Trump’s Takeover Attempt

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

The Constitution Is The LAST Line of Defense

OLD and QUIRKY Michael Smith

When the framers wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787, they weren’t designing a government for angels. They built a system for ambitious, flawed, and power-seeking human beings — precisely to prevent the rise of a single man who might try to rule like a king. Today, as Donald Trump openly vows to use a second term to exact “retribution” on his enemies and weaken constraints on presidential power, that 18th-century framework has become our last line of defense. The Constitution — if we have the courage to uphold it — remains America’s strongest bulwark against an authoritarian takeover.

A Government of Divided Power

The Founders’ most brilliant invention was the separation of powers. No single person, not even a president, was meant to dominate. Congress makes the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them — a system built to force compromise and prevent tyranny. That design ensures a president cannot simply rule by decree or loyalty.

During Trump’s first term, this balance was tested — and in some cases, it held. Courts struck down the most sweeping version of his “Muslim ban,” blocked his attempts to redirect funds for a border wall, and resisted executive overreach. State officials, under tremendous pressure, refused to falsify election results. These acts of defiance were not partisan gestures; they were affirmations of the Constitution’s core principle that power must remain divided and accountable.

The Rule of Law, Tested but Alive

The Constitution promises that no person is above the law — a principle now facing its hardest test. Trump, indicted in multiple jurisdictions, has built his campaign around the claim that accountability itself is illegitimate. If judges and juries uphold their constitutional duty despite political pressure, they will reaffirm that the rule of law is more than a slogan. If they falter, the entire foundation of our democracy will crack.

But the rule of law doesn’t live only in the courts. It lives in the character of those who swear an oath to uphold it — from soldiers to civil servants. Every official in this country pledges allegiance not to a leader, but to the Constitution. That distinction is what separates a republic from a regime. When senior military officers reminded Trump in 2020 that their loyalty was to the Constitution, not to him, they were echoing that sacred promise.

The People’s Power

Ultimately, the Constitution’s greatest safeguard is us — the people. It entrusts power not to kings or generals but to citizens who speak, vote, and act. Free elections, free speech, and a free press are not ornaments of democracy; they are its beating heart. The First Amendment guarantees the right to challenge authority, expose corruption, and protest injustice.

Trump and his allies have tried to convince Americans that elections can’t be trusted and that truth itself is negotiable. That cynicism is corrosive — and deliberate. If citizens lose faith in their own institutions, the paper protections of the Constitution will mean little. The antidote is civic participation: voting in every election, defending factual journalism, volunteering in communities, and refusing to surrender truth to conspiracy.

Federalism and the Limits of Power

Another constitutional strength lies in federalism — the division of power between the national government and the states. This structure makes it extraordinarily difficult for one person to control every lever of authority. When Trump pressured state officials in 2020 to “find votes,” they refused. When he mused about deploying the military to silence protests, generals and governors resisted. That was federalism at work: a reminder that sovereignty is shared, not seized.

A Fragile Line Between Republic and Rule

Still, the Constitution is not self-enforcing. It is a set of promises that rely on human courage to survive. If Congress abdicates oversight, if courts bow to political intimidation, or if citizens stop paying attention, the republic can be hollowed out from within. History teaches that democracies rarely die in a single moment — they erode through exhaustion, cynicism, and fear.

Trump’s public vows to use the presidency as an instrument of vengeance should alarm anyone who still believes in limited government. But outrage alone won’t save the republic. What will save it is constitutional courage — lawmakers willing to say no, judges willing to rule on principle, citizens willing to act when democracy is under threat.

The Oath We All Share

Every public servant swears to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” In times like these, that oath belongs to all of us. The Constitution is not just a relic of parchment; it is a living agreement between the governed and those who govern. It gives us tools — elections, courts, and checks on power — but it also gives us responsibilities.

If Americans choose apathy, the Constitution cannot save us. But if we choose engagement, courage, and truth, it will. The Founders never promised that freedom would be easy — only that it would be possible. The question now is whether we will use the system they built to defend it.

Because in the end, constitutional patriotism means loyalty not to a man, but to the rule of law itself — and to the idea that no one, not even Donald Trump, is above it.

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

The Pentagon’s New Marching Orders

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

Pete Hegseth’s Hard Turn for the Military

OLD and QUIRKY

The American military is once again at a crossroads — not on a battlefield abroad, but in its identity at home. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, never one to mince words, declared last week that “the era of the Department of Defense is over.” In its place, he said, comes a revived “War Department,” a return to first principles, a rejection of what he called the “distractions” of modern defense bureaucracy. The speech at Quantico was not just another policy rollout; it was an ideological thunderclap — signaling a transformation in tone, culture, and command that could reshape the U.S. military for decades.

