donald-trump

Chief Justice John Roberts

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

OLD and QUIRKY

From Conservative Strategist to Chief Justice of a Court He Can No Longer Control

For years, Chief Justice John Roberts was hailed—mostly by Beltway moderates desperate to find a “reasonable” conservative—as the last adult in the room. The sober institutionalist. The guardian of the Court’s legitimacy. The conservative who understood that you don’t burn the house down just because you finally got the matches.

But the truth is far less flattering: John Roberts didn’t save the Court from extremism. He midwifed it. He curated it. And now, like Dr. Frankenstein watching his monster rampage through the village, he’s horrified that he’s no longer the one in charge.

Roberts’ evolution isn’t a story of a principled jurist tempering his ideology. It’s the story of a Republican operative who spent decades dismantling democratic safeguards—voting rights, campaign finance limits, corporate accountability—only to recoil when a more radical generation of conservatives used those very tools to push the country off a cliff.

The Strategist Who Mistook Himself for a Statesman

Roberts rose through the conservative legal movement carefully, methodically, strategically. He wasn’t the bomb-thrower; he was the man smoothing the shrapnel, packaging hard-right outcomes in pretty, technocratic prose. His entire judicial philosophy was camouflage: causing massive ideological shifts, but made them look modest.

His decision in Shelby County v. Holder—gutting the Voting Rights Act—was a masterpiece of this dreary craft. He pretended that racial discrimination in voting had magically evaporated, then acted shocked when states sprinted to reinstate voter suppression laws.

This was Roberts’ signature: deregulate the powerful, weaken protections for vulnerable communities, and then express mild surprise when the powerful seize even more power.

Then Came the Monster He Helped Build

For a decade, Roberts controlled the Court by managing Justice Kennedy’s ego and projecting a veneer of institutional neutrality. But once the far-right legal movement captured the Court outright—with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett—Roberts became irrelevant.

And nothing infuriates a man like Roberts more than being irrelevant.

Suddenly he was the “moderate,” not because he changed, but because the rest of the conservative bloc stopped pretending. They didn’t care about incrementalism. They didn’t care about public trust. They didn’t care about Roberts’ obsession with legitimacy. They wanted maximalist rulings, and they wanted them now.

Dobbs was the humiliation heard round the world. Roberts begged for a “compromise,” a middle-ground fantasy where abortion rights could be gutted but not eradicated. The new majority waved him off like an annoyed parent. They had the votes, and they were done with Roberts’ slow-drip revolution.

Roberts Wants to Save the Court From a Crisis He Caused

Roberts keeps warning that the Court risks losing the public’s trust—as if he had no role in setting the stage for its collapse. It was Roberts who weakened the Voting Rights Act. Roberts who empowered billionaire donors in Citizens United. Roberts who shielded corporate interests repeatedly. Roberts who insisted, with a straight face, that the Court is not political even as he stacked the deck for conservative victories.

And now he wants to play umpire while the game burns down.

Roberts didn’t lose control of the Court because he’s a moderate; he lost control because the right-wing legal movement he nurtured no longer needs his caution or his respectability. They have the majority. They have power. And the mask—his mask—is off.

Roberts’ Legacy Is the Court’s Crisis

History won’t remember Roberts as the savior of judicial legitimacy. It will remember him as the architect of the Court’s collapse into partisanship—a man who spent years quietly eroding the foundation of democracy only to be shocked when the roof finally caved in.

He wanted to steer a conservative revolution from the comfort of technocratic respectability. Instead, he built a machine that outran him. He fed the beast, and now it answers to someone else.

John Roberts evolved, all right—not into a moderate, but into a cautionary tale: a conservative who played with fire, insisted it was safe, and now stands in the ashes pretending not to smell the smoke.

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

How Citizens United Broke America’s Democracy

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

OLD and QUIRKY

Why the Billionaires Want You to Forget It

There are a lot of villains in the slow-motion sabotage of American democracy, but few have done more damage—with such smug self-righteousness—than the Supreme Court’s conservative majority in Citizens United v. FEC. With a single ruling, they didn’t just unleash corporate money into politics. They handed the keys of American democracy to the ultra-wealthy and told the rest of us to enjoy the ride.

