josephsword

If A Sitting President Can Deny or Delay the Outcome of an Election …

Something has changed in America, and pretending otherwise is no longer safe. If a sitting president can deny, delay, or obfuscate the outcome of an election, then democracy itself is in jeopardy. And if one political team claims the right to question or refuse legitimate election results, then the opposing side logically inherits the same right. That is not a threat —it is a consequence. Just like in a football game, there has to be an level playing field with the same rules for both teams in order for the true winner to gain the moral highground to take the reigns of government in a democracy.

If Team Trump were to deny, delay, or obfuscate the procedures or results of the 2026 midterm elections, then Team Democracy would face a choice: accept a broken democracy, or prepare a constitutional, collective response. The publishing of said constitutional, collective response should be created now, well ahead of the midterms, so there is no chance of getting caught flat-footed in November.

One possibility is for the Democratic Governors Association — or a similar alliance of state leaders — to announce today that they are standing together to defend free and fair American elections. An Article Five–style pledge — “you come for one, you come for all” — would signal unity and strength. The purpose would be to prevent foul play and its resulting mayhem in November.

Let me lay out the logic plainly. Many Americans believe the country is already in a political war — a conflict not of weapons but of institutions, trust, and power. Democracy, once a radical idea, depends on citizens choosing representatives who argue and negotiate within agreed rules. Authoritarian systems do not operate that way.

The Founders wrote about “self-evident truths” for a reason. Evidence literally means from what is seen; video hides in the word evidence. And today’s polls reveal most Americans feel they have seen enough. With the midterms approaching, the question is not whether citizens should reject results they don’t like; they should not, of course. Elections carried out by longstanding rules, with broad participation and lawful procedures, must be accepted regardless of outcome. Americans have done this before. Many disliked prior results, but the system held because people respected the process.

The fear today is totally different: that elections may be contested not through law but through power. If attempts are made to delay or undermine the midterms, states should be prepared to respond lawfully and collectively. Governors could announce that, in the event of clear election interference, they would enact their emergency powers to protect their citizens and institutions — including reconsidering how and to whom federal tax dollars are paid and managed until constitutional order is restored.

This would not be a declaration of separation, nor the creation of a new country. It would be a conditional safeguard ; a contingency plan meant to preserve constitutional norms if they are threatened.

Such a stance might resonate with many Americans across the political spectrum. Distrust of federal power is not new; it has appeared in movements from the Tea Party to modern progressive coalitions. The idea of states asserting greater autonomy has deep roots in American history.

And here is the strategic point: if citizens know there is a peaceful, organized, constitutional backup plan, attempts to manipulate elections lose much of their power. Deterrence works when the consequences are clear and there is a feeling of reassurance. History shows that would-be strongmen respect strength. Institutions survive only when people are willing to defend them collectively.

This is not a call for chaos or refusal to accept legitimate outcomes. It is a call to prepare calmly, lawfully, and transparently ,so that no leader, from any party, can undermine the rules that make democracy possible.

Because if a sitting president can deny or delay the outcome of an election, then democracy itself is already in checkmate; and Americans of every political belief should refuse to accept that future.

Common Sense 1776, Revisited for 2026

Joseph Aronesty (2026)
Inspired by Thomas Paine’s Common Sense (1776)

Introduction

In January of 1776, a short pamphlet began circulating through the American colonies. It was written not for scholars or statesmen, but for ordinary citizens. Its purpose was simple and radical: to explain, in plain language, why submission to concentrated power was neither natural nor necessary.

The pamphlet was Common Sense, and its author, Thomas Paine, did not argue that King George III was uniquely wicked. Instead, he made a far more unsettling claim—that monarchy itself was a flawed system, and that placing excessive authority in any single individual inevitably corrupted both ruler and ruled.

Nearly two and a half centuries later, the outward forms of power have changed, but the underlying dynamics have not. Titles evolve. Justifications adapt. The language of authority modernizes. Yet the temptation toward autocratic rule—and the willingness of people to accept it—remains a constant of political life.

What follows is not a historical reenactment, nor an argument about personalities. It is a modern restatement of Paine’s central insight: that free societies do not lose their liberty all at once, but by failing to recognize familiar dangers in unfamiliar forms.

Paine wrote to awaken his contemporaries to patterns they were already living through. The purpose here is the same.

On the Nature of Concentrated Power

There is a persistent belief among free people that power, once granted, will restrain itself. Human history offers no support for this belief.

Power does not seek balance. It seeks continuance, expansion, and ultimately immunity from challenge. Democracy dies not because of a moral failing of individuals so much as a predictable feature of absolute authority once it is detached from regular accountability. The problem is not that one person becomes all-powerful, but that many people slowly grow accustomed to absolute power.

The defenders of concentrated power often argue that a strong executive is necessary to protect the nation. Yet history repeatedly shows the opposite: such power rarely protects a people from danger, but very often protects the autocrats from the people.

Personal rule—whether it wears a crown, a uniform, or the language of popular mandate—rests on a simple inversion of responsibility. Citizens are told that judgment is a burden best surrendered. Loyalty is redefined as obedience. Dissent is reframed as weakness, or worse, betrayal.

This is how liberty erodes without being formally abolished. No proclamation announces it. No constitution need be rewritten at first. The shift occurs in tone, in expectation, in what citizens come to tolerate in the name of order. A free people does not wake one morning to discover itself unfree; it arrives there by degrees, persuaded that exceptional power is both necessary and temporary.

At this stage, the question is no longer whether power has overreached, but whether the public has forgotten why limits existed in the first place.

Those who argue that “this time is different” must answer a hard question: different from what? From human nature? From history? From every prior instance in which concentrated power promised stability and delivered submission?

A government of laws depends on citizens who understand that strength lies not in domination, but in restraint. When restraint is abandoned—when power is admired for its force rather than its limits—the transition away from self-government has already begun, whether it is acknowledged or not.

On Why Free People Surrender Their Judgment

The loss of liberty rarely begins with force. It begins with a sense of relief.

Democratic self-government is demanding. It requires attention, disagreement, patience, and the humility to accept that no single voice—including one’s own—is sufficient. In uncertain times, this burden feels heavy. When a confident figure offers certainty in place of complexity, many experience not alarm, but comfort.

This is the first seduction of personal rule within a democracy. People do not abandon freedom because they despise it, but because they are persuaded that freedom has become impractical. They are told that debate is weakness, that disagreement is disorder, and that unity requires obedience. The promise is simple: trust me, and you may rest.

What is surrendered first is not rights, but personal judgment.

Fear plays a central role, but not always in obvious ways. It is not merely fear of enemies, foreign or domestic, but fear of instability, fear of social conflict, fear of economic uncertainty. A population anxious about its footing becomes willing to trade liberty for reassurance, even when said reassurance is largely performative and offers no real relief.