Hegseth’s reforms are sweeping, symbolic, and deeply controversial. They reach into every corner of the armed forces — from fitness and grooming to whistleblower protections, from how leaders are promoted to how complaints are filed. To some, it’s the course correction the military needs: a return to discipline, merit, and focus on lethality. To others, it’s a retreat from oversight and inclusion — a rollback of hard-won reforms that kept abuse, discrimination, and cronyism in check.

Either way, Hegseth has declared war — not on a foreign enemy, but on the Pentagon as it has evolved since 1947.

Fitness First, and a “Male Standard” for Combat

The headline change, and the one most immediately felt in the ranks, is physical. Every active-duty service member will now be required to conduct daily physical training under command supervision. Fitness testing doubles to twice a year. All combat roles will now be measured by a single, gender-neutral — or, as Hegseth put it, “male” — standard. If that means no women qualify for certain positions, he said, “so be it.”

For decades, the services have struggled to balance inclusivity with readiness. The introduction of gender-neutral combat standards in recent years was meant to ensure fairness while maintaining rigor. Hegseth’s move tightens that further, eliminating any room for adjustment. Critics argue it will drive women out of elite units and further erode diversity in the ranks.

And it doesn’t stop there. The new rules ban beards (except in rare medical cases), reinstate strict height and weight requirements, and redefine what “fit to serve” looks like. Hegseth even shamed “fat generals and admirals” in his address — promising that senior leaders who cannot meet the same physical standards as their troops will be asked to step aside. The message was unmistakable: the military’s image begins with its waistline.

Supporters hail this as a long-overdue restoration of discipline. Detractors call it cosmetic authoritarianism — an obsession with appearance over substance, a morale-killing purge of good officers who may be strong leaders but not model athletes.

To Hegseth, this is a common-sense measure to restore accountability to commanders and curb what he calls “weaponized grievance culture.” To nearly every oversight expert and whistleblower advocate, it’s a direct threat to the integrity of the military justice system.

The Military Whistleblower Protection Act guarantees anonymity and procedural safeguards precisely because retaliation within the chain of command has long been a problem. Hegseth’s new system effectively puts the commander — not an independent investigator — back in control. Critics warn it will silence victims of harassment, discrimination, and abuse.

In one stroke, Hegseth has reframed what “accountability” means. For him, it’s about discipline from above. For those wary of power without checks, it’s a dangerous rollback.

From Defense to War: A Change in Philosophy

When Hegseth insists that “the era of the Department of Defense is over,” he’s not just playing with words. The rebranding to “War Department” — a revival of pre-World War II nomenclature — is a cultural and political declaration. It signals a military less concerned with diplomacy, diversity, and global engagement, and more fixated on lethality, hierarchy, and confrontation.

To Hegseth’s critics, it’s an attempt to militarize the military’s soul — stripping away decades of reform that recognized warfare’s human and moral complexity. To his supporters, it’s about cutting through bureaucratic fog and restoring warrior ethos.

In practice, the rebranding coincides with a purge of what Hegseth calls “non-essential priorities.” Training sessions on diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI) and climate resilience are being slashed. Civilian staff cuts are under way. Headquarters and commands are being merged. Four-star billets are being reduced by as much as 20 percent.

All of this fits Hegseth’s narrative: a leaner, meaner force, stripped of “political correctness” and focused on warfighting. But it also raises fundamental questions about whether he’s dismantling the very oversight and institutional knowledge that made the U.S. military both powerful and accountable.

Winners and Losers Across the Services

The effects won’t be evenly felt.

The Army and Marine Corps, long steeped in physical rigor, may adapt most easily. The Marine Corps’ ethos — “every Marine a rifleman” — dovetails neatly with Hegseth’s ideals. But even there, logistics and technical specialists will feel squeezed by standards that have little to do with their actual work.

The Navy faces a more fundamental clash. On ships and submarines, where many roles rely on technical skill rather than brute strength, imposing a “combat standard” risks losing talent. Beards, once tolerated on shore duty or for medical reasons, are now verboten. The Navy’s culture, already reeling from recent leadership shakeups, could be stretched thin.

The Air Force and Space Force, with their cyber and orbital missions, are even further removed from Hegseth’s warrior ideal. In these fields, mental acuity, not muscle, defines readiness. Forcing the same physical template across all branches could alienate technical experts and pilots alike.

Reservists and National Guard members will likely struggle most. Daily PT and twice-yearly tests are hard enough for active-duty personnel — far harder for part-time soldiers balancing civilian jobs. In the Guard, where standards vary by state, enforcement will be a logistical nightmare. These reforms may hit women hardest. Under the guise of equality, the “male standard” all but ensures fewer women in combat arms — and by extension, fewer in senior leadership down the road. Diversity, already fragile in many elite units, could plummet.

Minorities and those from lower-resource backgrounds may also be disproportionately affected. Physical readiness is not evenly distributed across society; access to training, nutrition, and recovery resources varies widely. A one-size standard ignores those disparities.

For technical and cyber specialists, the message is equally discouraging. Hegseth’s vision values warriors over wonks. Yet in an age when warfare is as much about data and code as bullets and bombs, sidelining technical expertise could undercut the very modernization the Pentagon needs.

