There were numerous instances where intervention by Federal legislators or law enforcement authorities could have utterly changed the outcome of the 2024 Presidential election.
Case #9: Americans had become increasingly worried and angry about surging numbers of illegal aliens pouring into the country. But the Biden administration refused—until its closing months—to dramatically address this issue.
A Vox story, dated July 12, 2024, warned: “According to Gallup, 2024 is the first time since 2005 that most of the public have wanted less immigration, and this year marks the largest share of Americans feeling resistant to immigration since 58 percent said so in 2001….”
Illegal alien climbing over the border fence in Brownsville, Texas
Six months later, on January 17, 2025, another Vox story offered: “What Democrats must learn from Biden’s disastrous immigration record.”
It opened: “One of the main reasons Vice President Kamala Harris lost the election is the Biden administration’s record on immigration and the border — polls show it ranks up close with inflation among the top issues that drove swing voters to Trump….
“During Biden’s first three years in office, the number of arriving migrants skyrocketed, leading to a backlash as even blue states and cities complained they were overwhelmed. The peak came in December 2023, a month when officials reported about 250,000 encounters with migrants at the border, a record.”
Then, starting early in 2024, and continuing throughout the year, border arrivals plummeted—by more than 80%.
The reasons:
The Biden administration got the Mexican government to launch an extensive crackdown on migrants passing through its territory to the United States.
Biden decreed that new unauthorized migrants would be ineligible for asylum if too many people were coming to the border. Essentially, this meant shutting down the asylum process.
Unfortunately for Harris, the downturn in illegal immigration came too late.
Donald Trump
In times of economic uncertainty, hostility rises toward immigrants—especially those who are alien to a host country’s language and culture. This has proven true in Europe as well as the United States.
Case #10:Americans blamed President Biden for inflationary price increases—especially for groceries such as eggs.
According to a December 20, 2024 article—“Why are groceries so expensive? What you need to know”—by the Center for Science in the Public Interest:
“Since January 2019, food prices have risen nearly 30 percent in the US, leaving many households struggling to afford groceries.”
Among the issues responsible for this:
COVID-19: Caused worldwide disruptions in supply chains.
Transportation costs and fuel prices: Fuel costs are directly tied to how much retailers charge for groceries and other goods.
Animal diseases, weather events, crop failures: When bird flu (H5N1) first struck the U.S. in 2022, eggs were priced at around $2 per dozen. They peaked at $4.82/dozen in January 2023, and in December 2024—following the infection of over 123 million chickens—prices fell to about $4.15/dozen.
Global conflict: In February, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine, which exports wheat, corn and agricultural fertilizer, among other products. Russia has tried to strangle Ukraine’s exports by attacking the nation’s agricultural centers.
No President—including Biden and Trump—can control such events. Unfortunately, every Presidential candidate virtually promises to be Superman. And voters repeatedly fall victim to this absurdity.
So when elected Presidents fail to perform miracles, those voters turn on them—and turn them out of office.
Case #11:Americans don’t want a woman President.
American voters proved that in 2016 when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ran for President—and lost to Trump in the Electoral College by a count of 227to 304.
And Hillary had an advantage that Vice President Kamala Harris lacked: Hillary was white.
England has elected a female Prime Minister: Margaret Thatcher. And Mexico—notorious for the machismo of its men—has elected a woman President: Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo. But in the United States, electing a woman chief executive is unthinkable to most American men.
According to Daniel Cassino, Professor of Government and Politics at Fairleigh Dickinson University, men who support Trump hold to a traditionally masculine identity.
“So, among that group, Trump is up over Harris by about 35 points. Huge gap, Among other men, the half of men who don’t put themselves at the extremes of masculinity, Harris is up by 20. In fact, Harris is also up by 20 among most groups of women. So, really the gap is not between men and women, it’s between this one group of traditional masculine men and everybody else.”
Machismo played a major role in Trump’s popularity among Hispanics. Roughly six in 10 men described Trump as a strong leader, compared with 43% who said that in 2020. About half of Hispanic women said Trump was a strong leader, up from 37%.
Case #12:Democrats expected to receive support from their traditional allies—such as blacks and Hispanics. But that didn’t happen.
During the eight-year tenure of America’s first black President, Donald Trump attacked Barack Obama as a foreign-born citizen who was thus ineligible for that office. He also had a history of supporting—and being supported by—racist white groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.
Nevertheless, blacks deserted Vice President Kamala Harris in droves. About three in 10 back men under age 45 went for Trump, roughly double the share he got in 2020.
There were numerous instances where intervention by Federal legislators or law enforcement authorities could have utterly changed the outcome of the 2024 Presidential election.
Case #5:Even after Donald Trump left office, the Justice Department treated him with a deference not shown any other criminal defendant.
He was allowed, for example, to hurl insults and threats at Special Counsel Jack Smith and even Smith’s family.
One such post, published on Trump’s website, Truth Social, went: “Deranged Jack Smith, who is a sick puppet for A.G. Garland & Crooked Joe Biden, should be DEFUNDED & put out to rest. Republicans must get tough or the Dems will steal another Election. MAGA!”
By “A.G. Garland” Trump meant Attorney General Merrick Garland. By “put out to rest,”he meant that his followers should assassinate Smith.
Not even Mafia bosses like Charles “Lucky” Luciano and Albert “The Executioner” Anastasia dared issue such a threat.
Jack Smith
By contrast: Jimmy Hoffa was president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. But that didn’t prevent Robert F. Kennedy’s Justice Department from indicting him for jury tampering—and convicting him on March 4, 1964. He was sentenced to eight years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
No one in the Kennedy Justice Department said: “He’s the elected president of the Teamsters Union—so we can’t touch him.” Yet that is precisely how the Biden Justice Department repeatedly acted—simply because, in 2016, he won a Presidential election.
Case #6:Throughout his struggles to stay out of prison, Trump was aided by the unrelenting support of the Republican party.
Republicans loudly and repeatedly claimed that Donald Trump was the legitimate winner of the 2020 Presidential election—despite overwhelming evidence that he wasn’t.
They also claimed that, by appointing Special Counsel Jack Smith to investigate Trump, the Democrats had weaponized Federal law enforcement.
They also fully supported Trump’s demand for the release of those who attacked the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021.
For example: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has depicted these coup supporters as persecuted martyrs.