Those who resist this trade are often caricatured as dangerous, radical, unrealistic and disloyal the leader’s cause. In this way, caution and protest are recast as cowardice, and submission as strength.

The most effective autocrats do not demand admiration; they cultivate dependency. They position themselves as indispensable solutions to problems they continuously emphasize and rarely resolve. Each new crisis reinforces the narrative that only extraordinary authority can preserve order, and that ordinary checks are luxuries of a calmer time.

None of this requires the suspension of elections or the abandonment of constitutional language. The words remain. The habits change.

The final psychological shift occurs when people come to believe that resistance is futile—that the trajectory is inevitable, and that adapting is wiser than objecting. At that moment, power no longer needs to coerce. It is sustained by resignation.

And so, a free society depends not on perfect leaders, but on citizens who retain the nerve to think, to question, and to withstand the discomfort of disagreement. When that nerve is lost—when convenience replaces vigilance—no external enemy is required. The erosion is complete from within.

On How Institutions Are Emptied Without Being Overthrown

Free societies often imagine that tyranny arrives by spectacle—tanks in streets, constitutions burned, courts shuttered. In reality, institutions are more commonly hollowed than destroyed.

The outward forms remain. Elections are held. Legislatures convene. Courts issue opinions. Yet their authority is gradually diminished, not by decree, but by disregard. When power is personalized, institutions are tolerated only so long as they comply. When they resist, they are portrayed as illegitimate, corrupt, or obstructive.

Another method of hollowing out a democracy is selective obedience. Rules are praised when they benefit the powerful and dismissed when they restrain them. Enforcement becomes inconsistent. Precedent is ignored. Over time, citizens learn that law is not a standard, but a tool—applied unevenly and explained afterward.

Once this lesson is absorbed, trust in government collapses. Faith in institutions declines, while faith in the authoritarian rises. The public, weary of complexity, begins to see institutions as theater and the individual leader as the only “real” actor.

At this point, institutional failure is not an accident; it becomes evidence used to justify further consolidation of power. The damage itself becomes the argument.

On the Myth That This Is Inevitable

Perhaps the most paralyzing belief in any republic is the belief that decline is unavoidable.

When citizens are repeatedly told that norms are obsolete, that restraint is naïve, and that past standards cannot survive modern pressures, they may come to accept erosion as adaptation. What was once alarming becomes familiar. What was once resisted becomes expected.

Yet history shows that inevitability is often an illusion created by momentum and fatigue. Systems do not collapse because collapse is natural, but because enough people conclude that resistance is useless. The belief that “nothing can be done” becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Those who benefit from concentrated power rely on resignation. It discourages participation without provoking opposition. It replaces outrage with detachment, and engagement with cynicism. A disengaged citizenry is far easier to manage than an angry one.

The most dangerous phrase in a free society is not “this must be done,” but “this cannot be stopped.”

On the Duty of the Citizen in a Free Society

Thomas Paine understood that liberty is not sustained by declarations alone. It is sustained by citizens willing to accept the inconvenience of freedom.

Self-government demands more than periodic consent and voting, It requires continuous attention, the courage to dissent, and the refusal to confuse comfort with stability. It asks citizens to tolerate disagreement and to defend principles even when doing so is socially costly.

Liberty does not depend on optimism, but on memory—the memory that concentrated power has always justified itself as necessary, temporary, and benevolent. A government of the people is a historical exception, not the rule. It survives only so long as citizens remember that order imposed without consent is not democracy, but quiet submission.

A free people need not be perfect. But they must remain awake.

The moment citizens surrender their judgment in exchange for reassurances, they trade a difficult freedom for an easy dependence. History offers many names for this arrangement. None of them describe a democratic republic.

Relevant Prior Post

A Call for a Union of Governors to Protect Citizens from Federal Overreach

Common Sense, Revisited

By Joseph Aronesty (2026)
Inspired by Thomas Paine’s Common Sense (1776)

Introduction

Paine’s genius lay in his restraint. He did not rely on personal attacks or partisan loyalty. He appealed to reason, history, and human nature. His aim was not to inflame, but to prepare: to help Americans recognize patterns of power they might otherwise accept out of habit, fear, or fatigue.

The authority of the crown, Paine argued, depended less on force than on consent—consent given gradually, often unconsciously, in exchange for promises of stability and protection. Once citizens surrendered their judgment, resistance became not only difficult, but unthinkable.

Nearly two and a half centuries later, the outward forms of power have changed, but the underlying dynamics have not. Titles evolve. Justifications adapt. The language of authority modernizes. Yet the temptation toward personal rule—and the willingness of people to accept it—remains a constant of political life.

Paine wrote to awaken his contemporaries to patterns they were already living through. The purpose here is the same.

On the Nature of Concentrated Power

There is a persistent belief among free people that power, once granted, will restrain itself. Human history offers no support for this belief.

Power does not seek balance. It seeks continuance, expansion, and ultimately immunity from challenge. Power does not seek balance. It seeks continuance, expansion, and ultimately immunity from challenge. This eventuality is not so much a moral failing of individuals as a predictable feature of authority once it is detached from regular accountability. The problem is not that one person becomes all-powerful, but that many people slowly grow accustomed to the all-powerful.

In every age, those who seek extraordinary authority insist that the times demand it. Crisis becomes their justification. Disorder becomes their evidence. Conditions of instability are permitted—and sometimes encouraged—to argue that ordinary limits can no longer apply. What begins as a temporary measure soon hardens into habit, and habit, once accepted, becomes doctrine.

But power granted in exception is rarely surrendered voluntarily. Once a single figure becomes the symbol of national strength, any limit placed upon that figure is portrayed as a threat to the nation itself. Institutions designed to restrain authority are dismissed as obstacles. Laws are treated as inconveniences. Norms are mocked as naïve.

At this stage, the question is no longer whether power has overreached, but whether the public has forgotten why limits existed in the first place.

The great error is not trusting leaders, but trusting them too much—trusting them with powers that no individual, however well-intentioned, can safely hold. Free societies are not preserved by faith in men, but by suspicion of unchecked authority. That suspicion is not cynicism; it is civic maturity.

On Why Free People Surrender Their Judgment

The loss of liberty rarely begins with force. It begins with relief.

What is surrendered first is not rights, but judgment.

Once citizens accept that independent thinking is divisive or dangerous, they begin to outsource discernment. Assertions are valued over evidence. Confidence is mistaken for competence. Repetition replaces proof. The language of strength becomes more persuasive than the substance of truth.

At this stage, loyalty undergoes a quiet transformation. It no longer means fidelity to shared principles or constitutional limits, but allegiance to a person who claims to embody them. To question the individual is presented as an attack on the nation itself. This confusion—between country and ruler—has undone republics before, always with popular consent.

