Renaming: Suggestions for the Trump Administration

After the American Century

Trump has decided to rename the Department of Defense, as the Department of War.  

Presumably, other parts of the government also will be renamed, hence the following suggestions

Present name                                Proposed change

President                                               Godfather

FBI                                                        Federal Bureau of Intimidation

Department of Justice                           Department of Payback and Reprisal

Supreme Court                                     Court of Presidential Rubber Stamping  

ICE                                                       American Gestapo

State Department                                  Department of America First

Treasury Department                            Department of Deficit Spending  

Department of the Interior                    Department of Resource Exploitation

Department of Agriculture                    Department of AgriBusiness

Department of Labor                            Department of Wonderful Statistics

Department of Health                           Department of Just Say No to Science

Center for Disease Control                   Center for Home Cures and Quackery 

Department of Energy                          Department Promoting Fossil Fuels

Homeland Security                               Department of Urban Occupation 

Department of Education                     Department of Mythology

Department of Transportation              Department of Gasoline 

    

Foundation for Humanities                  Foundation for Pride & Patriotism

Federal Trade Commission                  Arbitrary Tariffs Commission

Civil Service Commission                   Employee Termination Service

National Science Foundation               Department of University Shakedowns

Social Security                                     Ephemeral Pensions

Trump's Hundred Days of Infamy Provide Three Grounds for Impeachment

After the American Century

Donald Trump has violated his oath of office multiple times in his first 100 days. Why is no one saying this? The servility of the Republicans and the cowardice of many Democrats explain it only in part. Just as serious is the failure of the legal profession to take a stand and the failure of the press to hold Trump to the same standards that have protected the government from tyranny for 250 years.

There are many grounds for impeachment, but here are three of the most egregious problems with this would-be monarch. Each would have triggered a demand for impeachment had any earlier president done the same.

(1) Trump has grossly and repeatedly violated the emolument's clause of the Constitution.The President and his family are not allowed to use the office to enrich themselves with gits from foreign governments or individuals, but this is precisely what they have done on many occasions. The most egregious is creating a new crypto currency corporation and the promoting its sales, which have created millions in profits for the President, while hiding the origins of the money coming in.

    Another matter that cries out for investigation is the extent to which Trump and his close associates have used insider knowledge to play the stock market. It is not clear how much this has been going on, but certainly there were sudden purchases of stocks by some people immediately before Trump announced reductions in tariffs, which caused a sudden rise in the market. See the ABC news report, one of many on this matter.  Trump's sons have alos made lucrative real estate deals with foreign governments, and Trump has held a golf turnament at his Florida Doral goft course, where one literally had to pay to play. The sponsor of this tournament? The Saudis. (See New York Times for more details.) This is a short list. Trump has trampled all over the emoluments clause on many occasions, and this alone should never be allowed. He is using the office of president to enrich himself. Impeach Trump!

(2) Trump has overseen the deportation of American Citizens, legalimmigrants, and others to a prison in a foreign nation, without allowing them due process of law, without making formal charges, without even allowing them to have a lawyer. What crime could they possibly have committed that would land them in a Central American gulag? Instead of defending the Constitution, he is intentionally violating it. Impreach Trump! 

(3) Trump has repeatedly defied the courts, followed up by verbal attacks on the justices. This violates the Constitution in an unmistakeable way, and he ought to be rebuked by Congress. But instead, Congress has failed in its duties. In the first 100 days it passed only 5 laws, none of which were substantial. Meanwhile, Congress allowed Trump to carry out continual violations of the Constitution in the form of executive orders. It is not the role of the President to destroy programs that have been passed into law and funded by the Congress. If he wishes to close down a department or a program, rather than allow it to function with the allocations that it has received from Congress, then he first must get the approval of Congress. Instead, he has created an extrajudicial, unelected cadre of people who have no legal standing, and he has allowed them to fire people and close federal agencies. The Republican controlled Congress does nothing. They have failed to do their duty, and in their arrogant apssivity they show contempt for the Constitution. The Republicans will go down in history as a party that lost its way in 2016. That is why it will be difficult to Impeach Trump.

