When Moral Authority Dissolves

Look at Trump's recent Iran post! THIS, was presidential?

Just really look at it:

"Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP"

A sitting president threatening to destroy civilian infrastructure -- power plants, bridges -- in a sovereign nation, signing off with an Islamic devotional phrase as mockery or punchline, apparently unable to distinguish between the two. This is what moral collapse looks like when it goes fully public. Eighty words. No filter. No advisor willing or able to stop it. No institution with the standing to say: this is wrong.

How sad is it that to find moral leadership today -- in government, in the military, in corporate life -- one has to turn to religion? And how much sadder still when religion itself has been so thoroughly weaponized that even that refuge is compromised?

This administration did not invent the hollowing out of American institutions. But it has accelerated it past any previous threshold. What we are watching is kakistocracy -- rule by the least competent and least principled -- fused with plutocracy, the whole apparatus running on the fuel of toxic capitalism, where every decision, including war, is ultimately a business calculation dressed in apocalyptic costume. Throw in the technocrats who believe systems can be optimized without ethics, and you have the full picture: power without wisdom, force without conscience, religion without faith.

The Strait of Hormuz is about oil and shipping and global capital flows. The moral framing of this conflict -- whatever scraps of it exist -- is performance. The actual drivers are leverage and money and the interests of people who will not be anywhere near the explosions. "Praise be to Allah" is not diplomacy, not faith, not even coherent provocation. It is a man coming apart in public, with the launch codes nearby. That is the situation stated plainly.

And the institutions that should be able to say stop? Congress has abdicated. The cabinet is captured. The Joint Chiefs are navigating a minefield of loyalty tests. The press is managing access. So moral authority, when it surfaces at all, comes from the margins -- retired generals writing open letters, some clergy, some academics, the occasional senator willing to lose a primary over it. People drawing on frameworks that predate this administration and will, one hopes, outlast it.

The military's written code is largely secular -- the UCMJ, the officer's oath. But its moral culture runs deeper than its paperwork. When officers push back, they speak in language that sounds almost devotional: duty, honor, oath, service. It is not religion exactly, but it is the same impulse -- an appeal to something that transcends the moment and the man currently occupying the office.

That is what we are left searching for. Not a pastor, not a general, not a party. Something that holds when everything built to hold it has been deliberately dismantled.

The darker question underneath all of this: what does it say about secular democratic institutions that they have become so hollowed out that pre-Enlightenment frameworks are now doing more ethical heavy lifting than the entire apparatus of the American government?

"Praise be to Allah."

Trump thought that was funny. Or threatening. Or both. He cannot tell the difference anymore. Neither, it seems, can the people around him.

Watch out for what this petty little autocrat pulls next on Tuesday.

We can make America great again...just not with this mob boss style leadership.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie! 

Is Trump Playing 3D Chess, Chess, or Checkers on the World Stage?

Chess demands foresight, coherence, and an understanding of positional dynamics. Trump’s actions on the world stage indicate a persistent unfamiliarity with all three. Effective strategy begins with recognizing the structure of the board itself. Trump’s record suggests that he rarely perceives the board, let alone the strategic relationships that define it.

So, is everything Trump does wrong? No. Paradoxically, his hostility toward NATO helped galvanize and strengthen it, an outcome achieved despite his own dissatisfaction with the alliance and the outcome of his very own actions.

However...

Supporters often claim that Donald Trump is playing “3D chess” on the global stage. The idea is that while critics see chaos, Trump is supposedly executing a deeper, unseen strategy. That claim sounds clever, but when examined through the actual standards of modern statecraft, it does not hold up.

Real geopolitics is not improvisational theater. It is a discipline built on continuity, credibility, coalition management, and long-term consequence modeling. When those fundamentals collapse, what remains is not hidden genius. It is institutional damage.

This is why many analysts, diplomats, and allied governments increasingly interpret Trump’s behavior not as multidimensional strategy, but as something far closer to political checkers.

---

What Genuine Strategic Statecraft Requires

High-level strategy in foreign policy depends on several core pillars:

• Alliance stability and treaty reliability

• Predictable signaling to both allies and adversaries

• Second- and third-order consequence planning

• Coordination between military, economic, diplomatic, and intelligence institutions

• Multi-year or multi-decade planning horizons

Strategy is slow, layered, and disciplined. It is rarely flashy. It is built on consistency, not spectacle.