The Cost of Command and Control

There’s also the issue of control — and secrecy. Reports suggest Hegseth plans to expand the use of non-disclosure agreements and even random polygraphs among senior staff to crack down on leaks. Combined with the new limits on complaints, the Pentagon risks becoming a more opaque, top-down organization.

That may please those who see leaks as betrayal. But it also concentrates power in fewer hands — and history shows that when oversight fades, corruption and abuse follow close behind.

The Meaning of “War” in 2025

Hegseth’s changes are more than managerial tweaks; they are philosophical. They redefine what the military is for — not just how it fights, but who it serves.

In his view, the armed forces have strayed too far into social engineering and away from the business of killing the enemy. “We are not a social experiment,” he said. “We are America’s warfighters.” That line drew cheers at Quantico — and alarm in Washington.

Because what Hegseth proposes is not simply reform, but reorientation: away from defense as deterrence, and toward defense as confrontation. Away from balance, and toward purity. It is, in short, a culture war within the military itself.

Marching Orders or Marching Backward?

Some of Hegseth’s goals — efficiency, readiness, accountability — are valid. The Pentagon is bloated, and endless PowerPoint briefings don’t win wars. But his methods risk collapsing the distinction between toughness and tyranny, between leadership and domination.

A military built only on obedience and uniformity may look sharper on parade — but it risks being duller in judgment. The strength of the U.S. military has always been its balance: discipline and innovation, hierarchy and conscience, lethality and humanity. If Hegseth forgets that, the war he wins on culture may be one the country loses in the long run. The secret imbeded in these changes may be that the militery leadership will be more willing to turn against the American people.

When Jimmy Kimmel’s Jokes Become a First Amendment Test

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

OLD AND QUIRKY

If politicians can punish comedians, no citizen’s speech is safe.

Late-night TV has always doubled as America’s unofficial town square, where jokes carry the sting of truth and laughter keeps the powerful in check. Jimmy Kimmel is the latest host to find himself in the crosshairs—not because his comedy has lost its bite, but because some politicians want to muzzle it. That should alarm us far more than any punchline.

Free Speech Protects the Uncomfortable

The First Amendment was never meant to shield only polite conversation. Its purpose is to protect the uncomfortable, the satirical, and the inconvenient. When government officials threaten Kimmel over his monologues, the issue is no longer about taste or humor. It becomes a constitutional question: can those in power use their offices to intimidate or silence their critics?

The Chilling Effect of Retaliation

Every time a public figure retaliates against a comedian, the ripple effect extends far beyond late-night TV. Journalists take note. Protesters take note. Ordinary citizens take note. The message is clear: speak out at your own risk. That kind of chilling effect is how democracies start sliding toward authoritarianism—not in dramatic leaps, but in the gradual silencing of voices one by one.

Not About Kimmel—About Us

It’s easy to dismiss this as a celebrity spat. But defending Jimmy Kimmel’s right to make jokes isn’t about liking his humor. It’s about protecting the principle that no American should fear government reprisal for exercising free speech. If satire falls first, other forms of dissent will follow.

The Punchline We Can’t Afford

Comedy has always been one of democracy’s pressure valves. Take that away, and the laughter dies—along with a crucial check on power. Protecting Kimmel’s right to speak freely isn’t about defending a late-night host. It’s about defending the First Amendment itself. And if we don’t stand up for it now, the joke will ultimately be on us.

HEALTHCARE IN FLUX!

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

OLD and QUIRKY

Health Care Administration: The 2025 Crisis of Leadership and Its Consequences

The year 2025 has been one of the most disruptive in recent memory for health care administration in the United States. Alongside sweeping regulatory changes, rapid adoption of artificial intelligence, and continued struggles with workforce shortages, a wave of firings and forced resignations at the highest levels of public health agencies has shaken the system. Senior officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have been dismissed, sometimes with little explanation, and thousands of staff have been laid off in broader restructuring efforts. While leadership changes are not uncommon in government, the scale and speed of these removals in 2025 stand out—and they raise pressing questions about institutional stability, scientific independence, and leadership at the top level.

High-Profile Firings and Political Tensions

The most visible episode was the firing of Susan Monarez, the newly appointed CDC Director, who was dismissed less than a month into her tenure. Reports suggest that her removal followed disagreements with HHS leadership over vaccine policy, an issue that has become politically charged. Her abrupt departure was followed by additional resignations and firings of senior CDC officials, creating leadership vacuums in areas critical to public health, such as infectious disease surveillance and vaccine advisory committees.

This turmoil was not confined to the CDC. Across the broader HHS system, mass layoffs and reductions in force affected thousands of employees, including scientists, policy analysts, and career administrators. The FDA and CMS also saw leadership turnover, with concerns that ideological shifts rather than performance metrics were driving personnel decisions. For critics, these moves represent an erosion of scientific independence; for supporters, they are an effort to realign agencies with new political priorities. Secretary Kennedy is at the center of all this chaos. This sort of chaos, particularly with vaccines, has led to an increase in reported cases of measles and will most likely result in an increase of infectious diseases.

