Earlier this year, I made the decision to stop writing about Donald Trump and the state of our nation, and instead focus on other writing projects. It was not a decision I came to easily. To me, turning away from the chaos, divisiveness, vitriol, and cruelty that is the Donald Trump presidency does nothing to defeat the authoritarian impulses of the president, instead giving him and his administration tacit permission to get away with their efforts to take our country down a dark, un-American path. Even so, resistance can turn into a full-time job, and it can be debilitating to one’s mental health. I needed a break, and I needed time to do other things.

Recently, I’ve felt the pull again to write about the state of our nation and to fight back against the anti-democratic impulses of the administration. But I didn’t want to just jump back into the fray by complaining about Trump and the issue of the day. I wanted to look at our current situation through a wider lens, to better understand what is happening in our nation and the world from a more historical perspective. True, the United States has never seen a character like Donald Trump, hellbent on ending the Great American Experiment while simultaneously enriching himself and his friends, but I think a lot can be learned by looking at the bigger picture and drawing lessons and inspiration from it.

As I widened the lens, I came to two basic conclusions about myself that Id like to share. These facts about me drive the way I view our government, our country, and the wider world, and I think it’s important to understand them (at least it is for me) when reading anything I write that has to do with our current political situation.

First, I am always surprised when someone calls me a Democrat or a liberal. For my entire adult life, I have been a registered Republican, and until 2016, I always voted a straight Republican ticket. I’ve told this story before, but when I came of age politically in 1980, it was the Republicans who had a vision for our country that appealed to me. Republicans were the party of ideas. They saw the nation as a shining city on a hill, not a country caught in the malaise of the 1970s. I had mixed emotions about what the party stood for at that time, but from my perspective, the Democratic Party didn’t stand for anything meaningful.

In the following years, I worked on several different political campaigns for Republicans, I was trained to be a campaign manager by a Republican-affiliated consulting firm, and I became the legislative coordinator for one of the largest corporations in the country. Everything I did from a political perspective was done with a Republican bent to it.

That’s why it seems so odd to me that people would call me a liberal. In our current political environment, “liberal” and “conservative” have completely lost all meaning. What Donald Trump and the Republicans are currently doing has almost no resemblance to true conservative doctrine, yet they refer to themselves as “conservatives.” Even more strange, the farther right a person moves—farther away from conservative doctrine—they claim to be even more conservative. It makes no sense.

But rather than simply dismiss charges that I am a liberal, I decided to do some soul searching to see if there is any truth to what people who disagree with me are saying. And what I found was, I am a liberal. But it may not be what you think.

In political discourse, when we hear “liberal,” we normally think about the word in contrast to “conservative.” As I said, these terms have been rendered meaningless. The type of “liberal” I am is the type that is the opposite of “illiberal.” Some people refer to this type of liberalism as classical liberalism. So, what do classic liberals stand for?

There are five basic tenets of classical liberalism. They are:

Individualism: The individual is the basic unit of society. Liberalism believes in the autonomy, worth, and responsibility of the individual.

Limited Government: The power of the government should be constrained to prevent it from infringing on the rights of the individual. However, that does not mean we should have a weak government, or no government at all. I view the role of government the same way Lincoln did: that government should do for the people that which they cannot do for themselves or which the government is better positioned to do.

Rule of Law: This is a big one for me. The rule of law means that all individuals, including members of the government, are bound by the law and are held accountable to it. In this way, civil liberties are protected and upheld through a free, fair, and transparent legal system.

Natural Rights: These are rights that are inherent to human beings, and are neither granted by the government, nor can they be taken away by the government. These “rights” are usually listed as the right to life, liberty, and property.

Economic Freedom: Economic freedom involves a free market with limited government involvement, such as through regulation, taxation, or trade restrictions. Again, this doesn’t mean no regulation, taxation, or trade restrictions. It means only enough government involvement to make sure that markets operate efficiently and fairly.

These are the things I believe in. In order to completely understand what classical liberalism stands for, I think it is instructive to consider what the phenomenon of illiberalism favors.

Centralization of Power: Illiberaliam prefers power to be held in one person or a small group of people, usually in the executive branch of the government. Often, this involves a charismatic “strongman” leader like Mussolini in Italy. Consolidation of power in the executive means the legislature and judiciary are weakened, often to the point where they are completely ineffective except as a rubber stamp for the executive.

Majoritarianism: The majority rules, and the minority loses rights and protections. Minority dissent is often dealt with harshly through violence in the name of national security and unity.

Erosion of the Rule of Law: Individuals do not stand equal before the law. Laws are enforced selectively, and often more severely against the ruling party’s opposition. The government often plays favorites, punishing actions taken by the opposition, while praising the same actions taken by the ruling party. This is a classic double standard.

Emphasis on Collective Identity: There is less emphasis on the individual and more emphasis on cultural, ethnic, or religious homogeneity. A person’s skin color, gender, sexual preference, ethnicity or religion counts for more than individual rights. Those who do not look the right way, act the right way, or worship the right way are often scapegoated and labeled “enemies of the state.” This is what happened to Jews, Roma, gays, and others in Nazi Germany.

Suppression of Opposition: Illiberal regimes often use the law and politics to repress the political opposition, academics, the media, and civil institutions in an effort to weaken and delegitimize them. Illiberals will use terms to describe these groups, such as “radical,” or “fake,” and will wrongly refer to them as “socialists,” “communists,” or “invaders.”

Restriction of Freedoms: Rights and freedoms once guaranteed are restricted by the government. These can include the freedoms of speech, press, religion, and assembly, especially when these rights are used to criticize the government. This is often accomplished through surveillance, censorship, and legal intimidation.

With this in mind, then yes, I am a liberal. But honestly, being a liberal in the United States for most of our country’s history and for the entirety of my life up until 2016 was not that difficult or unusual. It was the default position for the vast majority of Americans, or so we thought.

