Trump's Second 100 Days

President Donald Trump's first 100 days of his second term have been marked by aggressive policy shifts, institutional upheaval, and growing domestic and international unease. The first 100 days of a presidential administration are often seen as a critical benchmark for assessing leadership style, priorities, and political momentum. This period is significant because it typically offers a president their greatest opportunity to shape the national agenda, rally political support, and deliver on campaign promises before midterm pressures and opposition solidify. Originating with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s aggressive early response to the Great Depression, the "100 days" standard has become a symbolic yardstick by which presidents are judged for their ability to convert vision into action. Early successes, or failures, can define public perception, influence legislative relationships, and set the tone for the administration’s overall effectiveness. In this way, the first 100 days function not only as a time of action but as a critical window for establishing legitimacy and authority. Executive Power and Domestic Governance Trump's administration has employed a flurry of executive orders (nearly 140) to bypass congressional processes, targeting areas such as immigration, education, and civil service reforms. Notably, mass deportations have been executed under the Alien Enemies Act, and proposals to end birthright citizenship have surfaced. These actions have raised constitutional concerns, with over 150 lawsuits filed against the administration and several executive orders blocked by federal courts. The establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, has resulted in significant cuts to federal programs and staff, aiming to streamline government operations. However, critics argue that these measures have led to the erosion of essential public services and oversight. Foreign Policy and International Relations Adhering to an "America First" doctrine, Trump's foreign policy has disrupted traditional alliances and trade relationships. The administration has imposed sweeping tariffs, reduced foreign aid, and questioned the value of NATO. Controversial proposals, such as the annexation of Greenland and the reclamation of the Panama Canal, have further strained diplomatic ties. These actions have prompted defensive responses from allies, including Europe, Canada, South Korea, and Japan, who are reassessing their diplomatic and military strategies. Simultaneously, adversaries like China have been emboldened, with some nations strengthening economic and security ties with Beijing in response to U.S. unpredictability. Public Opinion and Political Climate Public approval of Trump's performance has declined sharply, with a Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll indicating only 39% approval and 55% disapproval. A significant majority of Americans express concerns over his handling of the economy, immigration, and foreign relations, with many believing he has overstepped presidential authority. Despite these challenges, Trump maintains strong support among his Republican base. However, his approval among independents and younger demographics has eroded, reflecting broader dissatisfaction with his administration's direction. Institutional Integrity and Democratic Norms Analysts have raised alarms over what they perceive as an erosion of democratic norms under Trump's leadership. The administration's attacks on judicial institutions, universities, and the media are seen as efforts to suppress dissent and consolidate power. The issuance of a Trump-branded cryptocurrency, $TRUMP, has been criticized as a symbol of the blurring lines between personal gain and public office. Historians and political commentators warn that these developments represent a significant departure from established democratic practices, with some likening the current trajectory to authoritarian regimes. The lack of substantial legislative achievements and the reliance on executive actions have further fueled concerns about the health of American democracy. In summary, the first 100 days of President Trump's second term have been characterized by assertive policymaking, institutional disruption, and increasing polarization. While supporters view these actions as necessary corrections to previous administrations' failures, critics argue they undermine democratic principles and international stability. The long-term implications of these policies remain uncertain, but the current trajectory suggests a period of significant transformation and contention in American governance.

We're Back: The Return of the Social Policy Center

It’s been seven years since the Social Policy Center last shared ideas, research, and conversations about the future of our society. Today, we are excited to announce that we’re back, and more committed than ever to thoughtful, forward-thinking dialogue. Much has changed in the world since we last published. New challenges have emerged, old problems have evolved, and opportunities for real progress are greater than ever. We believe this is the perfect time to return, bringing fresh energy, clear purpose, and a renewed focus on the issues that matter most. At the Social Policy Center, we remain dedicated to examining the policies that shape our communities, protect our freedoms, and determine our collective future. Our mission is to foster smart discussions, grounded in research and real-world experiences, that can help guide positive change for everyone. In the coming weeks, you can expect: New articles on economic fairness, education, health, and civic innovation Interviews and guest posts from policy experts, community leaders, and rising voices Special series exploring how technology, demographics, and global trends are reshaping society Fresh research briefs designed to spark action and understanding We know that trust is earned, not given. Our goal is not just to comment on the news, but to offer context, insight, and solutions, always striving to be respectful, thoughtful, and honest. Thank you for your patience, your curiosity, and your belief in the power of good ideas to make a difference. We invite you to join us once again as we explore how strong, fair, and forward-looking policies can help build a better future for all. Welcome back to the conversation. The Social Policy Center Team

When men dare to question ...

Interesting.

Someone posted the question today on Facebook asking why we do not have an International Men's Day. The response from one woman is that men are not disenfranchised. I disagree with this assertion, men are disenfranchised.

Men are denied the fulfillment of basic physiological needs when they are told they have no right to sexual fulfillment (numerous social policy considerations on that point, alone). They are denied the right of fatherhood when women abort a child to get revenge for some perceived wrong by the man. They are denied the right of fatherhood when a woman demands full custody of their children, then denies his right of visitation, even when the court orders it. The worst cases are when she moves out of state, not even letting the man know where they are.

