Killing AmerIcan Citizens

In my ongoing project to increase the font size of all my posts, I encountered one today called A Death Less Noticed. It was written towards the end of 2011, the third year of Obama's first presidential term. The post was a response to a news article about the killing by Obama of an American citizen in a foreign country. Here is some of that post.

---- 

While not as heralded as the death of Osama bin Laden, there was another assassination of a key al-Qaeda leader this past weekend when Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a drone strike.  Al-Awlaki was the very visible leader of the Yemen faction of al-Qaeda, a branch which has upgraded both its reputation and its activities in its violence against America.  To some, he was the heir apparent to bin Laden, as the center of the radical Islamic movement has shifted away from Iraq and Afghanistan towards Yemen.  He was fluent in English which enabled him to penetrate an audience not easily reached in the past.    

And, al-Awlaki was a US citizen.

For most people, killing this terrorist was a no brainer.  He had long ago dissolved his connection to the United States by calling for violence against our country and its citizens.  He has been linked to various terrorist plots and actions including the Ft Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber.  All crimes that say treason in big, bold letters.

Yet, he was a US citizen.  This simple fact was enough to cause the Obama Administration to request the justice department's Office of Legal Counsel to issue a memorandum (same office that, under Bush II, ruled that water boarding was not torture). In the end, it was decided that there was no way to arrest and try the man so that in his case specifically, assassination was legal.  Of course, we all know the power of precedence so to me it opens the door for other overseas killings of American born enemies of our country. 

The danger is whether such a precedent could be used to authorize the killing of an American for other reasons that might be considered treasonous.  Perhaps someone plotting a cyber attack on our financial or military computer systems.  That would be pretty serious, so would it also justify suspending the constitution?  How about using it to authorize the killing of an enemy with American citizenship within our borders?  Someone who has been linked to a credible attack on a nuclear reactor?  Do we kill him/her outright also?

What is ironic is that most people who have been quoting the constitution when attacking Obama are generally quiet on this one, even though, clearly, due process of law as guaranteed by the constitution has been waived for this particular American citizen.Although I did see that Ron Paul was quoted as saying that Obama could be impeached for this act; could be but shouldn't be was his statement, I believe.  Another reason that Mr Paul can not win the Republican nomination as he will be pilloried when his opponents bring up that he once defended the rights of an American terrorist.

Obviously, in an ideal world, we hunt down the likes of al-Awlaki and bring him to justice through a military or civilian trial.  Perhaps he is killed in the process of that arrest so our legal conscious can be clear, but there is no middle ground when we target and kill someone with a missile shot from hundreds of miles away.  There was no intent to capture, only kill.  And for those killed with him, whether guilty by willing association or merely the driver who drew the short stick, I guess we don't even blink an eye as they were not Americans.  (One was a Saudi national; funny how so many terrorists are Saudi Arabian by nationality or supported with Saudi money). 

State sponsored killing to insure the survival of the state.  

If you were against state sponsored torture to insure the safety of Americans, should you also be against killing?  If not, then are you not accepting the premise that it is OK to kill but you can't beat them up?   And if you are OK with torture and killing because they are obviously our enemies, then are you OK with suspending the right to trial for other "obvious" miscreants?  Mass murderers?  Child molesters?  How about admitted frauds, like Bernie Madoff?  Everyone knew he was guilty of massive financial fraud and was responsible for the loss to hundreds of people of millions of dollars; should he have been convicted and sentenced without trial?   

------

Clearly, one can make a case that the assassination of an American citizen who actively works to hurt America and Americans is the exception to the rule. Obama and his legal advisers certainly did, and I imagine, most Americans would agree. 

But if we fast forward to the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, two American citizens killed, not due to a series of suspected terrorist attacks, or a history of anti-American rhetoric, but because they objected to the process by which deportations were being carried out in their neighborhoods and were murdered in their own home towns, not on foreign soil, and that within minutes or their deaths, the now fired DHS head Kristi Noem, as well as the current president justified their killing, merely by labeling them terrorists, is that not too far?

While Obama was concerned that killing an American citizen in a foreign country without even attempting to honor his constitutional right to due process, despite his obvious anti-American activities, our current president dismissed the killings of Renee and Alex by government employees without even batting an eye.