Trump is the worst president in the history of the United States. He has alienated American allies, disrupted the economy with exaggerated tariffs followed by backing down followed by new crazy tariffs. He has weakened the dollar, enabled widespread destruction of the federal government, and appointed a cabinet of toadies who have seriously damaged every government department, most notably the Departments of Justice and Defense.  His tenure as of April 30 has been 100 days of infamy. The nation will be the laughing stock of the world if it proves unable to stop his inanities, provocations, and predations.

Impeach Trump.

Make America Civil Again

What if TrumpPutin Wins Ukranian War?

After the American Century

President Don TrumpPutin has achieved a diplomatic victory. In a demonstration of the "art of the deal," he posed to be a peace-maker, when in fact he was collaborating with the Russian leader Vlad PutinTrump. 

If this deal goes through, not only will America WIN, but just as important Ukraine and Europe will LOSE. The United States will get mineral resources from Ukraine, in exchange for support given in the past (under President Biden).  AND the United States will get investment opportunities in Russia in exchange for support given it during the "peace negotiations."

Russia will be rewarded with territory, and the economic sanctions against it will be lifted. Its bombing of hospitals, schools, and other war crimes, and its kidnapping of thousands of Ukrainian children will not be punished.  It also appears likely that Russia will not object should Trump-putin acquire Canada and/or Greenland.

Ukraine will get nothing. The war has given it billions of dollars of damage, plus thousands of dead and wounded. If the plan goes through, Ukraine will be crippled. shrunken, bankrupt, and denied membership in NATO or the EU. President Trump-putin says this is only fair because Ukraine started the war by forcing Russia to invade. (Trump repeats this nonsense!)

Europe gets a lesson. Do not count on the United States. When the United Nations was founded, the Americans signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It promised to uphold the right to national self-determination, and the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and due process of law. President Trump-putin is actively working against these rights at home and abroad

The era of international law appears to be coming to a close. This marks the end of the American Century. When entering World War I, Woodrow Wilson wanted to make the world safe for democracy. But the US Senate embraced isolationism instead, and it refused to ratify American membership in the League of Nations. Trump is the political descendant of those Senators.

His policy is "America First," which apparently means "Russia second, Britain third, Europe fourth, fourth Canada, fifth Mexico, far down the list, Denmark, near the bototm, Ukraine, and China last." This ranking can also be seen in the Trump-imposed tariffs. There are no tariffs for Russia, low tariffs on Britain, higher tariffs on Europe, higher still for Canada, and more than 100% tariffs for China. 

Some possible consequences of Trump's policy toward Ukraine. 

1. Europe rearms; Germany reasserts itself as a military power. 

2. Europeans join Canadians and Mexicans as "former friends" of the US, and as a result no longer support the American dollar, travel less to the US, and move some of their trade elsewhere.

3. A wave of Ukrainian refugees floods into Europe.

4. China avoids tariffs by exporting through shell companies in Russia. More importantly, China grows stronger and becomes the world's dominant economy.

5. The United States, its moral leadership in tatters and its military support uncertain, withdraws from NATO. 

6. Russia rebuilds its armed forces and plans further attacks, since its ambition is to recreate the geographical boundaries of the Soviet Union before it fell apart.

Greenland: Not American Security but World Environmental Security Is at Stake

US ownership of Greenland is the path to environmental insecurity.

After the American Century

Every generation or so, some American politician gets the notion that the United States ought to acquire Greenland. Often, this is justified by reference to the Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed in the 1820s, which proclaimed that European powers should stay out of the Americas. However, this is a rather silly attempt to dignify acquisition of Greenland, which has been part of the Kingdom of Denmark for one thousand years. Long before Columbus discovered America, the Vikings had explored Iceland and Greenland. The idea that the Monroe Doctrine applies to events more than eight centuries before it was proclaimed is absurd. Nor is the US close to Greenland, which lies between Iceland and the coast of Canada. The people of Greenland do not want to be bought or sold. Nor does Denmark want to sell Greenland. 