On March 24, 2022, members of the Republicans’ House Oversight Committee toured a Washington, D.C. jail where some of these defendants were held. “Their due process rights are being violated. And they have been mistreated and treated as political prisoners,”Greene told reporters after the tour.
Adolf Hitler similarly portrayed as martyrs the Nazis who tried to violently overthrow the government of Bavaria on November 9, 1923.
A March 2, 2020 Washington Monthly story concluded ominously: “U.S. democracy wasn’t set up to deal with a president openly behaving like a James Bond villain while being protected by a political party behaving more like a mafia than a civic institution.”
Case #7: While Congressional Republicans relentlessly investigated President Joe Biden and his family, Democrats refused to similarly investigate Trump’s family.
The United States House Oversight Committee opened its investigation into the Biden family on January 11, 2023. The investigation included the foreign business activities of Biden’s son, Hunter, and brother, James.
By November 2023, the investigation had not found any evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden.
Democrats, by contrast, never probed why Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law and former White House adviser, received $2 billion from Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The money came to Kushner’s private equity firm after Kushner left the White House in 2021.
Jared Kushner
Salman has been implicated by U.S. Intelligence reports in the 2018 torture and dismemberment of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. When asked if he believed the reports, Kushner said: “Are we really still doing this?”
Democrats also refused to investigate the Trump administration’s illegally seizing vitally-needed medical supplies in at least seven states during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) did not publicly report the thefts, despite the outlay of millions of dollars of taxpayer money. Nor did the administration explain how it decided which supplies to seize and where to reroute them.
The Federal Government did not inform states whose supplies it seized if they would receive the materials they ordered and paid for.
Case #8:On July 13, 2024, Trump was allegedly wounded in his right ear by a gunman while speaking at an open-air Presidential campaign rally near Butler, Pennsylvania.
The would-be assassin, Thomas Matthew Crooks, fired eight rounds from an AR-15 style rifle from the roof of a nearby building. Trump dived for cover behind his lectern, as the shooter killed one audience member and critically injured two others.
Crooks was shot and killed seconds later by the Secret Service’s Counter Sniper Team.
Had Trump not slightly turned his head at the moment Crooks fired, Republicans would have been forced to choose another nominee.
In addition, Trump would not have been alive to win the 2024 Presidential election and openly threaten to imprison the Justice Department prosecutors who sought to hold him accountable for his litany of crimes.
The assassination attempt calls to mind that by Colonel Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg on July 20, 1944, to kill Adolf Hitler with a briefcase bomb. Had he succeeded, the war in Europe would no doubt have ended far earlier, with countless lives being saved.
On January 20, for the second time, Donald J. Trump took the oath of office as the 47th President of the United States.
Since then, he has aggressively committed a series of outrages against the country he claims to love, including:
Granting clemency to more than 1,500 people convicted of offenses related to the January 6, 2021 United States Capitol attack.
Signing 26 executive orders reversing climate change initiatives, eliminating DEI programs, changing the federal designation for the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America” and initiating a federal hiring freeze.
Revoking an executive order on Artificial Intelligence safety signed by former President Joseph Biden, to establish safeguards for the rapidly advancing AI technology.
Firing the inspectors general—who are charged with protecting the government from waste and corruption—from more than a dozen federal agencies.
Purging about a half-dozen executive assistant directors at the FBI. These were some of the bureau’s top managers overseeing criminal, national security and cyber investigations. Their “crime”: Investigating Trump’s inciting the January 6, 2021 coup attempt and illegally holding highly sensitive national security documents after leaving office.
Following Trump’s anti-DEI executive order, the Department of Defense deletes content that included the achievements of nonwhites—such as Navajo code talkers, black Tuskegee Airmen, Medal of Honor winners and women veterans.
Firing the board members at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and appointing himself as chairman—just as Joseph Stalin made himself arbiter of what was permissible for artists in the Soviet Union.
Ordering the Justice Department to indict his critics such as New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey.
James had convicted him on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Comey had sought to investigate Russia’s subversion of the 2016 Presidential campaign to ensure Trump’s election.
Shutting down the Federal Government on October 1, when Democrats refused to agree to his gutting Medicaid, Medicare and the Affordable Care Act (ACA), causing 10-15 million Americans to lose health insurance coverage.
Among those not getting paid: Air traffic controllers for the Federal Aviation Administration. Owing to many controllers refusing to work, the FAA reduced air traffic by 10% at many airports.
Shutting off the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for the poor to pressure Democrats to support his gutting of healthcare programs.
There were numerous instances where intervention by Federal legislators or law enforcement authorities could have utterly changed the outcome of the 2024 election—and prevented these outrages.
Case #1:On December 18, 2019, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives adopted two articles of impeachment against Trump: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. On February 5, 2020, the Republican-dominated Senate voted to acquit Trump on both articles of impeachment.
Their motive: Fear that if they didn’t, they would be “primaried” by even more extreme, Trump-supported Right-wing candidates—and lose their positions and the accompanying power and perks.
Had Republicans agreed to convict him, he could not have run again for President.
Case #2: On January 13, 2021, Trump was impeached for the second time for “incitement of insurrection”—inciting the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol.
The reason: To stop the counting of Electoral College votes, which he knew would prove that former Vice President Joseph Biden had won the 2020 Presidential election.
The evidence against him was overwhelming—including video of his inciting a mob of his followers to storm the Capitol Building.
But Republican Senators again acquitted Trump on February 13, 2021—choosing ambition over patriotism.
Had they done so, he could not have again been a candidate for President.
Donald Trump
Case #3: Only on November 18, 2022—a year and a half after becoming Attorney General—did Merrick Garland appoint Jack Smith Independent Counsel to investigate Donald Trump’s role for:
Inciting the January 6 attack on Congress; and
Illegally seizing and storing highly classified government documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach Florida.
This gave Trump time to play his “deny and delay” game. Had he been prosecuted and convicted before the November 5 Presidential election, the results might well have been different.
Even hardcore supporters might have proved unwilling to vote for someone found guilty of inciting a riot or stealing highly classified documents.
Case #4:In June, 2023, Trump was indicted for illegally seizing and storing hundreds of highly classified government documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee as Federal Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, presided over the case.
She repeatedly ruled in his favor and finally dismissed the case in July, 2024. claiming that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional.
Many legal experts, citing her handling of the civil case against Trump, called for her recusal from the case. Jack Smith could have requested her removal from the case but did not ask a Federal appeals court to do so.
