THE PROUD BOYS et al.

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

Far-right Nationalist Organizations

The Proud Boys are a far-right nationalist organization founded in 2016 by White nationalist Gavin McInnes, a media personality and co-founder of Vice Media. The group describes itself as “Western chauvinist,” arguing that Western culture is superior and should be defended. However, critics, civil rights organizations, and many researchers have characterized the group as extremist. They cite its history of political violence and associations with white nationalist and anti-democratic movements.

What the group believes

The Proud Boys generally promote nationalism and strong border enforcement. They oppose what they call “political correctness,” left-wing political movements, and traditional gender roles. They have a confrontational style of street activism.

The organization officially states that it is not white supremacist and has included members of different racial backgrounds. However, critics point to repeated collaborations and overlaps with white nationalist activists and extremist groups at various events.

Why they became nationally known

The Proud Boys gained widespread attention through frequent clashes with left-wing protesters in cities across the United States. They played a role a in political rallies during the Trump campaigns. Also, there was a 2020 presidential debate in which President Donald Trump told the group to “stand back and stand by,” a remark that generated significant controversy.

January 6 and criminal convictions

The group’s most consequential involvement was in the events surrounding the January 6 United States Capitol attack. In particular, federal prosecutors argued that several Proud Boys leaders helped organize and direct actions. These actions contributed to the breach of the Capitol.

Among those convicted was chairman Enrique Tarrio, along with other senior members. They received some of the most serious sentences handed down in connection with January 6. This happened after they were convicted of offenses including seditious conspiracy. Many were pardoned.

Why the group remains controversial

Supporters often portray the Proud Boys as a nationalist activist organization defending free speech and opposing left-wing extremism.

Critics argue that the group’s rhetoric and activities have encouraged political violence. They served as a gateway between mainstream political activism and more extreme movements. Their actions have contributed to political polarization and intimidation.

As a result, the Proud Boys occupy a significant place in debates about extremism, political violence, civil liberties, and the health of American democracy. Furthermore, their impact extends beyond the organization itself. They have become a symbol of broader tensions over nationalism, identity, and the limits of political activism in the United States.

The Proud Boys have remained active, although their activities appear different from their peak period around 2020–2021.

Recent reporting and monitoring organizations indicate that Proud Boys chapters continue to participate in demonstrations, counter-protests, and political events, particularly in states such as Florida. For example, some chapters have appeared at immigration-related demonstrations and “No Kings” protests in 2025–2026.

There have also been highly visible appearances by former Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio following his release from prison. He participated in public events and marches related to January 6 commemorations and other political gatherings in 2026. (NBC4 Washington)

However, researchers who track extremist groups note that the organization is more fragmented than it was before the January 6 Capitol attack. Some chapters have split from national leadership. Local groups often operate independently. Moreover, there has been a shift in some areas from large street confrontations toward local political organizing and online activity. (AXIOS)

The group continues to be described by organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League as a right-wing extremist organization. They note its history of political violence and intimidation.

The Proud Boys occupy a somewhat different place in the far-right landscape than groups such as the Oath Keepers or Patriot Front. While there is overlap in membership, rhetoric, and political goals, the groups differ in organization, recruitment, and tactics.

The Oath Keepers

Oath Keepers have traditionally focused on recruiting current and former military personnel, law enforcement officers, and first responders.

Characteristics: more militia-oriented structure, strong anti-government ideology, emphasis on armed preparedness. Other traits include claims of defending constitutional liberties against government overreach and major involvement by members in January 6.

Unlike the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers generally present themselves less as a street-protest movement and more as a self-styled constitutional militia.

Patriot Front

Patriot Front is generally viewed by researchers as more explicitly white nationalist than the Proud Boys.

Characteristics:  highly disciplined and centralized, uniform appearance and coordinated marches, focus on nationalist propaganda campaigns, less emphasis on spontaneous public confrontations, and strong emphasis on white identity politics.  Patriot Front’s messaging tends to be more ideological. In contrast, it is less focused on the culture-war activism associated with the Proud Boys.

Active Clubs

The “Active Club” movement is a newer trend rather than a single organization.

Characteristics: small decentralized cells, physical fitness and combat training, mixed martial arts culture, heavy emphasis on local recruitment, and attempts to avoid the public visibility that hurt older groups.

Many extremism researchers view Active Clubs as potentially significant because they focus on building networks quietly rather than seeking media attention.

The Threat Posed by Right-Wing Extremist Groups: A Summary

Right-wing extremist groups represent a continuing concern for law enforcement, researchers, and democratic institutions because some have embraced political intimidation, violence, or anti-democratic rhetoric in pursuit of their goals. While these groups vary widely in ideology and tactics, they often share a belief that the nation is under threat from political, cultural, or demographic changes and that extraordinary action is justified to stop those changes.

Groups such as the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Patriot Front differ in structure and messaging, but concerns arise when members engage in political violence, harassment, armed intimidation, or efforts to undermine democratic processes. The threat is not limited to organized groups; decentralized networks and lone actors inspired by extremist ideologies can also pose significant risks.

One of the greatest dangers is the normalization of political violence. Democracies depend on citizens resolving disputes through elections, courts, public debate, and peaceful protest. When movements portray opponents as enemies rather than fellow citizens, violence can begin to appear justified to some supporters. History shows that democratic erosion often starts not with a single dramatic event but with a gradual acceptance of intimidation and political extremism.

The challenge for a democratic society is to protect constitutional rights—including free speech, assembly, and political advocacy—while responding effectively to groups or individuals who cross the line into violence, intimidation, or efforts to subvert democratic institutions. Maintaining that balance is essential to preserving both security and liberty.

T, Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

Corruption Normalized

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

The Erosion of Trust in Government

There was a time when even the appearance of corruption in government triggered outrage. A questionable business deal, political favoritism, or misuse of public office could dominate headlines for weeks. Under President Donald Trump, something more dangerous has happened: corruption itself has become background  

The problem is no longer just the individual controversies. It is the steady erosion of the boundary between public service and private enrichment.