---

What Trump Actually Practices Instead

Trump’s approach to foreign policy consistently displays a different pattern:

• Transactional bilateral deals instead of alliance-centered diplomacy

• Public attacks on long-time allies

• Open admiration for authoritarian leaders

• Foreign policy conducted through social media theatrics

• Policy reversals that undermine long-term deterrence

• No stable doctrine beyond immediate leverage and attention dominance

This is not multidimensional strategy. It is personal branding fused to impulsive power projection.

---

Why the “3D Chess” Narrative Persists

The myth survives for three main reasons:

First, it acts as failure insulation. Any outcome, even damaging ones, can be reframed as misunderstood brilliance.

Second, it reinforces Trump’s cultivated identity as an unbeatable negotiator. The narrative protects the brand regardless of the results.

Third, it functions as propaganda. It turns visible disorder into supposed hidden mastery without needing evidence.

---

How Europe and U.S. Allies See It

From the perspective of NATO and European governments, Trump’s behavior does not project strength. It injects instability into deterrence systems that depend on clarity and reliability.

When alliance commitments become uncertain, adversaries test boundaries. That is not strategic dominance. That is degraded deterrence.

Instead of strengthening collective security, Trump’s conduct forces allies to prepare for U.S. unpredictability itself.

---

Why “Checkers” Is a More Accurate Metaphor

Checkers is a game of immediate captures. Chess is a game of long-term positional control. Trump’s behavior consistently reflects the former.

• Moves prioritize instant optics over future vulnerability

• Threats are made without defensive coverage

• Short-term attention beats long-term positioning

• Consequences are externalized to institutions and allies

This is not how durable international strategy is built. It is how leverage is burned down for short-term effect.

---

Conclusion

Trump claims strategic depth. What his behavior demonstrates is tactical impulsivity.

The “3D chess” framing functions as marketing, not analysis. It excuses disorder by labeling it genius after the fact. Meanwhile, the real costs show up in weakened alliances, degraded deterrence, and rising global instability.

On the world stage, statecraft remains a multi-layered discipline of patience and structure. What Trump practices instead looks far more like checkers, fast moves, loud captures, and little protection for what comes next.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Tactical Empathy, Trump, and the Trouble with Negotiation

Chris Voss isn’t just another talking head. He’s a former FBI hostage negotiator, author of Never Split the Difference, and a man who has spent his career staring down people holding lives in their hands. When he talks about negotiation, it isn’t theory—it’s survival.

In August 2025, Voss sat down with The New York Times and dropped a line that still rings: Donald Trump’s secret weapon is “tactical empathy.”

What Voss Means by Tactical Empathy

Now, don’t confuse this with the Hallmark-card version of empathy. Voss is quick to say his use of the word has nothing to do with “soft, spongy” feelings. He calls it a tool—a skill. It’s the ability to understand how someone else sees the world without needing to agree with them. It’s not sympathy, and it’s not compassion.

Think of it like tactical breathing. To a Navy SEAL, “yoga breathing” sounds ridiculous. Call it tactical breathing, and suddenly it’s life-saving discipline. Voss did the same with empathy—gave it sharper edges, made it sound operational.

Trump’s Application of the Concept

According to Voss, Trump does this instinctively. He has a knack for reading the way others perceive situations and then exploiting that understanding to his own advantage. One example Voss gave: when Trump ordered strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites but stopped short of killing the Iranian leader. For Voss, this showed Trump recognized that assassinating a head of state could trigger “open season” on world leaders. That’s tactical empathy at work—understanding the other side’s perspective without embracing it.

The Counterpoint: Bullying Masquerading as Negotiation

But here’s where the conversation splits. While Voss highlights Trump’s ability to deploy this skill, others see a much darker pattern.

• High-leverage demands: Psychology Today has pointed out Trump’s “door-in-the-face” style—asking for the moon, then working back to what he actually wants. It’s effective at times, but just as often comes across as bullying.

• Ultimatums over compromise: The Associated Press has catalogued his reliance on threats and ultimatums. This is less negotiation than strong-arming.

• Poor relational ethics: Negotiation experts like Marty Latz have been blunt: Trump’s approach is “win-lose,” fueled by impulsiveness, bullying, and a flexible relationship with truth.

And let’s not forget the research. Decades of psychological studies tie Trump and his supporters to lower levels of emotional empathy, with spikes in more malevolent traits.

