Congress for Sale

“We the People” are supposed to be the government. Our founding fathers made it clear that a democratic republic needed educated and involved people. The earliest members of Congress were chosen by the people. However, these early leaders also understood the temptations that power brought to various individuals and groups. George Washington, in this farewell address, cautioned against political parties. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and others cautioned against the influence of monied interests. As designed, the system would work only if “guard rails” were established.

Washington’s concern was soon disregarded, as the founding fathers themselves could not agree on whether to have a strong central government or a system of states represented in a republican nation. This basic difference of opinion continues under our present political two-party system, with smaller parties playing only a tangential role.

The concerns of John Adams and the others were also ignored. While early representation was likely to be influenced by those already in local power and those with financial influence, at least the elected representatives did represent the districts that they served. In today’s political environment, these same influences continue but have been distorted by the Supreme Court Decision in Citizen’s United and a lack of strong rules regarding lobbying efforts. Large corporations now have a political voice. Lobbyists represent not only individual monied interest, but large corporations with unlimited funds that are used to sway representative views.

The founding fathers created a democratic republic where the people were to be decision makers. However, monied interests were soon influencing elected officials. While the problem of money in politics is not new, today’s PACs, and dark money operations, have eroded the power of the people in favor of those who can influence our political leaders with money and other opportunities, such as paid vacations, and personal favors.

Who (or what) has the greatest impact on legislation and our elected representative? Companies, labor unions, trade associations, social and political groups, and other influential organizations spend billions each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies. Last year over 4.5 billion dollars was spent by 13,000 lobbyists. Some special interests retain lobbying firms, many of them located along Washington’s legendary K Street; others have lobbyists working in-house. How can the average voter compete?

Organized spending by PACs and special interests have a great deal of influence. In 2024 the biggest spender was Future Forward USA, spending over $510 million dollars. This organization leans democratic and worked to elect Kamala Harris. The next biggest spender was MAGA at $377 million. Other major groups leading the list are political action organizations supporting both democrats and republicans. America PAC (Texas), a group primarily funded by Elon Musk, supports President Trump with $196 million. Americans for Prosperity spent $138 million, with funding by the Koch family supporting Libertarian causes. Fairshare PAC is funded by Cryto, Coinbase, Ripple (cryto firm), and Andreessen/Horowitz (capital investment firm) at $112 million. The most altruistic group is Preserve America, founded by G. W. Bush, to support American culture and nature spending at $112 million.

Individual companies spending large sums include SpaceX with contributions of $289 million, followed by Adelson Clinic spending $147 million. Adelson Clinic was established to study drug use and abuse issues following the Opioid epidemic. Third is Uline funded by Robert Uihien, a prominent ultra conservative, at $146 million.

National Associations also spend large sums lobbying for their organizations. At the top of the list is the National Association of Realtors spending $86 million. They are followed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce at $76 million. The next grouping, which includes pharma, hospitals, Blue Cross, and the AMA, spends a combined total of $113 million.

There are many others that spend millions of dollars to influence legislation. If the government was truly of the people, should these special interest groups be allowed to have such a massive impact on elected officials? There is a reason that so many in Congress are millionaires. Consider our key legislators. Mike Johnson received over $618,000 from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in 2023. and Lockheed Martin added another $60,000 in donations. Hakeem Jefferies received $866,000 from the AIPAC, and $64,000 from Lockheed. Chuck Shumer is supported by Blackstone (investment firm) with $281,000 and an additional $235,000 from NextEra Energy. John Thume received $122,000 from AIPAC and $96,000 from Sanford Health. Dick Durbin is supported by Power Rodgers LLP (Chicago law firm) with $102,000 and Simmon Hanly Conroy (law firm) for $80,000. For more information about specific legislators go to Open Secrets (www.opensecrets.org).

Perhaps the answer to why so many Congressional initiatives that might help the average American don’t get passed lies with the undue influence of big money! We need to support efforts to get big money and excessive lobbying out of Congress!

The Unnecessary Killing of Renee Nicole Good

Overview

On Wednesday, January 7, 2026, Renee Nicole Good was shot and killed by ICE officer Jonathan Ross during a confrontation between ICE officers and observers. Federal officials claimed she attempted to run over an agent. Local officials and eyewitness accounts dispute this. Video evidence has raised further questions. The Trump administration and DHS assert that Ross acted in self‑defense. The Homeland Security Secretary described the incident as an act of “domestic terrorism,” a characterization rejected by Minnesota officials. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has sharply criticized the federal narrative, calling it misleading, and is demanding a state‑involved investigation.