The financial rights of men are denied when women insist on "renegotiating" child support or alimony payments after the man gets a better job or otherwise becomes successful in life. Men are denied their right to live freely when a woman falsely accuses him of rape or child molestation, ending with him, at very least, spending time in jail trying to prove his innocence. Men are denied their right of free association when women insist on having access to private clubs for men, even though they militarily defend their right to women-only facilities and events. Men are denied the right to free speech and freedom of the press when feminists attack them for even asking questions like the above or gather together to hold meetings to consider such questions.

While some may think men are not disenfranchised, the evidence says otherwise.

Are women oppressed and disenfranchised? In all too many ways, they are. They are underpaid, under-served by the healthcare industry, harassed by even the simplest of bodily functions, particularly if they are breastfeeding a child, and are too frequently discouraged from "men's" work occupations that there is no reason but tradition behind.

The problem as I see it is neither side has ever actually sat down with the other to hammer out an understanding of the issues. Each has always expected the other to bend to their will and needs without question or discussion and this is where our problem is.

Everyone needs to accept that the concept of rights and privileges is a two-way street. Room needs to be made and left for the others of society to have a say and to have their needs met. Just as women need their rights and needs respected and met, men need their rights and needs equally respected and met. Men and women both need to remember that we cannot have children, for example, without each other and that this is a fundamental part of our gender identity.

We need to return to the concepts of ''communal manhood'' and ''communal womanhood'' where our identity was not tied to the size of our bank accounts, how many ''baby mamas'' we got pregnant, or how many people we have beaten up or crushed under our occupational heels. Under communal identity, we should be measuring our maturity by our contribution to society and by the level of personal development we have achieved. Equally, we need to accept and respect the fact that our definitions of ''manhood'' and ''womanhood'' need to be revisited and revised.

Maybe its time we actually started a mature conversation instead of dismissing each other so casually.

Racist Racists Committing Racism ... Really?

Greetings and salutations, my friends. Yes, I know it has been a while since I posted, and for that I apologize. Life has taken some distracting turns for me, including, happily, my work in getting my Master’s degree (finally!!!) and finding myself becoming more of an activist in social justice issues, which is in part the topic of today’s posting.

Earlier this week, Tim Wise (www.timwise.org) posted an article on his website entitled “The Crime of Innocence: White Denial, Black Rebellion and the Cost of American Obliviousness” (May 5th, 2015), subsequently posting the same article to AlterNet re-titled “White America’s Greatest Delusion: ‘They Do Not Know It and They Do Not Want to Know It’”. The article was the equivalent of a 10-page thesis on the topic of why even those who do not believe they are racist (or who actually fight against racism) are still racist and that there is apparently nothing they can do to change that fact.

Really? If there is nothing we can do to change that fact, why do we bother working so hard on the issue or continue to discuss the problem? The answer is simple … we continue to work on it and discuss it because we as a society can change, despite the claims to the contrary, and it has nothing to do with mythical “white privilege”. The claim of white privilege is itself a racist stereotype that implies everyone who is born with white skin is automatically responsible for the sins of their fathers racist mistreatment of minorities, creating a state of collective guilt that can, in Wise’ opinion, never be forgotten.

Perhaps that is part of the problem. It is neither forgotten nor forgiven, perpetually driving a wedge of hatred between the communities and fueling the very racism you are claiming to be against. The black community and apparently self-hating white men like Mr. Wise don’t think it’s enough that we have thrown down the slave whips of the past. Their attitude seems to be that we should pick it up and us it against each other in the white community in a perpetual act of self-chastisement for crimes that we, ourselves, may never have been a part. In rebuttal to the article, I shall confront its points one at a time and explain my perspectives on each.

Wise pointed out that, factually, whites also riot. This is admittedly true. However, the examples he gave pale in comparison to what we have seen in Los Angeles, Ferguson and Baltimore. How does one compare impromptu bonfires of trash, construction debris and portable bathrooms to the burning of gas stations, store fronts and office buildings? How does the throwing of rocks, beer bottles and concrete chunks on a college campus or after a sporting event compare to the throwing of Molotov cocktails and a barrage of bullets in Ferguson or Baltimore?

It is not the act of rioting at issue; it is the level to which protesters took the event that is at issue. And, with all due respect, there is a very large difference between the damage or destruction of a community during a time of war and one committed against your own community during a riot. Moreover, you compare black communities to concentration camps and then accuse white people of rioting when a black man moves into their neighborhood? Really? Let’s see … when WAS the last time that happened? Hell, I was attacked once for daring to move into a BLACK neighborhood in Denver’s “Five Points” neighborhood and a couple years before that in north Aurora for the same reason. How about when I was ganged up on by two black teenagers on my way home eight years before that in Denver’s “Valley Park” neighborhood where I had lived for almost five years and told to “go back to your own neighborhood” after they had assaulted me and stomped on my glasses before walking away?

