A Solution to Defeat the Socialist Democractic Party

There is no paucity of discussion today about how to manage the rise of Socialism’s favorability among young, educated Americans. According to a 2019 Gallup poll, as many as 49% of Millennials and members of Gen Z (ages 18 to 39 in 2019) hold a favorable view of socialism. Yet, there should be no question that Socialism / Communism are bankrupt economic and political theories of social organization. An excellent summary is found in the Cornell Review, February 17, 2018:

 

Over the past 100 years or so, socialist experiments around the world unleashed a vast tide of tyranny, starvation, and mass murder on a scale never seen before in human history. Socialism was implemented in the Soviet Union, East Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary, Maoist China, Chavez-Maduro’s Venezuela, and other places. In every one of these places, it has failed. As American writer Joshua Muravchik observes in his 2019 Wall Street Journal article on socialism, “It’s hard to think of another idea that has been tried and failed as many times in as many ways or at a steeper price in human suffering.”  

Like Socialism everywhere, Millennials and members of Gen Z (ages 18 to 39 in 2019) are also failing, and to a considerable extent as a result of burdensome student loans and worthless degrees. It should be noted that the American National Education Association has also failed them. From Kindergarten through Higher Education (College / University) they have been indoctrinated with “woke” propaganda glorifying Socialism and the ills of Capitalism. It’s baloney, but kids like baloney!

 

However, there is a solution to the number one issue afflicting most degree Millennials and members of Gen Z: the payback of egregious student loans.

Student loan debt is a critical concern for the economy, to say nothing of the students and graduates who hold it.^[1]Student loans are made solely for the purpose of financing higher education;^[2]that is, they are designed to help students pay for college tuition, books, and living expenses.^[3]It is the intention of this discussion to examine the issues affecting the Student Loan Program(s), and offer a recommendation to address the program's most deleterious effects. 

 

Research indicates that the increased usage of student loans has been a significant factor in college cost increases.^[4]Some authorities, such as the noted economist George Gilder, has call the program a “scam.”^[5]

 

The following data for the past 20 years (1997 - 2017) speak for themselves:^[6]

 

· The average tuition and fees at private universities have jumped 157 percent.

· Out-of-state tuition and fees at public universities have risen 194 percent.

· In-state tuition and fees at public universities have grown the most, increasing 237 percent.

· The total consumer price index inflation increased by, for the same period,52.7 percent (August 1997 to August 2017), according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 

The rise in student loan borrowing per person reflects, to a large extent, the rising cost of higher education that has been going on for over a decade. That begs the question: why have higher education costs risen so precipitously? 

 

At public colleges and universities, rising spending on: faculty; administrators; tumefied esoteric curriculum; student support services; and the need to make up for reductions in government subsidies, has generally driven up tuition. Additionally, the federal government imposes no direct borrowing limit. If a school sets tuition higher and higher every year, a government-guaranteed loan will cover the increase. Accordingly, schools have little interest and no incentive in keeping costs down. Moreover, studies have found that in some cases, such as at community colleges (which educate about half of the nation's college students), tuition has risen while spending on classroom instruction has actually fallen.^[7]

 

Government control of the student loan program destroyed the integrity of the system by which loans are lent based on the suitability of the borrower. Normally, or what economists call the Perfect Capital Market, the factors that affect a lender’s decision about whether to extend a student loan will thus be the opportunity cost of the funding (the interest the lender could have earned on other loans) and the riskiness of the gains (mainly due to the uncertainty about the borrower’s income). Therefore, these conditions are not met when the government guarantees and/or holds the borrower’s indebtedness.  

 

The federal government has become the dominant supplier of student loans, first through its loan guarantee programs and more recently through direct loans.^[8]Now, with government authorization, there is no consideration of worthiness. It is simply guaranteed. Moreover, the fact that the government has a history of involvement in Higher Education^[9]is not ipso facto justification for its ‘predatory’ loan program. However, the only guaranteed result is that the US Taxpayer will be left holding the bag. Hence, the risk of massive default provides a valid comparison with the Savings and Loan Crisis (S&L) of the 1980s and 1990s, and the Subprime Mortgage Crisis of 2008.