Where This Leaves Us

So, is tactical empathy really Trump’s secret weapon—or just Voss’s charitable interpretation of a man whose methods often leave scorched earth behind?

I’d argue both can be true. Trump may indeed use a form of tactical empathy, but let’s be clear: empathy stripped of ethics becomes manipulation. When you understand another person only to bend or break them, that isn’t strength. It’s exploitation.

And America, frankly, has paid the price.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

The Unthinkable Summit: Would Trump Really Arrest Putin in Alaska?

Some news stories make you pause and think, “This has to be The Onion.”
And then you remember: it’s 2025, and The Onion can’t compete with reality anymore.

The latest? A Donald Trump–Vladimir Putin summit… in Alaska.
Yes, Alaska. Land of caribou, glaciers, and, apparently, potential war crime perp walks.

Would Trump arrest Putin? 

Of course not—he’s spent years signaling admiration for strongmen, despots, and even accused war criminals, framing them as “smart” or “savvy” rather than dangerous. But the unsettling truth is that Trump has shattered reality and defied expectations so many times that nothing can be entirely ruled out. 

This is a man who has upended decades of diplomatic norms, twisted alliances into personal transactions, and recast international crises as opportunities for self-promotion. While the odds of him genuinely turning on Putin are slim, the fact that we even entertain the possibility speaks volumes about how far he’s already dragged the boundaries of the possible.

But, that being said that he would NEVER do that...

---

The Arrest Question Nobody Thought We’d Seriously Ask

Putin has an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant hanging over him like a bad Bond villain plotline. Normally, that would mean: if he steps into an ICC member country, he gets arrested and shipped to The Hague.

Problem: The United States is not an ICC member. In fact, we’ve spent decades dodging that whole “international accountability” thing like it’s spam email. We even have laws protecting our citizens (and certain friends) from ICC prosecution.

Under any sane administration, the “arrest Putin” conversation would last about 15 seconds before someone said, “Yeah, no.”

---

But Then… Trump

Donald Trump is not famous for following scripts—unless they’re his own, and even then, the teleprompter is optional.

Would he arrest Putin? Legally, no obligation. Politically, it’s nuclear.
But strategically? In the Trump playbook, chaos equals opportunity.

Imagine the headlines:

“Trump Stuns World, Delivers Putin to The Hague.”
“Russia Furious; MAGA Hats With ICC Logo Sell Out in Hours.”

In Trump’s mind, that’s not betrayal—it’s “3D chess.” Never mind that arresting a sitting head of state from a non-ICC country would shred head-of-state immunity and risk an act-of-war label. He could frame it as a “special justice mission,” sell commemorative gold coins, and bask in the coverage.

---

Diplomatic Norms? Cute.

For over two centuries, America’s foreign policy has been wrapped in at least the appearance of consistency, law, and respect for international frameworks.

Trump’s foreign policy? It’s performance art meets reality TV. He’s the guy who could lure Putin to Alaska for “coffee and a chat” and then decide—mid-meeting—that the ratings would be better if the U.S. Marshals made a cameo.

Is it insane? Yes. Is it impossible? Not in this timeline.

---

Why This Even Feels Plausible

The fact we can ask this question without immediately bursting into laughter is the real warning sign. It’s proof that presidential norms, once made of steel, are now more like wet cardboard.

America’s foreign policy shouldn’t hinge on the unpredictable whims of one man’s ego or poll numbers. But here we are, seriously gaming out whether the former/current/future president might try to detain the leader of Russia in Alaska.

---

Final Thought

If the summit ends with a polite handshake and joint press conference, we’ll breathe a sigh of relief. But if it ends with Putin in handcuffs, a private jet to The Hague, and Trump live-streaming the whole thing on Truth Social?

But if he did? He’d cast himself as the hero he’s always longed to be, even if it meant betraying his deep-seated admiration for autocrats and some of the worst figures in human history—an act so wildly out of character it would send shockwaves through both his allies and enemies, leaving the world to wonder if it was justice, opportunism, or just another reality show twist.

Honestly… in 2025, I wouldn’t bet against it.

Compiled with aid of Google Gemini & ChatGPT 5

💥 Burning Bridges and Breaking Treaties: Trump’s NATO Playbook

Donald Trump's actions and rhetoric as President of the United States have been criticized as undermining Article 2 of the NATO Treaty, which promotes economic collaboration among member states to reduce the risk of conflict stemming from divergent economic policies.

