Trump

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.

The Right to Protest Comes with Responsibility

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 4 Comments

The recent tragic event in Minnesota is convoluting two separate and serious issues; the validity and efficacy of the President’s immigration enforcement policy and the use of deadly force by police officers.

These issues need to be separated to ensure a fair and impartial analysis and investigation of the officer involved in the shooting.

The are several elements which are indisputable.

The officer was engaged in a legitimate law enforcement effort.

The officer was acting in accordance with his responsibilities as a member of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

When one engages in protest,
this right comes with responsibilities.

Renee Good was exercising her right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

From the moment the officer involved first encountered Ms. Good until the moment he made the decision to employ deadly force, the only facts that need be considered are if the officer’s encounter with Ms. Good was within the parameters of his job, whether Ms. Good was in a position to harm officers, and what the officer perceived of that threat.

If an officer, acting within the color of law and performing a function of his job, perceives a threat or act of deadly force directed against himself or others he has the absolute right to engage the threat with the force necessary to stop it, up to and including deadly force.

Investigating this incident needs to be limited to the facts of the incident, not the issue of the policies that put the officer there in the first place.

The tragedy here is Ms. Good may very well have not intended to harm the officers. From all the reports of family and friends, she was a caring and considerate person who was upset by the government policy and felt obligated to voice her protest.

Now many of you will find this hard to accept, but none of Ms. Good’s admirable qualities matter. The officer had no way of knowing that in the short time of the encounter. All the officer involved had to go on was what unfolded before him.

Everyone has the right to protest against government policy. No one should fear engaging in protest because of the potential threat from the government.

The overwhelming majority of ICE officers are conscientious and professional. They perform a difficult and sometimes dangerous job. The officer involved will live with his decision to take a human life for the rest of his, it will not be easy to accept that responsibility. People who don’t understand that have never faced the possibility.

When one engages in protest, this right comes with responsibilities. The officers tasked with keeping the peace do not know anything about the protesters. They have no way of gauging the individual threat level of a crowd of people.

If you engage in protest, you need be mindful of your actions. This is not to blame the victim here, but if you are operating a several thousand pound vehicle. and are engaged in a verbal confrontation with the police, you have a responsibility to make sure you don’t inadvertently pose a threat.

The investigation of this incident needs to focus solely on the circumstances from the moment of the initial encounter up to the use of deadly force and nothing else. Arguing about the validity of the policy or the legitimacy of the officer’s presence clouds the issue.

This may well be a tragic consequence of an ill-conceived policy. An unnecessary death is the result of such circumstances, but we have to consider the alternative. If the officer had been fatally struck, would the level of outrage be the same?

Policy didn’t kill Ms. Good, circumstances did.

Police officers are faced with making these decisions in seconds. An officer is expected to make these decisions in less time than it takes to read this sentence. They do not have the luxury of deliberation and extensive consideration of their options. They have to deal with immediacy of the moment.

To expect them to do otherwise is ludicrous.

Clearly some review of the use of force policy and procedures in place needs to happen. It is legitimate to ask whether firing at a vehicle is an effective method of ending the threat, a dead driver behind the wheel of a running vehicle may be more deadly. But any change or modification to the policy cannot alter the circumstances of the incident. The officer, in his perception, believed his life or the lives of his fellow officers were in jeopardy.

He had the right and responsibility to act.

The tragedy of the result notwithstanding, this is all that should be considered in determining the legitimacy or illegality of the officer’s actions.

What’s the Difference?

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Russia claims Volodymyr Zelensky is not the legitimate elected President of Ukraine.

The United States claims Nicolas Maduro is not the legitimate elected President of Venezuela. (They had a practice run in 2020 about claiming election fraud and learned from that.)

Russia initiates unilateral actions against the Ukraine.

The United States initiates unilateral actions against Venezuela.

Russia takes territory and citizens of a sovereign nation without cause.

The United States seizes the President of Venezuela and his wife by military force.

Russia unilaterally demands the Ukraine surrender territory and the Ukrainian people within those territories to Russia.

The United States unilaterally claims the authority to “run” Venezuela and bring in American companies to run the oil industry to the benefit of the Unites States.

