History

…Where Credit is Due

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

If one seeks to be fair in criticizing others, one must acknowledge when you agree with someone as quickly as you are to disagree. To act otherwise is contrary to the spirit of open debate.

While I see little redeeming value in this President’s policies, performance, or persona, sometimes he says something that borders on correctness.

It was during a rambling and wide-ranging interview with the New York Times. Trump waxed on in his customary manner about his rejection of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and managed to say something quite profound, albeit unintentionally, about the Civil Rights movement.

“Well, I think that a lot of people were very badly treated. White people were very badly treated, where they did extremely well, and they were not invited to go into a university or college.”

He then added,

“I think it was unfair in certain cases. It accomplished some very wonderful things, but it also hurt a lot of people. People that deserve to go to a college or deserve to get a job were unable to get a job. So it was; it was a reverse discrimination…”

Now if you muddle through the poor sentence construction and convoluted logic, there is an element of truth here. And before you take angrily to the keyboard and claim I have joined the opposition, let’s think about what he said.

“White people were very badly treated.”  This is a true statement.

They were very badly treated when they marched alongside their black brothers.

They were very badly treated when they fought for the right of blacks to vote.

They were very badly treated when they were killed for supporting actions such as boycotts, voter registration programs, and sit-downs to bring attention to rampant discrimination against minority Americans.

But their treatment doesn’t even approach the level of horrendous treatment afforded minority Americans (and women!) throughout this country’s history. Not even close!

Some argue this level of racism lies in the past, and that is true to some extent. But hidden, less overt, racism is alive and well and we now see evidence of a reemergence of the more overt version.

But this President wants to “whitewash” it.

The best we get from this President is a statement made in support of his disastrous, ill-conceived, and counter-productive attack on DEI that, when examined, shows signs of a truth, by way of his ignorance, not in the way he intended it to be. Many white people were treated badly when they supported civil rights legislation and those who fought against it now seek to repeal the progress.

That a sitting President can ignore the history of slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, racial violence, denial of basic human right, and reinvigoration of white supremacy movements and claim “whites were very badly treated,” is abhorrent.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were some of the most effective laws ever enacted to right the wrongs of the past. These equal opportunity laws balanced the inherent unfairness in hiring, housing, voting rights, and educational opportunities seems to have been lost on this man.

Have we made progress? Of course. Have we eliminated the ignorance, inhumanity, and inequity of racism? Clearly not. We may never become color blind, but we can become more aware of our own innate prejudices and work to overcome them.

This President sees a black man placed in a position that once would have been denied that black man and given to a white man because of the color of their skin as unfair. That such discrimination against blacks was acceptable in this country draws no criticism or rational analysis. And his “it did some wonderful things” hardly qualifies as acknowledging both the need and value of the legislation.

His lack of basic historical context and understanding is embarrassing. The fact that any American either supports this or sits idly by and ignores it is tragic. I fear for the very survival of this country.

All you have to do is nothing.

Balancing Equality and Fairness in American Law

Civil rights legislation in the United States has played a pivotal role in promoting equality and protecting individuals from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These laws, most notably the Civil Rights Act of 1964, were enacted to address systemic injustices and ensure all citizens have equal access to opportunities. However, as these laws have evolved, so too debates whether certain policies, particularly affirmative action, lead to what some call “reverse discrimination.”

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the cornerstone of modern civil rights protections, prohibiting discrimination in employment, education, public accommodations, and more. Subsequent legislation, including the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, further advanced the cause of equality by aiming to eliminate barriers to full participation in American society for historically marginalized groups.

To address persistent inequalities, affirmative action programs were developed to proactively seek the inclusion of minorities and women in education and employment. Supporters argue these measures are necessary to correct historical disadvantages and foster diversity. Critics, however, claim that such policies can result in “reverse discrimination,” where individuals from majority groups feel they are unfairly treated or denied opportunities because of their race or gender.

The term “reverse discrimination” refers to the perception or reality that affirmative action or similar policies discriminate against members of a dominant or majority group. Legal challenges have reached the Supreme Court, with notable cases such as Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), where the Court ruled that while affirmative action was constitutional, strict racial quotas were not. The debate continues, reflecting differing views on justice, fairness, and the best way to achieve an equitable society.