Claiming that blacks are justified in such behavior is beyond laughable. Claiming foul over jobs moving overseas is equally laughable. How many white people have also lost their jobs over such corporate moves? I lost a call center job because the company “offshored” their call center to somewhere in India twenty years ago. Furthermore, I have been passed over numerous times for jobs because the staff at a given restaurant or business was primarily or even exclusively black or Hispanic and “wouldn’t fit in” with the rest of the crew.

To accuse all white people of being oblivious to the problems of racism ignores contributions by people such as Abraham Lincoln, who believed in more than just the abolition of slavery. If all people are oblivious, how do you account for the contributions of Juliette Hampton Morgan, Reverend James Reeb, Jonathan Myrick Daniels and Viola Gregg Liuzzo during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s? How do you account for your own contributions, Mr. Wise? As misguided as I believe you to be, I recognize you, as a human being, for your efforts in combating racism; I just don’t agree with your blanket claim and attitude on your claim.

Should I bemoan “women’s privilege” over the fact that women get hired more for secretarial positions or as restaurant servers than men like me do or “black privilege” because black people have nightclubs that only they are welcome in or scholarship programs that only they qualify for? Should I tolerate accusations of having “chocolate fantasies” should I have a black woman as my girlfriend, lover or wife while a black man with a white woman screams racism if he is accused of “mixing crème” or having “Oreo” babies?

All of this is offensive, I admit… just as your accusations are offensive to those of us to whom they ill fit. The truth is most of your accusations become self-fulfilling prophecies because minorities tend to believe them to be inevitable and act as if they are true, even when “white” America is standing beside them, trying desperately to help change things. Instead of pointing fingers, Sir … try actually working with people to change the world. As Morgan Freeman said, “How are we going to get rid of racism? Stop talking about it!”

Instead, Sir, do as I do … try treating people as human beings, regardless of their skin color, gender or sexual orientation. This includes NOT accusing all white people of being ignorant of racism.  And by the way, I do condemn anyone who destroys the property of others, even if the Rockies were to win the World Series this year.

The Orwellian World is Upon Us!

I am beginning to think George Orwell was closer to being right than anyone wants to acknowledge, even those trying to wake us up to the development of "Big Brother" government. George Orwell predicted three critical areas of development that, out of context, might seem like good ideas.

The first was digital media. Digital media has opened up a tremendous potential for sharing information rapidly and broadly in our society. It also allows the quick, responsive editing of content, permitting us to alter the information as new information and knowledge is obtained. This is also a major drawback. The digital media can be altered in response not to changing knowledge, but changing politics. Entire documents can vanish from the Internet over night, simply at the say of some political boss or corporate executive. With the changes, our viewpoint on various issues is altered, even if the changes make no sense what so ever.

The second was increasing polarization of our society. This was presented in the real-time changes of who the "enemy" of the society was, even to the point of changing in the middle of a political rally with people altering their signs and chants without missing a beat. Today, we see this in the form of our political party shifts. We see the Republicans in charge, advocating deregulation of big business and creating a single-payer health care program. Democrats scream about the economy crashing and socialist government developing from the nationalization of the health care system. Leadership changes, with Democrats taking the reigns, and we see advocacy of deregulating big business and creating a single-payer health care program. Now it is the Republicans screaming about the economy crashing and our society becoming socialist with the nationalization of the health care system. This keeps us off balance, not really knowing who to trust.

The third was increasing surveillance technology and its misuse. We have gone from a society where wiretapping and spying on citizens was considered Constitutional violations to a state where having cameras on every street corner, surveillance of our telephone and Internet usage, and even the monitoring of what books we buy or borrow from the public library are seen (at least by our leaders) to be fair game. This has put us in a state of mind where we are reluctant (if not fearful) of exercising our Constitutional rights.

Orwell predicted this state many decades ago, he just didn't get the date right.

Enemy Combatants?

I see a fundamental issue with labeling people "enemy combatants". The phrase implies a state of declared, definable war where we know who is or is not our enemy. The problem with our current situation is our "enemies" have only one thing in common ... they are Muslim. Islam is a religion, not a country. There is no definitive territory from which Muslim's come, no military bases flying a recognized Muslim flag, nothing upon which to declare an absolute target of action.

Labeling those who commit crimes like the attacks on New York and Boston as "enemy combatants" clouds the issue, leading us to argue over how they should be handled. Do we treat them as common criminals, in which case they have rights under our civilian legal system, or do we treat them as prisoners of war, in which case they have rights under the Geneva Convention?

A third possibility does exist: accept them as prisoners of war who, due to their deliberate targeting of non-combatant, civilian populations and targets, are war criminals, subject to military tribunal and trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity. This does, of course, require us to hold our soldiers and leadership to the same standard, hence my opposition to the continued use of "drone strikes" in countries against whom we have no declaration of war, yet continually commit military strikes within their territories, often killing nothing but non-combatant, civilian "targets".

Start thinking people, we already have established rules of law to handle people like this. Let's start using them the way they were designed and honoring them ourselves, otherwise we have no right to call ourselves a "civilized" nation.

