Two great resources that might just keep you sane during tonight’s festivities are Jack Hopkins (@thejackhopkins) and Heather Cox Richardson (@heathercoxrichardson). Both are available here at Substack.com and both offer a free take.

I will also add my two-cents worth that may help you keep a level head over the next 24-48-72 hours.

I live and vote in Texas. I’ve been active in elections - including as an election official - for years.

Later today when you or someone you know begins to wonder why election results are slow in coming, please remember: delays always, always, always happen. Depending on where the delays occur dictates what effect it has on announcing returns. Has something happened at the local precinct level? Which precinct? Has something interrupted the process at the County Elections Board level? Partisan escapades? Or, more commonly, something a lot less nefarious? In any event, elections are run by people, and people screw up.

So, before the delays begin, please, try this simple exercise:

Count to 500 as fast as you can. How long did it take?

Now open a new ream of copy paper - 500 sheets - and count each sheet. If you get a number different from the expected 500, count them again. How long did it take?

Now have someone write a name atop each paper. Keep it to just two different names. Sort them while keeping a tally. How long did it take?

This, for five hundred pieces of paper with one name written on it.

During the 2020 presidential election, 158 million ballots were cast in more than 200,000 election precincts in the United States. Each ballot had multiple races at multiple government levels and multiple names within each race. Each voting precinct was governed by the rules enacted by the states in which they sit. These precincts were staffed, for the most part, by volunteers receiving a small stipend for their service. Each state is free to operate a different type of voting machine to cast, track, tabulate, and record votes. Here in Texas, each county (all 254) is free to determine which type of machine to use.

In short, so long as we expect paper ballots to be used in our elections, we should expect counting those pieces of paper to take time.

Want to shorten the time it takes to report state and local election results?

Loose the paper.

Want to shorten the time it takes to report national election results?

Get the fifty states to agree.

I am also a pragmatist who understands that it is more important, and satisfying, to win elections - to govern - than to lose elections on principles. Hence, my yellow-doggedness.

Which brings me to this year’s mid-terms. There is occurring, within one social media circle of which I am a part, an increasingly public policy divide between establishment Democrats, progressive Democrats, and, Social Democrats as to whether, following November’s anticipated blue wave, impeachment processes await the current administration. All sides need to remember one thing: if Democrats don’t win come November, Democrats don’t govern come January. Now more than ever it is imperative that we who oppose this administration and its policies refrain from arguing (or even discussing) our differences over actions taken if we are victorious, refocus our discussions on the reasons why we oppose this administration, and restate our commitment to vote blue no matter who.

To those who are currently advocating impeachment and questioning the bona fides of those against impeachments, I offer this: if Republicans can manufacture any doubt behind the reason for their losses, they most certainly will do so. Republicans will climb over each other to proclaim that they lost because of “Trump Derangement Syndrome”, “Trump’s policy on (fill in the blank)”, “the corruption inherent in the Trump administration”, or any number of Trump-related themes. Doing so will give them a clear opening to “hang around” once Trump is removed from office - just like they did in 2020. Is Trump culpable? YES! But, he isn’t alone, and clamoring for his removal as a condition of support for a Democrat, whether explicit or implicit, leaves the door open to those elected officials who have supported him and his policies in the past, but who are now beginning to distance themselves from him.

To those who are openly opposed to impeachment, or advocate initially impeaching lower officials to eventually get to Trump, I offer this: such a stance runs the very real risk of alienating a substantial number of potential voters who are finally resigned to voting blue no matter who. The same folks who abandoned the Democrat Party in 2016 for the Bern, will be the same folks abandoning the Party in 2026 and 2028 because “why bother if nothing changes?” Drop the “no impeachment” discourse. Focus on the policies you pledge to enact once elected/re-elected. And for those Democrats who aren’t on the ballot this November, don’t give the Republicans what may be the only thing that saves them in November: voter apathy leading to low voter turnout. Remember: your party doesn’t get to govern if your party doesn’t win elections. The national face you create in 2026 won’t matter in 2028 if Republicans remain in power come January.

But, let us imagine a Republican party that ignores their Project 2025 blueprint by acknowledging an overwhelming Democratic victory in the U.S. House races and the U.S. Senate races. What will follow? One can expect the new Congress to quickly initiate impeachment proceedings against individuals throughout the executive and judicial branches even as many members will propose laws seeking retribution against those who have done damage to our institutions (reasons enough to suggest these people are not leaving peacefully). And, many will offer legislation and Constitutional amendments aimed at preventing a recurrence of our current circumstances.