Risks of Leadership Instability

The consequences of these firings are multifaceted. First is the loss of institutional knowledge. Senior officials often carry decades of expertise, and their departure leaves behind gaps that cannot easily be filled by newcomers. For programs like disease outbreak monitoring, vaccine development, or regulatory review of new therapies, institutional memory is not just helpful—it is essential for effective decision-making.

Second, leadership turnover creates operational disruption. Programs that depend on consistent oversight can stall or lose direction when key personnel are removed. Policy implementation may be delayed, messaging to the public can become inconsistent, and ongoing projects may be abandoned before completion. In the case of vaccine guidance, even small lapses in clarity can undermine public compliance at critical moments.

Third, these actions have a direct impact on staff morale and retention. When firings appear abrupt, politically motivated, or poorly communicated, the remaining workforce experiences heightened insecurity and stress. This climate can accelerate turnover among mid-level staff, further eroding the talent pool and deepening the workforce crisis already facing public health.

Finally, perhaps the most damaging consequence is the erosion of public trust. Health agencies depend on credibility to persuade the public to follow guidance, especially in times of crisis. If firings suggest that science takes a back seat to politics, or that expert voices are silenced, the public should become skeptical of future recommendations. The result is reduced compliance with public health measures, widening inequities, and greater vulnerability to health threats.

Legal and Governance Implications

The wave of firings has also triggered legal and regulatory challenges. Some dismissals, such as Monarez’s, have been questioned on procedural grounds, with legal scholars debating whether statutory protections for certain positions were respected. Congressional committees have begun inquiries into whether the removals undermine the independence of federally mandated programs. Beyond individual cases, these disputes highlight a deeper governance issue: how to balance political leadership with the stability required for scientific and administrative effectiveness.

Conclusion

The firings of 2025 have underscored how fragile health care administration can be when leadership instability collides with political conflict, in this case Secretary Kennedy. Clearly the information used by Secretary Kennedy has little to no scientific validity and when testifying before Congress he resorts to anger when it becomes apparent that he lacks the knowledge to provide correct answers. Removing key personnel may realign agencies with new priorities driven by politics, but it also risks undermining expertise, disrupting operations, and eroding public confidence.

Ultimately, health care administration depends on more than policies and technologies; it depends on the stability of the people who lead and the trust they command. The turbulence of 2025 offers a stark reminder that protecting these human and institutional foundations is as important as any regulatory reform or technological breakthrough.

T.  Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith

A BETRAYAL OF AMERICAN IDEALS

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

OLD and QUIRKY                                                                               09/12/2025

What happens when the institution meant to protect justice becomes the architect of injustice?”

The Supreme Court has at key moments in history and today, betrayed core American ideals such as equality, liberty, and democratic accountability.

 The Supreme Court and the Betrayal of American Ideals

The United States Supreme Court was envisioned as a guardian of justice, a bulwark against tyranny, and a neutral arbiter of the Constitution. Yet in recent years, its rulings have increasingly sparked outrage, confusion, and a sense of betrayal among many Americans. Far from upholding the foundational principles of democracy, equality, and transparency, the Court has issued decisions that appear to undermine them—raising the question: Has the Supreme Court betrayed American ideals?

 Undermining Democratic Accountability

One of the most troubling developments has been the Court’s growing reliance on the “shadow docket”—a process by which major decisions are made without full briefing, oral arguments, or public explanation. These emergency rulings have shaped national policy on immigration, voting rights, and public health, often with minimal transparency. This practice erodes the democratic ideal that government decisions should be made openly and with public input. When unelected justices issue sweeping rulings in the dark, the people lose their voice in the judicial process.

 Abandoning Equal Justice Under Law

The principle of equal protection is enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment, yet recent rulings have chipped away at civil rights protections. The Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminated federal protections for reproductive rights—disproportionately affecting low-income and minority communities. Similarly, the rollback of affirmative action in college admissions has been criticized for ignoring the persistent racial disparities in education. These decisions suggest a retreat from the ideal that all Americans deserve equal treatment under the law.

Below are some powerful Supreme Court decisions that are widely viewed as betrayals of American ideals, especially those of equality, liberty, and justice. The betrayal of American ideals isn’t new—it’s a recurring challenge that demands vigilance and reform. These cases aren’t just legal missteps—they’re moral failures that shaped American society in lasting ways.

 Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

  • Dred Scott, an enslaved man, sued for his freedom after living in free territories. The Court ruled that African Americans “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect,” denying citizenship and legal standing to all Black people—even free ones.
  • Chief Justice Roger Taney’s opinion also invalidated the Missouri Compromise, claiming Congress had no authority to ban slavery in U.S. territories.
  • Impact: This ruling emboldened pro-slavery forces, enraged abolitionists, and accelerated the path to the Civil War. It stands as a stark betrayal of liberty, equality, and the promise of citizenship.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

  • Homer Plessy, a man of mixed race, deliberately violated Louisiana’s Separate Car Act to challenge segregation. The Court upheld “separate but equal” accommodations, legitimizing racial segregation nationwide.
  • Justice Harlan’s lone dissent warned that the decision would become a “badge of servitude” for Black Americans.
  • Impact: This ruling entrenched Jim Crow laws for over half a century, institutionalizing racism and denying equal access to public life. It mocked the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

  • Fred Korematsu, a U.S. citizen of Japanese descent, refused to comply with internment orders during WWII. The Court upheld his conviction, citing “military necessity” over racial discrimination6.
  • Over 120,000 Japanese Americans—most of them citizens—were forcibly relocated to internment camps without due process.
  • Impact: The ruling sanctioned racial profiling and mass incarceration. Though later denounced, it wasn’t formally overturned until 2018. It remains a chilling example of civil liberties sacrificed in the name of national security.

 Buck v. Bell (1927)

  • Carrie Buck, a young woman institutionalized in Virginia, was forcibly sterilized under a state eugenics law. The Court upheld the law, with Justice Holmes infamously declaring, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough”.
  • The decision legitimized forced sterilization of thousands deemed “unfit,” often targeting poor, disabled, and minority women.
  • Impact: This ruling violated bodily autonomy and human dignity, reflecting the darkest impulses of pseudoscience and state control. It was never formally overturned.

 Civil Rights Cases (1883)

  • The Court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which banned racial discrimination in public accommodations like hotels and theaters.
  • The majority ruled that the 14th Amendment only applied to state actions—not private discrimination—effectively legalizing segregation in private businesses.
  • Impact: This decision gutted Reconstruction-era protections and laid the groundwork for Jim Crow laws. It denied Congress the power to protect Black Americans from private racial injustice.

Concentrating Power, Weakening Checks and Balances

The American system of government is built on the separation of powers, yet the Court has increasingly deferred to executive authority. Rulings that expand presidential powers—such as allowing broad use of emergency declarations or limiting the independence of regulatory agencies—threaten the balance intended by the Founders. By weakening the ability of Congress and federal agencies to act as checks on the executive, the Court risks enabling authoritarian tendencies.  As the Court and Congress continue to cede power, the executive branch is becoming the ruling entity.

Ignoring the Will of the People

Perhaps most alarming is the Court’s apparent disregard for public consensus. Polls consistently show that most Americans support abortion rights, gun safety measures, and environmental protections—yet the Court has issued rulings that contradict these views. With several justices appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote and confirmed by a Senate representing a minority of Americans, the legitimacy of the Court’s decisions is increasingly questioned. When the judiciary becomes disconnected from the people it serves, it ceases to reflect the democratic spirit of the nation.                   

Conclusion: A Crisis of Faith

The Supreme Court was never meant to be infallible, but it was meant to be principled. Its recent trajectory suggests a departure from the ideals that define American democracy: transparency, equality, accountability, and respect for the will of the people. This is not merely a legal crisis, it is a moral one. If the Court continues down this path, it risks becoming an institution that no longer protects the Constitution but instead reshapes it to serve narrow interests. In doing so, it betrays the very ideals it was created to uphold.

T. Michael Smith

Wwwtmichaelsmith.com

HUMAN RIGHTS RECKONING

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

 OLD AND QUIRKY                                                            September 7, 2025

The United States, long viewed as a beacon of hope for immigrants seeking safety and opportunity, faces a moral and legal crisis in its treatment of immigrant children. From detention centers to courtroom battles, the experiences of these vulnerable minors reveal deep flaws in the nation’s immigration system and raise urgent questions about justice, compassion, and accountability.

What Is the Administration Doing too Immigrant Children? 

In the early hours of Sunday August 31, in the middle of a three-day holiday weekend, the Trump administration attempted to take vulnerable children out of government custody and ship them alone to their country of origin, Guatemala.

The administration was planning to move up to 600 children from the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), where they are held according to law until they can be released to a relative or a guardian living in the U.S. who can take care of them while their case for asylum in the U.S. is being processed.
Unaccompanied migrant children are considered a vulnerable population and are covered by the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. That law gives them enhanced protection and care, making sure they are screened to see if they have been trafficked or are afraid of persecution in the country they come from. Congress has specified that such children can be removed from the country only under special circumstances. Nonetheless, the administration appears to have removed about 76 of those transferred out of the custody of ORR—the only agency with legal authority to hold them—where they were waiting to be released to a relative or guardian.  

Early on Sunday, August 31, advocates for the children filed a suit to prevent the administration from removing them. Shortly after 2:30 in the morning, Judge Sparkle Sooknanan got a phone call about the case, and by 4:00 she had issued an emergency order blocking the removal and scheduled a hearing for 3:00 pm that afternoon. She moved it up to 12:30 pm when she learned that the administration was already moving some children out of the country. By noon Monday, according to the government’s lawyers, all the children were back in ORR custody.