At the time, I questioned Obama's decision despite the obvious reason for his actions because I feared that someone with less scruples might use that precedent for other, less obvious killings, and I cautioned my readers to be careful what we wish for as related to turning a blind eye when our own government chooses to ignore our Constitutional rights, since it could lead us down a slippery slope that we could not foresee.

In about 10 days there will be another mass protest against our current president. Millions of Americans will take to the street to voice their concerns about immigration policies that are cruel, about the Iran War, about the chaotic tariff policies, about the arrogance of a man who thinks he knows more about everything than anyone yet denies culpability when his decisions lead to poor results. 

Will that be enough to label all of us terrorists? As improbable as that sounds, there has already been an executive order which has instructed the DOJ and FBI to go after antifa groups. Remember, antifa stands for anti fascists. Aren't we all against fascism? Do you know someone who is pro-fascism?

My point is that the administration is using this term so they can justify arresting people who are exercising their rights, who disagree with this government's actions. An administration that has refused to investigate and hold accountable ICE agents who killed American citizens.

I titled this post "Killing American Citizens" knowing that very few people would be in favor of such a thing. And to make the point that the problem arises when the government removes "American" from a person or group of people and replaces it with terrorist. 

We see the same thing in war. Krauts or Japs, Gooks, Towelheads, whatever the pejorative term, they are no longer people. 

And we certainly see it is so many discussions of immigrants. 

First you demonize them, label them as less than human, perhaps call them vermin or people with inferior genes, certainly calling them anti-American, or people who hate God will do it. Then, all bets are off. No more Constitutional protections, no more rights.

What is truly alarming, is that in this current war against Iran, we have the head of the Department of Defense claiming that we will no longer fight our wars without constraint, that our enemies will be given no quarter. The Geneva Conventions are now woke agreements that shackle our military from achieving its goals and the justification for ignoring those international agreements is that Iran has violated them, would violate them again, so we should drop to their level and act in the exact way that we condemn.

A race to the bottom that threatens all of us yet seems to be outside the concern of far too many people, in addition to an entire political party.

And so the decline continues. 

  

   

 

A Post From 2012

As I have said before, I am revisiting all my previous posts and updating them to a larger font. Today I checked and revised all the posts from 2012 that needed the change.

I encountered this post which originates after the two political conventions that selected Obama and Romney to run for president. It was part of a number of posts I did about that election. As I read it today, I was reminded of what I perceive as the decline of America, how we are going backwards, away from confirming the ideals of the founders.

I touched on the horrible Citizens United decision that has only made things far worse than when it was first rendered, made our politicians even more beholden to rich donors and corporations.

Next I expressed my anxiety that the next Supreme Court Justice to retire (or die) might be Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which meant that the next president will have to nominate her replacement. As the Court, at the time, was more evenly split than now, I called it 4 left leaners, 4 right leaners, 1 flip flopper, it was starkly clear that an Obama victory in 2012 might maintain that relatively even split, while a Romney victory might tip the balance to the right. As it turned out, Justice Scalia died unexpectedly in February of 2016 but the GOP led Senate did not even give Obama's selection a vote (too close the the November election they said), so Trump got to nominate Scalia's replacement, which basically kept the statue quo. 

But, when Kennedy retired in the summer of 2018, the justice who I described as the flip flopper, was replaced with the conservative Kavanaugh, and then when Ginsburg died in September of 2020, the GOP Senate rushed through Amy Coney Barret's nomination only ten days from the 2020 election (so much for it being too close to the next presidential election), which produced our current 6 to 3 Court dynamic.

As it turned out, I was wrong at the time in thinking that the 2012 election would matter to the Court, as it was the 2016 election that mattered far more.

But I was right when I expressed concern for Roe v Wade, as was evident when the court backtracked on its previous history of defending a women's right to reproductive freedom. I was also concerned about the possibility of granting person hood rights to a fetus, which, again, is happening at the state level now that Roe V Wade has been scuttled. 

The last part of this post discussed the need for more civility in our politics and political rhetoric. 

In that area, we are a long way from achieving that goal, even further than in 2012. We now have a president who belittles anyone who disagrees with him, who routinely calls Democrats and liberals evil, bad people, America haters. Civility isn't just unattainable at this point, it is part of the attack on woke, and reflects a harmful, and even amoral belief that treating others as you would want to be treated is a sign of weakness. 

