprise that President Trump has been counting on his use of the court system to allow his administration to pursue his objectives despite legal challenges. Donald Trump and his businesses are not novices when it comes to using the court system to their advantage. Since 1973, Donald Trump’s businesses have been involved in over 4,000 federal and state legal cases. The cases run the gamut from real estate issues to personal defamation. His businesses have been involved in over 100 tax cases. In 2022 the Trump Organization was convicted on 17 criminal charges. (Jacobs, Shayna, “Trump Organization Convicted in N.Y. Criminal Tax Fraud Trial,” Washington Post, December 6, 2022). Donald Trump has been to court for accusations of sexual harassment and assault. The E. Jean Carrol case decision founds him guilty and fined him $80 million. (Stempel, Jonathan, “US Judge Upholds 83.3 Million Defamation Loss, Rejects New Trial,” Reuters, April 25, 2024). In January 2023, he was fined nearly $1 million because the judge found him to be “a prolific and sophisticated litigant who repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries. Haberman, Maggie (January 31, 2023) “Trump’s Well-Worm Legal Playbook Starts to Look Frayed,” Vanity Fair.

While many MAGA supporters would say that the Democrats have used the justice system to persecute Donald Trump, his record of problems with the government, other businesses, and people precede his interest in politics by several decades. Most cases in which Donald Trump has been involved were before he announced his candidacy for President.

Still, since January 2025, hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against the current Trump administration. These lawsuits challenge various executive orders and actions taken by the administration, including those by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) led by Elon Musk. The courts have blocked the administration in several cases, and many of these cases are currently under appeal.

A litigation tracker by Just Security has recorded a total of 378 cases against the Trump administration’s actions. Out of these, 25 actions have been blocked, 77 temporarily blocked, and 17 blocked pending appeal. Additionally, 146 cases are still awaiting court rulings.

One notable case is Taylor v. Trump, where a group of individuals whose federal death sentences were commuted by President Biden are challenging an executive order by President Trump. This order directed the Attorney General to evaluate their imprisonment conditions and resulted in their indefinite incarceration at a federal supermax prison. Other significant cases where his efforts have been blocked include a legal challenge to a birthright citizenship executive order and challenges to suspending his asylum executive order. Immigration advocacy groups argue that the executive order violates the Constitution. Other cases where bans on executive orders are in place include challenges to suspending the Refugee Program. Plaintiffs argue that the executive order violates the Fifth Amendment. A federal appeals court ruled in March that Trump can partially enforce the refugee ban. And another case fights the Deportation of the Boulder, Colorado attack suspect’s family. A federal judge in Colorado halted the deportation of the wife and five children of Mohamed Soliman, who is facing a hate crime charge in the wake of a firebombing attack in Colorado. The ruling will remain in effect until a scheduled hearing. While President Trump has had his actions challenged and blocked, he has also had success with the Supreme Courts decision on Executive Immunity and most recently in the civil judgement in New York where the fine of $50 million for fraud was overturned by the appellate court.

Summary of Total number of cases currently tracked by Just Security: 381.

Case Status Summary:
Case Closed in Favor of Plaintiff: 1
Blocked: 25 (When a case is described as “blocked,” it means that a court has issued an order preventing the enforcement or implementation of a specific action or policy. This can happen for various reasons, such as the court finding that the action or policy is likely to be unconstitutional, violates existing laws, or causes irreparable harm.)
Temporarily Blocked: 77
Blocked Pending Appeal: 17
Temporarily Blocked in Part or Temporary Block Denied in Part: 11
Temporary Block Denied: 38
Not Blocked, Pending Appeal: 34
Awaiting Court Ruling: 147
Case Closed: 22
Misc: Transferred: 2
Case Closed/Dismissed in Favor of Government: 7

The End Game

For over 50 years, Donald Trump has used the courts, mostly to his advantage. When a court finds against his position, he appeals. If the appeal fails, he appeals to the next higher court. This is a delaying tactic that often results in a settlement where Donald Trump can claim a victory even if it costs him. The tactic has allowed him time to proceed with his agenda while the legality plays out in court. To improve his chances of favorable outcomes, he has discovered a tactic to appoint judges who are loyal to him to positions where he may have cases heard. In an Augst 19, 2025 article in Politico, Erica Orden notes that President Trump is circumventing the Senate to install top federal prosecutors who are loyalists. According to Orden, when Trump’s nominees can’t be confirmed by the Senate, he temporarily installs an interim US Attorney. This person can serve for 120 days (4 months). When the term ends, District Judges can reject the appointment. The Trump administration has chosen to ignore the District Judges and reappoint his selected federal attorney for an additional 120 days (Orden, Erica, “Trump Bypasses the Senate—and the Courts—to install loyal US Attorneys,” Politico, August 19, 2025).

One of the most recent cases involved New Jersey, where Alina Habba, one of Trumps personal lawyers was appointed to serve and then nominated for the permanent position of federal prosecutor. Habba was the attorney involved in the detention of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and Representative LaMonica McIver when they attempted to visit an immigration detention center (Catalini, Mike, “Judge Says Former Trump Lawyer Alina Habba has been Unlawfully Serving as US Attorney in New Jersey,” Associated Press, August 19, 2025). On August 20, 2025, US District Judge Matthew Brann ruled that Habba was acting Illegally as the US attorney for New Jersey. President Trump’s illegal effort to bypass Congress was noted by the Judge. Cases overseen by Habba after her illegal appointment are now being appealed by defendants in those cases (Rivard, Ry, “The Fallout from the Alina Habba Ruling has Begun” Politico, August 22, 2025).

Conclusion

How the battle for the courts will play out is anyone’s guess. However, it is worth noting that President Trump’s team, even with its delaying tactics is losing more often than winning. The issue to be considered is the damage done to the system and the agencies impacted by the administration actions while the courts decide whether the actions are Constitutional!