Map courtesy of the Arctic Center, University of Lapland
Its extensive home pages provide a wealth of useful information.

Whatever the justification for buying (or seizing) Greenland, there are two reasons why its acquisition looks attractive: Natural resources and military bases. There seldom seems to be any US government interest in the Greenlanders themselves, whose language and culture could easily be utterly destroyed after acquisition. There are only about 60,000 people living on the vast island, much of which is frozen all year round. Almost the entire population lives along the southwestern coast, one third in the capital, Nuuk. There are no roads connecting most of the towns together. 

In military terms, Greenland looks important because it is halfway between Washington and Moscow. For that reason, the Americans already have one base on the island, Thule, which is on the west coast, just about the only settlement in the far north. Another American base, called Century, was located inland on the great Greenland ice sheet. Established in 1959 in a series of tunnels and excavations into the ice sheet, it was occupied full time until 1964, it became a seasonal base (closed in winter), and then was abandoned in 1967. Today it lies buried in ice and snow that have since accumulated. In other words, at the height of the Cold War, the US did not find it necessary, and they found it expensive and difficult, to maintain an inland base. Greenland has an extreme environment, and after struggling to sustain bases, it became clear that the Soviets could hardly sneak in and create a meaningful military site, much less continually supply one. It is exceedingly difficult to move around on the inland surface of Greenland, which is why almost all communities are on the coast. In short, this is not a place for ground forces, base camps, and troop movements. It is rather a place for early warning systems and other equipment designed to monitor the sea and the sky. Denmark is a member of NATO, and in addition the Americans have a treaty with the Danish government, allowing them to operate the Thule military base. They can also move ships and submarines around the coast to their heart's content. In short, from a military perspective, owning Greenland will not suddenly improve American security, and if new bases are necessary (although no one seems to have said they are) that could be negotiated. I cannot see any important military advantage to be gained.  "National security" is a bogus argument for acquiring Greenland. 

In terms of resources, Greenland potentially is a bonanza. Even with much of it explored primarily from the air, it is clear that it has uranium, rare earth minerals, oil, and gas, with potentially far more still undiscovered. Why have these resources not been exploited already? First, there is the high cost of development. There are no harbors convenient to or roads to most of these resources. The weather makes it difficult or impossible to operate outside for much of the year. Such practical problems make it uncompetitive with other locations where resources are more accessible. The second reason is important. Many Greenlanders fear that an influx of mining companies will despoil the landscape, pollute the environment, and undermine their way of life. Possibly some limited mining could be negotiated, provided strong environmental safety regulations are enforced. However, the US has a disgraceful history with mining on Native American lands, notably with the uranium mining of Navajo land. More than 30 million tons of uranium ore was extracted. As the American Environmental Protection Agency summarizes, "a legacy of uranium contamination remains, including over 500 abandoned uranium mines as well as homes and water sources with elevated levels of radiation. Potential health effects include lung cancer from inhalation of radioactive particles, as well as bone cancer and impaired kidney function from exposure to radionuclides in drinking water." The mines were closed in 1986, but even in 2025 after spending more than $1 billion, many of the mines are not cleaned up. Something similar could easily in Greenland if mining companies operated with the weakened standards and poor oversight likely under the Trump administration.

Furthermore, if oil drilling is permitted, Greenland will contribute to the global warming that already is melting their ice sheet. This is not a small matter. Greenland impounds an astonishingly large portion of the earth's fresh water. Its ice has been shrinking every year for 28 years. The United Nations estimates that during 2024 it lost "50 million litres per minute, 9,000 million litres per hour" for a total of 80 gigatons of water during that single year.  Scientists estimate that were all of Greenland's ice to dissolve into the sea, the oceans would rise about 7 meters. If CO2 emissions are not drastically reduced, within one lifetime the ice melt from Greenland (with even more water released from Antartica) will flood coastal cities in all parts of the world, including Copenhagen, New York, much of Bangladesh, about half of Florida, and many island nations, to make a suggestive short list.  Greenlanders take global warming seriously, but the current President of the United States does not. Trump calls global warming a hoax, and he is passing legislation designed to increase fossil fuel exploration and consumption. If the he acquires Greenland, it will be in order to "Drill, baby drill." This makes the United States the worst possible owner of Denmark. 