📜 What Article 2 of the NATO Charter Says:

“The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.”

This article is about more than just military defense — it emphasizes mutual economic cooperation and reducing economic tensions within the alliance.

---

💥 Ways Trump Has Been Accused of Violating the Spirit of Article 2:

1. Trade Wars with NATO Allies

Trump initiated and escalated trade disputes with key NATO members like Canada, Germany, and the EU by:

• Imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from allies under national security grounds (Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act).

• Threatening tariffs on European cars.

• Retaliating against French digital services taxes.

These measures sparked tit-for-tat tariffs, harming cross-border economic stability and undermining efforts to reduce economic conflicts.

2. Publicly Undermining Allies

Trump often framed NATO allies as economic "freeloaders", accusing them of taking advantage of the U.S. economically and militarily. This antagonistic framing:

• Soured economic relations between member countries.

• Undermined trust that underpins collaborative trade and development.

3. Discouraging Investment & Stability

Trump’s repeated threats to withdraw from NATO and his transactional approach to alliances created uncertainty in:

• Defense-related industries and transatlantic investment.

• The overall economic stability that NATO promotes.

Such uncertainty can discourage long-term planning and undermine cooperative projects, particularly in technology, infrastructure, and energy security.

---

🧠 The Bigger Picture:

While Article 2 doesn’t have enforcement mechanisms or binding legal clauses, it sets a tone of solidarity, peace, and shared prosperity. Trump's confrontational and unilateral economic policies weakened that solidarity and contradicted the spirit and purpose of economic collaboration in the alliance.

This doesn't mean Trump formally broke Article 2 in a legal sense — NATO articles aren't typically "violated" like criminal laws — but many critics argue that he betrayed its intent and undermined NATO unity.

While it's true that Article 2 of the NATO treaty doesn't contain enforceable legal mechanisms, its language is foundational in shaping the alliance's ethos — promoting peace, economic cooperation, and mutual respect among member nations. Trump's aggressive economic posturing, particularly his trade threats against allies and transactional approach to defense funding, ran counter to the spirit of collaborative partnership Article 2 seeks to uphold. These actions may not constitute a formal violation, but they eroded trust and unity within NATO at a time when cohesion was vital.

Supporters of Trump’s approach often cheer his tough talk, seeing it as a businessman’s no-nonsense strategy to make allies “pay their fair share.” But even from that perspective, his tactics backfired. Instead of strengthening America’s position, they alienated key allies, made coordination harder, and gave adversaries like Russia and China an opening to exploit divisions. Undermining trust within NATO doesn’t just hurt European partners — it weakens the very alliances that give the U.S. global leverage, intelligence sharing, and strategic reach without having to bear the burden alone. So even if someone dismisses NATO’s idealistic goals, it’s still a bad deal for America’s power and security.

Compiled with aid from ChatGPT

If Trump Were Zelensky: From 2020 Russian Invasion of Ukraine Until Today

Timeline of Zelensky’s/Trump's Leadership From the 2022 Russian Invasion to the 2025 Oval Office Meeting

1. February 24, 2022 – Russia Invades Ukraine

• Zelensky's Response: Refused to flee Kyiv, rallied Ukrainians with defiant speeches, and secured international military aid.
• If Trump Were President of Ukraine: Likely would have tried to negotiate with Putin instead of resisting, possibly delaying military mobilization while claiming he could "make a deal."

2. March 2022 – Kyiv Under Siege

• Zelensky's Response: Walked the streets of Kyiv in defiance, rejected U.S. evacuation offers with "I need ammunition, not a ride."
• If Trump Were President: Would likely have fled to Western Ukraine or abroad while claiming the war would have never happened if he were in charge. Would have blamed NATO, the EU, or past Ukrainian leaders. He would have prioritized evacuation to ensure his personal safety, potentially accepting the "ride" offered.

3. April–May 2022 – War Crimes in Bucha, Defense of Mariupol

• Zelensky's Response: Exposed Russian atrocities, secured more weapons, and rallied Western nations.
• If Trump Were President: Likely would have downplayed war crimes, possibly saying "both sides have done bad things." Would have obsessed over who praised or criticized him, rather than military strategy.

4. September 2022 – Ukrainian Counteroffensive in Kharkiv

• Zelensky's Response: Oversaw one of the war’s most successful counterattacks, reclaiming occupied territory.
• If Trump Were President: Would have taken full credit for any success while attacking his own generals if anything went wrong.