Expediency should never be a rationale for circumventing our Constitution and our commitment to international law.

Joe Broadmeadow

Can somebody explain the difference other than we have a more effective military capability?

Can somebody explain on what basis they think the Venezuelan people will welcome the imposition of a government run by the United States on their sovereignty?

Can somebody explain why we choose not to commit similar actions in other countries controlled by dictators, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Vietnam (oh wait, we tried that one), Sudan, Nigeria…

Here’s the list of the current 59 dictatorships in the world, https://planetrulers.com/current-dictators/

That anyone in this country supports the actions by President Trump in Venezuela is terrifying.

Whether Maduro is a narco-terrorist or not is irrelevant. We are a country of laws living in a tenuous post-World War II world that is based on international law.

Whether or not we have the ability and resources to execute such actions is irrelevant. Expediency should never be a rationale for circumventing our Constitution and our commitment to international law.

Rallying around successful but questionable military operations ostensibly seeking to right a wrong is fraught with risk.

We need to keep in mind the people of Venezuela have the right and the obligation to find their own solutions to their internal problems.  Inasmuch as the narcotics business affects us, we need to look inside ourselves for the fundamental reason for the existence of this business, the demand for narcotics by Americans.

If we accept the rationale that narcotics trafficking is an act of terror, then we are a country where millions of our citizens support terrorists and some reap financial benefits from their actions.

Perhaps dealing with the problem should begin at home.

We offer a market for the business and do little, if anything, to reduce that demand. Rest assured the flow of narcotics will not diminish substantially until this demand is reduced. And our using extrajudicial means to combat it is a slippery slope.

We could try to jail them all in keeping with our worldwide lead in the number of citizens we incarcerate.

Or, go right to the summary executions to avoid those pesty technicalities under the law. Perhaps pay-per-view executions in the Presidential Ballroom.

These operations make for glitzy press conferences, flag waving hysteria, and testosterone-fueled fist bumping, cue the patriotic music, but do little to address the problem.

The moronic comparisons to our imposing caretaker governments in Japan and Germany after the war are laughable. We did not do that without the consent of most of the nations united against Axis fascism. This is an unjustifiable and extrajudicial use of military force to seize a citizen of another country, taking unprovoked military action against that country, and rationalizing it by claiming we are helping the Venezuelans, righting a historical wrong, and combatting narco-terrorists.

There will be a great deal of ranting about how Venezuela nationalized the oil industry and unlawfully seized American assets. This is not the place for a history lesson, but one might want to try to at least have a fundamental understanding of this complex issue.

Nationalization, which took place over several years and presidential administrations, beginning in 1971, did not happen overnight. It was a progressive process meant to address the imbalance of the profits taken by the American companies as compared to the profits shared with Venezuela. American companies were given concessions to drill for oil, they were not given possession of the land, and they took billions in profits.

Any attempt to justify this as righting the wrong of this nationalization is a white-washing of history to paint the United States as a victim, it was not.

What we are doing is helping ourselves to the Venezuelans oil and there is no doubt Mr. Trump will get his cut of the profits.

And we will be left with an indelible stain on the history of our country and irrefutable evidence of our hypocrisy.

What’s the difference? There is none.

Author’s note.

(Now, I’ll sit back and wait for the vitriol pointing out how I am unpatriotic, support dictators (I have my voting record to refute that one), and my sympathizing with narco-terrorists to come pouring in.
In preparation for the barrage, I’ll put on the coffee. I hope you enjoy the show as much as I will. I particularly enjoy the ones in CAPITAL LETTERS!)

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)

My Sarcasm ruffled some feathers

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

A lightly sarcastic post on Facebook about the ineptness of certain members of the Trump administration, illustrated with an image of the Three Stooges, brought an unusually virulent torrent of criticism from those who blindly and enthusiastically support this administration.

Now I enjoy these moments, but I thought I should explain the facts and reasons behind the sarcasm and criticism of the administration.

These individuals rising to the defense of the President seem to be thrilled by the specter of the American military being tasked with blowing up boats, ostensibly trafficking in narcotics, with little evidence other than a few war whoops from the Secretary of War and similar chest pounding by Mr. Trump.

So, let’s play devil’s advocate here.