Immigrant children have always been part of America’s story. But the modern era, especially post-9/11, has seen a shift toward securitization and deterrence. Policies like family separation under the Trump administration and overcrowded detention facilities have drawn international condemnation.

Legal Protections vs. Reality

The Flores Agreement of 1997 was a landmark settlement that established minimum standards for the treatment of immigrant children in federal custody. It mandates that children be held in “safe and sanitary” conditions and released “without unnecessary delay” to appropriate sponsors. However, enforcement has been inconsistent. In 2025, a federal judge ordered continued monitoring of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) after failures to meet these standards.

Moreover, access to legal representation remains a critical issue. Children with lawyers are far more likely to appear in court and succeed in asylum claims—95% versus just 33% for those without attorneys. Yet, in March 2025, the federal government terminated a contract that provided legal counsel for over 26,000 unaccompanied minors, leaving thousands without support in navigating complex legal systems.

Detention and Its Consequences

Detention facilities, especially those housing families, have come under scrutiny for poor conditions and inadequate medical care. A reopened center in Texas revealed issues like malnutrition, tuberculosis, and insufficient mental health screening. While the Biden administration initially halted family detention in favor of alternatives like electronic monitoring, recent policy shifts have revived large-scale detention efforts.

Children in detention, whether alone or with family, face trauma that can have lifelong consequences. The psychological toll of confinement, uncertainty, and separation from loved ones undermines their development and violates international norms of child welfare.

Humanitarian and Ethical Concerns

Beyond legality, the treatment of immigrant children is a humanitarian issue. These minors often flee violence, poverty, and instability in Central America, arriving at the U.S. border in search of safety. Instead, they encounter bureaucratic hurdles, hostile environments, and prolonged uncertainty.

Critics argue that the U.S. response exacerbates the very crises these children are escaping. Policies that prioritize deterrence over protection risk violate both domestic law and international human rights standards.

Toward Reform: What Needs to Change

To uphold its values and obligations, the United States must:

  • Restore and expand legal representation for all immigrant children.
  • Fully implement and enforce the Flores Agreement, with independent oversight.
  • Invest in community-based alternatives to detention, which are more humane and cost-effective.
  • Ensure trauma-informed care and education for children in custody.
  • Reform asylum procedures to prioritize child welfare and family unity.

Conclusion

As I look back over our history with indigenous people and black people, I shouldn’t be surprised by all of this. I don’t want to think of my country as evil. But I am surprised by the treatment of immigrant children in the United States.  This is not just a policy issue, it is a reflection of national character. As the country grapples with its identity in a globalized world, how it treats its most vulnerable newcomers will speak volumes. Justice demands more than compliance; it calls for compassion, dignity, and the courage to do better.  We can and must do better.

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

CIVIC ALARM BELLS

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

OLD AND QUIRKY

A CIVIC ALARM BELL

Washington, D.C., now hosts 2,000 National Guard troops—armed, visible, and federally controlled. Their presence is framed as a response to crime. Yet violent crime in the city has declined sharply, reaching a 30-year low. The contradiction invites a deeper question: What purpose does this deployment truly serve?

There is no crisis in DC. The troops are not responding to riots or unrest. They are not assisting overwhelmed police. They are simply… present. Armed. Watching. This raises constitutional alarms—not because of what has happened, but because of what could.

The troops are doing a bit of gardening. They are assisting the park service in spreading mulch around the cherry trees.

SYMBOLISM AND POWER

Deploying National Guard Troops from distant states to perform menial tasks—mulching and picking up trash—does not address any genuine security need in the district.  Instead, these actions serve to normalize a visible military presence in everyday civic life, subtly permitting federal control even in the absence of crisis. This strategy aligns with tactics often seen in authoritarian regimes where symbols of force are introduced to assert dominance and discourage dissent.  The insistence that these troops were necessary to “crack down on crime” stands in stark contrast to the city’s record-low crime rate and the absence of unrest. These troops are being used as instruments of power and symbolism to reinforce the notion that Trump is the sole protector.

A CIVIC PROTECTOR

Deploying troops in a peaceful city sends a message—not of safety, but for control.  It normalizes the presence of armed forces in civic life. It blurs the line between policing and militarization. And it risks turning the capital into a stage for political theater, rather than democratic governance.

With Trump underwater on all his key issues and his job approval rating dismal, the administration is trying to create support for him by insisting that the U.S. is mired in criminal activity and he alone can solve the problem. The administration’s solution is not to fund violence prevention programs and local law enforcement—two methods proven to work—but instead use the power of the government to terrorize communities,

There is a frantic feel to the effort, as if the feel they must convince Americans to fear crime more than they fear of rising grocery prices or having to take their children past police checkpoints on their way to school.