The Threat of Government Backdoor Access

Someone yesterday asked me what is so wrong about the government having backdoor access to our computers. As I see it, such unfettered access actually has several dangers that we should bare in mind as citizens.

First, backdoor access into our computers circumvent any firewall or antivirus protections. If a hacker learns how to access via the government's backdoor access (and you can be assured they will sooner or later), every computer so equipped will be unsecured. Your personal information on your computer would be an open book to the world, as would your bank accounts, the controls over our power grid and potentially every computerized military system.

Second, such access wouldn't allow them to just view your files, they could manipulate them as well. Why should the government wait for you to commit a crime if they want you in prison? With such access, they could load your computer with whatever materials they want, from child porn to "The Anarchist Cookbook", complete with "emails" sent by you to the heads of terrorist organizations around the world. Don't believe that? Try looking at the arrest warrant they used against the "terrorists" that were arrested in Aurora, Colorado a couple years ago. All the evidence was digital (computerized) records.

Third, the backdoor access could be used to install software that would render your computer useless, permanently or temporarily. A particularly interesting ability if they wanted to destroy the computers of anyone who criticizes the government. They could also do the same to computers controlling power grid infrastructure components without actually destroying the infrastructure, the perfect weapon for false flag operations. The gem of it is, they could then claim that terrorists, foreign agents or even "anonymous" hackers were responsible for destroying vital computer systems.

As a well-known computer security expert said a few years ago, it is poor civic hygiene to allow the installation of technologies that may one day be used by a police state against us. Allowing a government whose trustworthiness and credibility is decaying rapidly to have what seems like a minor ability could end up being the ultimate Achilles Heel that ends the last vestiges of Constitutional America.

Think about it, my friends.

Who are we? (an open letter to my cousins and critics)

I woke up this morning thinking about who we are as a nation and as a species. Speaking as a citizen of the United States, I have come to realize that who we are as a nation and as a species has fundamentally changed.

Historically, we have been warriors, explorers and innovators. Today, we are cowards and leaches. Mind you, I am not condemning humanity, but trying to get everyone to think about what is happening to us.

Take my cousins for example. They condemn me because I am an SSI recipient. I have worked for many years with a bad back and other health issues, but I worked none-the-less. For the past ten years, I have not been able to. My health issues overcame me, but I am in the process of retooling, preparing once again to enter the workforce, albeit in a radically different occupation than I have performed in the past. What they condemn me for is the fact that, as I have been undergoing this process of retooling, I have received poverty-level assistance from the U.S. government.

My cousins, on the other hand, work in the agricultural industry for companies that report high profits almost every year and who, should those profits fall below a certain point, file for bankruptcy protections while they accept government subsidies to retool their corporations (money that more often than not ends up in the pockets of the top ten company executives instead). These companies receive tax incentives from the local communities for locating their operating facilities in those communities, preferential tax treatment from the states for maintaining their in-state operations, and even more money from the federal government on the basis that we "have" to support critical infrastructure such as food production.

I, by the way, have never filed bankruptcy nor have I taken more money from the government than I absolutely need for basic necessities. At the moment, I am technically "without fixed address", using the community recreation centers for showering, living off of the cheapest (and generally least healthy) foods, and riding the public buses to get anywhere I need to go. Unlike the accusations from my cousins, I am not sitting on my "fat a**" watching porn videos to pass my days.

What I am is a man. A man who six months ago completed his Bachelor's degree (finally) with a 3.96 GPA and started his Master's degree course work four months ago (currently with a 4.0 GPA). I am working on numerous manuscripts on topics ranging from experimental mythology to space advocacy that I hope to have ready for market soon. I am also a graphic artist, website administrator and political activist seeking to use my skills to create a new source of self-sufficiency. I am not a sponge on society, but doing what I can to improve both society and myself.

While having lunch with my mother yesterday, I came to learn that I will be the first in my family (on either side) to hold a Master's degree. I am also a man who no longer cares what my cousins think. While I am comfortable with who I am and who I am becoming, I am not so comfortable about who we are as a nation and as a species.

We are a species that considers itself enlightened, but we are also a species of paradox. We put a man on the moon (several of them, actually) and sent robotic explorers out into the cosmos. But we are also a species who batters and abuses our fellow human beings. We are a species who has overcome numerous diseases, but cannot overcome our propensity towards hating those who are different. We are a species who idolizes our athletes and celebrities who entertain us, but demonizes our scientists and intellectuals who try to protect us from developing threats to our survival. We are the creators of divine, inspiring art, but also of the atom bomb and toxic chemicals.

We have great hope as a species, but also live under self-imposed dangers. While human civilization is at a perceived all-time high, there is still much work to be done to ensure our survival. I am retooling myself to be a part of that struggle, cousins. What are you doing?

An Open Statement to Critics

To whom it may concern (and I am sure you know who you are):

1) My voicing of a political or intellectual opinion that does not agree with yours does not make me dumb nor am I calling you a liar, only stating that my opinion does not agree with yours.