MSNBC analyst Barbara McQuade told Newsweek that Smith likely refused to do so to “return public trust” to the Justice Department, which had been challenged in recent years.
Cannon’s kid-gloves treatment of Trump echoed that of the Right-wing judge who presided over Adolf Hitler’s trial in 1923 for trying to overthrow the government of Bavaria.
The Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) now provides access to healthcare for more than 45 million Americans, who could not otherwise afford coverage.
The Act:
Eliminates the “pre-existing condition” excuse insurance companies had used to deny coverage to those who most needed it.
Provides a range of no-cost preventive services.
Allows children to stay on their parents’ insurance up to age 26.
Expands the Medicaid program that insures lower-income people access to health insurance markets offering subsidized plans.
Yet since it won Congressional passage in 2010, Republicans have made 50-70 attempts to repeal, modify, or otherwise weaken the Act.
As a Presidential candidate and President, Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that he wants to replace it. But he’s never offered a credible substitute.
On September 10, 2024, in his only Presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, moderator Linsey Davis, of ABC News, asked him: “So tonight, nine years after you first started running, do you have a plan and can you tell us what it is?”
Trump’s reply: “I have concepts of a plan. I’m not president right now.”
On July 4, a re-elected Trump, backed by a Republican House and Senate, signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law. Its purpose: Significantly cut federal health programs to pay for tax reductions for billionaires.
The law primarily impacts Medicaid, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and is projected to cause millions of Americans to lose health insurance coverage. The bill includes the largest cuts in Medicaid’s history, reducing funding by nearly $1 trillion over the next decade.
Democrats refused to support a temporary spending bill to fund the government unless Republicans reversed cuts to Medicaid and prevented health insurance premiums from rising at the end of the year.
Trump—and Congressional Republicans—refused. They also falsely claimed that Democrats wanted to give health coverage to illegal aliens.
So the Federal Government shut down on October 1. The shutdown continues into its 36th day—with no end in sight.
Why have Republicans relentlessly tried to end healthcare for the poor? Here are the publicized reasons:
Millions of Right-wingers hate the Federal Government and openly call for its overthrow. They vividly proved this on January 6, 2021 when they tried to illegally retain Donald Trump as President. They hoped to prevent the selection of Joe Biden as the legitimately-elected President of the United States by storming the Capitol Building.
Racism forms a major component of the GOP’s appeal to older, white, Right-wing voters. So having the name of the first black President unofficially stamped on the Act (“Obamacare”) serves as a constant spur to their racist hatred.
Barack Obama
Obama’s promise that “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” The promise backfired because the law stated that those who already had medical insurance could keep their plans—so long as those plans met the requirements of the new healthcare law. If their plans didn’t meet those requirements, they would have to obtain coverage that did.
Now for the most important—and unpublicized—reason.
Like so much else in the Republican agenda, it is rooted in the goals and methods of the Third Reich.
On June 22, 1941, German Fuhrer Adolf Hitler sent three million soldiers smashing into the Soviet Union. During the first six months—June to December, 1941—German armies lured huge Soviet forces into gigantic “cauldron battles,” surrounding and exterminating them.
An estimated 5.7 million Russians became prisoners of the Wehrmacht. The Germans found themselves surprised and overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of them. But their mandate demanded that they keep marching ever forward.
So they simply imprisoned their captives behind barbed wire and wasted no food or medical care on them. Between starvation, illness and the brutal Russian cold, at least 3.5 million POWs died in custody.
Soviet POW’s
Republicans have learned a valuable lesson from this: If you simply deprive those you detest of food, clothing, shelter—and medical care—you don’t need gas chambers or firing squads. Or even rigged vote-counts.
No better proof of this could be given than the lying announcement made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on October 27:
“Senate Democrats have now voted 12 times to not fund the food stamp program, also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Bottom line, the well has run dry. At this time, there will be no benefits issued November 01.”
This is a lie. Trump is holding back access to a contingency fund of $5 to $6 billion for the SNAP program. The reason: To pressure Democrats into agreeing to gut healthcare programs for the poor.
SNAP provides food assistance to more than 42 million Americans with low or no income.
For Trump, Democrats can choose to provide the poor with food—or medical care.
The official Republican lie continued:
“We are approaching an inflection point for Senate Democrats. They can continue to hold out for healthcare for illegal aliens and gender mutilation procedures or reopen the government so mothers, babies, and the most vulnerable among us can receive critical nutrition assistance.”
Most Americans—owing to naivety or historical ignorance—cannot accept that their Right-wing politicians can be as evil as those in other nations.
But they can—and are.
Those who depend on the government to provide access to food or medical care had better learn this truth quickly.
In the 1992 courtroom drama, “A Few God Men,” Jack Nicholson, as Marine Colonel Nathan Jessup, utters a line that has since become famous.
When his prosecutor, Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) demands the truth about the murder of a fellow Marine, Jessup shouts: “You can’t handle the truth!”
Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men”
Apparently, many of those who work in the television news business feel the same way about their audience.
[WARNING:This column contains some words that some readers may find offensive. Read on at your own risk.]
On February 9, 2016, businessman Donald Trump scored a new blow at his Rafael “Ted” Cruz, his closest rival for the Republican Presidential nomination.
Speaking at a rally in Manchester, New Hampshire, Trump attacked Cruz, the United States Senator from Texas, for being unwilling to support the widespread use of torture against America’s Islamic enemies.
“He’s a pussy!” yelled a woman in the crowd.
Apparently a certain portion of the attendees didn’t hear—or misheard—the insult. So Trump—pretending to be shocked–repeated it for them:
“She said–I never expect to hear that from you again! She said: ‘He’s a pussy.’ That’s terrible.”
“What kind of people do I have here?”joked Trump, clearly playing to the boisterous crowd.
Donald Trump
The incident went viral on social media. But all the major TV news outlets—for ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC—bleeped the word and/or coyly referred to it as “the P-word.”
It was as if they assumed their viewers would of course know what had been said despite the networks’ censorship of it. And if viewers didn’t already know what the woman—and Trump—had said, the networks weren’t going to enlighten them.
Of course, “the P-word” could just as easily have been “prick” or “pervert.” So it’s understandable that many viewers might have thought a very different word had been used.
No doubt the networks hoped to avoid offending large numbers of viewers.
But when the use of certain words becomes central to a news story, editors and reporters should have the courage to reveal just what was said. It should then be up to the audience to decide if the language was offensive–and, if so, if its user deserves condemnation.