 

Some critics of financial aid claim that, because schools are assured of receiving their fees no matter what happens to their students, they have felt free to raise their fees to very high levels, to accept students of inadequate academic ability, and to produce too many graduates in some fields of study. About one-third of students, whether or not they graduate or find jobs that match their credentials, are financially burdened for much of their lives by their debt obligations, instead of being economically productive citizens. When, not if, those former students default on their obligations, the burdens are shifted to taxpayers.^[10] 

 

The point is made that the cost of higher education, being passed on to parents and students, has been outrageous. Simply "forgiving" the debt would be an absurd public policy for multiple reasons. 

 

However, I would posit that there is an alternative that relieves some of the pressure on parents and students. 

 

Reduce the debt by “sequestration” of part of the debt from universities, colleges, et cetera, that are responsible for this egregious situation. It should be said that any sequestration program would require strict guidelines as to where and how program cost reductions can be made, therefore guarding against the inevitable use by schools of a ”Washington Monument” strategy.^[11]

One further point should be made. In fact, there is a precedent. In 1967, I was an undergraduate student at the University of Wisconsin – Madison. I had a student loan(s). Out of the blue, the University notified me that I was awarded a one-time financial aid award that could be used to reduce my existing loan or taken to meet other obligations. Hence, a mechanism to reduce a student loan obligation is not without precedent. 

 

In the last analysis, it’s time students and their parents are given relief from this onerous and severely flawed aid program. The federal government should not be in the student loan business. And, needs to end this government largesse to the Higher Education Establishment.

 

 

---

[1]According to the Census Bureau, college enrollment as a fraction of the population between ages 16 and 25 rose from 34 percent in 1990 to 51 percent in 2010. 

[2]Higher Education is defined as colleges, universities, community colleges, and technical schools. 

[3]Wenli Li, “The Economics of Student Loan Borrowing and Repayment,” Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Business Review Q3 2013.

[4]David O. Lucca, Taylor Nadauld, and Karen Shen (July 2015). "Credit Supply and the Rise in College Tuition: Evidence from the Expansion in Federal Student Aid programs" Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

[5]George Gilder, “Live, Liberty, & Levine,” Fox Cable News Network, October 14, 2018.

[6]Briana Boytington, “See 20 Years of Tuition Growth at National Universities,” U.S. News & World Report, September 13, 2018. 

[7]Steven Hurburt, “Trends in College Spending,” 12 January 2016, The Delta Project, The American Institutes for Research (AIR), 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Washington, DC.

3Prominent arguments for government involvement are that social returns to education are greater than private returns. Furthermore, employers tend to under invest in generalized training, since they do not fully capture the returns in the event the trained employees leave the firm. Cited in Wenli Li, “The Economics of Student Loan Borrowing and Repayment,” Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Business Review Q3 2013, P.2.

[9]The modern student loan program dates to 1965, when the Guaranteed Student Loan, now known as the Stafford Loan, was introduced.

[10]Vedder, Richard; Denhart, Christopher; Hartge, Joseph (June 2014), “Dollars, Cents, and Nonsense: The Harmful Effects of Federal Student Aid,” Center for College Affordability and Productivity, retrieved November 23, 2014.

[11]A Washington Monument strategy is a tactic employed to avoid program cuts by finding the most essential, popular and visible programs and services to cut, instead of the superfluous. First espoused in Aaron Wildavsky classic book: Wildavsky, Aaron. “Politics of the Budgetary Process,” Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1964.

 

  

Tonight is New Year’s Eve

 

We will launch the year with “rockets' red glare.” For, with G-d’s blessing, Donald J. Trump is President of the United States of America, and the World is a better place because of it!

 

I wrote the essay below on the eve of 2020. The election for president in November 2019 was stolen by Democrats in key electoral states such as Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Nevada, and Wisconsin. The result was Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., The Demented, was elected the 46th President of the United States of America, whose campaign strategy was to hide in his basement so that the electorate would not know how incompetent he was. Because of this larceny, America and the world paid an awful price for the next four years. Furthermore, make no mistake about it, the Biden presidency was Obama’s third term.

 

As the boys once sang, "We Won't Get Fooled Again.” More importantly, we cannot let it happen again! The road to perdition is through democratic socialist communist liberalism. Believe what you see, not what they tell you.

 

January 1, 2020

 

Is this really a new year? 

Another period by which we mark time is over and done. 

Did you notice? 

Of course, who could not?

 

Always willing to lament, 

Yet with vile contempt do they whine. 

Did you notice?

Of course you did,

They will not let you forget.

 

On and on they opine, 

Oh the horror they bleep.

What foul stench will strike us next?

And, when will it end?

 

They know best,

If only they were allowed to rule.

