Let's get something straight. Russia is an authoritarian regime trying to control a neighboring country. Ukraine, despite its problems with corruption, is fighting for its independence, democracy and a future aligned with the West. One wants to impose its will on another nation. The other wants the freedom to choose its own future. Yet Trump keeps putting pressure on Ukraine while easing pressure on Putin. Think about how completely backwards that is. America is supposed to stand with nations fighting for freedom and self-determination, not give authoritarian aggressors a helping hand. We're turning our backs on the very principles we've spent generations defending.

The #MeToo movement actually ended up hurting women's rights, and honestly, a lot of people saw this coming.

Here's the thing—everyone's dishonest. Online especially, you've got people chasing clout and way more liars than you'd normally encounter.

Saying every single woman who reports sexual assault is being truthful? That's just not realistic. But then you've got accused men in this impossible position where they're basically guilty no matter what.

Look, men already have outsized power in society. So what happens? Men get scared of false accusations and stop supporting women. They avoid working with women altogether. Women end up losing ground on their rights instead of gaining it.

Everyone lies, right? If you're a woman who's been harassed, abused, or assaulted and weren't believed, you naturally assume other women face the same thing. You'd probably be right most of the time. But here's the reality—the men in charge are gonna stay in charge. Sure, maybe one or two get taken down, but most powerful guys face zero consequences. And privately? They'll start working against women.

If women want to actually win rights, they gotta be strategic about which battles they fight. For a woman to get real support online, she needs to be a genuine victim with an airtight case that went through the actual court system. You can't just jump on whatever's trending if it hasn't been prosecuted and nobody's been criminally charged.

This Cornell case is a prime example, it could turn out Jane Doe is not be truthful?
That tanks women's credibility across the board. The case is super messy and we don't actually know what happened. It’s unlikely after her first signed statement anyone will be prosecuted. It doesn’t matter if the statement sent to the DA didn’t include everything she said. Her statement was from her and I can’t think of anything that would change the facts that it seems no crime was committed against her. If she feels she was raped it doesn’t change the facts that by her own words legally she was not. The facts she stated make it clear she willing put herself in the situation and did not object.
Social pressures, being intoxicated does not give anyone an excuse to skirt responsibility. If that were true then you would have to let the men skirt responsibility as well.

Take away your emotional reaction, your own experience. You have to look at this without emotion. The law dictates what rape is and isn’t. If that upsets you then try and change the laws.

I have no judgement against Jane Doe, I am just looking at the reality.

Jane Doe, whether she meant to or not, has made statements that contradict each other.

People are now divided and have started this mob justice. Mob justice , Witch hunts 1400-1700’s. The McCarthy trials 1960s. They are all bad. It’s election time and politicians are getting involved. You can’t change the laws because it doesn’t fit your narrative(unless your Trump).

Think before you act. Don't pick controversial cases to make your point. It'll blow up in your face.

I just saw a video about people in Michigan, which is why I'm here.

There were a pair of Black people in that video, so I'll use them as an example, but the logic applies universally.

You care about Black issues.

So you are at odds with white supremacists.

Between the Republican named Mike Rogers and the Democrat named Abdul El-Sayed, which one do you think the white supremacists of Michigan are going to vote for?

The answer is the white man named Mike Rogers.

So what is there to be undecided about? Are you truly considering voting for the same person as white supremacists? Boosting the guy that people who hate you want?

Same with women and misogynists, working class people and the rich, all of it.

Even if you aren't 100% jazzed about either candidate, one of them is going to be favored by people who actively want to make your life worse. The options, then, are either sitting and doing nothing, which is still letting the people who hate you win, or actively voting against the person they like as a middle finger to them, even if you aren't jumping for joy when you're casting your ballot.

Until enough people get off their asses and vote for reformers who want to make our elections ones where we can vote for someone and not just against, every election is just as much about preventing the vision of the country you don't want, as much as it is trying to vote for the vision that you do. Neither candidate will take the country in what you consider the right direction? Harm reduction. Vote for the one that'll keep things steady instead of taking it in what you consider the wrong direction.

Greetings,

A recent Washington Post article described Democrats’ plans to limit the powers of the presidency should they win next week.  One snippet stood out to me, even over the sound of unhatched chickens being counted.  A Republican strategist opined that “Democrats’ plans will go nowhere”, continuing “They are full of baloney — I don’t think Democrats would ever limit the power of a Democratic president.  The idea of Democrats saving democracy, it’s nonsense.”

I have a couple points of agreement.  First, I’m glad she didn’t even try to pretend the Republicans were the ones to save democracy, but I also agree the Democrats aren’t the ones to look to instead.  They may not have been complicit in the Trump Administration but they HAVE been complicit in the decades-long desecration of the Middle Class that, among many other sins, has offshored jobs, put corporations in the position of writing laws, cored out education, stifled opportunity, and transferred 53 trillion from the bottom 90% of us to the top 1%.  Like the Republicans with Trump, the Democrats who didn’t actively enable this destruction did pathetically little to stop it.  No, neither the Reps nor the Dems will save us.

The realization that neither of today’s political parties will “save democracy” is bad enough, but unless I’m unfairly misreading the strategist her unstated idea was even worse.  She assumed that Democrats won’t rein in power because they’ll want it themselves when the wheel inevitably turns.  In her mind, there is nothing higher than narrow, self-serving Party interests.  Society is a winner-take-all jungle, not a cooperative fight for survival.  No sensible person, certainly not a politician of any stripe, would act to create a neutral system that limited friends and enemies alike.  Only naïve unicorns would act for the general good.

But what if someone did?  Suppose some unicorns got together to build a political system? 

Let’s suppose that we (“we” being the People of the United States in this case) wanted to build a better society.  We could start by establishing a justice system that protected the innocent and held the guilty accountable.  We’d want to ensure our society was tranquil and peaceful while still protecting against the very real enemies we face in the world.  We’d want to promote the general welfare for ourselves, yes, but we’d also want those benefits to flow to our children and our children’s children as well.  IF ALL THAT WAS THE GOAL, then we could build some type of government to accomplish it. 

Even unicorns have seen tyrannical, corrupt, and wasteful governments of all types, so they’d probably want to design their government to limit abuse and corruption.  It might be a good idea to not let any one person or faction take control.  Laws wouldn’t come from the whims of a king or Dear Leader but from a legislative body of some type, maybe even drawn from our fellow citizens.  The legitimacy of the laws could be determined by comparing them to the goals “We The People” set out.  We could decide controversies using not one Judge but several, limiting the influence of any one person and ensuring the best chance of considering issues fairly.  If we chose to have a singular leader, they could be limited to executing the laws the legislature set out.  Oooh oooh!  Maybe these, let’s call them “branches” of government, could be consciously pitted against each other in some system of checks or balances so that no one branch could trample the others.

Unless the unicorns are horribly naïve they’d realize that even good people can become abusive when given power.  Maybe they could limit the powers of the overall government so that there’d be lines the government couldn’t cross even in pursuit of good.  Maybe they could protect speech, or religion, or assembly.  It wouldn’t have to be very detailed… maybe a list of ten or so biggies, then we could add more as the society changed.  

Of course, these are all the naïve daydreams of people who don’t understand the world the way the wise Republican strategist does.  In the real world Democracy doesn’t work, it never could, and we’re doomed to a zero-sum back-and-forth of petty power struggles with the worst people among us. 

But hold on… look at that fourth paragraph above again… why, that’s a thinly disguised version of the preamble to the Constitution of the United States!  And that next paragraph… it sums up the 7 Articles of the Constitution in just a few sentences.  And hey, isn’t that sixth paragraph a nod to the Bill of Rights?

My point is that the ‘sophisticated’ political class is wrong.  Naivety played no part in our nation’s founding, but idealism did.  Given the chance, given the choice, the framers of the constitution didn’t build a system that empowered their friends to the detriment of their enemies.  They were unicorns, but they weren’t naïve.  They knew they couldn’t eliminate corruption or power grabs (that WOULD be naïve!) so instead they built a system of distributed power with checks and balances between the players.  And if things went wrong despite their best efforts, the backup they counted on was the interest and active engagement of citizens.  The Vote.  You.  Me.  Us.

For more than two centuries the “American Dream” has inspired the world.  We’ve been a melting pot that, against all odds, could and did include people from every corner of the earth and unite them by principle instead of blood.  We were a country of unicorns, leading through the power of our ideas.  Now though, we’ve been reduced to a level of sniping partisanship that could destroy everything we’ve built at home and abroad.  We’re told by the most broken and venal among us that this is just reality, that everyone’s in it for themselves, and the people we once loved as neighbors have been plotting our downfall all along.  I don’t believe it, and I hope you don’t either.  In just a few days, we’ll be called to vote again.  I hope we all vote from our aspirations instead of our fears.  

