democracy

WE THE PEOPLE, MUST FIGHT FASCISM

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

Old and Quirky       NOVEMBER 6, 2025

As We Face Fascism, Americans Must Find New Ways to Help Each Other

As we face fascism, Americans must find new ways to help each other. That word—fascism—is not hyperbole anymore. When one major political party excuses political violence, undermines elections, and pledges loyalty to a single man over the Constitution, the danger is no longer theoretical. Donald Trump and his allies have spent years testing how far they can push American democracy before it breaks. The answer, it turns out, depends on whether the rest of us stand together or stand aside.

Trumpism has always thrived on fear and resentment—turning citizens against each other while the powerful grow richer and more unaccountable. The movement’s latest phase is darker: purges of civil servants, vows to weaponize the Justice Department, promises of “retribution” against critics, and a growing chorus of politicians and pundits who echo authoritarian language with chilling ease. This isn’t just political rhetoric—it’s preparation. We’ve seen this movie before in history, and it never ends with freedom.

But here’s what fascism can’t survive: community. When Americans refuse to abandon one another—when we refuse to let cruelty become normal—the authoritarian project collapses. That means helping the neighbor targeted by hate, supporting local reporters exposing corruption, defending teachers who teach honest history, and protecting election workers from harassment. It means showing up, loudly and consistently, for the rights of people who don’t look or vote like us.

Republicans who still believe in democracy must find the courage to say so publicly. Silence is complicity. Too many have traded principle for proximity to power. Democrats, meanwhile, can’t assume that technocratic policy wins will save the republic. What will save it is solidarity—rooted not just in ideology but in moral clarity. The fight ahead is not between left and right; it’s between democracy and authoritarian rule.

America has faced this darkness before. From the labor strikes of the 1930s (my grandfather was in the camp of WW1 veterans that Douglas McArthur overran) to the Freedom Riders of the 1960s, ordinary people defied fear through mutual aid and moral conviction. When government failed, communities rose. When demagogues tried to divide us, compassion became a weapon of resistance. We can do it again—but only if we refuse to normalize what we know is wrong.

Every era demands its own form of courage. Today, courage looks like defending truth in an age of lies, decency in an age of cruelty, and democracy in an age of apathy. It means organizing, donating, volunteering, and speaking out even when it’s uncomfortable. Especially when it’s uncomfortable.

As we face fascism, Americans must find new ways to help each other—not just out of kindness, but out of survival. The next election will decide more than who governs; it will decide whether America remains a democracy at all. The time for polite hesitation is over. The time for solidarity has arrived.

What New Ways Can Americans Help Each Other?

As Americans, we must learn again how to help one another—not just in theory, but in practice. Authoritarian movements thrive on fear, isolation, and despair. The antidote is solidarity, rebuilt from the ground up. We cannot wait for institutions alone to save us; we must start saving each other.

1. Build local networks of care.
When people are targeted—immigrants, journalists, teachers, LGBTQ+ youth—neighbors should be the first line of defense. Mutual aid groups, community watch networks, and local support circles can provide food, rides, childcare, safety, or simply presence. Small acts of care create a shield against dehumanization.

2. Protect truth and share information.
Fascism depends on lies. Support local newspapers, public libraries, and independent journalists who still tell the truth. Learn to verify before sharing. Talk with neighbors rather than yelling online. Democracy begins with informed trust.

3. Defend democratic participation.
Volunteer as a poll worker. Help people register to vote. Offer rides on Election Day. Confront voter intimidation peacefully but firmly. The right to vote is meaningless if fear keeps people home.

4. Practice visible solidarity.
Show up publicly for those under attack—at school board meetings, protests, court hearings, or workplaces. When someone is harassed for who they are, make sure they know they’re not alone. Authoritarians rely on silence; courage is contagious.

5. Organize, don’t just agonize.
Talk politics at the dinner table. Join local advocacy groups. Donate to organizations defending rights and freedoms. True democracy isn’t passive—it’s built by people who refuse to give up their agency.

6. Care for yourself and each other.
Fighting authoritarianism is exhausting work. Rest, art, humor, and community meals are not distractions—they’re acts of resistance. A hopeful person cannot be ruled by fear.

Fascism feeds on despair; democracy feeds on connection. Americans can still choose to be the country that cares for its people, even when its politics fail them. The new ways we help each other may look ordinary—sharing food, standing together, telling the truth—but at this moment, they are revolutionary.