From the beginning, the Trump political movement blurred those lines openly. Family members occupied influential White House roles while maintaining extensive business interests. Political allies cycled between government influence and private profit. Loyalists were rewarded not for competence or integrity, but for personal allegiance. The message was unmistakable: proximity to power was an opportunity to cash in.

What makes this era distinct is not simply that corruption allegations exist—every administration faces scrutiny. It is the scale of normalization. Actions that once would have triggered bipartisan alarm are now defended reflexively through partisan loyalty. If an investigation targets Trump allies, supporters call it persecution. If watchdogs raise ethical concerns, they are dismissed as political actors. The facts themselves become secondary to team identity.

That erosion has consequences far beyond Washington. When citizens believe rules apply differently to the powerful, public trust collapses. Cynicism spreads into every institution—courts, elections, Congress, even the idea of accountability itself. People stop believing government can serve the public good because too much evidence suggests it serves networks of wealth and influence instead.

The expansion of political fundraising tied to personal branding as well as the overlap between Trump-aligned media ecosystems and financial interests deepen that perception. Also, the growing role of cryptocurrency ventures connected to political figures creates further doubt.  Power increasingly looks less like public stewardship and more like an investment strategy.

And yet millions of Americans tolerate it because they see politics as tribal warfare. If their side is winning cultural or ideological battles, ethical concerns become negotiable. That is how democratic standards decay—not overnight, but through repeated excuses. Corruption survives when citizens convince themselves that protecting their faction matters more than protecting the system.   The real danger is not one politician. It is the creation of a culture where accountability itself is treated as optional.

A democracy cannot function long-term if citizens expect leaders to exploit office for personal or political gain. At some point, people stop participating honestly in civic life because they assume the game is rigged. History shows what follows: deeper polarization, institutional collapse, and eventually leaders who no longer even pretend to answer to the public. Which is what we have now.  “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation one little bit.”   The United States is not immune to this trajectory. No nation is.

The question Americans face is no longer whether corruption exists in politics. Of course it does. The question is whether the public still cares enough to resist its normalization before the damage becomes permanent.

The ballroom project, the reported $1.7 billion investment fund tied to Jared Kushner, IRS controversies, suspiciously timed stock trades, and the $1.7 billion “slush fund” settlement all fit into the same broader criticism of the Trump-era political culture.  Public power and private gain became dangerously intertwined.

Here’s how these issues connect politically and ethically.

The Ballroom and Political Image-Making

The expansion of lavish political spaces and elite donor culture around Donald Trump symbolizes something larger than décor or branding. Critics argue it reflects a presidency deeply tied to wealth, spectacle, and transactional politics. Large donors to the project have received $50 billion in government contracts.

The criticism is not “a ballroom is corruption.” The criticism is politics increasingly centered around billionaire access, donor influence, and the fusion of luxury branding with presidential power. It feeds the idea that government is socially and financially intertwined with elite networks rather than with ordinary citizens.

The $1.7 Billion Kushner Fund

This became one of the most significant ethical flashpoints after Trump left office.

Jared Kushner’s private equity firm reportedly received a massive investment commitment from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund after he left government service. Critics questioned whether relationships built during official U.S. diplomacy benefited Kushner financially afterward. Foreign governments viewed investment as a way to maintain influence, while anti-corruption guardrails were effectively meaningless. If foreign powers can financially reward former officials after policy decisions, public trust erodes.   Even if every action were technically lawful, many Americans see it as evidence that political access has become monetized.

IRS Immunity and Accountability Concerns

There have also been longstanding accusations that powerful political and financial figures operate under a different IRS enforcement standard than ordinary citizens. Critics cite selective investigations, delayed tax reviews, politically sensitive enforcement decisions, and a perception that wealthy elites can secure outcomes unavailable to ordinary Americans.

When political allies appear insulated from aggressive oversight, citizens begin to believe institutions are protecting power rather than enforcing rules neutrally. As an example, the DOJ has agreed to immunity for the Trump family as a part of the settlement of The Trump lawsuit against the IRS.

Stock Trades and Insider Advantage

Congressional and politically connected stock trading controversies cut across both parties. But they became part of a larger danger during the Trump era. They reinforced the idea that insiders receive privileged information, lawmakers profit during crises, and ordinary citizens are excluded from the advantages political elites enjoy.

The outrage intensified during periods of economic instability because Americans watched: markets swing violently, inflation rise, and retirement savings fluctuate. Politically connected figures often appeared financially protected—or even enriched. During the first quarter of 2026, there were a number of trades placed for Trump that appear to be insider trades. More to come!

Again, the damage is bigger than any single trade.  The belief is that the system is designed for insiders first.

THE Anti-Weaponization Fund

In May 2026, the Justice Department announced a $1.7–1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” as part of resolving Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax records. The administration said the fund would compensate people allegedly targeted for political reasons by the government. Trump himself reportedly would not receive direct cash payments, though the agreement included a formal apology and protections related to IRS audits. (Reuters)

Critics across watchdog groups, legal analysts, and Democratic lawmakers immediately called it a “slush fund” because the commission overseeing the money would largely be appointed by Trump-aligned officials. There appeared to be limited public transparency.  Also, eligibility standards were broad, and recipients could potentially include Trump allies or January 6 defendants. (The Guardian)

Trump was effectively negotiating with agencies run by his own executive branch.