The evening news is—supposedly—aimed at voting-age adults. And adults need–and deserve–the hard truth about the world they live in. Only then do they have a chance to reform it—if, in fact, they decide it needs reforming.
Those who wanted to learn—rather than guess—what Trump had repeated had to turn to the Internet or to a handful of news source such as Vox: Policy and Politics.
In their defense, the networks could argue that the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates radio and television, does not usually permit the word “pussy” to be aired between 6 am and 10 pm.
On the other hand, immediately after the 9/11 terror attacks, all the major TV networks endlessly replayed the destruction of the World Trade Center, with the resulting deaths of hundreds of men and women.
Censorship, then, tends to center on two types of subject material:
Sex, or “obscenity,” which is sex-related; and
Race, meaning racial slurs that would offend some minority group.
An example of race-related censorship occurred during the short-lived administration of President Gerald R. Ford.
During a lull in the 1976 Republican convention, entertainer Pat Boone asked Earl Butz, then Secretary of Agriculture: Why was the party of Lincoln having so much trouble winning black votes for its candidates?
“I’ll tell you what the coloreds want,”said Butz. “It’s three things: first, a tight pussy; second, loose shoes; and third, a warm place to shit.”
Earl Butz
Unknown to Butz, a Rolling Stone reporter was standing nearby. When his comments became public, Butz was quickly forced to resign.
Meanwhile, most TV and print media struggled to protect their audiences from the truth of Butz’ racism. Many newspapers simply reported that Butz had said something too obscene to print. Some invited their readers to contact the editors if they wanted more information.
TV newsmen generally described Butz’ firing as stemming from “a racially-offensive remark,” which they refused to explain.
In short: A high-ranking government official had been fired, but audiences were not allowed to judge whether his language justified that termination.
Forty years later, TV news viewers were again prevented from reaching their own conclusions about Trump’s repetition of the slur aimed at his rival.
Censoring the truth has always been a hallmark of dictatorships. It has no place in a democracy–despite the motives of those doing the censoring.
The ancient historian, Plutarch, sounded a warning that remains timely:
“And the most glorious exploits do not always furnish us with the clearest discoveries of virtue or vice in men; sometimes a matter of less moment, an expression or a jest, informs us better of their characters and inclinations, than the most famous sieges, the greatest armaments, or the bloodiest battles whatsoever.”
In a democracy, citizens must be alert for those tell-tale expressions or jests. And this demands that the media, in turn, have the courage to bring those truths to their attention.
On July 20, 1944, Colonel Claus Schenk von Stuaffenberg tried to assassinate Nazi Germany’s Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler, with a time bomb.
Stauffenberg appeared at Hitler’s well-guarded military headquarters in East Prussia. Like all his other outposts, Hitler had named it—appropriately enough—“Wolf’s Lair.”
While a war conference was in session, he placed his yellow briefcase next to Hitler—who was standing with his generals at a heavy oaken table. Then he excused himself to take an “urgent” phone call.
“Wolf’s Lair”
But after Stauffenberg left the room, Colonel Heinz Brandt, who stood next to Hitler, found the briefcase blocking his legs. So he moved it—to the other side of the heavy oaken support, thus unknowingly shielding Hitler from the full blast.
At 12:42 p.m. on July 20, 1944, Stauffenberg’s briefcase bomb erupted.
Brandt died, as did two other officers and a stenographer. Hitler not only survived, but the plotters failed to seize the key broadcast facilities of the Reich.
This allowed Hitler to make a late-night speech to the nation, revealing the failed plot and assuring Germans that he was still alive. And he swore to flush out the “traitorous swine” who had tried to kill him.
Mass arrests quickly followed. Among the first victims discovered and executed was the conspiracy’s leader, Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg. Standing before a makeshift firing squad at midnight, he cried: “Long live our sacred Germany!”
Claus von Stauffenberg
At least 7,000 persons were arrested by the Gestapo. Of these, 4,980 were executed.
If the conspiracy had succeeded and Germany had surrendered in July or August, 1944, World War II would have ended eight to nine months earlier. This would have meant:
The Russians—who didn’t reach Germany until April, 1945—could not have occupied the Eastern part of the country.
Millions of East Germans would have been spared the misery of living under Communist rule for 44 years.
Many of the future conflicts between the United States and the Soviet Union over access to West Berlin and/or West Germany would have been prevented.
Untold numbers of Holocaust victims would have survived because the concentration camps would have been shut down far earlier.
Yet history notes other tyrants whose evil reigns ended prematurely—such as that of Gaius Caligula.
Caligula became Emperor of Rome in 37 A.D. after succeeding the Emperor Tiberius, his uncle.
For three years, he held—and exercised—life-or-death power over the citizens of Italy and beyond. His attitude toward humanity was best summed up by his remark: “Bear in mind that I can treat anyone exactly as I please.”
Among his litany of crimes, according to his biographer, Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus:
He forced parents to attend the executions of their sons, sending a litter for one man who pleaded ill health. He invited another to dinner immediately after witnessing the execution, and trying to rouse him to gaiety by a great show of affability.
He watched for several successive days as the manager of his gladiatorial shows was beaten with chains, and ordered him killed only when he was disgusted at the stench of his putrefied brain.
He appeared at the temple of Castor and Pollux to be worshiped as Jupiter Latiaris.
He lived in incest with all his three sisters. At a large banquet he placed each of them in turn below him, while his wife reclined above.
He intended to promote his favorite racehorse, Incitatus(“Swift”), to consul.
Like all Roman emperors, Caligula was constantly protected by the Praetorian Guard, an elite unit of the Roman army comprised of tough legionnaires—especially German ones.
There had not been an assassination of a Roman emperor since the death of Julius Caesar almost 100 years earlier.
The assassins in that case had been motivated by a mixture of
Personal animosity toward Caesar’s increasing arrogance and
Genuine fears that he intended to abolish the Roman Republic and set himself up as a dictator.
And Caligula intended to keep a similar fate from overtaking him.
For all his cruelty and egomania, the trait that finally destroyed Caligula was his joy in humiliating others.
Among those he taunted was Cassius Chaerea, a member of his own bodyguard.
Two different historians give two different motives for his decision to assassinate Caligula.
The Jewish historian Josephus claimed that Chaerea was a “noble idealist” deeply committed to “Republican liberties.”