Make a great day,

Tom

Digging Deeper…

Trump’s opponents are planning efforts to reverse his changes to presidency, Naftali Bendavid in Washington Post, Oct 2026

As Partisan Hostility Grows, Signs of Frustration With the Two-Party System, Pew Research Center, Aug 2022

The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%—And That's Made the U.S. Less Secure, Nick Hanauer in Time, Sep 2020

Ignorance can be bliss- How a “Veil of Ignorance” can help us all, Tom Dwyer Automotive, Oct 2025

Ronald Reagan’s last speech as president, Jan 1989

“4^th of July”, Tom Dwyer Automotive Radio spot, Jul 2010

Tom’s Tidbits- Cynicism isn’t the path, even in today’s world.  This is., Tom Dwyer Automotive Services, Jan 2026

It's also strange from the perspective of someone on the other side of the Atlantic the experiences a form of blowback from foreign policy or military action and it's citizens seem not understanding the concept of.. retaliation.

They seem to think retaliation or hatred for the US can only come from innate unreasonable evil.

The prime example is the Iran - Iraq war, where the us supported the invasion of Iran that killed almost a million people.

Year's later US citizens watch iranians chant "de\*th to america" or the government is against the US and people think it's because "they hate us for our freedom".

I think if the US had hostile neighbors unlike Mexico or Canada the population would be more against offensive action because the population understands direct retaliation better.

My view: H-1B recruitment should expand when there are genuine skill shortages and contract when qualified workers already in the country can't find jobs.

I don't object to the idea of a work visa. I object to treating additional recruitment as automatically justified in a weak job market. Employers should have to make a clear case that they can't find the skills they need. I also want stronger enforcement against sham employers and fraudulent applications.

Many H-1B workers are excellent. I'd support making room for exceptional talent even when the market is weak. That doesn't mean every strong engineer qualifies for O-1 or the extraordinary-ability branch of EB-1: O-1 is temporary, while EB-1 is an immigrant classification with its own criteria.

I'd want this standard applied under either political party. How would you measure a genuine shortage, and what would count as convincing evidence that qualified applicants already here aren't available for a role?

Trump calls them shithole countries.  These are poor countries that often suffer under their own corrupt and incompetent government.  We are better than that.  When our government is corrupt and incompetent, we export suffering.  Sure, we suffer a bit from inflation at home, but mostly the consequences of our corruption and incompetence have fallen on other countries.  We bomb Iran and gasoline prices go up about 50% here, but the impact has been far greater in poor countries in Asia and Africa dependent on oil traversing the Strait of Hormuz.  Then, to alleviate the strain on the oil supply, we lift sanctions on Russia, funding the war they started in an attempt to seize part or all of Ukraine.  Now, just a few days ago, we are told we have made another deal with Russia to attempt to alleviate the high price of diesel at home, again lifting sanctions and giving Russia more money to make bombs to drop on civilians in Ukraine.  We cancel trade agreements we made just four or five years ago because we are big and strong and believe we can get more.  We threaten to take over other countries because we can.  We call climate change a hoax and encourage the world to ignore it because, thanks to fracking, we can profit from the export of fossil fuels.  I realize we were never completely altruistic, but at least we had laudable ideals.  Under Trump, we are simply unprincipled opportunists.  We are not a shithole country, but I prefer what we used to be – not perfect, but not the world’s biggest asshole either.  Please vote, because you still can, and it still counts – don’t take it for granted.

By Arthur Solomon

Some years ago, when I was an advisor to U.S.and foreign Olympic organizations and corporations that sponsored the Olympics, a famous American Olympic champion told me that he was upset when the United States boycotted the 1980 Summer Olympic Games in Russia.

The boycott, initiated by President Jimmy Carter because of Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan, occurred when U.S.Olympic officials said the U.S.would not participate in the Soviet games. More than 60 countries joined the boycott. (Russia retaliated by boycotting the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles.)

President Carter’s decision not to play games with the Russians because of their invasion of Afghanistan was originally derided by many U.S. Olympians and American Olympic officials, even though they eventually decided not to go against the president’s wishes.

The Olympic champion I knew told me that his thinking had evolved over the years and perhaps the U.S.boycott was justified.

Which raises my question: Should the U.S. play games with countries that are enemies of the United States and wish us harm?

The recently concluded FIFA tournament in North America was the first of two major international sports competitions in the U.S. Still to come are the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles.

“Sports brings people together” is often the rationale given when the U.S. sends its Olympic teams to games that are staged in totalitarian countries that are adversarial to the U.S.

“Sports bring people together” is the rationale for those interested parties who believe that the games must go on. They point to the ping-pong diplomacy in 1971 between the U.S.and the People’s Republic of China, which thawed frozen relations and paved the way for President Richard Nixon’s 1972 visit to Beijing. How’d that work out, folks? China is now allied with Iran and Russia.

Spring ahead to 2026. U.S.intelligence sources say that Russia is providing information that Iran is using to target American interests. Different people have different opinions on whether the war against Iran is in the best interest of the U.S. That’s a subject for a non-sports column.

My opinion is that Russia’s providing information to Iran is reason enough to bar them from sending athletes to the L.A. Olympics. (Because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, FIFA banned the country from sending a team to the World Cup.)

Because I do not believe that “sports bring people together,” and given Iran’s decades-long history of supporting terrorist actions and its anti-U.S. rhetoric, I’m against allowing an Iranian team to participate in the 2028 L.A. Olympics. And I feel the same way about Russia.

 Here’s why I feel that way:

2008BeijingSummer Olympics: During the 2008 Games, Russia invaded Georgia.

2014SochiWinter Olympics: Shortly after the close of the 2014 Winter Olympics and during the Paralympics,Russia invaded and annexed Crimea.

2022BeijingWinter Olympics: Russia engaged in a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Add in Russia’s providing intelligence that Iran is using to target Americans and American interests in the current war (as reported by U.S.and European intelligence agencies), and that is why I believe that the U.S.should not play games with our enemies.

History shows that sports, especially the Olympics, do not stop countries from doing what they think is best for them.

Perhaps the most iniquitous example is the 1936 Olympic Games in Germany, which was awarded both the Summer and Winter Olympics.

Despite opposition from American government officials, clergymen, and at least one U.S. Olympic official, Avery Brundage—who headed the then-called American Olympic Committee and later became president of the International Olympic Committee—white-washed the Nazi regime’s policies, and a U.S. team participated in what was to become known as the Nazi Olympic Games, which gave Adolf Hitler his first worldwide platform.

Participants against sending a U.S. team to the Berlin Olympics included:

Jeremiah T. Mahoney, a former New York State Supreme Court justice and president of the Amateur Athletic Union, who said sending a U.S. team would be "moral and financial support to the Nazi regime.”

Ernest Lee Jahncke, a former Assistant Secretary  of the U.S. Navy and an American member of the IOC, who was expelled from the IOC in July 1936 for his public stance against the Berlin Games.

Fiorello La Guardia, Mayor of  New York City, who supported the boycott movement.

Al Smith and James Curley, former New York Governor and Massachusetts Governor, respectively, who were vocal opponents of sending a team.

George Messersmith, chief of the U.S. Legation in Vienna, who said participation would legitimize Hitler.

William E. Dodd, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, who criticized the American Olympic Committee's decision to participate.

Walter White, Secretary of the NAACP, who pushed for a boycott, specifically urging African American athletes not to participate in a country that celebrated racism.

Adam Clayton Powell Jr., a future Congressman, who wrote against participation.

Various Catholic and Jewish religious leaders, who said participation would be an endorsement of Nazi anti-Semitic policies.

the influential Catholic journal, which called for a boycott, saying that the games would "set the seal of approval upon the radically anti-Christian Nazi doctrine of youth.”

The policies of the Russian government, and the deceitful ones of its Olympic officials, only strengthen my belief that playing games with our adversaries white-washes their actions, as does our sending a team to participate in games hosted by other totalitarian regimes.

Of course, there are some benefits when the U.S. plays games with our enemies: The moguls that control international sports mega-events make millions of dollars. The networks that televise them also make millions. Sponsors advertise on international events to promote their products internationally. And individual athletes who star in the games are often awarded lucrative product endorsement  contracts.

But benefits to the U.S. for playing games with our enemies are lacking. History proves that. Doing so only benefits a few insiders.

 The headline of this essay is “The U.S. Should Not Play Games With Adversaries.”

My opinion is that we should not.

About This Post

Original Author: I am the original author of this essay.

This is an edited version of an essay that was published on The Sports Column website.

Arthur Solomon, a former journalist, was a senior VP/senior counselor at Burson-Marsteller during the days it was the leading international public relations agency. He was on the Seoul Peace Prize nominating committee and also was an advisor to Olympic organizations and sponsors. During his political agency days, he worked on local, statewide, and presidential campaigns.

Every time I see someone say something along the lines of "Why can't we stop fighting and remember we're all human?" or "We're all on the same team", I find myself wondering what they actually expect that to accomplish.