That led some legal observers to argue the arrangement resembled a collusive settlement rather than an adversarial court resolution. Judge Kathleen Williams reportedly noted there was technically “no settlement of record” filed with the court after the case dismissal. (Reddit)

Another explosive issue was the reported audit protections. Multiple reports stated the agreement would halt or restrict certain IRS audits involving Trump, his family, or affiliated businesses tied to returns filed before the settlement. Critics argued that creates the appearance of political immunity from tax enforcement. (Reuters)

How It All Connects

Each controversy can be debated on its own. Defenders argue that many actions were legal, that investigations were politically motivated, and that critics apply double standards. However, the DOJ announced this week that they are not going to move forward with the fund—it will be abandoned. But the agreements regarding audits and tax concerns would stay in place. Amnesty in perpetuity.

Collectively, these issues create a broader narrative.  Wealth gaining privileged access to government, public office becoming a pathway to private enrichment, and accountability mechanisms appearing weaker for elites. That is why these actions resonate emotionally even when legal conclusions remain disputed.

The political danger is not just corruption itself.  People stop believing government serves the public interest and start seeing it as a competition between powerful networks protecting themselves: executive power, taxpayer money, elite immunity, political loyalty networks, and weak oversight.

That combination is why opponents use terms like “grift” or “slush fund.” They see it not as ordinary governance, but as public institutions being repurposed to reward allies and shield insiders. Supporters see it as overdue retaliation against politicized government agencies.

The deeper issue underneath all of it is institutional trust. Once citizens believe legal systems and tax enforcement can be reshaped around whoever holds power, faith in neutral government starts to collapse. And when that happens, every future administration inherits a more cynical and unstable political culture. Destroying democracy happens in the aftermath.

+++++++Corruption is wrong+++++++

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

Stop Calling Americans Ignorant

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

Start Fixing the Incentives That Drive Engagement

It has become a lazy reflex in politics and the media: blame “the uninformed public, they are ignorant.” If only people paid attention our problems would shrink. That story is comforting—and wrong.

What looks like ignorance is often adaptation.

The modern American is buried under a constant barrage of information: wars, elections, scandals, economic swings. Then there is streaming 24/7 through platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok. No one can process it all. So people triage. They skim headlines, trust familiar voices, and tune out what doesn’t immediately affect their lives. That’s not stupidity; it’s survival.

And here is some hard truth: being well-informed does not pay. You don’t get a raise for understanding trade policy. And you do not get rewarded for reading beyond the headline. You do, however, risk social friction for challenging your own side or raising uncomfortable facts. In a system that punishes nuance and rewards certainty, most people make the rational choice—stay at the surface. They are not ignorant, but are realists.

The information ecosystem is engineered for engagement, not truth. The algorithms driving today’s media reward outrage, simplify complexity, and feed people what they already believe. Inside those bubbles, people don’t feel uninformed—they feel validated. The result isn’t a nation of contented ignoramuses. Citizens of our nation believe they’re informed because the system keeps telling them they are. Is this being ignorant?

Then there’s the quiet force no one wants to name: resignation. After years of political gridlock, broken promises, and high-stakes crises with little visible resolution, many Americans have internalized a corrosive idea—nothing I do matters. That belief doesn’t produce curiosity. It produces withdrawal.

Add in the realities of everyday life—long hours, rising costs, family obligations—and the picture sharpens. The single parent working two jobs isn’t choosing to be ignorant; they’re choosing what keeps the lights on. Time is a prerequisite for attention, and millions simply don’t have it.

So no, the public isn’t broadly “content” in ignorant behavior. Americans are constrained by a system that makes deep engagement costly.

That distinction matters, because it points to a different solution. If you want people to re-engage, lecturing them won’t work. Neither will drowning them in more information. What moves people is relevance—when an issue hits their wallet, their safety, their family. What moves people is trust—when the message comes from someone who understands their reality. And what moves people most is agency—the belief that their action, however small, actually changes something.

The failure isn’t just on the audience. It’s on a political and media culture that confuses volume with clarity, outrage with insight, and access to information with understanding.

If we keep calling the public ignorant, we’ll keep getting the same result: a checked-out citizenry and a broken conversation. If we start asking why people disengage—and fix the incentives that drive it—we might get something better.

MAGA politicians are counting on voters’ despondency and cynicism to make the reimposition of Jim Crow a pain-free process for themselves. But Democrats’ refuse to concede and their determination to build momentum, using key events and political battles to drive organization and turnout, will aid their fight to flip the House.  Plus, it will help the long-term mission to restore democracy.

Not a perfect electorate. That’s a fantasy.

But an engaged one. That’s enough to change everything.

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

Billionaires at the Table

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

Billionaires Stand Beside the President at the Summit

When Donald Trump arrived in Beijing for his summit with Xi Jinping, he did not arrive alone. Surrounding the diplomatic choreography were billionaire CEOs, corporate executives, and financial elites — a modern reminder that in twenty-first century America, economic power increasingly travels alongside political power.

That reality says something uncomfortable about the current state of democracy and capitalism in the United States.

Officially, these executives were there to strengthen economic ties, stabilize trade relations, and help reduce tensions between the world’s two largest economies. In practical terms, they were there because American corporations and the Chinese state remain deeply intertwined despite years of nationalist rhetoric about “decoupling” and economic independence.

The summit itself produced modest results: temporary cooling of trade tensions, vague promises of increased Chinese purchases of American goods, and carefully managed diplomatic symbolism. But the most revealing image was not Trump shaking hands with Xi. It was the quiet normalization of billionaire CEOs acting almost as parallel instruments of American foreign policy.

That is not accidental. Modern corporate giants are no longer simply businesses. Companies like Tesla, Amazon, Apple, and Meta control supply chains, communications infrastructure, and artificial intelligence development.  They mostly control cloud computing, consumer behavior, and enormous pools of global capital. Their leaders possess levels of influence once associated primarily with nation-states.

In Beijing, those executives served several purposes at once. They reassured markets and signaled continued business cooperation. Also, they represented industries dependent on Chinese manufacturing and consumers. And they provided China with something enormously valuable: proof that even America’s most powerful corporations still need access to the Chinese system.