But Suetonius wrote that Caligula considered Chaerea effeminate because of a weak voice and gave him such mocking watchwords as “Priapus” and “Venus.” Whenever Caligula had Chaerea kiss his ring, the emperor would “hold out his hand to kiss, forming and moving it in an obscene fashion.”
On January 22 41 A.D. Chaerea and several other bodyguards hacked Caligula to death with swords before other guards could save him.
The assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler and the successful assassination of Gaius Caligula demonstrate that the greatest danger facing a tyrant is people who:
Are in frequent and highly personal contact with him; and
Keep their animosity toward him a secret—until the moment they wish to strike.
Had Secret Service agent Kerry O’Grady kept her revulsion toward Donald Trump to herself, she might now be hailed as an American traitor—or as democracy’s savior.
Where does loyalty leave off and conscience begin?
Specifically: If you’re a bodyguard for a man you know represents a genuine threat to democracy, what are your obligations to defend him? Should you be as willing to “take a bullet” for him as for someone you truly admire?
Members of Adolf Hitler’s bodyguard faced no such qualms. Right up to the bitter end, with Russian forces only blocks from the Fuhrerbunker, they manned their posts, ready to die for the man who had led them—and Germany—into the ultimate catastrophe.
They made Hitler a closely-guarded target.
He was surrounded by fanatical bodyguards who were expert marksmen. He often wore a bulletproof vest and a cap lined with three pounds of laminated steel.
But his single greatest protection—he claimed—was an instinct for danger. He would suddenly change his schedule—to drop in where he was least expected. Or suddenly depart an event where he was expected to stay a long time.
Adolf Hitler
It wasn’t Hitler’s bodyguards who posed a threat to his life. It was the colonels and generals of the German General Staff.
On August 20, 1934, members of the German army, navy and air force were required to swear the “Law On The Allegiance of Civil Servants and Soldiers of the Armed Forces.”
Whereas members of the armed forces had previously sworn loyalty to Germany, the new law required them to swear an oath of loyalty to Hitler personally.
In coming years, this would prove a deadly trap for many German officers—forcing them to choose between betraying a sacred oath and remaining loyal to a man who was clearly driving Germany to ruin.
For those officers who could not abide Germany’s coming destruction, the choice was simple: Hitler had to go.
A series of assassination attempts were made against Hitler. All of them involved time-bombs. And all of the would-be assassins were members of the German General Staff.
In one case, a bomb secretly stashed aboard Hitler’s plane failed to explode. In another, an officer who had a bomb strapped to himself unexpectedly found his scheduled meeting with Hitler called off. He had to rush into a bathroom to defuse the bomb before it exploded.
Hitler came closest to death on July 20, 1944.
Colonel Claus Schenk von Stuaffenberg was the driving force in a plot to assassinate Hitler with a time bomb.
Claus von Stauffenberg
He had served with the Wehrmacht in Poland (1939), France (1940) and the Soviet Union (1941). While serving in Tunisa, he was seriously wounded on April 7, 1943, when Allied fighters strafed his vehicle. He lost his left eye, right hand and two fingers of his left hand after surgery.
For most of his fellow officers, the motive was craven: The “happy time” of German victories was over. Germany was losing the war it had unleashed on the world in 1939—and now they feared the worst.
This was especially true now that the numerically superior forces of the Soviet Union had gone onto the offensive.
The Wehrmacht in Russia
The Wehrmacht and Schutzstaffel (SS) had killed millions of Russians. Many had died in combat. Others had been murdered as captives. Still more had been allowed to die by starvation and exposure to the notorious Russian winter.
For Stauffenberg, there was another reason: His disgust at the horrors he had seen committed by his fellow Wehrmacht soldiers upon defenseless POW’s and civilians in Russia.
Thus, Stauffenberg—more than many Germans—knew firsthand the vengeance his country could expect if the “Thousand-Year Reich” fell. Something must be done, he believed, to prove to the world that not all Germans—even members of the Wehrmacht—were criminals.
Most of the conspirators wanted to arrest Hitler and surrender to British and American forces—well before the much-feared Russians gained a toehold in Germany. Stauffenberg didn’t want to arrest Hitler; he wanted to kill him. A live Hitler might eventually be rescued by his Nazi colleagues.
Stauffenberg intended to carry his bomb—hidden in a briefcase—into a “Hitler conference” room packed with military officers. Rigged with a time-fuse, it would be left there while he found an excuse to leave. After the explosion, he would phone one of his fellow conspirators with the news.
Stauffenberg intended to direct the new government that would replace that of the Nazis—and open peace talks with the British and Americans. With Hitler dead, the coup—“Operation Valkyrie”—would be on.
Anti-Nazi conspirators would seize control of key posts of the government. They would inform the British and Americans of Germany’s willingness to surrender. Provided, of course, that the vengeance-seeking Russians did not have a say in its postwar future.
On July 20, 1944, Stauffenberg appeared at Hitler’s well-guarded military headquarters in East Prussia. Like all his other outposts, Hitler had named it—appropriately enough—“Wolf’s Lair.”
Stauffenberg entered the large, concrete building while the conference was in session. He placed his yellow briefcase next to Hitler—who was standing with his generals at a heavy oaken table. Then he excused himself to take an “urgent” phone call.
At 12:42 p.m. on July 20, 1944, Stauffenberg’s briefcase bomb erupted.
In the classic 1969 Western, The Wild Bunch, the outlaw gang is pursued by a posse led by Deke Thornton (Robert Ryan), one of its own former members.
This triggers a furious exchange between the gang’s two leaders:
DUTCH ENGSTROM (Ernest Borgnine): Damn that Deke Thornton to hell!
PIKE BISHOP (William Holden): What would you do in his place? He gave his word.
DUTCH ENGSTROM: He gave his word to a railroad!
PIKE BISHOP: It’s his word!
DUTCH ENGSTROM: That’s not what counts! It’s who you give it to!
Where does loyalty leave off and conscience begin?
Specifically: If you’re a bodyguard for a man you know represents a genuine threat to democracy, what are your obligations to defend him? Should you be as willing to “take a bullet” for him as for someone you truly admire?
In October, 2016, Kerry O’Grady, a senior agent in the Denver field office of the United States Secret Service, found herself facing such a quandary.
She had made a series of now-deleted postings on Facebook during the 2016 Presidential campaign saying that she supported Democrat Hillary Clinton and that she would not honor a federal law that prevents agents like her from publicly airing their political beliefs.
