Better Off?

 Better Off?

I regularly see posts, usually from Republicans, who are cheering their lower gas prices. They just filled up and noticed the difference. For them and others I thought a little reflection might be in order.

Gas prices are very slightly lower. Gasoline was $3.20 in October of 2024 and dropped to $3.06 in 2025. You are paying $2.80 less for 20 gallons than a year ago. If you fill up once a week, your annual gas savings would be $146.

Grocery prices are up around 3.2% from a year ago if you avoid coffee, beef and certain fresh vegetables which have seen significant increases. A $100 grocery bill will be $3.20 higher than your 2024 bill. That’s an annual increase of $192 for a household spending the national average of $500 month.

General consumer goods, excluding food and energy, increased by 2.9% from a year ago. With the average American spending $77,280 a year for housing, insurance, etc., you will annually spend $2,241 more than you did a year ago.

If the ACA (Affordable Care Act) enhanced premium tax credits expire as predicted, the average family with an income of $85,000 will see an annual increase of $3,768.

So, are we better off today than we were a year ago? A quick look at the figures above shows you will be saving $146 each year on gasoline. But, if we then deduct the increases in groceries, consumer goods, and healthcare which total $6,201, we find that you will be $6,055 poorer than before. So, before you run out and treat your family to a nice dinner with that $146 you saved at the pump, perhaps you might want to spend some time looking for a second job that will bring in an extra $6,000.

Note: All of this assumes that you are not an American farmer who must now rely on a federal bailout, or a former federal worker now out of a job, or you just lost your job because your employer’s business depended heavily on imported goods, or you lost your job because your industry relied directly or indirectly on federal contracts that just got cut.

Your mileage may vary, some settling of contents may have occurred during shipping, and objects in the mirror are closer than they appear. As always, that plastic bag is not a toy and it should be kept away from small children and dumb politicians. On second thought, ignore what I said about politicians.

What Is Antifa?

 What Is Antifa?

On September 22, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order declaring Antifa a “Terrorist Threat” that is trying to overthrow the United States Government. With the stroke of a pen he stated, “I hereby designate Antifa as a “domestic terrorist organization.”

Since even our president seems to be confused, perhaps a better explanation of "antifa" is in order. Antifa is a label just as MAGA is a label. It is a word used to describe a decentralized ideology. Antifa, like MAGA, is a political protest movement comprised of autonomous groups affiliated by a set of common ideas. While MAGA is an acronym for Make America Great Again, Antifa is a portmanteau which blends the words “anti” as in against, and the “fa” in fascism. Antifa then is simply a group against fascism.

Since fascism is an ideology that supports ultranationalism under authoritarian control that emphasizes nation and race over the individual, you might reasonably infer that anyone who is not anti-fascist must support racism and authoritarian rule. With this understanding it is easier to see why the president might want to quash anyone who doesn’t want an authoritarian form of government.

Perhaps it is easier to be against a somewhat poorly understood ideology like “antifa” than to say you support an authoritarian form of government. Using the word antifa to create a scary boogeyman can be useful to incite others to action. It would be unfashionable to say you aspire to the type of government promoted by Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini. You might, however, get people to oppose a “mysterious group” that opposes your authoritarian ideas.

Both Hitler and Mussolini rose to power during political and economic instability. In Germany and Italy of the early 20th century there was political and economic turmoil. In today’s US, there was already political division, but the economy was very strong. Under Donald Trump the nation is further divided than when he took office and he seems to be working hard (tariffs) to create economic turmoil. When both things exist, it is easier to justify your ham-handed authoritarian solutions.

It is true that followers of both antifa and MAGA ideologies have turned to violence. When that happens, the government should use the full power of the law to bring peace. It should not, however, selectively seek to crush one while issuing presidential pardons for those violent individuals who happen to support your authoritarian concepts. Lady Justice is blindfolded by design.

For the reasons outlined above, everyone who believes in democracy is by definition, antifa. Fascism and democracy are polar opposites. If you disagree with the antifa ideology you must support fascism and its inherent racist authoritarian ideology. So I ask the question, do you support the governments aspired to by Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini, or do you support our U.S. Constitution and the democracy outlined by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787? Are you a patriotic American who supports our laws and ideals or do you support fascism? There are no fence straddlers here.

