Follow the Money Right to the Prison Door

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

In a previous piece, I pointed out the disaster of the immigration enforcement push by the Trump administration citing the record number of detention cases being ruled unlawful across a wide spectrum of Judges and Courts. (https://joebroadmeadowblog.com/2026/02/22/duplicity-raised-to-an-art-form/)

They can’t all be activist, leftist scoundrels!

One of the interesting things to come out of my research for that piece was the shocking amount the government is paying, primarily through ICE, for the use of private, for-profit, prisons and immigration detention facilities. It amounts to almost 65% of ICE’s $75 billion dollar budget.

Many of these companies were awarded these contracts under “emergency” conditions without public bid or discussion.

This led me to wonder who these private prison companies are and if they show a partiality to a particular political party.

You’ll be shocked to know they do.

Now government budget facts and Federal Election Commission (FEC) contribution reports, while fascinating, do not make for exciting reading. One might wonder if this is done on purpose to avoid difficult questions being asked. One of the other troubling aspects is the information that is not available with any granularity. It is difficult, nigh on impossible, to determine with any degree of accuracy where billions of taxpayer dollars are spent and what companies receive these funds.

But what is available is here it is in all its dry, boring, and questionable glory.

Now, when you are reading this, imagine the benefactors of these contributions were mostly Democrats instead of Republican or named Biden instead of Trump before you scream I am accusing anyone of anything nefarious.

The numbers speak for themselves, the inferences one may draw, which is the whole purpose of making these public so people can make their own determinations, are your own.

For those of you adverse to drudging through the numbers and tables, go to the end and see the private prison executive names and their personal and corporate contributions. Then decide if this seems like open fair government

Below is a grounded, source‑based overview of U.S. federal expenditures on private prisons and detention facilities, focused on who spends the money, how it flows to private operators, and the scale involved, with clear limits where sources do not give exact totals.

Overview: What “federal expenditures” means in this context

Federal spending on private prisons and detention facilities mainly occurs through contracts rather than direct ownership. The two largest federal systems involved are:

  • U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (Department of Homeland Security)
  • Bureau of Prisons (BOP) (Department of Justice)

Spending appears in annual appropriations, multi‑year contracts, and emergency or no‑bid contract modifications, rather than in a single budget line labeled “private prisons.”

ICE: the largest source of federal spending on private detention

Scale and role of private facilities

Multiple sources document that ICE relies heavily on for‑profit detention operators. According to analysis summarized by the Brennan Center for Justice, nearly 90% of people in ICE custody are held in facilities run by private companies. [brennancenter.org]

Recent federal funding levels (documented, not inferred)

  • A 2025 budget bill provided $45 billion for building new immigration detention centers and $14–30 billion for enforcement, arrests, and deportation operations, significantly expanding ICE’s detention and removal capacity. [brennancenter.org], [brennancenter.org]
  • This legislation and related appropriations made ICE the largest federal law‑enforcement agency by budget, according to the same sources. [brennancenter.org]

Flow of funds to private prison companies

Sources explicitly state that:

What cannot be precisely stated:
The sources do not provide a single, consolidated dollar total of how much of ICE’s funding is paid specifically to private prison operators in a given fiscal year. They describe billions flowing to private firms, but without an exact annual figure. [factually.co]

Bureau of Prisons (BOP): smaller but still significant use of private facilities

How BOP uses private prisons

The Bureau of Prisons primarily operates federal prisons itself, but contracts with private facilities, especially for low‑ and minimum‑security inmates and for overflow capacity.

Documented spending ranges

A U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report states that:

  • The cost of confining federal inmates in non‑BOP facilities (including private prisons) increased from about $250 million in FY1996 to about $700 million in FY2006. [gao.gov]

More recent BOP budget documents confirm ongoing contracting and acquisition authority, but do not break out current‑year private‑prison spending as a standalone line item. [bop.gov]

What cannot be precisely stated:
No current GAO or DOJ source in the retrieved materials provides a recent, exact dollar figure for BOP payments to private prisons alone.

Federal spending in the broader incarceration system (context)

The Prison Policy Initiative reports that:

  • The total U.S. government cost of mass incarceration is at least $445 billion annually, including policing, courts, corrections, and immigration enforcement. [prisonpolicy.org]
  • Immigration detention and enforcement account for tens of billions of dollars within that total, with private detention playing a central role. [prisonpolicy.org]

This figure includes but does not isolate private‑prison expenditures, so it should not be read as a direct measure of private‑facility spending.

Where to find exact contract‑level figures

For precise dollar amounts paid to individual private prison companies, the authoritative source is USAspending.gov, which tracks:

  • ICE and DOJ contract awards
  • Contract modifications
  • Vendor‑level totals (e.g., CoreCivic, GEO Group)

The site itself does not summarize totals for “private prisons” as a category; users must filter by agency, vendor, and contract purpose. [usaspending.gov]

Key takeaways (strictly source‑supported)

  • ICE is the dominant driver of federal spending on private detention facilities.
  • Tens of billions of dollars in federal appropriations support immigration detention and enforcement, with private companies housing the majority of detainees.
  • BOP spending on private prisons exists but is smaller and less transparent, with historical GAO data showing hundreds of millions annually, not tens of billions.
  • No single public source provides a clean, current total for federal payments to private prisons across all agencies.

Largest operators (control most ICE detention beds)

GEO Group

  • The largest single operator of ICE detention facilities nationwide
  • Operates dozens of ICE detention centers, including major hubs such as:
    • South Texas ICE Processing Center (TX)
    • Montgomery ICE Processing Center (TX)
    • Delaney Hall (NJ; large 15‑year contract)
  • Also provides electronic monitoring and transport services for ICE [factually.co], [time.com], [visaverge.com]

CoreCivic

  • The second‑largest ICE detention contractor
  • Owns and operates at least 10 large ICE detention facilities
  • Major sites include:
    • Adams County Detention Center (MS)
    • Otay Mesa Detention Center (CA)
    • South Texas Family Residential Center (TX)
  • Regularly reopens or reactivates facilities under ICE contracts [factually.co], [time.com], [visaverge.com]

Together, GEO Group and CoreCivic dominate privatized ICE detention, accounting for the majority of private detention capacity. [factually.co]

Other private companies operating ICE detention facilities

LaSalle Corrections

  • Mid‑sized private corrections company
  • Operates several ICE detention centers, primarily in the South and Midwest [visaverge.com]

Management & Training Corporation (MTC)

  • Operates detention facilities for ICE and other federal agencies
  • Known for large institutional contracts rather than local jails [visaverge.com]

Additional contractors (not full facility owners)

Important distinction

Not all ICE detainees are held in private prisons:

  • Some are held in county or state jails under intergovernmental agreements
  • A small number are held in federally owned ICE Service Processing Centers However, private companies operate the majority of ICE detention facilities and beds. [visaverge.com], [theimmigra…ionlab.org]

Summary table

CompanyRole in ICE detention
GEO GroupLargest operator of ICE detention centers
CoreCivicSecond‑largest operator
LaSalle CorrectionsRegional ICE detention operator
Management & Training Corporation (MTC)Operates large ICE facilities

Bottom line

ICE detention is primarily run by private prison corporations, led overwhelmingly by GEO Group and CoreCivic, with a smaller number of facilities operated by LaSalle Corrections and Management & Training Corporation.

Important context (how to read the numbers): OpenSecrets totals for a company typically do not mean the corporation itself donated to candidates—they aggregate money from the company’s PAC(s), its employees/executives, and (where applicable) certain outside-group spending. OpenSecrets explicitly notes this on organization profiles. [opensecrets.org], [opensecrets.org], [opensecrets.org]

1) Biggest ICE detention contractors & their federal-cycle contribution totals

GEO Group (major ICE detention & monitoring contractor)

  • Total contributions (2024 cycle): $3,718,518 (OpenSecrets organization profile). [opensecrets.org]
  • The OpenSecrets page also breaks down sources (PAC vs individuals) and recipient types (outside groups, candidates, parties, etc.). [opensecrets.org]
  • State-level giving context: FollowTheMoney/OpenSecrets lists GEO Group giving $16,070,844 across 24 years (state-focused dataset; not just federal). [followthemoney.org]

GEO PAC (FEC primary record):

  • GEO Group PAC committee page (ID C00382150) includes 2025 receipts/spending totals and downloadable transactions.
    OpenSecrets GEO PAC profile (cycle summaries): [fec.gov] [opensecrets.org]

Examples of executive / affiliate giving cited in reporting:

  • CREW reports GEO Group’s PAC contributed $5,000 to Trump’s campaign (as part of a larger joint fundraising contribution), and that a GEO subsidiary (GEO Acquisition II Inc.) gave $500,000 to a pro‑Trump super PAC; it also reports $11,600 each from GEO executives George Zoley and Brian Evans to Trump’s fundraising committee. [citizensfo…ethics.org]
  • ABC News similarly describes GEO-linked super PAC giving and mentions the $11,600 executive donations. [abcnews.com]

CoreCivic (major ICE detention contractor)

  • Total contributions (2024 cycle): $784,974 (OpenSecrets organization profile). [opensecrets.org]
  • The Intercept cites OpenSecrets-derived figures that CoreCivic-affiliated contributions skewed heavily Republican in the 2024 cycle and reports CoreCivic gave $500,000 to Trump’s inaugural committee (paired with GEO giving the same). [theintercept.com]

CoreCivic PAC (FEC primary record):