Kerry O’Grady
“As a public servant for nearly 23 years, I struggle not to violate the Hatch Act. So I keep quiet and skirt the median,” she wrote in one Facebook post. “To do otherwise can be a criminal offense for those in my position. Despite the fact that I am expected to take a bullet for both sides.”
She had also suggested on Facebook that she would not defend President Donald Trump should someone try to shoot him.
“But this world has changed and I have changed. And I would take jail time over a bullet or an endorsement for what I believe to be disaster to this country and the strong and amazing women and minorities who reside here. Hatch Act be damned. I am with Her [Hillary Clinton],” she wrote.
The Secret Service said in a statement that it could not comment on a specific personnel matter but that it was “aware of the postings and the agency is taking quick and appropriate action.
“All Secret Service agents and employees are held to the highest standards of professional and ethical conduct. Any allegations of misconduct are taken seriously and swiftly investigated.”
Secret Service agents
O’Grady was placed on administrative leave on January 28, 2017 and suspended with pay in February. The disciplinary action took months because of her high rank.
In March, 2019, she retired from the Secret Service.
During the next four years—2017 to 2021—Donald Trump came perilously close to becoming an absolute dictator.
Among his infamies and crimes:
Repeatedly attacking the nation’s free press as “the enemy of the American people” for daring to report his growing list of crimes and disasters.
Publicly siding with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin against American Intelligence agencies—such as the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency—which unanimously agreed that Russia had interfered with the 2016 Presidential election.
Attacking and alienating America’s oldest allies, such as Canada and Great Britain.
Firing FBI Director James Comey for refusing to pledge his personal loyalty to Trump—and continuing to investigate Russian subversion of the 2016 election.
Donald Trump
Shutting down the Federal Government on December 22, 2018, because Democrats refused to fund his useless “border wall” between the United States and Mexico. An estimated 380,000 government employees were furloughed and another 420,000 were ordered to work without pay for 35 days.
Allowing the deadly COVID-19 virus to ravage the country, killing 400,000 Americans by the time he left office.
Repeatedly lying—while still in office and afterward—that the 2020 election had been “stolen” from him by massive voter fraud.
Illegally trying to pressure state legislatures and governors to stop the certification of the vote that had made Joe Biden the president-elect.
Inciting his followers to attack the Capitol Building where Senators and Representatives were meeting to count the Electoral Votes won by himself and Joseph Biden. His objective: Stop the count, which he knew would prove him the loser.
In the classic 1981 crime drama, Prince of the City, Danny Ciello (Treat Williams) turns federal witness against his fellow crime-committing police officers.
His mobbed-up cousin, Nick, warns him that the Mafia wants him dead—but that his greatest danger might come from the bodyguards now surrounding him: “Anyone can be hit. You know that. All a guard has to do is look the wrong way for a second.”
Had that happened while Trump occupied the White House, American democracy would not now be imperiled by a second Trump administration.
Bodyguards for Adolf Hitler faced no such qualms. Right up to the bitter end, with Russian forces only blocks from the Fuhrerbunker, they manned their posts, ready to die for the man who had led them, Germany and the world into the ultimate catastrophe.
Within six years, Hitler had:
Ignited World War II in 1939 through his invasion of Poland.
Directly or indirectly caused the deaths of 50 million people worldwide.
Exterminated six million Jews throughout Eastern Europe and Russia through mass shootings or gassings in a vast system of concentration camps.
On October 18, more than seven million Americans protested the dictatorial policies of President Donald J. Trump.
It was the second nationwide “No Kings” series of protest marches since he took office on January 20.
The first marches, on June 14, had drawn about five million people.
Republicans, knowing the marches were coming, tried to pre-empt their “I Hate Dictators” message with one of their own: That the intended marchers hated America.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson: “You’re gonna bring together the Marxists, the socialists, the Antifa advocates, the anarchists, and the pro-Hamas wing of the far-left Democrat party.”
Mike Johnson
Other Republicans quickly joined his chorus.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent: “This crazy No Kings rally this weekend, which is gonna be the farthest left, the hardest-core, the most unhinged in the Democratic Party, which is a big title.”
Kansas Senator Roger Marshall warned that the protests would turn violent and have to be stopped by the national guard.
Attorney general Pam Bondi claimed, without proof, that the protests were an organized effort with dedicated funding: “You’re seeing people out there with thousands of signs that all match, pre-bought, pre-put together. They are organized, and someone is funding it.”
Pam Bondi
But, according to an October 19 opinion piece in The New Republic, such slanders were proven wrong:
“The atmosphere was extremely energetic and family friendly for both young and old.
“People walked slowly, often with kids in tow. Countless attendees wore large inflatable costumes, inspired by the Portland frog. There was live music, tabling, and speeches by Bill Nye, Mehdi Hasan, and Senators Bernie Sanders and Chris Murphy, among others.”
The greatest threat posed to the Trump administration didn’t come from the “No Kings” rallies. It came from no less a figure than President Donald J. Trump.
To show his utter contempt for those who oppose his policies and dictatorial rule, he posted an AI-generated video on his Truth Social account. It showed him wearing a crown and flying a jet labeled “King Trump” that dumps feces on protesters.
It’s set to the music of the 1986 Top Gun film song, “Danger Zone,” by Kenny Loggiins.
Loggins responded on NPR: “This is an unauthorized use of my performance of ‘Danger Zone.’ Nobody asked me for my permission, which I would have denied, and I request that my recording on this video is removed immediately.
“I can’t imagine why anybody would want their music used or associated with something created with the sole purpose of dividing us. Too many people are trying to tear us apart, and we need to find new ways to come together. We’re all Americans, and we’re all patriotic.
“There is no ‘us and them’ – that’s not who we are, nor is it what we should be. It’s all of us. We’re in this together, and it is my hope that we can embrace music as a way of celebrating and uniting each and every one of us.”
Owing to Logginis’ demand, many YouTube versions of this video don’t contain that music.
NPR contacted to the White House for a response to Loggins’ reaction.
White House spokesman Davis R. Ingle ignored NPR’s questions but contemptuously replied with an image from Top Gun of stars Tom Cruise and the late Val Kilmer, captioned: “I FEEL THE NEED FOR SPEED.”
Loggins could file a copyright infringement suit against Trump.
The Internet erupted with outrage:
“Can’t believe that’s a president of a country.”