 T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

The Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket: Democracy in the Dark

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

The Supreme Court was once the guardian of reasoned justice — a deliberative institution where arguments were heard, opinions were written, and the public could see the logic behind the law. But that vision of the Court is fading fast. In its place stands a majority that increasingly prefers to rule from the shadows, using a secretive mechanism known as the shadow docket to impose sweeping policy decisions without explanation or accountability.

The “shadow docket” sounds mysterious because it is. It refers to the Court’s use of emergency orders — often unsigned, unexplained, and issued in the dead of night — that bypass the normal judicial process. No hearings. No briefs. No transparency. Yet these shadow rulings have decided some of the most consequential issues of our time: immigration, voting rights, reproductive freedom, and public health.

And the justices most eager to use this power sit on theCourt’s conservative wing.

Under Chief Justice John Roberts and his Trump-appointed colleagues — Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett — the shadow docket has become a tool for ideological activism masquerading as judicial restraint. Time and again, the conservative majority has used it to quietly deliver victories for right-wing causes while avoiding the public scrutiny that comes with full opinions.

Consider how the Court let Texas’s infamous abortion law, SB 8, take effect in 2021. Without a single oral argument or written justification, the Court’s conservative bloc allowed a law that effectively banned abortions after six weeks to stand. Women’s rights were stripped away overnight — not through a landmark ruling, but through a midnight order.

Or look at voting rights. The shadow docket has been used to reinstate gerrymandered maps and restrictive election laws, often just before an election. Each time, the Court hides behind procedural language about “emergency relief,” but the effect is unmistakable: less access to the ballot for communities of color and more entrenchment for Republican-controlled legislatures.

And while conservatives decry “unelected judges” when liberal rulings displease them, they have no problem using unelected justices to reshape American life from the shadows. This is not judicial humility — it’s power politics cloaked in Latin.

The danger of the shadow docket is not only that it produces bad rulings, but that it erodes public trust in the Court itself. When the majority uses unsigned, unexplained orders to make major legal changes, it sends a clear message: the Court’s power is absolute, and the public has no right to question it. That’s not the rule of law. That’s judicial supremacy.

Democracy cannot function when the most powerful court in the country operates like a political backroom. If the conservative justices believe their decisions are justified, they should have the courage to explain them. Hiding behind the shadow docket betrays both the spirit of the Constitution and the trust of the people.

The Supreme Court’s authority depends on legitimacy — on the belief that its rulings flow from law, not ideology. But every time the conservative majority governs from the shadows, that legitimacy fades a little more. The justices may win their battles for now, but in the long run, they are burning down the very credibility that gives their power meaning.

It’s time to drag the Court back into the light.

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

INSIDERS RULE

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

Behind the public drama of politics, three powerful insiders—Russell Vought, Stephen Miller, and Pete Hegseth—are quietly reshaping how America is governed. Through budgetary control, ideological messaging, and military command, they are centralizing executive power and transforming democratic institutions from within.

The Impact of Russell Vought, Stephen Miller, and Pete Hegseth

In American politics, power often hides behind the curtain. The figure at the podium is rarely the only force directing the show. Today, three men—Russell Vought, Stephen Miller, and Pete Hegseth—are shaping the contours of government in ways more consequential than any press briefing or campaign rally could convey. They are the insiders of a movement that seeks to refashion not just policies but the very machinery of governance. Together, they represent a new breed of political operator: ideological, disciplined, and determined to subordinate the federal bureaucracy, the military, and the rule of law to a single, commanding vision of executive supremacy.

Russell Vought: The Bureaucratic Revolutionary

Russell Vought, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director and current architect of the administration’s institutional redesign, operates with a precision born of bureaucratic mastery. His influence extends beyond spreadsheets and budget charts; he is the administrative mind behind what might be called the “restorationist” project—an effort to reclaim the executive branch from what he calls the “deep state.”

Vought has made no secret of his disdain for the permanent civil service. He once said that career bureaucrats should “wake up demoralized,” viewing them as obstacles to the will of the people rather than instruments of democratic governance. His Center for Renewing America, a policy hub that grew out of the Project 2025 blueprint, preaches a mission of cultural and bureaucratic purification—firing, defunding, or dismantling agencies that resist ideological alignment.

Through OMB’s power of the purse, Vought wields quiet but devastating influence. By redirecting grants, freezing disfavored programs, and using impoundment tactics that test the boundaries of congressional authority, he can starve the government’s watchdogs while feeding politically compliant agencies. His budgetary maneuvers operate in the shadows, invisible to the public but transformative in effect. It is governance by attrition—a war on the bureaucracy fought with spreadsheets and rulebooks.

The danger in Vought’s project is not just its ideological bent but its structural audacity. If the executive branch can starve parts of itself without oversight, Congress becomes ornamental. The balance of powers begins to tip, not through coup or crisis, but through the slow erosion of institutional muscle.