Fear plays a central role, but not always in obvious ways. It is not merely fear of enemies, foreign or domestic, but fear of instability, fear of social conflict, fear of uncertainty. A population anxious about its footing becomes willing to trade liberty for reassurance, even when the reassurance is largely performative.

Those who resist this trade are often caricatured. They are labeled unrealistic, disloyal, or dangerous. In this way, caution is recast as cowardice, and submission as strength.

Another psychological comfort soon follows: identity. When political loyalty becomes personal, it also becomes tribal. Agreement signals belonging. Dissent risks exclusion. In such an environment, many suppress private doubts rather than endure public isolation. Silence multiplies, and the appearance of unanimity grows—not because conviction is universal, but because dissent has become costly.

Over time, citizens who once insisted on limits begin to argue against them. Safeguards are dismissed as outdated. Independent institutions are accused of obstruction. The rule of law is reframed as an impediment to decisive action. What once protected liberty is now portrayed as its enemy.

None of this requires the suspension of elections or the abandonment of constitutional language. The words remain. The habits change.

Yet history suggests a different lesson: that resignation, more than rebellion, is what entrenches personal rule.

A free society depends not on perfect leaders, but on citizens who retain the nerve to think, to question, and to withstand the discomfort of disagreement. When that nerve is lost—when convenience replaces vigilance—no external enemy is required. The erosion is complete from within.

On How Institutions Are Emptied Without Being Overthrown

Free societies often imagine that tyranny arrives by spectacle—tanks in streets, constitutions burned, courts shuttered. In reality, institutions are more commonly hollowed than destroyed.

This tactic is effective because it reframes accountability as interference. Laws are no longer the expression of collective will, but impediments imposed by distant or unaccountable forces. Independent judgment is recast as sabotage. Expertise is treated as arrogance. In this environment, the erosion of institutional authority appears not as an attack on democracy, but as its defense.

Another method of hollowing is selective obedience. Rules are praised when they benefit the powerful and dismissed when they restrain them. Enforcement becomes inconsistent. Precedent is ignored. Over time, citizens learn that law is not a standard, but a tool—applied unevenly and explained afterward.

Once this lesson is absorbed, trust collapses asymmetrically. Faith in institutions declines, while faith in personal authority rises. The public, weary of complexity, begins to see institutions as theater and the individual leader as the only “real” actor.

At this point, institutional failure is not an accident; it becomes evidence used to justify further consolidation of power. The damage itself becomes the argument.

On the Myth That This Is Inevitable

Perhaps the most paralyzing belief in any republic is the belief that decline is unavoidable.

This sense of inevitability is carefully cultivated. Each broken convention is framed as a necessary response to unprecedented conditions. Each expansion of power is justified as an exception. The accumulation of exceptions is rarely acknowledged, and their permanence quietly assumed.

The most dangerous phrase in a free society is not “this must be done,” but “this cannot be stopped.”

On the Duty of the Citizen in a Free Society

Thomas Paine understood that liberty is not sustained by declarations alone. It is sustained by citizens willing to accept the inconvenience of freedom.

Self-government demands more than periodic consent. It requires continuous attention, the courage to dissent, and the refusal to confuse comfort with stability. It asks citizens to tolerate disagreement and to defend principles even when doing so is socially costly.

The responsibility of the citizen is not to idolize institutions, but to insist that they function as intended. Nor is it to place faith in individuals who promise relief from democratic strain. The strain is the point. It is evidence that power remains contested and accountable.

A free people need not be perfect. But they must remain awake.

Relevant Previous Posts

A Call for a Union of Governors to Protect Citizens from Federal Overreach

The Install JD Vance Via 25th Now Strategy

Send this letter to Republicans in Goverment in your state.

Amplify this letter . Post it in editorial news. On social media. Any way you can.

Dear Congressman ___________,

I am writing as a deeply concerned constituent. Much of what I am seeing and hearing from President Trump in his second term has shaken my confidence that our government is acting in the best interests of American families.

The President speaks about tariffs as if Americans do not pay for them. But we do — through higher grocery prices, higher household costs, and increasing financial strain. He ran on making life better at home. For many of us, life is not better, either economically or in terms of community safety.

I support lawful immigration enforcement and the removal of individuals who pose a real danger. What I do not support is profiling people based on accent or appearance, or policies that undermine basic due process. I am a Republican, and I am not a racist. These actions do not reflect American values.

I am also deeply troubled by the continued lack of transparency around the Epstein matter, and by repeated statements from the President that contradict publicly available facts. Trust in leadership depends on honesty, and that trust is eroding rapidly.

Foreign policy statements and actions have added to my concern. Talk of acquiring Greenland, strained relations with NATO allies, and unexplained financial dealings abroad project instability rather than strength. America is less respected internationally than it was, and that has real consequences for our security.

I believe our country is heading toward either severe political backlash in the midterms or a broader constitutional crisis. Neither outcome is good for the Republican Party or for the nation.

One action I have imagined is to use the 25^th Amendment and install JD Vance before midterm campaigning begins. Just say based on a year of what Trump has said and done in his first year of 2.0 we deem Donald Trump is no longer fit to lead our great nation, our military and be our commander-in-chief. Call it dementia if you must. As I see it, it comes down to finding a way to reign Trump in – or replacing him.

I am asking you to take seriously the constitutional responsibilities of checks and balances. The world is becoming more dangerous, not safer, and our leadership should be reducing risk, not amplifying it. I want a future where my children, my neighbors, and yours are safer and more secure.

If meaningful steps are not taken to rein in these actions, I cannot continue to support candidates who refuse to uphold constitutional norms. I believe many Americans — across party lines — feel the same way.

Name

Address

Image below is for us. Do not share. 🙂

If A Sitting President Can Deny or Delay the Outcome of an Election, Democracy is in Jeopardy

Something has changed in America, and pretending otherwise is no longer safe. If a sitting president can deny, delay, or obstruct the outcome of an election, then democracy itself is in jeopardy. And if one political team claims the right to question or refuse legitimate election results, then the opposing side logically inherits the same right. That is not a threat —it is a consequence.

If Team Trump were to deny, delay, or obfuscate the procedures or results of the 2026 midterm elections, then Team Democracy would face a choice: accept a broken system, or prepare a constitutional, collective response. The publishing of said conditional response should be made well ahead of the midterms.

One possibility is clear. The Democratic Governors Association — or a similar alliance of state leaders — could announce ahead of time that they will stand together to defend free and fair elections. An Article Five–style pledge — “you come for one, you come for all” — would signal unity and deterrence. The purpose would not be confrontation but prevention.

Let me lay out the logic plainly.

Many Americans believe the country is already in a political war — a conflict not of weapons but of institutions, trust, and power. Democracy, once a radical idea, depended on citizens choosing representatives who argued and negotiated within agreed rules. Authoritarian systems do not operate that way.