5. December 2022 – Zelensky's Historic Speech to U.S. Congress

• Zelensky's Response: Addressed Congress in person, securing more military aid and strengthening U.S.-Ukraine ties.
• If Trump Were President: Would have demanded personal loyalty from Congress, attacked critics, and likely insulted allies who weren’t giving Ukraine “enough.”

6. 2023–2024 – Stalemate and Struggles for More U.S. Aid

• Zelensky's Response: Maintained global support, pressed Congress, and kept morale high despite heavy losses.
• If Trump Were President: Would have blamed NATO and Europe for not doing more, possibly considering deals with Russia to end the war on unfavorable terms.

7. February 2025 – Oval Office Meeting With Trump

• Zelensky's Reality: Berated and pressured while standing firm on Ukraine’s needs.
• If Trump Were in Zelensky’s Shoes: The meeting would have been a complete disaster:
• Trump would have taken everything personally, likely ranting about unfair treatment.
• He might have threatened to walk out, insulted Congress, or refused to take responsibility for Ukraine’s struggles.
• Instead of rallying support, he would have blamed allies and possibly hinted at withdrawing from the war altogether.

If the roles had been reversed—meaning Zelensky was in Trump's position as the U.S. president, and Trump was the leader of a nation at war facing Russian aggression—Zelensky would likely have handled the situation very differently.

Zelensky’s Likely Approach:

1. Respectful Diplomacy: Zelensky has consistently treated world leaders with diplomatic courtesy, even in difficult situations. Instead of berating Trump, he would have likely expressed firm support while encouraging a strong alliance.
2. Commitment to Aid: Given Zelensky’s track record, he would have reassured Trump that the U.S. remains committed to providing assistance, whether in military aid, humanitarian relief, or diplomatic efforts.
3. Clear Communication: Zelensky is direct but measured. He would have likely acknowledged Trump’s struggles while emphasizing the importance of international unity against Russian aggression.
4. Public Support: Rather than embarrassing Trump in front of the press, Zelensky would have reinforced a public show of unity, avoiding the kind of humiliation that Trump subjected him to in the real meeting.

In contrast, Trump’s actual behavior toward Zelensky was dismissive and condescending, showing little empathy for a wartime leader. Had the situation been reversed, Zelensky would have approached it with far more tact and leadership.

Final Takeaway

Zelensky has led with resilience, diplomacy, and unwavering focus on Ukraine’s survival. If Trump had been in his position, Ukraine might not have lasted this long, as his need for personal praise, deal-making tendencies, and lack of military strategy would have played into Putin’s hands.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

If Trump Were Zelensky: How He Would Have Melted Down in the Oval Office Showdown

First a couple of things.

Fox News Brit Hume: "It didn't see that Zelensky was reading the room." At the Oval Office meeting. Who the FUCK could have read THAT room? I wasn't reading THAT room when I was watching it unfold! It was a room of Trump mental patient inmates.

From "The Angry Staffer" - "The Most Embarrassing Day".

This blog came from this concept: "Take the Trump / Zelensky Oval Office meeting yesterday and turn it around. How would TRUMP have handled that situation with Zelensky's VP attack dogging Trump? Exactly."

Yesterday in the Oval Office, America was humiliated while the Right, Republicans, and Trump supporters attempted to lay the blame all at the feet of Ukraine's Pres. Zelensky, who was by all accounts treated very improperly for the leader of a state at war.

Also...

The recent Oval Office meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has raised questions regarding its orchestration and the timing of Russian media coverage.

Pre-Arranged Coverage:

Russian state media's access to the meeting suggests a degree of pre-arrangement. A reporter from Russia's state-owned news agency gained entry to the Oval Office, even as other media outlets were barred. This unusual access indicates that Russian media were prepared to cover the event extensively.

Timing and Coordination:

The swift and detailed reporting by Russian media following the meeting points to prior knowledge. Russian officials, including former President Dmitry Medvedev, quickly commented on the incident, describing Zelenskyy's treatment as a "proper rebuke." This rapid response suggests coordination and possible pre-awareness of the meeting's dynamics.

Speculations on Trump-Putin Communication:

While the orchestrated media coverage raises questions about the meeting's setup, there is no concrete evidence linking President Trump and President Putin in arranging the event. The timing of Russian reactions aligns more with the meeting's immediate aftermath than with any coordinated effort between Trump and Putin.