Civil rights legislation remains essential for protecting individual freedoms and promoting equal opportunity. The ongoing discussion about reverse discrimination highlights the complexities involved in creating laws that are both effective and fair. As society continues to evolve, so too will the legal and ethical considerations that surround these important issues.

One inevitably sees this attack on DEI and Civil Rights laws as a ploy to return to the good old days when whites weren’t “very badly treated.” All that was missing from his diatribe was “the South will rise again.”

If you’ve ever wondered what happened in Germany that gave rise to Nazism, you are a but a step away from experiencing it. He’s given you an enemy. He’s made you fear them. He’s put the blame for all the country’s problems on them. And he will paint all who oppose his actions to “save” the country as anarchists.

American Hegemony

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

The Donroe Doctrine

The United States of America is on course to reincarnate the worst of the powerful era of Athens, the devastation of choosing military intervention over diplomacy, and embracing a dangerous foreign policy based on might rather than reason.

We have gone from the shining light on the hill to the bully in the school yard.

People who support this change, or more likely don’t even realize it’s happened, will make arguments like, “getting rid of Maduro is a good thing.” That remains to be seen from the perspective of the Venezuelan people, but if one wants to measure the legitimacy of military interference by the evil nature of a country’s government, a host of candidates match or exceed Maduro.

By that measure we should invade North Korea, Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia. The list of countries engaging in systematic abuse of human rights is long. We will need many weapons.

And there is a bit of introspection we might want to do at home starting in Minneapolis.

But let’s leave that for another time.

It would seem we prefer to go after low hanging fruit rather than a genuine commitment to righting all the world’s wrongs. So, in that vein, we set our sights on Greenland. What many of you may not realize is we have a military base in Thule, Greenland. Pituffik Space Force Base. Currently there are only about 150 military personnel stationed there, but at one time there were several thousand troops there specifically monitoring Russian and Chinese military operations.

he 1951 Greenland Defense Agreement allowed the United States to operate the base under a NATO framework, as long as both Denmark and the United States remain NATO members. Under the agreement, the Danish national flag must be flown at the base to recognize that the base is on Danish territory, but the United States is allowed to fly its own flag alongside the Danish flag on the facilities it operates.

Let that marinate in your brain for a bit. Since 1951 the government of the United States has recognized both the strategic military value of Greenland to our defense and, more importantly that Greenland is Danish Territory. So we are either a country that keeps its promises or we are not. What’s it gonna be?

If we have an agreement allowing us to accomplish the purpose of defending the United States against Russian or Chinese missiles, why do we need to incorporate Greenland into the United States. Why the belligerence between two nations long allied by NATO?

An excellent question.

By this point, you might be wondering why the comparison to Athens and what does that have to do with Greenland and Venezuela.

Let me explain.

At the height of the Athenian empire, around 416 B.C., it was one of the richest and most powerful nation states in the world.

They were at war with Sparta and her allies during the Peloponnesian War. Athens controlled almost all the islands of the Aegean except Melos. Athens sent an army of 2000 men and demanded the people of Melos submit to Athens rule and pay a tribute of silver.

Melos, although historically allied with Sparta, was neutral in the war. Melians argued from a position of morality that Athens was wrong to assert control simply because it was more powerful.

The argument fell on deaf ears, the Athenians laid siege to the island, killed all the men and boys, and enslaved the women and girls. As a side note, this bears a remarkable resemblance to much of the God directed smiting and decimation in the Old Testament, right down to the enslavement of women and killing of all males. But I digress.

From this incident, arose a process known as the Melian Dialog.

The “Melian Dialogue,” found in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, presents a stark and philosophically significant exchange between representatives of Athens and the people of Melos during the Peloponnesian War. In this dialogue, the Athenians demand Melos’s surrender and argue for the dominance of power and self-interest over notions of justice and morality, asserting that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. The Melians plead for justice, neutrality, and hope for divine intervention or Spartan assistance. Ultimately, the dialogue exposes the harsh realities of international relations and the limits of idealism in the face of overwhelming force, culminating in the tragic fate of the Melians after their refusal to yield.