The Founders wrote about “self-evident truths” for a reason. Evidence comes from what we see. And many Americans feel they have seen enough. With the midterms approaching, the question is not whether citizens should reject legitimate results; they should not. Elections carried out by longstanding rules, with broad participation and lawful procedures, must be accepted regardless of outcome. Americans have done this before. Many disliked prior results, but the system held because people respected the process.

The fear today is different: that future elections may be contested not through law but through power. If attempts are made to delay or undermine the midterms, states should be prepared to respond lawfully and collectively. Governors could announce that, in the event of clear election interference, they would explore emergency powers to protect their citizens and institutions — including reconsidering how and to whom federal tax dollars are paid and managed until constitutional order is restored.

This is not a call for chaos or refusal to accept legitimate outcomes. It is a call to prepare calmly, lawfully, and transparently, so that no leader, from any party, can undermine the rules that make democracy possible.

A Call for a Union of Governors to Protect Citizens from Federal Overreach

And Continued Resistance

Across the country, people are watching federal power being used in ways that feel increasingly detached from constitutional limits: aggressive immigration enforcement without clear judicial oversight, sweeping tariffs imposed without Congressional approval, and rhetoric that treats political opposition not as fellow citizens, but as enemies.

When force replaces our Constitution, and subdues representation, democracy fails — not all at once, but quietly, via normalization, pressure and time.

This post is not about left versus right. We really are all in this together now. It is about whether our constitutional government will continue to function as it was originally crafted to do.

Waiting for elections may not be enough

Elections matter — but we are seeing blatant attempts to affect the midterms just like they do in Russia and other fascist countries around the world. We need to be fully prepared well ahead of the midterms to survive this. So all tools and strategies need to be on the table. Hoping for the best while preparing for the worst applies when all is at stake, and it is.

Further, elections are not the only safeguards the Constitution provides. The American system of governance was designed with the safeguard of shared sovereignty. States are not subsidiaries of the federal executive. Governors are not required to enforce federal actions that violate their citizens’ constitutional rights. In fact, they have a sworn duty to protect their citizens’ rights.

When executive power exceeds constitutional bounds, the states were meant to act as a stabilizing force, not as silent accomplices.

We have seen the Trump administration is willing to openly lie to the public. January 6^th is being framed as a peaceful protest, and peaceful protestors are being called radicals and shot dead.

What will happen if the midterm results are framed as phony or rigged, and our purchased Supreme Court majority rules for the administration? We cannot wait for elections with this administration in power. Just as he has done all his life, Donald Trump cheats in public and buys off the heat. He shows no respect for our Constitution and is even on record saying he would like to end the Constitution.

Two peaceful, constitutional pressure points

There are two areas where unlawful federal overreach is very visible — and where lawful, non-violent resistance can restore balance quickly.

1. Immigration enforcement without warrants

Border security at the border is popular with most Americans. But federal agents do not have unlimited authority inside states. When arrests or detentions occur by masked men without proper judicial warrants, state governors are within their rights to refuse cooperation and even arrest said ICE agents. This is not obstruction of justice; it is constitutional compliance. Communities are safer when fear is not used as policy. Public safety improves when law enforcement operates transparently and lawfully. It is a governors sworn duty to protect his citizens.

2. Tariffs imposed without Congressional approval

The Constitution gives Congress — not the executive — the power to levy taxes and tariffs. When tariffs are imposed unilaterally, they function as a hidden national sales tax, raising prices for everyone while bypassing representation.

Sovereign state governors can decline to collect tariffs through their ports until Congress approves them as per the Constitution. Prices would fall on goods coming through their ports. One would think that could be good for those state’s citizens.

Citizens in these states would feel the difference with lower prices in real time, and red state citizens would get jealous very quickly. The tariff scam would be exposed in a way that Fox News can’t spin away. Note: As of February 21, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s tariffs were illegal, as if we needed a SCOTUS to decide that. It is clear in the Constitution. And this 150-day exception, we should have no respect for that. After 150 days, Trump can restart the 150 days again. Yep. And he will. So I give no respect for that workaround to tax the public, which is what tariffs are.

Refusing to collect tariffs is plan with teeth. It would get popular so quickly Trump couldn’t stop it and be the party pooper. Will he go to physical war about this money? I doubt it. But if he does, he won’t have public support and it would mean a physical war is happening at midterms anyway. So it’s better to initiate real resistance now. Talk in back rooms, but spring it suddenly.

And like Republicans, worry later about the legality of it all. The Constitution and the public are on our side on tariffs. If Supreme Court justices say no, we can say they are aiding an insurrectionist, hence disqualified to serve hence rule in our states; and it will be true. This is also pocketbook economics citizens in all states will appreciate. It’s populism in an FDR way; and he became a populist because he knew he was up against domestic enemies as well as foreign enemies, just as we are today.

Why this matters right now

Authoritarian systems thrive when people feel powerless and divided. Our enemies abroad has gotten influence here, and they want our population just as subdued as theirs are. Why? Because phones connect the world now, and people all over the world believe their eyes. The existence of well-functiong democracies, where people have a say in how they are governed, taxed and rewarded, makes it harder for autocrats to survive, as they want as little as possible to flow to the people; their prime goal being wealth for the ruling class.

Democracy survives this challenge only when its citizens insist — peacefully, lawfully, and in great numbers — that power flows from the Constitution, not from loyalty to any single leader.

Russia and Hungary do have elections, but their results do not matter. Democratic backsliding rarely ends at the ballot box. Democracy will prevail only when institutions and key agents in our government refuse to participate in illegal, unconstitutional actions. And that includes these tariffs which Trump has lied about. Citizens in all states know tariffs are a tax by now.

The goal is de-escalation, not conflict

This is a call for governors to reclaim their sworn duty to protect their citizens from federal overreach and create some constitutional equilibrium as the founders of our nation intended. This is not a call for violence.
It is not a call for chaos. But if our enemies are going this route anyway, we need to prepare ahead of time.

If the unlawful ICE actions stop, street tensions will drop. After the unapproved tariffs stop and the savings passed on to consumers, prices will fall and financial anger will cool. When constitutional law replaces fear, democracy will begin to regain its footing.

America does not need a “strongman” or king. It was formed to get away from that way of governance. It just needs the Constitution to be enforced as written. State power to balance federal overreach is built in to the constitution to protect the consitution. So now, well before midterms, is the time for that governors union.

Why a union of aligned governors is critical right now

Imagine if Tim Walz announced he would no longer allow ICE agents to enter his state, nor be quartered in the state, if they came without warrants to arrest specific people. He would need the power to enforce said action if Trump sent ICE without warrants anyway. But Minnesota is just one state. They were over-powered and outnumbered. If the federal government knew 50% of the states, many of which surround Washington DC, were in a mutual self-defense union much like NATO, Trump would have cause to re-think military actions against Minnesota. There is real strength in unified numbers.