The right loves to blame polarization, misinformation, even “wokeness” for the chaos in politics. But let’s be honest: the rot set in when the Court declared that corporations are political actors with constitutional rights and billionaires can drown the public square in money if they call it “independent spending.”

It was the judicial equivalent of opening all the vaults on Wall Street and telling the bankers, “Go wild.” And they did.

A Democracy of Donors, Not Voters

Since the ruling, politics has become a playground for the richest Americans—a system where a handful of billionaires can bankroll entire elections, sculpt policy, and effectively decide who even gets a shot at running for office. Working people donate in $20 increments: Sheldon Adelson and Michael Bloomberg toss in $100 million like they’re tipping a bartender.

This isn’t free speech. It’s financial dominance.

The conservative justices insisted that unlimited spending would not corrupt politics because it was technically “independent.” That’s like claiming a hurricane isn’t dangerous because the wind and water don’t officially coordinate. The reality is obvious: when politicians know a super PAC can vaporize their career with a tsunami of attack ads, they behave accordingly. It’s silent extortion, baked into the system.

Dark Money: The Shadow Government

Worse still, Citizens United opened the floodgates for dark money—funds from anonymous donors funneled through nonprofits that exist solely to hide who’s really pulling the levers.

These groups bankroll everything:

  • judicial confirmation blitzes
  • anti-union campaigns
  • disinformation networks
  • climate denial operations
  • statewide ballot fights
  • and candidate-centered propaganda masquerading as “issue ads”

It’s a shadow government with no accountability and no transparency, operating because five justices thought disclosure requirements might “chill speech.” What it chills is democracy.

Policy Written for the Few, Paid for by the Few

There’s a reason Congress can’t pass wildly popular policies like taxing billionaires, raising wages, strengthening unions, or protecting abortion rights. Donors don’t want them.

There’s a reason fossil fuel companies keep winning legislative battles even as the planet burns. Donors pay handsomely for political insulation.

There’s a reason health care remains a corporate profit engine instead of a public good. Dark money groups fueled by insurance executives spend tens of millions to ensure nothing changes.

This is not dysfunction. It’s design.

Public Trust Has Collapsed—and That Was the Point

Americans know the system is rigged. They feel it every time a policy with 70–80% support dies in committee while billionaires get another round of tax cuts. They see it when candidates who appeal to grassroots voters get buried under a flood of super PAC money.

The right often accuses the left of being cynical about institutions. But cynicism didn’t break our faith in democracy. Citizens United did.

The Billionaires Don’t Want Reform—They Want Silence

Every time someone proposes overturning Citizens United, strengthening disclosure laws, or implementing public financing, the same chorus emerges: “You’re trying to limit speech.”

No. We’re trying to resurrect democracy from the ruins your “speech” left behind.

The truth is simple: the only people who benefit from Citizens United are the people with enough money to buy political power. Everyone else pays the price—in weaker protections, broken institutions, and a political system that treats citizens like spectators instead of participants.

It Has to End

A democracy cannot survive when the wealthiest Americans have more political influence than millions of voters combined. The idea that corporations are people with constitutional rights is a lie. The idea that billionaires’ spending is harmless is a fantasy. And the idea that this system is sustainable is delusional.

Citizens United must be overturned—by constitutional amendment, by new disclosure laws, or by a Court that finally remembers democracy matters more than donor privileges.

Until then, the United States will remain a country where elections are technically free, but political power is anything but.

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

MAGA IS NOT A MOVEMENT

/ tom0261888 / 1 Comment

It’s a Warning Label for American Democracy

For years, pundits have treated “MAGA” like a marketing slogan with an attitude problem. But at this stage in American politics, it’s clear that MAGA isn’t just a hat or a rally chant. It has become a full-blown ideology built on resentment, mythmaking, and the insistence that democracy should bend to the will of one man. To pretend otherwise is to miss the central political story of our time—and the central threat facing the country.