Stephen Miller: The Ideologue as Architect

If Vought is the tactician, Stephen Miller is the ideologue. For nearly a decade, Miller has supplied the movement with its defining rhetoric—its story of siege, crisis, and moral war. His fingerprints are on nearly every hardline immigration and security policy of recent years, but his influence runs deeper than policy. He is the voice that tells a particular faction of America that they are losing their country, and that only strongmen and exceptional measures can save it.

Miller’s genius lies in framing every policy dispute as a battle for civilization itself. Court rulings, media criticism, or congressional oversight are not seen as democratic processes but as existential assaults. In this narrative, compromise becomes betrayal, and resistance is treason.

This rhetoric has policy consequences. When officials are described as “enemies within,” it justifies purges. When judicial constraints are recast as “insurrection,” it legitimizes executive defiance. Miller’s language—once dismissed as campaign bluster—now shapes the tone and tenor of actual governance. His worldview defines who belongs and who doesn’t, who deserves protection and who must be punished.

Even within Republican ranks, Miller’s absolutism has provoked anxiety. Some strategists warn that his style of politics—driven by confrontation rather than persuasion—risks alienating allies and moderates. Yet Miller’s influence persists because he has mastered the emotional grammar of populism. He gives moral urgency to the machinery Vought is re-engineering.

Pete Hegseth: The Soldier-Politician

Where Vought manipulates budgets and Miller molds narratives, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth embodies the movement’s muscle. A former Army officer and Fox News commentator, Hegseth has redefined the Pentagon’s mission to align with culture-war politics. His rhetoric is steeped in calls for a return to “warrior ethos” and a purge of what he derides as “woke” ideology.

Under Hegseth’s leadership, the military’s focus has shifted from global alliances toward internal purification. He has removed diversity, equity, and inclusion offices, disciplined officers deemed politically disloyal, and re-centered defense discourse around patriotism, masculinity, and obedience. In public speeches, Hegseth often warns that the “real threats” to America are not foreign adversaries but internal decay—an argument that edges dangerously close to politicizing the military itself.

Recent controversies surrounding leaked internal communications—revealing the sharing of sensitive operational details on private channels—highlight the erosion of professional norms within the defense establishment. The line between civilian control of the military and partisan mobilization is thinning. When the Pentagon becomes a stage for ideological cleansing, the apolitical character of the armed forces—the bedrock of American stability—comes under strain.

Hegseth’s impact is not only operational but symbolic. He represents the militarization of political identity—the idea that loyalty and strength outweigh process and pluralism. That ethos, once confined to cable talk shows, is now shaping command decisions and promotions.

The Triad of Power

Individually, Vought, Miller, and Hegseth wield immense influence within their domains. Collectively, they represent a coherent strategy: to consolidate executive authority, neutralize bureaucratic resistance, and reframe democracy as a struggle between patriots and traitors.

Their methods intersect. Miller provides the moral justification; Vought designs the bureaucratic architecture; Hegseth enforces the cultural and military discipline. The result is a kind of ideological fusion—one that sees government not as a pluralistic arena of negotiation, but as a unified instrument of will.

In this configuration, checks and balances are not safeguards but obstacles. Independent agencies, congressional oversight, and judicial review are recast as forms of sabotage. The traditional American notion of governance—built on deliberation and dispersed power—gives way to a more centralized, combative model: rule by command rather than consent.

The Risks Ahead

The genius of this insider movement lies in its subtlety. There is no overt coup, no tanks in the streets. Instead, there is administrative attrition, rhetorical escalation, and institutional corrosion. It is power exercised through procedures, not proclamations.

The immediate consequence is polarization, but the long-term danger is institutional fatigue. A government demoralized and distrusted cannot sustain itself indefinitely. Bureaucrats stripped of independence become servants of the moment. Generals politicized by ideology lose credibility with the public. And when every opponent is treated as an enemy, democracy becomes indistinguishable from permanent war.

There are, of course, countervailing forces—career officials who resist unlawful orders, courts that push back, and citizens who still believe in pluralism. But the burden of resistance has shifted from institutions to individuals. The system that once protected itself now depends on the courage of those within it.

Conclusion: The Architecture of Control

Russell Vought, Stephen Miller, and Pete Hegseth are not fringe figures; they are the governing class of a movement intent on remaking the American state in its own image. They wield ideology as strategy and bureaucracy as weapon. Their goal is not just to win elections but to rewire government itself—to replace institutional balance with ideological purity.

The story of these insiders is a reminder that democracies rarely fall in dramatic fashion. More often, they are remodeled from within—one regulation, one firing, one speech at a time. The question now is not whether their influence will endure, but how much of the old constitutional order will remain when they are done.

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.

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

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

AUTHORITARIAN

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

OLD and QUIRKY

IS AUTHORITARIAN RULE IN AMERICA’S FUTURE?

Authoritarian rule is marked by a concentration of power and a rejection of democratic norms. Here’s a structured breakdown of its core elements:

  • Centralized Power: Authority is held by a single leader or small elite, often without constitutional accountability.
  • Limited Political Pluralism: Opposition parties and dissenting voices are suppressed or tightly controlled.
  • Weak Rule of Law: Legal systems are manipulated to serve the regime’s interests, not justice.
  • Restricted Civil Liberties: Freedoms of speech, press, and assembly are curtailed.
  • Political Violence: Violence or threats are used to silence opposition and maintain control.

The Authoritarian Playbook often follows a recognizable pattern. Leaders foment mistrust and fear to fracture society, undermine truth through lies and conspiracy theories, and destroy checksandbalances by weakening institutions and declaring emergencies to seize power.  Leaders will attack independent media, political adversaries and target minorities, women, and protest movements. Loyalists will be favored, and dissenters will be punished. They will seek to justify harm against out-groups and will use fear to mobilize supporters against mythical adversaries. (Remember the national guard in LA). All of this is designed to convince people that change is impossible without the regime.

The legal system is reshaped to serve the regime: constitutions are amended to extend terms or expand executive power, the judiciary is packed with loyalists, and legal charges are used to neutralize rivals.

Leaders often build mythic personas: excessive praise or manufactured achievements dominate the discourse, national identity may be tied to loyalty to the leader, and public celebrations and media portrayals border on worship.

Freedoms shrink under the guise of “security” or “tradition”: restrictions emerge on protest, speech, and religious expression, surveillance becomes normalized, and minority groups often bear the brunt of repression.

Historical Authoritarian Regimes

Nazi Germany (1933–1945) – Led by Adolf Hitler, this fascist regime used propaganda, terror, and a cult of personality to control nearly every aspect of life.

Soviet Union under Stalin (1924–1953) – Characterized by totalitarian control, purges, and state-induced famine.

Cambodia under Pol Pot (1975–1979) – The Khmer Rouge regime killed nearly 2.8 million people in a brutal attempt to create an agrarian utopia.

Chile under Pinochet (1973–1990) – A military dictatorship marked by disappearances, torture, and suppression of dissent.

Modern Authoritarian Regimes

North Korea – A dynastic dictatorship under the Kim family, with extreme censorship and no political pluralism.

Russia under Vladimir Putin – Power is concentrated in the presidency, with limited opposition and media control.

China – The Communist Party maintains strict control over politics, media, and civil society.

Iran – A theocratic regime where ultimate authority lies with the Supreme Leader, and dissent is tightly controlled.

Saudi Arabia – An absolute monarchy with limited civil liberties and no elected legislature.

Belarus – President Alexander Lukashenko has ruled since 1994, suppressing opposition and protests.

Myanmar – The military has repeatedly seized power, most recently in a 2021 coup.

Eritrea – Often called “Africa’s North Korea,” it has no elections and mandatory indefinite military service.

We need more than nostalgia for what democracy once was. We need a bold, imaginative renewal that adapts to new threats while strengthening the basics.

No democracy survives without strong institutions. Independent judiciaries uphold the rule of law, while electoral commissions ensure voting integrity and legislatures serve as brakes on executive excess.

Democracy lives and dies by the legitimacy of its elections. That means modernizing voting infrastructure, safeguarding against disinformation, and ensuring peaceful transitions of power. Recent reforms like the Electoral Count Act illustrate how democracies can learn from crisis—and legislate against future breakdowns.

Authoritarianism thrives on public apathy and misinformation. A resilient democracy cultivates engaged, informed citizens. This includes teaching democratic principles in schools, supporting independent media, and fueling civic participation.

A few vital safeguards aren’t written in law—they’re customs, conventions, and shared expectations. To protect them, we must turn unwritten norms into enforceable rules. Codifying expectations around judicial independence, limits on emergency powers, and transparent governance which transforms fragile traditions into durable protections.

Democracy is at its strongest when diverse sectors unite in defense. Labor unions, universities, opposition parties, civil society groups, and international allies must coordinate resistance to authoritarian erosion. This whole-of-society approach helped South Africa and Bolivia rebuild democratic systems after periods of upheaval.

Accountability is democracy’s moral backbone. Investigating abuses of power, prosecuting corruption, and protecting whistleblowers must be non-negotiable. Following the January 6th insurrection, these mechanisms proved critical to restoring public trust and reaffirming the importance of democratic transparency.

This is democracy’s moment—not for retreat, but for reimagination. The threats we face are modern, so our defenses must be too. Strengthening institutions, defending elections, educating citizens, and building coalitions are not luxuries—they’re necessities. Renewal begins when we see democracy not as a relic, but as a work in progress.

Democracy is the architecture of freedom. Let civic engagement be its blueprint.

https://wwwtmichaelsmith.wordpress.com

DEMOCRACY

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

Is it on the way out in America?

I woke around 8, the glow of my phone lighting up warnings across every app: “Democracy in crisis,” “Elections under threat,” “Truth under siege.” Over orange juice and toast, I scrolled through clips of angry protests, viral conspiracy theories, and editorials predicting the end of free societies. It felt as if the very idea of self-rule had slipped through our fingers overnight, replaced by suspicion and outrage. Yet this panic masks deeper cracks that have been widening for years, waiting for the first sign of pressure to burst wide open. It made me feel uncertain about everything.

At its core, democracy leans on three intertwined pillars: free and fair elections that let every citizen cast a vote without fear; an independent judiciary that checks power; and a shared commitment to facts and open debate. The facts show that our government is trying to restrict voting, the Supreme Court seems to have forgotten the basic elements of the Constitution, and our President reinvents the news regularly. When our pillars stand firm, governments respond to public will, rights are protected, and policy debates unfold in good faith. But when one pillar shudders, the others strain, until the structures collapse into gridlock, fear, or outright authoritarianism. Is this what is happening to our democracy?

Political polarization is the slow poison inside many democracies today. Instead of swapping ideas, people bunker into online enclaves where algorithms reward outrage and vilify any dissenting view. Family group chats turn into battlegrounds, colleagues avoid talking politics, and the middle path—where compromise and pragmatic solutions live—erodes. As moderates vanish from public life, lawmakers cater to the loudest extremes, making collaboration nearly impossible.  Witness Lisa Murkowski, Senator from Alaska, who said she did not like the budget bill, but she protected Alaskans and voted for a “bad” bill.

Erosion of the rule of law follows a familiar script. In several countries, leaders stack courts with allies, rewriting judges’ job descriptions to fit political needs. What was once an independent bastion against abuse becomes a tool to silence critics, harass journalists, or fast-track controversial policies. When citizens lose faith that courts will apply rules evenly, they start to see the system as rigged—and many quietly disengage.

Outside actors seize on these weaknesses with surgical precision. In 2016, a wave of cyber-attacks and social-media bot campaigns targeted American voters, spreading false claims about candidates and voting procedures. These tactics weren’t limited to the U.S. In cyberspaces across Europe, Asia, and Latin America, the same digital Trojan horses stoked divisions—often riding atop existing resentments about immigration, inequality, or national identity.

Closer to home, gerrymandering and restrictive voter-ID laws quietly redraw the map of who actually gets to vote. Districts twist into bizarre shapes designed to dilute one group’s power and inflate another’s. (Witness the 6th District of Virginia). Long lines at urban polling stations and sudden ID requirements in rural counties mean that, in practice, not every vote carries equal weight. The result is a public that doubts its own voice, fueling cynicism and reducing turnout.

Technology amplifies every one of these threats. I recently watched a video of a well-known politician saying things he had never actually uttered—deepfake magic crafted to confirm viewers’ worst suspicions. Social-platform algorithms then prioritize that content, rewarding clicks more than truth. As real and fake blur, we lose the foundation of shared reality, the bedrock required for any collective decision-making.

I have a friend in Eastern Europe who witnessed this erosion firsthand. A decade ago, her country celebrated multi-party elections and a free press. Today, independent news outlets struggle under onerous regulations, civic NGOs face constant audits, and the executive branch issues emergency decrees with scant oversight. What began as whispered changes in the law spiraled into a system where public protest is met with police batons—and most citizens simply stop showing up.

WOW!!! Could this happen to American Democracy?

This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. It is an issue for every American Citizen!  Democracy isn’t doomed if we act. But when J.D. Vance advocates for ignoring court decisions that impact executive orders, we (American citizens) have a problem. It means reading beyond headlines, talking to neighbors with different viewpoints, and holding leaders—at every level—accountable to rules they can’t rewrite on a whim. Democracy lives or dies in our daily actions, in conversations over kitchen tables and clicks that amplify honest reporting over sensational lies. The choice is ours, every single day.

T. Michael Smith

tom0261888@gmil.com