“We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” Benjamin Franklin, 1776, as the Constitution was being crafted.

What governors can do today

Blue state governors and any others inclined to resist the debasement of our Constitutional can call each other and form a union. I like to call said union States United, dedicated to protect the member states from federal overreach. Announce said union. The announcement of its creation will be an instantaneous comfort to Americans in all states, blue and red. As we stand today, most US citizens feel there is no one in government to protect them from federal government overreach. Their plan is working because Democrats refuse to call this a war, and are going to gamble our entire existence on the results of an election run by a man who does not admit he lost 2020, which makes him a 3rd term president, looking for four, in his own fantasy. And that’s the only place this man lives folks.

What citizens can do today

Write your governor, online and on paper, and ask where they stand on warrantless federal enforcement. Ask them to form a union with other like minded governors, much like NATO, so that an attack on one is an attack on all.
Ask why your governor why he is collecting tariffs that Congress has not approved and if he will consider refusing to collect tariffs until they are approved by Congress as per the Constitution.
Ask your governor if he believes he has a duty to protect his state’s citizens from the dangers and costs of Trump’s unconstitutional executive actions
Make it clear you will not support your governor is he does nothing to stop tariffs and warrantless arrests.
Continue to protest peacefully.
Share this plea on social media. Get this plea to citizens and governors going viral.

About the author: Joseph Aronesty was a classmate to Donald Trump at Wharton in 1968 and worked in his orbit from 1986-99 in Atlantic City NJ. He has been warning Americans about the danger Trump poses for our country since 2016.

How Democracies Really Die: Lessons From Putin’s First Two Years

By Joseph Aronesty

If you don’t understand how Vladimir Putin dismantled Russia’s democracy in his first 24 months in office, you won’t understand how democracies erode anywhere — including here at home. What happened in Russia didn’t start with tanks, riots, or a military takeover. It began with paperwork. It began with “reforms.” It began with things that looked technical, boring, maybe even reasonable.

Russia in the 1990s was messy, corrupt, chaotic… but it was a democracy. Elections were real. Governors were elected. The press was noisy and often critical. Independent television networks investigated the Kremlin. Oligarchs funded opposition parties. Courts sometimes ruled against the president.

All of that ended shockingly fast, and almost nobody realized it until it was too late.

Step 1: Control the Story

Putin’s first move was not economic or military — it was informational. He moved to seize NTV, the only major independent national television network. Using Gazprom as the battering ram, the Kremlin took over the board, installed loyalists, and drove critical journalists into exile.

( Trump’s version of this is to align with FOX News and other media outlets. He has a loyal oligarchs, Larry and david Ellison, buying up the major media companies. Trump uses the same meme Putin used, “fake news”. He did not make that up. I have always said, “Trump is taking dictator lessons from Vladimir Putin. Some say Orban, but Orban is a desciple of Putin.”

Donald Trump had no historical knowledge of Russia when he ran for president in 2016. He was a game show host, casino owner, real estate trader, and a white-collar criminal, looking to get richer. Putin was the richest and most powerful person on the planet in 2016. He still may be that, because i tis certain that Putin has Trump compromised by taping the election-help vs. Hillary Clinton conversations, KGB style. Remember, the translator’s notes were destroyed by Trump after his Helsinki meeting in 2017. He knew he had to cover his traitorous tracks. )

With that quiet corporate takeover, Russia no longer had a national platform capable of scrutinizing power. For most Russians, reality itself now came through a Kremlin-approved lens. Once the state controls what citizens see, everything else becomes easier.

The effect on everyday Russians has not been good. Russia’s economy is under significant strain, facing high inflation, labor shortages, weakening currency, and increased taxes. Most Russians struggle with costs and high inflation, peaking over 10% in early 2025. Central Bank rates are at 21%, slowing growth and keeping prices elevated. The Russian economy suffers from labor shortages and falling behind technologically.

Step 2: Break Federalism

In his first year, Putin created seven “federal districts” headed by presidential envoys — essentially political commissars — who could overrule elected governors. Soon after, he gained the authority to dismiss governors outright.

The message was simple: regional power is tolerated only if it aligns with the president’s agenda. Sound familiar? (This is why governor’s powers and sovereign state power is so important to preserve in the USA.)

Democracy works when power is shared. Putin ended that in a single legislative stroke.

Step 3: Turn the Upper House Into a Rubber Stamp

Originally, the Russian Federation Council was made up of governors and regional legislative heads who were elected and accountable. Putin replaced them with appointed representatives, loyal to him alone not to Russian voters.

Checks and balances require independence. Putin quietly erased it.

Today, Trump is effectively the Speaker of the House. No one seems to have the patriotic focus to challenge him.

Step 4: Rebuild the Security State

Putin surrounded himself with former KGB and FSB officers, expanding surveillance powers and re-politicizing the police. These “siloviki” became the backbone of his regime: a loyal, disciplined, unelected class with institutional muscle. Sound familiar?

Democracy can survive a run of bad politicians. It cannot survive an intelligence apparatus aligned with a single man’s agenda.

Step 5: Neutralize Economic Rivals

Putin gathered the oligarchs and offered a deal: Stay out of politics, or lose everything. MBS did the same thing. Trump helped MBS locate and round up the Saudi oligarchs as his first foreign act in 2017. Our FBI knew where they were all hiding. Trump 1.0’s first foreign destination was to Saudi Arabia, and he still calls MBS “a great guy” even though he killed an american journalist, something Trump brushed off at “stuff happens”.

Most of the Russian oligarchs folded. The ones who didn’t — Boris Berezovsky, Vladimir Gusinsky — were exiled or stripped of their assets. This was the elimination of independent financial power. Without competing power centers, political competition withers.

Step 6: Engineer a Dominant Party

Putin built United Russia, the machinery that would later dominate every national election. It was designed not to inspire loyalty but to enforce it. A democracy without competitive parties is just a ceremonial exercise.

(Trump rails jail the democrats and has asked for the execution of our Generals and potential candidates like Senator Kelly and Eric Swalwell. He calls is retribution, but it’s the Putin way to take over a large democratic country.)

Step 7: Rewrite Election Rules

Russian elections didn’t disappear — they were simply redesigned. Small parties were squeezed out by new technical requirements. Candidate registration became a weapon. The Central Election Commission fell under presidential influence.

Everything looked legal. Everything looked procedural. But slowly, the ballot box became a controlled environment.

We will see how our midterm elections of 2026 go. But Trump will certainly try to fix them, and if his GOP party loses, they will deny they were fair, and perhaps not “seat” the winning candidates, the way they did to the Arizona representative, Adelita Grijalva.

The Lessons to Learn from the Russian and Hungarian fasicst takeovers

Russia’s democracy did not die because Putin was especially bold.
It died because he was subtle.