The symbolism mattered enormously to Xi Jinping. China wants recognition not merely as a trading partner, but as an equal superpower. The economic gravity of China can compel even American corporate elites to engage on Beijing’s terms.

But the summit also exposed something deeper about the United States itself. Billionaire CEOs increasingly occupy a strange space between private citizen and quasi-state actors. They are unelected and only accountable primarily to shareholders.  Yet they are capable of shaping labor markets, technology policy, geopolitical strategy, and even public discourse on a global scale.

Supporters argue these executives are innovators who build industries, create jobs, and drive economic growth. Sometimes that is true. Figures like Steve Jobs transformed consumer technology. Elon Musk accelerated electric vehicles and commercial space development. Large-scale corporations can coordinate capital and innovation at extraordinary speed.

But modern capitalism increasingly rewards executives far beyond any realistic measure of individual contribution. Workers create the products, engineers design the systems, public universities educate the workforce, taxpayers fund infrastructure, and government research often lays the technological foundation. Yet wealth and influence accumulate upward into a tiny class of billionaires whose power now spills directly into diplomacy and governance.

That concentration of power carries consequences.

When billionaires stand beside presidents at international summits, foreign governments correctly understand that influencing corporations can be almost as important as influencing elected officials. The boundary between democratic accountability and private economic influence begins to blur.

And ordinary Americans should take notice.

Workers facing stagnant wages, rising healthcare costs, housing instability, and economic insecurity see executives arriving at global summits in private jets while political leaders insist the economy is fundamentally strong. They see CEOs treated as indispensable architects of society while millions of citizens struggle simply to remain financially stable.

The problem is not that business leaders participate in diplomacy. Large economies require coordination between government and industry. The problem is scale — scale of wealth, scale of influence, and scale of political access.

A healthy democracy cannot permanently sustain a system where a small class of billionaire executives exercises immense influence over trade, technology, media, labor, and foreign policy while remaining largely insulated from democratic accountability.

The Beijing summit revealed more than the state of U.S.-China relations. It revealed the evolution of American power itself: a fusion of state authority and corporate concentration in which billionaires sit not outside government, but beside it. This is very dangerous, particularly when Congress is unwilling to protect the basic rights of Americans. Billionaires will have considerable sway in setting tax and spending policy.  American citizens will be neglected even more so than now, suggesting the demise of our form of government.  The time to act is now.

Citizens are not powerless against billionaire influence, but combating concentrated wealth in politics requires sustained civic pressure, institutional reform, and participation that goes beyond voting every four years.

The first step is recognizing the core problem clearly: extreme wealth creates unequal political access. Billionaires can fund campaigns, lobby lawmakers, shape media narratives, finance think tanks, influence courts, and sometimes directly shape policy priorities. That does not mean democracy is dead, but it does mean democratic systems can become distorted when money consistently amplifies certain voices over others.

Citizens can respond in several concrete ways.

Most people focus only on presidential politics, but many decisions benefiting concentrated wealth happen quietly at:

  • state legislatures,
  • zoning boards,
  • public utility commissions,
  • school boards,
  • attorney general offices,
  • and congressional primaries.

Local politics is often where organized citizens can still compete effectively against money because turnout is lower and public pressure is more direct.

When citizens act only as isolated consumers, billionaire influence grows. When people organize collectively — through unions, advocacy groups, professional organizations, tenant groups, or civic coalitions — they gain negotiating power.

That history matters. Major labor protections, antitrust laws, civil rights legislation, and consumer safeguards did not emerge because elites voluntarily surrendered power. They emerged because organized public pressure became politically unavoidable.

The biggest threat to the process is public exhaustion and cynicism. When citizens conclude “nothing matters,” participation drops and influence becomes even more concentrated among wealthy donors and organized interest groups.

Democracy depends not only on laws but on public expectations:

  • that corruption should be exposed,
  • that institutions should face scrutiny,
  • that no individual is above accountability,
  • and that citizenship involves participation rather than passive observation.

When politics becomes pure spectacle dominated by celebrity billionaires, citizens can lose sight of that responsibility.

If citizens stop participating, concentrated power fills the vacuum automatically.

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT!

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

I DON’T THINK ABOUT AMERICANS’ FINANCIAL SITUATION — NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT.

The most revealing moments in politics are often not the carefully written speeches or polished campaign ads. They are the unscripted comments that slip out when a politician answers quickly and speaks plainly. Oops! What did I just say? Not even a little bit?

That is why President Donald Trump’s recent statement hit so hard.

When asked whether Americans’ financial struggles were influencing his approach to negotiations with Iran, Trump answered: “Not even a little bit… I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon.”

His defenders immediately argued that critics were taking the comment out of context. They say Trump was making a national security argument, not confessing indifference to ordinary Americans. Preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, they argue, is more important than temporary economic discomfort.

That explanation may be fair. Context matters, but in this case I believe he is speaking his truth.

Words matter too.

Americans are exhausted. Grocery bills remain high. Rent and housing costs continue to climb. Credit card debt is growing. Families are working longer hours while feeling less secure. In that environment, hearing a president say he does not think about Americans’ financial situation lands badly no matter the intended meaning. As it should!

Leadership is not only about policy decisions. It is also about empathy. People want to believe their leaders understand what life feels like outside Washington. They want to hear that someone in power sees the pressure they are under.

This is not just about Trump. The reaction to his comment exposed something deeper: a growing belief that neither party truly understands ordinary people anymore.

Democrats seized on the statement immediately. Some mocked it online. Others argued Trump had “said the quiet part out loud.” Their criticism was politically predictable, but it also resonated because many Americans already feel disconnected from the political class.

Republicans mostly defended Trump’s intent while admitting the wording was rough. Some argued the media clipped the quote unfairly. Others said presidents sometimes must prioritize security over economics. That is true. National security decisions are rarely simple.

Still, the public frustration did not come from one sentence alone. It came from years of accumulated distrust.