In summary, the access granted to Russian state media and the rapidity of their coverage suggest a level of pre-arrangement, though direct involvement of Trump and Putin remains speculative without further evidence.

Zelensky was treated shamefully in the White House, especially considering that he is a wartime leader fighting for his country’s survival. Instead of being met with the dignity and respect due to a head of state risking everything against an aggressive invader, he was subjected to public berating and political grandstanding.

Why This Treatment Was Disgraceful:

1. A Disregard for Diplomacy – Instead of a constructive discussion on Ukraine’s needs, the meeting became a humiliating spectacle where Zelensky was talked down to rather than treated as a critical U.S. ally.

2. Undermining an Ally in Crisis – Ukraine is not just asking for aid out of desperation; it is actively fighting a war that aligns with U.S. national security interests. The way Zelensky was handled signaled weakness in America’s commitment to defending democracy against authoritarian aggression.

3. A Break from Traditional U.S. Conduct – Historically, U.S. presidents have shown strong support for allies at war, regardless of party politics. Forcing Zelensky into a pleading position in the Oval Office was a stark contrast to how past leaders, like Churchill or other wartime allies, were treated.

4. Fuel for Russian Propaganda – The humiliation of Zelensky on U.S. soil played right into Putin’s hands. Russia thrives on any sign that Ukraine is losing Western support, and this moment likely gave the Kremlin ammunition to claim that America is abandoning Ukraine.

5. A Missed Opportunity for Unity – Instead of rallying support, the meeting sent a divisive message. It should have been a moment to reaffirm that defending Ukraine is in America’s best interest, not an occasion for public disrespect.

Zelensky’s treatment in the White House was not just disrespectful to him—and to America as it was a bad look for America as a global leader. At a time when authoritarian regimes are watching for signs of Western weakness, the handling of Zelensky sent all the wrong signals. Pres. Trump seems to be vying for a position for America as anything in the world but its leader, going forward.

Zelensky handled the Oval Office debacle with remarkable restraint and composure—far better than many leaders would have in his position.

1. He Stayed Focused on Ukraine’s Survival – Instead of getting caught up in the political theatrics, Zelensky kept redirecting the conversation back to the stakes of the war and Ukraine’s need for continued U.S. support.

2. He Pushed Back Without Escalating – When Trump berated him, Zelensky firmly but diplomatically countered, making it clear that Ukraine had already delivered on its commitments. He didn’t resort to anger, which could have alienated U.S. lawmakers, but also didn’t back down.

3. He Resisted Being Humiliated – The moment could have turned into a power play where Zelensky was forced into a submissive stance, but he refused to let that happen. His body language, tone, and words all signaled that he was an equal leader fighting for his country, not a beggar.

4. He Handled the Pressure in Real Time – The public nature of the moment, with cameras rolling, meant Zelensky had to balance assertiveness with diplomacy. He didn’t let Trump bait him into a spectacle, which would have played into the hands of Russian propaganda.

5. He Showed Strength Under Fire – Instead of letting frustration take over, Zelensky held his ground with facts and logic, reinforcing Ukraine’s contributions and needs without losing his cool.

Overall, he turned an uncomfortable, humiliating situation into a demonstration of leadership, proving why he remains an effective advocate for Ukraine on the world stage.

If the roles were reversed—where Ukraine was a superpower aiding the U.S. in a war against Russia, and Trump was in Zelensky's position yesterday, the Oval Office debacle would have played out very differently. Here’s how:

1. Trump’s Ego Wouldn’t Allow Humility

Zelensky handled the situation with restraint, pushing back firmly but staying diplomatic. Trump, on the other hand, does not handle criticism well. If a foreign leader berated him in the Oval Office, he would immediately fire back—likely louder and more aggressively.

2. He’d Turn It Into a Personal Grievance

Instead of keeping the focus on America’s survival (like Zelensky did for Ukraine), Trump would likely shift the conversation to how he personally felt insulted. He might say something like:

"Nobody’s done more for Ukraine—excuse me, America—than me! And you’re treating me like this? Very unfair!"

3. He’d Make It About Respect

Trump often demands total loyalty and praise, so if the Ukrainian leader (in this case, the powerful one) was grilling him, he’d lash out about being disrespected rather than addressing the military aid issue.