How can anyone not understand what they know?

Only if those fools, those deplorable fools,

Would see the light.

 

So, will the coming mark in time bring an end?

An end to their bleeping.

Unfortunately no,

Bleeping is all they know.

 

So, madness it will be, 

And where it ends,

May well be to the marrow.

 

In the end, 

Remember this,

Those to whom evil is done

Do evil in return.[1]

 

Of whom do I speak?

 

I have come to understand that today, Liberalism / Progressivism / Socialism (the Democratic Party) is rigidly ideological, proudly sanctimonious, and hence represented by a profound evil. Wrapped so tightly in their own sense of righteousness and superiority over others, they are unable to compromise that would engender public policies for the greater good. Such people are narcissists rather than moralists. They care less about succeeding than about sneering. But worse, these tedious people, with their greed for power, are therefore not fully human. Too harsh, you may say. Then consider this.

 

They will not stop. They are paid too well and live too lavish a lifestyle to pretend to fight on behalf of the downtrodden. Yet, all they do is keep the downtrodden down. You should not confuse their lofty intentions with genuine commitment. This grotesqueness is only comparable to its shamefulness.

 

The liberal socialist agenda of the Democratic Party has a pitiful record of achievement. Its failures are listed here only as footnotes and should be understood as a sample and not exhaustive.[2][3]Another failure of the Democratic Party is lawlessness, in which laws would not be enforced that conflicted with its goals and objectives, even though officials took an oath to do so. This was in full view during the eight years of the Obama Administration.[4]

 

Liberalism / Socialism is, in fact, athwart to freedom and democracy. It is the home to tyrants, dictators, and global elites of all miens. Again, you say it too harsh. Then consider this. 

 

Martin Amis meditations on tyrants and dictators expressed this menace and horror in his treatment of Stalin. Amis writes, “torture … was part of Stalin’s war against truth. He tortured, not to force you to reveal a fact, but to force you to collude in a fiction.” [5]

 

Now think in terms of the Mueller Investigation (or as I have written, The Mueller Inquisition[6]), which after two years, has failed to find any credible evidence to support its existence and continuation. An investigation based entirely on deceit. Mr. Mueller’s indictments, like Stalin’s use of torture, were to force innocent people to admit to collusion, where in fact none existed. Like any unaccountable tyrant, Mueller uses his unrestricted, expansive, and unethical practices[7] to bring great harm to people unrelated to the reason for his Special Counsel appointment. 

 

The final mark has ticked for a year gone by. And our history begins once more. Should we suffer again? Should we continue to avoid or deny the inescapable fact that the liberal socialist Democratic Party holds a pathological contempt for others, and this contempt is arguably implicit in their entire ideology? 

 

There is more than one way a people can be governed; therefore, it is desirable and essential that the governed understand that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are always at risk and cannot be viewed with indifference.

 

A Happy New Year?

 

[1]W. H. Auden, “September 1, 1939,” From Another Time, published by Random House, 1940.

[2]The Affordable Care Act (Obama Care); a plethora of spasmodic restrictive Federal Regulations resulting in the worst economy after a recession in US history, total capitulation to Islamic Terrorism, failure to secure immigration and the US border, and therefore putting American citizens in harm's way, et cetera.

[3]In March 2010, the black unemployment rate was 16.8%, under Barack Obama, after over two years of being President. In May 2018, the black unemployment rate was 5.9%, under Donald Trump, a record low after the same period of time. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics / Division of Labor Force Statistics

[4]The following are examples of serious violations of law not investigated by the Obama Administration: Operation “Fast and Furious;” Benghazi terrorist attack and cover-up; IRS’s targeting of conservative entities; Department of Justice’s seizing records of journalists; NSA surveillance of ordinary Americans; Ransom payments to Iran for release of hostages; Bowe Bergdahl’s prisoner exchange; Secret Service prostitution scandal; Hillary Clinton's email scandal; Clinton Foundation scandal; The VA death-list scandal; Solyndra green energy scandal; Administration Officials lying to Congress; Voter Fraud in 2008, 2012 and 2016 Elections; Russia hacking White House computers in 2014; Clinton campaign coordinating with DOJ and Attorney General Loretta Lynch; US Taxpayers Funding Iran Military; et cetera.

[5]Martin Amis, KOBA THE DREAD: Laughter and The Twenty Million, Vintage Books, USA, 2002, cited in Christopher Hitchens, “Legacies of Totalitarianism,” in his book Arguably, 12 The Twelve, The Hachette Book Group, New York, 2011, Page 627.