2) I am a professional writer and have been working as a ghostwriter for over a decade. This means I am exactly what I claim to be ... a writer.

3) You do not know the topics or extent of my research on the books I am preparing for publication, therefore you have no idea what knowledge I do or do not possess. As such, you have no grounds for calling me ignorant.

4) False accusations I faced in the past are just that, false as in untrue. Any misconduct in my past was over 25 years ago and has no reflection upon who I am today, other than as lessons I learned long ago.

5) Family or not, if you continue to bad mouth me in public by voice or by written word (including in Facebook posts), you will find yourself at the business end of a lawsuit. I am sick of your crap.

6) One need not march in a protest or get their head caved in by some thug in blue to be a part of the global resistance to corporate and governmental corruption. Each helps with the fight in their own way.

7) As you, with rare exceptions, haven't seen me in 10 years or more, you honestly do not know who I am today, you do not know my beliefs, and you do not know what I deal with on a daily basis, so your judgement means nothing to me.

and 8) For the one who threatened me with assassination, just keep one thing in mind. If you fail to kill me with the first shot, your life will be forfeit. I will give no additional warning.

You do not have say in my life. Where I am going is not your concern. Continue with your attempts to interfere with my life and you will sorely regret it.

A Murdering Stalker's Continuing Revenge

I learned about what I am posting roughly one hour ago, so its going to be a bit sketchy as a lot of the details are still pending. It seems that my eldest nephew's wife was arrested this morning on murder charges relating to the death of her mother in 2008. I'm going to post what details of the event I currently have and will add any corrections as they come to my knowledge.

Before the death of her mother, my niece-in-law had been dating another man. The man exhibited extreme possessiveness that eventually led her to break the relationship off, fearing for her own safety. Three days after she broke off the relationship she awoke in the middle of the night with him standing over her. She screamed, which brought her mother and father running into the room. The man stabbed both of them, killing her mother and seriously wounding her father. She called the police and the manhunt for the killer was on. He was arrested and has spent about three years playing the system with delays and postponements. He recently changed his mind and plead guilty.

Doesn't sound like too bad an ending, until this morning's events. Apparently during his debriefing, her ex-boyfriend suddenly implicated her as having been a part of the murder. Texas Rangers showed up at her work this morning and arrested her in front of her co-workers on charges of capital murder.

My question is, why? All evidence from the original case shows this man is a liar who was stalking an innocent girl and, when jilted by her dumping him, murdered her mother and attempted to murder her father in retaliation. As often as we have seen this scenario in our society, is the prosecutor's office totally incompetent that they can't see through this man's continuing lies? Seems to me he is making a last ditch effort to destroy her life for rejecting him.

Our prayers and support are with her today. We see the truth. I only home the prosecutors office in Texas and any jury she ends up in front of (if it even comes to that) will also see the truth. This girl has already been traumatized with feelings of guilt over her ex-boyfriend murdering her mother. As for her ex-boyfriend, I hope you enjoy general population in prison. They have their own punishment for punk cowards like you.

The one problem in all this is the disappearance of my niece-in-law's father. Sir, if you are reading this (and from this description you probably know I am talking about you), please contact the prosecutor's office as soon as possible. Your daughter needs you now more than ever.

UPDATE 7/5/2012 I've been corrected on one point so far, the second victim in the attack was not her father, but her mother's boyfriend. No one has heard from him apparently in over a year. If you're out there, Sir, please contact the prosecutor's office as soon as possible. Your attacker has again turned his attention on her, accusing her of having been an active participant in her own mother's murder.

Let the (False) Flag Wave!

This is an expansion and explanation of my open statement last week. I know many of my readers may have been confused by it.

Concerned military personnel gave anonymous voice to concerns that rogue operations within the United States Federal government may be planning something big for late this summer.

Late last week, a concerned active-duty Marine discussed with me his concerns that rogue elements within the U.S. Government are planning a ''false flag'' operation for late this summer. The operation consists of detonating either atomic devices or ''dirty'' bombs in several major U.S. cities to trigger a state of emergency and plunge the United States into martial law. The source was corroborated through secondary sources linked to Naval intelligence.

The scenario described is as follows:

• Detonation of first device in East coast city such as Washington during or shortly after rush-hour traffic. This will maximize immediate kill numbers as larger percentage of population will be in urban core regions. Further chaos expected due to youths being back in school, separated from parents.
• Emergency disaster protocols will be invoked, directing residents in areas already ''attacked'' to remain indoors and await evacuation orders and assistance. Major cities west will be given evacuation orders in ''anticipation'' of further ''attacks'' by forces unknown (presumably the 'attacks'' will be blamed on Islamic Jihadists or ''domestic'' terrorist organizations). Evacuation will be to FEMA-controlled camps built in the last decade by Halliburton (yes, they do exist). Children in schools will be bused directly from school to the camps, most likely without concern for reuniting them with loved ones (no doubt traumatizing them in the process).
• During the evacuations, suspected dissidents and individuals considered political liabilities will be separated for ''special processing''. Odds are this will include anyone involved with social and political movements the administration feels ''embarrassed'' by, up to and including sexual rights advocates and anyone who has ever been critical of the U.S. government or any political official.
• Release of unknown pathogens (diseases) amongst evacuation camps. This is to be blamed on secondary biological attacks by unknown forces and will spread rapidly due to the crowded conditions in the evacuation camps.