As I said at the end of that post, politicians will react if we use the power of the vote to reject messages and campaigns that depend on cruelty and scapegoating. Trump's victory in 2024 demonstrates that the electorate prefers such messages. 

And so the decline continues. 

Here is that post.

----  

Romney and Civility

Sorry it has been a while.  I just finished a 12 day in a row work schedule this past weekend.  In addition I took a part time job about a month ago so my blogging time has been limited.  Hopefully, I will still be able to post once a week but...

In a previous post I listed reasons why one might vote to re-elect President Obama, vote for Mitt Romney, or vote for "none of the above".  For this blog I would like to emphasize the importance of voting for President Obama, or rather, the importance of not voting for any Republican nominee.

I believe I have been consistent in detailing my displeasure at the recent Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited funds to infect our election process.  There is far too much money being spent on these campaigns, on both sides, and it seems clear to me that the more money that is "donated" by large corporations and wealthy individuals, the less likely our government will do the work of the people.

By and large, the Supreme Court justices who ruled to equate money with free speech are conservative, and nominated by past republican presidents.  While there are certainly surprises, at times, in how justices will vote, it is not usually hard to guess which justices will rule which way on important issues.  (Justice Roberts' recent vote for the individual mandate section of the Affordable Care Act, is certainly the exception to the rule).

My concern is that there is a reasonable chance that the next judge to retire will be Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg due to her ongoing health issues.  That being the case, it is of great concern to me that the next president nominate a liberal leaning candidate to maintain the current balance of 4 left-leaners, 4 right-leaners, and one who moves between. 

My ultimate fear is that a right leaning judge will be the deciding vote to overturn Roe vs Wade.  Already, many states are weakening this important precedent through work around laws that are making it harder and harder for women to have abortions.  Inevitably, a challenge will be presented to Roe v Wade that will make its way to the Supreme Court so it is imperative that either Judge Ginsburg still be there to vote for women's reproductive rights, or her replacement be someone who would not force the next generation of American women to be reduced to second class citizens. 

If you think I exaggerate, there have already been attempts to pass legislation under the guise of  "fetal rights acts" which would grant person hood to a fetus at the moment of conception.  In other words, abortion would be murder, as would a few of the most commonly used forms of birth control.  And, in case you missed it, Mitt Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, was a co-sponsor of the Sanctity of Human Life Act of 2009 which declares that a fertilized egg is entitled to the same legal rights as a human being.  Fortunately, the first attempt to pass such a bill was defeated in Mississippi but I do not think that will deter its advocates.

As I said in my last post, please vote.  And, when you are in that voting booth, remember that in many cases, a president's mark on our country is effected as much by his Supreme Court nominees as that which happens while in office.

My other topic of the day, Civility, comes from the movie Troy. 

The scene in question occurs after Achilles kills Hector and, rather than allowing Hector's body to be properly prepared for the afterlife, Achilles binds Hector's legs and drags him back to the Roman encampment.  Of course, this is the Hollywood version of Homer's Iliad, but after the battle, the King of Troy sneaks into the Roman camp and walks unscathed into Achilles tent.  There he makes an emotional appeal to Achilles to allow him to take Hector's body back to Troy so he can follow the normal customs and traditions of death.  Achilles agrees, not because his hatred of everything Troy has abated, or because he did not relish killing Hector, but because he respected the king of Troy and his bravery in making the appeal.

Of course, this emotional scene made me think of our current political situation.  Dems vs GOP.  Conservative vs Liberal.  In the movie, there was a nine day truce so that Hector could be properly mourned.  Wouldn't it be nice if we could have such a truce during this election campaign?  No more lies.  No more innuendo.  No more "what he said or did 20 years ago". 

Is it so hard to realize that regardless of your political affiliation, we are all Americans?  We all love this great country and want to see it prosper.  We need to DEMAND that our elected officials stop the blame game tactics and work together to solve our nation's problems.  And, just as important, we need to teach them this lesson through example.  Politicians are nothing if not students of popular sentiment.  If we chart a course of civility as we debate the issues, they will do the same for fear of being cast as a rigid ideologue, or worse, for fear of losing an election.


    


       

Sam Shepard

"The sides are being divided now. It's very obvious. So, if you're on the other side of the fence, you're suddenly anti-American. It's breeding fear of being on the wrong side. Democracy's a very fragile thing. You have to take care of democracy. As soon as you stop being responsible to it and allow it to turn into scare tactics, it's no longer democracy, is it? It's something else. It may be an inch away from totalitarianism."