  • CoreCivic PAC committee page (ID C00366468) includes 2025 receipts/spending totals and downloadable transactions.
    OpenSecrets CoreCivic PAC pages: [fec.gov]
  • Candidate recipients list for 2023–2024 cycle totals and recipients. [opensecrets.org]
  • PAC-to-party/PAC contributions table. [opensecrets.org]

Management & Training Corporation (MTC) (ICE detention contractor in multiple locations)

  • Total contributions (2024 cycle): $33,066 (OpenSecrets organization profile). [opensecrets.org]
  • MTC PAC: OpenSecrets PAC profile shows total raised $147,678 in the 2023–2024 cycle (PAC summary page) and includes the FEC committee ID. [opensecrets.org]
  • MTC PAC FEC page: committee ID C00208322 with 2025 receipts/spending. [fec.gov]

LaSalle (listed in OpenSecrets’ “for‑profit prisons” industry rollup)

OpenSecrets’ For‑profit Prisons industry summary (2023–2024) shows:

  • “Lasalle Management” total: $12,384 in the 2023–2024 cycle (industry contributor table). [opensecrets.org]

I did not find a dedicated OpenSecrets organization profile page in the search results for “LaSalle Management/LaSalle Corrections” (like GEO/CoreCivic/MTC have). The industry rollup is the clearest consolidated snapshot surfaced in this pass. [opensecrets.org]

2) Quick “who gave what” snapshot (federal cycle totals)

Here are the most directly comparable OpenSecrets federal-cycle totals (2024 cycle) you can cite quickly:

3) If you specifically want company executives’ campaign contributions

Two reliable approaches:

A) Use OpenSecrets “Donor Lookup” (best for individuals, but may be search-limited)

OpenSecrets provides a Donor Lookup tool for individual donors (name-based search). [opensecrets.org]

Note: OpenSecrets warns the donor lookup can be limited for recent periods in some cases; the page itself calls out limitations for 2024 completeness in donor lookup results views. [opensecrets.org]

B) Use FEC’s raw filings (best for definitive federal records)

For each company PAC, use the FEC committee page and download:

  • Receipts (who donated to the PAC)
  • Disbursements (who the PAC gave to)
  • Filings by period

Key PAC IDs already identified:

4) Executive contribution examples already documented in reporting

  • CREW: GEO executives George Zoley and Brian Evans each gave $11,600 to Trump’s fundraising committee; GEO-related entities also gave large sums to pro‑Trump outside groups (e.g., $500,000 from GEO Acquisition II Inc.). [citizensfo…ethics.org]
  • In These Times / The Appeal compilation (mirrored): says George Zoley and former CoreCivic CEO Damon Hininger each made political contributions totaling more than $1 million over 2021–2025, and describes a searchable database of member-of-Congress recipients connected to GEO/CoreCivic/MTC. [rsn.org]
  • The Intercept: reports both GEO Group and CoreCivic gave $500,000 each to Trump’s inaugural committee and summarizes partisan splits using OpenSecrets. [theintercept.com]

Federal only, all cycles. Below is a strictly sourced, no‑inference summary of federal campaign contributions connected to ICE detention contractors, limited to what can be stated with certainty from federal records. Where exact all‑cycles federal totals are not explicitly stated in the sources, I give you the authoritative PAC/organization records you can cite or download directly (FEC/OpenSecrets), rather than risk over‑stating numbers.

Scope & rules used (important)

  •  Federal elections only (President, U.S. House, U.S. Senate)
  •  All cycles (from PAC registration to present)
  •  Sources limited to FEC + OpenSecrets
  •  No state or local data (FollowTheMoney state totals excluded)
  •  No inferred totals when sources don’t explicitly publish an “all‑cycles” number

1) ICE detention contractors — federal campaign finance vehicles

GEO Group (largest ICE detention contractor)

Federal PAC

  • Name: THE GEO GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
  • FEC Committee ID: C00382150
  • Active since: 2002
  • Authoritative federal record (all cycles): FEC committee page (downloadable filings) [corecivic.com]

OpenSecrets organization profile (federal aggregation)

  • OpenSecrets aggregates federal contributions across all cycles from:
    • GEO PAC
    • GEO executives & employees
    • GEO subsidiaries (when applicable)
  • Profile page: OpenSecrets GEO Group organization summary [factually.co]

Documented executive federal contributions

  • GEO executives George Zoley and Brian Evans each donated $11,600 to Donald Trump’s federal fundraising committee (reported via FEC data and summarized by CREW and ABC News) [citizensfo…ethics.org], [msn.com]

CoreCivic (second‑largest ICE detention contractor)

Federal PAC

  • Name: CORECIVIC, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
  • FEC Committee ID: C00366468
  • Active since: 2001
  • Authoritative federal record (all cycles): FEC committee page (downloadable filings) [dkftve4js3…dfront.net]

OpenSecrets organization profile (federal aggregation)

  • Aggregates all federal cycles of:
    • CoreCivic PAC contributions
    • Executive & employee donations
  • Profile page: OpenSecrets CoreCivic organization summary [judiciary.senate.gov]

Documented federal contributions (reported)

  • CoreCivic gave $500,000 to Trump’s federal inaugural committee (reported using FEC filings) [citizensfo…ethics.org]

Management & Training Corporation (MTC)

Federal PAC

  • Name: MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
  • FEC Committee ID: C00208322
  • Active since: 1986
  • Authoritative federal record (all cycles): FEC committee page [followthemoney.org]

OpenSecrets organization profile (federal aggregation)

  • Aggregates all federal cycles of:
    • MTC PAC
    • Executives & employees
  • Profile page: OpenSecrets MTC organization summary [motherjones.com]

LaSalle / LaSalle Management (ICE detention operator)

Federal PAC

  •  No distinct LaSalle‑named federal PAC is listed in FEC search results.

Federal contributions visibility

  • LaSalle appears only as part of OpenSecrets’ federal “for‑profit prisons” industry aggregation, not as a standalone federal PAC profile.
  • Industry table lists LaSalle Management as a federal contributor within the sector, but does not publish an all‑cycles federal total for LaSalle alone. [opensecrets.org]

2)

ICE detention contractors have participated in federal elections for decades primarily through corporate PACs and executive donations, with GEO Group, CoreCivic, and Management & Training Corporation maintaining long‑running federal PACs registered with the FEC.

This is supported by:

3) If you want to see the  exact all‑cycles federal totals

The only defensible way (per FEC/OpenSecrets rules) is to cite or export directly from:

Below is a citation‑ready table that is federal‑only and all cycles, grounded exclusively in FEC and OpenSecrets records.
Where an explicit all‑cycles federal dollar total is not published verbatim in the cited source, the table does not invent a number; instead it points to the authoritative record you can cite or export (this is standard practice for legal/academic work).

Federal campaign contributions — ICE detention contractors (all cycles)

Reading note:
“All cycles (federal)” on OpenSecrets organization pages means aggregation of federal PAC contributions + federal candidate/party donations by executives/employees across all cycles. OpenSecrets explicitly notes that corporations themselves do not donate directly to candidates. [factually.co], [judiciary.senate.gov], [motherjones.com]

Company (ICE detention contractor)Federal contribution vehicleFEC Committee IDFederal activity period (as published)All‑cycles federal total (how to cite)Authoritative source
GEO GroupCorporate PACTHE GEO GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEEActive since 2002OpenSecrets all‑cycles federal aggregation (PAC + execs/employees). Cite organization profile; export available.OpenSecrets org profile [factually.co] · FEC PAC page [corecivic.com]
Executive donations (examples)—Reported in multiple cyclesDocumented federal donations by executives (e.g., George Zoley, Brian Evans) are included in OpenSecrets all‑cycles aggregation.CREW / ABC summaries of FEC data [citizensfo…ethics.org], [msn.com]
CoreCivicCorporate PACCORECIVIC, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEEActive since 2001OpenSecrets all‑cycles federal aggregation (PAC + execs/employees). Cite organization profile; export available.OpenSecrets org profile [judiciary.senate.gov] · FEC PAC page [dkftve4js3…dfront.net]
Federal inaugural committee donation (reported)—Reported for 2025 inaugural cycleFederal contribution reported and reflected in FEC/OpenSecrets records (counted in all‑cycles federal).The Intercept (FEC‑based) [citizensfo…ethics.org]
Management & Training Corporation (MTC)Corporate PACMANAGEMENT AND TRAINING CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEEActive since 1986OpenSecrets all‑cycles federal aggregation (PAC + execs/employees). Cite organization profile; export available.OpenSecrets org profile [motherjones.com] · FEC PAC page [followthemoney.org]
LaSalle / LaSalle Management— (no standalone federal PAC identified)——Appears within OpenSecrets federal “for‑profit prisons” industry aggregation; no standalone all‑cycles federal total published for LaSalle alone.OpenSecrets industry table [opensecrets.org]

Below is a citation‑ready table showing federal campaign contributions by named company executives at ICE detention contractors, limited to what is explicitly documented in federal records and reporting that cites FEC/OpenSecrets data.
I do not infer or aggregate beyond what the sources state.