I hate how these statements reduce political disagreements to people arbitrarily choosing different teams, as though we're arguing over football clubs rather than fundamentally different ideas about people's rights and how society should function.

Yes, we're all human. That's precisely why these disagreements matter!

If one group believes another group shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else, what exactly is the compromise supposed to be? That those people should only lose half their rights? Why should the people defending those rights be equally responsible for the division?

And that's what bothers me about this rhetoric because it often treats the existence of conflict as the problem rather than examining what people are actually fighting about. I'm not suggesting every political disagreement is some grand moral battle. Plenty of issues allow for reasonable compromise, and people with different political beliefs can obviously coexist but unity isn't inherently virtuous, and division isn't inherently bad. Sometimes division is the entirely reasonable consequence of people having incompatible moral principles.

Throughout history, plenty of movements we now recognise as necessary were considered divisive at the time. Civil rights movements, women's suffrage and labour organising all involved people refusing to accept the existing social consensus.

Sometimes progress requires confrontation, not reconciliation.

I think people need to stop treating political unity as an end in itself. Unity around what? Compromise on what? And at whose expense? I'd rather have meaningful disagreement than superficial unity that requires people to ignore injustice...

Trump's been absolutely wrecking the middle class. He's basically declared war on people living in poverty.

He's weaponizing law enforcement to go after anyone who rubs him the wrong way instead of actually fighting crime.

He's let thousands of criminals walk free and wiped away their debt to society.

He's straight-up meddling with elections.

He's cutting deals with our enemies, which is tanking America's reputation globally.

Him and his buddies have been stashing massive amounts of wealth that they've basically stolen from everyday Americans.

He's effectively doubling what Americans pay in taxes through tariffs and oil prices.

There's a real difference between just disagreeing with how a president runs things

and

having a president with zero actual policies who's literally stealing from Americans.

There's no debate about what Trump is doing. The crazy part? Nobody's actually stopping him.

This is an observation on how radical liberalism under the guise of socialistic democracy or far left democracy has infiltrated the US Congress and other government offices, and we are at a critical point in US politics where our future can go 2 ways:
1) US continues to be a democracy that defends the US constitution and grows stronger United;
2) US becomes a socialist nation with radical ideas being indoctrinated in our youth, and overrun with immigrants fleeing undesirable countries flooding the US with radical ideas and beliefs. These radical beliefs are at odds with the 3 Pillars of Western Civilization, ending in the end of freedom and democracy and American culture.

Look to countries like France who are in a more advanced stage of decline of Western Civilization and the Free World. Listen to what politicians are saying and do their words make sense and have enough details to make their visions plausible; or do the words resemble false promises or propaganda to Incite hate?

Socialism has never worked. Learn from history you “useful idiots”, you “political prostitutes”.

People confuse successful Capitalist European nations with a strong welfare state such as Sweden and Denmark as socialist countries , but they are not.

In the US, we are in the DESTABILIZATION STAGE. How do the powers that be accomplish this? Through mass immigration; through the indoctrination of our youth with radical beliefs, youth that have never experienced the type of hardship their grandparents and those before them have, youth who are just learning what it is to be boys and girls. They do so by rallying their enraged constituents into supporting one insane or extreme cause after another without ever achieving any substantial win for the people. How many videos have we seen with people spitting vitriol for their “cause” but when asked to define what they hate, be it “fascism” or defining what a “woman” is, they can’t. They get the intellectuals who believe they are morally and intellectually superior to push the ideals of socialism and Marxism, where there is no consequence of being wrong. They count on extreme emotions to overtake rational thought and substantive evidence.

They implant into Congress those who will promulgate these insane radical or socialist beliefs, or radicals not born in the US whose goal is not to protect the US Constitution and do what’s best for the American citizen, but to set agendas that align with their original homeland. There’s support of all of this all over social media.

Just look at all these ridiculous foreign causes the US has granted since Biden.

\*Attributed to the Biden administration in a February 2025 House Foreign Affairs Committee report; individual grant origination dates and disbursements have not all been independently verified.

Source: House Foreign Affairs Committee, February 2025.

Note: The $126M stabilization funding and $82,870 questioned costs overlap with broader aid figures. Feeding Our Future was domestic fraud, not aid sent to Somalia. These figures must not be added together.

Sources: ForeignAssistance.gov; USAID Inspector General; U.S. Department of Justice.

Look at history. All the following countries had a common system: Marxist-Leninist communist origins, one-party authoritarian rule, extensive state economic control, and suppression of political opposition.

And all shared common consequences: Famines, political executions, forced labor, imprisonment, and economic hardship.

Do your own research.

Read Yuri Bezmenov's (former Soviet propaganda officer) 1984 interview:

*“Simply because, you see, the useful idiots — the leftists who are idealistically believing in the beauty of Soviet socialist or communist or whatever system — when they get disillusioned, they become the worst enemies. That’s why my KGB instructors specifically made the point: “Never bother with leftists. Forget about these political prostitutes. Aim higher.” This was my instruction. Try to get into large circulation, established conservative media, reach filthy rich movie makers, intellectuals, so-called academic circles. Cynical, egocentric people who can look into your eyes with angelic expression and tell you a lie. These are the most recruitable people: people who lack moral principles, who are either too greedy or suffer from self-importance. They feel that they matter a lot.These are the people who KGB wanted very much to recruit.*
…
*They served purpose only at this stage of destabilization of a nation. For example, your leftists in United States. All these professors and all these beautiful civil rights defenders, they are instrumental in the process of the subversion only to destabilize the nation. When the job is completed, they are not needed anymore. They know too much. Some of them, when they get disillusioned, when they see that Marxist–Leninists come to power, obviously they get offended. They think that they will come to power.*
*That will never happen. Of course, they will be lined up against the wall and shot. But they may turn into the most bitter enemies of Marxist–Leninists when they come to power. And that’s what happened in Nicaragua. You remember most of these former Marxist–Leninists were either put to prison or one of them split and now he is working against the Sandinistas. It happened then in the Granada when Maurice Bishop was — he was already a Marxist — he was executed by a new Marxist who was more*
*Marxist than this Marxist. Same happened in Afghanistan when first there was Taraki, he was killed by Amin; then Amin was killed by Babrak Kamahl with the help of KGB. Same happening in Bangladesh when Mujibur Rahman, very pro-Soviet leftist, was assassinated by his own Marxist–Leninist military 16 comrades. It’s the same pattern everywhere. The moment they serve their purpose, all the useful idiots are either executed entirely — all the idealistically-minded Marxists — or were exiled or put in prisons like in Cuba. Many, many former Marxists are in Cuba, I mean in prison. So most of the Indians who*
*were cooperating with the Soviets, especially with our Department of Information of the USSR embassy,*
*were listed for execution…*

***… there are no grassroots revolutions, period. Any revolution is a by-product of a highly organized group of conscientious and professional organizers. It has nothing to do with “grass roots.”***

The theory of how a Nation is created is enlightening. The Nation of the United States, a western civilization, is built on three ideological pillars: Christianity, Roman Law, and Greek Philosophy. The creation of a Nation can be viewed as a pyramid that’s formed by levels, at the bottom of the pyramid is its ideology and beliefs. Above that is individuals -> family ->community -> city -> regions -> and Nation at the top is formed by this collection of regions. If any of those levels weaken, the Nation at the very top feels the destabilization. And Law is a downward force used to keep the Nation intact in periods of destabilization.

Hence, islamists MUST assimilate for the US to remain a strong Nation as Islam is in direct opposition to Christianity. Not assimilating necessarily destabilizes the structural integrity of the Nation. For example, in Christianity, there is the concept of consent between a man and woman in order to from a union, marriage. In Islam, the marriage is not solely dependent on consent between the 2 parties alone and there appears to be many restrictions on such wives. When mass immigration is allowed, it necessarily destabilizes the Nation and more Law is required to stabilize the Nation. Radicals who incite chaotic protests turn accountability around and blame law enforcement of the current regime for being inhumane and fascist, when increasing Law is in fact, the rational response to stabilizing the Nation. In Roman Law, you have the concept of one’s duty to one’s community. So if you let masses of refugees into the country, their first priority is to take what they can from this rich nation with so much to offer, instead of doing their duty to the community. Communities are thus destabilized. Under a healthy nation, healthy communities would form Cities, which then form the Regions, which then form the Nation. When you let in mass immigrants without thoroughly checking their backgrounds, inevitably those immoral and unethical in character enter in mass. The 2 impacted components of “beliefs” and “individuals”, which are the foundation of the Nation, lead to destabilization.

To those who laugh, this message isn’t directed at you. You are a lost cause. You are the “political prostitutes” to whom Yuri refers. You are the “crackpots” and “fools” that Hannah Arendt refers to:

“Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty.”