Congress suffers from the same problem. Approval ratings remain consistently low because Americans increasingly see lawmakers as performers rather than problem-solvers. John Thune, Mike Johnson, Chuck Schummer, and Hakeem Jeffries are all actors in a play that has no role for ordinary Americans.

People watch endless partisan fights while basic concerns like affordability, healthcare, wages, and housing are unresolved. Many voters believe politicians spend more time protecting parties, donors, and media narratives than protecting citizens.

Whether that perception is entirely fair no longer matters. In politics, trust shapes reality. 

The danger for both parties is not simply anger. It is resignation. When citizens stop believing anyone in Washington genuinely cares about their daily lives, cynicism replaces participation. People disengage. Institutions weaken. Public trust erodes further. Citizens of America need to stay angry and demand their right to speak out, demand more from these actors, and vote for change even if it is just to change.

Ordinary citizens matter. Our congressman will not hold a town meeting because he does not want to hear points of view that differ from his own. So he ignores his constituents! Political disengagement thrives when people begin to believe their voices no longer matter, that government is too corrupt, too polarized, or to engaged in foreign policy matters to respond.

The most effective antidote is consistent civic participation at the local level, where ordinary citizens still have measurable influence. Voting in every election—not just presidential races—matters, but so does attending school board meetings, city council sessions, and town halls where decisions directly affect daily life. Citizens can organize around specific issues, support independent journalism, pressure elected officials through coordinated calls and public testimony, and build community groups that reconnect neighbors across political divides.

Democracy weakens when people retreat into cynicism and passive outrage online; it strengthens when citizens treat civic engagement as an ongoing responsibility rather than a once-every-four-years event. The reality is that disengagement benefits entrenched power, while participation—even imperfect participation—forces accountability.

Americans also need to hear something simple from their leaders: “We see what you are going through.”

That reassurance should not be difficult. Yet increasingly, it feels absent from American politics. Do our elected representatives care at all?

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

Social Security IS Being Ignored!

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

Political Cowardice At Work!

For millions of Americans, Social Security is not a side benefit or a political talking point—it is the backbone of retirement, disability support, and survivor income. Yet Washington often treats it as background noise: always discussed, rarely strengthened, and too often used as a bargaining chip while everyday people carry the risk.

Social Security is one of the most successful public programs in American history. It keeps older citizens out of poverty, supports disabled workers, and helps families after the death of a breadwinner. But despite its central role, government neglect shows up in several ways: chronic underfunding of administration, long wait times for disability claims, confusing communication, and endless political theater about “reform” that usually means benefit cuts rather than modernization.

When field offices close or staffing falls behind, the burden lands on ordinary people. A retiree trying to fix a payment error, a widow applying for survivor benefits, or a disabled worker waiting months for a hearing does not experience this as bureaucracy—they experience it as abandonment. A wealthy policymaker can hire help. Most people cannot.

The deeper failure is political cowardice. Leaders from both parties praise Social Security in speeches, then avoid the obvious choices needed to secure it long term: adjusting the payroll tax cap so higher earners contribute on more income, improving efficiency, protecting benefits from inflation shocks, and planning decades ahead instead of governing crisis to crisis.

Ignoring Social Security is also economically shortsighted. Every monthly check is spent in local communities—on rent, groceries, prescriptions, utilities, and transportation. Weakening the system hurts seniors first, but it also hurts small businesses and regional economies, especially in rural and working-class areas.

This issue is about priorities. Government moves quickly when markets wobble, defense contracts need approval, or tax advantages for the powerful are on the table. But when retirees need certainty or disabled Americans need timely decisions, suddenly patience is demanded.

A serious country would treat Social Security as core infrastructure: reliable, efficient, solvent, and protected. That means honest financing debates, modern customer service, stronger fraud prevention without punishing beneficiaries, and a commitment that earned benefits are not expendable.

ADDENDUM:  How the Social Security Trust Fund Actually Works

Strip away the political noise—this isn’t a piggy bank with cash sitting in it, and it’s not “empty” either. It’s a structured accounting system backed by law, taxes, and the full faith of the U.S. government.

1. Where the Money Comes From

Social Security is mainly funded through payroll taxes:

  • Workers and employers each pay 6.2% of wages (12.4% total).
  • That money flows into two trust funds:
    • Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) retirement and survivor benefits
    • Disability Insurance (DI) disability benefits

If you’re working, you’re paying in. If you’ve worked long enough, you’re earning eligibility.

2. What the “Trust Fund” Really Is

When Social Security collects more in taxes than it pays out, the surplus doesn’t just sit idle.

It is invested in special U.S. Treasury bonds.

Think of it like this:

  • Social Security lends its surplus to the federal government
  • In return, it gets interest-bearing Treasury securities
  • Those bonds are legally binding obligations

So, the “trust fund” is essentially a record of how much the government owes Social Security.

3. What Happens When Costs Exceed Income

Right now, Social Security is in a phase where:

  • It pays out more in benefits than it collects in taxes

To cover the gap:

  • The program redeems those Treasury bonds
  • The government pays that money back (from taxes, borrowing, or spending adjustments)

That’s how benefits keep flowing even when current tax revenue isn’t enough.

4. What “Running Out” Actually Means

You’ll hear that the trust fund could be depleted in the 2030s. That’s often misunderstood. (Reuters)

It does NOT mean:

  • Social Security disappears
  • Payments go to zero

It DOES mean:

  • The extra reserve (those bonds) will be gone
  • Benefits would rely only on incoming payroll taxes

Current estimates suggest that would cover roughly:

  • ~75–80% of scheduled benefits

So, the risk is a cut, not collapse. (NYTimes)

5. Why This Is a Policy Problem, Not a Mystery

This system is predictable.