Federal campaign contributions by company executives (all cycles, federal only)

ExecutiveCompany (ICE contractor)Role (as described in source)Federal contribution(s) documentedSource
George ZoleyGEO GroupFounder & Executive ChairmanReported to have made more than $1 million in federal political contributions from 2021–2025, including donations to the Republican National Committee and Trump‑aligned PACs; also personally donated $11,600 to Trump’s Save America Joint Fundraising Committee (federal).In These Times / The Appeal (OpenSecrets & FEC analysis) [finance.yahoo.com]; CREW summary of FEC data [citizensfo…ethics.org]
Brian EvansGEO GroupCEO (at time of reporting)Personally donated $11,600 to Trump’s Save America Joint Fundraising Committee (federal), as reported from FEC filings.CREW (FEC‑based) [citizensfo…ethics.org]; ABC News [msn.com]
Damon HiningerCoreCivicFormer CEOReported to have made more than $1 million in federal political contributions from 2021–2025, including donations to party committees and Trump‑aligned PACs (exact itemization available via OpenSecrets/FEC).In These Times / The Appeal (OpenSecrets & FEC analysis) [finance.yahoo.com]
Unnamed GEO executives (aggregate reference)GEO GroupSenior executivesMultiple GEO executives (including Zoley and Evans) are cited as having made direct federal contributions to Trump‑aligned committees, reflected in FEC filings and OpenSecrets aggregation.ABC News (FEC‑based reporting) [msn.com]

How to cite this correctly

  • The dollar figures above are only those explicitly stated in the cited sources.
  • For full transaction‑level detail (dates, recipients, amounts), cite and export directly from:
    • OpenSecrets Donor Lookup / Organization Profiles (federal only)
    • FEC individual contribution records linked in the PAC/committee filings

Example citation language you can use:

“According to FEC data summarized by In These Times and OpenSecrets, GEO Group founder George Zoley and former CoreCivic CEO Damon Hininger each made more than $1 million in federal political contributions between 2021 and 2025.” [finance.yahoo.com]

Below is the most complete long‑form, citation‑ready table of individual federal contributions by named company executives that can be produced without inventing transactions and strictly grounded in FEC‑based reporting and OpenSecrets summaries.

 Important limitation (transparent and unavoidable):
The web‑accessible sources we can cite here do not publish a full itemized transaction ledger (date‑by‑date, check‑by‑check) for each executive. They do explicitly document specific individual donations and aggregate federal totals for named executives based on FEC filings. I therefore present every individual contribution that is explicitly itemized in the sources, and I clearly mark where sources only provide aggregate federal totals (not per‑transaction rows).

This is the maximum defensible long‑form table under FEC/OpenSecrets citation rules.

Individual federal campaign contributions by ICE‑contractor executives (long‑form)

George Zoley — GEO Group (Founder & Executive Chairman)

DonorEmployer / RoleRecipient (federal)Contribution amountElection cycle / date (as stated)Source
George ZoleyGEO Group – Founder & Executive ChairmanTrump Save America Joint Fundraising Committee$11,600Reported in 2024 cycle (exact filing date not specified in article)CREW (FEC‑based) [citizensfo…ethics.org]
George ZoleyGEO Group – Founder & Executive ChairmanRepublican National Committee & Trump‑aligned PACs (multiple)More than $1,000,000 (aggregate)2021–2025, federal onlyIn These Times / The Appeal (OpenSecrets & FEC analysis) [finance.yahoo.com]

 What this means:

  • The $11,600 entry is an explicit individual transaction.
  • The $1M+ figure is an aggregate of multiple federal contributions reported from FEC data; itemized rows are not published in the source article.

Brian Evans — GEO Group (CEO at time of reporting)

DonorEmployer / RoleRecipient (federal)Contribution amountElection cycle / date (as stated)Source
Brian EvansGEO Group – CEOTrump Save America Joint Fundraising Committee$11,600Reported in 2024 cycle (exact filing date not specified in article)CREW (FEC‑based) [citizensfo…ethics.org]; ABC News [msn.com]

Damon Hininger — CoreCivic (Former CEO)

DonorEmployer / RoleRecipient (federal)Contribution amountElection cycle / date (as stated)Source
Damon HiningerCoreCivic – Former CEORepublican Party committees & Trump‑aligned PACs (multiple)More than $1,000,000 (aggregate)2021–2025, federal onlyIn These Times / The Appeal (OpenSecrets & FEC analysis) [finance.yahoo.com]

 The source explicitly states the aggregate federal total, but does not publish individual transaction rows (dates/amounts/recipients).

“Federal Election Commission data summarized by OpenSecrets and In These Times show that GEO Group founder George Zoley and former CoreCivic CEO Damon Hininger each made more than $1 million in federal political contributions between 2021 and 2025, while individual transactions such as $11,600 donations by Zoley and GEO CEO Brian Evans to Trump’s Save America Joint Fundraising Committee are explicitly documented.” [finance.yahoo.com], [citizensfo…ethics.org], [msn.com]

Below is a **long‑form table of individual (i.e., personal) contributions by ICE‑contractor executives to federal recipients that are explicitly itemized in the sources we can access here. Where the accessible sources only provide aggregate totals (not line‑item transactions), I do not fabricate rows—instead I point you to the authoritative federal lookup tools that contain the complete transaction ledger. [fec.gov], [opensecrets.org]

Coverage note (why you won’t see “every contribution ever” here):
The official source for a complete transaction‑level ledger is the FEC Individual Contributions database and/or OpenSecrets Donor Lookup. Those tools are query‑driven and exportable, but the web snippets accessible in this chat do not expose the full results grid for each executive across all cycles. The tables below therefore include all line items that are explicitly listed in the accessible sources plus the direct federal lookup sources for completeness. [fec.gov], [opensecrets.org]

George C. Zoley (GEO Group) — itemized individual federal contributions (examples shown in accessible source)

2002 cycle (itemized)

DonorEmployer/Occupation (as listed)AmountReceipt dateElection designationFederal recipient committeeParty (as shown)Source
Zoley, GeorgeWackenhut Corrections Corp./Correct$1,00009/26/2002PRepublican Party of Florida Federal Campaign Account—[campaignmoney.com]
Zoley, GeorgeWCC$50003/31/2002PCitizens for Biden – 2002Democrat[campaignmoney.com]
Zoley, George C. DrPhysician$25003/04/2002PBill Nelson for U.S. SenateDemocrat[campaignmoney.com]

2020 cycle (itemized rows visible in accessible source excerpt)

DonorEmployer/Occupation (as listed)AmountReceipt dateElection designationFederal recipient committeeParty (as shown)Source
Zoley, George C. MrThe GEO Group/Chairman & CEO$100,00006/13/2019PTrump Victory—[campaignmoney.com]
Zoley, GeorgeThe GEO Group Inc./CEO$2,80011/20/2019GCory Gardner for SenateRepublican[campaignmoney.com]
Zoley, GeorgeThe GEO Group Inc./CEO$2,80011/20/2019PCory Gardner for SenateRepublican[campaignmoney.com]
Zoley, George C.Geo Group/CEO$10,00010/15/2019PScalise Leadership FundRepublican[campaignmoney.com]
Zoley, GeorgeThe GEO Group/Chairman & CEO$5,00010/08/2019PDan Crenshaw Victory Committee—[campaignmoney.com]
Zoley, GeorgeThe GEO Group Inc./CEO$2,50012/16/2019PSteve Daines for MontanaRepublican[campaignmoney.com]

Additional individual transaction reported from FEC-based journalism

DonorCompany roleAmountRecipientSource
George ZoleyGEO founder & chairman$11,600Trump Save America Joint Fundraising Committee[citizensfo…ethics.org]

Damon T. Hininger (CoreCivic) — itemized individual federal contributions (2020 cycle excerpt)

The excerpted source contains several entries with 01/01/1900 as a “date,” which is not a valid transaction date for reporting. I exclude those rows and only include the entries with specific dates. [campaignmoney.com]

DonorEmployer/Occupation (as listed)AmountReceipt dateElection designationFederal recipient committeeParty (as shown)Source
Hininger, DamonCoreCivic/CoreCivic/Executive$2,80012/02/2019PJohn Rose for TennesseeRepublican[campaignmoney.com]
Hininger, Damon T.CCA/CCA/Management$1,50010/07/2019PKustoff for CongressRepublican[campaignmoney.com]
Hininger, Damon T.Capital City Partners LLC/Executive$2,50009/30/2019PTexans for Senator John Cornyn Inc.Republican[campaignmoney.com]
Hininger, DamonCoreCivic Inc./President/CEO$1,00009/28/2019PRon Estes for CongressRepublican[campaignmoney.com]
Hininger, DamonCoreCivic/CoreCivic/CEO$1,00009/19/2019PCitizens to Elect Phil Roe to CongressRepublican[campaignmoney.com]
Hininger, Damon T. Mr.CoreCivic/CoreCivic/CEO$2,80009/09/2019GTeam HagertyRepublican[campaignmoney.com]
Hininger, Damon T. Mr.CoreCivic/CoreCivic/CEO$2,80009/09/2019PTeam HagertyRepublican[campaignmoney.com]
Hininger, Damon Mr.CCA/CCA/Executive$2,80006/05/2019PMcConnell Senate CommitteeRepublican[campaignmoney.com]
Hininger, Damon T.None/None/Retired$2,80006/29/2019PSteve Daines for MontanaRepublican[campaignmoney.com]
Hininger, DamonCoreCivic/CoreCivic/Executive$1,00005/01/2019PCory Gardner for SenateRepublican[campaignmoney.com]
Hininger, DamonCoreCivic/CoreCivic/Executive$1,00001/23/2019PMark Green for CongressRepublican[campaignmoney.com]

Brian Evans (GEO Group) — individual federal contribution reported in FEC-based journalism

DonorCompany roleAmountRecipientSource
Brian EvansGEO CEO (as described)$11,600Trump Save America Joint Fundraising Committee[citizensfo…ethics.org], [msn.com]

How to get the complete long‑form table (all cycles, all federal recipients) from primary sources

If you need the full itemized ledger across all cycles (dates, amounts, recipients), the primary sources are:

  1. FEC Individual Contributions database (search by contributor name, employer, location; export results) [fec.gov], [fec.gov]
  2. OpenSecrets Donor Lookup (federal contributions ≥ $200; lists date/amount/recipient) [opensecrets.org], [grantstation.com]

These tools are the authoritative way to ensure you capture every federal recipient and every cycle without omission. [fec.gov], [opensecrets.org]

Duplicity Raised to an Art Form

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment

Battling the scourge of the invasion by  illegal immigrants and their crime wave, at Biden’s invitation, and the terrorism of narco-terrorist who control foreign governments are the cornerstone of this administration.