When Donald Trump came on the political scene, illiberals started crawling out of the woodwork. These are people who want a strongman to lead the nation, and they want law (or at least enforcement of laws) to favor them. In other words, they want special treatment for white Christians, especially men. And they want the government to clamp down on anyone that doesn’t look like them, act like them, love like them, or worship like them. Trump became their savior, the man (the only man) who could right the wrongs they felt had been done to them and would spite those they viewed as enemies (i.e. anyone not like them). Although they usurped the words, they had no interest in true freedom, patriotism, or law and order. They had no use for experts, history, or anyone or anything that could hold a mirror up to their illiberalism and call it what it really is. And that’s how we find ourselves in our current mess, marching toward economic collapse and on the verge of full blown authoritarianism.

This leads to the second realization I had about myself. Unlike a lot of people, I don’t view political parties like sports teams. I think I did at one time, but I haven’t for years. Cheering or booing for the flavor of the month doesn’t interest me. Instead, I’m invested in the big picture, the long-term. My eyes are on things like the Constitution, the rule of law, and democracy. I’m much less concerned about whether a candidate has an “R” or a “D” behind their name than I am about their commitment to our democracy, allegiance to the Constitution, and adherence to the rule of law.

I hope that someday, as a nation, we can get back to arguing about tax rates or environmental policy or immigration reform. But for now, the nation is in a fight for its soul. We have a president who wants to do away with birthright citizenship; is deporting immigrants—both legal and illegal—without due process; is using the Department of Justice to go after his enemies while ignoring legitimate crimes, including those involving members of his administration; has deployed the military to the streets of American cities, is threatening martial law, and recently spoke to military leaders, telling them they could use Democratically-controlled urban areas as “training grounds” for their troops. Now is not the time to major in the minors.

As you read my thoughts in the future, keep in mind that these two facts underlie my political beliefs: I am a classic liberal and I don’t root for political parties, I root for our democracy. And by pointing this out, I hope I can get people to consider stepping away from their party-first way of thinking and instead put the good of the nation ahead of their partisan allegiance. Maybe someday we can be Democrats and Republicans again, but for now, the only decisions we have to make are whether or not we are Americans and what are we are going to do to save our nation.

On a recent episode of the podcast, Stay Tuned, former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, answered a listener’s question in a way I thought was both powerful and absolutely correct.

The question had to do with Donald Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller’s rather outrageous and hysterical response to a federal district judge’s ruling that granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting the Trump Administration from deploying national guard troops to Portland. The judge, Karen Immergut, ruled that the depiction the government was using of Portland to justify deployment of national guard troops was disconnected from the reality of the situation on the ground.

One of Bharara’s listeners was curious if Miller had any legal backing for his over-the-top response or if he was just participating in political theater. Here’s Preet’s response:

Preet Bharara: I’m afraid it’s much worse than political theater. So, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, as you mentioned, recently took to X (formerly known as Twitter) to label that federal judge’s ruling a “legal insurrection.” The ruling itself is a “legal insurrection.” What the hell even is that? It’s a self-cancelling oxymoron, as absurd as saying “nonviolent war” or “lawful terrorism.”

By definition, an insurrection is a violent uprising against authority. Legal process, on the other hand, is the authority of law and action. You can’t have a legal insurrection anymore than you can have a peaceful war. The phrase collapses under its own weight. It’s nonsense, and dangerous nonsense at that. It’s a rebellion against logic and an insult to the rule of law, all in two words.

But it fits a pattern. It calls to mind the similar hysterical hyperbole of Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) not too long ago when he didn’t like the preliminary ruling of a judge in the Southern District of New York. “It’s a judicial coup” he proclaimed. To educated but ignorant MAGA men, even a mundane constitutional process is treachery. Mere disagreement is an “insurrection” or a “coup.” Everything is an attempted overthrow of the government except, of course, actual violence on January 6^th.

Now, there is a way to respond to a court ruling and disagree with it. It’s called an appeal. Indeed, the Justice Department wasted no time in appealing Judge Immergut’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. That’s how it’s done. That appeal is the lawful orderly path. You make your case to a higher court and let the rule of law play out. What you don’t do is hurl epithets like “insurrection” at a judge for doing her job.

Yet, Miller is jumping ahead of the game, implying rebellion and maligning the judge instead of respecting the process. It’s as if, in his view, the very act of checks and balances is an affront to authority. Hmm, I wonder if there’s a word for that.

Disagreement by a judge isn’t sedition. It’s a normal part of our legal system. It would be like arguing that a tackle in football is a criminal assault. No, that’s how the game is played.

There’s a rich irony here. The judge under attack, U.S. District Judge Karen Immergut, was appointed by none other than President Donald Trump in 2019. That’s right, the very administration now crying foul actually put her on the bench. Judge Immergut, a Republican, isn’t some anti-Trump partisan. And she ruled based on her interpretation of the law and the evidence ,which she knows something about, having been a US attorney appointed by another Republican president, George W Bush.

Now, Miller’s rhetoric isn’t just moronic, it’s dangerous. Tossing around words like “insurrection” and “coup” to malign lawful court decisions has a distinctly authoritarian echo. It’s the kind of language tyrants used to delegitimize any challenge to their power to claim emergency powers in the absence of any emergency. As Garry Kasparov recently said “Everything will be called an emergency until total control is established. Once that happens, it doesn’t matter what you call it anymore.”

The message is chilling. In Miller’s view, if you don’t bow to the executive’s will, you’re an enemy of the state, even if you’re a coequal branch of government. We’ve seen this kind of demonization of judges in other countries and it never ends well. In America, judges must be free to rule without being branded traitors. There’s always that quaint other option: appeal.

Finally, let’s talk about projection and hypocrisy. Stephen Miller loves to lecture that inflammatory rhetoric can incite violence, and on that narrow point, he’s not wrong. Yet, there he is routinely tossing lit matches of his own. Miller blithely BS’s his way through each day’s propaganda cycle. This is a man who literally, while decrying liberals use of the fascism label, himself has labeled his opponents fascists, saying we have descended into “third world fascist tyranny” and urging voters to vote out the “fascist Democrats.” He’s painted protesters and even judges as part of a “left wing terrorist network” in his fevered narratives. It’s the textbook double standard of a demagogue.

As commentator David French observed, Miller “constantly deploys deranged rhetoric even as he claims the left incites violence with its own language.” If Miller truly believes that words can lead to violence, then he knows the peril of his own words, but he doesn’t care.

In America, the law is the light that guides us. Disagreement is not rebellion, and the judge’s ruling is not an act of war. “Legal insurrection” is a null phrase, a cynical sound bite. The real and gathering threat to our republic isn’t a judge doing her duty. It’s the demagogues who would demonize her for it.

Imagine you’re a citizen of Germany in the early 1930s. Your country is coming out of a devasting defeat in World War I, your economy is in the toilet, and your once great country is in the doldrums, seemingly unable to get back on its feet. In 1933, a strange little man by the name of Adolph Hitler, a convicted felon, was elected chancellor of Germany, promising to return the Fatherland to its former greatness.

You went about your daily life while Hitler took “unusual” steps to make things better for Germany. He immediately began dismantling Germany’s democratic norms and institutions. He suspended civil liberties, established the Gestapo (German secret police), and began building concentration camps—first outside of Germany, then inside—to house his political enemies and “undesireables,” like Jews, Roma, gays, etc. Germany passed the “Enabling Act” which consolidated power in the Fuhrer, allowing his cabinet to pass laws without input from the Reichstag (Germany’s version of Congress).

The Gestapo began conducting raids and making arbitrary arrests, including of German citizens, designed to produce terror among the people who did not support (or sufficiently support) the Third Reich. Due process became a thing of the past. Local police became an arm of the Gestapo, which was eventually integrated into the SS (Schutzstaffel), a paramilitary organization that acted as internal police, but had tools and used tactics similar to the military.

While all this was going on, you went about your business. Your focus was on doing your job, caring for your family, and making ends meet. You heard about the changes taking place around you, but you couldn’t be bothered to get involved. You were busy and you had plans. You visited relatives, spent time with your kids on the weekend, and traveled to the countryside in the summer on holiday. For you, life hadn’t changed much, despite the immense changes taking place all around you.

Then, the SS conducted a raid in your town. Some of your neighbors were arrested and taken away. When you traveled, you were constantly asked for your papers, and the SS became a constant presence on the streets near your home. You became concerned and spoke to your friends about what was happening. Your friends were concerned too, but they were reluctant to talk much about those concerns. They said “You never know who might be listening.” You thought about that and wondered to yourself, How does being frightened of the government make life better for you or make Germany great? It didn’t make any sense, but you decided to keep your thoughts to yourself.

Then, before you knew it, the Fuhrer had complete control of the military and the country. He continued to speak of the greatness of Germany, but his actions created chaos and terror among German citizens. None of this seemed right to you, but you went along to get along. After all, who were you to speak out against the government, even if it was obvious to you that what was happening to your country was wrong?

So, you kept to yourself, figuring it was safer to keep your head down rather than draw attention to yourself, your family, or what you knew were corrupt, illegal, evil actions being taken by the government. You went about your business as your country descended into an authoritarian cesspool of hate, cruelty, and murder on a scale you could have never imagined. You wished you had spoken up in the early days, when there was a chance to change the path Germany was going down, but now it was too late. The die had been cast.

Notice any similarities to where we are today in the United States? We’re not coming out of a world war and our economy is not in tatters. Yet, the president would have you believe that our cities are crime-ridden hellholes (despite crime being low and decreasing); our enemies are “invading from within,” a term that sounds ominous but makes no sense; and our allies are taking advantage of us, both militarily and in trade. Of course, none of this is true, or it’s being exaggerated so it can be used as justification for the government to turn much of our country into a police state, so civil liberties can be slowly curtailed, voting rights can be suppressed., and the president can take complete control of our economy, the military, and our government

Even as our Constitution is ignored, the rule of law is abandoned, and our democracy is weakened day-by-day, most of us go about our business, going to work, traveling, shopping, spending time with friends and family. What is happening at the edges of society doesn’t impact most of us, so we don’t say anything. But little by little, what is happening at the edges starts to close in on us.

For instance, first they went after criminal illegal aliens, then it was all illegal aliens, then people seeking asylum, then people in the country legally, but not citizens. The circle continued to close in. Citizens began getting caught up in the immigration raids. What started as a round-up of illegal brown people became a round-up of all brown people. More recently, black people became targets, as well as LGBTQ people.

Perceived enemies of the administration are being investigated, arrested, and prosecuted. Political opponents are being falsely accused of everything from pedophilia to murder,. Some, including non-Christians and anyone with an “anti-American” or “anti-capitalist” viewpoint, are being intentionally mislabeled as “terrorists.” And the circle grows ever smaller.

I’m not suggesting that Germany in the 1930s is the same as the United States in 2025. And I’m not saying that Adolph Hitler and Donald Trump are exactly the same person, although it is interesting that they were both convicted of felonies prior to being elected. As they say, history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme. And at the moment, it is rhyming big time.

Here are the facts:

“The government—YOUR government—is prosecuting the President’s perceived political enemies and rewarding his supporters.

The government—YOUR government—financed a concentration camp in El Salvador, then built their own camp in the Florida Everglades to house “undesirables,” with promises of more to come.

The government—YOUR government—formed a paramilitary-style army of secret, masked police out of federal law enforcement units to carry out the orders of the president and to terrorize the citizens into compliance.

The government—YOUR government—has deployed the military on the streets of U.S. cities to wage war against the “invasion from within.”

What has to happen to make you pay attention?

What has to happen to make you speak out?

Is now the best time to get involved or should you wait until the circle closes in on your neighbors, your friends, your family, and maybe even you?

If you could ask that citizen of Germany in the 1930s what they would do right now, what do you think they would say?

Is this really what we’ve come to?

In the middle of the night, hundreds of federal agents—some of them masked, all of them heavily armed—attacked an apartment building on Chicago’s south side, using drones, flash bang grenades, and  helicopters carrying agents who rappelled onto the roof of the building, all to execute an administrative warrant that identified just five people the Department of Homeland Security claimed were members of the Venezuelan street gang, Tren de Aragua.

The agents stormed into the building, destroying the interior in the process, and pulled anyone and everyone out of their beds—including children—in an effort to find the five individuals who were said to have once frequented the building. DHS did not indicate if they found the people they were after, but they did detain dozens of American citizens for hours—including children—zip tying their hands and forcing them into the back of rental vans. Thirty-seven people were arrested for alleged drug, weapons, and immigration charges, although DHS refused to provide any information to back up those charges

This video explains exactly what happened:

This is not how any of this is supposed to work. Law enforcement does not attack an entire apartment building with a military-style operation, destroying the building and detaining dozens of people who are not part of the warrant being executed in order to find a handful of people who were rumored to have once frequented the area.

Why is this not how things are done? Because it’s unnecessarily dangerous to innocent citizens, unnecessarily dangerous to the agents executing the warrant, and it violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. There are rules for how this is supposed to work, and ICE, the FBI, and other federal agencies simply ignored them to carry out this illegal, theatrical raid that was designed far more to cause fear and intimidation in citizens than it was to effectively capture alleged member of a street gang.

In addition, Donald Trump recently revealed that he has declared war on Tren de Aragua, and has used that war as justification for the actions of the government. To execute that war, he has instructed federal agencies to carry out these types of attacks in American cities, and he has ordered illegal attacks on privately owned foreign vessels being operated in international waters.

But again, that’s not how this works. “War,” as used in this context, is declared against another nation or a military force of any origin. Members of a street gang do not meet this definition. Plus, it’s up to Congress, not the president, to declare war, and they have not done that. Trump’s claim of “War” is simply pretextual, and he’s using it to stir up his base and create fear and intimidation in his political enemies

I’ll ask again a question I asked in a previous post to Trump voters: Is this what you voted for? Do you think it’s okay that Trump’s lawless DHS is conducting these types of dangerous raids on your fellow citizens? Is that the kind of country you want to live in?

Keep in mind, these people are our neighbors, our friends, and our family members. If it’s not hitting close to home for you right now, just wait. With every illegal raid like this, they are coming closer and closer to you and people you care about.

I suspect that some will dismiss my concerns because the video I posted above in from MSNBC. I think that’s ridiculous, but not surprising, so here are a few more videos telling this horror story from various perspectives:

What happened yesterday profoundly changed the relationship the American people have with its government. Over the course of a 70-minute speech Donald Trump gave to our 800 highest ranking military leaders, he laid out a vision for the military and the country that involves the government of the United States waging war on American citizens.

In his speech, Trump referred to American citizens as “the enemy within” and accused them of conducting an “invasion.” Who are these people he’s talking about? In a nutshell, they are people who disagree with him politically. They are Democrats, liberals, “radical leftists,” and anyone that exercises their right to protest government policy or action. In other words, according to Trump, the “enemy within” that is leading this alleged “invasion” is your neighbor, your friends, and your family members. Maybe it’s you.

Trump wants to send the military into U.S. cities to carry out domestic law enforcement operations. That is not the purpose of the military, and doing so violates the Posse Comitatus Act. Trump doesn’t care. In his speech, he told military leaders that they would play a big role in his plan, and he suggested that American military troops could use occupation of U.S. cities, such as Chicago, as “training grounds.”

The question that hangs out in the ether waiting to be answered is, what will these military leaders do? How will they react to Trump’s unhinged authoritarian rant? Will they mindlessly carry out orders originating from the Commander in Chief or will they resist Trump’s illegal, unethical, and immoral use of the military to wage war on Americans?

I’d like to say that I trust our military leaders to refuse illegal orders, but in the past couple of weeks, we’ve seen them bow to Trump’s worst urges. Twice, Trump has ordered or approved orders to fire on unarmed boats in international waters, killing several people. Trump claimed the boats were carrying illegal drugs and that the occupants—who he claimed were members of the Venezuelan street gang, Tren da Aragua—were heading to the United States. He offered no proof of this claim, but even if it was true, the United States military has no legal authority to fire on boats in international waters without provocation. By any authority—whether United States Federal Law, International Law, or the Code of Military Justice—what Trump authorized and members of the Navy carried out, was murder. Trump issued an illegal order (or authorized Sec. of Defense Pete Hegseth to issue the order), and rather than resist it, the military capitulated. That does not bode well for the future.

A line has been crossed. Never in our country’s nearly 250-year history has a president asked the military to wage war against American citizens. That is, until now. And although I don’t know how the military will respond to Trump’s suggestion (suggestion now, order later?), I do know that every patriotic American must resist and oppose Trump’s illegal, unconstitutional rhetoric and behavior; we must speak out against his authoritarian regime; and we must start taking names and documenting crimes and un-American acts being taking by his administration and enablers.

What do I mean when I say take names and document crimes and un-American behavior? Let’s break this down.

The Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, gave the president near absolute immunity for actions he takes in the course of his duties as president. That includes illegal actions. But that immunity does not extend to his cabinet members or other members of the government. If they do anything illegal or unconstitutional, they should be prosecuted. And if the current Department of Justice won’t carry out the prosecution, a future DOJ should.

For instance, if Pete Hegseth gave an illegal order to blow those Venezuelan boats out of the water, he should be prosecuted. But he’s not the only one. Anyone within the chain of command of the Navy that failed to refuse that illegal order—from an admiral to an ensign all the way down to a seaman recruit—should be held accountable. And don’t forget, the defense of “I was just carrying out orders” didn’t work at Nuremburg, and it shouldn’t work here either.

How about the illegal ICE operations taking place around the country? Should Sec. of Homeland Security Kristi Noem be held to account for the illegal behavior she has ordered or allowed to happen by people under her control? Absolutely. Everyone from Noem down to the lowest level ICE agent that commits a crime should be held accountable. Tom Homan, the so-called Border Czar (not a real position) should be held to account for the illegal things he has done, including taking a $50,000 bribe to direct ICE contracts to his friends.

But it’s not just crimes that should be remembered. There are people in Trump’s orbit who have said and done un-American things that deserve scrutiny. For instance, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr didn’t do anything illegal when he threatened ABC, saying they could deal with Jimmy Kimmel “the easy way or the hard way,” but that doesn’t mean he should get off scot-free. He used the power of the government to coerce a private business. Whether you love Jimmy Kimmel or hate him, any Constitution-loving American should be opposed to anyone in the government threatening private companies, including holding up business mergers unless the companies involved agree to bend the knee to the Great Leader. Brendan Carr should never again be allowed to hold a position of authority, and no American business should ever hire him to work for them. He has proven himself to be an enemy of the state (a real enemy, not like what Trump calls the media), and he should be treated as such.

In addition, many of the people carrying out Trump’s un-American agenda are lawyers who are required to follow a strict code of ethics. Bar Associations should investigate and, if appropriate, suspend the license of anyone who violated Bar ethics rules. For instance, Trump lackeys in the DOJ have violated not just Justice Department rules, but also legal ethics. Off the top of my head, I can think of Alina Habba, Lindsey Halligan, Todd Blanche, and Ed Martin. I’m sure there are many others. They should not be allowed to get away with illegal or unethical behavior simply because they are working for the government.

We should also never forget the cowards, who all too willingly bent the knee to Trump, many times when it was completely unnecessary. For instance, CBS/Paramount settled a completely frivolous lawsuit with Trump for $16 million to make sure a merger would get approved. Disney, owner of ABC, settled another frivolous lawsuit with the President for $12 million. YouTube just did the same thing.

Several large law firms capitulated to Trump, selling out their clients, their morals, and their values in the process. Apple CEO Tim Cook, with virtually no prompting, presented Trump with a custom glass plaque with a 24-karat base, in an effort to appease the President and exclude Apple from tariffs. There are several others as well, but the point is that as a nation, we should never forget the cowardice of these people and businesses, and their willingness to sell out democracy to improve their bottom line or be exempted from Trump’s wrath.

We also should hold the media accountable. With few exceptions, they have been wholly unwilling to call Trump’s behavior what it is, always searching for a way to normalize his rhetoric and behavior or “both sides” an issue. I’m not suggesting that anyone in the media should be punished, but we should never forget that for most of them, when their country needed them most to fully exercise the Constitutionally protected freedom of the press, they failed spectacularly to show up, shrinking in the biggest moment.

I want to make it clear that what I am proposing is not a reign of retribution, which is exactly what Trump is currently doing. This is not simply a call to punish people I disagree with politically. What I’m suggesting is that no democracy can long survive if it allows those who undermine it to not be held accountable for their actions. I’m not talking about prosecuting people who disagree with the rules and norms of our democracy. People should be allowed to have any opinion they choose, whether it is good for the country or bad. Opinions and speech should not be punished. But taking affirmative action to undermine democracy is a different thing. Using government power for anti-democratic purposes must never be allowed. Democracy does not stand on its own. It must be defended. The work of defending democracy is constant and unending. We can not afford to simply ignore those who would see our democracy, rule of law, and constitutional government destroyed.

Never in my wildest dreams did I think I would ever write anything like this. By the same token, never in my wildest dreams did I ever think I’d hear a United States president try to sell military leaders on the idea that they should be deployed and wage war against American citizens on the streets of U.S. cities. We are at an inflection point in our nation’s history, and if we find a way to survive it, the people who tried to destroy our democracy or were only too willing to abandon it either out of cowardice or personal gain, must be held to account.  It’s time to start taking names.

Recently, a friend of mine commented on Facebook, responding to someone who said that when those on the right don’t have a decent argument, they resort to name calling. This comment was made after a series of comments about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. My original post was meant to denounce political violence, regardless of the party affiliation of the victim or the perpetrator. Here’s what I said:

Since my separation in 2013 and divorce in 2016, I have struggled with doing things by myself. It’s always great to get together with friends or family, but those times are sadly the exception rather than the rule. Most of the time I find myself alone. And more often than not, my urge to go out and do something is defeated by my hesitancy to be out at an event by myself.

Part of the motivation for my summer homeless tour has been to force myself to get out on my own. I’ve been traveling alone, going to attractions by myself, and visiting restaurants and bars all by my lonesome. Let me tell you about an experience that prompted me to push myself out on my own this summer.

A couple of years ago, I attended a play that was part of a book fair in my little town. I’ve always loved the theater, but I haven’t gone to a play or musical in several years. When I saw that the highly-acclaimed one-woman play Cake was coming to my area, I decided to go.

I was excited about attending the play right up until the day before the performance. When the play was off in the distance, I could focus on my desire to see it. But when it was almost time to go, my reluctance to not do things alone kicked in. I started dreading going to the theater, sitting by myself, and feeling self-conscious, which I knew from previous experience would surely happen.

When it was time to go to the play, I began trying to talk myself out of it. What difference did it make if I saw the play? I could just stay home and not have to deal with the discomfort. I heard a saying once that it is always easier to do nothing than it is to do something, but it is rarely as satisfying. I was tired of doing nothing, so I forced myself out the door and to the theater.

The play was good. I enjoyed it despite my discomfort and my certainty that everyone was staring at me (they weren’t). As I was leaving the theater, I vowed to start getting out on my own more often.

And then I didn’t. It was too easy to just sit at home by myself. Sure, I’d go for the occasional dinner alone, but doing so usually felt awkward and uncomfortable. I was disappointed in myself, and I knew that I needed to start living life and again be the social creature I once was.

That’s where my summer trip comes in. I knew that traveling alone would force me out into the world. I’d be going to new places, meeting new people, and I’d usually be doing it by myself.

When I got to the cabin in northern Wisconsin, I was surprised that it was as far from Mercer as it was. It took me about 25 minutes to get into town, and about an hour to Minocqua if I wanted to go to a bigger store or have more shopping options. The cabin was secluded back in the woods on Turtle-Flambeau Flowage, and it would have been easy to treat it like a hideaway, spending all my time there. And I admit, there were times I wanted to stay there, feeling the pull of doing nothing rather than something. But I fought the urge and made myself go into town at least once each day.

Most of my days were spent writing. After moving from location to location every few days for the summer, it felt good to be in one place for three straight weeks. I got a ton of work done, and every morning, after my walk, I looked forward to sitting down and writing again.

I often went into town for lunch, sometimes just to break up the day. And although I ate most of my meals at the cabin, I did go into town several times for dinner. Although I was eating by myself, I was also around other people, which felt good.

Then there were the times I went into town just to have a drink or three. This is something I have rarely done in the past. I’m a social drinker, but I almost never drink by myself. Even so, I wanted to be around other people, to talk and tell jokes. If you’re single you probably know this already, but after a divorce or death of a spouse, life can get pretty lonely. In fact, loneliness in the United States is currently at epidemic levels. And doctors say that it can really damage our health, especially as we get older. I don’t want to let that happen. So, I forced myself to go out for a drink and socialize, even when I wasn’t feeling the urge. I’m glad I did.

During my stay in Mercer, while I was out eating and drinking, I befriended the owner and hostess at my favorite restaurant in town, met and eventually won over the least friendly bartender in Wisconsin (he’s really not unfriendly, just kind of introverted), and met a couple named Greg and Jen (my second set of “Greg and Jen” named friends) that I had a wonderful conversation with. We even exchanged email addresses so we could stay in touch. And while all this was happening, the discomfort of being alone dissipated, and at times, even became a joke.

I can’t claim that my time in Mercer cured the discomfort I feel when I go out by myself, but it helped. Will I start going out to concerts, plays, restaurants, etc. by myself in the future? That remains to be seen. What I do know is that the prospect of going out alone doesn’t seem so daunting anymore. I’m still not crazy about the idea, but I know I won’t resist it as much as I have in the past. And that’s a good thing.

Most of our Founding Fathers were born in the 1700s. For instance, George Washington, the father of our country, was born in 1732. Benjamin Fraklin was born in 1706. Thomas Jefferson, who is credited with writing the Declaration of Independence, was born in 1743. And Alexander Hamilton, who’s not throwing away his shot (IYKYK), was born in 1755 or 1757. It’s up for debate. But it might surprise you to learn that the youngest Founding Father, Gregory Watson, wasn’t born until 1963. How is that possible? Let me explain.

True, Gregory Watson did not sign the Declaration of Independence or participate in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, but I think he still qualifies as a Founding Father. You see, in 1982, as a sophomore at the University of Texas-Austin, Gregory was at the library researching a paper for his Government class when he stumbled across a dusty old volume on the Constitution. In that book was printed a list of amendments to the Constitution that were sent to the states for ratification as part of the Bill of Rights. There were twelve in all, but Gregory recognized that the Bill of Rights only contained ten amendments. One of the two that were not ratified caught his eye. It was the very first of the twelve proposed amendments, and it read:

“”No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of representatives shall have intervened.”

In plain English, the proposed amendment said that any change to the amount paid to senators and representatives would not take effect until the next Congress is sworn in. The reason for the proposed amendment is clear. James Madison, who wrote the amendment, and those that supported it, didn’t want senators or representatives voting themselves raises. The feeling was that they would be reluctant to increase their pay if they knew it could become an issue the next time they ran for office. But in the end, the amendment failed to be ratified by the states, and it became a footnote in history. That is, until Gregory Watson came along and wrote a paper about it. He believed the proposed amendment was still alive and could still be ratified by the states. He was excited. He was determined. And he received a “C” on his paper.

The professor, Sharon White, who gave him the “C” was unimpressed. Despite Gregory’s insistence, White assumed that he was just an overanxious student who had misread the history of the amendment. Surely, she thought, an amendment written more than 200 years earlier couldn’t still be ratified. Gregory disagreed, and he set out to prove her wrong.

In order for the amendment to become law, 38 states needed to ratify it. Only nine had ratified it previously, so Gregory needed to convince 29 other state legislatures to sign on to the amendment. But rather than contact the state legislatures directly, he petitioned members of Congress to join him in pushing the states to ratify the amendment. He received a few responses, but got only one positive response. That was from Senator William Cohen of Maine, who would go on to become the Secretary of Defense under President Bill Clinton. Cohen passed Gregory’s letter on to someone back in Maine, who passed it on to someone else, and in 1983, Maine became the tenth state to ratify the amendment.

Gregory’s success in Maine emboldened him. He furiously wrote letters to other lawmakers encouraging them to take up his cause. A year later, Colorado ratified the amendment, a year after that five more states signed on, then three more, and it just kept going like that. In 1992, ten years after Gregory’s writing campaign began, a total of 35 states had ratified the amendment. Only three more to go.

On May 5, 1992 ,both Alabama and Missouri passed the Amendment. And two days later, with Gregory listening to the vote by phone, Michigan became the 38^th state to pass what had become the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution is, by design, incredibly difficult to amend. In fact, the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, passed into law in 1992, was the most recent amendment to be added to the Constitution. And it likely would not have been ratified if not for Gregory’s stubbornness and certainty that he deserved a better grade on his paper. The University of Texas-Austin agreed. On March 1, 2017, Gregory’s grade in his Government class was officially changed from “C” to “A+.”

Gregory’s story doesn’t end with the Twenty-Seventh Amendment. During his research to pass the Amendment, he learned that the State of Mississippi had never ratified the Thirteenth Amendment ending slavery. So, he got busy and in 1995 convinced the Mississippi State Legislature to pass the Thirteenth Amendment. However, due to a filing error, Mississippi’s ratification did not become official until 2013.

Today, Gregory works as a legislative policy analyst in the Texas Legislature. His efforts have not only changed law, but have altered the document our Founding Fathers created, our nation was built upon, and which we still rely on to maintain our democracy today. Although he wasn’t born until more than 180 years after our nation’s founding, Gregory Watson still qualifies as one of America’s Founding Fathers.

I want to take you back to the summer of 1974. I was 14-years-old, and was in the car with my mom, who was dropping me off at the bus station in my hometown of Aurora, IL. I was about to go on a solo journey on a Continental Trailways bus to Green Bay, where I would transfer to a Greyhound bus and take it to my final destination in Mercer, Wisconsin. As I recall, the trip took fifteen-and-a-half hours, and in the end, I was neither kidnapped nor murdered on the bus or in the bus depot. All’s well that ends well, I suppose.

Can you imagine allowing a 14-year-old kid to take a trip like this all alone today? There’s no way I would do that. Children and Family Services would get involved. Criminal charges would be filed, and the kid would likely end up in foster care. But in 1974, parents were much more trusting and permissive. I’ve written often about how much independence I had growing up, and it has served me well. But I still find it amazing that my parents once put me on a bus and sent me to Northern Wisconsin all by myself.

Of course, this post isn’t about the parenting skills of my mother and father. It is about Mercer, the place I ended up at the end of the bus trip. It was then, during that summer of 1974, that I fell in love with Mercer and the Northwoods of Wisconsin.

I had been invited to Mercer by my friend Brad Lyon. His family owned a cabin on Crystal Lake, just outside of town. The cabin was owned by Brad’s grandfather, Ralph, who everyone referred to as Papa. It was small, so Papa and Brad’s parents, Bob and Nancy, stayed in the cabin while Brad, his sister Pam, and I stayed in a camping trailer that sat in the woods nearby.

I learned several new things that summer. First, the indoor bathroom at the cabin was reserved for “number 2.” “Number 1” was meant for the woods or the lake.

I also learned how to water ski, although I admit I was a slow learner. It took me several tries to get up on two skies. I might have never figured out how to do it if it wasn’t for Brad’s dad, who finally clued me in on the need to have the leading tip of my skis out of the water when the boat took off. Once Brad’s dad shared this ancient secret with me, I could suddenly ski.

Papa used to get a kick out of watching me try to ski because he thought it was hilarious watching me fall. Once it became obvious that I was going down, I’d start taking steps across the surface of the water. Of course, that didn’t work very well for very long. After a step or two, I’d tumble like a rock into the cool lake. Papa began calling me JC—short for Jesus Christ—since I thought I could walk on water.

I also learned that in the summer in Northern Wisconsin, the sun doesn’t set until 9:00 or 9:30 at night, and until the sun sets, fun on and in the lake continues. There were many nights we continued to ski or swim until sunset, took baths in the lake at the foot of the dock, and didn’t have dinner until 10:00 at night. I loved it.

The summer of ’74 was just my first summer in Mercer. I was back for the summers of ’75 and ’76 with Brad and his family, and I made the journey on my own, staying at a hotel during the summers of ’78 and ‘80. After that first summer, I constantly wanted to go back, to play on the lake, and see friends I had made, including a girl named Rita, who became my summer flame.

When my homeless summer adventure began after selling my house in Southwestern Wisconsin this past May, I knew that at some point I wanted to return to Mercer. I wanted to spend time on the lake, visit the restaurants and bars in the area, and enjoy the beauty and comfort of a northern Wisconsin summer. So, I was thrilled when I found a place to rent about 20 minutes outside of town on the Turtle-Flambeau Flowage. Three weeks in paradise was exactly what I was looking for. It was going to be a great way to end my summer adventure.

If you’ve never heard of the Turtle-Flambeau Flowage, you’re missing out on a true gem. The Flowage was created in 1926 when the Chippewa and Flambeau Improvement Company dammed the confluence of the Turtle and Flambeau Rivers, creating a 13,000 acre impoundment that flooded thousands of acres of land, and more than a dozen already existing lakes, rivers, and creeks.

Although the Flowage is now a popular recreational destination, that’s not how it started. It was created to provide a predictable flow of water to electric utilities and paper mills downstream. What, if anything, it did for the local area and economy was not the primary concern.

Creation of the Flowage was initially controversial, but locals learned to make the best of a bad situation. In the 1930s, 40s and 50s, resorts started springing up around the shoreline, and fishermen began to flock to the area. In 1990, the State of Wisconsin purchased the Flowage from the Chippewa and Flambeau Improvement Company, as well as much of the land in the area. Today, Wisconsin owns 114 miles of mainland shoreline, 150 islands, more than 11,000 acres of water, nearly 8500 acres of woodland, and 3700 acres of wetlands around the Flowage. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources established the Turtle-Flambeau Scenic Waters Area in 1995, which today consists of more than 37,500 acres of spectacular water, shoreline, islands, woods, and wetlands.

The Flowage and the area around it are beautiful, wild, and pristine. It reminds me of the Canadian wilderness. The area is gorgeous, and is populated by black bears, wolves, deer, turkey, and even the occasional moose and elk. The other day, I watched out my window as an eagle circled overhead, then dove toward the water attempting to snag a loon. As far as I could tell, the loon was playing with the eagle, going underwater just as the eagle attacked, and surfacing several feet away. What a great show! Mercer and the Turtle-Flambeau Flowage truly are special.

In my next report, I’ll talk about what I’ve been doing since I got to the cabin, and I’ll talk about my plans for the immediate future once I leave. Until then, enjoy these final days and weeks of summer.