But, here’s the rub: Not only has the Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais paved the way for the gerrymandering of U.S. Congressional districts based on political persuasion, SCOTUS has effectively sanctioned the states to codify their identity as being either Republican or Democrat: Red or Blue. As of this writing, Republicans control both the legislative and executive branches of 23 states; Democrats just 16 states.1 And, though 84% of state legislative seats are being contested in November2 and 18 of 36 Republican governors are up for re-election in November3, it is doubtful that Democrats will emerge from November’s election in full political control of 36 states. 36: the number of state legislatures or conventions required to ratify any proposed amendment to our Constitution.

So, where does that leave our country in January 2027?

Many (most? I have not looked at most) reputable outlets offer two possible scenarios.

1) Republicans remain in control of the government at the federal level and between 20 and 25 state governments. In this case, the revolution will continue bloodlessly “if the left allows it”.4 The Administration has already shown that “bloodlessly” isn’t an option. ICE has killed in Texas, Vermont, California, Illinois, Virginia, Minnesota, Georgia, and New York.5 At Trump’s request (order?) twelve Republican governors sent their National Guard troops to D.C.6 Trump requested that Texas and California deploy their National Guard in Oregon and Illinois; Democrat Governor Newsom of California sued in court to stop the deployment; Republican Governor Abbott of Texas offered to send additional support.7 An appeals court decided that Newsom does not, in fact, control California’s National Guard.8 Whether we like it or not, Red and Blue lines have been drawn, and militarily reinforced, on our national map.

2) Democrats control the House and control 46-54 Senate seats. This outcome leaves Senate impeachment convictions and presidential veto overrides unlikely. And, offers no protection against the very possible response of Trump and Republicans at the national and state levels who get voted out: void the outcome because “cheating”. Of course doing so will invite numerous court challenges. But, all such cases ultimately find their way to SCOTUS, and we know who owns SCOTUS. Even should Trump accept electoral defeat in 2026, he and his cronies at the Heritage Foundation and within the Republican party will have two full years to continue striving to achieve the goals set forth in Project 2025 and preparing for the 2028 election. So, the Red and Blue lines are here too, reinforced.

There is, of course, a third scenario (and a fourth, and a fifth, and…), albeit extremely unlikely. Democrats win big in 2026. Trump and every Republican accept their defeat, and Democrats control the House and 60 Senate seats to include “repentant” Senate Republicans. Then following the impeachment and convictions of the executive and judiciary branches, Democrats will regain full control of government at the federal level. What has been cast aside can be reclaimed. What has been dismantled can be rebuilt. National and international policy reforms can begin. Anything that requires an act of Congress can be had. Enlarge the House. Enlarge SCOTUS. Codify Roe. Codify the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Codify until the cows come home.

But, end the electoral college? Enact term limits? Allow for ex post facto laws? Eliminate a political party? Force each state to enact ranked choice voting? End states’ rights? No. Because any government reforms, any government structuring or restructuring, any changes to our system or processes that requires a Constitutional amendment is a non-starter. There exists no scenario from any respected source that, come January 2027, has Democrats controlling both the legislative and executive branch of 36 states. 36. The number of state legislatures or conventions necessary to ratify any amendment to our Constitution.

Project 2025 will long remain the bane of our future. Our nation has been given the blueprint to fully divide itself between Red States and Blue States. Regardless of where we land in January, our country will have reached a moment in history so fraught with danger and uncertainty, what with having official Red states and official Blue states and little chance of changing either, that true reconciliation between 350 million people spread across 3.5 million square miles of land and running a political spectrum from fascism to communism, from radicals to reactionaries seems beyond even the wisdom of Solomon.

Ask who benefits as the price of oil increases?

Russia, for one. Poohbear needs petrodollars to help offset 1)sanctions and 2) the cost of waging his war. Sanctions notwithstanding, only Ukraine has targeted Russian transports at sea. As the price rises, Russian coffers are refilled.

The Saudis also profit. It’s a good thing too, after they “lost” billions financing Jared’s hedge fund. Where, I wonder, will they invest their new found petrodollars?

Venezuela will profit. Rather, tfg, who now controls Venezuelan oil reserves and production, will profit. Remember that offshore account he created in Qatar to “secure” the oil revenue? Luckily, those funds were moved to America. So, too, will new funds find their way here.(https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/13/venezuela-oil-sales-qatar-chris-wright-trump.html)

There is no end to the money-making ways tfg will implement at the expense of American values and blood.