It is a source of pride and promise for his supporters. A great shining star of reclaiming American greatness and supporting true “’mericans.”

But the reality behind is not so shiny or admirable, effective or efficient, beneficial or empowering.

The duplicitous nature of Mr. Trump, something encoded in his DNA, undercuts all claims.

There’s this little gem. https://apple.news/AOcf0Yp3ESImh7oBagMaLFQ

Trump pardoned the former Honduran President Juan Orlando Herandez who’d been convicted of accepting bribes to allow cocaine to be smuggled through Honduras to the United States.

From the article,

“But when it comes to former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was tried and convicted in the U.S. in 2024 and sentenced to 45 years in prison for taking bribes and allowing traffickers to export more than 400 tons of cocaine to the U.S., Trump has taken a decidedly softer tone.

Hernández, he said, has been “treated very harshly and unfairly” — so unfairly that on Dec. 1, Trump pardoned the former president after he served less than four of those 45 years.”

But wait there’s more, Hernandez had an immigration detainer warrant on him. Mr. Trump’s ICE met Mr. Hernandez on his release from prison and ?

Took him to an immigration holding facility in shackles and chains?

Nope

This is what happened, again from the article.

And Hernández did not just walk out of the prison. Despite persistent budget and staffing shortages, prison officials paid a specialized tactical team overtime to drive Hernández from a high-security facility in West Virginia to the famed five-star Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York City, according to records and three people familiar with the situation. Before he left, Hernández was allowed to use the captain’s government phone to talk to the federal prison system’s deputy director, Joshua Smith, who was convicted in a drug trafficking conspiracy before Trump pardoned him in 2021.”

This was a convicted narco-terrorist and Mr. Trump let him go, in style!

And in case you missed the last line of that quote, the Deputy Director of the Bureau of Prisons once was incarcerated in a federal prison. I guess they just saved time and edited his intake photo for his Bureau of Prisons identification.

Then there is the real ugly side to this immigration enforcement nightmare. Like it or not, and those who don’t have likely never been faced with the experience of the criminal justice system, even illegal immigrants are entitled to habeus corpus and due process.

Since the start of this immigration enforcement surge, predicated on focusing on those who committed serious crimes, the wheels have come off the bus. Anyone with an accent, a brown face, a “foreign” look have been fair game and their actual immigration status is a minor consideration.

It seems the only thing that matters are juicing up the numbers. But here’s the real kicker.

Roughly 100–130 facilities nationwide, as of 2025, holding immigration detainees are private corporations, with private corporations operating the majority of ICE’s detention facilities.

About 60–65% of ICE’s total budget is spent on detention, and the large majority of that detention spending goes to private detention facilities.

Who owns these facilities? That is for a future piece.

·  The July 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” and related appropriations allocate about two‑thirds of ICE funding to detention operations (roughly $45 billion of ~$75 billion over four years) [brennancenter.org]

·  That works out to ≈60–65% of ICE’s total budget being devoted specifically to detention rather than enforcement, investigations, or administration and paid to private corporations.[brennancenter.org]

And then there this. The courts, across a wide spectrum of judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican administrations, including judges appointed by Mr. Trump, have consistently ruled that a significant number of these detentions have been unlawful.

Below is a detailed, citation-supported breakdown of the key numbers on unlawful ICE detentions since 2025 and a summary of major court rulings, based entirely on the verified sources gathered.

Key Numbers in Detail

1. More than 4,400 unlawful detentions since October 2025

A nationwide Reuters investigation found that federal judges ruled at least 4,421 ICE detentions unlawful in just four months beginning in October. This represents a historic spike in findings of illegal imprisonment. 

These rulings came from over 400 federal judges, indicating broad, bipartisan agreement that ICE was violating statutory or constitutional requirements. 1

2. Over 20,200 habeas petitions filed during the same period

Immigrants filed more than 20,200 habeas corpus petitions since the beginning of the administration—claims of unlawful or indefinite detention. January 2026 alone saw over 6,000 petitions, a monthly number never previously above 500. 1

These petitions were often driven by:
• Indefinite detention without hearings
• Lack of access to counsel
• Detention after legal authority expired

3. Earlier surge: at least 2,300 unlawful detentions (July 2025–Jan 2026)

An independent case-by-case review documented 2,300 additional unlawful detentions between July 2025 and January 2026. These rulings cut across judges appointed by both major political parties, showing a nonpartisan view that ICE failed to follow due process requirements.

4. Violations of court orders approaching 100 per month in some districts

In Minnesota, Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz documented nearly 100 violations of judicial orders in a single month, tied to “Operation Metro Surge.” Judges reported ICE routinely failing to release individuals even after courts ordered it.

5. Massive rise in detention population

ICE’s detainee population rose to approximately 68,000 people, up 75% since the previous administration, with many detainees having no criminal record. This expansion contributed to the spike in unlawful detentions and overwhelmed legal safeguards. 

Major Court Rulings (Summarized)

Below are representative rulings illustrating the nationwide judicial response.

1. Judge Christine O’Hearn (District of New Jersey) — “Blatantly unlawful from the start”

In Jagpreet Singh v. ICE, Judge O’Hearn found ICE’s detention of an Indian immigrant blatantly unlawful, ordering release and condemning ICE for violating a court order by transferring him out of state. She noted ICE “repeatedly violated judicial orders” and warned of a systemic disregard for the judiciary.

2. Judge Damon R. Leichty (Indiana) — “Detention is unlawful under the statutory scheme”

In a case involving Robert Mendes Barbosa, Judge Leichty—appointed by Trump—ruled that ICE’s detention violated federal law and ordered immediate release. The ruling rejected ICE’s new interpretation of the INA that sought to deny bond categorically.

3. Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz (Minnesota) — systemic violations

Schiltz documented nearly 100 instances of ICE ignoring court-ordered releases within one month, calling the government’s actions “alarming” and describing the volume of violations as “unprecedented.”

4. Judge Thomas Johnston (West Virginia) — “Appalling” government arguments

Judge Johnston ordered the release of a Venezuelan detainee, criticizing ICE for insisting that courts disregard “current law as it is clearly written.” His ruling characterized ICE’s stance as legally indefensible.

5. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals — Upholding ICE’s indefinite detention policy

A 5th Circuit panel upheld the administration’s new bond-denial policy, enabling ICE to detain immigrants indefinitely without bond hearings. Judges described detained immigrants as analogous to “people seeking admission,” dramatically expanding detention authority.
This ruling effectively overrode hundreds of contrary district court rulings in the Fifth Circuit states.

6. District judges overwhelmingly rebuking ICE (373 judges vs. 28 siding with ICE)

A national review found 373 federal judges rejected the new mandatory-detention policy, citing legal and constitutional violations, whereas only 28 upheld it. Despite this, ICE continued using the policy in areas where appellate courts had sided with the administration.

What These Rulings Show

Across 2025–2026, the courts identified recurring patterns:

• Unlawful denial of bond hearings
• Detention after legal authority expired
• Warrantless arrests lacking probable cause
• Failure to comply with court-ordered releases
• Indefinite detention under disputed statutory interpretations

In short:
The judiciary repeatedly ruled ICE’s detention practices illegal, systemic, and in some cases contemptuous of court authority.

So not only is this “Crackdown” on crime by illegal immigrants a sham, but there are people making significant amounts of money off it and the government is engaged in a willful disregard of the law.

Now there’s something to be proud about, go MAGA!

Smile, You’re on Candid Camera

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment

It is the way of the world that nothing ever stays the way it was in the mind of most people. Time, people, and most importantly, technology change in the blink of an eye.

In the year I was born, not every home had a telephone. In the first house my parents bought, the phone line was a party line. To make a call, one had to lift the receiver (connected by a cord to the base) and listen to make sure no one was on the line. In the immediate area where we lived you only had to dial the last four numbers (on a rotary dial!)

Today, I can carry on a video conversation with a person on another continent while riding (never driving!) in a car. And almost every person carries such a device with them.

Which brings me to the subject of today’s rant (raving mad rants as my many critics like to claim); video recording of police officers.

Now I will freely admit that I am grateful the such devices were not around when I was a police officer. Not because of any desire to conceal questionable behavior, but because such videos absent context are fraught with complications.

Here is a hypothetical situation similar to several I experienced, but before the advent of cellphones with cameras.

An officer encounters two individuals breaking into cars. He attempts to place the two under arrest and a struggle ensues. The officer radios for help. Now every officer will tell you that an officer needs assistance call is the highest priority. And, there is no slower moment in time than when you are the officer needing assistance, thirty seconds feels like an hour.

But back to the story, as the first assisting officer arrives, the officer being assaulted yells, “their trying to get my gun!”

At that point the second officer, seeing one suspect’s hand on the grip of the officer’s weapon, begins to strike the suspects with his baton, opening up one suspects’ head requiring forty or so stitches and breaking the other one’s arm.

Now, in today’s world, a person standing twenty or thirty feet away, coming upon the scene just after the arrival of the second officer, whips out his video camera and records what, from his point of view, appears to be two officers beating these suspects. The video is posted without context, without referencing the reports or charges filed in this matter, and without a full explanation of the circumstances.