Law and Order

 

Motherhood and Apple Pie; Hot Dogs and the Fourth of July. As every politician knows, it’s best to identify with ideals that provide common ground for your audience. Anything patriotic or truly American will be a good start as well as anything that speaks of good versus evil.

Law and order is a topic on which everyone agrees and, like religious piety, it is often an attitude of “holier than thou.” Since everyone supports law and order, it is merely a matter of degree. In American politics, Republicans have historically positioned themselves as the “law and order” party, a theme that emphasizes strong enforcement and harsher penalties to combat crime.

In the 1960s it was Richard (I am not a crook) Nixon and Ronald Reagan who frequently tried to portray themselves as being “tough on crime.” Within this claim is strong support for law enforcement, mandatory sentencing, and capital punishment. Not to be outdone, Donald Trump campaigned for a federal crackdown on crime and declared that it is a “passion for me.”

As a “law and order” candidate, Donald Trump’s 34 guilty verdicts and felony convictions in June of 2024, seem to undermine his claim of “law and order” reverence. After his convictions, many within the party attacked the integrity of the judicial system. Republicans stood united behind their convicted felon and, during the 2024 Republican National Convention, the party welcomed convicted felons as guests. Others within the party, like Texas Rep. Chip Roy, openly suggested ignoring the Supreme Court’s ruling on federal authority over the U.S.-Mexico border.

Republicans claim to champion the police, but when they are the targets of police scrutiny, they have advocated for cuts to those agencies. The DOJ and FBI were frequent targets until Trump won the presidency and fired his opposition within those offices and replaced them with “loyal Trumpians.” Many of those “guilty” of even investigating him have themselves been targets of investigations and charges.

Another area which is at odds with Trump’s tough on crime stance is his “pardon pen.” He has selectively pardoned criminals who support him politically and financially. There was Ross Ulbricht serving a life sentence for massive ($200M) drug distribution, fraud, computer hacking, stolen passports, and money laundering pardoned by Trump. It didn’t hurt that Mr. Ulbricht was a bitcoin promoter and his family worked to raise $100M for the Trump campaign.

He just pardoned former Representative George Santos, who was serving a seven-year sentence for wire fraud and identity theft. Speaker Mike Johnson defended the action saying, “We believe in redemption,” (as long as you are Republican). Republicans also believe that Tom Homan, Trump’s border czar, should be excused for his “indiscretion.” It seems he took $50,000 in a paper bag from FBI agents in an attempt to secure border contracts if Trump won the election.

Then there was Rod Blagojevich convicted of wire fraud, extortion, and bribe solicitation. Although he was the Democratic governor of Illinois, he was a contestant on Trump’s Celebrity Apprentice and supported Trump’s 2 presidential campaigns. He got a full pardon.

Then there was Jean Pinkard a Nurse Practitioner who was part of a $41M opioid distribution scheme also pardoned. Larry Hoover had a life sentence for narcotics conspiracy as part of a criminal enterprise and he was pardoned. Trump’s crackdown on drugs seems to be very selective.

There was Trevor Milton convicted of securities fraud and wire fraud who got pardoned after he contributed $1.8M to the Trump campaign. I’m guessing white collar crimes are just too close to home for comfort and cash is always a way to Trump’s heart.

Often overlooked in all of these pardons is the loss of revenue for taxpayers. On this list are Jason Galanis who owed $37M, Ozy Media, Inc., owed $36M, and Carlos Watson who owed $36M. All were involved in securities fraud, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft. There was also Paul Walczak who owed the government $4M and now he’s off the hook. Imaad Shah Zuberi was another campaign donor who was sentenced to prison and ordered to pay $15M in restitution and $1.75 in fines that Trump pardoned.

For someone in a party that claims to support the police departments of our nation, Trump has heaped insult after injury on that concept. Those who attacked, killed and maimed police during the Trump inspired insurrection of our government on January 6th were all pardoned. Then, how about Michele Ann Fiore, aka “Lady Trump.” She was a Nevada Republican politician convicted of stealing $70K meant for a memorial for fallen police officers who stole the money and spent it on cosmetic surgery.

On the flip side of all of this for Trump he has supported police in a few areas. He has encouraged police brutality even suggesting that they no longer protect a suspects head when shoving them into a patrol car. He has ended police oversight so police won’t have to worry about federal investigation of abuses. Also in his “plus” column is the expansion of surveillance technology by police that may infringe on current personal privacy regulations.

If all of the above weren’t enough to confuse those who thought the Republican Party still stands in support of law enforcement and our legal system are his proposed budgetary cuts. He would cut billions from public safety programs including the FBI budget. He has frozen and cut (some say illegally) COPS grants that hurt this Community Oriented Policing Services initiative. In all of this Trump has been politically selective as he has defunded some agencies he has added to the coffers of his new “shadow federal police force.”

Just as Trump was quick to deploy federal law enforcement to confront protestors in Los Angeles in 2025, he was slow (read never) to assist overwhelmed police during the January 6th attacks on the Capitol. He then tried to blame former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for this inaction even though she had no direct control. Trump as Commander in Chief had the authority but anyone else would need to navigate layers of bureaucracy.

In summary, the Republican Party and its leader, Donald J. Trump, have set a double standard in both rhetoric and policy when it comes to law enforcement and the rule of law. His “tough on crime” and “law and order” stance is highly selective. He despises law enforcement when his allies (Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Pompeo, Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos, Carter Page, and Roger Stone) come under scrutiny. Those are all deemed “witch hunts.”

But Trump supports the prosecution of his enemies (John Bolton, James Comey, Leticia James, Lisa Cook, Chris Christie, Adam Schiff, Jack Smith, Miles Taylor, Christopher Krebs) and has weaponized the DOJ and the FBI to attack them. Justice in this regard is a one-way street. Redemption is, after all, rooted in the Latin word “redimere” which means to buy back.

While hypocrisy and contradictory rhetoric are mainstays in American politics, the Trump administration has taken us to new heights. Previous presidents have seen hypocrisy at the fourth-floor level of the White House, but President Trump has taken hypocrisy to Alpha Centauri levels. For the record, that’s about 4.37 light years from Earth.

The Corruption Within; The Trojan Ballroom

 The Corruption Within; The Trojan Ballroom

The title above might seem curious but the term “Trojan” refers to the Trojan Horse of Greek mythology and not the condom brand, although both references might be appropriate. In Greek mythology the Greeks built a large wooden horse and left it behind as they seemingly abandoned their fruitless ten-year siege of the city of Troy. The Greeks pretended to sail away and the Trojans pulled their “gift” inside their city walls as a victory trophy. Later that night, soldiers who had hidden inside the horse crept out, opened the gates, and allowed the rest of the Greek army to enter. The city of Troy was then destroyed.

The “Trojan horse” has become a metaphor for any malicious trick that lulls the victim into complacency with dire results. In our title reference we are only at the beginning of the siege of our rights and freedoms, the loss of our protections of our Constitution and its laws, and the actual destruction of a large portion of a national symbol of our democracy, the White House.

Yes, like the Greek soldiers in the night, Donald Trump without permits or authorization, literally destroyed the East Wing of the White House in order to build a new symbol to glorify his name. Like many of his “accomplishments”, he creates a problem and then offers to fix the problem expecting thanks and accolades. On the former site of the historic East Wing of the White House, the president plans to build a literally priceless ($250M. $300M, $350M…) ballroom.

Yes, it is Trump’s grift to the nation. Did I spell that right? Yes, I did. While Homer’s Odyssey and Virgil’s Aeneid laid the foundation of the saying, “Beware Greeks bearing gifts,” I say, “Beware of anyone named Trump bearing gifts.” To that I would add, “And don’t bend over if you don’t want to get…”

While the MAGA faithful with their Kool-Aid-stained lips gleefully shout their approval of the work of Trump’s wrecking ball and his grand plans for a 90,000 sq. ft. ballroom, others see a sacrilege. With this new space, the president can have 999 people pay him homage instead of the old limit of 200.

Will there be corruption? Of the very few things I would be willing to bet on, this is a lock. I would challenge anyone to find a single Trump-involved construction project where there wasn’t illegal activity. The grifting of America is already a runaway train. Trump recently hosted a dinner with major company representatives from Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Lockheed Martin. There were energy executives and crypto entrepreneurs who all “voluntarily” donated money to the project.

As many have learned in the last nine years, if you want anything from Donald J. Trump, pay up. Access is expensive so if you want government contracts and support, or want to avoid being on the wrong end of the militarized Justice Department and Trump selected enforcers, I mean regulators, bring lots of cash (or preferably untraceable crypto). Nothing says “open season” and corruption like a Trump sponsored construction project.

In the Trojan horse of Homer’s Odyssey fame 30-40 warriors hid in the womb of the “gift” while two spies hid in its mouth. Who will be our “Homer” to tell the tale of Trump’s corruption. The stealthy tear-down of a national symbol is but one chapter in the Trump Odyssey.

Presidents as Sociopaths

 

In certain research it has been found that there is a higher rate of sociopathy and psychopathy in CEOs compared to the general population. Certain traits in the realm of sociopathy can be desirable when confidence to act and strategic thinking are prerequisites for success. This can be a good thing when paired with integrity, empathy, and strong communication skills. One study found the sociopathy rate among CEOs could be as high as 4 to 12 percent higher than the general population. Another study found that it was as high as 25%.

Sociopathy is the older informal term for what is now called ASPD or Antisocial Personality Disorder. It is defined as having a lack of empathy, a tendency to manipulate and deceive, impulsive aggression, a disregard for rules and laws, and little or no remorse or guilt for their actions when they harm others. While this definition lists undesirable traits, not all people with ASPD are evil or dangerous and some can use their unique qualities for societal good.

Most successful politicians need to at least be skilled in the art of manipulating people. Winston Churchill used his charm and manipulative abilities to build a rapport with Joseph Stalin which was of tactical benefit during WWII. While Churchill held a deep ideological contempt for the Russian leader, he used his manipulative skills to build a formidable ally with this “fellow warlord.”

While Churchill may have exhibited some sociopathic traits these were used for good, not evil. When Donald Trump entered the political spectrum after the 2016 election, a group of psychiatrists went against principles of their profession to advance an observation without a formal in-person session. That observation concluded that DJT was an unbalanced sociopath who exhibited signs of being cruel, narcissistic, paranoid, and prone to delusions of grandeur. They violated their “Goldwater rule” as they felt it their duty to warn of an impending danger to others. Trump’s response was telling. He announced that he wasn’t just “smart, but genius…and a very stable genius at that!”

While, as previously stated, ASPD is not of itself a predictor of evil intent, but when combined with malignant narcissism, you have a volatile and dangerous mixture. The addition of malignant narcissism brings sadism, paranoia, a grandiose sense of self-importance, a lack of empathy and remorse, manipulative and controlling behavior, and a willingness to harm or exploit others to achieve personal goals.

All of what is described above can be shown in anecdotal
observations of our current president. Perhaps the most dangerous of his traits is his ability to manipulate, a skill honed over many decades. His MAGA faithful bring to mind a sci-fi classic horror film that is now protected in the National Film Registry as “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant”. The Invasion of the Body Snatchers ranks number nine in the sci-fi genre. I remember seeing this 1956 film “back in the day” and I found it truly terrifying. The Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a political allegory if viewed as a warning against conformity and loss of identity.

In the film alien spores drop from outer space and grow into large seed pods. These pods possess the ability to assimilate the physical traits and personalities of any human who sleeps nearby. The result is a duplicate “human” identical to the original but devoid of all human emotion. These “pod people” then help distribute more pods to take over other populations. I find many in the MAGA cult to be pod-like in their thinking as they take on the traits of Pod-master Trump. It is sociopathy by absorption.

Unitary Executive Theory

 

In a recent NYT article about the expansion of powers being bestowed upon the position of president resulting in a minimizing of congressional oversight, the term Unitary Executive Theory was used. This major shift in our understanding of the US Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers, is being justified by an originalist interpretation of that document. It is this originalist position upon which this new court has been relying in recent decisions. In many of these decisions they extensively quote a leading originalist law professor, Caleb Nelson, a former law clerk to Clarence Thomas.

An “originalist interpretation” of the constitution is one that holds the document should be viewed based on the original public meaning at the time it was adopted. This is contrary to the “living constitution” idea which holds that the founders intended the Constitution evolve over time. It would be like interpreting the modern Bible through the lens of the Old Testament.

The NYT article points out that the originalist Professor Nelson denies that originalism supports the unitary executive theory. Nelson’s opinion should carry weight as he has been cited by every one of the six conservative majority in over a dozen of their opinions.

In extending the powers of the president, Chief Justice Roberts referenced debates during the first Congress (two and a half centuries ago) saying they settled the matter. Professor Nelson disagrees and warned against “legalizing the full exertion of a tyrannical disposition.” He goes on that the first Congress did not come to a consensus as they realized that not all future presidents would have the sterling character of George Washington. It would take one Donald John Trump to prove them very right.

For those who would like to dive deeper into the Unitary Executive Theory, I decided to put that to ChatGPT for their analysis. You will find it below.

-----------------------------

Analysis of the Unitary Executive Theory in the United States

I. Introduction

The Unitary Executive Theory (UET) is a constitutional doctrine concerning the scope of presidential power within the American system of separation of powers. At its core, the theory posits that Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests all executive power in the President, granting the office broad authority over the entire executive branch. While the extent of that authority remains contested, UET has been a central point of debate in constitutional law, administrative governance, and presidential practice—especially since the late 20th century.

________________________________________

II. Constitutional Foundation

The Unitary Executive Theory draws its textual basis primarily from Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which states that “the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Proponents interpret this as granting the President direct control over all officials who execute federal law. They contrast this with Article I, which vests legislative powers in Congress collectively, suggesting that the President’s authority is singular, hierarchical, and indivisible.

Supporters of the theory often emphasize the Take Care Clause (“he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”) as evidence that the President must have the ability to direct, supervise, and, if necessary, remove executive officers to ensure faithful execution of the law.

________________________________________

III. Historical and Judicial Development

Historically, the roots of UET can be traced to the debates of the First Congress in 1789, particularly the “Decision of 1789,” in which legislators appeared to affirm the President’s unilateral authority to remove executive officers. However, this precedent has been interpreted in varying ways over time.

The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence has oscillated between expansive and limited readings of presidential control:

• Myers v. United States (1926): The Court struck down congressional restrictions on the President’s ability to remove executive officers, embracing a strong version of UET.

• Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935): The Court limited Myers, upholding restrictions on removal for members of independent regulatory commissions, distinguishing between “purely executive” and “quasi-legislative/judicial” functions.

• Morrison v. Olson (1988): The Court further upheld limits on removal power in the context of independent counsels, rejecting a robust UET.

• Seila Law v. CFPB (2020): A modern partial revival of the theory, the Court struck down restrictions on the President’s ability to remove the single director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, reaffirming the President’s constitutional control over executive officers.

________________________________________

IV. Theoretical and Practical Implications

In theory, the Unitary Executive enhances accountability and efficiency, ensuring that the executive branch acts under a clear line of democratic responsibility. If all executive power flows from the President, voters can more easily attribute success or failure in governance to one elected individual.

Critics, however, argue that the theory risks concentrating excessive power in the presidency, undermining the system of checks and balances and threatening independent oversight institutions. They emphasize that the framers designed a system of divided powers to prevent tyranny, not to create an “imperial presidency.”

Practically, UET influences debates over:

• The independence of agencies like the FTC, SEC, and CFPB.

• Executive privilege and control over information.

• Presidential authority in national security and administrative rulemaking.

• The scope of executive orders and signing statements.

________________________________________

V. Contemporary Relevance

In recent decades, UET has been associated with efforts to expand presidential power, particularly in national security and administrative governance. The George W. Bush administration invoked the theory to justify broad executive discretion in the War on Terror, while later administrations have cited it in debates over regulatory control and executive orders. The Supreme Court’s evolving approach suggests a partial return to a stronger executive model, especially regarding removal power and agency independence.

________________________________________

VI. Conclusion

The Unitary Executive Theory remains a cornerstone of constitutional debate in the United States, reflecting the ongoing tension between energy in the executive—as Alexander Hamilton advocated in Federalist No. 70—and the principle of separated powers essential to republican government. Whether viewed as a necessary safeguard of effective governance or as a potential enabler of executive overreach, the theory continues to shape the structure and operation of the modern presidency.

A Trump Report Card

Donald J. Trump, like many politicians, made promises on the campaign trail. We know to ignore the absurd ones like, end the war in Gaza in the first 24 hours. It has taken over 6,360 hours to get a ceasefire, with an end to the conflict still yet to come.

Other promises we take more seriously. The ones his supporters really relied on were lowering grocery prices, lowering gas prices, lowering inflation, more jobs, and a better economy for all (not just the wealthy). Let’s see how he did.

• Continued inflation: Despite Trump's campaign promises to lower prices, food costs have continued to rise. The overall cost of food-at-home was up 2.7% year-over-year in August 2025.

• Specific price hikes: Certain imported items, which are subject to Trump's tariffs, have seen some of the largest increases.

o Coffee: Prices for coffee have surged, with one recent report showing a 20.9% increase over the past year.

o Beef and orange juice: Both are more than 10% more expensive than a year ago.

• Tariff impact: Economic analysts attribute some of the recent upward pressure on grocery prices to the tariffs implemented by the Trump administration.

• Consumer sentiment: Recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans find groceries harder to afford, a sentiment that has remained strong despite claims by the administration that inflation has been defeated.

• Gas prices: Gasoline prices today are $3.10 gal. While the president claimed in April that prices were $1.98 gal., a nationwide search found that not one state had prices anywhere close to that wild claim. Last October of 2024 the average cost of gas was $3.1367. So, Trump can now claim that, after nine months in office, he has trimmed fuel prices by around three cents. To put this in perspective, a car driving the 2,875 miles from Washington D.C. to San Francisco, that got 20mpg, would save $4.31. Let’s break out the champagne but know that bottle will now cost you more due to the tariffs and the price increase will wipe out that fuel savings.

• Unemployment: The U.S. unemployment rate was 4.1% in October 2024. This year, the last numbers were done in August and were at 4.3%. Federal worker firings will have a ripple effect and won’t show up in the statistics in the private sector for a while.

• Automobile prices: While imported cars will see the most significant increases with the tariffs, domestic products will also see a ten to fifteen percent increase. This will also increase the cost of ownership with higher financing, insurance premiums, and sales tax.

• Home prices: The tariffs have also meant higher construction costs for new homes. The National Association of Home Builders predicts an increase of $10,900 per home.

• American economy: The greatest overall effect of tariffs has been to sucker punch a healthy economy. With higher consumer prices, increased costs for businesses, reduced competitiveness, economic uncertainty, lower productivity, job displacement, and supply chain disruption, the current economy and its outlook are rather bleak. While we entered 2025 with an economy gathering steam, the future holds uncertainty. Business investments don’t like uncertainty.

• Farmers: The Trump tariffs have hit U.S. farmers hard. They have cut access to foreign markets while driving up the costs of farming operations. The quick loss of the Chinese market alone has caused crop prices to collapse which created a surplus that farmers now have to scramble for storage space. Fertilizer prices have gone up $100 a ton. Immigration crackdowns have cut available work forces by up to 40% and efforts by the Dept. of Labor to find American replacements for these low wage jobs has failed. Increased costs and crop losses will force higher grocery prices and farmers will not survive without a government bailout.

This snapshot just hits some of the high notes of the current Trump presidency. I won’t assign a grade here but, if you read the above and think he qualifies for a passing grade, perhaps you should scroll back to the top to see what you missed. PBS conducted a poll at the end of April assessing Trump’s first 100 days and he got an F from 45% of respondents, a D from 7%, and a C from 8%.

On the bright side, we haven’t seen tanks in the streets. Please don’t show him any video of Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in 1989 where the Chinese government put down a pro-democracy protest. He might want to try it here.