4. He’d Threaten to Walk Out

Zelensky stood his ground and kept the conversation going. Trump, however, might storm out or threaten to cut ties, saying something like:

"Maybe we don’t need your aid! Maybe we should just go it alone! Maybe Ukraine doesn’t appreciate us!"

5. He’d Brag About How He Could End the War Instantly

Instead of focusing on securing more support, he might claim he alone could solve the war if only he were in charge of both sides—similar to his past claims about ending the Ukraine war in “24 hours.”

6. He’d Turn to the Cameras for a Show

Zelensky kept his cool under pressure. Trump, however, would turn it into a performance, talking past the Ukrainian leader and addressing the media:

"See, folks? Very unfair. They’re not treating us right. And quite frankly, America deserves better. Maybe we should stop fighting Russia altogether—who knows?!"

Final Takeaway

Trump’s inability to handle criticism, love for theatrics, and need for dominance would have made the meeting chaotic, combative, and counterproductive. Instead of advocating for America’s survival, he would have made it about himself—probably damaging U.S.-Ukraine relations in the process.

America can do better. We just need a leader somewhat comparable to one who holds the Office of the President of the United States of America.

 Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

American Military Parades Are Redundant in Exhibiting Our Power

I wanted to know more about the concept of military parades before #realDonadlTrump got involved and found an article from Australia from 2015.

At the rate Donald Trump as president is losing ground in his self righteousness, I'm not sure how much this will remain relevant or for how long. Still it's good to know, to be aware.

Why DON'T we have dictator style military parades like in China, North Korea, Russia, etc.?

Maybe that question answers itself. We don't want to be perceived as tyrants, dictators, bullies. Donald Trump does. And so, who wants a military parade in America now? Well, DT obviously.

Military parades display for the world to see, not just one's citizen's, our weapons in a way that is impressive and exploits considerations of dominance and power.

America...doesn't need to do that. It diminishes our dominance and power in displaying it. In part why Teddy Roosevelt said, "Speak softly and CARRY (not display) a big stick." Speak with authority, while knowing you have in your arsenal the power to back it up. Minor dictators show off (including China) because they feel they need to, or to inspire their citizens because they need that.

America simply doesn't need that for any of these reasons.

According to an article in the Atlantic:

"Despite the popular image of Roosevelt as a swashbuckling uber-American, his words have, over time, been cast and recast incorrectly as an endorsement of bellicosity. In fact, the president who stormed Kettle Hill as a younger man generally preferred letting the military's mere existence speak for itself. Historian Edmund Morris writes that the night Roosevelt first gave his big-stick speech, the then-vice president's words were rather misconstrued:

"This generated such loud applause as to suggest the audience took his 'adage' as aggressive, rather than cautionary. Actually, Roosevelt was trying to say that soft-spoken (even secret) diplomacy should be the priority of a civilization, as long as hardness -- of moral resolve, of military might -- lay back of it."

That, pretty much says it all.

Donald Trump in being Trump, and in wanting a military parade, is exhibiting exactly what and who he is and using America to back up simply being a petty bully. Such as he is. And an immature actor. One with plenty of signs of being a sociopath, such as many CEOs are reported to be. Some with criminal tendencies, such as Mr. Trump certainly appears to be.

Either way, THAT is not America. Yet that sadly is some people's perception of us. Our "weight" and power and money alone, are our bully tools. To do anything bully-like is to be redundant, petty, and much less than we are, and should be.


#GOP #realDonaldTrump #POTUS #Republican #conservative

Edward Snowden

I happened to catch this guy on the radio yesterday and even paid for the pdf to read it all. I found what he had to say, compelling, to say the least. I'm not into conspiracy theories, I like to deal in fact, if and when you can divine what that might be. And with government recently, it's been getting harder and harder to tell what is going on.

Not to mention, our enemies have been getting harder to know of, deal with and stop from causing us grief. Albeit, as times we may have asked for the grief we have gotten. Even though it may have been something we did long ago. Not to mention, we may now be getting blamed (honestly, as we always have and somewhat rightfully so, but less so today, perhaps) for things corporations have done. Corporations have morphed far beyond our understanding or control. The puny controls we had in place to keep them in their place have been superseded long ago. They have grown so big and multinational that they are now, at least to some degree, controlling our government.