Putin didn’t destroy institutions. He captured them, the way Trump has captured the CDC and BOE.

Putin didn’t outlaw opposition.
He starved them out.

He didn’t cancel elections.
He fixed them.

And the world — including the Russian people — kept waiting for a dramatic moment, some unmistakable sign of authoritarian takeover. It never came. The end arrived through a thousand bureaucratic cuts.

Democracies rarely die in one night.
They die quietly, procedurally, in full view.

Why This Matters for America

The United States is not Russia. Our institutions are older, stronger, more resilient. But they are not invincible. Every democracy is vulnerable to the same pattern:

media capture
politicized law enforcement
weakened courts
attacks on independent governors
parties hollowed out into loyalty machines
elections rewritten through “legal adjustments”

The methods are subtle everywhere, because subtlety works.

If there’s a single lesson from Putin’s first two years, it’s this:

The moment to defend a democracy is before the crisis is obvious. After that, the slide is much harder to stop.

America’s strength has always been that its people do not sleepwalk through history. We debate. We argue. We shout. We vote. We hold the line.

Maybe that’s what holding on to love for a country actually means: caring enough to notice the early signs — and caring enough to act before the damage becomes irreversible.

My song to save America is waiting for an artist to make this patriotic meme of love for the real American democracy go front and center in our pop culture. We need a few rallying songs to keep ourselves inwardly aligned and resolved to not allow this country to go fascist. If you know people in our military at any level, make sure they know not to follow illegal orders.

https://soundcloud.com/raiseourvoices/hold-on-to-love-cw

Putin’s Determination to Destroy America is Part of Russian History

Why Trump was ideal to help Russia end American Democracy

Knowledge is power. I was blessed with a full scholarship to U of P in 1966 and studied there through 1971. My favorite two courses were Political Science taught by CJ Burnett, and Russian History taught by Alexander Riasanovsky, who was a political refugee from Russia and has written volumes on all things Russian. I got to thinking that had Trump, a fellow student at Penn in 1968, actually studied that Russian history course at Penn, he might not have sought election help from Putin in 2016, or at least, would have been more skeptical about trusting Putin.

This page is a synopsis what Riasanovsky taught. He was one who knew first-hand and explained things we all should understand these days in easy to understand and colorful ways.

Alexander Riasanovsky’s Core Lens on Russia

He taught that Russian history is driven by:

A chronic, urgent desire to “catch up” to a West they both admire and resent.

That creates a duality:

Admiration → desire for Western technology, industry, recognition
Resentment → anxiety, humiliation, jealousy and an imperial reflex to compensate for those inner feelings

He traced this Russian psychology back to Peter the Great:

Under Peter the Great, Russia forced itself into modernity to avoid becoming Europe’s “backward cousin”.
Successes fueled pride, but gaps fueled paranoia.

Putin plays this chord perfectly:

He needs the West as a foil
His legitimacy depends on portraying Russia as standing up to the West
Any Western advantage = personal insult = retaliation

That was the psychology behind the Russian 2016 election interference:

If Russia can’t rise by achievement, it will rise by sabotage.

Russia’s Identity Crisis He Taught Explicitly

He argued Russia has never resolved:

“Are we European?”
“Are we Asian?”
“Or are we a unique civilization destined to dominate both?”

That uncertainty produced nationalism with an inferiority complex.
He told students: “Russia is too big to be ignored and too insecure to be trusted.”

If only a certain Penn undergrad had taken notes…

Someone who studied Riasanovsky would’ve learned:

1️⃣ Russia does not make alliances. It makes leverage.
2️⃣ Gratitude spells weakness in Russia — Putin only believes in debt and dominance.
3️⃣ Helping Trump wasn’t friendship — it was a hook.
4️⃣ Once you take the help they offer, you belong to them forever.

Putin doesn’t care who runs America.
He cares that he has a hand on the wheel.

During the Cold War of the 50’s, Khrushchev went on record saying, “We will destroy America without firing a single bullet”. Putin 1s Khrushschev’s disciple.

Riasanovsky taught:

“Russia wants the West divided — and itself essential.”

Divide to defeat; 2016 was a masterclass in that Russian doctrine.

If only Trump had been the studying “type” at Penn, he may have thought more clearly about Putin’s real goals in offering him election help. Instead, he continues to serve as a useful idiot in the arsenal of Russia’s stance against America, the West and the East.

…..

After 30 years of the super powers, Russia, China and the USA not detonating nuclear weapons to “test” them, today, Donald Trump declared the USA will immediately resume nuclear testing. There is talk Russia and China will follow.

Previous Post: Donald Trump: An Executioner Deployed To Defeat Democracy World-Wide

Donald Trump is not trying to govern — he is trying to rule

Tariffs are Congress’s job. By treating tariffs as presidential orders, Trump is imposing a “King’s Tax” on every American. That tax falls hardest on working families, who spend a larger share of their income on necessities and imported goods. Trump ran on lowering prices. Now, with his tarrifflation, consumer prices are higher than ever before. Tariffs are not just bad economics — they are unconstitutional, if not approved by Congress.

This is how democracies fall: leaders bypass checks and balances and concentrate power into the executive branch. That’s how Putin did it in Russia; Trump is trying to do the same thing here. He thinks because he won an election he can break the rules, which are the foundation of a democracy. We need to collectively say “no” to tariffs as a people, even if Congress and the courts won’t do this.

The response to these tariffs should be be large, public and sharp. The tactic is to force him to show his real hand to us all on TV and media as well. Put him in a position where he either accepts Congress’s role or acts like a king. Either way, Americans will see the truth.

Blue state governors can and should band together and refuse to enforce Trump’s tariffs at the state level until they are approved by Congress. The Constitution states: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” People understand that plain language. Amplify and campaign on “no tariffs without Congressional approval”. Be like Nike and “just do it”.

Whoever starts this plan and created this seminal event, has a good chance of becoming the heroic next president of the new reborn United States. Democrats who wonder why their party is doing so poorly should take away: it’s because theyare not protecting their constituents from Trumpism. So start. Start right away. What have you got to lose?

Senators can and should challenge these tariffs in court. They must frame the fight clearly: “Tariffs are the people’s business. There is no emergency that necessitates the added burden that tariffs are imposing on all Americans. Congress represents the people and the Constitution protects the citizenry. Tariffs should be neither collected nor paid until Congress approves them, as it is written. We will not respect a Supreme Court if it aids or comforts insurrectionists as per 14th, sec 3″.

Governors, in particular, have the power to declare what is clearly a real emergency: we have a president who seems oblivious to the pain he is causing, on many levels, to American citizens, and their loved ones.