The FBI took control of the investigation, reportedly blocking Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension from accessing evidence. Local leaders argue this exclusion undermines trust and transparency. The FBI and Bureau of Criminal Apprehension have worked together on many cases over the years. As a retired law enforcement professional, I have so many questions that need to be answered. A joint investigation should be initiated so that the family, community, and nation can have trusted answers to the questions.

Questions

What authority does ICE have in dealing with blocked traffic flow? For that matter, what are the mandates for ICE, and what legal authority do officers have in implementing orders?

Who is Jonathan Ross? How well trained was he in dealing with the type of situation that he found himself in on January 7? Did he position himself in a place of danger? Was deadly force his only option? How badly was he injured 6 months ago in a previous apprehension attempt, where he was dragged over 50 yards by a fleeing vehicle? Did he receive any follow-up medical or psychological treatment? If not, why not? If so, did the psychological team clear him for a return to duty?

What were Renee Good’s intentions on the morning of January 7? Did she intend to block an ICE operation? Was she shocked by the manner of approach by an ICE officer when he attempted to open her door? Was she defiant? Was she simply trying to remove herself from an uncomfortable situation?

Commentary

Only an open, joint investigation can answer these questions. The various videos and eyewitness statements will help answer some questions. An investigation into ICE operations, training, and policies that address officer actions will provide additional information.

What is ICE and its mandate? U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a federal law‑enforcement agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It was created in 2003 as part of the post‑9/11 reorganization of federal security agencies. Its core mission is to enforce immigration and customs laws inside the United States. ICE is responsible for investigating, enforcing, and preventing violations of federal immigration, customs, and border‑related laws. It operates primarily inside the U.S. interior, not at the border. Border operations are handled mainly by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

ICE is responsible for locating, arresting, detaining, and removing individuals who violate U.S. immigration laws. They are also responsible for prioritizing individuals who are recent arrivals, fugitives, or those with criminal convictions. A third major area of responsibility is conducting worksite enforcement to ensure employers maintain a lawful workforce. Secondary functions include investigating human trafficking, drug smuggling, money laundering, and other cross‑border criminal networks. In fulfilling their duties, ICE must also manage needed detention facilities, ensuring the “safe and humane” detention and removal of individuals ordered to be deported.

ICE agents can conduct operations in public spaces without restriction, but entering private areas requires a judicial warrant. Administrative warrants—common in immigration cases—do not authorize entry into private spaces without consent. ICE agents, while federal agents, are NOT police officers. Their scope of authority is limited to detaining and arresting with probable cause, and/or signed arrest warrants, individuals suspected of being in the United States illegally. ICE has no authority to pull anyone over for a traffic violation. Any involvement with vehicles must be justified with probable cause that the driver or passengers are wanted on immigration violations.

ICE has been under pressure to rapidly expand its workforce, leading to streamlined training and more field‑office‑based on‑the‑job learning. Prior to the surge in hiring, ICE agents received 240 days of training which included 25 days of training in Spanish. New recruits now receive 47 days of training. The training is less than that of most police officers, who receive at least 75 days of training (with some states requiring 125 days). The ICE training comes closer to the 5-day requirement for citizens to receive firearm permits in many states.

My own cursory examination points in the direction of an ICE operation that exceeded general mandates. The training that ICE officers receive does not prepare them for police work. Several mistakes were made by ICE officers during the Minneapolis confrontation. While Officer Ross received more than the 47 hours of training now mandated, his training was in enforcement of ICE mandates, arrests and warrants, not police tactics. The most significant example of not having proper training is a simple axiom taught in most police academies: TIME + DISTANCE = OPTIONS. Other mistakes, such as the approach of ICE officers, violate another key point in police training. De-escalate the tension in any given situation.

In addition, Officer Ross was involved in an arrest attempt in June 2025 where he was injured by being dragged over 50 yards by a suspect in a fleeing vehicle. He was hospitalized with severe injuries. To treat his injuries, doctors used 20 stitches in his right arm and 13 in his left hand. It is possible that Officer Ross was not given a proper vetting before being returned to duty. Without proper clearance, it is possible that Ross did act to protect himself from his own perceived harm. He was not mentally prepared for a return to duty. It does not justify what happened, but it does point a guilty finger at the ICE organization.

Conclusion

The administration’s goal of deporting illegal immigrants (particularly criminals) has required additional ICE agents. To accomplish this goal, the agency has increased its hiring numbers. To get the new agents on the job quickly, the required training has been reduced to a level that is far below an acceptable level for agents who are now also acting as if they are police officers.