As we approach the 2026 mid-terms (the results of which I do not believe will be accepted by the current administration), all of social media, talk radio, and the talking heads on TV offer a wide range of “fixes” for our country. The proposed fixes run the gamut from simple acts of Congress to complex Constitutional amendments - whatever it may take to avoid another existential crisis for democracy. The desire for these changes is normal; even predictable. But, in a nation containing an estimated 230 million eligible voters that shade a political spectrum as diverse as ours, many, if not most, of these proposed changes are doomed to fail.

Consider the political atmosphere following Watergate. President Ford vetoed 66 pieces of legislation passed by the 93rd Congress - the Congress in place when Nixon resigned. That same Congress overrode just 12 of his vetoes. The only Amendments offered in the same time frame were a public school prayer amendment and one amendment to over-turn Roe v. Wade. Both died in committee. Democrats made large gains in the 1974 election for the 94th Congress (the first election following Nixon’s resignation): a gain of 49 seats in the House and 4 in the Senate. As a whole, Democrats running for a House seat received 57% of the popular vote; those running for a Senate seat received 55% of the vote. (An interesting aside aimed at those who cling to a belief that a “3rd Party” is the answer: In the 1974 election, individuals representing 29 political parties received votes; in 1976 that number increased to 35.)

In short, following Nixon’s resignation, while much of the nation’s electorate was on fire about reforming our government, little was actually done in the way of changing our processes to prevent future episodes. After all, members of both the major political parties worked to remove a miscreant from office; our 2-party system worked in the way envisioned by the Founders; no need to establish sweeping changes.

Fast forward to 2026’s political environment. Or rather, 2027’s, assuming Democrats make gains in November sufficient to take control of both Houses of Congress and the administration accepts those results.

We know the Republicans will fight any attempt to hold accountable members of this administration - including Trump and Vance - as they have already failed to do so. And, we know that many of those same Republicans (and Trump himself) acknowledge that, should the Democrats prevail in November, impeachment of the President is likely, as it is for the vice-President and other members of the administration. Conviction by the Senate which, in all likelihood will remain in Republican control? Not so much: all the “honorable” Republicans retired rather than face a primary challenge. It will, it seems, rest on the Democrats to restore faith in our political institutions. But, does anyone envision a scenario where members of the Democrat caucuses in the House and the Senate agree on what caused our existential crisis, let alone agree how to prevent another via an act of congress? Or, that any Republican remaining in Congress will prove helpful in such an endeavor? I do not. Consider constitutional amendments. Enacting term limits, limiting campaign contributions and/or expenditures, removing presidential pardons, and many other proposals require amending our constitution. There are 2 paths to ratification: 1) Congressional proposals, which require two-thirds of each chamber to vote to send the measure to the states, where three-fourths of them must agree with ratification; 2) a constitutional convention of the states’ legislators, or appointed committees, in a “Special Convention”, where three-fourths must agree on…what exactly? The details of how such a convention would work are fuzzy, as this has never been attempted. But, three-fourths of the states agreeing on anything is, in my opinion, even less likely than two-thirds of Congress agreeing on those same anythings.

But, that doesn’t mean I don’t “see” a fix waiting on the horizon. We can make Congress bigger.

The ratio of representatives to constituents in the 1st Congress, 1790, was roughly 1/60,000: 65 members representing approximately 3.9 million folks (including slaves). Ten years (and one census) later, in 1800, the ratio was down to 1/50,000: 106 members representing approximately 5.3 million folks (again, including slaves). Today, the ratio is 1/787,000: 465 members representing approximately 342 million folks! What happened? A house rule that froze membership at 435 (stories differ explaining why - my favorite is that Congress did not want to purchase the additional desks necessary to accommodate the additional new members the 1910 census mandated.). What does it require for Congress to change this house rule? A simple majority. If 218 representatives vote to do so, the House could become more representative. But, how much more representative do we want?

After a break from social media, I am BACK! Thank you to all who have subscribed to this space: you are appreciated. Please, consider liking and sharing with others this offering.

Reinstating the 1800 ratio, where every member represented 50,000 people, the House would swell to 6,840 members. That won’t do. But, with today’s communication and travel technology advances, I believe a ratio of between 1/250,000 (1,369 members) and 1/150,000 (2,280 members) would suffice and be manageable. The goal is to create a House composed of individuals more responsive to their constituents and less responsive to “special interests”. In the common vernacular, we need to make the House “too big to buy”. To be clear, making the House bigger won’t remove money from the election equation. It will, however, cause many of those who think “buying” 110 members (50% of 50% of 435) a good deal to reconsider when facing the decision to buy 685 members. Buying a majority of the majority when there are 1,369 members means expenditures climb five-fold: 685 rather than 110. Will increasing House membership cure what ails us? Maybe not. But to find out only requires an act of congress, not amending our constitution.