We need to create a seminal event, much like January 6^th was for MAGA, but based on the Constitution, and its abuse by a would-be king. That day could be dubbed “the day a union of governors stood up to Trump and simply refused to do his bidding –or, the day Trump’s illegal tariffs died in the USA. That day, according to polls, will be cheered on by the vast majority of Americans. When Trump reacts like a grade-schooler or a dictator, or both, which is a certainty, it will also be remembered as the day Trumpism died in America.

If we are afraid to take chances, if we are afraid to be as outrageous as Trump is, we cannot win. If we are afraid to fight, and even die for this cause, which is the cause of our children as well, we cannot win. We might as well get started now.

Waiting for election results is not a plan when one party does not care about the rules. We have the chance to unify the country against Trumpism now. Americans on all sides are unified on this topic of tariffs. Announce that tariffs are not going to be collected in blue states until Congress approves them. It wont cost a penny, and it will be very popular, not only in blue states as well. Gove Trump a week to take them all down. Set a date, and stick to it. We are in a war, act like we know it.

Thank You.

https://englishcode.wordpress.com/2025/09/05/donald-trump-the-executioner/

Donald Trump: An Executioner Deployed To Defeat Democracy World-Wide

1/7/26 Today a citizen, Renee Nicole Good , was killed in Minnesota in her car, trying not to get detained by ICE. She was no danger to ICE. You can watch the clip. Of course, Trump is lying about it. Always this way, since college, where I first knew him. See clip at Trump’s Untruths Social site:

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115855701696773990

This will not stop until Trump is removed from office by popular demand. It does not have to wait for 2028. We won’t last that long. Below is the way out.

Once again, I plead with the governors of blue states and any red states that want to honor the true miracle of America – to form a union – and refuse to allow ICE agents in their states without warrants, and refuse to collect tariffs in their ports until Congress approves tariffs . Those two actions ( not words ) will end Trumpism in two weeks. How? Popular demand. We will all notice together the prices dropping by refusing to collect tariffs, and the peace in our streets, and no one will want to go back.

…..

In Des Moines, Iowa, on July 3, 2025, Donald Trump said “I hate them” in reference to Democrats. During his speech, he said Democrats did not vote for his “Big Beautiful Bill” because “they hate Trump” and added, “I hate them, too”.

For the record, Democrats did not vote for his bill because it does very little to help average working-class Americans, and favors the uber-wealthy. But with the words, “I hate Democrats” Donald Trump officially declared war on the Democratic Party which represents 53.5%* of the registered voters in the USA. (*Gallup poll June 2025) That means Trump has declared war on 53.5% of American citizens of voting age and more like 2 out of 3 if you count children.

Why we must now declare war vs. Trumpism, and strategies to keep it a cold war, is what follows. First some history.

Before 1776, ruling kings had been the standard way to govern countries for the previous 5000 years. Some kingdoms and autocracies autocracies have done well for its citizens, but they have been rare. Most exaggerate and perpetuate wealth gaps. They all create tiered societies wherein only those who are loyal to “the king” or dictator can move up the social ladder. For the vast majority living under autocratic rule, life becomes harder. The middle and lower classes are subjugated, thrown under. That’s why kings called their citizens, subjects.

Oligarchy is rule by one man and his chosen businessmen. Oligarchy is what Donald Trump is in the process of executing right in front of our own eyes. He admires men like Putin, MBS, and Xi because they get what they want. That has always been Donald Trump’s goal: to get what he wants. Whether it was women, money or power, that has been the life of Donald Trump since I knew him at age twenty at Wharton.

I chose the subject word executioner, because Donald Trump is not educated enough to be the architect of this plan to end American democracy. But, because he is heartless and willing to do or say anything to get his way, he is an ideal executioner of this plan, which began in foreign autocracies many years ago.

The road map to supplant democracy with autocracy in not new. It has been paved by other dictators in recent history. Germany was a democracy in 1932. More recently, Putin took Russia, a country that recently had become a democracy, back to an autocracy, which it had pre-1917 and back to the Middle Ages.

Look at this world map . If America succumbs turns red towards fascism, the rest of the world has no chance of staying democratic. The fascists will have the planet. That’s been the goal, especially since 1996, when the internet made instant communication between peoples across the planet much easier. Fascists don’t want their subjects aware how things fare a little better for citizens in democracies.

In 2016, before being chosen to be the GOP candidate, Donald Trump was just a businessman. But he had been in contact with Russia years before during his Miss World contests. In June of 2016, right after he was the Republican candidate, he said” Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you find the missing Hillary Clinton tapes.” That means he knew they were listening. There was no reason to bring up Russia at that point, unless he knew Russia was going to be a player in the election. And in the 2016 presidential election, Russia was, at the very least, a substantial player in social media campaigns designed to convince Americans that Hillary was evil, and a pedophile – of all things.

In 2016, Putin sold Trump on the idea of becoming the first king of America. Donald had no clue where to begin that potentially very dangerous journey. But Vladimir Putin had done it before, and in the largest country on Earth.

Putin was a disciple of Khrushchev. In the fifties Cold War Era, Nikita Khrushchev said, “we will defeat the United States without firing a single bullet.” When Obama did not indict Trump for asking for foreign help in our most sacred institution, our elections, foreign interference in elections became normalized. Obama, like Biden, grossly underestimated how determined Russia was to defeat the USA.

Donald Trump openly admired Putin and indeed got Russian election help. He owes Putin for life now. Putin makes sure Trump knows he would never have become president without his help. You’ll never see Trump cross Putin on Ukraine, or anything. Connect the dots. Trump is the side of the dictators for life now, whether he likes it or not. This all sums to the undeniable conclusion that we have a traitor in the White House who must do Putin’s bidding.

Take a good lo0k at that map again. The dictators and monarchs have the majority of the land and the majority of the people. Those in power can change the laws of democracy and we have a traitor to democracy as commander-in-chief. In effect, we have already lost this war. If we proceed as if all is normal, our democracy will be pronounced dead after midterms 2026. Democracy is not the favorite to survive this disease.

So now we must commit to a war against the Trump “regime” to regain our democracy. If we are afraid to fight back, if we are afraid to die for this cause, the planet’s five-thousand years of autocratic rule will resume.

I’d like you to listen to this YouTube from 2017, which you may have seen on the news. Putin is at a hockey game, about to go on the ice. A reporter asks why Trump fired James Comey. Putin answers in effect, “he is just following the laws of his country”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1NKWYepioA

That’s how fascists pull it off when they are successful at taking over a country. It’s not done with guns. Certainly not at first. They say they are “following the laws”. Once they get enoough laws on their side, they can and will proceed a little further down the military autocratic road.

Being a traitor to democracy is worse than being a traitor in a war. In a war, democracy is what we are fighting to preserve. Trump is already dismantling the agencies that keep our citizens and children safe from human predators and nature’s wrath. Germany banned their fascists from holding office post WW2, and they cited the American constitution, while doing so. The blue states should do the same now.