I do think our government means well, mostly I think people in government mean well, with a side of greed and lack of empathy many times, but I also think they need to be kept under control (as our Founding Father made it abundantly clear, time and time again). Much like like a pit bull trained to kill, needs to be kept under control. You just don't let it run free. It's not unlike a loaded gun, if you don't pay attention at ALL times as to what its up to, well, you are responsible for what happens.

Years ago when I first spoke out against terrorists and their kind, it was a concern regarding being targeted. Faint though that may be. Not that I think I'm anybody important or greatly noticed. One just never knows about these things, right? Ones to whom a finger might be pointed and great attention paid to. After all the ones to raise their head or be noticeable in the wrong ways, tend to be the ones who get beat down. It's nearly the law of sociology. I just never thought that one day my concern about being watched, monitored, or abused, might come from my own country. The freedoms are becoming thin, and the potentials for abuse, more pronounced.

Sadly, our government much of the time isn't. Responsible, that is. It hides its actions, misdirects attention and out right lies to its owners. Not all the time to be sure, it's not as bad as some conspiracy theorists would have us believe. Still today, at this time, things are pretty bad and we do need to reign things in. Our security industry is out of control, in size if nothing else. We need protection, but we need competent diplomacy over that of security and secrets to make us safe. Leaning on security techniques over diplomacy is always dangerous, and lazy.

Some of the things that look the worst in government are simply a multiplicity of processes going in unforeseen directions, being mismanaged, and you can add in some greed and self-serving interests (like the extreme and not so extreme, conservatives out there).

Anyway, this guy had some very interesting things to say about Edward Snowden, things we haven't heard in the media, or on the news and I highly suggest listening to what he has to say. Who is this guy and what does he have to say? Here is the lead in from the program:

RAY McGOVERN - Whistleblowers
University Temple United Methodist Church, Seattle, WA 17 October 2013
"Ray McGovern is a 27-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency. He helped form Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence. Sam Adams was McGovern’s colleague at the CIA. McGovern and several other former intelligence officials went to Russia in October to honor Edward Snowden with the Sam Adams Award. Ray McGovern also works for Tell the Word, a ministry of the inner-city Washington D.C. Church of the Saviour."

Now I expected this to be utter nonsense. I have a background in military and studied the cold war, while it was happening. I'm hard to fool. But after a few minutes of listening to this guy, some of my undecided opinions on Snowden, started to coalesce, and were not what I had expected them to be. It's worth a few bucks to hear what this guy had to say. I could quote it here but it would be best in his own words. He rambles a bit, but bear with him, and hear what he has to say.

We all need to start rethinking things and getting the powers that be back under OUR control. Not that they ever were completely, but this is ridiculous, how things have gotten. Be well.

Putin's letter to the American People on Syria

#murdockinations #Syria
On September 11th, the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin sent a letter to the New York Times to directly address the American people. It is an interesting read (reading between the lines of his letter).

I do question our belief in our perceived exceptionalism now a days. There are certainly still things that make America great, but is it really what we are being led to believe it is? Or is it in something else more intrinsic to who we are and in what we can positively achieve in the world? I'm hoping, more and more it involves non-military practices.

It's high time we start redesigning our military / industrial complex, how we believe they should be used (or how we are being used by them) and in doing so, take control back from them.

The middle east is a complicated place. We need to understand that what we publicly say as a nation, is not always what we will do in the end (or so it should be). That's how it works in manipulating a situation toward more positive results. Finesse a situation. Only fools believe they have to use force all the time.

Do we need to have the "big stick" behind the talk? Does the "big stick" need to be used so often in dealing out its death and destruction all (any) of the time? When one uses that "big stick" too much, it begins to turn into another thing. It changes those who wield it and that makes that entire theory of this type of diplomacy questionable.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far," said President Roosevelt. What do you want that to mean? And what does "speak softly" really mean? I believe it means to speak civilly, intelligently, sometimes behind the scenes even, but always effectively. Backing it up with strength. The goal after all, is to not go beyond that.

We seem to have lost that understanding far too often in not applying intellect over force. How do we know that you ask? Really? Because we've been using force a lot in case you haven't noticed. And if we don't at some point stop it, then who have we really become?


NOTE: A blatant plug for a Friend.
People keep trying to spam my blog so I might as well just do it myself, right?
IF you've had quite enough of all this reality stuff, check out fellow Author Kurt Giambastiani's latest ebook novelette, "The Revitalization of Emily", on Amazon.
Cheers!