Increasing Senate membership does require an amendment. Specifically, amending Article I, section 3, clause 1: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State.” Increasing membership from 2 senators per state to 3 senators per state raises the membership to 150 people, So, buying a majority of the majority would go from buying 51 seats to buying 76 seats. And, while increasing the number of senators representing each state does nothing to address the fact that states with smaller populations have a lower senate representative ratio compared to states with larger populations, it does create the opportunity for the populace of each state to vote out one of their incumbent senators every 2 years, instead of the stagger found in the current process.

I am not against some of the changes I’ve seen proposed. And, admittedly, these changes I write of are not guaranteed to completely “fix” our process. In fact, the blow-back created by enlarging congressional membership may be excessive: only time will tell. But, applying Occam’s razor, these “simple” fixes - one House rule change and one constitutional amendment - are less likely to cause wholesale unintended consequences than are the myriad changes for which others advocate.

Sources

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025/2024-presidential-election-voting-registration-tables.html

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF13073

https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/sites/default/files/pdf_documents/library/document/0014/1075993.pdf

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Election-Statistics/Election-Statistics/

https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/officers-and-organizations

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying

With the rise of the Moral Majority in the 1980s, Protestant churches belonging in large part to the Southern Baptist Convention in Texas began outperforming Republican precinct chairs in efforts to get out the vote (GOTV) in Texas. Following several post-election analyses of races where Republicans “flipped” Democratic seats, many in the Texas Democratic party saw this as a successful shift away from precinct-centric party development and wished to copy it. But, the Democrats in Texas had no massive outside organization similar to the Southern Baptist Convention with which to offer alternative GOTV efforts. For this and several other reasons, party leadership began relying on individual candidates instead of on precinct chairs to “build” the party. This strategy works only if the candidates are charismatic, well-funded, and win. Most detrimental to this strategy, at the beginning of an election cycle, every new campaign had to begin the “build” anew. Just like in business, and as every campaign manager can attest, start up costs in politics can be prohibitively expensive. How many folks don’t run for office because they feel they can’t afford to?

Several folks before me have offered their take on how best our Party should move forward. Here is mine.

I believe that the Texas State Democrat Party should once again encourage precinct-level grassroots development, particularly in heavily populated urban and suburban areas. The goal should be continuous party development, instead of relying on individual candidates to generate grassroots movements. I believe that in so doing the State Party can best help Democratic candidates for state-wide office in Texas to over-perform in urban and suburban areas by sufficient margins to consistently negate the large R performances that will occur in rural areas and in much of the same suburban area presently contested.

There is good news: once these precincts have been “seeded”, that is to say, minimal operating budgets provided, and more importantly, precinct leadership put in place (either through appointment or election) further operating expenses and ongoing GOTV efforts need only cost as much money as each precinct can raise, though the County and State parties and individual candidates can provide supplemental support.

It is, in my opinion, too late to expect such efforts to have sufficient ROI in this election cycle. But, there is enough of an anti-MAGA sentiment within the electorate and no longer a large Southern Baptist Convention/Moral Majority contingent with political inroads that it may not matter this election cycle. The 2028 election cycle and those beyond are different seasons. And, continuing with the agricultural metaphor, in order to build grassroots strong enough to produce successful crops for that time, seeds must be sown today.

In fact, if you get your news exclusively from print media you may not even have known there was a meeting at all. Yet, there was. And, while it was a snooze-fest for one attendee, it turned into a love-fest for the others. From Secretary of Defense Hegseth - SSecretary of War (sic) if one follows name plates - to Secretary of State Rubio, each Cabinet Secretary heaped praise upon the sleeping prince3. As is the new custom.4 DHS Secretary Noem even praised him for preventing hurricanes, albeit jokingly.5 What was not funny, in any sense of the word, was the cabinet members’ response to POTUS’s screed against Somalian immigrants living in Minnesota: they pounded the table and applauded.6

From war crimes, the latest of which both POTUS and Sec Def acknowledge while denying they “issued” the orders, to the racist screeds echoed throughout this administration, these people have continued their attempts to redefine American values. They scoff at the ideas of humanity. Of charity. Of equity. Of the rule of law. Especially, the rule of law. Continually emboldened by the SCOTUS decision in Trump v. U.S., their words, and more importantly their actions, continue to show Americans what we can expect from them in the near future: their total disregard for what was once our rule of law.

The idiom in for a penny, in for a pound seems most apropos for the members of this administration. Each Cabinet member has gleefully - gleefully - cast their lot with Trump. The difference between them and POTUS rests in the level of immunity from prosecution each of them possess. POTUS has it. Cabinet Secretaries don’t. Not without a presidential pardon. And not even such a pardon will protect them from the International Criminal Court. No, the United States is not a signatory to the ICC. Neither is Israel. Ask Adolph Eichmann if that mattered.7 If (when?) this administration ends, these people won’t be able to safely travel outside of America.8 They may not even be safe inside America. Will they all hole up in Mar-a-Lago?

The point is, no cabinet Secretary is eager to leave the protection afforded them while serving the administration. Not by conscience. Not by mandate. And certainly not by the results of an election. These people are most definitely in for a penny in for a pound. They aren't leaving peacefully. Ever.

“One day we will hunt Democrats with dogs”.

Spending the first decade of my political life - first as a Texas Young Democrat (I was 15 at the time), then as an opposition research go-to-guy (I “speak” Republican), finally as a campaign communications “pro” (read: party hack) - listening to Republicans “jokingly” repeat it transformed me into the yellow-dog democrat I am today (this link might help the politically uninitiated: https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/archive/html/part/features/0304_01/dogs.html).

While the ebbs and flows associated with “purity tests” of the Democratic Party in the 1980s and 90s transformed my state into a bastion of Republican politicians (no Democrat has won a state-wide election in Texas since 1994), I watched helplessly as the “better to lose on principle than govern through compromise” faction of my party took control of our efforts to unseat Republicans and fail. Since the Tea Party movement debuted in 2007, I’ve watched many of the Republicans who unseated Democrats be labelled as RINOs (Republican in Name Only) and primaried by even more conservative party members, or retire before a primary challenger could unseat them. Those Republicans have since morphed into MAGA: a compromise is the same as defeat, take no prisoners, storm the Capital because “we lost”, excuse anything and everything that tfg (IYKYK) says and does as they follow him to hell, “political” party.

With the release of a few Epstein emails from the Epstein estate and the probability that enough House Republicans will vote to release the Epstein Files held by the Justice Department, it may be only a matter of time before our nation is rid of the scourge of tfg. That, unfortunately, won’t change the fact that MAGA still controls our federal government and many state governments (more on that in a bit). These MAGA will not go gently into that good night.

Many imagine MAGA as a reptilian creature. Others, as a plague. I think it is more apt to think of the movement as a hydra. Why? Because a hydra can regenerate its head after being decapitated. Remove tfg, and the likes of Steve Bannon, Kevin Roberts, Mike Johnson, J.D. Vance, Stephen Miller, Karoline Leavitt, and all the others who support him remain. Following tfg’s removal - via a natural or legal process - many will make mention of needing a time of “national healing”. Others will herald a call to action before their movement loses momentum. Still others will simply lay in wait until the next tfg surfaces. But, make no mistake: the end of tfg is not the end we should be seeking. It isn’t even the beginning of the end we seek.

In the 1978 American miniseries Holocaust, the character Erik Dorf, a Nazi SS officer and aide to Reinhard Heydrich, upon learning that Germany is losing the war and SS leadership is preparing to issue orders to cover up the atrocities they’ve committed, convinces the leadership to double-down on their actions. To do otherwise, Dorf argues, would signal to the rest of the world that they knew their “Final Solution” was wrong. MAGA believers under tfg are like that: they will never admit that their policies are wrong. Even should the elections of 2026 and 2028 (if they do, in fact, occur) show that a plurality of the American electorate rejects MAGA’s policies, MAGA will never admit their policies are wrong just because they lost an election. They will not accept an electoral defeat because to do so may very well lead to the trials and tribulations similar to what Nazis and the German high command faced for their many abhorrent misdeeds. Bannon and Musk both admitted they’d go to jail if tfg lost. Besides, MAGA has never believed their policies are stupid and inhumane. Thus, true believers in the movement will never go away. They will fight to keep the power they have. And, just like the SS, once the fighting, the real fighting begins, they will fight to their bitter end. MAGA (or whatever it may be called in the future) will never go away. So, we who oppose it, regardless of our political bent, must be prepared to fight, as well. Remember the words of Kevin Roberts: “(our) revolution will be bloodless if the left allows it to be.” If our democracy is to survive, the left must not “allow it to be”. For our society to overcome what MAGA has wrought, the left, and all others who oppose MAGA must not allow it to be.

Fight we must. Because it is what MAGA has forced us to do. And, it won’t be exclusive to the federal levels of our government. Leaders in states such as Texas, Florida, and North Carolina (and in other states, to be sure) have completely sold out to and bought into the MAGA movement. There are states where county and municipal leaders have become completely invested in MAGA. School districts, too. If we are to restrain what made MAGA possible in our politics, we must prevent the MAGA-minded from entering our governments at every level. It is possible: Germany had, for the last 75 years, the years prior to the rise of MAGA here, prevented Nazis from entering theirs. We, too, had been relatively successful in excluding from our governments much of the MAGA-minded. tfg’s trip down that damned golden escalator changed all that. But, just as it did in Germany, and a thousand places throughout history, our efforts will necessitate more than electoral victories. So, once the fighting has ended, once MAGA has been relegated to the dustbin of history, we, as a culture and a society devoted to preserving democracy, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DDEI), must endeavor to educate and encourage our electorate to reject the misguided policies that MAGA have foisted upon us.

But, perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps, we can achieve our goals via bloodless means. Bloodless, if the right allows it to be.

The British Empire of 1776 probably reasoned along the same lines as this. The American Colonies disagreed. They issued to His Majesty what Trump once called a “letter of unity and love”, but most Americans call our Declaration of Independence. 2 The summer of 1776 saw Great Britain with a total population of ~8 million people and the Colonies with one of 2 million - 2.5 million when including slaves.3 Despite being outnumbered 4:1, the Colonies had had enough and started a fight with a bigger country. A country many at the time (and today) considered the best army on Earth.4

Following Trump’s logic and convictions, the Colonies were wrong to start the war.

Granted, 4:1 is not 20:1, but Trump is mistaken to claim Russia is “20 times bigger” than Ukraine. Russia’s total population in 2024 was estimated by the CIA Factbook to be 140 million; Ukraine’s was estimated to be 36 million.5 About 4:1. Russians aged 15-64 numbered ~92 million; Ukrainians of the same age group numbered ~24 million.6 About 4:1.

One difference between what the Colonists did in 1776 and what Uraine is doing now stands out. The colonists “started” their war aided only by France, but even then the French kept their assistance “discreet” until 1778. All other nations were awaiting an outcome. Today, Ukraine is openly receiving aid from most of western Europe and NATO, which, for the next few months anyway, includes the United States.

Trump has made it clear that he fears upsetting Russia/Putin. But, he is open to selling arms to NATO and “allowing” them to disperse the arms to Ukraine as needed.7 America has truly abandoned the principles it embraced and showcased for 75 years.

Where does this lead?

Follow the money.

The Trump administration recently demanded an “equity stake” of Intel stock.8 Should the administration (or a select few of its members and their sons families) seek such a stake within defense contractors, we’ll have our answer.

President Zelenskyy recently reiterated his longstanding believe that the economic sanctions against Russia will help Ukraine to an eventual victory. Russia's reliance on petrodollars to fund its war aims is no secret. In March 2020, crude oil was priced at $16.55/bbl. By the time Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 Feb 2022, it had soared to $108.00/bbl. But, since the invasion, it has steadily declined to $62.52/bbl priced May of this year. To be sure, the US striking Iran is the US striking an ally of Russia. But, longterm, especially if this strike causes the price of crude to climb once again to a lofty price north of $90/bbl, as many experts predict, Russia may see it as a godsend to its efforts in Ukraine.

The current administration will have helped (unwittingly?) the Russian cause without modifying the sanctions currently in place. And, rising oil prices will return large profits to American oil producers even as the MAGA mantra of "drill, baby, drill!" echoes through our land.

A win/win, for some very high level players.

Of course, helping Netanyahu with his objectives is also a political victory for the administration in the eyes of some. In the eyes of some MAGA? Not so much. But, an increase in ICE activities or a declaration of martial law (or both!) should placate them.

Interpreting the words and deeds of this administration will necessitate a steep learning curve for many experts and media folks who have followed US policy making and makers for the last 75 years. But, in the final analysis, Occam's Razor will suffice: keep it simple and always follow the money.

https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/zelensky-on-sanctions-it-depends-on-us-whether-1747684381.html

https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/a-timeline-of-the-russia-ukraine-conflict?onepage

https://energyandcleanair.org/february-2025-monthly-analysis-of-russian-fossil-fuel-exports-and-sanctions/

https://news.usni.org/2025/06/16/usni-news-fleet-and-marine-tracker-june-16-2025

Build that wall?