Congress knows:

  • How much is coming in
  • How much is going out
  • When the gap grows

Which means:

Any crisis would be the result of political delay—not surprise

Fixes are well known:

  • Raise or eliminate the payroll tax cap
  • Adjust tax rates slightly over time
  • Modify benefits (targeted, not across-the-board)
  • Encourage higher workforce participation

Social Security is not being ignored because it lacks importance. It is being ignored because too many leaders assume the people who depend on it have nowhere else to go. That assumption will be politically dangerous.

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

Endless Wars!

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

THE HIDDEN COSTS FOR AMERICANS

Americans are trained to fear dramatic catastrophes: Pearl Harbor, 9/11, a sudden invasion, a market crash. But the greater danger to the United States may be quieter and slower. It is not one decisive war. It is being drawn into a long era of interconnected conflicts with no clear victory, no honest withdrawal plan, and no public consent equal to the cost. An endless war.

Look around. Europe remains locked in war over Ukraine. The Middle East cycles through crises that threaten to widen by the month. The US and Israel are at war with IRAN and Hezbollah. Tensions in the Pacific simmer around Taiwan and maritime power. Cyberattacks, proxy militias, sabotage, sanctions, and disinformation campaigns now blur the line between war and peace. None of these theaters exist in isolation. Each affects the others through oil prices, alliances, military stockpiles, shipping lanes, and political attention.

This is how powerful nations become trapped—not by one wrong decision, but by dozens of “limited” commitments that accumulate into permanent strain.

The first casualty is clarity. What does victory mean in these conflicts? Is it regime change? Deterrence? Territorial restoration? Stability? Containment? Humanitarian relief? Too often Washington speaks in slogans while avoiding measurable goals. If leaders cannot define success, the public should assume they are preparing for endless management rather than resolution.

The second casualty is the American household. Every prolonged global confrontation has domestic costs. Defense budgets rise. Interest payments are growing. Infrastructure waits. Housing remains unaffordable. Healthcare costs climb. Schools strain. Citizens are told there is always money for emergency deployments but never enough for ordinary life. (Understanding the Price of War on American Budgets, 04/07/2026, wwwtmichaelsmith.com).  That contradiction breeds cynicism, and cynicism is poison to democracy.

The numbers are not abstract. The United States has spent over $8 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and their aftermath when including long-term obligations like veterans’ care and interest on the debt. Annual defense spending now exceeds $850 billion per year, rivaling Cold War peaks without a single declared, all-encompassing conflict. Support for Ukraine alone has already surpassed $100 billion, with additional commitments likely. (Reuters.org).

And the meter is still running. The Pentagon faces hundreds of billions more to replenish weapons stockpiles sent abroad, for instance. Veterans’ care for post-9/11 service members is projected to cost another $2–three trillion in the decades ahead. Meanwhile, rising interest payments on the national debt—fueled in part by war borrowing—are now approaching $1 trillion annually. (Reuters.org)

That $8 trillion is enough to write a check for $24,000 to every man, woman, and child in America—and still have money left over. Instead, it has disappeared into wars that never clearly ended. Endless wars.

These are not distant accounting figures. They show up as higher borrowing costs, slower wage growth, deferred infrastructure, and an economy more vulnerable to shocks from global instability—especially energy and supply chains.

Put plainly: war spending does not end when the fighting slows. It compounds. The bill arrives slowly, then all at once—and it is paid not just in dollars, but in deferred opportunity.

The third casualty is constitutional culture. Permanent external threats create permanent internal temptations: more secrecy, more surveillance, more executive power, less tolerance for dissent. Criticism is reframed as weakness. Debate is treated as disloyalty. Fear becomes a governing tool.

None of this means America should retreat from the world or abandon allies. It means seriousness is required. A mature republic distinguishes between vital interests and optional entanglements. It demands clear objectives before commitments. Additionally, it shares burdens with allies instead of carrying every load alone. It uses diplomacy not as surrender, but as strategy.

Most of all, it reminds me that national strength begins at home. A country with crumbling roads, indebted families, declining trust, and political paralysis cannot indefinitely police every crisis abroad.

Empires often imagine they fall in battle. More often they fade through exhaustion from endless wars.

America’s greatest risk is not losing one war. It is normalizing a condition in which warlike crisis never ends, victory is never defined, and the bill is always sent to the future.

The question citizens should ask now is simple: What are we trying to achieve in Iran, how long will it take, and what are we neglecting while we chase it?

If leaders cannot answer plainly, the country is already drifting.

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

Why Employment Isn’t Enough!

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

THE REAL COST OF LIVING!!

The latest economic data tells a story Washington loves to celebrate: unemployment remains low, layoffs are limited, and employers are still adding jobs. By traditional measures, the U.S. labor market remains strong. But for millions of Americans, that “strength” feels increasingly disconnected from daily life. Because while jobs may be plentiful, affordability is slipping away.

This is the central economic frustration of 2026. People are working, often full-time, sometimes multiple jobs, and are still struggling to stay ahead. Gas prices are climbing again. Groceries remain stubbornly expensive. Insurance, rent, utilities, and childcare continue to consume larger shares of household budgets. Inflation may look manageable in an economist’s spreadsheet, but at the kitchen table it feels relentless.

Weekly jobless claims rose only modestly to 214,000, which is still historically low and usually signals employers are not conducting widespread layoffs. March payrolls reportedly added 178,000 jobs after a February decline, reinforcing that the labor market is still generating employment. Economists describe conditions as “low-hire, low-fire”: companies are holding onto workers, but hiring has slowed. (Reuters)

What this means for everyday Americans

  • If you already have a job: You likely still have leverage and relative security.
  • If you’re job hunting: It may feel harder than unemployment numbers imply because hiring is slower.
  • If you’re a household consumer: Rising gas prices, transportation costs, and goods prices eat into wages quickly.
  • If you carry debt: Higher inflation may keep interest rates elevated longer.

That contradiction matters politically and socially. A strong labor market should create optimism. Instead, many Americans feel exhausted. Why? Because employment alone is no longer enough. Having a job used to signal stability. Today, it often signals survival. Affordability is slipping away.