One of the wonderful rewards of reading, especially reading non-fiction, whether it be actual historical fact or the perceptions of real people as they react to the issues of the day, the day being defined as 10, 20 even 40 years ago, is that it can offer buffers, guardrails even, to our reactions to what is happening today.

The above quote is not from a current essay or opinion piece, but from an interview with Sam Shepard in 2004, just before the Bush - Kerry presidential election, and just after Shepard's release of "The God of Hell", one of Shepard's' few plays with political overtones.

Understanding and acknowledging that the dangers of someone like Donald Trump have been with us for the entire history of our country, does not mean we should merely throw up our hands in defeat, or shrug our shoulders with the knowledge that America has had many instances of presidential overreach just in the last 60 years, let alone in 250. 

Our misguided attempts at nation building and regime change offers a litany of failures, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, among others, while lies upon lies as told by the Johnson Administration about Vietnam, the Bush Administration about Iraq, the Trump Administration about immigrants and elections, could be considered just another act in the same bad play.

What amazes me is that the very same people who protested against the Vietnam War, who helped break down the systemic barriers that kept minorities and women from equal opportunities, the baby boomers, in other words, are now the people who support policies that are even more odious that the ones they marched in the streets against when they were young.

They say that we become more conservative as we age. I guess the boomers are the ultimate example of a generation that lived their ideals right up until those ideals conflicted with their ability to accumulate, and protect, wealth and privilege.

I encountered Sam Shepard in the Just Kids biography I recently read. While I certainly knew of Shepard as an actor, Patti Smith's collaboration with him in writing the play Cowboy Mouth was a complete revelation to me that Shepard had not only written plays, but that he is considered one of the greatest American playwrights in history. As a result, when I saw the book Coyote: The Dramatic Lives of Sam Shepard reviewed in The Atlantic, I requested it online from the Chester County Library System.

As with Patti Smith, Shepard's life reminds me what may have been had I been born 6 to 10 years earlier. Of course, Shepard was a product of his family life as much as one of his time, so my being born in the late 40's or earlier 50's is certainly no guarantee that I would have had the experiences that either Smith or Shepard did. His life, the demons he battled, his struggles with his identity, all combined to make Shepard the person he was, just as the ease of my life in comparison, created the basis for who I am.

Conversely, Shepard's life could not have been lived today, given his addiction to sex and women, his bouts with alcohol, the extremes of his personality. It is another reason to question whether being born in a different time or as a different gender, or in a different country, can be considered a realistic thought game if we assume that what makes a person who they are is precisely all those factors that would be different with different circumstances.

At the end of "Coyote..." there is a reference to Shepard's last book, "Spy of the First Person", which he finished not long before his death in 2017. For some reason, I interpreted the mention of it as a biography, of sorts, and thought it might be interesting to read about his life from his own perspective rather than that of a biographer. That, perhaps, the darkness that was so much a part of Shepard, that was part and parcel to what made me him such an important playwright, might come through. 

Unfortunately, my assumption was incorrect as, while "Spy of the First Person" is certainly revealing in a personal sense, it is not very specific, does not refer to many of the details of Shepard's life as  "Coyote..." does.

Still, it is an interesting, curious book.

I read about six pages when I first brought it home from the library, then let it sit for a week, then picked it up again today.

Coming in at only 82 pages, I sat down with my lunch and began reading it again.

Sometimes I read, sometimes I ate soup, sometimes I ate grapes, sometimes I sipped my pink lemonade drink. 

Within an hour I was finished both my lunch and the book.

As I said, it is a curious book. Not really about anything in particular, yet it touches on many of the things that are going through Shepard's mind as he deals with his failing health.

There are some reminisces, some references to his past, but then again many are presented as someone else's life, the man in the chair on the porch across the street. Yes, this man is Shepard himself, although it takes a bit (or at least it did for me) to realize this. 

In some ways, many might shrug their shoulders as they turn the last page, and wonder, is that it?

I was recently watching "Reds" with Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton in the starring roles when my wife passed through the room and recounted how her and her cousin had stayed up late one night to watch it, and when it ended, had that same feeling, is that it?

"Reds" ends with the death of John Reed (the Warren Beatty character) after having accomplished very little, at least as it applies to his goals of organizing the American labor force and aligning it with Russia's  Bolshevik revolution, so it is easy to have that WTF feeling.

Similarly, one might have the same feeling after reading "Spy...". as there is no great realization or revelation, no profound pronouncement by the writer or his character as they face death.

But perhaps that is the point.

Shepard displayed many different personas throughout his life, despite the success of his plays. Or maybe because of them. He often seems as surprised as anyone that his work is admired, while also being devastated when his plays did not translate to the big screen. 

He seems to best describe this seeming contradiction on page 22 when it begins to become apparent that the man in the chair across the street is himself when he finishes a short paragraph about how similar they seem with "The way the eyes look confident and lost at the same time."

"Spy of the First Person" is an attempt to observe his life from a distance, yet ultimately ends with a description of a big family get together at a local Mexican restaurant in which he names each of the family members who were there, a scene as personal as there could be, finally ending the book with this paragraph which describes the family as they head home.

"The moon is getting bigger and brighter. The Strawberry Moon. Spotlighting our literal troupe. The full moon. Two sons and their father, everyone trailing behind. Going up the middle of East Water Street and it's really bright now. The full moon. We made it and we hobbled up the stairs. Or I hobbled. My sons didn't hobble, I hobbled."

If nothing else, Shepard treats his life as a series of plays, each an illustration within itself of what he is thinking, what he feels, where he is in understanding his own nature and the nature of people in general, yet he also seems to want us to know that the connection between those plays, those personas, is less important than the realizations that occur within each part. 

Almost a "be here now" kind of philosophy that acknowledges the accumulated knowledge of one's life with the recognition that it is the individual scenes that should be valued because it is within those specific moments that real happiness, companionship and contentment derive.

Or perhaps, that is just me talking. 

 

The SAVE Act

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) legislation that was recently passed by the House of Representatives and is being touted by the president is being presented as a law which will prevent voter fraud, specifically voter fraud being committed by undocumented aliens. 

Before presenting my opinion, I tried to find a factual summary and opinion of the new requirements that this law would create, just to make sure that I was not reacting to opinions about the law as opposed to the actual law itself.

Here is a link to an article I found helpful.

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/five-things-to-know-about-the-save-act/

On the face of it, there is a common sense reason to require a photo ID to vote as without that picture, anyone could show up and claim to be the person on the voting rolls. Of course, if you are not that person on the voting roll, I guess you would have to make sure you got to the polls before the "real" person whose ID you are stealing. I know that in the fifty years I have voted in Pennsylvania, I was required to give my name, a poll worker would page to the "P" section (first letter of my last name) and I would have to provide my signature as it was printed. At first I had to show my driver's license, which in itself is not proof of citizenship but does have my picture, but as time passed and I voted at the same precinct year after year and saw the same people processing the voters, I was recognized and not asked for ID. 

Five years ago, I moved to a different county, but same state. However, had I moved to a different state, the new requirements of the SAVE Act would have required me to prove my citizenship with a birth certificate to register to vote in that new state. 

Same for my wife but she would have had to provide a third document, our marriage certificate, as the name on her birth certificate does not match that on her driver's license. So, while she did not have to navigate this hoop for our move, she did have to go through this step last year when we applied for new passports. As it turned out, we both had to apply for new birth certificates ($30 each) as our old ones did not include the birth city of our parents, as required by the passport application. 

This is the kind of obstacle that people are referring to when they advocate against the SAVE Act, as it creates obstacles to voting that may discourage people, or worse, require a document that is not readily accessible, in particular, a marriage certificate. To be honest, I was surprised that we had ours as it had never been required for anything in our past, not needed to buy a home, to access the benefits of a will, to create investment vehicles, etc, yet again, had we not found it, would have required another request (for a fee) from the state.

Of course, if you are already on a voting roll for your local poll site, you will just need to provide a photo ID to confirm that you are the person listed on that voting roll, again, something that is fairly common already in our country, at least as far as my experience goes. However, if you were placed on that voting roll illegally, just showing a driver's license will not change the fact that you should not be voting, so unless we decide to re-register every eligible voter in our country by requesting documentation that many people may not have, I am not sure what this new legislation will do except place obstacles in the way of legal voters who do not have documents at hand that prove their citizenship. 

This is one of the main points of the article I linked above. The other main point is that there is no credible evidence that undocumented people are voting in mass numbers as detailed in the findings by the vast majority of the research into this claim, including the results of the very conservative Heritage Foundation. 

Here is a link to an article that discusses that particular study.

https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/heritage-foundation-77-undocumented-voters-claim-true-or-false-e33e6f

In other words, it appears that the SAVE Act is a law in search of a problem that doesn't exist. 

But more insidiously, it is a piece of legislation that has been created to back up the Big Lie that our current president has touted ever since his loss in the 2016 presidential election, the same lie that inspired hundreds of his supporters to attack the Capitol building in an attempt to prevent the (normally) perfunctory confirmation of the electoral college results, the same lie that led to calls for Vice President Pence to be hung for not rejecting the electors of a certain few states, and/or to allow fake electors to replace those legitimate electors. 

What truly saddens me is that within my own family, before Trump, we often debated how to get MORE Americans to vote, even though we represented different political beliefs. We were united in our hope that by making it easier to vote, America would someday break the 70% voter participation rate, a rate, by the way, which represents the percentage of registered voters, not eligible voters defined as all American adults over 18 who have no other obstacle to vote other than lack of being registered. We all believed that the more people who voted, the more our government would represent the citizens.

Now, some of those very same relatives, believe the lies from Trump, and support the SAVE Act, even when presented with evidence that there is no mass voting by the undocumented, and that a significant percentage of Americans would struggle to prove their citizenship if required.

The fact is, it is already illegal to vote if you are not a citizen, and the penalty for doing so is a felony which would put the illegal voter on the fast track to deportation. So why do it? 

Similar to the research that indicates that non-citizens commit less crimes than those of us who are citizens, people here illegally know NOT to draw attention to themselves for the genuine fear of being deported. They want to be here, so why do anything that will threaten the continuation of staying? It is one of the justifications behind sanctuary cities. If a victim of a crime is undocumented but afraid to go to the police to report it, that crime, and future crimes will not be prevented or investigated. And, since undocumented people are more likely to be victims of crimes that to be criminals, it makes sense.

Of course, any crime committed by someone here illegally, needs to be investigated, and, if judged to be guilty, that person should be deported. It was the basis behind the idea that the "worst of the worst" would be identified and removed from our country that drove so many people to vote GOP last November. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening because, again, some of the rhetoric was based on the lie that illegal immigrants were driving up crime rates, that some countries were opening their jails, and that people from certain countries had faulty genes, all lies that Trump has repeatedly stated since his emergence on the political scene.

All that being said, I just read an interesting article in The Atlantic that attempted to turn the reasons each side of the political aisle support or reject the SAVE Act, on its head. The author believes that it may actually work against the GOP by requiring proof of citizenship to vote since the percentage of Americans with passports (and no, REAL ID is not acceptable to prove citizenship), the best proof of citizenship, are higher among people with more education and those that live in metropolitan areas, lower among the less educated and rural voters. Of course, this is just one person's opinion, but it is an interesting perspective on the debate concerning the SAVE Act. Here is a link. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/02/save-america-act-turnout/686145/?utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20260226&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&lctg=67f130672e8e571a90087893&utm_term=The%20Atlantic%20Daily 

Not withstanding that article, which in some ways is trying to extrapolate a change in the demographics of the American electorate, which demographics moved towards Trump and away from Harris, and what they might do this November, with or without the SAVE Act, it seems that the Senate will not pass the bill, assuming the GOP does not attempt to kill the filibuster. There just isn't 60 votes. 

And, while Trump is threatening some type of executive order, it is unlikely that even today's conservative Supreme Court will allow him to create national voting rules when the Constitution clearly assigns that duty to the states.

The real question is, when will the mass hypnosis that has altered the viewpoint of so many Americans be broken? When will the lies about illegal voting, undocumented people, and stolen elections, stop being believed? When will America wake up to the simple fact that before Trump, we were actively creating new ways to vote, via mail, extended in person voting days, etc, and now we are actively trying to make it harder to vote purely due to the fact that Trump is a sore loser. And perpetual liar.

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

why undocumented don't vote 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/02/save-america-act-turnout/686145/?utm_campaign=one-story-to-read-today&utm_content=20260226&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&lctg=67f130672e8e571a90087893&utm_term=One%20Story%20to%20Read%20Today