[6]Lawrence S. Schneiderman, “The Mueller Inquisition,” The Grey Grater, June 17, 2017.

[7]Mr. Mueller’s behavior is deemed unethical since it goes against the agreed-upon code of conduct, which in fact may be considered illegal, in and of itself.

Then and Now: Jerusalem and New York City

 

Curiouser and Curiouser, you might say. What do ancient Jerusalem and modern-day New York City have in common? The short answer -- Destruction!

The former was the keystone of the Jewish people, G-d’s home on earth, and was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. The latter is the home to the largest Jewish population outside of Israel and will also be destroyed if Zohran Mamdani is elected mayor of New York City in November 2025. To understand the latter, it is essential to understand the former. However, this time destruction will not come from an outside enemy but rather from within. Still, the root cause is the same -- internal strife.

The Hebrew historian Josephus, of the first century, wrote two histories of the Hebrew civil war against Rome and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. The first was in native Hebrew, and the second in Greek. Josephus ascribed blame for the destruction of Jerusalem to the Jewish warlords rather than to the Romans. He said it was destroyed by internal strife among the Jews, such as Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Sicarii, and Zealots. 

Who were these religious and non-religious sects of Judea (Israel)?

PHARISEES: The characteristic doctrines of Pharisees attribute everything to Fate and to G-d. Believing only they can accurately interpret the laws of G-d, they were educated strictly according to the ancestral law, with a deeply conservative interpretation of the Torah (the Five Books of Moses). In the parlance of our day, they were snobs! We don’t know what percentage of the population at the time were Pharisees, but there is no evidence to suggest that they constituted more than a small proportion of the overall population of Judaea (Israel). It should be noted that we are told the Pharisees had frequent controversies and serious differences with the Sadducees from the mid-second century BCE to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE because the Sadducees denied the validity of non-written traditions.

SADDUCEES: No Sadducee literature survives. Both Jewish and Christian have asserted that Sadducees were secular, Hellenistic, wealthy aristocrats of priestly origin, with links to the High Priests and the Roman administration, and a conservative attitude toward the interpretation of the Torah. Sadducees held that only those regulations should be considered valid which were written down, and that those that were handed down from the tradition of the fathers need not be observed. In other words, biblical fundamentalism. Furthermore, each Sadducee relied on his reading of the sacred text alone. However, their views on the lack of life after death and their doctrine that G-d does not influence the world made it hard to combine their philosophy with most other branches of Judaism.

ESSENES: In marked contrast to the individualist Sadducees were the Essenes, whose communal life was devoted to the study of philosophical ethics. They were Judeans only by ancestry. Sources from that time stress their lifestyle more than their specific doctrine. They may have been the first monastic order. They lived without women! However, a second order of Essenes did marry to ensure the survival of the order. The Essenes believed that Fate is primary and that nothing befalls men unless it is by G-d’s decree. The Essenes did fight against the Romans before the Jerusalem Temple’s destruction, primarily in the north and west of Judea. There is no history of the Essenes' lifestyle surviving after 70 CE.

A ‘FOURTH PHILOSOPHY, aka SICARII, cited by Josephus was dated in origin from 6 CE. No name was given to this philosophy. This school agrees in all respects with the opinions of the Pharisees, except about their passion for liberty. The immediate impact of the philosophy was to foment anti-Roman feeling, or, for that matter, against any other authority. In other words, the Fourth Philosophy advocated political anarchy on religious grounds, provoked by the heavy-handed Roman government, rather than a distinct type of Judaism. It should be noted that one group of the Fourth Philosophy was linked to the defense of the fortress of Masada by the Dead Sea against Roman forces in 74 CE. 

ZEALOTS were a group of brigands whose origins date to 68 CE. These Zealots played a major role first in the civil war between the factions in Jerusalem from 68 to 70 CE, and in the final defense of the city against the assault of Roman forces. In 68 CE, they took control of the Temple from the Jewish government led by the Sadducees. It is important to note that only when the Roman forces under Titus began their siege of the city just before Passover in 70 CE did the Zealots agree to cooperate with other Jewish forces against the common enemy (Rome). The Fourth Philosophy and the Zealots left no direct legacy in later forms of Judaism.