This false flag operation, again noted as being executed by rogue elements within the United States Government, will be the biggest crime against humanity since Hitler's campaign against the Jewish state. In honesty, however, even my act of making this information public may (hopefully) cause these elements to abandon this plan. It would, indeed, be pretty stupid to continue with such an operation after the world has been made aware of the plans. Once the details are public knowledge, everyone will know who is to blame, should they proceed. It is unknown whether the President is aware of this plan or if it is being executed without his knowledge.

To those behind this vile plot, I have this to say. Do this and we will know who is to blame. The American people will not forget and we will never forgive. You will have no where to hide from us. You have been warned.

AN OPEN STATEMENT

Those to whom this statement is made will already understand its context. To those who do not, pray that you never do.

We know who you are and what you are doing. We know about your plans for this year. Be warned; those of us who survive your plot will never forget or forgive. We will never rest until you are brought to justice. You do not know who all of us are and by the time you find out who we are, it will be too late. The world will know about your guilt. You will be held accountable for your crimes. This we swear.

A Simple Indictment Against the City and County of Denver, Colorado.

Hmmmm ... Okay, soldiers, judges, police and government leaders all take an oath of office when they become a soldier, judge, etc. Those oaths include a statement that they will uphold the Constitution of the United States (even those that don't say they will uphold the laws of the United States or the State in which they serve and since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land [U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2], it is included by indirect reference). Any government official who violates the Constitutional Rights of a citizen are therefore not only violating the law (since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land), they are in violation of their oath of office.

Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the '' Supremacy Clause'' and has been recognized as the authority under which State and local laws must comply with the U.S. Constitution and Federal law (as well as any international treaties to which the U.S. is party). So, here is my indictment of the City and County of Denver, Colorado.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, it is stated that ...

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

Yet the City and County of Denver has 1) repeatedly and violently interfered with otherwise peaceful protests against government policies and the corruption of our political system by acts of corporate bribery (in the form of ''political'' contributions), along with the devastation of corrupt economic practices by those same corporations and 2) in further oppression against those protests pasted bans on ''urban camping'' which forbid those protesters from even using a blanket to protect themselves from the elements while protesting.

In any corporation, employees violating corporate policy would be terminated on the spot. So explain to me why are we letting our officials (political and corporate) keep their jobs when they are so clearly in violation of our laws?

The Silver Cord

I went up to CollegeAmerica today for two things. First, to get the paperwork finalized for my entry into the Master's degree program for our sister school, Stevens-Henager College. Second, to pick up my cap and gown for Saturday's graduation ceremony. I was fine, until the person checking out my graduation vestments handed me my honors cord.

I stood silent for a moment as my eyes misted over with emotion. Here I stood, a man who's father had repeatedly said he would never amount to anything and who graduated at the bottom of his high school class, holding a silver honors cord. The woman canted her head in curiosity at my tears. As I explained its importance, she smiled softly in understanding. It is more than just a cord, it has special meaning, particularly to me.

The 3.96 GPA it took to get that cord was hard earned, and proved one thing. My father was wrong. I have and forever will amount to something ... something significant.

This is just the beginning of my journey ...

Why Occupy and Anonymous are Failing

Greetings friends and fellow citizens. As the new year is already a third over, I am looking back on an interesting time indeed in the history of our nation. Due to the continuing corruption of our government and corporations, we have seen open civil unrest in the form of mass protests across the nation. Yes, I am speaking of the "Occupy" and "Anonymous" movements, though in honesty the only thing I have seen occupied are public parks. Both the Occupy and Anonymous movements, as I see it, have several critical failings that are holding them back.

The first is the lack of a defined agenda, statement of purpose, or tangible platform of grievances. Admittedly, these seem to be three ways of saying the same thing, but they are not. They are inter-related, but definitely different from each other.

A statement of purpose defines why the organization or movement exists in a general way. The environmental movement, for example, began as an attempt to address the concerns of how we are destroying our world with pollution, destructive development of our wilderness areas, and wasteful misuse of our natural resources. As I see it, both Occupy and Anonymous need to be defined in the same way.

An agenda is a defined set of goals or objectives. An agenda can be as simple as wanting to educate the public about a given topic to motivate action, such as pursuing the passage of an anti-littering ordinance to reduce the debris on the streets and sidewalks of the community, or as elaborate as a full "manifesto" of political or social objectives.

A platform of grievances is a detailed explanation of why an organization is seeking reform. Perhaps the best examples I could give of this is the Declaration of Independence that heralded the American Revolution and the Declaration of Sentiments that heralded the beginnings of the women's movement in the United States.