MAGA presents itself as a grassroots uprising of “real Americans” against a corrupt elite. But scratch the surface and something very different appears: a movement convinced that the pluralistic, multiracial democracy we live in is inherently illegitimate. Its core message is unmistakable: the only valid votes are the ones cast for its own side; power lost is power stolen; institutions—from the courts to the press to elections themselves—are presumptively fraudulent unless they deliver the “correct” outcome.

This is not traditional conservatism. It is not small government or fiscal restraint. MAGA’s ideology begins and ends with a single premise: Trump is the state, and the state must serve Trump. Everything else—immigration panic, culture-war theatrics, attacks on public servants, threats of retribution—flows from that central impulse.

The cruelty isn’t incidental. It’s the brand. MAGA needs enemies because fear is the fuel that keeps the machine running. Immigrants, LGBTQ Americans, civil servants, teachers, journalists—anyone who refuses to conform to the MAGA myth of a homogenous, obedient America becomes a target. When you hear the chants about “taking our country back,” it’s worth asking from whom? The answer, often, is from fellow Americans who simply don’t look, vote, pray, or think like them.

Where Christian Nationalism Supercharges the Project

If MAGA were merely a political movement, it would be dangerous enough. But its power is magnified by the rise of Christian nationalism, which wraps authoritarian politics in religious language and moral entitlement. Christian nationalism insists that America was founded for Christians, by Christians, and must be governed through their preferred hierarchy of values. It casts secular government, pluralistic democracy, and church–state separation as threats rather than founding principles.

By fusing MAGA identity with religious destiny, the movement transforms political loyalty into a form of theological certainty. Opponents are not just wrong; they are ungodly. Democratic limits are not just inconvenient; they are immoral. This is why MAGA rhetoric so often veers into apocalyptic storytelling—claims that America faces spiritual warfare, that Trump is a chosen vessel, that compromise is betrayal of a divine plan.

When politics is reframed as holy conflict, the possibility of democratic coexistence collapses. Compromise becomes heresy; pluralism becomes an existential threat. Christian nationalism gives MAGA something every authoritarian movement seeks: a sacred justification for minority rule.

The Appeal—and the Manipulation

The tragedy is that MAGA harnesses real grievances. Millions of Americans do feel abandoned—by globalization, automation, stagnant wages, and political leaders more attuned to donors than to working families. Institutional failures are real. Economic inequality is real. Public distrust is real.

But instead of offering solutions, MAGA offers scapegoats. Instead of solidarity, it builds walls—literal and metaphorical. Instead of expanding opportunity, it narrows the definition of who belongs. It exploits pain without alleviating it, turning legitimate frustrations into fuel for a political project that leaves everyday people even more vulnerable.

For a movement that claims to fight elite power, MAGA has delivered almost nothing that helps ordinary Americans: tax cuts skewed to the wealthy, deregulation that favors corporations, culture-war diversions that do nothing to improve wages, safety, health care, or education. What it reliably delivers is spectacle—outrage cycles that keep supporters angry and the rest of the country exhausted.

Democracy as an Obstacle, Not a Value

The deeper danger is that MAGA has normalized the idea that democracy itself is optional. A functioning democracy requires more than elections; it requires shared rules of the game and a shared commitment to honoring them. MAGA rejects both. It demands loyalty not to the Constitution, but to personality. It treats the peaceful transfer of power as negotiable. It elevates conspiracy theories to the level of civic doctrine. And it conditions millions of Americans to see defeat as proof of fraud rather than a routine feature of democratic life.

The movement’s enthusiasm for purges, show trials, and loyalty tests is no accident. It is the natural outcome of a worldview that sees pluralism as weakness and dissent as treason. MAGA is trying to make authoritarianism feel familiar—almost patriotic.

A Radical Minority Movement, Not an Unstoppable Majority

One of the greatest myths surrounding MAGA is its supposed inevitability. In reality, it represents a radical minority with outsized influence because the majority often remains silent, fatigued, or intimidated. MAGA’s power grows not from broad public support but from intensity—the willingness of its followers to treat politics as a battlefield while everyone else tries to get on with their lives.

But democracies don’t survive on autopilot. They survive because enough people decide they’re worth defending.