It is clear that by the first century CE, numerous Jewish groups with strikingly different understandings of Judaism coexisted in Judaeo society. For most Jews, the Jerusalem Temple provided a unifying force, and there can be no doubt that Pharisees and Sadducees shared in the Temple services both as priests and lay people, despite their different theology and practical issues. However, in the New York City 2025 mayoral race, no such unifying force has yet to emerge from the Democratic Party candidates to defeat Mr. Mamdani. 

The reasons for the outbreak of revolt in 66 CE, after some sixty years of direct Roman rule, are much debated; however, the primary source of the period, Josephus pointed out that tactless Roman governors had provoked disturbances in the years before the revolt. 

The debate about who was responsible for the destruction of the Temple depends on where you sit. According to Josephus, after news reached Rome of Jerusalem’s and the Temple’s unforgivable destruction, ‘Caesar (Nero) maintained that he had offered the Jews peace, self-government, and an amnesty for all past offenses, and the Jews had deliberately chosen sedition rather than unity, war rather than peace.’ That was Rome’s version. The Jews say it was Rome. And not to be left out, in later years, the Christians said it was G-d, for the killing of his son Jesus. Indeed, where you stand is where you sit.

That was then.

This is now.

Today, we are witnesses to internal strife in New York City. By that, I refer to conflict or disagreement occurring within the Democratic Party candidates for New York City mayor. It has manifested as fighting and quarreling among members of New York’s Democrats, as well as the nation’s Democratic Party high muck-a-mucks, thus leading to our current situation where three factions within the same entity struggle for dominance. This state of affairs can encompass a range of situations, from peaceful protests to violent conflicts. Yet, only one faction fights (Mamdani) while the others cower (Schumer).

However, the most egregious element is the candidacy of Zohan Mamdani. Mamdani is a 33-year-old “nepo baby” who has been a three-term State Assemblyman (6 years), with no actual real-world experience or accomplishments. However, more concerning is his leftist/socialist/communist political philosophy. 

What are we to make of the disconcerting banality proffered by Mr. Mamdani.  Mr. Mamdani’s bizarre political platform includes: defunding the police; free government-run grocery stores; mega taxes on the rich (rich has not been defined); supporting the global intifada; anti-Semitism, et al. His policies are supported not by evidence, but are based on the conviction that the narrative itself provides the evidence! I would posit that Mr. Mamdani’s bankrupt socialist policies are not supported by any empirical evidence except for failure.

Liberalism, aka Socialism/Communism, is the developed form of political and social organization that has become widespread in twenty-first-century American urban centers, and that has become the foundation of the Democratic Party, Academia, and the Mainstream Media, et al. Mr. Mandami is not so much its leader as a by-product of a broken Democratic Party. A duplicitous system where the ambition for power lurks behind the assertion of values. 

This is foisted by the exaggerated perception generated by the left that it is for “the people” or to save freedom and democracy. Bull Shit! Useful idiots, a small minority of the public, are paid to participate in well-coordinated street demonstrations, which are used to falsely provide “evidence” for the abstraction called “popular” support. Ironically, it is the same liberal left and their bankrupt socialist ideology that created society's deplorable urban conditions, such as crime and homelessness, and its concomitant urban deprivation.   

I would proffer that if Mr. Mamdani is elected, fighting, crime, and lawlessness, between the people of the City of New York, would occur, who will take the opportunity of the city’s mismanagement to give vent to past frustrations and lamentations of victimhood. The perpetuation of past victimhood, much repeated by the Left, will inevitably end up conflicting with someone else's victimhood, leading to petty disputes, repression, or worse.

Another problem with the constant repetition of Liberal falsehoods is that they inevitably become mixed up with half-truths and even downright lies, so that it is often impossible to understand the truth. If society cannot agree on the cause of a problem, then society will never be able to solve the problem. For example, inflammatory words used by the Liberal Left to justify an issue such as “Holocaust,” Concentration Camp,” “Racism,” and “Genocide” are bandied about without thought of what their actual meaning is, only to incite civil unrest.

Those like Zohan Mamdani who wish to promote hatred and resentment for their own gain, always try to distort the truth: they take past events out of context; they blame their opponents with falsifications and fabrications; and they try to convince others that historical problems continue today, such as racism. 

Have no doubt, the 2025 New York City mayoral election is a serious matter not just for New York, but for the American nation.