The solution is not to root for a recession or mass layoffs to tame inflation. It is to build an economy where work actually restores security. That means more housing supply, stronger wage growth, lower health care and childcare costs, anti-monopoly enforcement to reduce price gouging, and tax policies that reward labor more than speculation.

America does not just need more jobs. It needs jobs that pay enough to live with dignity.

Until then, the economy may look strong on paper while feeling weak in real life. And voters know the difference.

U.S. labor markets do remain relatively strong—but the picture is more nuanced than the headline suggests. We’re in a resilient but increasingly strained economy.

What it means for the Fed

At the same time, inflation is clearly heating up. March CPI rose to 3.3% year-over-year, up sharply from 2.4% in February. The biggest driver was energy: gasoline prices jumped 21.2% in one month, the largest increase since records began in 1967. Core inflation (excluding food and energy) was more moderate at 2.6%, which suggests the broad economy is not overheating—but consumers still feel the pain at the pump and in essentials. (Bureau of Labor Statistics)

This is the Federal Reserve’s hardest scenario: jobs are holding up, but prices are reaccelerating. That reduces pressure for rate cuts and may keep borrowing costs higher for longer.

If inflation rises again, interest rates may stay higher for longer. That means pricier mortgages, car loans, credit cards, and business borrowing. So even Americans doing everything right—working, saving, paying bills—can still fall behind because the cost of basic life keeps rising.

This is why economic messaging from politicians so often misses the mark. Telling people the economy is “strong” when they can’t afford groceries or a home payment, sounds detached at best and insulting at worst. Voters do not experience the economy GDP charts or payroll reports. They experience it through rent checks, gas pumps, and overdue balances.

Bottom line

The labor market is strong enough to avoid panic, but inflation is hot enough to prevent relief. That’s not a recession—but it is an affordability squeeze. (Old and Quirky, Understanding Affordability, 12/29/2025). Americans may be working yet still feel poorer. WE need a focus from Congress on jobs that allow Americans to live with dignity, not on War both in Iran and domestically through ICE.  Is Congress for us or against us?

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

Understanding the MAGA Platform

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF AMERICA FIRST POLICIES

“MAGA” — shorthand for Make America Great Again — isn’t a single policy platform so much as a cluster of political goals and instincts that coalesced around Donald Trump. If you strip away the slogans, a few core aims show up consistently.

1. Economic nationalism
A central goal is to prioritize domestic industry over global integration. That means tariffs, skepticism of free trade agreements, and efforts to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. The theory is simple: protect American jobs even if it disrupts global supply chains. This disruption often leads to higher prices.

2. Restrictionist immigration policy
MAGA emphasizes tighter border control, reduced legal immigration in some cases, and aggressive enforcement (ICE enforcement policies). The underlying argument is that sovereignty and labor market stability depend on controlling who enters the country.

3. Strong executive power
There’s a clear preference for a more assertive presidency.  Using executive authority to push policy when Congress stalls is the strategy. Supporters see this as necessary to overcome gridlock. Critics see it as a threat to institutional checks and balances. The ultimate goal is authoritarian rule.

4. Cultural conservatism
MAGA places heavy emphasis on traditional national identity, patriotism, and resistance to social change. This often includes opposition to what supporters’ call “elite” or “woke” cultural norms in media, education, and government.  

5. Skepticism of institutions
A defining feature is distrust of established institutions. This includes federal agencies to mainstream media to international alliances. Organizations like NATO are sometimes framed as burdens unless they clearly serve U.S. interests.

6. “America First” foreign policy
Less focus on multiple country deals, more emphasis on bilateral deals and reducing long-term foreign entanglements. Although in practice this has been uneven, especially when strategic or economic interests are at stake.

7.  White Male Hierarchy

As policy evolves, people of color and women occupy a contested place within the worldview associated with Make America Great Again. Supporters argue the movement is fundamentally race- and gender-neutral. It simply emphasizes nationalism, economic opportunity, and traditional values over identity-based politics.  They point to growing (though still very limited) support among some Latino and Black voters and strong backing from many conservative women. But  its policy priorities and cultural framing—on immigration, voting access, reproductive rights, and opposition to diversity initiatives—tend to disproportionately affect people of color and constrain women’s autonomy.  This view elevates a narrower vision of national identity that aligns more closely with traditional white male hierarchies. The result is a tension at the core of the movement: it seeks broad-based populist appeal yet often advances policies and narratives that many women and minority communities experience as exclusionary and discriminatory.

The Reality Check
These goals don’t always fit neatly together. For example, economic nationalism can raise prices for consumers, and limiting immigration can strain industries that rely on labor. Likewise, skepticism of institutions can energize supporters but also weaken the very systems that keep government accountable.  Exclusion of women and people of color will often be the norm particularly in voting.

So MAGA isn’t just a policy agenda. It’s a worldview: one that prioritizes national sovereignty, cultural cohesion, and centralized political will. This view diminishes or eliminates our long-standing democratic norms and global systems.

The Real Cost of “America First”

“America First” sounds simple, even intuitive. But as Make America Great Again becomes policy, its effects are anything but simple. They show up not in speeches, but in grocery aisles, rent payments, hospital bills, and classrooms across places like Virginia.

Start with the basics: food and housing. Restricting immigration and imposing tariffs—policies central to the MAGA agenda—are meant to protect American workers. But they also reduce the labor supply in agriculture and construction while raising the cost of materials. The result is predictable: groceries inch upward, housing becomes more expensive to build, and rents follow. These aren’t abstract tradeoffs; they are weekly hits to household budgets.

Wages tell a more complicated story. Some workers, particularly in manufacturing or sectors facing labor shortages, may see modest gains. But for many Americans, those gains are swallowed by rising costs. Tariffs invite retaliation, squeezing export industries. Small businesses absorb higher input costs. The promise of economic nationalism collides with the reality of a deeply interconnected global economy, where pulling one lever rarely moves just one outcome.

Healthcare reveals an even sharper edge. Efforts to cut federal spending often target programs like Medicaid, shifting the burden to states and individuals. In practice, that means fewer covered families, more strain on rural hospitals, and higher out-of-pocket costs. For working- and middle-class Americans, the safety net doesn’t disappear overnight, it frays, slowly but steadily, until a single illness becomes a financial crisis.

Then there are the less visible, but equally consequential, shifts. In education, cultural priorities reshape curricula, restrict classroom discussions, and turn local school boards into ideological battlegrounds. In governance, an expanded reliance on executive power—hallmark of leadership under Donald Trump—means policies arrive quickly but rarely last. Regulations swing with each administration. Businesses hesitate. Families struggle to plan. Stability, the quiet foundation of economic security, erodes.

Supporters of this approach argue that tradeoffs are necessary—that higher prices or reduced services are the cost of reclaiming sovereignty, strengthening borders, and restoring cultural cohesion. Nations do make choices about identity and independence. But the question is not whether there are tradeoffs. It is who bears them, and when.

Right now, the burden falls disproportionately on ordinary Americans, and it arrives immediately—in higher bills, tighter services, and greater uncertainty. The promised benefits, by contrast, are longer-term and less certain. That imbalance is the core tension of the MAGA agenda: it asks households to absorb short-term pain for gains that may or may not materialize down the road. All the while, wealthy individuals enjoy huge tax breaks.

Public policy is ultimately a matter of priorities. If the goal is to strengthen American families, then success should be measured not by slogans or geopolitical posture, but by whether those families can afford their lives, access care, educate their children, and plan for the future with confidence. On that test, the results of “America First” are far more complicated—and far more costly—than its name suggests.  The hope is that it will end and our democracy will survive much like Hungary!

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

(Heathercoxrichardson@substack.com April 19 post regarding the start of the American Revolution)

The 25th Amendment Is Not a Political Weapon

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

And That’s the Point

In moments of national anxiety, Americans reach for constitutional tools that promise swift accountability. Few are invoked as quickly—and as loosely—as the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Commentators, politicians, and partisans across the spectrum have treated it as a kind of emergency eject button for a president they believe is dangerous.

That’s a mistake. And it’s a dangerous one.

The 25th Amendment was not designed to settle political disputes or correct bad leadership. It exists for one reason: incapacity. Not unpopularity. Not recklessness. Not even abuse of power. Incapacity.

Understanding that distinction isn’t academic, it’s essential to preserving constitutional order.

A Mechanism Built for Crisis, Not Convenience

Section 4 of the amendment is the most dramatic and least understood provision. It lays out a process that is both swift and deliberately hard to sustain. If a president is unable to perform the duties of the office, the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet can declare that incapacity in writing. Power transfers immediately. The vice president becomes Acting President.

That’s the easy part.

What follows is a gauntlet designed to prevent abuse. The president can contest the declaration. If that happens, Congress must step in.  It takes a two-thirds vote in both chambers to keep the president sidelined.

In other words, Section 4 only works if there is overwhelming, bipartisan agreement that the president is genuinely unable to function.

That is not a bug. It’s the whole design.

What It Would Actually Look Like

Strip away the cable news speculation, and a real Section 4 scenario is stark and unsettling.

A president suffers a severe stroke. Or exhibits clear cognitive breakdown. This  would include confusion, inability to process basic information, or failure to respond during a national security emergency. Advisors notice first. Then the Cabinet. The vice president is forced into a decision no one seeks, whether to challenge the authority of the person who appointed them.

If they act, the transfer of power is immediate. Military command, intelligence briefings, executive authority—all shift to the vice president in an instant. Markets react. Allies call. Adversaries watch closely.

And then the fight begins.

The president, almost certainly, contests the move. Now Congress must decide—not in theory, but under pressure, in real time, with the stability of the government at stake. Within days, lawmakers must reach a supermajority consensus on a question that is as medical as it is political.  Is the president truly unable to do the job?

If the answer is anything short of overwhelming agreement, power snaps back to the president.

That’s how high the bar is. And it should be.

The Line We Keep Trying to Blur

In recent years—especially after the January 6 United States Capitol attack—calls to invoke Section 4 grew louder, particularly targeting Donald Trump. Many Americans, understandably alarmed, saw the amendment as a way to act quickly where other mechanisms seemed slow or uncertain.

But here’s the hard truth: even in that extraordinary moment, proving incapacity—not misconduct, not recklessness, but inability—would have been extraordinarily difficult.

And that’s because the amendment draws a bright, necessary line:

  • A president can make dangerous or unpopular decisions and still be capable.
  • A president can behave erratically and still be legally “able.”
  • A president can abuse power—and still not meet the threshold for removal under the 25th Amendment.

Those situations are addressed elsewhere in the Constitution—most notably through impeachment.

Conflating the two isn’t just sloppy thinking. It risks turning a medical and constitutional safeguard into a political weapon.

Why the Restraint Matters

If Section 4 were easy to invoke—or easier to sustain—it would invite constant use. Every period of divided government would carry the temptation to declare the president “unfit.” Every crisis would become a pretext.

The result wouldn’t be accountability. It would be instability.

The genius of the 25th Amendment is that it resists that temptation. It demands not just concern, but consensus. Not just suspicion, but evidence. Not just urgency, but certainty.

The Bottom Line

The 25th Amendment is a constitutional safety valve—but only for the most extreme scenarios. When a president is plainly unable to carry out the duties of the office does it apply.

It is not there to save us from bad leaders.
It is there to save the country from a leader who cannot function at all.

If we forget that—if we start treating incapacity as a matter of opinion rather than fact—we don’t just misuse the amendment.

We weaken the very system it was designed to protect.

T. Michael Smith  

wwwtmichaelsmith.com