“It tells you everything you need to know about what he thinks about the people of America who are, in fact, America.”
“Just to be clear, Americans, this is what Donald Trump thinks of you if you oppose him, protest, or simply ask questions.”
“Trump’s AI fantasy of crowning himself King & dumping shit from a fighter jet is the most honest thing he’s ever posted. He’s literally shitting on Americans because he doesn’t give a fuck about them. And the MAGA stupids will cheer it, calling it “patriotism.”
But these were tame compared to the warning issued by Niccolo Machiavelli, the Florentine statesman, more than 500 years ago.
Niccolo Machiavelli
In his best-known work, The Prince, he advised rulers to “mingle with [citizens] from time to time, and give them an example of his humanity and munificence, always upholding, however, the majesty of his dignity, which must never be allowed to fail in anything whatever.”
“…A prince need trouble little about conspiracies when the people are well disposed. But when they are hostile and hold him in hatred, then he must fear everything and everybody.
“….For whoever conspires always believes that he will satisfy the people by the death of the prince.
“…[The Roman Emperor Commodus], being of a cruel and bestial disposition, in order to…exercise his rapacity on the people, he sought to favor the soldiers and render them licentious. On the other hand, by not maintaining his dignity, by often descending into the theater to fight with gladiators and committing other contemptible actions…he became despicable in the eyes of the soldiers. And being hated on the one hand and despised on the other, he was conspired against and killed.”
On February 6, 2011, Ronald Reagan, if he had been alive, would have been 100 years old.
Publishers rushed to put out worshipful tributes to his eight years as President. Network political programs such as “This Week” and “Meet the Press” assembled surviving members of his administration to re-live the “glory days” of Reagan’s—and their—time in power.
Actually, it was during the Reagan administration that America entered its decline—a Right-wing legacy of huge Federal deficits, tax-cuts for the rich, bloated military budgets and cutbacks in government programs to aid the poor and middle-class.
Ronald Reagan
No two men could have been more different than Vladimir Lenin and Ronald Reagan. Lenin created the Soviet Union in 1917 and became its first in a series of absolute dictators. Reagan spent his life fighting Communism, most notably as President.
So it’s ironic that both men, in death, got essentially the same funeral—and for the same reason: To sanctify and legitimize their respective organizations—and the authority of their potential successors.
Vladimir Lenin
Lenin died on January 21, 1924, and was immediately succeeded by the party’s General Secretary, Joseph Stalin. Stalin, as a youth, had been a seminary student. He knew that, despite Communism’s official atheistic stance, most Russians remained loyal to the Russian Orthodox Church.
So in giving Lenin’s funeral oration, Stalin used the language of religion to confer sainthood upon a militant atheist—and upon his successor, Stalin himself: “We vow to thee, Comrade Lenin, that we will fulfill this, thy commandment….”
Funeral for Vladimir Lenin
Stalin and his fellow Communists immediately launched the “cult of Lenin,” depicting him as a fatherly, all-wise leader whose genius could only be bestowed upon his closest disciples.
Lenin’s extensive political writings were treated as divine writ, and were used to justify everything Stalin and his own successors wanted to do.
A classic example: Although he died 20 years before the Americancreation of the atomic bomb, Lenin was hailed by the Soviets as the “father” of “Soviet nuclear physics.”
Similarly, Republicans quickly turned Reagan into a modern-day saint of mythical proportions.
They did so for the same reason that Stalin deliberately forged a cult around the dead Lenin—to create a “holy” figure of whom other Republicans can claim to be true disciples.
Funeral for Ronald Reagan
These deliberate fictions conveniently ignore a series of ugly truths:
Reagan was onlyoneof a series of Presidents who held the line against the Soviet Union.
His budgets were just as stained with red ink as those of all previous Presidents.
By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been investigated, indicted or convicted for official misconduct and/or criminal violations.
His “trickle-down” Reganomics brought prosperity to only the wealthiest 1% of Americans, proving that “a rising tide lifts some yachts.”
By drastically shrinking the tax-base, bloating the defense budget and destroying programs to benefit the poor and middle-class, Reagan produced a $1 trillion deficit-–which only the Clinton Administration eliminated.
Reagan believed that government should not helpthe impoverished. Those who lacked wealth to buy such necessities as housing and medical insurance were written off as unimportant.
John F. Kennedy had praised government service as an honor. Reagan repeatedly said that “the best and the brightest” could be found only in business.
This denigration of government service continues among Republicans to this day—defaming the very institutions they lust to control.
Although he often berated the poor for their “laziness,” Reagan adhered to a “banker’s hours” schedule: During his working hours in the Oval Office, he often had blocks of free time—two to three hours. He would call for his fan mail and answer it.
Reagan saw no need to protect America’s fragile environment against corporate polluters, eager to enrich themselves at its expense. He ignorantly stated: “Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let’s not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources.”
Reagan famously attacked “welfare queens” and sought to deny government benefits for the poor. But he didn’t hesitate to enrich himself at public expense.
Before his Presidency ended, 18 wealthy Californians contributed $156,000 apiece to buy him a 7,200 square-foot mansion overlooking Beverly Hills.
Reagan signed a multi-million dollar deal to write his Presidential memoirs and publish a collection of his speeches.
He signed an exclusive contract with a Washington lecture bureau, which paid him $50,000 per speech given in the United States and $100,000 overseas. This made him the highest-paid speaker in the country.
These monies came in additionto his Presidential pension of $99,500 a year for life and his $30,000 annual pension as a former governor of California.
At a cost to the government of $10 million annually, Reagan—a millionaire who could afford private security—continued to receive lifetime Secret Service protection from 40 fulltime agents.
The “cult of Lenin” died when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. The “cult of Reagan” died only when it was superseded by that of Donald Trump.
The difference: Reagan hid his brutal deeds behind a smile; Trump celebrates his openly with a frown.
Steffen White’s Email: Sparta480@aol.com Former reporter, legal investigator and troubleshooter. Columnist at Bureaucracybuster.com. Fighting political and bureaucratic arrogance, incompetence and/or indifference.
When making complaints in writing, carefully review your email or letter before sending it. Remove any words that are vulgar or profane. Don't make sweeping accusations: "Your agency is a waste."
Don't attribute motives to people you've had problems with, such as: "The postal clerk refused to help me because he's a drunk." If the person actually appeared to be drunk, then be precise in your description: "As he leaned over the counter I could smell beer on his breath. Behind him, in a waste basket, I saw an empty bottle of Coors beer."