“If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.” –Woody Allen

When I was setting up my travel plans for the summer, I knew I needed to be in Viroqua, Wisconsin on July 29 to give a presentation at the library about my books. After that, I had 12 days until I had to be anywhere. Since most of my summer adventure, which had been made possible by selling my home and not having a place to live, had taken place east of the Mississippi, I decided to head west. My plans called for stops in Deadwood, South Dakota, Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota, Cody, Wyoming to visit the Buffalo Bill Center  of the West (a museum I have long wanted to visit), a day or two in both Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, and a couple of other stops, including a buffalo ranch in Wyoming to take photos and a barbeque restaurant in Kansas City. My plans were set. Then everything changed.

I had contracted to build a new house in Tennessee back in April. My intention was to make a 5% down payment (I don’t like putting a lot of cash into a home purchase), and I wanted to conserve my available cash. The builder conveniently had their own mortgage company, and they offered $17,000 toward closing costs as an incentive to use them. It made sense to me, so I applied for a home loan with the builder’s mortgage company.

During my first call with the mortgage broker, she took a bunch of information from me, and said that both my income and credit score looked good. She didn’t see any issues moving forward. But in our next call, she advised that I’d likely need to put down 10%, rather than the 5% I had planned on. I didn’t like the change, but I agreed to it.

Before I go any further, I should point out that I had already sold my home and knew that I would be moving very soon. I was anxious to purchase another home, even if I couldn’t move in right away. It’s not that I was nervous about finding another home, but I wanted the peace of mind that comes from knowing where I’m going to live, even if I can’t move in for a few months.

I spoke again to the mortgage broker a few weeks later and was told that the underwriter (the person that makes the final decision about the loan) needed me to pay off my vehicle. That seemed odd to me. I owed about $20,000 on my vehicle, and I wasn’t planning on paying it off. Even so, I wanted the house, and that wasn’t going to happen without the mortgage, so I agreed to pay off my vehicle loan.

I was talking to the mortgage broker a few weeks later, and she mentioned that I “might” have to put another $35,000 into the deal. I wanted the house, but I really didn’t want to spend that much more money. I told her about my reservations, and she said she’d discuss it with the underwriter.

By this time, the underwriter had become like the Wizard of Oz in my mind. He or she seemed like the person behind the curtain, pulling levers and making demands, but never talking directly to me. I’ve purchased 17 homes in my life—including four new home builds—but I’ve never run into a situation where the mortgage underwriter appeared to be pulling all of the strings the way they were with this house.

Several weeks passed without me talking to the mortgage broker. By this time, it was late July—three months since I had contracted to buy the house—and I still didn’t have an answer on the mortgage. I reached out to the mortgage broker, and she said she still didn’t have a final answer on the loan, but she thought the underwriter would require me to either pay off my vehicle, put $35,000 more into the deal, or both. There was also talk of me having to buy down the interest rate on the mortgage they were providing.

At this point, I had enough. For me, the whole deal had soured. Nothing was working out the way I had planned, and it just kept getting more and more expensive. I decided not to go forward with the deal. I wasn’t sure where I would live or what I would do, but I couldn’t justify continuing to work with the builder or the mortgage company. I notified my realtor, and she notified the builder.

Then a strange thing happened. The very next day, all of the demands to payoff my vehicle, put more money into the deal, or buy down the interest rate went away. Just like that, all the demands they were making over the course of three months vanished. And to sweeten the deal, the builder voluntarily said they’d kick in another $10,000.

I don’t know exactly what happened, but I have a theory. Before I tell you about the theory, let me tell you that I don’t have any evidence to back it up. I could be wrong. In fact, I probably am wrong. But here’s what seemed to have happened from my perspective:

During my first phone call with the mortgage broker, everything seemed straight forward. They knew about my income, my debts, and my credit score, the way every other mortgage I have ever gotten has worked. But once they received the closing documents on the house I sold, things seemed to change. I was fortunate to make a decent amount of money on the home I sold, and it seemed that the mortgage company wanted to get as much of that money as possible into the deal. Why would they do that? There are two reasons. First, it’s easier for them to make mortgages when the buyer puts more money into the deal. There’s less risk for the mortgage company. Second, it’s easier for the mortgage company to sell the loan when the mortgage amount represents a lower percentage of the loan-to-value.

Even as I write this, I smell the faint odor of a conspiracy theory. Like I said, I could be wrong. But something weird was going on. From the time I said I wanted out of the contract until they decided I didn’t need to payoff anything or put more money into the deal, nothing changed. And as much as I appreciated the builder’s “gift” of $10,000, it smacked of desperation to me, like they had gotten caught doing something they shouldn’t have done.

The builder did try to make things right. I was contacted by people from both the builder and the mortgage company. They were all very nice. They apologized and encouraged me to continue with my plans to buy the house, but I couldn’t. A bond of trust had been broken. The only question left was, would I get my earnest money deposit back.

This was a long-winded story to get to this point: rather than go on my adventure out west, I decided the best thing for me to do would be to return to Tennessee to deal with the fall out from my broken house contract. I hated missing out on all the things I had planned out west, but going back to Tennessee allowed me to deal with the house contract in person (or at least close by), and to see my kids.

Our discussions with the builder went on for several days. They tried to convince me to stay in the deal, I kept saying no. That’s not to say I didn’t think about it. I liked the house and I wanted to firm up my living arrangements, but I just couldn’t rebuild the trust I once had with the builder. In the end, the answer had to be no.

The builder finally accepted that I wasn’t going to buy their house, so the next hurdle was getting back my $5000 earnest money deposit. Truthfully, I was willing to walk away from the money if need be, but of course, I didn’t want to. The builder pointed out the contract language which said if I backed out of the deal, they got to keep the earnest money. My realtor (who was awesome throughout this entire ordeal) and I argued that it seemed unfair to stick to the black letter language of the contract after everything they had done to prolong the financing process and dissolve the trust we once had.

In the end, I’m happy to report that I got my money back, and I have moved on from this unfortunate experience. Two days after ending the house contract, I found a nice house in Murfreesboro to rent. I hadn’t intended on renting, but it does give me the luxury to take my time and figure out my next move. Will I buy? Will I build? Will I continue to rent? Will I get an RV and travel the country? Every option is on the table, and I have a year to get it all figured out.