Now we find ourselves with a government embracing a foreign policy and, one might argue, a domestic one, “asserting that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

Since the end of World War II, the world has generally been free of one sovereign nation invading another sovereign nation. While there have been plenty of civil wars and revolutions, the world has not endured a large-scale invasion until recently with Russia’s unprovoked attack on the Ukraine. Of course, in the interest of full disclosure, we could also mention our invasion of Panama.

Invasion was recognized, in light of the devastation of World War II and the dawning of the nuclear age, as a dangerous policy fraught with risks far beyond any reasoning justifying an invasion. Particularly one based on “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

The most troubling thing is a significant number of Americans either agree with the idea of might makes right or are too fooled by this government’s propaganda to recognize the reality, and insanity, of the situation.

After decades of NATO being the most successful joint protection agreement in history, we face the perspective of NATO troops coming to the aid of a NATO member nation not to stop an action by a non-aligned nation but actions by the United States of America.

All because we have put in the office of the President the least qualified person in the world and watched him surround himself with sycophants and those who lack even a fundamental understanding of history, diplomacy, or foreign relations.

The history of the world is full of times when a most powerful nation existed and let their own arrogance and might destroy them. In a nuclear armed world, every nation, no matter how powerful, is vulnerable to the weakest enemy willing to resort to such weapons. Now is not the time for arrogance, now is the time for calm rationality of which the US, should it choose so, can lead the world.

As the keeper of the most adept military in the world, we face a choice. We can follow the course of history and be the architect of our own destruction or show to the world that this American experiment is different.

To paraphrase General Colin Powell, all America has ever asked for when aiding other countries facing invasion is land to bury our dead. Let us not forget that.

You need only to open your eyes to see the problem.

Bearing Witness to the Unjust Slander: Defending Renee Good and the ICE Officer

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Why Dishonestly Besmirching Character Hurts Us All

In an age where reputations can be destroyed with a few keystrokes, the vicious phenomenon of besmirching the character of individuals we may disagree with has become a troubling norm, and few cases illustrate this more painfully than the recent attacks against Renee Good and the ICE Officer. The culture of public shaming, rumor-mongering, and baseless accusation not only harms the individual but also erodes the foundation of our collective trust and civility. The relentless character assassination of these two individuals offers a case study in why we must resist such destructive tendencies and reclaim the values of fairness and respect.

The Dark Power of Slander in the Digital Age

The digital revolution was supposed to democratize information and increase transparency. Instead, it has often provided fertile ground for half-truths, personal vendettas, and outright lies to flourish. In this environment, where anyone with keyboard courage can post anything anonymously, there is no justifiable reason or benefit—a campaign not rooted in facts or legitimate criticism, but rather in innuendo and unsubstantiated claims. Online platforms, amplified by the echo chambers of social media, allow damaging narratives to spread far beyond the reach of reasoned rebuttal. Once a reputation is sullied, it’s almost impossible to fully restore, regardless of the truth.

The Personal Toll: A Life Turned Upside Down

For those who have observed or experienced it, the defamation of an individual is not an abstract concern; it is a lived nightmare. The impact is not limited to professional setbacks or fleeting embarrassment. Slander can lead to loss of livelihood, social isolation, and even mental health crises. In Renee’s case, what is lost in the noise that she is a victim here. In the officer’s case, his presumption of innocence is tossed away for political purposes. The pain inflicted by such attacks is long-lasting and deeply personal, affecting not just the target but also their family and friends.

Slander as a Social Disease

We must ask ourselves: what kind of society do we become when we allow character assassination to go unchecked? This  is not just an attack on one person; it is a symptom of a broader social malaise. When the public rushes to judgment, prioritizing outrage over investigation, we undermine the principles of due process and empathy. This culture of suspicion and cynicism weakens our social fabric, making it less likely that people of principle will step forward to serve or lead. The chilling effect on civic engagement is considerable, as few are willing to risk being the next target of mob justice.

Standing Up Against Unfounded Accusations

It is not enough to shake our heads in dismay about the treatment of Renee Good and the ICE Officer. As a community, we have a responsibility to counteract the forces of rumor and slander. This means refusing to share or engage with unverified allegations, demanding evidence and fairness in all matters of public concern, and holding ourselves to the same standard of respect we would wish for ourselves. Defending the maligned is not just an act of kindness, but a defense of our shared humanity.