_____________________________________________

The following is a list of references used in this essay:

1.Martin Goodman, ‘Josephus’s The Jewish War: A Biography.’Princeton University Press (2019);

2.Martin Goodman, ‘A HISTORY OF JUDAISM,’ Princeton University Press / Princeton and Oxford (2018);

3.Martin Goodman, ‘ROME and JERUSALEM: The Clash of Ancient Civilization,’ Vintage Books, A Division of Random House, INC. New York (2007);

4.Francois Furet, ‘Interpreting the French Revolution,’ Cambridge University Press (1978).] 

Obama’s Watergate: The Russian Colusion Hoax

From March 2017 through June 2025, this author has written multiple essays regarding the greatest scandal in American Presidential history, aka, The Russian Collusion Hoax.

 Although Republicans decisively won the 2016 election, the left contends that President Trump’s victory was fraudulent, resulting from Russian interference in the election. Hence, they promoted the myth that Donald J. Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton was illegitimate. Therefore, regardless of whether your enemy wins a “free and fair” election, the Left and the Democratic Party will do all they can to obstruct the new government’s ability to govern. 

In the 2016 election, this included using highly sophisticated government surveillance to illegally spy on the incoming administration’s transition team, using false pretexts to justify their surveillance, and certainly unethical and unlawful dissemination to the mainstream media. 

This is a serious matter in any democracy. Not since Watergate have organs of government in the executive branch been used for such nefarious purposes. Just as egregious is the mainstream media's ignoring and dismissing out of hand the matter, out of their allegiance to the Left and the Democratic Party. Immediately after the 2016 election, one of the more salient frauds had been the allegation, by the Democratic Party, politicians in Congress, Democratic politicos and pundits, and the Mainstream Media, that the Russian government under Vladimir Putin “hacked” the election so Donald Trump could win. 

The canard, unsupported by any evidence, alleged that Russia manipulated voting machines in certain closely contested states and disclosed, in concert with WikiLeaks, emails detrimental to the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton. We know today (July 2025) that the CIA and FBI concluded that it never took place, but the evidence they had to support that finding was not released to the public. Still, the Left and the Democratic Party and its deep state operatives repeated the accusations daily, and seven months after the election, cowed Republicans in Congress by conducting a hearing to investigate the canard. 

In the meantime, the real crime of the election, the Obama Administration’s use of false pretenses to secure a FISA warrant to “wiretap” the Trump campaign and Transition team, as well as “unmasking” private citizens, went without investigation When the Obama Administration violated laws that even a dimwit would recognize; their crimes are excused as the cost of doing business, fighting the good fight, or the ends always justify the means. 

It should be understood that absurd claims divorced from reality and supported by leftist enablers are the modus operandi of neo – fascism today, as it was in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Preposterous allegation, such as insisting that the Russians “fixed” the 2016 Presidential Election, is the case in point. http://thegreygrater.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-myth-of-fascism-neo-fascism-in.html

Trump Towergate: https://thegreygrater.blogspot.com/2017/03/trump-towergate.htm

    The Trump wiretapping, aka “Trump Towergate,” was authorized and conducted by agencies of the Federal Government, such as the DOJ, FBI, and NSA. In this case, the Obama Administration appears to have misused government power to spy on their political opponent in the 2016 Presidential Election. And make no mistake, this is serious. Like Watergate, there will be more to come out. But on this occasion, you wouldn’t read about it, and you wouldn’t hear about it in the Mainstream Media.

The Mueller Inquisition: https://thegreygrater.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-mueller-inquisition.html

    An investigation of a deceit is ipso facto a deceit. 

INDEED, WHO IS CARTER PAGE?: https://thegreygrater.blogspot.com/2018/02/indeed-who-is-carter-page.html

    It was clearly evident to me in March 2017, approximately one year ago, that the Obama Administration used the Government of the United States of America to spy and attempt to take down a candidate for the presidency, and failing that, a duly elected and sitting President. 

January 1, 2019: A Mark In Time: https://thegreygrater.blogspot.com/2019/01/january-1-2019-mark-in-time.html

    Liberalism / Socialism is, in fact, athwart to freedom and democracy. It is the home to tyrants, dictators, and global elites of all kinds. Again, you say too harshly. Then consider this. Martin Amis' meditations on tyrants and dictators expressed this menace and horror in his treatment of Stalin. Amis writes, “torture … was part of Stalin’s war against truth. He tortured, not to force you to reveal a fact, but to force you to collude in a fiction.” 