There are no public records of Officer Ross’s previous leave requirements or the requirements to return to duty. However, given the just over six-month time span between his first tragic vehicle arrest encounter and the January 7 incident, there should be interest in whether the ICE agency policy of psychological support falls short regarding the officer’s suitability to return to duty.

Venezuela: A Legitimate Action or Something Else?

Following yesterday’s arrest of Maduro, politicians and pundits are debating the legality of the arrest and looking for an explanation of the actions taken by the Trump administration. While I have my personal opinions, the following is a look at legal arguments for and against Donald Trump’s decision to order the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, supported by U.S. military operation used to assure the success and safety of the arresting team. I have attempted to present the information as it has been reported by the media, legal experts, and the Trump administration.

Legal Arguments Against Arrest

1. Violation of International Law- Many experts argue that the operation was an illegal use of force inside a sovereign nation without its consent. Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer, said the operation was a “clear violation of international law.” (Lisa Mascaro, Joshua Goodman and Ben Finley, “Capture of Maduro and U.S. claim it will run Venezuela raise new legal questions,” The Associated Press) The military strikes inside Caracas typically require either UN authorization, self‑defense justification, or host‑nation consent—none of which were present.

2. No Congressional Authorization–The U.S. Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to declare war. Trump’s own chief of staff previously said that. Congress was not notified before the operation, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. (Tom Hals and Andrew Goudsward,“Was the US capture of Venezuela’s president legal?” Reuters, January 3, 2026)

3. Inconsistent Legal Justification—Experts note the administration blurred the line betweena law enforcement action (arresting an indicted individual), anda military regime‑change operation (Trump’s statements about “running” Venezuela and taking its oil). Jeremy Paul of Northeastern University said:“You cannot say this was a law enforcement operation and then turn around and say now we need to run the country.” (Hals, Goudsward)

4. No Extradition Treaty or Legal Basis for Seizure–The U.S. has no extradition treaty with Venezuela.Mark Nevitt, former Navy attorney, said “I see no legal basis for us to go into another country and take a leader without an extradition treaty.” (Mascaro, Goodman, Finley)

5. Precedent of Unlawful Targeted Killings/Strikes–The U.S. had already conducted 35 boat strikes, killing more than 115 people since September. Many experts say this likely violated U.S. and international law. (Mascaro, Goodman, Finley)

Legal Arguments for Arrest (These are the justifications the Trump administration or its defenders have offered.)

1. Maduro Was Under U.S. Indictment—Maduro had been indicted in New York on narcoterrorism, drug trafficking, and weapons charges in 2020. The Justice Department requested military assistance to apprehend him. (Hals, Goudsward) Attorney General Pam Bondi said the defendants would “face the full wrath of American justice.” (Hall, Goudsword) This frames the operation as a law enforcement action, not an act of war.

2. National Security Justification–The administration claimed Maduro supported drug cartels designated as terrorist organizations, responsible for thousands of U.S. deaths from illegal drug use. (Hall, Goudsword)Under this theory, the president can act to protect U.S. national security without prior congressional approval.

3. Precedent for Limited Military Actions Without Congress— Presidents of both parties have used military force without congressional authorization whenthe action was limited in scope andtied to national interests. Examples that are often cited includeReagan in Grenada, Clinton in Kosovo, Obama in Libya and George H. W. Bush in Panama. The administration may argue this operation fits that pattern.

4. Maduro’s Status as an “Illegitimate Leader” —Some international actors and the U.S. government had previously recognized Juan Guaidó as the legitimate president of Venezuela. If Maduro is not recognized as head of state, the argument goes, the U.S. did not violate sovereignty by seizing him.

Other Factors

President Trump has been clear that the United States will run the country and rebuild the oil industry in Venezuela. How can this be accomplished? Who benefits the most from this plan?

China and Cuba have been major importers of Venezuelan oil. How will the United States deal with the complications in oil trade?

The United States entered a foreign county and arrested its leader. Does this mean that the invasion of the Ukraine by Russia can be justified? Can China reclaim Tawain? Can Netanyahu be arrested by another country and presented to the United Nations since he is currently wanted for war crimes by the World Court? Can a country be justified in kidnapping President Trump if they don’t like him?

Summary

There are so many questions that this incident has raised. How will Congress react? Should Americans allow their government to act as the sole authority on issues that impact our nation? There are many opinions. As is apparent from the above arguments for and against the legality of Maduro’s arrest, the weight of the legal arguments makes it apparent that the arrest, supported by the military, was illegal. The arguments supporting the administration are justifications, not legal interpretations.

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!