Reclaiming the Value of Character

Ultimately, the way we treat individuals is a reflection of who we are as a society. We must remember that character is built over years, but can be destroyed in minutes if we are not vigilant. Let us reject the easy path of gossip and condemnation and instead choose the harder, nobler road of discernment, forgiveness, and support. In doing so, we restore not only the reputation of those unfairly maligned, but also the values that make our communities strong.

The campaign against these two is a tragedy, not just for them but for all of us who aspire to decency and fairness. Let this story serve as a call to action—a reminder that our words matter, and that we are all responsible for the world we create with them.

An American Crossroad

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment

“When you come to the fork in the road, take it.”
Yogi Berra (sort of)

Ozymandius

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
-Percy Bysshe Shelley

America faces the most challenging crisis since the Civil War. Our government of checks and balances is now woefully unbalanced, controlled by those with checks and deep pockets.

The distortion of power between the uber-wealthy and the majority of Americans teeters on the brink of totalitarianism and total loss of our constitutional rights. And the most frightening thing about it is the willful blindness or stunning indifference of a significant number of American citizens.

We have a President who lacks even the slightest element of empathy or commitment to the greater good. His callous pronouncements about others, be they those recently deceased or the weakest and most vulnerable among us, are a sad commentary on his lack of humanity.

Like Ozymandius, he struts to engrave his name all over the country as if he deserves such honor, failing to learn from history the emptiness of such efforts by other maniacal egos. First, it was the unlawful and shameful renaming of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (it’s only a matter of time before the only events they can book there will be UFC and some failed country-western acts who mourn the loss of the Old South).

Then it was the unilateral decision to tear down the East Wing of the White House to build another testament to ego and self-aggrandizement. It is only a matter of time before he decides to dynamite Mount Rushmore, rename national parks (Trump-Yellowstone, Trump-Grand Tetons) after they pump out all the oil and decimate the environment, and imprint his picture on the one-hundred-dollar bill.

‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

We have a neutered majority in Congress who sit silent in the face of these outrages, using the cowardly argument that they hold their tongue to prevent Trump from seeking vengeance on the states they represent.

Is there any worse example of cowardice than that?

These Senators and Congresspeople have forgotten the lessons of the great women and men who came before them and, while working for their particular districts, kept in mind the greater responsibility to do what is in the best interest of the American people.

We may be a nation of Irish-American, Italian-American, Jewish-American, Catholic-American, Muslim-American, African-American, and a host of other hyphenated Americans. Yet, we need to keep in mind that the word before the hyphen is but an adjective. The essence of all people in the country is American, and we deserve a President and a Congress that keeps that in the forefront of all their considerations.

Our commonality as Americans is our most cherished characteristic, and we should resist with all our will any effort to segregate us into the haves and have-nots.

2026 is America’s crossroads. Unless we send a clear message that we will resist this march toward an authoritarian President with unrestrained power, we may not survive as the country our founding fathers created.

When a President can order the military to kill wounded individuals, even if we accept they are enemies of the United States and wish us harm, how can we object the next time an American pilot is shot down, captured, then executed by others?

Combat, despite the horrors and fog it engenders, has rules of engagement. We cannot hold ourselves up as people to be admired and emulated if we descend into the behavior of those we most criticize.

Mr. Trump has denigrated, diminished, and demeaned the Office of the President of the United States and this country in the eyes of the world. That most people outside this country are shocked by the sudden decline in our standing is telling. That many people within the United States are blind or indifferent to it is horrifying.

The list of acts that confirm this contention is long and dismaying, but there is hope. There are positive signs of resistance within the once-admirable Republican Party and encouraging signs of a revitalized and refocused Democratic Party.

Let’s strive to put people in office who will re-establish the balance of power among the three branches, remember their oath is to the Constitution of the United States, not partisan political parties, and seek a consensus among differing perspectives to preserve and protect this country.  

Now is the real moment to make America great again. If these last few months have not demonstrated the danger of the alternative, nothing will.

A Policy Dichotomy of Extraordinary Hypocrisy

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Okay, class, we are going to start the day with a pop quiz. Simple two question test on current affairs. Ready?

Who WAS Alejandro Carranza?