Assuming these boats are transporting drugs—and in all likelihood they are, but that is beside the point—how effective will this policy be in interdicting the flow of narcotics into the United States?

Here are some interesting facts from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

According to ICE, 95% of Fentanyl is seized at Points of Entry (P.O.E.). The overwhelming majority of which are land-based border crossings or airports.

Of the Sea-based routes, 75% are Pacific Marine Routes.

China plays an integral part in providing precursor chemicals to Mexico, where the majority of Fentanyl is produced and then smuggled into the US through P.O.E.

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics, 90 percent of heroin seized along the border, 88 percent of cocaine, 87 percent of methamphetamine, and 80 percent of fentanyl in the first 11 months of the 2018 fiscal year were caught trying to be smuggled in at legal crossing points, and that trend has continued.

While other means are certainly used, including boats offloading offshore and coming in under cover of darkness, the statistics are a good indication of the preferred methods of smuggling.

Because most fentanyl seizures occur at ports of entry, the majority of fentanyl is smuggled by people who can enter the United States legally. These individuals can evade detection by posing as normal travelers entering or re-entering the United States. As a result, transnational criminal organizations tend to recruit U.S. citizens, who receive the least scrutiny on entry.

From FY 2018 through FY 2024, over 92 percent of all fentanyl was seized either at a port of entry or at a Border Patrol vehicle checkpoint.

Importantly, fentanyl seizures peaked in spring 2023 and have been declining since. CBP fentanyl seizures hit record levels in April 2023 at 3,220 pounds. Although the exact reason is not yet clear, seizures fell nearly every month after that, and by March 2025, had dropped to just 760 pounds. This drop in seizures occurred almost entirely at ports of entry, with nationwide Border Patrol fentanyl seizures in April 2025 (133 pounds) remaining at roughly the same levels as April 2024 (140 pounds) and April 2023 (137 pounds), despite dramatically fewer migrant crossings.

Evidence suggests that less fentanyl may be coming into the country because there is less demand for it in the U.S. as opioid overdoses fell dramatically in 2024, with official CDC data through November 2024 showing that overdose deaths dropped in all but two states (Arizona and Hawaii). Should these trends continue, it suggests the worst of the fentanyl crisis may be behind us.https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/fentanyl-smuggling/

This policy of targeting drug boats in international waters focuses on the least common method of smuggling drugs into the country. Perhaps, if one can believe the information from DEA and ICE, by not stripping resources away from P.O.E. and redirecting them to capturing Walmart shelf stockers and McDonald’s hamburger flippers, we could focus on the routes delivering the overwhelming majority of drugs to the US and, perhaps, catch more Americans who are active and willing participants.

Mr. Trump’s administration may lack many things, but creativity is not one of them. They crafted a convenient end run around domestic law and inconvenient principles like Posse Comitatus and designated organizations like Tren de Aqua as terrorist organizations and declared them as enemies engaged in attacks on US sovereignty.

In this particular instance, I agree with them. When Nixon declared drugs to be “public enemy number one” and started the War on Drugs campaign, it was anything but a war. Like other failed policies with good intentions, it lacked a clear purpose, a clear method of application, and a clear goal.

It was never a war.

Mr. Trump’s designating the issue as one of armed aggression against the United States is a wise one, but it shouldn’t be the basis for derailing our system of justice and, at the very least, should operate under the rules of war.

The United States, unlike many other nations, always weighs the value and purpose of a military action against the risk to innocent civilians. The history of the world reflects very few countries that do so. Yet even the United States resists some limits imposed by well-articulated international law.

One of those is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This defines the principle of self-defense in international waters. UNCLOS+ANNEXES+RES.+AGREEMENT

The principle of self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter only allows the use of force against an imminent threat. It is hard to see how a drug-laden speedboat in international waters hundreds of miles from U.S. territory posed an imminent threat to the United States. (Interestingly enough, the US Congress, despite decades of lobbying by other Presidents and supporters, refuses to ratify this treaty.)

With the level of surveillance sophistication available to the military, tracking these boats to our territorial waters, then interdicting them by whatever means necessary, including destruction, would not only be lawful but also offer the kind of proof needed to justify the actions.