Show how the failure of the official to address your problem reflects badly on the company or agency: "This is not the level of service your ads would lead potential customers to expect."
If necessary, note any regulatory agencies that can make life rough for the company or agency if your complaint isn't resolved. For the phone company, for example, cite the FCC or the PUC. But do this only after you have stated you hope your complaint can be settled amicably and privately within the company.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, 2024 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ABC NEWS, ABUSE OF POWER, ADOLF HITLER, AILEEN CANNON, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, ASSASSINATION, AXIOS, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BIRD FLU, BLACKS, BLOOMBERG, BLUESKY, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CHINA, CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS, CLIMATE CHANGE, CNN, COVID-19, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, DANIEL CASSINO, DEMOCRACY, DEMOCRATIC PARTY, DEMOCRATS, DIVERSITY EQUITY AND INCLUSION (DEI) PROGRAMS, DONALD TRUMP, ELECTORAL COLLEGE, FBI, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA), FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, FUEL PRICES, GALLUP POLL, GAZA, GLOBAL CONFLICT, GROCERY PRICES, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HILLARY CLINTON, HISPANICS, HUFFINGTON POST, HUNTER BIDEN, illegal immigration, IMPEACHMENT, INFLATION, INSPECTORS GENERAL, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ISRAEL, JACK SMITH, JAMAL KHASHOOGI, JAMES COMEY, JANUARY 6 COUP ATTEMPT, JARED KUSHNER, JIMMY HOFFA, JOHN ADAMS, JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS, JOSEPH BIDEN, JOSEPH STALIN, Kamala Harris, KEVIN MCCARTHY, KIM JONG-UN, LATINOS, LETITIA JAMES, LOW INFORMATION VOTERS, MAR-A-LAGO, MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE, MASCULINITY, MEDIA MATTERS, MERRICK GARLAND, MOHAMMED BIN SALMAN, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, MUSLIMS, NAVAJO COLDE TALKERS, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NORTH KORREA, NPR, OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, PARDONS, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REPUBLICANS, REUTERS, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, RUSSIA, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, SUPERMAN, SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SNAP), TALKING POINTS MEMO, TERRORISM, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, THOMAS MATTHEW CROOKS, TIME, TRANSPORTATION COSTS, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TUSKEGEE AIRMEN, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. BORDER PATROL, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UKRAINE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD), UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE, UNITED STATES SENATE, UPI, USA TODAY, VLADIMIR PUTIN, VOLODMYR ZELENSKY, VOX, X, XI JINPING
THE REAL VILLAINS RESPONSIBLE FOR TRUMP’S EVIL–PART THREE (OF FOUR)
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Medical, Social commentary on November 13, 2025 at 12:10 amThere were numerous instances where intervention by Federal legislators or law enforcement authorities could have utterly changed the outcome of the 2024 Presidential election.
Case #9: Americans had become increasingly worried and angry about surging numbers of illegal aliens pouring into the country. But the Biden administration refused—until its closing months—to dramatically address this issue.
A Vox story, dated July 12, 2024, warned: “According to Gallup, 2024 is the first time since 2005 that most of the public have wanted less immigration, and this year marks the largest share of Americans feeling resistant to immigration since 58 percent said so in 2001….”
Illegal alien climbing over the border fence in Brownsville, Texas
Six months later, on January 17, 2025, another Vox story offered: “What Democrats must learn from Biden’s disastrous immigration record.”
It opened: “One of the main reasons Vice President Kamala Harris lost the election is the Biden administration’s record on immigration and the border — polls show it ranks up close with inflation among the top issues that drove swing voters to Trump….
“During Biden’s first three years in office, the number of arriving migrants skyrocketed, leading to a backlash as even blue states and cities complained they were overwhelmed. The peak came in December 2023, a month when officials reported about 250,000 encounters with migrants at the border, a record.”
Then, starting early in 2024, and continuing throughout the year, border arrivals plummeted—by more than 80%.
The reasons:
Unfortunately for Harris, the downturn in illegal immigration came too late.
Donald Trump
In times of economic uncertainty, hostility rises toward immigrants—especially those who are alien to a host country’s language and culture. This has proven true in Europe as well as the United States.
Case #10: Americans blamed President Biden for inflationary price increases—especially for groceries such as eggs.
According to a December 20, 2024 article—“Why are groceries so expensive? What you need to know”—by the Center for Science in the Public Interest:
“Since January 2019, food prices have risen nearly 30 percent in the US, leaving many households struggling to afford groceries.”
Among the issues responsible for this:
No President—including Biden and Trump—can control such events. Unfortunately, every Presidential candidate virtually promises to be Superman. And voters repeatedly fall victim to this absurdity.
So when elected Presidents fail to perform miracles, those voters turn on them—and turn them out of office.
Case #11: Americans don’t want a woman President.
American voters proved that in 2016 when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ran for President—and lost to Trump in the Electoral College by a count of 227 to 304.
And Hillary had an advantage that Vice President Kamala Harris lacked: Hillary was white.
England has elected a female Prime Minister: Margaret Thatcher. And Mexico—notorious for the machismo of its men—has elected a woman President: Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo. But in the United States, electing a woman chief executive is unthinkable to most American men.
According to Daniel Cassino, Professor of Government and Politics at Fairleigh Dickinson University, men who support Trump hold to a traditionally masculine identity.
“So, among that group, Trump is up over Harris by about 35 points. Huge gap, Among other men, the half of men who don’t put themselves at the extremes of masculinity, Harris is up by 20. In fact, Harris is also up by 20 among most groups of women. So, really the gap is not between men and women, it’s between this one group of traditional masculine men and everybody else.”
Machismo played a major role in Trump’s popularity among Hispanics. Roughly six in 10 men described Trump as a strong leader, compared with 43% who said that in 2020. About half of Hispanic women said Trump was a strong leader, up from 37%.
Case #12: Democrats expected to receive support from their traditional allies—such as blacks and Hispanics. But that didn’t happen.
During the eight-year tenure of America’s first black President, Donald Trump attacked Barack Obama as a foreign-born citizen who was thus ineligible for that office. He also had a history of supporting—and being supported by—racist white groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.
Nevertheless, blacks deserted Vice President Kamala Harris in droves. About three in 10 back men under age 45 went for Trump, roughly double the share he got in 2020.
Share this: