Category: political science

Attacks on Nature are Never-Ending

Some of my blog readers have dropped by the wayside. I suppose they got tired of my rants about the corruption in the Trump Administration. It’s a free country. Each individual is free to bury their head in the sand. Each individual is free to say, “I don’t watch the news any more. It upsets me.”

To that I say, “I’m glad it upsets you. It should upset you, but do you think that by ignoring it you are making things any better?” (If you are more than 90 years old, I will give you a pass. You have already done your part to try to preserve our democracy.)

The news upsets me, but the people who choose to ignore it upset me more. But, like I said, it is a free country. You don’t have to participate. You don’t have to care about the rest of us. You don’t have to care about future generations. You don’t have to do your part.

Today, I will draw your attention – if you’re still with me – to just three things that you might not have heard about, if you have stopped watching the news. Even if you still watch the news, you probably did not hear about these actions.

Bureau of Land Management

The Bureau of Land Management quietly removed “conservation” as a use for public lands. Let that sink it.

Photo by Immo Wegmann on Unsplash

What uses are approved?

Grazing, mining, and energy development.

The Public Lands Rule (also known as the Conservation & Landscape Health Rule) was finalized in 2024 to conserve and restore federally-owned public lands that had been damaged by drought, development, wildfires, and invasive species.

It is beyond sad that the Trump Administration hates nature so much. We, the American people, own these lands. They were supposed to be held in trust for future generations – you know… like previous generations put them in trust for us. Ever hear of the National Park system? It did not happen by accident.

This is what you get when you put a New York City alleged-businessman in the White House, and then blindly approve everyone he nominates to Cabinet positions and judgeships.

In repealing the 2024 Rule, the Bureau of Land Management says that by removing conservation as a legitimate use of land, “balance” will be restored as grazing, mining, and energy development will be prioritized.

They really think we are stupid.

The EPA and toxic coal wastewater

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed rolling back the rules governing the release of toxic wastewater from coal plants. In the old days, like April 2026, coal plants were required to treat wastewater before it could seep into rivers, lakes, and streams.

Why, you may ask?

Because those rivers, lakes, and streams eventually provide drinking water for millions of Americans. Also, beings like fish and salamanders also live in those waters. They are part of our ecosystem. They are not beings to be trashed.

Photo by Andy Holmes on Unsplash

Why do reasonable people not want coal waste in their drinking water?

Because it contains such things as arsenic, mercury, and lead.

The policy put in place by the Biden Administration to restrict coal wastewater release was projected to keep 660 million pounds of toxic waste from reaching our waterways per year.

Why is the Trump Administration pushing to end this policy?

The official reason is to “bolster the power grid.”

Trump likes to talk about “clean coal.” I’m not sure what “clean coal” is. Trump hates wind power and solar power, but he loves coal-burning plants. He loves toxic black coal and calls it “clean.” Calling it “clean” does not make it so.

Ever heard of Black Lung? Anyone in your family want to be a coal miner? Anyone in Trump’s family want to be a coal miner?

I knew Trump hated the natural world’s beauty. The concept that the world’s natural beauty holds value just by being, well, natural and beautiful, is a concept he was obviously not taught at home or in the expensive private schools he attended.

The natural world allows us to breathe clean air and drink clean water, but Trump’s hatred for such things for the American people is overwhelmingly complete. In his eyes, the natural world only holds value when a dollar sign can be attached to it.

What a sad man. He is to be pitied for his narrow-minded short-sightedness and worship of the almighty U.S. dollar. Oh… and gold. The tackier the better!

Trump’s Triumphal Arch

I have had the privilege of visiting Washington, DC several times. Those visits always left me awestruck and proud… and wanting to visit again.

One thing that never crossed my mind was, “What our nation’s capital needs is a 250-foot-tall arch to block the view of the Lincoln Memorial from parts of Arlington National Cemetery.”

View of Arlington National Cemetery and the Washington Monument
Photo by J. Amill Santiago on Unsplash

Never crossed my mind.

Trump is hellbent on building this monstrous arch. He brags that it will dwarf the Arc de Triomphe in Paris and will be 30 feet taller than the world’s tallest arch – the Monumento a la Revolución in Mexico City.

In the process, he is attempting to skip the permitting process and the competitive public bidding process (like he did when he gave one of his buddies the $7 million contract to paint the bottom of the Reflecting Pool bright blue like a swimming pool.)

He bypassed the legal requirement of public competitive public bidding by claiming that painting the bottom of the Reflecting Pool bright blue was “an emergency.”

The way the Reflecting Pool was designed and built, government buildings such as the Washington Monument were reflected in the water. The beautiful blue sky was reflected in the water.

Trump said in one speech that some people call it a pond. He thought it was funny and said it could be called many things. I’ve always heard it called the Reflecting Pool.

Trump has no respect for its name or purpose. He has a better idea.  Let’s paint it a gaudy bright blue so it will resemble a swimming pool! And while we’re at it, let’s not put the project out for competitive bids. I know a guy. He does not build pools, but I know a guy who might know how to paint. He can pocket $7 million and be beholding to me.

I’m glad I’m old and will never visit Washington, DC again. I want to remember it the way it was before Trump arrived. Before he tore down the East Wing of the White House without permission and lied about how “the ballroom will not touch the White House.” Surely you remember when he said, “It won’t touch the White House.” He failed to mention that he was going to demolish the East Wing.

I want to remember Washington, DC without a golden Trump arch.

To those of you who still worship Trump & his 20-foot Golden Statue at Doral Golf Club

I pray you will see the light before it’s too late and we lose everything.

I know your stock portfolio is brilliant. I’m sure your 401(k) is secure and soaring.

You preach the love of Trump from your church pulpits every Sunday and again on Wednesday night.

Do you really believe you and Trump are “doing the Lord’s work?”

Do you really believe Trump was “sent by God” to destroy the environment and break all our laws?

I pity you.

I hope your children and grandchildren will enjoy seeing all your money, because chances are they won’t ever see a national park, or breathe clean air, or drink clean water.

They are going to smell the waste that is dumped in our streams – like I smelled back in the 1950s and 1960s in the textile mill belt in the piedmont of North Carolina. They are going to breathe the dirty air in their cities like I saw first-hand in Charlotte in the early 1970s when I started working.

With the repeal of the laws and policies governing pollution, that’s what we are going back to. Young people don’t understand that, because they haven’t seen it. They didn’t smell Buffalo Creek in Concord, North Carolina before it was even in sight. They haven’t seen 20-story buildings shrouded in brown air.

To the rest of you

I wish I could ignore the rampant corruption in the Trump Administration and spend my time writing historical fiction. That’s what I would rather be doing instead of watching our beautiful environment and democracy crumble.

In my early adulthood, I worked for several city and county governments. Much of my job in each position was putting projects out for bid. It was… and is… the law. It was not up for debate or question. I just did it. I did it many times. I never considered trying to circumvent the law or the spirit of the law.

My upbringing and my education in political science and public administration grounded me in following the law. Those laws were there to protect the taxpayer. Those laws were there to protect our democracy.

Those laws are in place to protect the American taxpayer from the likes of Donald Trump, but the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court have torn down the guardrails. Donald Trump has been left to ignore and trample such laws into the dirt.

The laws are still there, but Trump thinks he is above the law.

November 3, 2026 is election day for EVERY member of the U.S. House of Representatives and one-third of the U.S. Senators. Things could change with the November 3 election.

“We, the people….”

Photo by Larry Alger on Unsplash

Janet


The government should be afraid of its citizens, not the other way around.

#OnThisDay: Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 & Lessons for Us

Plessy v. Ferguson is one of those landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases we would like to forget. Put it behind us. Consider it ancient history from the 19th century.

Not so fast.

We have something to learn from Plessy v. Ferguson today, 130 years after the ruling.

Background

To refresh your memory from history or political science class, Homer Plessy was a man of mixed race. That meant, under the law in the United States, he was considered Black. Though reportedly seven-eighths white, he was not permitted to ride in a “whites-only” railroad car in New Orleans. The Louisiana State Legislature had passed a Separate Car Act in 1890. That law required separation train cars for white and Black passengers.

In 1891, a group of Black men in New Orleans formed “Citizens’ Committee to Test the Constitutionality of the Separate Car Law.” Bolstered by a May 15, 1892 ruling by the Louisiana State Supreme Court in favor of the Pullman Company, the Committee decided to test the law in interstate travel. On June 7, 1892, Mr. Plessy purposely took a seat in a whites-only rail car on the East Louisiana Railroad to test the law.

What happened to Mr. Plessy

Mr. Plessy was arrested for boarding a “whites-only” train car. His defenders in court argued that the Separate Car Act of 1890 violated the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Section 1, 13th Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution

When Mr. Plessy’s case went to District Court, the judge was John H. Ferguson. Judge Ferguson denied a request to dismiss the case and then ruled that the Louisiana Separate Car Act of 1890 was constitutional because the State had the authority to regular public accommodations.

The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision, and Mr. Plessy took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Surely, that august body would see that the Louisiana law was unjust, discriminatory, and unconstitutional.

After all, the 13th Amendment had abolished slavery in the United States in 1865, and Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1866, not only extended citizenship to former slaves but also state, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Mr. Plessy and his lawyers maintained that the Separate Car Act on 1890 was unconstitutional under the last phrase in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

Section 1, 14th Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution

The ruling

In a 7-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 18, 1896, that the State law in Louisiana was constitutional because it provided “separation but equal” accommodations for white and Black passengers.

That famous “separate but equal” wording is what took the United States down a terrible road of discrimination for the next 70 years.

It paved the way for “Jim Crow” laws. It made racial segregation in public education, in public conveyances, restaurants, lodging, etc. lawful.

The “separate but equal” doctrine stood until the Brown v. Board of Education U.S. Supreme Court case in 1954 and the Civil Rights Acts in the 1960s. (The Brown v. Board of Education ruling, ironically, was handed done in a 9-0 decision on May 17, 1954, just one day shy of the anniversary of the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.)

We all know now that “separate but equal” was never equal; it was just separate. That doctrine became the umbrella and shield for untold acts of discrimination and violence until the late 1960s.

Who cast the dissenting vote?

Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan was the lone dissenter in the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling. Although he came from a slave-holding family in Kentucky, Justice Harlan often cast the dissenting vote in civil rights cases that went before the U.S. Supreme Court. He sat on the Court from 1877 until 1911.

Lessons to be learned from Plessy v. Ferguson in 2026

If I had penned this blog post a couple of years ago, it probably would have ended there. Just a nice little history lesson. Just the facts of the case and the final ruling.

But I’m writing this in mid-May 2026, and that 1896 U.S. Supreme Court case has taken on a whole new significance.

As in 1896, in 2026 we have a U.S. Supreme Court majority who tend to be constitutional textualists or literalists, meaning they usually view the Constitution and laws as the people at the time of a law’s enactment would have interpreted it and not necessarily taking into account the spirit of the law.

In my six years of studying political science in college, I was taught to study the time and letter of the law but to look for the spirit of the law.

I offer a current example of how some people now want to interpret the 14th Amendment as applying only to the people who had been slaves prior to and during the American Civil War. They argue that the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to everyone who just happens to be born in the United States. They don’t want the 14th Amendment to apply to the children of undocumented immigrants. Trust me. We have not heard the last of that argument.

Just a couple of weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially dismantled the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As a result, state legislators are falling all over each other to redraw Congressional District boundaries. They feel emboldened to eliminate majority Black or Democrat districts before this November’s mid-term elections.

This is history repeating itself. The hurried gerrymandering and shifting of Congression District lines in 2026 is in many ways a mirror image of the Jim Crow laws of the late 1800s.

Why is it that we don’t learn from history? Or perhaps a more accurate question is “Why do we only learn how to repeat the harmful things from our history?”

The Roberts court is taking us down a road of easier corruption in politics (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010), less accountability for the U.S. President (Trump v. United States, 2024), and an attempted erasure of all the progress our country made in racial relations and equality in the 60 years following the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Louisiana v. Callais, April 29, 2026).

The racial discrimination the U.S. Supreme Court is fomenting by its Louisiana v. Callais decision a couple of weeks ago is far-reaching and should send chills done the spine of every American.

The lesson for us to learn from the last 16 years of U.S. Supreme court decisions, un-checked Presidential powers, and a U.S. Congress that acts more like a lap dog than a co-equal branch of the federal government is that our rights and the “guarantees” we have in our laws and U.S. Constitution are no more secure than the paper they are written on.

Every week I learn that more protected federal lands set aside generations ago for wildlife and the preservation of the natural world are being trashed by our own elected officials. It’s being done quietly, of course, because they don’t want us to know. If they were proud of what they’re doing, they’d be making grand announcements.

I assumed the East Wing of the White House would be there forever. I assumed national parks and wildlife refuges were permanently protected.

The U.S. Constitution is a living and breathing document. It will always be up for discussion, debate, and amending. That’s the beauty of it, but it also makes it fragile and vulnerable to the whims of Presidents and others who wish to test it.

The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution

Democracy is more fragile than I realized.

Janet

The government should be afraid of its citizens, not the other way around.

Is The United States of America a Christian Nation? – Part 2

My blog post from yesterday grew to be too long, so I divided it into two parts. Before reading today’s post, it would be useful for you to read yesterday’s to put today’s post into context: Is The United States of America a Christian Nation? – Part 1.

As I stated yesterday, Christian Nationalists love to say that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, but you will not find the words “Christian” or “Jesus” in the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the United States from making any “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Americans, under our Constitution, are free to practice any religion they choose. They are free to practice no religion whatsoever. That is one of the bedrocks and beauties of the United States of America.

That is why I find the likes of U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth so dangerous. As I noted in yesterday’s blog post, he sees our current war in Iran as a holy war. But the United States of America does not fight holy wars. The day we start down that road will be the beginning of our demise.

One only needs to look at the history of Europe to see how differing interpretations of Christianity in government can create great conflict. When one monarchy favors Roman Catholicism to the detriment of Protestantism… or a monarchy favors Protestantism to the detriment of Roman Catholicism we see oppression and wars.

My Presbyterian ancestors experienced that struggle in Scotland and it, no doubt, influenced them to come to America in the mid-1700s. My ancestors on the Kintyre Peninsula of Scotland had to worship in secret in the 1600s in gatherings called conventicle because the monarchy favored Roman Catholicism at the time.

(One of the historical short stories in my book, Traveling Through History: A Collection of Historical Short Stories is about the Covenanters in Scotland and how they were punished for not espousing the Roman Catholic traditions.)

In Colonial America, religious freedom and religious overreach were issues. As noted in my Author’s Notes after “You Couldn’t Help But Like Bob” story in my short story book, fines ordered by the courts in Colonial Virginia were often to be paid to the Church of England or the Anglican Church.

There was no separation of church and state in Colonial America. In Colonial North Carolina, the Episcopal church held sway over the government. It was illegal in North Carolina for a Presbyterian minister to officiate over a marriage. Marriages conducted by Presbyterian ministers were not recognized by the Royal Government. My Presbyterian colonial North Carolina ancestors were on the wrong side of the law.

It is almost impossible for 21st century Americans to comprehend how life was in colonial times. That is why it makes it so easy for Christians in 21st century America to call for the Ten Commandments to be posted on public school classroom walls and courtroom walls. They do not grasp the danger – the slippery slope – such actions can lead to.

In their hearts and minds, they think they are doing a good thing. They think they are following Jesus’ instructions found in Matthew 28:18-20: “Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

But Jesus did not say we are to make our governments Christian. Christianity is a personal acceptance of Jesus Christ as one’s Lord and Savior. It is not a belief to be imposed upon another human being. It is not a belief system to be used as a cudgel by a government. To see it that way is blasphemous and indicates a basic misunderstanding of Jesus Christ.

Photo by Tim Wildsmith on Unsplash

In Matthew 22:15-21 (as found in the New International Version of the Bible), the Pharisees try to trap Jesus by questioning him about paying taxes: 

Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?” But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

In Mark 12:13-17, that same encounter between Jesus and the Pharisees is recorded as follows in the New International Version of the Bible:

Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn’t we?” But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

Getting back to Matthew 28:18-20, yes, Jesus instructed us to spread the Gospel, but the Christians who want to force the Gospel on people by weaponizing the government with the Bible are taking the easy way out. They are taking a dangerous way out. The Bible and its words should never be used as a weapon.

Not once in the New Testament did Jesus force or instruct His followers to force His brand of religion on the government or on the people via the government.

A meme with the words of the First Amendment with the American flag in the background
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

Christians have countless ways to share the Good News of Jesus Christ with others. Forcing the Gospel on people through our government is not one of them.

Janet

The government should be afraid of its citizens, not the other way around.

Is The United States of America a Christian Nation? – Part 1

Christian Nationalists love to say that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. That is simply not true.

Read the Declaration of Independence. Read the U.S. Constitution.

You will not find the word, “Christian.” You will not find the name “Jesus.”

The documents acknowledge a creator, but they do not in any way call for a national religion. In fact, read the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It makes it illegal for the United States to make any laws respecting the establishment of religion. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

That is the First Amendment. Our country’s founders were so adamant about that issue, they made it the First Amendment.

Americans, under our Constitution, are free to practice any religion they choose. They are free to practice no religion whatsoever.

In my March 27, 2026 blog post, Meanwhile, Trump continues to lower the bar, I made the statement, “The United States of America is not a theocracy… yet.”

Americans have the First Amendment, but there are forces working in the background and in the not so “back” background who are determined to make the United States a Christian nation. Stay tuned. Even when President Trump is no more, the Christian Nationalists who prop him up will still be among us.

A meme with the words of the First Amendment with the American flag in the background
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

One example of how Christian Nationalists are not-so-silently imposing their extreme beliefs through their positions in government is Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. He holds a monthly Christian service at the Pentagon. Attendance is technically not mandatory, but we all know how such an event at one’s place of employment can be in actuality.

We have an all-volunteer military since the draft was ended on January 27, 1973. Our military personnel come from various religious backgrounds. In other words, they are not all Christians, and besides, all Christians are not in agreement on details of the faith. The number of Christian denominations proves that.

At the Pentagon service on March 25, 2026, Hegseth prayed for “righteous targets for violence” and “overwhelming violence against those who deserve no mercy.”

Photo of praying hands
Photo by Deb Dowd on Unsplash

“Righteous targets for violence” and “overwhelming violence against those who deserve no mercy.” Let those words sink in. As a member of a congregation affiliated with the Presbyterian Church USA, I find that prayer offensive.

As I interpret it, a “righteous target” for our Department of Defense would be a target acceptable to God. The insinuation of Hegseth’s prayer is that God is on our side. Even if Hegseth believes that in his heart, it runs counter to United States tradition and principles. We do not see our wars as “holy wars,” but that is the impression Hegseth’s prayer gives.

(In contrast, it is my understanding that Iran sees its war against Israel and the United States as a holy war. In Iran today, there is no separation of church and state.)

It is not in the tradition or history of the U.S. for the Secretary of Defense to use words like “righteous target” or pray for “overwhelming violence against those who deserve no mercy.” If that is the mindset of our Secretary of Defense, he has a frightening interpretation of the foundation of our nation and the religious position of the U.S. military. The U.S. military has never had a religious position or religious mission.

“Overwhelming violence against those who deserve no mercy” goes along with Hegseth’s earlier statement that we will “give no quarter.” “Give no quarter” translates to “take no prisoners alive.” In addition to being against international law, that is not the way the United States operates. If it is, that is not what we’ve been told.

Does Hegseth want the Iranians to “give no quarter” if they capture members of our military? I doubt it. But what message does it send for our Secretary of Defense to make such statements?

The Washington Post reported, “Later that day, his department announced military chaplains would no longer wear their rank on their uniform and instead would wear religious insignia.”

On Sunday, March 29, The Washington Post reported, “Retired Army Maj. Gen. Randy Manner, who was second-in-command of the National Guard from 2011 to 2012, has worked in recent years to train hundreds of interfaith military chaplains. Manner said he has talked with ‘dozens and dozens’ of active-duty chaplains in recent weeks who say those who don’t identify with Hegseth ‘are being marginalized.’ They feel they can’t voice their concerns to their own superiors, he said, and feel their work as the primary advocate for troops’ spiritual, mental and moral health is being threatened.”

It has been reported that Hegseth has cut the number of faith codes within the military from 200 to 31 to remove “political correctness and secular humanism” from the Chaplain Corps.

Hegseth has brought his pastor into presentations at the Pentagon. This is a narrow-minded man who says women should not have the right to vote. That tells me all I need to know about Hegseth’s very small Christian denomination and its views about more the half the world’s population.

The Washington Post reported that the traditional norms that kept religious beliefs and individual religious affiliations of the top brass at the Pentagon out of their official dealings, “are being upended by the proselytizing Christian campaign of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, say multiple former high-ranking military officials and experts on religion and law. Rather than boosting cohesion through a more universal spiritual uplift, they say, the new approach violates the Constitution and undermines the bonds of mutual respect between troops that are essential, especially in wartime.”

Religion and government are not a match made in heaven. Everyone in government – and that includes the military — brings their beliefs with them, but they are never to force their religious beliefs on another person, co-workers, or the entire nation through their position of power or influence.

It appears that Secretary Hegseth’s possible affinity for alcohol, which was a topic of concern emphasized during his Congressional confirmation hearings, is turning out to be the least of our concerns about him.

Watch for Part 2 of this blog topic tomorrow, when I will look into what Jesus had to say about the government.

Janet

The government should be afraid of its citizens, not the other way around.

#OnThisDay: 15th Amendment Ratified, 1870

It was on this date 156 years ago that African American men were given the right to vote when the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified.

Against a background of the American flag, the words of Section 1 of the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude—"
Section 1 of the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

You might be surprised to know that it was the Republicans who pushed for this amendment. Yes, the same party which today turns itself into a pretzel dreaming up ways to make it more difficult for citizens to vote is the party that fought to give black American men the right to vote in 1870. The irony!

The 15th Amendment did not address the fact that women of any skin color did not have the right to vote.

Section 1 of the 15th Amendment states: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–.”

Although ratified in 1870, it would take the Voting Rights Act of 1965 before many black people were registered to vote. Laws varied by state and state legislatures – much like today – resorted to creative ways and wording in laws to restrict voting rights.

Popular opinion is that it was only southern states that restricted voting to white people, so I decided to do a little research into state laws prior to 1870. (Keep in mind that women were not given the right to vote by the U.S. Constitution until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920.)  

I wanted to know if black men were allowed to vote in states outside the South before passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870. Out of curiosity, I randomly looked at New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

In the State of New York, there was a mish-mash of voting rights for black men. In the 1820’s it was unlawful for a black person who did not own property valued at $250 or more to vote. Slave owners along the Hudson River (yes, even New Yorkers owned slaves!) did not let their slaves vote. Some black men in the state’s cities were able to vote.

Although the “Black Laws” in the state of Ohio were repealed in 1849, African Americans were still not allowed to vote. An informative article about the history of laws regarding African Americans in Ohio can be found here: https://eji.org/news/ohios-black-laws/.

What about Pennsylvania? Quoting from “The Disenfranchisement of Black Pennsylvanians in the 1838 State Constitution: Racism, Politics, or Economics? – A Statistical Analysis,” by David A. Latzko of Pennsylvania State University’s York campus, as found at https//:tupjournals.temple.edu: “In 1838, Pennsylvania’s voters approved a state constitution that restricted the right to vote to ‘white freemen.’ Blacks had voted for many years in some parts of the state, but under the new constitution Pennsylvania’s black males could no longer vote.”

I found the following information on https://libguides.njstatelib.org/votesforwomen/timeline: In 1807, a new law restricting voting was passed by the New Jersey General Assembly: “Whereas doubts have been raised, and Great diversities in practice obtained through-out the state in regard to the admission of aliens, females and persons of color, or negroes to vote in elections… Sec. 1. Be it enacted …That … no person shall vote in any state or county election… unless such person be a free, white, male … of the age of twenty-one years, worth fifty pounds proclamation money….”

New Jersey adopted a new State Constitution in 1844, and people of color were still not allowed to vote.

In the decades after the ratification of the 15th Amendment, racists in various states passed laws to make it hard for minorities to vote. Such things as poll taxes and literacy tests were codified.

This was still in the decades of Reconstruction following the Civil War. Most of the former slaves had not been allowed to learn how to read or write, so the passage of literacy laws was a not-so-subtle way to prevent many black people from voting.

My conclusion is that people of color have been discriminated against in every state in the United States of America. Our nation has a long and sorted history of dividing ourselves based on the color of our skin.

It is that 250-year history that has brought us to 2026 – a year in which the U.S. Constitution gives all citizens — regardless of skin color or gender – the right to vote. But women and people of color must remain vigilant in every State to guard our right to vote.

In 2026, various State legislatures and even the United States Congress are working behind the scenes as well as blatantly in public to make it more difficult for all citizens to exercise their right to vote. The so-called SAVE America Act is currently being batted back and forth between the U.S. House and U.S. Senate.

A segment of our society has been convinced by Conservatives that there is rampant voting by undocumented immigrants. Under the guise of putting an end to that problem — which has been proven not to exist — through passage of the SAVE America Act the Conservatives in Congress are working very hard to codify wording that will once again make it more difficult for many women and many people of color to vote.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. White men in America continue to be afraid of losing their power. It is a history much older and more widespread than the United States of America.

Janet

The government should be afraid of its citizens, not the other way around.

How bad does it have to get before we use the 25th Amendment?

We have a Secretary of Health and Human Services who does not believe in science or medicine, including time-honored and scientifically-proven vaccines.

We have a Secretary of Defense who mixes a conservative evangelical religion with a statement that the U.S. will show “no quarter” as the war in Iran continues. “Giving no quarter” is in violation of international law. If the U.S. starts slaughtering its prisoners of war, we have surely lost our humanity.

The U.S. has an all-volunteer armed forces made up of people of various religions and no religious beliefs. It is not the Secretary’s place to inflict his religious beliefs on the troops. If the Secretary is a Christian, as he claims to be, I would like for him to tell me where in the Bible it quotes Jesus as advocating giving no quarter to anyone.

We have a Director of National Intelligence who said that only the U.S. President – and not the intelligence community — can determine when there is an imminent threat to our national security. It is ultimately the President’s call, but her answer on Capitol Hill yesterday made it sound like she and the intelligence community have no part to play in the process.

We have a chairman of the Federal Communications Commission who warned TV networks that they run the risk of not having their broadcast licenses renewed if they continue to report the full picture of the war in Iran. He also wants them to concentrate on “patriotic” programming this year.

We have a Secretary of Education who thinks so little of public education that she vowed to shut down the Department of Education. Perhaps she should go back to her former career in pro wrestling administration.

We have a Secretary of the Interior who is okay with opening national parks for extensive logging and oil drilling while taking down informational park displays that tell not only the good but also the bad and the ugly of our nation’s history.

We have an Attorney General who has difficulty answering questions in a way that might not align with what the President wants her to say. In fact, every Cabinet Secretary has that same problem.

All these people were hand-picked by Donald Trump to “serve” in those positions of power and influence. They also had almost 100% approval of the Republicans in Congress.

We have a U.S. President who announced on TV that a member of Congress “will be dead by June” as he took it upon himself to reveal that Congress member’s devastating diagnosis of terminal cancer without that Congressman’s permission. The fact that he turned to Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and laughed was the icing on the cake! (Here’s a video clip, in case you missed it or don’t believe it: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-appears-to-confuse-who-is-president/vi-AA1YRwG1?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=69baf386c77447a397c28662c1c9bfb8&ei=22.)

We have a U.S. President who clearly has no filter. If a segment of a thought or fantasy pops in his head, it comes out of his mouth or gets splattered all over his Truth Social account in all capital letters.

We have a U.S. President who has repeatedly called the war in Iran an “excursion” instead of an “incursion.”

On Monday, Trump said, “The President of the United States, Gavin Newscom, said that he has learning disabilities, dyslexia, everything about him is dumb.” That statement is wrong on so many levels, in addition to the fact that Trump called Gavin Newsom “the President of the United States.”

We have a U.S. President who orders shoes for his rich Cabinet members. That would have been ludicrous and inappropriate even if he had bothered to ask them their shoe size… which he did not.

We have a U.S. President who has “decorated” the Oval Office like a house of horrors… which, come to think of it… that’s what it is now.

Our closest ally, Great Britain, is now in the awkward position of advising their King not to visit the White House in April because the U.S. President might embarrass him. (I think we can guarantee that Trump will embarrass King Charles. Belittle and embarrass others is what he does best.)

We have a U.S. President who started a war without the blessing of Congress or seeking the support of the American people. Then, in the middle of a sticky situation in the Strait of Hormuz and a worldwide oil crisis, he begged our NATO allies for their help.

When our allies said, “No,” Trump said, “We don’t need NATO…. We do not need the help of anyone.” What an arrogant and short-sighted thing to say!

He said this was a test to see if NATO would ever help us. How ill-informed he is if he is not aware of NATO’s response after September 11, 2001!

Donald Trump said, “I can take Cuba…  It’s a failed nation…. I can do whatever I want to with it.” What an arrogant and egotistical thing to say about a sovereign nation, even if it is on the verge of collapse!

In case you are not informed about Trump’s latest “pay-to-play” scheme, which promises to put our national security at risk like never before, please read my blog post from yesterday, https://janetswritingblog.com/2026/03/18/more-telling-things-about-trump-administration/.

I hope I never again hear Americans say, “We need a businessman in the White House.”

Just how bad does it have to get before we use the 25th Amendment?

If the 25th Amendment is not called for now, I shudder to think under what circumstances it would be put into force.

Part of Section 4, 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Of course, if we use the 25th Amendment now, we get J.D. Vance as our President. Vance was hand-picked by Donald Trump. Again, I shudder to think about that.

Perhaps that outcome is what is holding back everyone on both sides of the aisle from seriously pursuing the 25th Amendment.

Janet

The government should be afraid of its citizens, not the other way around.

Various telling things about Trump Administration

I really try not to write about politics every day on my blog, but there are things happening that do not get coverage on the nightly news programs because there are just too many things for journalists to report on.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

There’s the war in Iran. There are shootings and terrorist attacks. There’s Punch the monkey and his stuffed animal from IKEA in Tokyo. There’s the Kīlauea volcano blowing its stack in Hawaii. There are the women who were abused by Jeffrey Epstein and his rich friends who apparently are not going to face consequences in the United States like they are in Great Britain.

In a 30-minute news broadcast, minus eight to ten minutes of commercials, a host of happenings fall on the editor’s floor. Today I will touch on a few of those.

Trump’s attitude about the war in Iran

President Trump wants other countries to police the Strait of Hormuz. We’ll see how that goes. He also wants the crews on oil tankers to just be brave and go through the strait. Easy for him to say.

He wants China, France, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom and “others” to send warships there to secure the two-mile wide passage. He says things will go “well” with the U.S. coordinating things.

The President said the U.S. may hit Iran’s Kharg Island a few more times “just for fun.” His cavalier attitude over putting American military personnel is harm’s way and spending U.S. tax dollars is deplorable. This is not a video game.

President Trump says he will know when the war is over because he “will feel it in his bones.” He started the war because he “had a feeling.” As a student of history, I don’t recall any other U.S. President approaching a war based on “feelings.”

Can you imagine the misogynistic outcry there would be if a female U.S. President ever said such a thing? She would be the last female U.S. President!

One day he calls the war “a war.” The next day he calls it “an excursion.” The objectives of the war change hourly.

If we get to have a Presidential election in 2028, I hope voters will remember the ramifications when we elect a President who is unable to communicate their objectives or their dependence on facts.

The FCC

After President Trump accused the news media of “intentionally misleading” the public in their coverage of the war in Iran, Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr threatened to revoke broadcasters’ licenses.

We’ve heard these threats before from the Trump Administration, as they try to dictate news coverage.

This is an attack on the free press and a major foundation of our nation. Countries like Russia, China, and North Korea have state-controlled television. We cannot allow this to happen in the United States! If you want to watch and listen to state-controlled TV, you can watch Fox News.

Carr warned that a network’s coverage of the war in Iran will be taken into consideration when their broadcast licenses come up for renewal. In a social media post, Carr warned them that they still had a chance to “correct course” and stop broadcasting “fake news” and distortions of the war.

Carr wrote, “The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not.”

He accused broadcast networks of “running hoaxes.”

Carr doubled down on this in an interview with CBS News later on Saturday.

The trouble is that the law is left to interpretation now. Until recently, it was generally agreed that the news media should be free to report facts. Under the Trump Administration, they are being pressured to only report things that put Trump in a good light. This is what they have in autocracies like Russia, China, and North Korea.

Carr has encouraged broadcast networks to air “patriotic pro-America content” this year as we mark the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. But when a politically-appointed FCC Chair starts to dictate broadcast content, we and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are under attack.