No, this message is aimed much higher- at those who can still think for themselves and actually want to learn from history or analyze how nations remain strong; those who can evaluate what’s going on around them and globally without being blinded by intense hatred for one person or ignorantly follow the pack.

To those who don’t want to be destined to keep repeating the same mistakes, choose wisely now what you want the future to be. This decision should be independent of policy, party or those individuals you despise. I want to understand how you view the current state of this country. My conclusions have come from listening to leaders whose thinking is rational to me, from looking at substantive evidence, and disregarding those who just shout insults, or whose claims are not supported by the reality. We can all have opinions: the war on Iran is not good , or the war on Iran is good. That’s neither here nor there. What we need to focus on is the underlying strategy for why the action was taken, and whether those reasons make sense to us.
We can all make judgments: the President is a narcissistic “pedophile”, or the President is the greatest president there ever was. Again, these judgments are irrelevant. What actual facts make him a good or bad president is what should be the focus of discussion. It doesn’t matter if you like him or not. Otherwise we can’t move forward as a Nation.

Mike Luttig on the plot to block the transfer of power

This is just one arrow in the MAGA quiver. And I don’t see any evidence that Democrats are preparing for it. Neither does Judge Luttig.

If their efforts to deploy ICE to polls in blue districts fail, they will try this.

If their plan to block mail-in ballots from blue districts by disrupting the US mail fails, they will try this.

If their likely declaration of Martial Law before the midterms fails, they will try this.

Their efforts to gerrymander their way into a permanent majority has already failed, so they will try this.

MAGA is the most unpopular and hated political movement in US history. they represent less than 30% of the population (I’m dumbfounded that it’s still that high) but have somehow managed to consolidate power into a Trifecta of American government. But their rule is failing. They cannot possibly win on the merits of their policies, because their policies have no merit.

The MAGA movement exists to serve the very few. It exists to further build the wealth of the very rich and protect their pedophiling way of life. While they have so far succeeded in duping the uneducated poor and exploiting the supposedly faithful, greater and greater numbers of the people are waking. They can no longer preserve their hold on power without cheating or tearing down the system entirely.

Get out and vote. We need to make their defeat so overwhelming that they decide not to try any of these subversive tactics. If they succeed in keeping a MAGA majority, by any means at all, that will be the final nail in the coffin for American democracy.

VOTE.

  By Arthur Solomon

We are now in the last few weeks of an important year for the United States. The country is still celebrating its 250th anniversary. The U.S.will soon hold an election that will determine whether the country begins to emerge from the semi-fascist dictatorship of Donald Trump or moves into a more permanent dictatorship that can change the country’s values indefinitely—maybe forever.

To stop the semi-fascist movement engineered by the autocratic admirer of dictators in the White House, the Democrats must win at least one house of Congress.

To do so as the campaign winds down, Democratic candidates should campaign mostly on issues that directly affect local voters. Attacking Trump is not enough, although it must be part of the approach as Election Day approaches.

(If Democrats win the House, they should not give in to the extremist members of their caucus who want to impeach President Trump. Instead, they should hold continuous congressional hearings on his administration’s wrongdoings. Even if the dictator wannabe in the White House is impeached, there will not be enough votes in the Senate to convict.)

As an old political operative who worked on local, statewide, and presidential campaigns, if I were asked to outline the Democratic strategy for the few weeks left before Election Day, here is what I would suggest:

 ·        The Democrats must stop attempting to be everything to every pressure group and instead campaign on issues that have wide appeal.

·        Democrats must stop campaigning like “bleeding hearts” and convince voters that they are against open borders.

·        Democrats must convince voters that they support the police and embrace law and order.

 ·        Unlike Kamala Harris in her presidential campaign, Democratic candidates must convince voters that they are open to new ideas.

·        Unlike President Biden, who enacted legislation that could take years to help people, Democrats must campaign for and enact legislation that will help people today.

·        Democrats should not give in to the far-left elements of their party. Most Americans do not like extremes of the left or the right.

·        Democrats should promote some young liberal faces, but not extremists like Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Abdullahi Omar, or Zohran Mamdani, mayor of New York City. (Watching the elderly Democratic male leadership reminds me of a visit to a prostate clinic.)

·        One of the candidates on the Democratic presidential ticket should have a military background, both to contrast with Trump’s avoidance of military service and to speak often about Trump’s armchair patriotism, which includes five draft deferments.

·        A major facet of the Democrats’ campaign message should be “We must come together as one country,” in contrast to Trump’s divide-and-conquer actions, but always with specific talking points and legislative proposals.

·        The Democratic presidential candidate must be able to go toe-to-toe with Trump and his designated successor. (Remember how Michelle Obama’s Democratic convention speech, which included the line “When they go low, we go high,” worked out? Not well.)

·        The corruption of Trump, his allies, and his appointees should be a constant talking point, (and they should be the subjects of congressional investigations if Democrats emerge victorious).

·        Democratic candidates should remember that Republican strategists fabricate untruthful TV ads and that the president does not know the meaning of the word “truth.” Democrats should establish a "truth squad" to respond.

·        And if necessary, Democrats must remember that when their opponents wallow in the mud, they have to join them in the pigpen, because losing with dignity is still losing.

 Arthur Solomon, a former journalist, was a senior VP/senior counselor at Burson-Marsteller during the days it was the leading international public relations agency. He was on the Seoul Peace Prize nominating committee. During his political agency days, he worked on local, statewide and presidential campaigns.

About This Post

Original Author: I am the original author of this essay.

Original Publication: This piece was first originally submitted to the Daily Kos.

Slight revisions have been made.

Hamas launched a large-scale terrorist attack against Israel, killing civilians and taking hostages, including women and children.Shortly after the attack, I formed a prediction: Israel would not settle for limited military retaliation.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government would likely seize this opportunity to fundamentally reshape the military and security landscape of Gaza.

My reasoning was simple: Human behavior is a continuous series of choices, and every major choice must account for the choices an opponent may make in response.

Hamas was facing Netanyahu, a leader known for his hardline security policies, not Yitzhak Rabin, who had pursued peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

I found it difficult to understand why Hamas leaders seemingly failed to fully consider the potentially devastating consequences of their attack.

But today, I want to explore a broader question: In a prolonged conflict between a powerful nation and a weaker armed organization, whose side is time really on? 1. Terrorist Organizations Survive by Continuously Recruiting New Members

Any organization that hopes to survive must continuously recruit new members, develop future leaders, secure funding, and maintain its operations.

Terrorist organizations are no exception. If an organization loses 100 members today but recruits another 100 tomorrow, a single military victory may do little to eliminate the long-term threat.

Therefore, the critical question is not simply how many fighters are eliminated. It is whether the organization’s ability to recruit, train, finance, and rebuild can be continuously weakened.

1. Sustained Pressure and the Advantage of Time I often think of a simple analogy: lawn maintenance. Removing weeds once does not mean they will never grow back. Maintaining a lawn requires consistent, long-term care. Of course, this analogy concerns the continuous management of a regenerative system. It does not compare human beings or ethnic groups to weeds. Similarly, an armed organization may recover from severe military losses as long as it retains the ability to rebuild. However, if a powerful nation can consistently use its economic, technological, intelligence, and military advantages to restrict that recovery, the balance of power may gradually shift further in its favor.

A single victory may change the immediate situation, but a sustained advantage can potentially reshape the long-term strategic landscape.

1. Wars Do Not End Simply Because of Human Compassion I personally witnessed the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City in 2001. Standing on East Broadway in Manhattan, I watched the burning Twin Towers, the enormous clouds of black smoke, and the figures continuously falling from the buildings.

I could not control my tears. I understand the fear and grief that violence against innocent civilians can cause. But over time, I have also come to recognize something: Compassion for human life and the strategic conditions that determine when a war ends are two different things.

Human suffering creates moral and political pressure, but whether a war ends also depends on the objectives, military capabilities, strategic interests, and calculations of the opposing sides. Understanding the harsh realities of warfare does not mean disregarding civilian protection or international humanitarian law.

1. Does Time Inevitably Favor the Stronger Side? My hypothesis is straightforward: If a powerful nation can sustain its advantages while continuously limiting an opponent’s ability to recover, keeping its losses greater than its capacity to rebuild, time itself may become a strategic weapon.

However, this outcome is far from guaranteed. The United States’ prolonged war in Afghanistan demonstrated that overwhelming military and technological superiority does not necessarily translate into lasting political victory. Furthermore, civilian casualties, social destruction, and resentment resulting from prolonged military operations may provide extremist organizations with new opportunities for recruitment.

Therefore, the success of a long-term strategy depends not only on military pressure but also on the costs of maintaining that pressure, the opponent’s ability to regenerate, and the establishment of a stable political and social environment.

1. A Question for Discussion I believe that understanding the long-term conflict between Israel and Hamas requires looking beyond the outcome of individual battles.

We should also examine deeper questions: Which side can consistently replenish its resources? Which side can maintain organizational efficiency? Which side can more effectively restrict its opponent’s ability to recover? And which side can sustain the costs of conflict over time? Time itself does not belong to the strong or the weak.

What ultimately matters is how effectively each side can use it. So I would like to hear your thoughts: When a powerful nation continuously targets an armed organization that keeps recruiting new members, will sustained pressure eventually weaken that organization beyond recovery? Or could prolonged conflict actually strengthen its ability to attract new supporters?

Kim Soo Jun ·金秀俊· October 2026 This article reflects my personal observations and hypothesis about prolonged warfare and organizational survival. I welcome thoughtful discussion, historical comparisons, and opposing perspectives that may help test this theory.

Hii everyone, I am not a Law student But from a very neutral perspective I feel we have so many Flaws with Law and Order system of democratic governments which is related to Speed and literally if I should be more transparent.

Politics is the real issue we actually doesn't constraints wrong politics by parties in democratic governments much as needed from a Statical intense perspective.

There is so much area's I have seen where politics maybe would not letting Researchers to publish Report's very transperantly without any pressure.

So basically i want to ask you What the hell is happening right now across Democratic society or from the international Law perspective.

The area's I am generally talking about is Social Media, AI, Intelligence use, Legal political funding to political Parties and media, Development, Peace that war's destroyed, terrorism Biased Judgements and Control over any country Through So called wrong Practices

The analysis of mine mainly State that wrong thing's happen mostly silently and Through deep State channel's but Now it is happening openly We are literally slowly normalising it.

Humanity Comes First and Politics should comes at the bottom there should be law for it.

Oligarchy should be controlled by democratic governments in such a way it would not become punishing of Businesses hardwork and Goodwill. Through providing a ownership to people's after achieving a certain very big number which should be made by a Statical and mathematically proven system worldwide.

Or

Maybe by diversifying their enormous money through a system that would take Control not over money but over power they hold with them. Further it should be made logically proven

We literally made some Companies to legally operate even after Manipulative practices one of them is Premium brand tag which let's them set as much as margines they want.

We literally know there are so much things happen through Intelligence agencies one of the biggest question of mine is there is no mechanism for them to be transparent with Judiciary not with ruling government Because it let intelligence to be used for political purposes.

If There is terrorism spread by So called intelligence agencies of any country which aren't most of the time declassified any documents because of National security reason. I Always wonder if literally that's not nation security reason it's a reason to not let anyone develop more than you. Isn't it a scam to the world and your own people's. People's should know if there is literally neutral National security risk through an scoring system. Rather than Letting intelligence control most of the world.

Whatever I said is my own conspiracy so if it makes sense you could give your feedback I would highly appreciate it.

  By Arthur Solomon

When Al Smith ran for president in 1928 American Jews began voting strongly for Democratic presidential candidates. Their vote was cemented during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four terms as president.

 Since then a majority of Jewish voters have supported the Democratic nominee in all but one presidential election, when Jimmy Carter only received 45 percent in 1980. Carter is the only Democratic candidate since 1928 not to win a Jewish majority, mainly because of his mid-East policies, although in his successful first campaign, when his policies were not that clear, he received over 70 percent of the Jewish vote.

 Democratic leaders are fearful that the anti-Israel sentiment, exacerbated by the anti-Semitic statements of democratic socialists of America (DSA) members and their far-left supporters, could result in a scenario in the 2026 mid-terms and 2028 presidential elections that will have many “sure thing” Jewish voters casting a vote for GOP candidates who oppose DSA and other far-left Democratic candidates.

 That possibility has raised red flags among some Democratic politicians and Democratic-leaning organizations.

 Matt Bennett, a co-founder of Third Way, the centrist left Democratic think tank that supports moderate policies, said, “We’ve got to figure out a way so it doesn’t blow the party apart, referring to the DSA primary victories. Mr. Bennett described a Democratic “freak-out” following the results over whether the rise of hard-left candidates would repel Jewish and moderate voters.

 The election of DSA members has so alarmed Third Way that it is bankrolling a $15 million effort to target the DSA, which they believe poses a "mortal danger" for Democrats. But it's not only the danger of losing Jewish voters that confronts the Democratic Party as we near the midterm elections. There's also the possibility of the party fragmenting between its far-left factions and traditional liberal Democrats.

 Scott Stringer, the former Democratic New York City comptroller, told the New York Times (NYT) some of the comments from far-left candidates amount to "blanket antisemitism."

 Mr. Stringer was quoted in the paper's June 30 edition: “If there is a group of people who may be having temporary electoral success who believe the path forward is to use antisemitism as a wedge, then there’s going to be a battle within the Democratic Party.”

 Listening to spokespersons on the political TV cable shows and reading opinion articles and editorials in major newspapers like the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and NYT shows that Republican politicians and conservative columnists have been much more out spoken than Democratic ones in publicly condemning the DSA and other groups that disseminate anti-Semitic tropes. Republicans have also been much more supportive of Israel in their statements. Thus, it would only be natural for many Jewish voters to switch their party loyalty from Democratic to a more welcoming Republican Party.

That’s a problem that Democratic Party leaders must address before the midterm elections, because in a tight election, if only a small percentage of Jewish voters stay home on election day, or vote for GOP candidates running against democratic socialists of America ones (which is a distinct possibility), the number of Democrats elected to the House and Senate might not be enough to wrest control from the Republicans.

 While the Jewish vote comprises only about two percent of the electorate, they are a sought after vote because they consistently surpass other groups voting on Election Day, sometime by as much as 20 percent. Thus, in a close election, Jewish votes can be the difference in local and state elections, which can decide the Electoral College winner.

The threat of Jewish voters abandoning the Democrat Party has alarmed Democratic leadership in general, and Dr. El-Sayed, the Democratic Senate nominee in Michigan specifically, who while not a member of the DSA supports many of their policies and is supported by the socialist group.

 The NYT reported, in part, on August 29 that Dr. El-Sayed, “apologized to a group of Jewish Democrats on Saturday for a statement he made in March about an attack on a synagogue near Detroit, saying that “nobody deserves to have their pain trampled on.”

 “I made a mistake,” said Dr. El-Sayed… I should have issued a statement, of course condemning it, and it just should have been the full stop.”

But cynics like I am, from time-to-time, believe that the initial statement an individual makes shows the person’s true feelings. And I’m willing to bet 1000 acres of my 1001 acre farm that many voters, Jewish and non-Jewish, feel the same.

 Another NYT September 18 article detailed the problem Dr. El-Sayed faces with Jewish voters. The article reported that Michigan has roughly 130,000 Jewish residents. More than 475 people thus far have signed a letter saying they are Jewish Democrats and independents who plan to vote for Mike Rogers, the Republican candidate, because they feel “threatened and alienated by the politics and allies” of Dr. El-Sayed. That’s a significant number considering that most people don’t sign political petitions and in a squeaker of an election could determine who wins.

 Even though the Jewish vote in Michigan has been overwhelmingly Democratic in recent elections, Dr. El-Sayed’s saying the Israeli government is “evil” and accusing it of committing “genocide” in Gaza is a problem for many Jewish voters and Mr. Rogers is appealing to them emphasizing his pro-Israel voting record while a Congressman.

 (As of October 13 both The Michigan Democratic Jewish Caucus and the Jewish Democratic Council of America (JDCA) have not endorsed Dr. El-Sayed, even though some Democratic officials have.)

The importance of the Jewish vote for Democrats was stated, in part, in a November 8, 2024, post by the  JDCA. It said, “The Jewish vote held strong for Kamala Harris and Democrats. In fact, the Jewish vote represented one of very few segments of the electorate where Donald Trump failed to make meaningful inroads, despite an unprecedented campaign of GOP spending, disinformation, and other efforts targeting Jewish Americans. The post said that some exit polls indicated that that 78 percent of Jewish voters supported Kamala Harris, while 22 percent supported Donald Trump.

 But that was prior to DSA candidates and their supporters winning elections and primaries.

 There’s no doubt that the Democrats have a Jewish problem: It is caused mainly by the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic DSA politicians who have been elected running as Democrats, aided by pro-Palestinian media outlets. The only way Democratic leadership can solve it is by speaking out against the anti-Semitic tropes and actions of elected DSA politicians who caucus with traditional liberal and moderate Democrats. 

Perhaps Wall Street Journal columnist William McGurn, on July 14, said it best in a column titled, “Schumer’s Tragedy – and Ours.”

The article said, in part, “Chuck Schumer became the first Jewish Senate majority leader in 2021…Mr. Schumer as minority leader is still the highest-ranking Jew in U.S.elective office. But increasingly his greatest triumph is starting to look like his greatest tragedy.”

“Not because he changed. Because his party did."