The second, and Occupy has been making some serious strides in this in the past few months, has been the lack of public education about who the organizations are and why they are doing what they are doing. Comments I made to members of Occupy Denver back in December seem to have motivated them to begin public education efforts, efforts I truly hope will continue and catch on with other Occupy groups.

The third is, neither organization has, up until Occupy's recent changes, ever offered any realistic alternatives or solutions. It makes no sense to protest and say things should change if there is no defined ideas about what should change or how it should be changed. Our society doesn't just need protests to wake it up; it needs ideas of how to solve the problems.

Lastly, protest groups should never undermine their own credibility by engaging in hostile or criminal activities. Occupy has had its problems with anarchists "joining" the protests and causing trouble, but has made significant efforts to distance themselves from those elements. Anonymous seems to be doing just the opposite. Attacking various companies and websites, regardless of their reasons, are making them a nuisance in the eyes of most, though their attacks on companies hosting pedophile group forums and websites did win some brownie points with the public.

While both groups claim the lack of organization is their strength (i.e. no identifiable "leaders" to be arrested), this lack of organization is also a weakness. The corporations and governments they are protesting are well-organized and well-equipped to respond to the threat Occupy and Anonymous represent to them. A modicum of organization would work in favor of Occupy and Anonymous, particularly if that organization is targeted at educating the public about what the organizations are fighting for and what they would like our society to try in response to those issues.

What Has America Become?

It amazes me that we as Americans have instilled so much political and social wisdom in our science fiction and other literary forms, yet continue to fail in our understanding of how those principles apply to our society and to our personal, daily lives.

We believe that everyone has a right to be heard, that everyone has a right to live as they choose, that they have a right to earn a living and to have the comforts of home and family. Yet we continually violate those principles because what is said offends us, or the way an individual lives seems 'unfit' by our standards, or that their mistakes decades ago dictate a current lack of trustworthiness or fitness to participate in society.

What right do we have to call ourselves Americans and still ignore the rights of those around us? What makes us so pure, so righteous, that we can dictate to others, that we can control or limit others? Are we so fearful that those who have made mistakes must be cutoff from our society? Are we so uneasy in our own beliefs that we cannot allow others to disagree with us or to challenge our assumptions as a society? Does a mistake decades ago make someone less than human today and give us the right to deny the rights we so cherish as a society?

Is this what America has become?

Department of Homeland Security says IDs invalid?

Interesting events yesterday ...

I had to get documentation of my SSI benefits for my student aid paperwork (I've decided to take up the school on their offer to extend my education to the Master's level). When I presented my ID, I was told that I would have to get a new ID because the Department of Homeland Security was invalidating any identification cards that did not have an expiration date.

Wait ... DHS invalidating ID cards? Yep, you read that right. DHS is apparently trying to do an end-run around the states that have rejected the 'Real ID' law (a law, btw, that was slipped into a totally unrelated bill and passed without any debate in the Senate at all, despite serious concerns about it from many Senators). Instead of dictating the issuance of new identification cards, they have simply declared old identification cards were no longer valid for air travel, entering federal buildings or accessing federal services.

And they wonder why the homeless are so pissed off at our government?

The passage of the 'Real ID' law is a fundamental insult to the very basis of our nation. The American Revolution was, in part, triggered by the passage of onerous laws without due representation. What difference is there in this and the way this law was slipped onto the books? Without the Senate being allowed to debate the law, no meaningful representation was present. How many more onerous laws have been passed this way? I think it is time someone started a real investigation on this issue, assuming one isn't already underway.

Or does someone need to start writing a new 'Declaration of Independence'?

Symbolic Gestures (A Response to Erbo's 'Tradeoffs')

This article is a response to my friend Erbo's posting 'Tradeoffs' so please bear with me. While he is a good friend, Erbo and I don't always see 100% eye-to-eye. This is one of those times.

Erbo's article, summarily, is a critique of the "No Gas Buying" campaign calling for citizens not to buy gas on April 15th. While I yield the point that long-term this will have little effect on the overall volume of gas purchases, the act is a symbolic one, to an extent. While the oil industry is a 'macro' economic industry, oil company executives monitor gas purchases on the 'micro' economic level, hence why they can cite that most gas is purchased for automobiles happen either on the weekend (particularly on Saturday afternoons) or during the daily commute times of 6am-9am and 5pm-7pm.

A sudden drop, even for one day, is detectable at this level of monitoring and serves about the same purpose as a million citizens on the public lawns in Washington or a few thousand truckers on the streets of Washington for a day or two (this happened in the 1970s). Such a symbolic gesture can also play to public psychology, giving us a personal sense of 'striking back' so to speak by expressing our collective discontent with the fact that oil companies are enjoying record profits at a time that most of the U.S. is still reeling from the recession. Economists have cited this as a primary factor in the continued recession, specifically that, as was experience in the 1970s, we are experiencing the effects of 'stagflation' (a period that experiences significant inflation, but stagnant economic growth).