The fascist goal is to make life harder for every citizen in America who is not part of the oligarchy. If people who are not okay with that don’t speak up and practice peaceful civil disobedience, democracy’s demise is inevitable. If our state governors do not band together and declare we are at war with this iteration of Republican Party and protect its citizens from unconstitutional executive orders, Trumpism will prevail. Waiting or hoping for elections is a fool’s game.

Today Pritzker seemed disappointed he did not get all fifty state governors to support Illinois over Trumpism. He needs to start thinking in terms of creating a second sovereign power until these MAGA nationalists are removed, en masse, from their seats, as per the 14th sec 3. We need a new temporary union of states that refuse to blindly follow Trump’s orders.

These fascists will never willingly surrender power. Their crimes are too large now. They fear reprisal if they lose power now, and rightly so. Citizens cannot challenge this power alone. It’s too easy for them to be whisked away, or sued, like you see happening to Adam Schiff, Leticia James and many others.

State governors have sovereign power. If governors will declare we at war with the fascists in our government, they can declare an emergency, and order, for example, that Trump’s tariffs not be collected in their ports until such time that the Congress votes on the tariffs, in accordance with the Constitution. They could declare the fourteenth renders the entire Republican side of our government unconstitutional and set up a union of states and a temporary new government to run our agencies the way they are supposed to run, and even divert enough taxes that their citizens pay to the federal government to fund such agencies.

And that union has begun. The West Coast Health Alliance formed by California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii was just created to issue unified health guidance that is grounded in science. I’d rename it the American Health Alliance and get Pritzker, Hochul and any other states that want health care run by scientists. not politicians, on board.

Then the only step left would be to ask their citizens, who are nationally 80% of board with scientists to run health care, to reduce their tax payments to the federal government by the percentage of the federal budget we spend on health, and also state they will defend their citizens from any suits or actions from the federal government regarding that underpayment. If 80% of Americans want scientists in charge of health care, not politicians, and Trump continues to place non-doctors like RFK Jr. as the stewards of their health care, that is not democratic representational government. That is funding the enemy.

Are governors beginning to talk quietly about a corruption-free new government? The talk of it alone, would be healthy. Maybe some on the fringes of the right would begin to think they don’t like how Trump is steering our government if they see states willing to financially divorce from the union.

Then, agency by agency, we can claw back our government until we can vote out the insurrectionists and traitors aligned with the dictators in the world who want Americans dead, without firing a single bullet.

Trump’s Tariffs Create The Seminal Event to Unify the Country

Campaigning for elections and waiting for election results is fine, but it’s not a war plan. We need to create a seminal event that unifies the country. It’s not Epstein. The country is united on justice for Epstein, but it’s not a pocketbook issue. Tariffs act like a sales tax on everyone. It affects the uber-wealthy the least. The first battle cry of American democracy was “taxation without representation is tyranny”. The desire to get government to serve us as a reward for being taxed is in the American DNA.

People will soon be feeling what I call tarifflation. It is inflation made worse by Trump’s tariffs. I am paying them myself in my own business. I believe the other proper strategy is for governors of CA, IL and NY to declare their ports will not collect these unconstitutionally enacted tariffs until such time as they are voted on in Congress.

If this were to happen, play out Trump’s predictable reaction in your mind. You will conclude, this action would create a seminal event, “the day Trump’s tariffs ended in blue states“, that logically ends with all the people unified against Trumpism. Trump will kneejerk respond and try to use ICE agents to collect tariffs. When the 80% of Americans see him trying that, even once, he is done, and so is Trumpism nation-wide.

Trump will take this bait and quickly. I cannot claim to know what tariffs are doing for Trump personally. He’s probably getting paid off left and right by countries and businesses. That is his style of being. So not collecting tariffs hits him in his Achilles Heel, his wallet. He won’t wait a day to send in his goons to collect tariffs. We need all Americans to see the specter of Trump using troops to raise their grocery prices.

We are in a war without bombs. We have been in that space since 2016. When Putin sent emissaries to the GOP Convention in 2016, an alliance was formed based on mutual interests, the Russo-Republican Alliance of 2016 . That is democracy’s real enemy. Donald Trump is not its architect; he is its executioner. This enemy’s weapons are words, executive orders and actions; not guns and bombs. We’d best get into that game now, as we are losing the funds and muscle to defeat this alliance every day we sit on the sidelines and pretend the demise of America is not unwinding in front of our eyes.

It’s not as if this is new. Trump has been trying to end democracy, as per his boss, Vladimir Putin, since “Russia if you’re listening.” When Trump took election help from a fascist, he became a fascist for life. There is no going back on that.

Relevant Previous Posts: Trump Passed on a Chance to Understand Putin’s Mindset at Penn

Putin Used a Trojan Horse to Gain Access to Our Government: Donald Trump

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin: Partners in the Biggest Crime in World History

Trump’s Firing of Mark Esper is Part of a Plan to Subvert Our Democracy

How Democracies Die: Lessons From Putin’s First Two Years

Putin’s Determination to Destroy America is Part of Russian History

Operation Midnight Hammer: A Chance to Bring America and the Free World Together

For nine years, I’ve been speaking out—loudly and consistently—about the threat Donald Trump poses to American democracy and the free world.

But credit should be given where it’s due. Iran has never demonstrated the responsibility required to possess nuclear weapons, and firm action was needed. A significant portion of global instability stems from Iran-backed terrorism. So in this case—good job. Good decoy. Good on listening to your generals. And good on not making it all about yourself, Donnie.

We now find ourselves in a new world, much like the one after 9/11. If Trump plays this moment wisely, he’ll pull ICE agents off the streets, stop manufacturing domestic enemies, and begin preparing the homeland for real threats—such as potential attacks from Iranian-backed terrorist networks, possibly even on U.S. soil.

If he can pivot away from his anti-democratic, anti-immigrant, anti-classic-American rhetoric and adopt a “one nation, working together” message, Americans will notice. Only then can the political divide that’s been paralyzing our country begin to heal. And only then can the greatness he so often speaks of emerge organically—because true national greatness can’t be forced. It grows from unity and shared purpose.

Donald Trump has a chance—this very week—to evolve. But if he starts taking personal credit for this mission, as though he masterminded it himself, and keeps belittling Joe Biden (who likely would have listened to the same generals), it will be clear he’s still more interested in division than unity. That mindset only makes it easier for our enemies to succeed—and pushes America closer to a dangerous precipice.

So the question remains: Can Donald Trump evolve as a president, or even as an actor playing the role of a president—into a unifier? Maybe. Maybe he’s tired of being the Divider-in-Chief. Maybe he’s starting to think about his legacy, as any mature mortal should.

I sincerely hope so. We all want to get back to our lives and feel confident that our democracy—and our country—are in steady, caring hands.