Ownership of Greenland is a matter of security. But it is not a matter of American military security but the security of Greenland, as a landscape and a people. Allowing the United States to seize Greenalnd endangers the world's environmental security. It also violates a fundamental principle of international law: respect for international borders.

The Supreme Court's Decline in the Polls

After the American Century

A court without legitimacy is a danger to democracy.

For decades the Supreme Court enjoyed a high rating in the polls. It was generally approved by more than half the population, who believed it upheld the law and the Constitution. Back in the middle 1990s the Court enjoyed immense popularity with approval ratings as high as 80%. In 2000, more than 60% of the public approved of the court, and less than 30% disapproved. But as the Court has become increasingly polarized, public trust in the Court has fallen. Between 2014 and 2018 more people disapproved than approved of the Court. Then it briefly recovered its good standing with the people until 2022 when it fell precipitously. Since that time, its disapproval rating has never been higher than 50%.  In January, 2025,  just 38.8% approved of the Court.  

Courtesy of the Library of Congress

More than 60% of the public do not trust the justices to do the right thing. It does not help that the Court lacks ethical guidelines concerning conflicts of interest. Nor does a majority of the public agree with its decision that presidents are immune from prosecution for their actions. Nor are the Court's decisions on abortion approved by a majority of Americans. Nor are Clarence Thomas's acceptance of many expensive trips and gifts from wealthy conservatives acceptable. Nor has it been a good thing for American democracy that the court has sanctified unlimited private spending by candidates, equating campaign donations with freedom of speech. The Court no longer seems impartial or wise.

Back in the 1990s, both Repblicans and Democrats had extremely high levels of satisfaction with the Court. No more. Today, only one in four Democrats approves of the Court. In contrst. 3 out of 4 Republicans like what it is doing. The Court has adopted a partisan agenda, and in doing so it has lost its aura of impartiality. It risks seeming an illegitimate rubber stamp that most Democrats and a majority of the American public disdain.

In short, the legitimacy of the Supreme Court was once unassailable, but now it is questionable. Will the Court's reputation decline further during the Trump second term? How much lower can it go before it loses the credibility and respect that are necessary before its decisions will be accepted? A court without legitimacy is a danger to democracy.

Trump's illusion of a "Golden Age"

After the American Century

In one of the worst inaugural addresses in American history, the new Felon in Chief spouted falsities and insults, made vague promises, and proclaimed that the United States had entered a new golden age. There was not a single new idea in the speech, nor a single line that will be recalled with respect generations from now. The Republicans who repeatedly rose to their feet and clapped at his inanities demonstrated a level of servility and stupidity that I never thought possible in the United States.

Trump has pardoned the treason and in some cases murderous acts of thousands of men and women who attacked the Congress of the United States on January 6, 2021. That day will live in infamy, along with his false characterization of these convicted criminals as "political prisoners."  They physically attacked the Congress. They maimed and murdered police officers, and they will always be remembered as a rabble of traitors inspired into action by Trump himself, who watched the attack on Congress seatedin the White House and did nothing for hours. That he could be nominated and elected president is a now a permanent stain on the national character. 

Trump denies the reality of global warming, and he has become a tool of the oil corporations, amping up CO2 emissions instead of leading the adoption of the wind and solar power, which are cheaper, which create more jobs, and which produce less pollution, than drilling for petroleum. Far from creating a golden age, he is hastening a global warming apocalypse. It will be measured in forest fires, frequent hurricanes, tornados, and irregular rainfall. And to make certain that these disasters cause long-term damage, he is now threatening to get rid of FEMA, the federal agency that deals with disasters. He says the problems can be dealt with at the state level. This is nonsense, as disasters do not respect borders. When the Mississippi rises over its banks, state borders do not halt the flood, and states without FEMA will have to invent ways to coordinate their response to disaster.