Check.

Troops at the border?

Check.

Limit social services across the spectrum?

Check.

Make it impossible - even criminal - for women to receive comprehensive health and reproductive services?

Check.

End DEI initiatives, state employees - including teachers at public schools and universities - mentioning Critical Race Theory, and most anyone from criticizing "the Government"?

Check, check, and check.

End public-funded schools?

Check. Texas' recently approved school voucher program soon will be the envy of the remaining red states who long to stop educating our children.

And the latest step on the path to a Texas MAGA haven: a Texas Doge.

Despite the fact that Rs have controlled all 3 components of Texas government for more than 20 years, it seems that the state needs an executive appointed commission to cut spending willy-nilly (that's Texas Lege-speak for ad hoc).

Abbott is really striving to make Texas just like our federal government. I don't mean dysfunctional, though that will be one likely outcome. I'm talking about an oligarchy form of government at the state level.

Governor Abbott has even found multiple billionaires who share his "vision", including one Jeff Yass of Pennsylvania (see link below)

Yes, Abbott knows tfg isn't going to live forever.

I wonder if ol' JD sees Hot Wheels rolling up in his rearview mirror?

Follow the money.

https://www.texastribune.org/2025/04/23/texas-doge-bill-signed-abbott/

https://www.sacurrent.com/news/pro-voucher-billionaire-and-top-abbott-donor-called-to-testify-before-texas-house-committee-36952103

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/04/trump-kleptocracy-autocracy-inc/682281/?gift=4xSoT3RUPw_EJqde20uHmHekfkaAQVnCUyvBiOo-aHw&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

I wonder what action they will take.

I wonder when they'll take it.

The art of the scam relies on misdirection. The scammer creates a diversion irresistible to the target. Usually, for one "mark", a simple directive in a simple setting is sufficient for the task: "follow a card" or "find the pea". Sometimes, a simple directive in a complex background is used to distract the mark - think of a magician on a brightly lit stage using sleight of hand while in constant motion or a "Where's Waldo"  scene with its interesting and colorful background.

Of course, usually these types of "grifts" are small, harmless even. The mark loses nothing of significant value or has paid to be entertained by the "grift".

A grifter seeking a larger payout uses two additional elements: the mark's greed and the mark's pride. Charles Ponzi and Bernie Madoff made millions of dollars from hundreds of marks by relying on the marks' being greedy and too proud to question the math.

Ponzi and Madoff had a limited number of targets because 1) many people don't have enough disposable income to be a sufficient "play"; 2) many people understand the math; 3) playing too many people at once leads to increased scrutiny by the authorities. Both Ponzie and Madoff got caught because they didn't, or couldn't, walk away with millions of dollars: each wanted even more.

So, a grifter operating in America wanting to scam billions of dollars from millions of people would need to overcome the fact that most people don't have a significant amount of disposable income; most people do understand the math; and control of the authorities used to investigate such grifts are centrally controlled at the federal level.

Enter Trump.

As a presidential candidate he created a following of people who are greedy and too proud to admit they don't understand the math (how he achieved this following has already received much coverage). As POTUS he has decimated the regulatory arms of the federal government. He only needed targets having sufficient disposable income to make the payoff worthwhile. Or, create a system that redirects the population's contributions to the government (taxes paid) into an account that POTUS (or his agents) can access. Yes, it's true Congress still controls the nation's purse strings, but it has handed the purse to POTUS.

Of course, obstacles to this size of a grift still remain. For example: how does one redirect the attention of an entire nation long enough to complete the grift? Does one use a single distraction like war? Maybe mass deportations? Perhaps several distractions like circumventing various constitutional protections, threatening to impeach federal judges, and creating economic disorder - including a stock market "correction"- via tariffs? All the above?

It becomes difficult to follow THE money when we are forced to such extremes just to follow ours.

Yet, we must still Follow the Money.

Maybe a better question: “How else will our society pay for the administration dismantling our Bill of Rights?”

Once our service members are brought home from overseas posts, either so ordered by the DoD or expelled by our former allies, whatever will become of them? Where might they be billeted?

It might depend on where they are needed - Near our northern border to support operations there? Or, perhaps our southern border? Maybe in areas of civil unrest as the British were prone to due in our country prior to 1783?