This issue is not a 'liberal' issue, nor is it a 'conservative' issue; it is an American issue. In the aftermath of the attacks on New York city, numerous gas station owners were fined or arrested for price gouging by raising gas prices to as high as $10 a gallon, profiteering during a time of national crisis. While they have been a little less obvious, the oil industry is taking undue advantage of our current crisis to line their own pockets. This is in addition to lobbying against the President's call to end the multi-billion dollar government subsidies the industry rakes in every year (these are not direct payments, but tax credits for things like 'exploration'). Other industries are also raising prices, in partial response to the increase fuel costs associated with product distribution and in part to jack-up their ailing sales levels (as if they are supposed to be somehow immune to the economic slowdown the entire nation has suffered the past few years).

As to the comments about buses and bicycles, my friend, I yield the point that these take longer to get where you are going. I disagree that this is a problem, however, when you consider the side effects. A bus carrying an extra twenty people means there are twenty fewer cars on the road that day, saving not only gas costs but parking costs and wear-and-tear on their personal automobile for that day, not to mention a few pounds less carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide being dumped into our collective community air. Bus commuters also have time to use their new iPods and iPads to catchup on news or get that last minute report due at 9am prepared before they get to the office. Those using bicycles, while taking significantly longer to get to work, enjoy the health benefits of an early morning and afternoon workout (something you and I could both use, my friend). Again, this has the effects cited above regarding the automobiles for that day.

I do agree with you about the LFTRs (liquid fluoride thorium reactors). After you brought the technology to my attention a few days past, I did some research and was quite amazed by the potential of the technology. I toss my hat in with yours in calling for further development and deployment of this technology and encourage our mutual readers to look into the technology as well. While I dislike the idea of continued mining (just as I dislike the need for continued exploration and drilling for oil), I concede it is a necessary evil, at least until we find even better ways of powering our society (if such are to be had).

Take heed fellow Americans that Erbo and I can agree on some points, but disagree on others, yet always retain our friendship. Erbo is a thinker and will always have my respect, even when I disagree with him on an issue.

Are Landlords and Politicians Contributing to Homelessness?

The first great wave of homelessness inarguable occurred during the 1930s. Fueled by a combination of economic collapse and climatic disaster, millions abandoned their homes and lands in the American mid-west, fleeing to the west coast or east of the Mississippi. This mass migration overflowed communities already suffering the effects of economic collapse. Homeless shelters, operated much as they are today, were filled beyond acceptable limits. Families bunked refugee relatives commonly to twice their normal household capacity. Massive tent cities (dubbed Hoovervilles) sprang up in city parks and vacant lands in almost every city of the United States.

Fast forward to our modern society. We are at present suffering the second worst economic crisis in the past 100 years. Yet the survival tactics used in the 1930s are no longer there to catch the economic refugees of the United States. Homeless shelters have become the target of perpetual attack from neighboring residents and businesses, attempting to either shut them down as nuisances or to banish them to the most remote and inhospitable regions of the community. Landlords typically include clauses in apartment and house leases demanding to know exactly who is living in each residence and (frequently) proof that each adult residence qualifies financially to live in the residence (at a time when record numbers of citizens are out of work due to the economy). Politicians seem to be tripping over each other in their rush to ban outdoor camping from their communities to stem the potential of modern day Hoovervilles developing. Hand-in-hand with this are frequent raids of homeless encampments with police throwing personal belongings in trash dumpsters and in some cases slicing tents and sleeping bags, making them useless to the homeless.

Has our society truly become so cruel? Even attempts to protest these conditions have been met with animosity and violence from city officials and, sadly, the police departments charged with keeping citizens safe. Our cities are no longer safe, not because of crime rates or pollution (though those issues are still a problem) but because of the unconstitutional attacks executed under color of law. I leave these facts for you to ponder, along with a single question ...

... is this the America we want to leave to our children and grand-children?

Justice for Trayvon!

Interesting ... going over the news reports and posted audio files of the Martin-Zimmerman situation at the moment. I'm not liking what I am thinking.

Zimmerman was supposedly on neighborhood patrol and spotted Trayvon Martin walking through an apartment complex. Zimmerman called 911 to report this as he was following Trayvon. Trayvon, by Zimmerman's own words, started running away after noticing he was being followed by Zimmerman. Zimmerman was told by police NOT to pursue. He was suppose to wait by the mailboxes of the complex for a patrol car. This was at this point in time that, according to Trayvon's girlfriend, Trayvon was on the phone with her saying he was being followed and heard the confrontation starting between Trayvon and Zimmerman before the phone went dead. In another 911 call (from a female resident of the complex), you can hear a young male voice in the background screaming for help, then a gunshot.

$100 says when the tapes are evaluated, the one screaming for help was Trayvon and not Zimmerman. This audio needs to be compared to Zimmerman's voice and (if available) a recording of Trayvon's to determine who was screaming for help. At very least, this will force a full investigation into this incident instead of the sloppy mess we have witnessed over the past month. If the voice is Zimmerman calling for help, that would support his claim of self defense. If not, Zimmerman needs to be arrested and charged with murder and the police officers who failed to conduct a proper investigation need to be seriously disciplined for dereliction of duty.