Trump has withdrawn from the World Health Organization, offering the reason that the US pays too much. If that were the problem, then he could negotiate a different payment rather that withdraw. He also attacked the WHO's handling on the COVID crisis, when it is he, Donald Trump, who spread disinformation about the disease, politicized the response to the crisis, and undercut the medical profession. Any doubts about Trump's stupidity on this issue are laid aside by his appointment of Mr. Kennedy to oversee the nation's health. He rejects the very idea of vaccination, including well-tested shots that have saved millions of lives. 

Trump has resurrected the jingoistic language of Manifest Destiny and made factually inaccurate statements to justify his demands that the United States take over the Panama Canal, acquire Greenland, and annex Canada. This is naked imperialism and colonialism, and it has nothing to do with national security.  The United States already has bases in Greenland, for example, which means it is under the protection of NATO, since Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO member.  Trump's language and actions have aroused anger in Latin America, Canada, and the Nordic countries and they have poisoned relations with the European Union. A nation that attacks its friends on all sides is not entering a golden age.

Further lowering American prestige, Trump has threatened to raise a high tariff wall against imports from the EU, China, Canada, and Mexico. Such threats and blustering do not bring in a golden age. They bring in protectionism, bankrupt companies, higher prices, and weaker economies. Indeed since Trump took office the economy has stopped growing and has shrunk slightly. 

And to end a short list of Trump's malicious behavior, he has launched an attack on undocumented immigrants to the United States and sent the army to close the Mexican border. This macho posturing is popular with his base, but it will not solve the problem, as many illegal immigrants come by plane, on student visas, or as tourists. Moreover, several million "illegals" were brought to the United States as children, and they know no other country. Through no fault of their own they are caught in a no-man's land with no citizenship. Nor will the economy improve if Trump drives out millions of people, many of them working in housing construction or caring professions, such as nursing homes.  The immigration problem is complex, and it will not be solved by sending troops to the border.

There is nothing noble about Mr. Trump. He is a bully, a liar, and a charlatan, and this is a short list of his  predations. If he remains in power for four years, the United States will enter not a golden age but a dark tunnel of distrust. division, hatred, and chaos. The nation has already lost much of the world's respect. This is a wannabe emperor, not a president, and the "golden age" he conjures up is an illusion. The minister of the gospel and the teacher will long struggle to explain why this vain, corrupt, licentious, litigious, prevaricating felon could ever be elected president. He brings shame on the United States.

Electric Vehicle Sales predict state political alignments

After the American Century

A poll by PEW Research has found a correlation between sales of electric vehicles (EVs) in a State and its presidential preferences. California had by far the highest sale of new EVs, around 25 percent, and it voted solidly for Biden in 2020.  At the other extreme, with less than 2 percent EV sales are some extreme Trump states: North Dakota, Mississippi, West Virginia, Louisiana, and Wyoming. In fact, every one of the seventeen states with the fewest EVs sold voted for Trump, while nineteen of the twenty states with the highest EV sales voted for Biden. (The exception was Utah, but Mormons are exceptions in many things).  All the swing states were in the middle, including Michigan (3.96%), Wisconsin (4.08%), Pennsylvania (623%), Georgia (7.35%), and Arizona (9.06%).  

It seems likely that EV sales will be weak in a state like Mississippi where few people believe that global warming is real.  But there is another reason why states might not want EVs to sell well: such cars do not pay fuel tax. Most states get between 4% and 8% of their annual tax revenue from a tax on gasoline. If the public gets EVs, then the state budget will be in trouble.

"The Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts"

After the American Century

The Supreme Court has ruled that the President of the United States cannot be held legally accountable for his actions as head of the government. This is an absurdity in a democratic nation, but more to the point, it violates the intentions of the founding fathers of the United States. The fought a Revolution to escape from the rule of the King of England, and they had no desire to make the president a replacement monarch.