This is fraught with misinformation and likely to be twisted into something it is not by those with an agenda.

This is the result of people pretending to be competent journalists without the requirement or obligation to tell the full story.

But with that said, the First Amendment is clear. As long as they are not interfering with law enforcement they can record the officers actions. Trying to criminalize actions or rights afforded under the First Amendment is inherently more dangerous than the results of such protected activities.

With the proliferation of cameras everywhere, trying to prevent such recordings, absent a showing of criminal interference with the officers, is frutiless.

Keep the following in mind if you choose to video officers.

You have a First Amendment right to record local, state, and federal law enforcement officers (FBI, ICE, Marshals) performing duties in public, provided you do not interfere with their work. While seven federal circuits uphold this right, some federal agencies, including DHS, have sometimes contested it, making it important to remain at a safe distance.

Key Guidelines for Recording Law Enforcement and Federal Agents:

  • Public Space: You may record in public spaces; however, recording inside secure federal facilities, courts, etc. is generally prohibited. 
  • No Interference: You must not physically interfere with arrests, stop-and-frisk, or searches. 
  • Safety Zone: Maintain a reasonable, safe distance from agents (e.g., several feet away) to avoid accusations of obstruction. 
  • No Mandatory Deletion: Officers cannot legally force you to delete footage or confiscate your device without a warrant. 
  • Document Everything: Capture badges, vehicles, and incident details. 
  • Officer Retaliation: Be aware that some officers may wrongly threaten or arrest you, despite the legality of filming.

More importantly, keep this in mind when you watch these videos.

The officers actions on the recording most likely do not tell the full story. Context, full review of the circumstances preceding and leading up to the action recorded, and review of any reports and charges resulting are necessary to form an informed opinion.

These officers deserve to have the whole story told, not become pawns in some political struggle.

A picture may be worth a thousand words but, if the words do not contain the full story, they can be deceptive and counterproductive.

How Many Dead Americans?

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

“War does not determine who is right, only who is left.” – Bertrand Russell

Since we seem to be stumbling toward regime change in Iran, something Mr. Trump was very clear about opposing as a presidential candidate (and likely, at least partially motivated by taking Epstein off the headlines), it might do well to remind people of the potential US casualties we will endure.

Sometimes war may be inevitable, but it is never necessary.

“In war, there are no unwounded soldiers.” – José Narosky” and the horrors of war are not confined to the battlefield.

So how many dead Americans are we likely to see?

There is no single, authoritative public number for “realistic American casualties” in an all‑out U.S.–Iran war. Most credible assessments treat casualties as highly scenario‑dependent—driven by how long the war lasts, whether it stays mostly air/naval or becomes a ground fight, how effectively Iran’s missiles and proxies hit U.S. forces, and how well U.S. bases/ships are defended and dispersed.

What we can say realistically, based on what’s publicly documented about prior Iranian strikes and Iran’s strike capacity, is:

  • Limited, short, mostly standoff fight (days–weeks) could plausibly mean dozens to low hundreds of U.S. casualties if escalation stays managed and defenses hold.
  • Regional, sustained fight (weeks–months) in which Iran and its partners repeatedly strike U.S. bases/ships could plausibly mean hundreds to several thousand U.S. casualties.
  • A major ground war/occupation (least likely, but “all‑out” could imply it) is the kind of scenario that can push casualties into the many thousands to tens of thousands over time.

Those ranges are order‑of‑magnitude illustrations, not “the” forecast—because the publicly available sources rarely publish a single consolidated U.S.-casualty estimate.

What public evidence does tell us about likely casualty dynamics

1) Iran has shown it can strike U.S. bases—but outcomes vary sharply with warning/defense

Two modern data points show how widely casualties can swing depending on warning, dispersal, and base defenses:

  • In January 2020, senior U.S. military leadership emphasized that defensive measures and preparedness prevented loss of life during Iran’s ballistic missile attack on bases in Iraq, describing sirens, bunkers/barriers, and defensive procedures as critical in avoiding deaths at the time. [war.gov]
  • In June 2025, a UK parliamentary research briefing notes that Iran launched missiles at a U.S. base in Qatar in retaliation for U.S. strikes, and “there were no reported American casualties.” Contemporary reporting similarly described no reported deaths or injuries following the missile attack on Al Udeid Air Base. [commonslib…liament.uk] [cnbc.com], [military.com]

Why this matters: these episodes demonstrate a key point for any “realistic casualties” estimate: even sizable missile attacks can produce low immediate casualties if telegraphed and well-defended—but that does not guarantee low casualties in an “all‑out” war where surprise, volume, and multi‑axis attacks could be greater.

2) Iran’s missile inventory and ability to fire salvos is the biggest direct driver of U.S. casualties

A major “all‑out” scenario is less about U.S. troops meeting Iran’s army head‑on, and more about Iran attempting to inflict costs via missiles/drones on fixed sites and regional infrastructure.

A current reference on Iran’s missile forces notes that Iran’s arsenal has been described as very large, citing a past CENTCOM statement that Iran possessed “over 3,000” ballistic missiles (as of that cited timeframe) and describing ongoing efforts to rebuild stocks after exchanges. [iranwatch.org]

Implication for casualties: more missiles + more launches + lower intercept success = higher U.S. casualties, especially at concentrated bases. Conversely, dispersal, hardened shelters, and layered missile defense strongly reduce casualties.

3) “All‑out” likely means proxies and terrorism risk as well—not just missiles

RAND commentary after U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites underscores that Iran has multiple response options, including mobilizing proxies and potentially attempting terrorist actions (and that how Iran responds remains uncertain). [rand.org]

Implication for casualties: proxies expand the battlefield (Iraq/Syria, Gulf, Red Sea, etc.), adding risk of:

  • rocket/drone attacks on smaller U.S. outposts,
  • attacks on logistics nodes and regional partners,
  • maritime incidents (mines/anti-ship missiles),
  • and potentially attacks outside the immediate theater.

A practical way to think about “realistic casualties”: 3 scenario bands

Below are scenario bands that analysts commonly use when thinking about U.S. exposure. I’m labeling these clearly as scenario logic, not a sourced “official estimate.”

Scenario A — “Short, mostly standoff” (days to a few weeks)

What it looks like: U.S. air/naval strikes; Iran retaliates, but in a constrained way; heavy base hardening, dispersal, and missile defense limit hits.
Casualties: plausibly dozens to low hundreds (killed + wounded).
Why: the 2020 and 2025 episodes show that when attacks are anticipated and defenses work, casualties can be limited. [war.gov], [commonslib…liament.uk], [military.com]

Scenario B — “Regional campaign” (weeks to months)

What it looks like: repeated Iranian missile/drone salvos + proxy attacks across multiple countries and maritime routes; U.S. responds over an extended period; some attacks get through.
Casualties: plausibly hundreds to several thousand.
Why: duration + repeated exposure creates more “rolls of the dice,” and even high interception rates still allow occasional damaging hits—especially if Iran prioritizes saturation, mixed missiles/drones, and timing against defenses (this is general operational logic; public sources typically don’t publish a single number).

Scenario C — “Truly all‑out, including major ground operations” (months to years)

What it looks like: large U.S. ground presence, extended combat operations, occupation/security missions, insurgency conditions, plus ongoing missile/proxy threats.
Casualties: can rise into many thousands to tens of thousands over time.
Why: historically, the wars with the highest U.S. casualty totals are the long, manpower‑intensive ones; CRS maintains comprehensive U.S. war casualty statistics across major conflicts, illustrating how sustained ground wars accumulate far more casualties than short standoff operations. [congress.gov]

Below is a direct, apples‑to‑apples comparison between your 30‑day Iran‑war estimates and what actually happened in the first ~30 days of the 2003 Iraq invasion (Operation Iraqi Freedom), using official U.S. casualty data where available.

1. What happened in Iraq, March–April 2003 (first ~30 days)

Scope

  • Major combat operations: 20 March – ~18 April 2003 (≈30 days)
  • Nature of war: Large‑scale ground invasion, armored thrusts, urban combat, air dominance
  • U.S. force size: ~150,000–170,000 troops in theater

U.S. casualties (first ~30 days)

Using DoD / Defense Casualty Analysis System monthly tallies:

  • Killed
    • March 2003: 65
    • April 2003: 73
    • Total deaths (≈30 days): ~138
  • Wounded in action
    • March 2003: 202
    • April 2003: 340
    • Total wounded (≈30 days): ~542
  • Total U.S. casualties (killed + wounded): ~680

These figures are consistent with DoD‑compiled monthly casualty summaries for Operation Iraqi Freedom. [globalsecurity.org], [dcas.dmdc.osd.mil]

Bottom line for Iraq 2003 (first 30 days):
~140 killed, ~540 wounded, ~680 total casualties

2. Side‑by‑side comparison

Table: First‑30‑Day Casualties

Conflict (first 30 days)KilledWoundedTotal Casualties
Iraq 2003 (actual)~140~540~680
Iran war – low estimate~50~300~350
Iran war – mid estimate~150~900~1,050
Iran war – high estimate~300+~1,500+~1,800+

3. Why Iraq 2003 was comparatively low in casualties

Despite being a full‑scale ground invasion, Iraq 2003 had unusually low U.S. casualties because:

  1. Overwhelming conventional superiority
    • Iraqi air force and air defenses collapsed quickly
  2. Poor Iraqi command cohesion
    • Limited coordinated resistance after initial engagements
  3. Minimal standoff strike exposure
    • Iraq lacked long‑range precision weapons to hit U.S. rear bases
  4. Short duration of major combat
    • Baghdad fell within weeks

These factors kept U.S. casualties in the opening month well under 1,000 despite heavy maneuver warfare.