And maybe, in our on-again off-again relationship with China, our on-again agreement on trade can be expanded to get the Chinese to cooperate in stopping the flow of precursor chemicals.

Thus, my criticism and sarcasm are based not on the method or goal of this policy, but that they are focusing on the least effective methods and areas at risk. And the process and willingness to ignore accepted military and civilian law enforcement protocols is clearly un-American.

Why, you might ask, should we care about some smugglers getting blasted out of the water when it is clear they are trafficking? Because if we are willing to accept that blurring of the lines, where does it end?

The Founding Fathers were wise in devising our form of government. Power is not concentrated in any one branch. If we allow one branch to ignore that balance, and subvert the equal parts of government, we face a reduction in our rights and an inexorable march toward totalitarianism.

In simplest terms, you can blow up all the boats you like, twelve miles off the coast, as long as you follow our laws.

“Fortunately, I keep my feather numbered for just such an occasion.”

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.

Crime Reduction Myths: Politics vs. Reality in America

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Now the President intends to send the National Guard into Memphis so they can “fix it like we did DC.” This wasn’t his original plan; he did a T.A.C.O. in Chicago, no surprise there. Guys with a brain like J.D. Pritzker scare him.

The “fix it like DC” requires some huge assumptions about the effectiveness of the deployment, but, for the sake of argument, let’s say there’s been a reduction in crime because of the presence of the Guard and additional law enforcement resources.

That would be a positive. But what is the long-term plan? Do we flood the streets of America with military force as our long-term crime reduction strategy?

In 1972-1973, the Kansas City Police Department conducted a landmark study about police deployment.  The study had several goals.

  1. Would citizens notice changes in the level of police patrol and crime?
  2. Would different levels of visible police patrol affect recorded crime or the outcome of victim surveys?
  3. Would citizen fear of crime and attendant behavior change as a result of differing patrol levels?
  4. Would their degree of satisfaction with the police change?

The design took three different police beats in Kansas City and varied patrol routines in them. The first group received no routine patrols. Instead, the police responded only to calls from residents. The second group had the normal level of patrols, while the third had two to three times as many patrols.

The experiment had to be stopped and restarted three times because some patrol officers believed the absence of patrols would endanger citizens. This full study went twelve months, from 1 October 1972 to 30 September 1973.

Victim surveys, reported crime rates, arrest data, a survey of local businesses, attitudinal surveys, and trained observers who monitored police-citizen interaction were used to gather data. These were taken before the start of the experiment (September 1972), and after (October 1973), giving ‘before’ and ‘after’ conditions for comparison.

The results of the study;

  1. Citizens did not notice the difference when the frequency of patrols was changed.
  2. Increasing or decreasing the level of patrol had no significant effect on resident and commercial burglaries, auto thefts, larcenies involving auto accessories, robberies, or vandalism–crimes.
  3. The rate at which crimes were reported did not differ significantly across the experimental beats.
  4. Citizen-reported fear of crime was not affected by different levels of patrol.
  5. Citizen satisfaction with police did not vary.

The Kansas City Police Department concluded that routine preventive patrol in marked police cars has little value in preventing crime or making citizens feel safe and that resources normally allocated to these activities could safely be allocated elsewhere.

A significant factor derived from the study was that crime prevention was more highly dependent on the willingness of citizens to report suspicious and/or criminal behavior to police than on the levels or types of patrol. 

(Kelling, G.; Pate, A.; Dickman, D.; Brown, C (1974). “The Kansas City preventive patrol experiment: A technical report”. Police Foundation. 
Braga, Anthony (27 June 2012). “Hot spots policing effects on crime” (PDF). The Campbell Collaboration. The Campbell Collaboration. p. 23. Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 January 2017. Retrieved 10 January 2017.)

There have been targeted programs of increased police presence (Operation Hot Pipe in San Diego during the crack cocaine epidemic) that have been successful. However, all were characterized by intense planning, officer training, a defined implementation and scope, and a limited duration. (https://popcenter.asu.edu/content/benefits-and-consequences-police-crackdowns)

Both pre- and post-implementation analyses were used to evaluate the process and adjust future projects. None of that is taking place with the deployment of the National Guard.

What does this tell us? A great deal.