But this week. the Court decided that presidential immunity applies to all official acts of the president, including acts that discredit and interfere with elections, as well as actions that encourage mob violence against Congress.  I urge everyone to read the decision in its tortured and incompetent reasoning, but here are the main points, as summarized by the justices themselves: 

A federal grand jury indicted former President Donald J. Trump on four counts for conduct that occurred during his Presidency following the November 2020 election.  The indictment alleged that after losing that election, Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certifying of the election results.  Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and that the indictment’s allegations fell within the core of his official duties.  The District Court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts.  The D. C. Circuit affirmed.  Both the District Court and the D. C. Circuit declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts. 

Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.  And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.  There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

On the following page: "The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority."

This is rank treason. The Supreme Court's decision subverts and undermines the Constitution, giving unlimited power to the chief executive, making him immune from the checks and balances envisioned by the architects of the federal government. Given this decision, neither Congress nor the Courts have any power to prevent crimes by the chief executive. They have left a gaping hole in their decision, failing to define what are official acts as distinguished from unofficial acts. The specific case involves an attack on Congress on January 6th, 2021.  Can a mob attack Congress, encouraged by the president in a speech immediately before it occurred, and these proceedings be considered an official act? Apparently, the justices think so. The six justices who made this decision have lost credibility. They have severely undermined the reputation of the Court. They have created legal sanctions for dictatorship. 

The majority who made this decision have also discredited their own institution. Why should anyone respect court opinions in the future? There is a bit of satisfaction in knowing that the six justices who signed the decision have inscribed their names in history as incompetents who failed in their duty to uphold the Constitution. They will be reviled forever by historians and legal scholars, and Chief Justice Roberts in particular will go down as the worst head of the Court since it began. If the nation survives his tenure, it will be no thanks to him.

In contrast. history will honor the three dissenting justices.

"JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting. 

Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency.  It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President. . .  the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more.  Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent."

The Failed Presidential Debate: Presage to Chaos?

After the American Century

The so-called debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump was a sad farce and a warning that both political parties are unable to choose acceptable candidates for the office of president. Both were an embarrasment, but for different reasons.

Trump did not answer many of the questions but rambled on about whatever he felt like, often repeating himself. He made sweeping generalizations, seldom had a correct fact or example to support his argument, and lied outrageously about almost every topic. He refused to prose he would abide by the election results, and he misrepresented and defended the attack on the Congress made after the last election. There was not a pleasant word or intentional joke in his whole performance, in which he was sour, angry, focused on the past, and unable to articulate any specific plans. Had he been taking an oral exam at a university, he would have failed.

Biden, in contrast, would have passed based on content, but received a low grade for his presentation. He did answer the questions, and tried to go into detail, which was not a good idea given thetiny one or two minute time slots. The format demanded sound bites, not analysis. The viewer had to work to understand what Biden was saying. His content was actually good, but it was so poorly presented that the focus became his frailty. He did not look like a man who could continue to be president until 2029. Biden did not fail the exam, but he did not appear able to carry on.

The debate was also a failure due to its organization. There was never a challenge to exaggerations or false claims. Candidates could get away with saying ridiculous things, particularly Donald Trump. Nor did the format give either candidate sufficient time to articulate a vision of what they hoped to achieve in a second term. Future debates ought to include an opening statement from each candidate, so they could explain their vision for the country.

On every level, this was a depressing event. I disliked was the gaudy decor of the studio where it was held. The questions were often poor, with little insistance that they be answered. The insertion of advertisements into the middle of the debate was offensive, distracting, and an unacceptable trivialization of the seriousness of the occasion.  On every level -- aesthetics, content, style, organization, -- this event was an embarrassment. It showed the world not only a polarized nation, but one incapable of holding a serious debate on its future. It is hard to see how it could have been worse. 

Was this the nadir of American democracy, or intimations of its demise? The Republican Party at present appears beyond any hope of change, so long as it is in the grip of Trump. The Democratic Party might be able to rescue itself and the country by finding another candidate, but it might also fritter away the chance to do so with internal strife. There are times in human affairs, when inaction inexorably leads to doom.