When the politician in power gets to decide the definition of “public interest,” freedom of the press is in peril.

We have not heard the last of this. If push comes to shove, I imagine we will see a case going before the U.S. Supreme Court.

I only took one Constitutional Law course in college, so I’m no expert; however, I know under the First Amendment to the Constitution it is illegal for the government to censor free speech.

Print media

The President criticized The Wall Street Journal for reporting last Friday that Iran had damaged five U.S. Air Force tanker planes in Saudi Arabia. It seems he did not want that reported to the public. He insisted that four of those planes had “virtually no damage and are already back in service.”

He is so thin-skinned that he takes honest journalism as a personal affront.

He called The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal “Lowlife ‘Papers’ and accused them of wanting the U.S. to lose the war. He called journalists “sick and demented people.”

Janet

The government should be afraid of its citizens, not the other way around.

War in Iran and My Second DIY Writing Retreat

Donald Trump and Israel started a war with Iran just after midnight Eastern Time on Saturday.          I say “Donald Trump” and not “the United States” because Trump did this without the blessing of the U.S. Congress. He did this after telling the American people that, if elected, he would not start a war.

This is the man who was furious over not being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

There must be “an imminent threat” against the American people for the U.S. President to take such an action. Democrat members of the U.S. Congress are furious and saying that intelligence reports indicated no such threat.

The U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. Congress the power to declare war. In this case, the Congress was not even informed that this was about to happen.

As I write this on Sunday night, Iran is retaliating by bombing numerous countries where the U.S. has military bases. Three U.S. military service members were killed and five seriously injured in a Iranian drone attack on a U.S. military base in Kuwait.

It has been reported that Lebanon has bombed Israel and Israel has bombed Lebanon.

No one knows what the near or far future holds as a result of this attack on Iran.

Trump says he joined Israel to take this action to save American lives – not today, but in the future. He expects the Iranian people, who are not organized and have few resources, to now waltz in and create a new government since the bombs have killed the supreme leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

I don’t see that happening. It would be wonderful if the Iranians, who have suffered under a brutal regime for 47 years could take control of their government, but I fear they do not have the wherewithal to do that.

I see the U.S. mired in another endless war started on a whim by a man who dodged the draft five times during the Vietnam War.

By the time this blog post “goes live” eight hours from now at 5:00 a.m. Monday, Eastern Time, there is no telling what will have happened.

I’m a “night owl,” so I was still awake after midnight last Friday night when I learned that Trump and Israel had started this war in Iran. I had already planned my second DIY (Do It Yourself) Writing Retreat for Saturday afternoon.

It was difficult to turn off the TV and distract my brain from current events and focus on 1768 in North Carolina, but I managed to do that.

I needed to make a major change in my historical novel’s plotline. Research last week had uncovered a fact that changed the course of the story somewhat. That necessitated deleting many paragraphs, rewriting others, and juggling some scenes.

It was tedious work, but I committed to it for around six hours. The result was a net gain of 2,200 words – one of my most productive writing days. My word count stands at 60,000. I’m aiming for 90,000 words.

After accepting the fact last week that I am a binge writer and I cannot force myself to set daily business hours to work on my novel, freed me to stop feeling guilty for not working on it every day. I plan to schedule more DIY Writing Retreats in the near future as I continue to find a writing process that suits me.

I plan to blog about the last story – which is more of an essay – in my latest book, Traveling Through History: A Collection of Historical Short Stories, on Tuesday. I’ll just “wing it” after Tuesday, depending on what the coming days bring.

Janet

The government should be afraid of its citizens, not the other way around.

To tariff or not to tariff? That is the question.

I celebrated the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Friday in the Learning Resources, Inc v. Trump case! FINALLY! Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to rein in Donald Trump’s overreach of presidential powers!

In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the tariffs Trump has inflicted on other nations (and, ultimately, the American consumer!) over the last 13 months under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were illegal. The Court ruled that the IEEPA cannot be used to impose tariffs.

The Court reminded Trump that tariffs are a form of taxation, and taxation is a power of the U.S. Congress – not the U.S. President.

Trump did not take the Court’s decision well, to put it lightly.

Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

Trump responded by making one of his typically rambling, long statements, calling the U.S. Supreme Court Justices derogatory names including, “fools and lapdogs for RINOs” (Republicans in Name Only). He accused them of being anti-American and under the influence of foreigners. He said they should be ashamed of themselves and their families should be ashamed of them. It went on and on from there. I cannot quote his entire rant here.

Following his statement, he held a press conference in which he refused to answer a question from CNN (calling the news network “fake news” because he is offended by the truth) and answered the questions posed by other reporters and journalists as vaguely as he chose.

The event was a display by Trump unlike any other statement and press conference by any other U.S. President in history. He was a toddler whose parents had said, “No,” but whose parents had then left him to his own devices and allowed him to vent his anger and frustration on the world stage. There are no guardrails on his words and temper.

His remarks would have been embarrassing; however, after 13 months, I will not be embarrassed by anything Trump says or does. I did not vote for him. I have not been shy about expressing my opinions about Trump and his childish incompetence, hatefulness, racism, and disregard for the U.S. Constitution.

I watched his entire public statement and press conference on Friday afternoon. In a word, it was horrible. In other words, it was painfully indicative of how Trump believes he is above the law and can do anything he wants to do. He said, “I can do anything I want to do.” It wasn’t the first time he has said that.