Anecdotal data (or more accurately, public proclamations) showing a positive effect on reducing crime with the deployment of National Guard and other resources to aid local law enforcement is incomplete at best and political confirmation bias at worst.

Now I am certain those who support this approach will say it makes people feel better when they see the guard on the street. So does morphine when you break your leg, but the leg is still broken and will take proper treatment and a long time to heal. The morphine eventually wears off.

Deploying the National Guard is an improperly prescribed analgesic applied to a false perception of rising crime. It is a crisis with no basis in fact. And even if it has some positive effect in certain areas, it is not a long-term solution.

Until one is willing to take a three-pronged approach to deterring crime– strong, effective, and equitable enforcement, available economic opportunities, and providing access to solid education and vocational programs –a single-focus approach will not reduce crime in the long run.

But that doesn’t lend itself to as pithy a slogan as “Lock’em up and throw away the key.” We’ve done that to an entire class of individuals (look into minority incarceration rates and US incarceration rates). All that’s accomplished is creating a new (and lucrative) industry of private prisons.

I would argue our abandonment of public education to the false and inherently biased promise of “school choice” is a fundamental cause of inequity in our country and a significant contributing factor to criminal behavior in those who don’t have the luxury to “choose” their school.

None of this is news to anyone with any background in criminal justice. None of this is absent from the mountains of information available to criminal justice agencies and the political entities that control them.

Where it is absent is from the current management team at the Department of Justice and in the Office of the President.

The choice to have National Guard troops patrolling the streets of our cities is optics, pure and simple. And it is a lesson in the propagation of propaganda and unadulterated politics influencing decision-making.

Contrary to all valid measures of crime conclusively showing it is decreasing, the President contends that we are in a tidal wave of violence and criminality. Strange how he focuses on Democratic led cities and ignores issues in the red states.

The reason is apparent and the manner transparent.

Invent a problem, demonize a convenient entity as the cause, focus your solution on those in the political opposition, and declare victory after a few weeks.

All this amounts to wasted resources that could have been used to reduce crime (which already was in decline) in a more effective and lasting manner.

One has to wonder if this is more about making people fearful about turning out to vote in the mid-terms or, more troubling, creating a false crisis, an opportunity to declare martial law, and a suspension of basic human rights than it is about any concern over crime.

Open your eyes, America.

Nonsense on a Universal Scale

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

The following is a priceless example of the nonsensical, unoriginal, and idiotic pablum being offered by and to Trump supporters. Like a call for the government to come clean on UFOs and the aliens we have in custody and asking people to share the absolute truth of this deep government conspiracy, this stuff floods social media like a tidal wave of noxious effluence too toxic for a waste treatment facility.

Without further adieu, here it is in all its unedited glory…

I offer no apology for what I am posting for this is truly how I feel. Please know this is my opinion and not open for debate. If you don’t agree that’s your prerogative but I will not be responding to any or all comments. I have lived through several United States Presidents prior to our current President Trump. In my lifetime I have never seen or heard of a President being scrutinized over every word he speaks, demeaned by the public to the point of disgrace, slandered, ridiculed, insulted, lied to, threatened with death, threatened by some to rape our First Lady, and have his children also insulted and humiliated. I am truly ashamed of the people of MY country. I am ashamed of the ruthless, insufferable, cruel, Trump haters who have no morals, ethics or values and the irresponsibility of the reporters who feel they have the right to deliver personal opinions just to sway their audiences in a negative direction even if there is no truth in their message. After every other President was elected and took the oath of office they were allowed to try to serve this country without constant negative scrutiny from our news sources. ALWAYS BEING PRESSURED while news sources search only for negative results from our President will not serve the people of our country. Nor will it create informed Americans. ENOUGH is ENOUGH is ENOUGH. Nor have I ever known a President to serve in that capacity at no salary to line their bank accounts until PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP! He gave to other departments those funds! I am very proud to have and I still do stand with my PRESIDENT!

Now, leaving aside the horrific grammar, run-on sentences, apparent aversion to paragraphs, rampant cognitive dissonance, inconsistency of thought, not to mention a complete absence of originality or creativity, it offers a perfect view inside the mind (or lack thereof) of the most common of Mr. Trump’s supporters, the willfully ignorant. 