4. Why a 30‑day Iran war could match or exceed Iraq 2003

Even without an invasion, Iran differs from Iraq 2003 in ways that directly affect casualties:

Key differences

FactorIraq 2003Iran (today)
Long‑range missilesMinimalExtensive arsenal
Ability to strike U.S. basesLimitedProven capability
Proxy forcesWeakRegional network
Maritime threatLowHigh (mines, ASMs)
Urban ground fightingHighLikely avoided early

Iran can impose casualties without losing territory, which means:

  • Casualties accumulate via missiles, drones, and proxies
  • No need to defeat U.S. forces tactically to cause losses

This is why a non‑invasion Iran war can still rival or exceed Iraq 2003 casualties in 30 days.

5. Key takeaway (the comparison in plain English)

Iraq 2003 shows that even a ground invasion can produce relatively low first‑month casualties if the enemy collapses fast.
Iran is the opposite problem: it doesn’t need to collapse, and it can hurt U.S. forces at range.

  • If an Iran war stays limited and well‑defended, casualties could be below Iraq 2003 levels
  • If Iran sustains pressure for 30 days, casualties could match or exceed Iraq 2003 despite no invasion

I’ve yet to see any solid case for launching an attack on Iran. Over the past few decades, surgical strikes by the Israelis and the US has consistently kept nuclear weapons from being developed or deployed.

So why now? And why at all?

The American people are owed a reasonable and defensible reason for sacrificing young Americans in the service of toppling the Iranian government. And to consider restoring the Shah to the throne is substituting a Theocratic dictatorship for an equally evil secular one.

Do the people of Iran deserve freedom? Of course. So do North Korea, China, Russia, Syria, and a host of other countries, some of whom do have nuclear weapons. Do we just make a list and start identifying targets?

Ask yourself, after you stop pounding your chest and raving about killing commies and bad guys, what number of Americans are you willing to sacrifice for a President who cannot even articulate one valid reason for their deaths?

And include your son or daughter, grandson or granddaughter, brother, sister, aunt, mother, or father who may be in the service, or called into service, when you decide how many you are willing to sacrifice.

Blind Expectations

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 2 Comments

I am at a loss to explain the Cult of Trump.

He is neither articulate nor inspiring.

He casts no aura of competence or concern.

He is not admired or respected but inexplicably feared.

He has never written anything memorable or notable.

His personal and professional lives are filled with betrayal and failure.

And yet millions of Americans are mesmerized by him, placed into a catatonic state of blind devotion.

Helen Arendt, a brilliant writer and researcher who crafted a fundamental and articulate explanation for the rise of Nazism in an intellectually advanced and otherwise rational Germany, explains it this way.

If a society feels disconnected, and the perception of decline of white, primarily male, dominance fulfills this role in the US, they seek someone who will do two things. Identify the enemy (in this case Immigrants, DEI, and progressiveness) and offer them a solution.

Mr. Trump does this while ignoring the courts, sending armies of occupation into America cities, and emasculating Congress, all to rousing cheers of the faithful. Perhaps not as drastic as the Final Solution but nevertheless horrifying in its usurping of civil rights, discourse, and conduct.

I’ve come to realize the most ardent Trump supporters are like a flock of chickens. Everyday the man arrives and feeds them what they want to hear.

How their problems are not their fault but a conspiracy by those different than them trying take away their rights.

How only he, with absolute power, can fix this and save them.

How everything he does, he does for them and not for his own personal enrichment.

They look forward to his arrival, feasting on the largesse of his benevolence, until the day he wrings the neck of one of them to satisfy some perceived offense.

And by the next day, they’ve forgotten all about the event.

They wait excitedly the next day and the next and the next, some fed, some killed, until everything has been taken away from them.

Too late the flock realizes they are now dependent on him to survive yet powerless to prevent his callous and unremittent control over their very lives.

That is the quintessential example of Trump Derangement Syndrome; willful ignorance in the face of reality.

Clean Energy is Killing Americans!

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment

(Killing them at a rate that is a tiny fraction of the deaths related to fossil fuel and environmental pollution.)

Having wreaked havoc in international relations, set the global economy into a tailspin, and chipped away at the Constitution, Mr. Trump set his sights on a new project, the environment and clean energy.

By effectively emasculating the EPA and withdrawing from international agreements decades in the making, Trump has now set climate policy, perhaps eliminating any opportunity to slow global warming, back fifty years.

Well, he must be trying to protect American lives and the American way, right? Clean energy and all these EPA regulations must be harming Americans.

Let’s see.

Deaths Attributable to Clean Energy Sources in the United States

How many deaths are attributable to clean energy sources (such as wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear) in the U.S.

Based on the web‑retrieved scientific datasets, the key point is:

Clean energy sources cause extremely few deaths—effectively near zero—compared with fossil fuels.

1. Mortality Rates per Unit of Electricity (Global Data, Applicable to U.S.)

The leading scientific compilations provide death rates per terawatt‑hour (TWh) of electricity. These include deaths from both accidents and air pollution.

Clean Energy (Low‑Carbon Sources)

From Our World in Data (Markandya & Wilkinson; Sovacool et al.; UNSCEAR):

  • Solar: ~0.02 deaths per TWh
  • Wind: ~0.04 deaths per TWh
  • Hydropower: ~1.3 deaths per TWh (higher largely due to rare but catastrophic dam failures, not routine operation)
  • Nuclear: ~0.03 deaths per TWh (even including Chernobyl and Fukushima)

These figures are extremely low compared with fossil fuels.

And before anyone starts talking about the birds being killed by wind power (because we know supporters of fossil fuels care greatly for these creatures) U.S. estimates typically range from hundreds of thousands to around one million birds per year killed by wind turbines, depending on methodology and turbine growth.

Wind turbines kill far fewer birds than buildings, windows, power lines, or domestic cats, which together account for hundreds of millions to billions of bird deaths annually in the U.S.

Maybe we should get rid of cats?

Fossil Fuels (for contrast)

From Statista’s global mortality dataset:

  • Coal: ~25–33 deaths per TWh
  • Oil: much higher than renewables
  • Biomass: also significantly higher

This demonstrates that clean energy technologies are among the safest ever used.

2. What This Means for the U.S. Specifically

Although the datasets are global, they apply directly to the U.S. because:

  • The physical risk mechanisms (air pollution, accidents, radiation, turbine failures) are the same.
  • U.S. regulatory standards are among the strictest in the world, which further reduces clean‑energy mortality below global averages.

Estimated U.S. Deaths from Clean Energy

Because the mortality rates are so low, and U.S. generation volumes are known, we can characterize the effects qualitatively:

  • Wind, solar, nuclear:
    Deaths are effectively near zero per year.
    Any deaths would come from rare installation/maintenance accidents, not pollution.
  • Hydropower:
    Also extremely low.
    There have been no large‑scale U.S. dam‑failure mass‑casualty events in the modern clean‑energy era.

Context: Fossil‑fuel deaths in the U.S.

Just for comparison, fossil‑fuel air pollution still causes over 50,000 U.S. deaths annually.

So clean energy saves lives by displacing far more dangerous energy sources.

3. Plain‑Language Summary

  • Clean energy sources (wind, solar, nuclear, hydropower) cause almost no deaths in the U.S.
  • Their mortality rates are 100–1000× lower than fossil fuels.
  • Most U.S. energy‑related deaths result from air pollution from fossil fuels—not from clean energy.

Deaths attributable to rising air and water pollution from 1950–2025.

Summary of What the Data Shows (1950–2025)

1. Long‑term trend: Pollution‑related deaths have risen significantly

The earliest comprehensive global datasets begin around 1990, not 1950. However, historical research consistently shows:

  • Industrialization in the mid‑20th century sharply increased pollution exposure.
  • From 1990 to 2023, global deaths attributable specifically to air pollution increased from 5.99 million to 7.9 million annually.1
  • This represents roughly a 32% increase over three decades.

Water pollution–attributable deaths are less consistently tracked in the modern datasets, but WHO and IHME place diarrheal and sanitation-linked mortality at over 1.4–1.7 million deaths per year globally in recent decades (not included in most “air pollution” datasets).
Note: No quantitative 1950–1989 global mortality databases exist for combined air + water pollution.

2. Air Pollution Mortality (Modern Detailed Data: 1990–2025)

Current annual burden (2023 estimates)

  • 7.9 million deaths attributable to air pollution worldwide in 2023.
    – Primarily from heart disease, stroke, respiratory diseases, diabetes, cancer.1
  • 86% (6.8 million) were from noncommunicable diseases.1
  • 600,000+ deaths linked to dementia for the first time (reported in 2025).1

Exposure trends

  • 36% of the world’s population still exposed to PM2.5 above WHO’s least stringent target.2
  • 2.6 billion people exposed to household air pollution from solid fuels.2

Global share of total deaths

  • Air pollution contributes to one in ten deaths globally each year.3

3. Water Pollution Mortality

While the search did not surface a unified “air + water pollution” mortality series, WHO’s water/sanitation data (not in the retrieved sources) typically shows:

  • Approximately 1.4–1.7 million annual deaths in recent decades from unsafe water, sanitation, and hygiene.

The datasets for water pollution rarely extend reliably back to mid‑century (1950s–1970s).
However, historical global mortality from contaminated water was substantially higher in 1950 and has declined due to sanitation improvements.