Now, with Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker taking a stand against the deployment of troops in Chicago, Trump is nervous about sending troops on his own hook and instead is trying to pressure Pritzker to ask for them.  He has complained about Pritzker not asking for troops and on social media he has referred to Pritzker as  “an incompetent Governor who should call me for HELP.”

A CALL FOR VIGILENCE

This is not just about D.C.  It is about precedents.  If federal troops can be deployed without legal justification, what stops future administrations from doing the same—anywhere, anytime?

Democracy depends not just on elections, but on norms. On restraint.  On the quiet, often invisible boundaries between civilian life and military power.  When those boundaries erode, history warns us that freedom will follow.

Each moment carries its own context. But all share a common thread: the tension between federal force and civil liberty.

T. Michael Smith

Wwwtmichaelsmith

PAPER ISN’T THE ANSWER

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

  OLD AND QUIRKY

At the heart of American democracy, the act of voting is the key to a free society and to most Americans it is sacred. Yet the machinery behind it—literally—has become
a lightning rod for controversy.  As the 2026 midterms approach, President Donald Trump has reignited his campaign against mail-in voting and electronic voting machines, promising to sign an executive order to “bring HONESTY” back to the ballot box. His proposal would involve eliminating voting machines and replacing  mail-in voting with “watermark paper ballots” counted by hand. However, the push to eliminate voting machines and mail-in ballots via executive fiat faces a steep legal wall.

What Does THE CONSTITUTION Say?

The U.S. Constitution gives states—not the federal government—the authority to regulate elections. Article I, Section 4 states that the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections” are determined by state legislatures. Congress may intervene, but only through legislation—not executive fiat.

In short: no president, past or future, can unilaterally eliminate mail-in voting.   Courts have consistently blocked federal overreach in this domain, reaffirming that election infrastructure is a state prerogative.

But the deeper concern isn’t just legal—it’s civic. Banning voting machines and mail-in voting would disproportionately affect voters with disabilities, rural voters, and those who rely on assistive technology. It would also undermine years of bipartisan investment in secure, auditable systems.

The Voting Process

Mail-in voting has long been a lifeline for voters who are elderly, disabled, overseas, or simply unable to reach polling places. It’s not new, and it’s not partisan. Utah, a reliably red state, conducts elections almost entirely by mail. So does Colorado, a blue state. Both report high turnout and low fraud.

Despite repeated claims, there is no credible evidence of widespread fraud linked to mail-in ballots. Numerous audits, court rulings, and bipartisan investigations have affirmed the integrity of the process.

Most voting machines in use today are not opaque black boxes. They’re optical scanners that read paper ballots—providing both speed and a physical audit trail. In places like Roanoke City and Roanoke County, Virginia, voters use the Unisyn OpenElect Freedom Vote system, which combines accessibility with verifiability. These systems are federally certified and state-approved, designed to balance efficiency with security.

 What This Debate Is Really About!

This isn’t a technical dispute, it’s a symbolic one. The call to return to “paper-only” voting is framed as a restoration of trust. But trust isn’t built by stripping away tools that make voting more accessible and secure. It’s built by transparency, accountability, and respect for the rule of law.

Nor is Trump’s proposal a policy disagreement, it’s a test of constitutional boundaries. If executive orders could override state election laws, the balance of power would tilt dangerously toward the presidency. That’s not election reform. That’s executive overreach.

If the goal is election integrity, the answer isn’t to ban machines—it’s to strengthen oversight, expand audits, and ensure every voter can verify their vote. Technology is a tool that, like democracy itself, must be constantly refined and protected.

Voters deserve transparency, security, and access. That means improving systems—not dismantling them. It means respecting the rule of law, even when it’s inconvenient. And it means recognizing that the strength of our democracy lies not in the whims of one leader, but in the collective will of the people.

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

The QUIET EROSION of CIVILIAN RULE

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

OLD and QUIRKY

A New Normal?

In the summer of 2025, armored vehicles rolled through downtown Los Angeles—not in response to foreign attack, but to guard federal buildings during a wave of domestic protest. The troops weren’t requested by California’s governor. They were sent by presidential order. For many Americans, it was a jarring sight: the military, long a symbol of defense abroad, now stationed in the heart of a U.S. city.

This wasn’t a one-off. It was part of a broader trend—one that threatens to blur the line between civilian governance and military power. And now troops are in Washington DC to stem crime in our nation’s capital.  What a symbol for an emerging authoritarian movement.

At the moment we seem to be practicing a system of state capitalism- –a hybrid between socialism and capitalism in which the state guides the decisions of nominally private enterprises. There is a clear change from the free-market economy the U.S. once embraced. In Trump’s first term, CEOs routinely spoke out when they disagreed with his policies on immigration and trade. Now, they shower him with donations and praise or are mostly silent. Trump is deploying financial power and regulatory power to intimidate media companies, banks, law firms, and government agencies he thinks are not sufficiently supportive.