Who IS Juan Orlando Hernández?

Come on, now. This should be easy. Okay, times up. Can anybody tell me the answers? No? Okay, I’ll explain.

Alejandro Carranza was the name of a Columbian fisherman on a boat allegedly smuggling cocaine into the United States. While the identification is unconfirmed, as is the allegation of drug smuggling, Mr. Carranza now resides in the digestive tract of any number of species of fish or other ocean going carnivores having been obliterated by a US Navy missile(s).

Juan Orlando Hernández, on the other hand, is the former president of the Honduras arrested, tried, and convicted under our due process procedures after an extensive multi-year investigation by the Department of Justice for orchestrating and benefitting from smuggling 400 ton of cocaine into the United States.

Now, here’s an easy bonus question. Besides one being alive and breathing and one being disintegrated, what is the difference between them?

In Mr. Carranza’s case, the President of the United States unilaterally ordered him executed. In Mr. Hernández’s case, the President ordered him pardoned and released.

So the policy of the United States government, this most Christian nation born of the doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth and, apparently, less than enthusiastic about innocent until proven guilty, is to kill people on the lower end of the drug cartel hierarchy we “think” might be smuggling drugs and to pardon those of the upper echelon we CONVICTED of smuggling drugs.

I can see how this will indeed make us great again.

While we are at it, in keeping with our new naming policy of various departments within government, i.e. Department of War, let’s rename the Department of Justice to the Department of Smiting Offenders without Having a Trial (SO WHAT)

The Longest War

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment

If you were to ask most Americans to name the longest war we have ever fought, they would say the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They would be wrong by a factor of three. This one is still ongoing.

The longest war, a war the President declared at the time with the advice and consent of Congress, is the war on drugs. President Richard Nixon, in 1971, a few months before his fateful decision to authorize the Watergate break-in, announced drug abuse to be “public enemy number one” (don’t you miss the days when we declared public enemies?) and began increasing the funding for federal, state, and local law enforcement.

For ten years, the war on drugs was more public relations than combat. It took President Ronald Reagan, in 1981, fresh off his “success” with the Iranian Hostage crisis, to fully ramp up the effort.

Focusing almost exclusively on enforcement and incarceration, the number of people imprisoned for non-violent drug offenses went from 50,000 in 1980 to  400,000 in 1997. Reagan’s wife, Nancy, contributed in her own way with the wildly “effective” Just Say No campaign.

The U.S. Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which allocated $1.7 billion to the War on Drugs and established a series of “mandatory minimum” prison sentences for various drug offenses. A notable feature of mandatory minimums was the massive gap between the amounts of crack and powder cocaine that resulted in the same minimum sentence: possession of five grams of crack led to an automatic five-year sentence. In comparison, it took the possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine to trigger that sentence. Since approximately 80% of crack users were African American, mandatory minimums led to an unequal increase in incarceration rates for non-violent Black drug offenders, as well as troubling indications that the War on Drugs was fundamentally racist.

This is not a Republican or Democratic policy issue; it is shared across the political spectrum.

When the use of civil process to seize drug dealers’ assets became available, it was like winning the lottery. We took cars and cash and, as the theory held, used them to enhance drug investigations. Making drug dealers pay for the investigations into drug dealing seemed genius.

It turned out to be our own form of addiction. Many agencies became more focused on seizing the assets to pay their budgets than on stopping drugs. They lost sight of the goal. If an agency became aware of a kilo of cocaine in a location, they could get a search warrant and seize it. But, if they waited a few days, they could seize the remaining cocaine AND get the money from the sale of the rest.

Don’t believe that happened? It did, all over the United States. A very astute Assistant U.S. Attorney in Rhode Island at the time predicted as much in a conversation we had one day.

Not every agency engaged in such questionable activity. Still, it was enough to create a challenge to effectiveness and a stain on the whole purpose.

Now I was a loyal soldier during these halcyon days of the war, having served in a police department and working in various units focusing on drug enforcement. But over time, it became apparent that we were fighting a single-front war on a multi-front battlefield.

The majority of people we arrested, while engaged in breaking the law, were as much slaves to the drugs as those in the higher echelons were to the revenue.

If one is going to fight a war, one needs a strategy that identifies the enemy’s strengths and weaknesses.

In the war on drugs, we face three enemies. First, those engaged in the manufacture and distribution of drugs, both domestic and foreign. Second, we face the powerful force of addiction. And lastly, we face an even more powerful force, greed.

Putting all of our resources into targeting just one aspect of this three-pronged front is self-defeating. Over the years, the type of drugs has changed, the methods of smuggling adapted, and the avenues for laundering the proceeds have grown more sophisticated. Yet we continue fighting with the same strategy.

It hasn’t made us drug-free. It has put us in the top five countries in terms of the number of individuals we incarcerate per capita. We are just behind El Salvador, Cuba, Rwanda, and Turkmenistan at 541 per 100k.

And, one might argue, one of the “benefits” to come from the war on drugs is private prisons. Now, there is something we should be proud to have invented. Good old capitalism at its best.

To put it in the context of a war. If we had focused all our efforts on fighting Japan during World War II, because it was the only nation that directly attacked us, what would have happened in Europe?

Some Presidential administrations and some state and local authorities recognize the need to expand the war to address these other fronts. But not consistently. Treatment facilities for addiction, alternative sentences for non-violent drug offenses, and targeting the banks, businesses, and financial institutions reaping the largesse of drug money are not conducive to public relations campaigns.

Blowing up boats makes for great theater, like a 21st-century Circus Maximus. It is all show and little substance. It makes people who don’t understand the complexities involved excited, gives the politicians a moment in the public spotlight (their own addiction,) and accomplishes nothing.

I dare say some would embrace the idea of putting drug dealers in the middle of a stadium and letting lions devour them for the entertainment of the masses. It would generate excellent TV ratings, even better than UFC. But it would have no effect on reducing the level of drugs being consumed in this country, would be another waste of efforts, and do nothing for the lions but make them lazy and fat.

 Our fifty-five-year war on drugs drags on, casualties mount—and not just the ones clinging to an overturned boat miles from shore—and we are no closer to our goal.

The Twelve-Year-Cycle Redux

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Coming up on the twelve-year-cycle I wrote about here, https://joebroadmeadowblog.com/2019/01/24/an-american-twelve-year-memory-loss/, I wonder what 2028 will offer us?

The last time I wrote about this, 2016, we had just elected Trump to his first term. Somehow we survived, chose not to re-elect him to a second term, had four years of relative stability, then exhibited the most common symptom of insanity by repeating an action and expecting a different result.

I will give him this, we are not engaged in any active combat at the moment, but it would seem he desperately wants to try out the effectiveness of his renamed Secretary of War department by starting his own. (A bigly, better war. They say it’ll be the best war we ever had.)

We now find ourselves acting in the manner of enemies we long despised, where someone in the military chain of command orders a second strike to kill wounded combatants (I’ll grant the assumption for now, absent evidence to the contrary) in clear violation of the rules of engagement.

We have a President who supports the Secretary of War’s assertion that the decision for the second strike did not come from him, but from a field commander instead. This raises important questions about accountability and the chain of command in our military actions. There is no denial of the order. No announcement that this field commander has been relieved of duty pending an investigation. Nothing.

And keep in mind, while the designation of these alleged drug runners may be lawful, it does not mitigate the rules of engagement. Even if we assume the initial strike is lawful, no one has ever claimed these vessels posed a danger to the military assets engaged with them.

No one was shooting back at the Navy and one would be hard pressed to claim that two likely wounded men floating in the ocean posed any hazard to a 100,000 ton displacement aircraft carrier. They wouldn’t have even left a spot of the hull had they been run over by the ship (which would have been a less messy explanation of their demise.)

“Come to heading 250,”
“Aye aye sir,”
Bump!
“What was that?”
“I didn’t hear anything”
“Sir, there’s a small red stain on the hull.”
“No worries, we’ll paint it later”

2028 is on the horizon. Let’s hope we regain our senses before then. A new President, not a recycled one, will (hopefully) take office. We have frightened the world enough for this cycle.

A Childish Miscreant and Menace in the Oval Office

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

We live in a time of chaos with a President whose behavior mirrors that of a petulant child rather than a statesman. The Oval Office, once a symbol of dignity and deliberation, becomes a stage for tantrums, impulsive decisions, and self-serving theatrics. The “childish miscreant” is not merely immature; they are dangerous in their recklessness, wielding power without restraint or reflection.

Want to make America great again? Then recognize that the single greatest threat to the success of that goal is sitting in the White House like Jabba the Hut.

If you agree with his policies (why and how do you even articulate his T.A.C.O. gyrations), then find someone with a modicum of civility and put them in the position. This poisoned tongue, inarticulate, uncouth, uncivil, unkempt, unkind, uncaring, unrefined, unsophisticated, unintelligent, unworldly, inept shell of a human is an embarrassment to this country, to the world, and to humanity.

The terms idiot, imbecile, moron, and their derivatives were formerly used as technical descriptors in medical, educational, and regulatory contexts. They have fallen out of favor, but I think we need to resurrect them to accurately describe the individual currently occupying the Oval Office.

There is something seriously deranged with that man, and more consequently, with any individual who can, with a straight face, ignore, tolerate, or justify the unmitigated idiocy of the verbal projectile vomit expelled from his mouth.

This poisoned tongue, inarticulate, uncouth, uncivil, unkempt, unkind, uncaring, unrefined, unsophisticated, unintelligent, unworldly, inept shell of a human is an embarrassment to this country, to the world, and to humanity.

Joe Broadmeadow

That anyone, A N Y O N E, in this country can stand silent in the face of him calling their fellow human beings retarded, piggy, stupid, or any other epithets is abhorrent. There is no justification, no rationalizing, no mitigating the damage this causes.

That anyone voted for this man after he openly and publicly mocked a handicapped individual is disgusting. And for those evangelicals out there who find it convenient to embrace this man because he echoes (but doesn’t practice) what you want to hear, I hope, should your belief turn out to be true, that you’re working on your defense for when your God asks you to explain your tolerance of this most unchristian behavior.

Those who either laugh it off as Trump being Trump or think it harmless are enablers. Those who are shocked by it but remain silent are cowards. Those who embrace it are the lowest form of life in the universe.

Suppose a high school freshman were to call someone retarded, or piggy, or stupid in front of the entire school, or mock a handicapped person. In that case, they’d be suspended in a heartbeat. But if you’re the President of the United States, using these terms against those who disagree or challenge him is somehow acceptable.

Until everyone in this country recognizes this boorish and uncivilized behavior for what it is and challenges it, this country will never be great again.

The End of the World is Nigh

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

In one of the better examples of how failing to understand history can lead to repeating the same mistakes, we have this.

1960 The Catholics are Coming; The Catholics are Coming.

2025: The Muslims are Coming; the Muslims are Coming

This latest baseless hysteria arises from the election of Zohran Kwame Mamdani as Mayor of the City of New York.

In 1960, many saw John F. Kennedy as a threat to America because he was Catholic and would be subservient to the Pope. I’d love to hear Marilyn Monroe’s take on how strict a Catholic Mr. Kennedy was, but she is unavailable.

Before Kennedy there were other examples of hysterical fear based on race, national origin, or other unchangeable aspects of individuals.

No Irish Need Apply

Whites Only

And here we are amid an administration, set on widening the gaps between those who agree with their policies and those who are horrified by them, doing everything it can to fuel this raging inferno of ignorance and intolerance.

And the good ole’ evangelical Christians are right there leading the ‘moral’ charge. The “all men are created equal” line in the founding documents be damned,

I would venture to say much of this fear and loathing arises from those Christians who—having never actually read the Bible, or even a Cliff Notes version—fail to embrace the nuanced allegory of religious doctrines and went right to the inerrant word of God version. They are driven by the same religious hysteria that caused the Crusades, witch hunts, and the stoning of heretics.

And they add the finishing touch of wrapping themselves in the flag of patriotism.

That they cannot see the contradiction in their proclamations is astounding.

“Mamdani is a democratic socialist!” they scream, making the same mistake as those who embraced McCarthyism, lumping the propaganda-driven definitions of communism and socialism and bundling them into one. Given the challenge to define either term, they’d fail. Most would point to countries like Russia, China, or North Korea as examples of communist or socialist states.

They are not. In the history of the world, no true communist or socialist state has ever existed.

Communism is defined as,

“a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned, and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.”

Socialism is defined as,

“a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”

Some aspects of these systems sound attractive; the problem is that every form of government involves people, and they are not naturally inclined to live in such systems.

Democratic Socialism is defined as,

“Democratic socialism is a socialist economic and political philosophy that supports political democracy and some form of a socially owned economy, with a particular emphasis on economic democracy, workplace democracy, and workers’ self-management within a market socialist, decentralised planned, or democratic centrally planned socialist economy.”

Not if you can set aside your fear-based revulsion of socialism, and take a step back, you would see we have a blended version of a socialist democracy. We have a free-market economy with many restrictions and controls in place. Just a brief look back in history at the abuse of labor by big businesses, the monopolies created in some industries, and the environmental damage done absent legislated controls will demonstrate the reality.

Whether Mr. Mandami is a Muslim, a Christian, or a non-believer does not, by our laws and practices, matter. All that matters is he follows the laws and rules of government in setting policies.

Whenever I hear the nonsense claims that “sharia” law is coming to New York, I find it hard to believe there are people who believe such idiocy.  Then again, many of these are the same people who would welcome a Christian-based government imposing Christian-based rules and morality on the nation.

They are blind to their own hypocrisy. But, just in case, they are investing some money in a Pakastani company that exports hijabs.

The Most American Thing

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 3 Comments

“I hear a train a’comin’…”

By most estimates (except, of course, by those who routinely produce attendance numbers of the crowds at MAGA Events that are beyond believable), seven million Americans took to the streets all across the country to protest the abomination that is the Trump Administration.

And the reactions of those who support Mr. Trump were pathetically predictable.

Speaker Mike Johnson called them “unAmerican.”

Veterans Affairs Secretary Douglas Collins wrote on X,

“Good Morning to my fellow Americans who are celebrating No Kings Day today. While most of us celebrate this reality on July Fourth, you do you.”

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Douglas Collins.

Note to Mr. Collins and Mr. Johnson.

The Fourth of July celebrates the end of the Revolutionary War where we fought to rid ourselves of a King. It was the culmination of decades of protests and resistance over unfair government policies and the use of military troops occupying the cities and towns in America. Actions that ultimately ended with troops firing upon protesting civilians under orders of this Monarch.

Perhaps you missed this in history class. Perhaps you prefer willful ignorance. Perhaps, since you enjoy the favor of this wannabe King, you long for a return to a monarchy.

Does any of this sound familiar? Could this be one of those moments of history that rhyme?

There is nothing more American than peacefully protesting the wrongful actions of the government. You’ll also notice the lack of violence by these millions of Americans and the low number of arrests. These protests are clearly anti-fascist in nature, yet none of these protests in any way resembled the actions of a “militarist, anarchist enterprise that calls for the overthrow of the U.S. government…” as Mr. Trump has designated them.

Mr. Trump sees opposition to his policies as anarchy, something to be suppressed by all means. Those of us who have actually read the Constitution and support it understand better that these disagreements are the very foundation of our success.

At least up to this point in history, the future is more precarious.

Perhaps Mr. Johnson would have preferred these protests take the form of violent storming of the US Capitol building and the threatened lynching of government officials? It is clear Mr. Trump, by pardoning the J6 insurrectionists, and Mr. Johnson, by supporting such actions, prefer that form of “American” protests.

Their concept of a patriot also has precedents in history, generally attired in brown shirts and particularly proficient at breaking glass.

We should take heart in the number of Americans peacefully voicing their open disgust at this march toward totalitarianism. Seven million Americans of courage and conviction took the most patriotic of actions and “petitioned their government for a redress of their grievances.” Something those patriots of the Revolutionary War gave their lives to obtain for future generations, Mr. Collins, but you’ll ignore that reality out of blind fealty to your dear leader.

Take heart, for this large gathering of Americans is the sign of hope rising.

Come this mid-term election, and, more importantly, the next Presidential election, the world we see that the American people can weather the worst of storms raging against us, even those we create ourselves, and restore these United States to the country our forebearers intended it to be.

Mr. Trump and his maniacal band of charlatans will become just another scab on a long history of self-inflicted wounds in this country, soon enough to heal and fade away.