4. Combining Air + Water Pollution (1950–2025): What We Can Say with Confidence

Because only air‑pollution mortality is tracked with consistency over time:

1950–1990 (qualitative historical trajectory)

  • Both air and water pollution deaths were significantly higher than today in the Global South and rapidly industrializing regions.
  • Air pollution deaths increased through mid‑20th‑century industrial growth.
  • Water‑pollution deaths were far higher pre‑1970s due to lack of water treatment and sanitation.

1990–2025 (quantitative era)

  • Air pollution deaths increased from ~6 million to nearly 8 million per year (≈+32%).1
  • Water‑related deaths have gradually decreased due to sanitation improvements, though precise annual global series was not found in retrieved sources.

Comparison of Deaths from Air vs. Water Pollution (1990–2025)

1. Air Pollution Deaths (1990–2025)

Modern data on global air‑pollution mortality is extensive.

Key findings

  • Air pollution contributes to millions of premature deaths annually.

  • Deaths from air pollution have increased by more than 10% since 1990.

  • In 2023, air pollution was responsible for 7.9 million deaths globally (from the State of Global Air dataset covering trends from 1990 to 2023).

Trend summary

From 1990 → 2023:

  • Increase in global air‑pollution deaths.
  • Air pollution remains one of the world’s leading risk factors for death, accounting for 1 in 10 global deaths.

2. Water Pollution Deaths (1990–2025)

Unlike air pollution, the web search did not return any global, long‑term datasets on water‑pollution mortality for 1990–2025.

This absence is expected—global water‑pollution death figures are usually embedded within:

  • “Unsafe water, sanitation, and hygiene” categories (WHO/GBD),
  • Focused on diarrheal disease,
  • And not presented in long‑term trend datasets like air‑pollution deaths.

What we know (contextual, but not from retrieved sources)

  • Unsafe water typically contributes to 1.4–1.7 million deaths per year globally (WHO/GBD).
  • Long‑term trend: declining since the 1990s due to improved sanitation and water treatment—but this was not present in the tool‑retrieved data, so cannot be cited directly.

3. Direct Comparison (Based on Search‑Retrieved Data)

Air Pollution

  • Robust 1990–2023 trend data available.
  • Deaths rose from ~6 million to ~8 million per year.
    32

Water Pollution

  • No long‑term datasets were returned by the search.
  • No 1990–2025 death series available in tool‑retrieved sources.

Conclusion

  • Air‑pollution deaths increased significantly from 1990 to 2025.
  • Water‑pollution deaths cannot be quantitatively trended from the available sources, as no data was returned.
  • Based on global patterns (non‑cited), water‑related deaths likely declined, while air‑pollution deaths rose.

Walking Past History

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

We have the pleasure of hosting our grandsons at, as they call it, “Grandmother and Grandfather’s hotel,” a couple of days a week here in Warren in the old American Tourister Mill. Both kids, aged 2 and 4, love exploring the halls looking for pirates and ghosts (which, they insist, are quite common, albeit hard to catch. But they have seen them!)

While wandering the halls, I had occasion to wonder about the many pictures on display. So, as I am want to do, I took pictures of the pictures and, through the magic of AI and Google Image search, I did some digging into their origin.

For some, I was only able to get generic references but for others, there is a well documented history behind them. Several of the images were taken by a man named Lewis Hines in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Here is the Wikipedia listing for him.

Lewis Wickes Hine (September 26, 1874 – November 3, 1940) was an American sociologist and muckraker photographer. His photographs taken during times such as the Progressive Era and the Great Depression captured young children working in harsh conditions, playing a role in bringing about the passage of the first child labor laws in the United States.

If you’re interested in more there is quite a bit of background on the child labor law saga and images taken by Hines to illustrate the horrors of the times.

But for now, I just wanted to give you a flavor of these images on display and, perhaps, incite an interest in admiring the history

Between 1876 and 1924, Greenville’s best defense against fire was this antique hand-pumper affectionately named the “Water Witch”. It took quite a few men, and a lot of stamina to operate it. (Photo courtesy of Priscilla W. Holt.)

Image accompanied a story posted in the Smith-Appleby House Museum Website about the The Great Greenville Conflagration of 1924. It was an intense blaze that broke out on a cold winter’s night in the very heart of Greenville, at an hour when most citizens were snug in their beds. When it was over, two prominent landmarks had been destroyed, six businesses and the post office were gone, and three families were left homeless. Had it not been for the brave efforts of volunteer firefighters, it could have been much worse.

This vintage photograph captures a group of young workers, likely child laborers, posing in front of a building in the early 20th century. 

  • The image is part of a collection documenting industrial child labor conditions in the United States. 
  • Similar photographs from this period, such as those taken by Lewis Hine in 1911, depict young boys and girls working in textile mills, factories, and other industrial facilities. 
  • The clothing style, including caps and jackets, suggests a late 19th or early 20th-century time period.
  • The sepia-toned photograph shows several children gathered around, likely engaged in a game involving items on the ground.

This image depicts an early classroom at the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD). 

Historical Context

The photograph likely dates back to the early years of the institution, which was founded in 1877. RISD was established by Helen Metcalf and her women’s group, the Rhode Island Women’s Centennial Commission. 

  • Photograph Title: Newsboys Smoking, 1910. 
  • Photographer: Taken by Lewis Hine on May 9, 1910, while working for the National Child Labor Committee (NCLC). 
  • Subject: The photograph shows young boys known as “newsies,” who sold newspapers on the streets, posing while smoking cigarettes. 
  • Location: The scene was shot at Skeeter’s Branch in St. Louis, Missouri. 

Interesting when you consider these boys likely ended in the military during World War I.

This image captures a historical moment featuring the North Warren Consolidated Railroad Station.

  • The photograph depicts a group of children or young adults posing in front of the rustic station building.
  • The station served as a critical hub for local transportation and commerce in the early 20th century. 
  • Small-town depots like this were central meeting places for community members before the prevalence of automobiles. 

This image captures a moment in time featuring children playing a game known as “pitching pennies” on a city sidewalk. 

  • Photographer: The photograph was taken by Lewis Wickes Hine in November 1912. 
  • Location: The scene was recorded in Providence, Rhode Island. 
  • Context: Hine took this photograph while working for the National Child Labor Committee to document working and living conditions for children at the time. 
  • The Game: Pitching pennies is an ancient game where players toss coins toward a wall, with the goal of landing their coin closest to it to win. 

This image depicts an early 20th-century newspaper printing office, likely dating from the 1900s to the 1920s, showcasing the traditional letterpress printing process.

  • Typesetting Areas: Workers are positioned at large slanted desks known as composing sticks or type cases, where they would manually arrange individual metal letters (type) to form sentences and paragraphs. 
  • Printing Press: In the background, heavy machinery, likely a flatbed or cylinder press, is visible, which was used to transfer ink from the type onto paper. 
  • Manual Labor: The scene highlights a labor-intensive environment required for printing daily news before modern digital technology existed. 
  • Historical Significance: Such offices were central hubs in local communities, producing newspapers like The Eagle in Montana or the Stuttgart Germania in Arkansas. 

This vintage photograph captures a historic train scene featuring a New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad locomotive, specifically numbered 76. 

  • The image shows a classic 4-4-0 “American” type steam locomotive, which was the dominant passenger engine type in the United States during the mid-to-late 19th century. 
  • Two railroad employees are posing beside the engine, providing a sense of scale and highlighting the manual labor involved in early railroading. 
  • The locomotive tender is clearly marked with “NYNH&H,” identifying the railroad company. 
  • This photograph serves as a visual record of late 19th-century railway technology and daily operations. 

This photograph depicts an early trolley car operating in Rhode Island, likely near the turn of the 20th century, which served as a primary form of public transportation in the state. 

  • The trolley is branded for routes to “Warren Ave & Riverside” and likely destined for a park.
  • It features an open-sided design with transverse seating, typical of summer streetcars of that era.
  • The men pictured are likely the conductor, motorman, and other transit employees in uniform.
  • This style of electric streetcar eventually replaced horse-drawn omnibuses that had been operating since the Civil War era.

This vintage photograph, likely from the early 20th century, captures a group of people including women in distinctive period attire and a boy with a dog. Based on visual comparisons, the central woman’s outfit is a striking hobble skirt, a tubular fashion trend characterized by a very narrow hem that “hobbled” the wearer’s gait. 

Historical Context and Attire

  • The Hobble Skirt: This narrow-bottomed skirt was a curious and sometimes scandalous fashion popular between 1908 and 1914. The bold vertical stripes on the central figure’s dress were common in avant-garde designs of that era.
  • Suffragette Influence: During this period (roughly 1908–1920), women’s fashion was often intertwined with the suffragette movement. While the specific individuals in this image are not identified, many prominent suffragists utilized distinct public costumes for rallies and marches to gain visibility for their cause.
  • Period Accessories: The other women are seen wearing wide-brimmed hats and structured coats typical of the 1910s and early 1920s. One woman on the left appears to be wearing a sash, a common accessory for activists and participants in formal processions. 

This image captures a pivotal moment in American history, specifically related to labor conditions and child labor in the early 20th century. 

  • Photographer & Date: The photograph was taken by Lewis Wickes Hine on June 10, 1909.
  • Location: The scene is in Warren, Rhode Island, near the Warren Manufacturing Company mill.
  • Context: The image shows young boys arriving for work at 6:00 AM.
  • Historical Impact: Hine took this photograph as part of his work for the National Child Labor Committee to document and advocate against the exploitation of children in industrial settings.

So the next time you walk by these images, take a moment to look back in time. You are walking right past history.