They are part of a phenomenon in this country where ignorance is seen as a badge of honor. Education beyond the most basic seems to be a reach for them. Those who post this nonsense are witless valedictorians with a Summa cum Laude in incomprehension.

Now, by education, I do not necessarily mean college, but for the love of all that is precious, read a history book once in a while.

It was challenging to resist interjecting comments directly into the text, but why bother? They would be ignored or misunderstood.

It’s not that most of those who post this idiocy do not know better; it is an intentional disregard of the clear contradictory evidence right before their eyes. The motivations are varied: intellectual laziness, a myopic view of current affairs, or a lack of understanding and historical ignorance.

There’s a phenomenon in this country where many celebrate ignorance. Education beyond basics seems to be a reach for them. Those who post this nonsense are witless valedictorians with a Summa cum Laude in incomprehension.

Joe Broadmeadow

The main point of this inexplicably viral post is that Mr. Trump faces a level of criticism for his actions that previous administrations did not. This is just one example of a falsehood within the piece.

Pointed and intelligent criticism of the President, or any government official, is a necessary tool in balancing the power of government and the rights of the governed.

Lyndon Johnson (perhaps one of the presidents the author of this nonsense references) had an almost psychotic dislike of the media. When asked about this relationship to the press, Johnson said this.

“I could walk across the Potomac on a bright sunny summer day, and the headline would read, ‘Johnson Can’t Swim!’

I will continue to take great pleasure in reading these postings and savaging them. Although the joy is tempered by the thought that these people are out there, perhaps unmedicated, congratulating themselves in their ignorance, embracing the Second Amendment, wrapping themselves in the flag, and ignoring the reality right before their eyes.

And they somehow managed to vote.

(Insert name of your personal favorite miraculous being here) Save Us!

Tilting at Windmills

/ / 2 Comments

“When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams — this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness — and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!”
Miquel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Let me state the obvious. Anyone who has already decided which candidate to vote for in the upcoming election will not be persuaded differently by the debate.

Despite the reluctant consensus that the Vice President was poised, composed, and articulate (according to a significant number of Republican pundits) compared to the unhinged rants by the ex-President rehashing long debunked complaints of election fraud, Haitian family meals involving domestic pets, and millions of lunatics and criminals personally invited to cross the border by the Biden-Harris (or, as some would prefer the Harris-Biden) administration, no one will change their already-made-up minds.

What I find most interesting is the almost fanatical desperation for an explanation of Trump’s poor performance, other than that Vice President Harris was the clear winner based on her innate abilities.

It had to be favoritism by ABC.

It had to be that she had Miracle-Ear technology feeding her answers.

It had to be that she had the questions beforehand. (author’s note: Everyone with any intelligence knew the questions beforehand. For the VP, she’d be asked about immigration, the economy, and shifting positions on fracking and guns. For the former President, he’d be asked about election denial, race-baiting, pandemic performance, health plan replacing ACA, Project 2025, and abortion rights.)

She couldn’t possibly be better, brighter, and more competent.

None of this matters, and nothing I can say here will change the mind of anyone who supports Mr. Trump. Still, I bet it will spark some outrageous responses and criticisms, mostly of childish insults rather than rational arguments over policies.

But consider this. If you think so little of the Vice President’s abilities despite her being able to rattle the former President on a political debate stage, you should be terrified of the prospect of another Trump administration dealing with the likes of China, Russia, and Iran. They won’t just eat his lunch; they’ll steal his pocket money and use it against us.

I’ve been asking for months for someone to present sound arguments about why someone should support Mr. Trump. All I’ve ever seen is a bunch of yeah-but-what-about malarky. If anyone is willing to take up the challenge and write a piece listing President Trump’s qualifications, accomplishments, and policies, and why voters should support them, I will gladly post it here without comment.

But I would like to make this observation by borrowing a line from P.G. Wodehouse. Mr. Trump, during and after the debate,

“…had the look of one who had drunk the cup of life and found a dead beetle at the bottom.”

It is far from over, but it is closer to a satisfying end of this bizarre American history chapter.

JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services. Everyone has a story to tell, let us help make your publishing dreams a reality.