Many folks are worried about losing their 1st and 2nd Amendment rights. And justifiably so.

But how many even contemplate losing their 3rd Amendment rights?

“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

Follow the money.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9xhTomqDTzE

Our “Treaty of Versailles” moment happened when the USSR was dissolved and the Republicans, led at the time by Newt, refused any assistance to Boris Yeltson’s Russia because “we won the Cold War” and Bill Clinton thought helping Russia via an aid package similar to the Marshall Plan like we gave Europe after WWII was a good idea. McConnell calling on his caucus to make Obama a one-term President was not the first time Rs were led by obstructionists: Newt led as one 10 years earlier.

The seeds for the current situation in Europe were planted by Republicans (Gingrich, et al), tended to by Republicans (the Neocons like Bush II, William Kristol and Scooter Libby), and now the MAGA Republicans, who had planned on a harvest by reaping NATO in TFG I, are now hoping to harvest their spoils via Ukraine.

I’d remind everyone of that old adage about a whirlwind.

Now that the transfer of assets from the lower and middle classes to the ultra wealthy has been approved by the “new and improved” Republican Party, I also think it’s important to point out that in the written history of our species, an authoritarian state has never been usurped by bloodless means, let alone by following the standards of democracy we’ve enjoyed the past 230 years. An election can only serve us, not save us.

noun

: something given or received for something else

We have entered a new era in American politics: the era of quid pro quo is now openly embraced as our government’s policies, both foreign and domestic. For those of us born in the era of “Ask not what your country can do for you” this has been a difficult pill to swallow. But, we shouldn’t be surprised the wheel of fate has brought us here. Ever since Reagan famously (infamously?) embraced trickle-down economics and offered the opinion that government is never an answer for any domestic question while the Republicans entered a marriage of convenience with the Moral Majority, the liberal wing has allowed itself to be portrayed as the milquetoast alternative to the more “manly” conservatives. The spiral into our government’s quid pro quo-ness continued through the Clinton years with Newt (has there ever been a more fitting nick-name?) instigating government shutdowns. As if shutting down the government led to anything good. With the ascension of the Prosperity Gospel (give money to god and he’ll return the favor), a substantial minority of society’s acceptance of quid pro quo is complete.

Which brings us to TFG (IYKYK). Is there anyone still surprised by TFG’s success in our politics? Is there anyone still surprised that his administration has fully implemented “Transactional Policy” - quid pro quo - both on the international stage and in the domestic arena?

“Hey, Ukraine! Want American aid. Give my friends $500 billion dollars.”

“Hey Mexico! Hey Canada! Don’t want these pesky tariffs? Give my friends better (read: more profitable) deals.”

“Hey California! Need some help rebuilding after those fires? Fire the Democrats.”

“Hey AP. Want a seat at the news table? Call things what I want them called.”

“Hey Republican Senators! Don’t want to be “primaried”? Vote the way I tell you to vote.”

No one has relished quid pro quo to this extreme since Hannibal Lector.

Something given or received for something else.

From his beginning, TFG’s “quo” - the “something else” in the phrase - has always been money. It always has been. It always will be.

That is why to understand what motivates him we need only follow the money.

The White House is conducting a less-than-transparent “investigation” into our government's agencies; said investigation is lead by an individual himself being investigated by France a Germany for election interference, among other cyber threats.

I think we may gave given the wrong guy the title of “Merchant of Death.”

Follow the money.

https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/20222149121378

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/paris-prosecutors-probing-musks-x-over-alleged-algorithmic-distortions-2025-02-07/

almost 100 million US citizens receive government assistance on a monthly basis.

In 2023 our IRS refunded some $262 billion to tax filers (https://www.tigta.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-11/2024400006fr.pdf).

Our government has quite the cash flow operation. And now all of our data associated with this flow has been accessed by those young men working for Elon Musk.

Imaging what could happen if those 100 million folks started “donating” just $1 from their monthly payout every month to The Trump Fund , or whatever organization Treasury Chief Musk decides. Would enough people even notice 1 missing dollar? Over the course of 12 months the total “donated” would be $1.2 billion. Add 1% skimmed off the refunds, which few people would notice and fewer still would report, and the total for just one year grows to $3.8 billion. In one year, Trump, Musk and Associates could rake in almost as much money as Kushner got from the Saudis after 4 years.

Yes, TFG proposed policies are creating havoc on our economy and our international relations, but in the end he is just a grifter. And with all grifts protection rests in following the money.

Has anyone checked to see if our gold at Fort Knox is still there?