The Choice Ahead

America has many political traditions worth celebrating. MAGA is not one of them. It is a warning label: a reminder that democracies don’t collapse only in distant countries or dusty history books. They can be hollowed out from within, one purge list at a time, one conspiracy theory at a time, one “stop the steal” at a time.

The real question now is whether the rest of us treat MAGA as an unstoppable force or what it truly is—a dangerous but minority movement that only thrives when the majority refuses to confront it.

Silence is how democracies unravel. A clear-eyed refusal to bow to fear is how they endure.

T. Michael Smith

wwwtmichaelsmith.com

Who Won the Shutdown?

/ tom0261888 / Leave a comment

OLD and Quirky                                 

Republicans claimed victory. Democrats claimed pragmatism. But the real loser is democracy itself.

After 41 days of paralysis, furloughs, and fury, the federal government is finally lurching back to life. But while Washington congratulates itself for reopening the doors, Americans deserve to ask the real question: Who actually won the shutdown? The short answer is the same as it’s been for years—Republicans played hardball and Democrats blinked. The longer answer is more troubling: democracy itself lost ground.

The shutdown began as a standoff over something as basic as keeping the government funded and health care affordable. Republicans, emboldened by Trump’s renewed grip on Congress, refused to pass a budget that continued the Affordable Care Act subsidies millions rely on. Democrats, for once, stood their ground—at least at first—insisting that health care wasn’t a bargaining chip. For a moment, it seemed like they might hold together. But that moment passed.

As the weeks dragged on, pressure mounted: federal workers without paychecks, veterans missing benefits, food aid paused, airports in disarray. The human cost became unbearable. And when the breaking point came, it wasn’t the Republican leadership that cracked—it was the Democrats. Seven of them, along with an Independent, crossed the aisle to vote for a temporary deal that funded most agencies but postponed the health-care fight until December. The right called it pragmatism. The left called it surrender. Both were right.

Republicans walked away with the win they wanted. They reopened the government on their terms, without restoring the ACA subsidies that had triggered the crisis in the first place. They also sent a message: when Democrats talk about “no negotiation with hostage-takers,” they don’t really mean it. The GOP knows this game, and they play it well, manufacture a crisis, hold the economy hostage, and wait until moderates fold. It’s governing by brinkmanship, and it works because Democrats keep rewarding it.

But the political scoreboard isn’t the only thing that matters here. This shutdown exposed something deeper about the state of our democracy: we’ve normalized dysfunction. Americans barely flinched as the government shut its doors for over a month—the longest in U.S. history. The headlines were predictable, the outrage short-lived. Shutdowns are supposed to be unthinkable; now they’re routine. That’s not just bad politics; it’s a failure of civic imagination. We’ve come to expect chaos, and in that expectation, we’re losing the will to demand better.

Democrats will say they ended the shutdown to protect working families—and to a degree, that’s true. The public needed relief. But a deal that buys peace at the price of principle isn’t a victory; it’s a truce before the next defeat. By agreeing to revisit the ACA subsidies in December, they’ve simply postponed another crisis. Republicans, meanwhile, have every incentive to repeat the tactic. Why negotiate in good faith when obstruction pays dividends?

Still, this isn’t a story without hope. The divide within the Democratic Party—the progressives furious about capitulation and the moderates who claim to be realists—may yet lead to a reckoning. If Democrats want to stop losing these hostage situations, they need to stop accepting the terms. That means learning how to frame these fights not as “Washington dysfunction,” but as deliberate Republican sabotage of government itself. It means talking less about bipartisanship and more about accountability. The party that believes in government must finally learn to defend it with the same zeal that the other side shows in tearing it down.

Who won the shutdown? In the short term, Republicans. In the long term, no one—unless Democrats start treating governance not as a concession, but as a cause worth fighting for. The shutdown wasn’t just a budget dispute; it was a test of conviction. And once again, Democrats settled for survival instead of victory.

If there’s any lesson to draw, it’s this: the GOP is united by grievance, but Democrats can still be united by purpose. Ending this cycle requires courage—not just to reopen the government, but to rebuild faith that government matters. Until then, every shutdown will end the same way: with Republicans celebrating, Democrats rationalizing, and Americans paying the price.

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.

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