 As a Jewish-American Army veteran, who has always had left of center political leanings and has always been a supporter of Americans For Democratic Action policies, I don’t have to wrestle with my conscience about voting for a Republican against a DSA candidate.

 The House member representing my district has successfully spoken out against a DSA endorsed candidate when he was elected in 2024, and has condemned their anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli remarks.

But many Jewish-American voters live in a district in which a DSA candidate is running on the Democratic line. Their choice won’t be so easy.

 In addition to possibly driving Jewish voters into the arms of the Republican Party, some in the midterms and more in the 2028 presidential election, the elected DSA Congressional winners pose another problem for the Democratic Party leadership. Because of the policy differences they have with the traditional Democrats, they can make it extremely difficult for the party to legislate effectively if the Democrats win control of the House in November. That would play right into the hands of the 2028 MAGA presidential candidate. And a Donald Trump 2- like-president is frightening to think of.

On Sept. 15, the Trump administration announced a military aid arms package for Israel, which included 2,000-pound bombs. But Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks, ranking member of House Foreign Affairs Committee, spoke out against the deal, because it included the 2000-pound bombs. Certainly, his doing so plays into the hands of Republican candidates who will position it as proof that the Democratic Party has become an anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian champion.

 In 2021 Dara Horn wrote a book titled, “People Love Dead Jews: Reports from a Haunted Present.”

But because of the constant criticism of Israel many supporters of the country believe that people only love Jews when they don’t fight back.

 Arthur Solomon, a former journalist, was a senior VP/senior counselor at Burson-Marsteller during the days it was the leading international public relations agency. He was on the Seoul Peace Prize nominating committee. During his political agency days, he worked on local statewide and presidential campaigns. 

 About This Post

Original Author: I am the original author of this essay.

Original Publication: This piece was first originally submitted to the Daily Kos, the extreme liberal website, which didn't like it because of my opinions.

Slight revisions have been made to keep it current.

So basically my parents are extremely republican and my whole family is Christian including me. That being said, I don’t agree with the right stance on abortion and same-sex marriage. I lean more on the independent side of things. Now midterms are coming up and I don’t want to vote anymore. Why? Bc my parents are getting mad at me whenever I have even the slightest left view and they basically told me I can’t vote for certain people or things. I know they can’t see the ballot but I’ve had this issue since I was a child where I feel super guilty for lying about things especially to my parents even if it’s something I know they will never find out about. I know I can tell them I voted for whoever they wanted me to but the guilt will put me in a bad mental state as it has in the past. To emphasize how bad it is, I’ve gotten to point of where I would h*rt myself bc I couldn’t bare the guilt and I know this is a personal problem but it’s not something I’ve yet overcome. At this point, it’s either vote for what my parents tell me to vote for or I just don’t vote at all. Yes I “voted for trump” but not bc i wanted to, mainly bc my parents and they made me feel super bad if I voted for the other candidate. Ive never had an election where I voted for something based off my own opinion. None of these votes were things I wanted to vote for, it’s what my parents wanted me to and I get so scared for every time an election comes up bc it just means another opportunity where i don’t get to have my own voice and idk what to do.

Presidential Judgment, Abuse of Power, and the Need for a Bipartisan Presidential Fitness Review

The President of the United States is NOT the President of the World. Yet his decisions can affect billions of people. At what point does questionable presidential judgment become a matter of constitutional accountability?

I want to raise a question that should concern Americans regardless of political affiliation: Are our existing constitutional safeguards sufficient when a president repeatedly makes decisions that raise serious concerns about judgment, national security, and the responsible exercise of presidential power?

This is not simply about whether a president has broken a criminal law. It is about the responsibilities entrusted to the office, the consequences of those decisions, and whether Congress has an adequate process for investigating serious concerns about presidential fitness.

What the evidence says — October 12, 2026

1. Taxpayer-funded political advertisements

The Trump administration allocated approximately $20 million in Department of Homeland Security funds to television advertisements promoting the president and his political agenda.

Some of those funds came from a budget allocation intended for government commemorative events.

On October 11, U.S. District Judge Jennifer Rochon issued a temporary restraining order blocking further use of taxpayer funds for the challenged advertisements. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims, although this was not a final determination of illegality.

The administration defended the commercials as legitimate government communications, but watchdog organizations challenged them as unauthorized political propaganda.

Source: Associated Press — Federal judge orders halt to taxpayer-funded advertisements

My concern: Taxpayers should never be compelled to finance an incumbent politician's personal or partisan promotion. That principle should apply equally to Republicans, Democrats, and independents.

Government public-service announcements are legitimate. Campaign-style advertising using public money is another matter.

I believe we need an explicit, enforceable prohibition against taxpayer-funded partisan political advertising at every level of government, potentially backed by a constitutional amendment.

2. The Russian diesel agreement and reversal of sanctions policy

On October 9, President Trump announced an agreement with Vladimir Putin to supply Russian diesel to American and international markets.

The Treasury Department simultaneously authorized a temporary easing of restrictions on Russian diesel.

This came just weeks after Trump signed legislation strengthening sanctions targeting Russian energy revenue.

Congress had also previously enacted a ban on Russian energy imports in 2022 following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

On October 11, seven U.S. senators—four Republicans and three Democrats—issued a joint statement questioning the legality of the Russian diesel agreement and demanding an immediate reversal.

The senators were Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Thom Tillis, John Curtis, Jeanne Shaheen, Richard Blumenthal, and Ron Wyden.

Their statement specifically challenged the administration's failure to consult Congress and explain how its action complied with existing law.

Source: U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee — Bipartisan statement

Former Vice President Mike Pence also publicly criticized the agreement and urged Trump to reverse it, arguing that it undermines efforts to confront Russian aggression.

My concern: Why strengthen sanctions intended to reduce Russia's ability to finance its war, then reverse course and provide Russia with additional energy revenue?

And why do so without clearly demonstrating the economic and national-security benefits to the American people?

3. Will the diesel agreement meaningfully affect fuel prices?

The administration argues that additional Russian diesel could help American farmers, truckers, businesses, and consumers struggling with high energy prices.

That is a legitimate economic concern.

However, multiple energy analysts have questioned whether the amounts involved are sufficient to meaningfully affect global diesel prices.

Russia's own refining infrastructure has been severely damaged by Ukrainian attacks, contributing to domestic fuel shortages and reduced export capacity.

That raises another question: Can Russia reliably fulfill the promised diesel deliveries, and what happens if it cannot?

Even if limited price relief occurs, the agreement could provide financial and diplomatic benefits to the Russian government while weakening international sanctions pressure.

Source: Associated Press — Experts question the likely price impact

My concern extends beyond the transaction itself.

With the November midterm elections approaching, I question whether domestic political considerations are being prioritized over longer-term American and allied security interests.

I am not claiming that electoral motivation has been proven. I am saying that the timing and consequences justify congressional scrutiny.

4. The announced Russia-Ukraine energy ceasefire

On October 11, Trump announced that Russia and Ukraine had agreed to an immediate energy ceasefire.

There was one enormous problem.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he had not been informed of any completed agreement.

Ukraine subsequently expressed willingness to stop attacks on Russian energy facilities if Russia reciprocated.

Meanwhile, Russia continued attacking Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

The Kremlin had not confirmed a completed, mutually accepted agreement when the announcement was made.

Source: Associated Press — Ceasefire announcement and continuing attacks

How can an American president announce a ceasefire between two warring nations without an established agreement from both parties?

Ukraine is a sovereign country. The United States cannot simply declare that another country has accepted terms it has not actually agreed to.

Diplomacy requires negotiation, verification, and enforceable commitments.

5. Trump's statements blaming Ukraine and Zelenskyy

Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022.

That is an established historical fact.

Nevertheless, Trump previously claimed that Zelenskyy had started the war—a claim contradicted by the documented history of Russia's invasion.

More recently, Trump has criticized Zelenskyy's leadership, suggested Ukraine should choose another president, and blamed Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries for rising diesel prices.

Source: Associated Press — Trump's statements on the war

Source: Associated Press — Trump's October 2026 criticism of Zelenskyy

We should also recognize the tremendous human cost of this war.

British officials estimated in late September that Russia had suffered approximately 1.5 million military casualties, including personnel killed or wounded.

The responsibility for launching the full-scale invasion rests with the Russian government under Vladimir Putin.

Source: UK government — September 2026 statement on Russian military losses

My question is straightforward: Why is the president of the United States repeatedly pressuring the country defending itself while offering economic concessions to the country that invaded it?

6. The broader pattern of negotiations with Putin

Reports indicate that the Trump administration has pressured Ukraine to stop attacking Russian refineries and that American intelligence-sharing or military support could be affected if those attacks continue.

At the same time, Russia continues striking Ukrainian infrastructure.

Source: Financial Times — U.S. pressure on Ukrainian leadership

Peace negotiations require compromises, but those compromises should be evaluated against security guarantees, reciprocity, and enforcement.