The Legal Guardrails—and Their Cracks

For nearly 150 years, the Posse Comitatus Act has stood as a bulwark against military involvement in domestic law enforcement. Its message is simple: the armed forces are not a police force. But the Insurrection Act, a much older law, offers the president a way around this restriction—allowing troop deployment during times of rebellion or when laws cannot be enforced.

Historically, this power has been used sparingly: to enforce civil rights in the 1960s, to quell riots when local authorities were overwhelmed. But recent deployments—without state consent and absent clear legal justification—suggest a shift. The question isn’t just whether the law allows it. It’s whether our democracy can withstand it

The Risk of Military Governance

The use of US troops domestically tends to escalate tensions, not defuse them. More importantly, it signals a dangerous normalization: federal force as an acceptable substitute for local governance.

This undermines the principle of federalism, the idea that states have autonomy over their internal affairs. It also erodes civilian control, a cornerstone of democratic society. When the executive branch can deploy troops without oversight or consent, the balance of power tilts dangerously later toward authoritarianism.

A Culture Clash in Uniform

Even within the military, there’s discomfort. Pentagon regulations emphasize that domestic deployment must be legal, necessary, and appropriate. Many commanders worry that repeated use of troops on U.S. soil risks politicizing the armed forces and damaging public trust.

The military’s ethos is built on defending the Constitution—not enforcing political will. When soldiers are asked to patrol neighborhoods or guard against protestors, that line begins to blur.

What Comes Next?

California’s lawsuit against the federal government may set a legal precedent. But the deeper question is cultural: Will Americans accept troops in their cities as a new normal? Or will they push back against the quiet erosion of civilian rule?

Democracy depends not just on laws, but on norms—on shared understandings of what power should and shouldn’t do. The use of troops on U.S. soil tests those norms. And the outcome will shape the character of American governance for years to come.

The Vice President

Another interesting development is that Vice President J.D. Vance appears to have been distancing himself from Trump and the administration by taking repeated vacations.  Vance also appears to be undercutting Trump over the Epstein files, twisting the knife while also seeming to make overtures to Trump’s MAGA voters, who have never warmed to Vance.  Vance set up a meeting at his residence to discuss Epstein, a meeting that just happened to leak to the press. Then a few days later, Vance brought up the issue again in an interview with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox News Channel, parroting MAGA beliefs that the files name prominent Democrats.

“Lot of Americans want answers. I certainly want answers,” Vance said

Those people cheering on Trump’s drive for autocratic power because they still somehow think he will use that power to make their lives better might want to consider how their lives may change if that power is in the hands of J.D. Vance.

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

Gerrymandering

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

                                                                                         August 10, 2025

The Origins and Evolution of Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering has been a fixture of American politics since the early days of the republic. Here’s a look at how it developed and adapted over time.

It all began in 1812: The term “gerrymander” was coined after Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry approved a redistricting plan that created a bizarrely shaped district favoring his party. A political cartoon likened it to a salamander—thus, “Gerry-mander”.

Even before the term existed, states like Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina were already manipulating district boundaries for political gain in the late 18th century.

Early Electoral Practices

In the 1790s to 1840, states varied widely in how they elected representatives. Some used statewide “general tickets,” while others drew districts with little federal guidance.

The 1842 Apportionment Act mandated single-member districts, intensifying the use of gerrymandering as a strategic tool.

Redistricting and Partisan Power

Post-Civil War to 20th Century, Gerrymandering became entrenched in state politics, often used to suppress minority votes or entrench one-party rule—especially in the South.

Modern methods include techniques like “packing” (concentrating opposition voters in few districts) and “cracking” (splitting them across many districts) have become standard practice.

Current Efforts

Democratic lawmakers from the Texas House of Representatives left the state to deny Republican lawmakers the quorum—the number of legislators required to pass legislation—they need in order to push through a new district map that would take five seats currently held by Democrats and give them to Republicans.

The attempt to grab five new seats in Texas to maintain control of the U.S. House of Representatives against the will of voters is a threat not only to Texas, but to the entire country and to the concept of America.

Florida’s redistricting saga may be heating up again.  Governor Ron DeSantis is signaling support for a mid-decade redraw of congressional districts.  While the Governor is pushing for action, many Florida GOP legislators are hesitant citing legal issues and sheer fatigue.  Watch and see.

President Donald J. Trump has demanded this rare mid-decade redistricting in an attempt to hold control of the House of Representatives in 2026. He is urging all Republican-dominated states to make a similar change to guarantee Republican dominance regardless of the will of voters.

Trump also wants a mid-decade census.  A census takes years to organize and implement.  Watch for a “semi-census” haphazardly put together and illegal that the GOP will tout as the real thing.

This is not just rigging the system in Texas and Florida. It’s about rigging the system against the rights of all Americans for years to come.  This is a key element in a move to authoritarian rule.

T. Michael Smith

https://wwwtmichaelsmith.com