Some Things ARE Timeless

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Back when I was in grammar school, where we had to avoid dinosaurs, Neanderthals, and Fingernail Freddy on our way to catch the bus, one of the motivating factors to keep going was the monthly arrival (I seem to recall it came to the school, but I may be making that up) of Highlights Magazine.

Chock full of stories, games, and mind puzzles, it was a significant factor in developing my love of reading. Coupled with the Hardy Boy series, the Encyclopedia Britannica, and a well-equipped (and mostly unrestricted) library, the entire would was within my reach.

And now we want to pass it on to the next generation.

We have continued the tradition with our grandsons, starting with a brand new subscription to Highlights. Some of the other book series have changed. My grandson, Levi, loves the Goosebumps and Garbage Pail Kids series by R.L. Stine. What little boy wouldn’t like scary stories or books with characters named Adam Bomb, Brainy Janey, or Luke Puke?

Like most kids, Levi’s memory is a sponge. He has memorized the titles of almost all 62 Goosebumps books and can recite the plot and characters from many of them.

So, while I also still enjoy some good “hurling” jokes and bathroom humor, we are certain Highlights magazine will offer a more diverse array of stories for him to read and repeat ad nauseum.

Some things truly are timeless.

This Special K isn’t Good for Most

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

The US is in a K-shaped economy. It is characterized by extreme growth in the high-end sector at the expense and detriment of the lower and medium wage sector. While many sing the praises of this administration’s economic policy (if one could even describe what that policy is) the reality for most Americans is not a positive economic outlook.

A K‑shaped economy describes a recovery or growth pattern where different parts of the population experience sharply different outcomes simultaneously. One group’s economic prospects rise (the upward arm of the “K”), while another group’s prospects fall or stagnate (the downward arm). This term became common during and after the COVID‑19 pandemic to explain uneven economic recovery.

Effects on lower‑income Americans

Lower‑income Americans are typically on the downward side of the “K” and face several challenges:

  • Job insecurity: Many lower‑wage jobs are concentrated in service, retail, hospitality, and gig work, which are more vulnerable to layoffs, reduced hours, and automation.
  • Slower wage growth: Even when employment recovers, wages for low‑income workers often lag behind inflation, reducing real purchasing power.
  • Limited asset ownership: Lower‑income households are less likely to own stocks, real estate, or other assets that usually grow during economic recoveries, so they miss out on wealth gains.
  • Rising cost pressures: Increases in housing, food, healthcare, and transportation costs hit lower‑income families harder because these expenses make up a larger share of their income.
  • Reduced economic mobility: Gaps in savings, education access, and job training can make it harder to move into higher‑paying roles as the economy changes.

Bottom line: In a K‑shaped economy, overall growth can mask widening inequality, with lower‑income Americans experiencing prolonged financial hardship.

What the K‑Shaped Economy Means for Workers

Workers on the downward side of the K face intersecting challenges that unions confront daily:

  • Unequal recovery: Office‑based and managerial jobs rebounded quickly, while service, manufacturing, logistics, healthcare support, and food service jobs remain volatile despite being essential to the economy.
  • Falling real wages: Even where nominal wages went up, inflation—especially in housing, food, and healthcare—has eaten away at paychecks, leaving many workers worse off.
  • Precarious employment: More workers are employed part‑time, on temporary contracts, or misclassified as independent contractors, limiting access to benefits and job security.
  • Unsafe and demanding conditions: Productivity demands have gone up without corresponding improvements in safety, staffing, or compensation.
  • Weakened worker voice: Decades of declining union density and weak labor law enforcement have reduced workers’ ability to bargain collectively for fair wages and conditions.

A K‑shaped economy is a direct consequence of declining worker power. When workers cannot collectively negotiate, economic gains flow upward instead of being shared. Union jobs consistently deliver higher wages, safer workplaces, better benefits, and greater economic stability—making unions a key solution to K‑shaped inequality.

Since the Trump administration often blames Biden for everything, here is the reality of the many causes of the high rate of inflation resulting from Global, not exclusively domestic, conditions. Biden faced unprecedented global economic pressures requiring innovative and challenging responses. Yet his policies managed to slow and then reduce inflation from it peak of 9% to a generally accepted 3% level.

Here is a single‑row table summarizing the primary cause of inflation under Biden, as described by mainstream economic research (Fed, NBER, FactCheck): These conclusions are easily verifiable.

Inflation under Biden (2021–2022)Primary cause
Rapid inflation surge to ~9%Post‑COVID demand rebounded faster than supply, while supply chains were still constrained; fiscal stimulus boosted demand, and energy/food shocks from the Ukraine war pushed prices to their peak

In one sentence: Inflation was mainly caused by too much demand chasing too little supply after COVID, with stimulus and global energy shocks making it worse.

Primary cause (the core driver)

Demand rebounded faster than supply after COVID

  • As the economy reopened in 2021, consumer spending surged while production, labor supply, and logistics were still constrained.
  • Pandemic supply‑chain disruptions (ports, chips, autos, shipping) limited how fast goods and services could be produced, pushing prices higher when demand jumped.
    [factually.co], [nber.org]

This demand‑supply mismatch is widely identified as the central mechanism behind the inflation takeoff.

Major amplifiers (what made it worse)

1. Large fiscal stimulus

  • Pandemic‑era stimulus (including the $1.9T American Rescue Plan) added significant purchasing power while the economy’s supply capacity was still impaired.
  • Research and fact‑checks conclude stimulus contributed meaningfully, though estimates vary on how much.
    [nber.org], [politifact.com]

Most mainstream analyses say stimulus was a contributor, not the sole cause. And, with inflation now closer to the standard model, the termination of the program will eliminate necessary and long-term benefits from the program targeting infrastructure improvements, environmental progress, and adapting to a changing energy focus from fossil fuels to renewables.

2. Global energy and food shocks

  • Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022 caused sharp increases in oil, gas, and food prices, pushing inflation to its peak.
  • Energy prices spill into transportation, manufacturing, and groceries, affecting nearly everything.
    [factually.co], [nber.org]

3. Tight labor markets

  • Job openings far exceeded available workers in 2021–2022.
  • Rising wages added cost pressure in services, contributing to “sticky” inflation later on.
    [nber.org]

What it was not

  • Inflation was not unique to the U.S.; it surged across advanced economies after COVID.
  • That global pattern supports the conclusion that pandemic and energy shocks mattered greatly, not just U.S. policy.
    [chicagofed.org]

One‑sentence summary

Inflation under Biden was primarily caused by a rapid post‑COVID demand rebound colliding with constrained supply, then intensified by fiscal stimulus and global energy shocks—especially the Ukraine war.

Then there’s this, from a posting by Ken Block on social media.

“Have the tariffs negatively impacted the US economy?

Yup.

A $12 billion “Farmer Bridge Assistance” program, also known as a bailout, will provide up to $155,000 to each “row crop” farm (soybean farms are the most affected).

The bailout mitigates financial losses from trade disputes and the impact of reciprocating tariffs.

Farmers are calling this aid a “drop in the bucket” and a short-term band-aid rather than a solution to their economic crisis. Farmers estimate this aid covers only about 25% of the economic harm they have endured since Trump lit up his tariff war.

Worse, China has stopped buying US soybeans altogether and has replaced our soybean exports with soybeans from other countries. There is a real risk that our soybean farmers have lost the Chinese market for good. Other countries have also replaced US exports with goods from non-US sources. Economic isolation, as well as isolation stemming from the US’s unfriendly posture toward many of the countries we trade with, means a loss of crucial markets that we may never fully regain.”  Ken Block, Author of Disproven (https://kenblock.com/DISPROVEN.html)

And do yourself a favor and read Ken Block’s book, Disproven. In light of recent statements by President Trump and his administration continuing the spread of the lie that the 2020 election was stolen and rife with fraud, the threat to the free and open elections outside the control of government is an existential one.

Send in the Clowns

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment 
But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns
Don't bothеr, they're herе
Stephen Sondheim "Send in the Clowns"

I posted a photo the other day of the US Border Patrol emblem on the backs of rodeo clowns. It struck me as a bit ironic, but not remarkably significant. I meant it as no insult to Rodeo Clowns, they engage in rather challenging activities, but the irony for those of us troubled by the recent actions by Border Patrol agents was too good to pass up.

By the reaction, you would have thought I posted an AI video of a former President and First Lady depicted as apes.  I expected some of the usual dribble from the Trump camp, but the reaction was more hyperbolic than expected.

Apparently the Border Patrol has been sponsors of Rodeo Clowns for some time. Now, aside wondering why the federal government is spending tax dollars on sponsoring Rodeo Clowns, I didn’t really give it much thought until the comments started to arrive.

The virulence of the reaction was truly amazing.

There was the usual “Obama did it, too. Biden did it, too.” rant. Always expected and meaningless. But then it degenerated into a full-blown diatribe on everything that is wrong with America (it’s the Democrats) and lunatic conspiracy theories of a planned open border invasion to flood the country with voters to support the Democrats.

It was head spinning, full-blown, whack-a-ding-hoy craziness without a point. Or was it?

Perhaps they see a value in putting Rodeo Clowns on the border? Some might suggest we already have one in the White House. Send in the clowns! Don’t bother, they’re here.

Now the overwhelming majority of Border Patrol agents are dedicated, conscientious, and professional. The “clowns” among them and in command are not reflective of the agency as a whole. But I would bet, if asked, they might want to see their emblem displayed on something more in keeping with their job as a law enforcement agencies.

They do not wrestle bulls for a living, but there are being tainted by the leadership bulls*&t.

My only response to this lunacy is simple.

What a bunch of clowns!