In addition to lashing out at individual U.S. Supreme Court Justices who had been appointed to the Court by Trump himself and from whom he expects loyalty to him instead of loyalty to the U.S. Constitution, he then twisted the ruling into a pretzel by quoting at length the dissenting opinion of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Although a dissenting opinion in a U.S. Supreme Court decision is not law – it is part of the minority opinion, — Trump clung to Kavanaugh’s words and later said that Kavanaugh is his “new hero.” (I can’t help but think back to Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation hearings in 2018 after Trump nominated him. All I can remember from the hearings is Kavanaugh’s repeated, angry defense, “I like beer!” Not exactly “hero” material in my book.)

In the press conference, Trump said nothing will change. He will continue to impose any tariffs he desires. He announced a new 10% global tariff on top of all the existing tariffs. On Saturday, he announced the new global tariff will 15% instead of 10%.

There’s no telling what that global tariff will be by the time this blog post goes live on Monday, February 23. (I am writing it on February 21.) This new global tariff is imposed using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That Act allows the U.S. President to impose duties up to 15% for 150 days to deal with “large and serious” balance-of-payment issues. Friday and Saturday’s 15% global tariff takes effect today.

Trump indicated that he is exploring additional ways to get around the Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump ruling. His Commerce Department, headed by Howard Lutnick of Epstein file fame, is investigating Trump’s options.

Trump’s tariffs on steel, aluminum, and motor vehicle imports were not affected by Friday’s Supreme Court ruling.

As only Trump can do, he portrays himself as the most pitiful victim in history and repeated on Friday that the United States is the most victimized country in history. As a 73-year-old American, I have never felt that the United States was a victim. I have counted it a privilege to have been born in and lived my entire life in the most blessed and prosperous country in the world.

For the first 72 years of my life, the United States was the “beacon on a hill.” It was the world’s symbol of freedom. It continues to be the world’s greatest experiment in democracy, but it is currently being tested from within like it has not been tested since the Civil War in the 1860s.

Just as people in the midst of a war or national crisis don’t know what the outcome will be, I don’t know how this greatest experiment in democracy will end. However, Friday’s 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court was the first ray of hope I have seen in 13 months.

Janet

The government should be afraid of its citizens, not the other way around.

Let’s have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, Dear Congressman

I have written about my Congressman before, and it has never been complimentary. It is not positive in today’s post. I try to keep an open mind, but I will be surprised if I ever have anything good to say about him.

What is my latest criticism of him? He doesn’t quite tell the truth when it comes to the SAVE America Act. The SAVE America Act passed in the U.S. House of Representatives and has gone to the U.S. Senate.

U.S. Capitol
Photo by Caleb Perez on Unsplash

When my Congressman and most of the champions of the SAVE America Act try to summarize it, they say it is “just” voter ID. There is more there than meets the eye, though.

The SAVE America Act, if passed by the U.S. Senate as written for the House and, subsequently, signed into law by the President (which is a given), will require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship.

My Congressman is proud to be a co-sponsor of the SAVE America Act. And now, to get to the title of today’s blog post, I will quote from Representative Mark Harris’ weekly email from February 14, 2026:

“Americans are required to show ID to board an airplane, open a bank account, and even enter Costco. So why are Democrats making a fuss over applying the same standard to federal elections?” He went on to call this “common sense.”

Photo by Marcus Reubenstein on Unsplash

There is simply something wrong with Mr. Harris’ paragraph: He is conflating a birth certificate with a Costco membership card. I have a Costco membership card, and I did not have to prove I was born in the United States to get it.

Mr. Harris made a serious mistake when he wrote, “applying the same standard to federal elections.” The examples he gave do not require the same standard (proof of U.S. citizenship) but we are heading toward a national requirement to have proof of citizenship in order to vote.

There is nothing wrong with that on the surface. I do not think non-citizens should vote. I also do not think more than a handful of non-citizens try to vote in the U.S. The proponents of the SAVE America Act are wielding it as a solution to a problem that does not exist.

The SAVE America Act is its proponents’ way of making it more difficult for poor and disabled people to vote. It adds unnecessary “hoops” for voters to jump through. For instance, if your current name does not match your birth certificate you must provide additional documentation to prove that you are the individual named on your birth certificate. If you don’t have easy access to transportation, gathering all your documentation and taking it to designated government offices is a burden.

I’ll let you in on a little secret… this requirement that you need to prove why you no longer go by your birth name is primarily a problem for married women. How many married women do you know who did not change their name when they got married? How many married men do you know who changed their name when they got married? I rest my case.

This will also cause anyone who was adopted to have to produce additional documentation.

To quote one of my Facebook friends, “this fuss the Democrats are making about the SAVE America Act is much ado about nothing.”  She went on to explain that “it only costs $165 to get a passport.” She obviously trusts the Trump Regime. I don’t.

I was born in the United States to American citizens. At one time, I had a U.S. passport. A passport proves citizenship. I let my passport expire and have had no reason to spend $165 to apply for a new one. That amount of money is not easy for me to come by. I am not alone in that situation. It is impossible for wealthy members of Congress and wealthy citizens to imagine that.

I recently had to renew my driver’s license. To get a “Real ID,” I had to take my birth certificate, my expiring driver’s license, and two utility bills addressed to me at my current address to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

I tried to get an appointment at the DMV in October, but the first available appointment within 100 miles of my home was on December 31. True story. Perhaps it isn’t like that in your state, but that was my experience. My only option was to go to a DMV office, stand in line for hours, and be seen after everyone with an appointment had been seen – or be told to try again the next day. My health does not allow me to stand outside for hours, especially in the winter.

Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash

It remains to be seen if my “Real ID” will suffice to prove that I am qualified to vote in November 2026 or November 2028. This is an issue every American needs to pay close attention to as it works its way through the legislative branch of our federal government.

Janet

The government should be afraid of its citizens, not the other way around.