From my perspective, there appears to be a troubling imbalance between the demands placed on Ukraine and the concessions offered to Russia.

I question whether this approach strengthens American negotiating leverage or instead rewards Russian aggression.

The geopolitical consequences extend far beyond America

The President of the United States is not the president of the world.

He was elected to serve the American people and uphold the United States Constitution.

But American presidential decisions affect the entire international community.

Energy markets, military alliances, international trade, diplomatic credibility, and the lives of millions of people can be influenced by decisions made in Washington.

When the United States eases sanctions against an aggressor or pressures an allied country during an active war, the consequences extend far beyond a domestic political disagreement.

A short-term political or economic benefit must be weighed against the long-term consequences for American national security and international stability.

The presidency is not just another political office. It carries extraordinary responsibility.

Is presidential judgment a legitimate question for impeachment?

I believe Congress should examine whether Trump's conduct constitutes serious abuse of presidential authority or a breach of public trust.

Impeachment under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution is not necessarily limited to conduct prosecuted under criminal law. Its historical interpretation also encompasses certain serious abuses of public office, although its boundaries remain debated.

However, disagreement with a president's policies alone is not sufficient to establish an impeachable offense.

What I want investigated is whether there is a documented pattern of improper use of presidential authority, disregard for constitutional responsibilities, or other serious misconduct.

There is also a separate question of presidential incapacity.

The 25th Amendment, Section 4, addresses a president's inability to discharge the powers and duties of the office. That is different from impeachment and requires a different constitutional standard.

I am not claiming to possess a medical diagnosis of the president.

I am asking whether there is an adequate independent process to evaluate credible concerns about a president's ability to fulfill the responsibilities of the office.

Those questions should be based on evidence, not partisan accusations or speculation about mental health.

A proposal: Permanent Bipartisan Presidential Fitness and Accountability Commission

Here is the larger reform I believe Congress should consider.

Establish a permanent, independent, bipartisan Presidential Fitness and Accountability Commission that operates under the same standards regardless of who occupies the White House.

The commission should:

• Include equal bipartisan representation and independent constitutional, medical, and national-security expertise.
• Apply established, evidence-based standards for assessing serious concerns about presidential incapacity, while separately evaluating possible abuses of authority.
• Protect confidential medical and national-security information while publishing appropriate findings and explanations.
• Require substantial bipartisan agreement before issuing major conclusions.
• Have a defined process for referring potential constitutional misconduct to Congress.
• Operate continuously, not simply when political outrage reaches a breaking point.
• Be prohibited from removing a president independently or substituting political disagreement for evidence of incapacity.

Here is the interesting part.

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment already permits Congress to create an alternative presidential disability review body.

The amendment authorizes the vice president to act with either a majority of the Cabinet or a majority of another body established by Congress.

Yet Congress has never established that alternative body.

Source: Congressional Research Service — Presidential disability under the 25th Amendment

The vice president's participation would still be constitutionally necessary. A commission could not simply vote a president out of office.

A broader accountability commission would likewise have to respect Congress's exclusive constitutional impeachment responsibilities.

Nevertheless, Congress could begin building a more structured and independent oversight system without necessarily requiring a constitutional amendment.

The people's voice must matter more than political parties

Before the 2024 presidential election, I publicly expressed my concern that both Biden and Trump posed serious risks to the country.

I did not believe Americans should feel obligated to vote for either candidate simply because one represented their preferred political party.

I still believe that.

My father voted for Trump because he was a Republican and believed he was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I understand that reasoning, but I reject the notion that citizens must support a candidate they believe is dangerous simply because the alternative might be worse.

Voting is a fundamental democratic right. Choosing not to support any available candidate is also a choice.

The responsibility of citizenship goes beyond voting. It includes questioning government decisions, demanding accountability, examining evidence, and refusing to excuse harmful conduct because it comes from our preferred party.

That applies to Biden, Trump, and every future president.

Where we go from here

The American people do not directly impeach presidents. The Constitution assigns that responsibility to the House of Representatives, with trials and possible removal conducted by the Senate.

But congressional authority comes from the people.

Citizens can demand investigations, independent oversight, public hearings, legal reforms, and constitutional accountability.

I believe the Russian diesel agreement, the unconfirmed ceasefire announcement, the approach to Ukraine, and the taxpayer-funded advertisements warrant serious congressional investigation.

I also believe the country needs a permanent, bipartisan framework for evaluating presidential fitness and accountability before the next major constitutional crisis develops.

No president should be above scrutiny. No political party should be above the Constitution. And no American should be expected to excuse questionable presidential conduct simply because they voted for the person responsible.

My question to everyone here, Republican, Democrat, or independent:

Would you support establishing a permanent bipartisan Presidential Fitness and Accountability Commission, with strict constitutional safeguards, that would hold every president to the same standards?

Because this problem is bigger than Donald Trump. It is about protecting the presidency, the Constitution, and the country long after any one administration is gone.

I feel for my Indian and Chinese coworkers when immigration debates turn into arguments about headcounts. Some have spent decades here. They have families, kids in school and communities they've built their lives around.

The uncertainty affects ordinary decisions: whether to change jobs, stay near family or make long-term plans for their children. I wish those consequences got more attention in the policy debate.

People can disagree about immigration rules. I still think the disruption to families already here should carry weight when those rules change.

For someone forced to look for another role, job-application autofill can save time on repeated forms while they check the employer's requirements and work through their options.

What could employers or policymakers do to make these changes less disruptive for established families? I'd like to hear specific ideas from people dealing with this.

This opinion is aimed at those in the middle of the spectrum, as we all know that people on the far right or left will vote party lines no matter.

The Democrats generally come forward with ideas that all aim to serve the people: school lunches, health insurance, better pay, etc. On paper, there is no reason why those in the middle wouldn't support them during elections unless they have a redline issue like abortion. What happened though? They lost big time in 2024 all across the country.

The way I see it, they lost due to their rhetoric and cancel culture. They created an environment where if you disagreed even slightly you were henceforth a bigot.

Example: The general person would agree that those who are transgender need protections and obviously deserve their rights - it was a topic that absolutely needed discussion and action in our government. That said, this wasnt an issue that was brought up slowly or allowed for discourse. All the sudden it was use correct pronouns or you're fired for being a transphobe.

Same with masculinity. It got to a point where any display of masculine qualities was immediately associated with the abuse/misogyny, etc. Of course there is toxic masculinity, lots of it, of course there is rape culture, of course there is rampant DV, and it all needs to be addressed asap, but the way to do that isnt to demonize all men so much that you have now pushed an entire generation (z) to look up to men like Andrew Tate. That is nearly irreversible damage that will now trickle its way into congress as they grow up and we now have Boomers 2.0.

I could go on (EVs, immigration, etc) but the exclusive nature of the Dems in 2024 really killed their chances. The average person doesn't want large scale change shoved down their throats without chance for discourse and the chance to put meaningful rules and safeguards in place. Again, im not saying the change shouldnt happen, because progress is always needed, but no one has the bandwidth to talk about solutions to these social problems when they cant afford Healthcare, groceries, etc., all the while our politicians (and their wealthy buddies) sit fat and happy.

My hope? That Dems ride this 2026 wave with candidates like Ossof, Mamdani, El-Sayed, etc. that bring ideas, action, and fire with them without ostracizing the middle. Come 2028, this style of "new" Dem needs to be the norm if there is any hope of winning and more importantly, if there is any chance of meaningful legislation being passed once they do.

We must always remember that when voting, choosing the lesser of two evils means deciding which candidate or party is likely to do less harm or better protect the things we believe matter most even when neither option fully represents our values. It is a difficult decision, but there is a practical way to approach it without letting anger, fear, or party loyalty make the decision for us.

Questions to ask ourselves before casting our vote

Which issues matter most to us?

Identify our three to five most important concerns.

For example:

The economy, inflation, and cost of living.

Border security and immigration.

Constitutional rights and individual liberty.

Government spending and the national debt.

Healthcare, public safety, and national security.

Not every issue deserves equal weight in our decision.

What has each candidate actually done?

Look beyond campaign promises. Examine voting records, previous decisions, accomplishments, failures, and whether their actions match their words.

Which candidate's policies would affect my life the most?

Consider the likely consequences of each candidate's proposals. Ask whether those policies would improve or worsen the issues that matter to us. Separate documented evidence from campaign rhetoric and predictions.

Which candidate poses the greater risk to my core values?

Think about the consequences if each candidate gets their way. Consider both immediate effects and the long-term impact on the country.

Judge both candidates by the same standard?

This is crucial. If dishonesty, corruption, reckless spending, or abuse of power concerns you in one candidate, it should concern us in the other, too.

Am I voting for a person or for a direction?

Sometimes we may dislike a candidate personally but support some of their policies. In other cases, we may like a candidate's personality while disagreeing with their record. Separate the individual from the policies and institutions they would influence.

What happens if I don't vote for either?

We can vote for a third-party candidate, leave a particular race blank where permitted, or abstain from voting in that contest. Those are legitimate choices. Consider, however, how our choice affects the outcome we want, especially in a closely contested race.

A simple way to compare two candidates

We can use this worksheet to organize your own thinking.

Question Candidate A Candidate B

Economic policies What is the evidence? What is the evidence?

Constitutional rights What is the record? What is the record?

Honesty and accountability What is documented? What is documented?

Government spending What are the likely effects? What are the likely effects?

Long-term consequences What concerns me? What concerns me?

Give each issue the importance we believe it deserves. We don't need to give every issue equal weight, and you don't need to excuse a candidate's shortcomings simply because we agree with their party.

The most important principle

We are not required to admire a candidate to make an informed voting decision.

We can acknowledge a candidate's failures while recognizing their strengths. We can also reject a candidate we generally agree with if you believe their actions cross a line that matters to us.

And remember: voting is not a declaration that a politician is a good person. It is a decision about representation, policies, leadership, and consequences.

The goal isn't necessarily to find a perfect candidate. It is to make a deliberate choice based on evidence, priorities, and the future we want for our country.

Let me leave you with one question: If we had to choose between two candidates we distrust, would we put more weight on the policies that affect our everyday life or the character and integrity of the person holding power?

Our answer can help clarify what the lesser of two evils means to us!.

I personally feel that a company shouldn't be allowed to have the power to essentially deport their hires if they end up firing them, I feel that it allows a disparity of the ability for the people on visa and the company to discuss wage, as well as complicates things for the visa user.

Like let's say they bought a house because they thought they would be keeping their job for a long time, and all of a sudden your employer decides to lay you off over a different person because you asked for a raise recently.

You then get kicked out of the country, unable to live in a house you payed good money for, because your company decided you weren't doing good enough

If Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos Never Existed, We'd Still Have EVs, Rockets, and Online Shopping

I support capitalism, entrepreneurship, private ownership, and innovation. But I also support substantial wealth taxes on billionaires.
Here are my arguments.
**1. Billionaires don’t create as many jobs as people think.**
If Amazon didn’t exist, people would still buy products. Other companies would provide those products and employ people.
The actual economic contribution of an entrepreneur isn’t the total value of their company. It’s the difference between what their company achieved and what the next-best competitor would have achieved.
In other words:
**Marginal contribution = Actual economic value − Counterfactual economic value**
This doesn’t mean entrepreneurs contribute nothing. It means we systematically overestimate their individual contribution.
**2. Billionaires aren’t necessarily the inventors behind their companies.**
Modern companies employ thousands of engineers, researchers, scientists, designers, and managers.
Even the most celebrated entrepreneurs rely on decades of publicly funded scientific research, previous inventions, employees, suppliers, and investors.
People generally recognize this, but I think they dramatically underestimate its importance.
The idea that one extraordinary individual personally created hundreds of billions of dollars in value is usually a gross oversimplification.
**3. We don’t need billionaires to finance ambitious innovation.**
Consider some of humanity’s greatest technological achievements:
The internet originated in publicly funded research.
Nuclear power plants in France were developed through long-term state planning and investment.
High-speed rail networks were built through major public infrastructure programs.
The Manhattan Project demonstrated the enormous scientific and industrial capabilities of government-funded research.
Space exploration was pioneered through public programs such as NASA.
None of these examples is perfect, but they demonstrate that democratic governments can finance enormous, technically sophisticated projects.
We don’t need an individual controlling $200 billion to build something ambitious.
We need funding, scientific expertise, competent institutions, long-term planning, and competition.
**4. SpaceX demonstrates the value of competition, not the necessity of billionaires.**
SpaceX challenged established aerospace contractors and demonstrated that reusable orbital rockets could be commercially successful.
But the concept of recovering and reusing rockets was not a revolutionary new idea. Engineers had considered reusability and propulsive landings long before SpaceX.
The difficult part was executing the engineering successfully and economically.
SpaceX benefited from engineering talent, substantial investment, NASA contracts, and competition.
Elon Musk wasn’t even a billionaire when he founded SpaceX.
The lesson isn’t that society needs tax-free billionaires. It’s that even enormously expensive industries benefit from competition, ambitious investment, and capable engineering teams.
**5. Democracies can protect long-term investment from short-term politics.**
One legitimate criticism of government investment is that politicians operate on short electoral cycles.
But that’s an institutional design problem, not an unsolvable limitation of democracy.
We could constitutionally protect certain long-term research and infrastructure budgets, establish independent scientific agencies, and guarantee competitive funding over decades.
We already have institutions designed to operate independently of electoral cycles, such as central banks.
There’s no fundamental reason we couldn’t build similarly durable institutions for scientific and technological development, with democratic accountability and regular evaluation.
**6. Extreme concentrations of wealth create dangerous concentrations of power.**
This is perhaps my most important argument.
When individuals accumulate tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, their influence extends far beyond ordinary economic activity.
They can potentially:
Influence elections, political parties, legislation, and regulatory agencies.
Acquire major media organizations and influence public opinion.
Create conflicts of interest, corruption, and regulatory capture.
Buy competitors and undermine smaller startups.
Use monopolistic positions to increase prices and reduce consumers’ purchasing power.
Exercise enormous leverage over employees, suppliers, and local communities.
Escape accountability for workplace abuses, sexual misconduct, or health and safety failures through expensive legal defenses and unequal bargaining power.
Pass extraordinary economic and political power to their heirs, independently of merit.
Not every billionaire engages in these behaviors. The problem is that extreme wealth creates the *capacity* for these abuses.
A resilient society should limit dangerous concentrations of power rather than depend on the goodwill of the individuals holding it.
**7. Competition matters more than the identity of the billionaire.**
Large companies can accumulate advantages through network effects, switching costs, exclusive ecosystems, patents, and acquisitions.
A better competitor may struggle to enter the market, even with a superior product.
We should encourage interoperability, competition, open standards where appropriate, and stronger antitrust enforcement.
The objective is to reward innovation, not allow yesterday’s successful entrepreneur to permanently dominate tomorrow’s economy.
**8. Billionaires aren’t the only possible source of investment capital.**
Large projects can be financed through pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, public investment banks, venture capital, distributed private investors, and government research agencies.
These institutions have weaknesses too, but they demonstrate that capital allocation doesn’t have to depend on a handful of extraordinarily wealthy individuals.
We can preserve entrepreneurship and private investment without permitting unlimited personal accumulation.
**9. Wealth taxation can finance public investment and reduce fiscal pressure.**
Governments accumulate enormous public debts while private fortunes can grow to extraordinary levels.
A well-designed progressive wealth tax could help finance education, infrastructure, healthcare, scientific research, and technological development.
It could also reduce the concentration of economic power across generations.
International coordination, particularly at the European level, would help reduce tax avoidance and capital flight.
Of course, implementation matters: valuation, liquidity, investment incentives, and international enforcement all need careful consideration.
**10. Wealth taxation is compatible with capitalism and meritocracy.**
I’m not proposing abolishing billionaires, entrepreneurship, inheritance, or private ownership.
Entrepreneurs should be rewarded for taking risks and building successful companies.
But there’s an enormous difference between rewarding someone with $100 million and allowing them to accumulate $100 billion with minimal taxation and potentially enormous political influence.
The incentives to innovate don’t suddenly disappear because someone can’t retain every additional billion dollars.
And inherited fortunes should not translate into permanent, unchallengeable economic and political power.

My argument isn’t that billionaires contribute nothing, or that governments are always better investors.
It’s that there is no convincing argument that innovation, job creation, or large infrastructure projects *require* individuals to accumulate effectively unlimited wealth with minimal taxation or regulation.
We have historical examples of successful public investment, competitive private companies, and public-private partnerships.
We should design institutions that reward innovation, encourage competition, protect long-term investment, and prevent excessive concentrations of power.

**Does society needs individuals controlling hundreds of billions of dollars ?**

The October 8 PERM announcement feels like another setback for people trying to build a long-term life in the US on H-1B.

At the White House press conference, the Labor Secretary said DOL would stop accepting new and processing pending PERM applications involving Cognizant, Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro, HCL, Capgemini, Microsoft and Adobe.

That announcement concerns PERM processing at those employers. It doesn't say their employees' H-1B visas have been canceled. I still haven't seen clear official guidance on already-certified PERMs or cases at later USCIS stages.

Workers are left trying to plan around investigations and decisions they don't control. That's the part I find frustrating.

For people considering other employers, application autofill can save time on the forms. If you're moving between engineering roles, real tech interview questions can help with prep. Sponsorship requirements and what a move means for your own case still need to be checked with the employer and counsel.

If you're at an affected company, what guidance have you actually received? Has it changed your plans? Firsthand updates and official notices would be useful.