  Now think in terms of the Mueller Investigation. An investigation based entirely on deceit. Mr. Mueller’s indictments, like Stalin’s use of torture, which, after two years, have failed to produce any credible evidence to force innocent people to admit to collusion. Like any unaccountable tyrant, Mueller uses his unrestricted, expansive, and unethical practices to bring great harm to people unrelated to the reason for his Special Counsel appointment. 

The Trump Supremacy: https://thegreygrater.blogspot.com/2025/06/the-trump-supremacy.html

Lock them up!

 

Ketanje Brown Jackson: The First DEI Supreme Court Justice

 This essay is intended to be more than just a topic of intellectual interest. It is intended to be a warning of nothing less than the left’s corruption of American democracy and the rule of law.Almost weekly a rogue leftist judge issues an injunction against the Trump Administration exercising it lawful executive branch rights to govern. But, this essay is about Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson who was appointed by President Joe Biden in 2022. [1] 

I wouldn’t begin to suggest that I have any bona fide legal credentials, however I will argue that common sense should tell you Justice Jackson is unqualified to sit on the United States Supreme Court. I would posit that in her relatively short tenure on the court, she has been an embarrassment.

Her scholarship seems to be afflicted by the double influence of existentialism, aka narcissism, and Marxist/Rawlsian Social Justice, which lend themselves to poor judicial objectivity, and which manifests itself in leftist political ideology, mental laziness, and pious rehashing of bankrupt conceptual thinking. I would then proffer that a lawful society cannot allow judges to read the law with a political temperament and survive. That is exactly, by her own words, what Justice Jackson brags about doing on the court. 

In a US Supreme Court decision [2] (July 8, 2025), Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter in a Court opinion (8 - 1) that allows the Trump Administration and any future administration to go forward with reductions in force (RIF) in all federal agencies in accordance with applicable law. This decision overturned a San Francisco Clinton appointed judge's injunction in February 2025, and the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals decision to uphold the lower court’s injunction (2 - 1).

JUSTICE JACKSON, in a lengthy rebuttal to the Court’s 8 - 1 decision, hence dissenting from the grant of application for stay, was an embarrassment to jurisprudence. In this case, even Justice Jackson's liberal colleague, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, corrected her to note that “Here, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force consistent with applicable law, and the plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law.” [3]

Additionally, last month (June 2025) the US Supreme Court ruled 6 - 3 that federal district court judges do not have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions. [4]

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in her majority opinion, took an unusual stance, and chastised Justice Jackson’s dissent as follows: “We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.” [5]  Justice Barrett’s cogent and insightful opinion goes further, but should be read in its entirety elsewhere.

Moreover, in a recent interview (July 9, 2025) with ABC News, Justice Jackson had this to say about being a Justice on the United States Supreme Court: “I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues, and that’s what I try to do.” Really?

Accordingly, it is argued here that Justice Jackson lacks rudimentary jurisprudence and should be removed from the Court. Yet, can a sitting judge on the United States Supreme Court be “fired.” The short answer is yes, BUT. And the “but” is a big one. 

A clear analysis of this issue can be found on legalclarity.org. [ 6]

Essentially, Supreme Court justices cannot be fired in the conventional sense. The standard for removing a Supreme Court justice is found in the U.S. Constitution. Article III, Section 1 states that federal judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” While not explicitly defined, “good Behaviour” is understood to mean justices can only be removed for cause. This clause is the basis for the impeachment process. 

The grounds for impeachment are not limited to indictable criminal offenses but can include abuse of power, serious breaches of public trust, or conduct that brings the judiciary into disrepute.

The removal of a justice is a two-stage process handled by Congress. The process begins in the House of Representatives, where a member introduces articles of impeachment, which are formal written accusations. The House Judiciary Committee investigates these articles, gathers evidence, and may hold hearings. For the justice to be impeached, the full House must approve the articles by a simple majority vote.

After the House impeaches a justice, the Senate conducts a trial. In this proceeding, the Senate acts as the jury, while designated House members serve as prosecutors. The impeached justice has the right to a defense, including presenting evidence and being represented by counsel. The Chief Justice of the United States presides over the trial of a Supreme Court Justice.

A conviction requires a super majority vote of two-thirds of the senators present. If the Senate reaches this threshold on any article, the justice is removed from office. The Senate’s judgment is limited to removal and disqualification from holding any future federal office. The individual may also be subject to separate criminal prosecution in the court system.

Justices more commonly leave the Supreme Court through voluntary retirement. A justice may also resign from their position, which is a formal step down without the benefits of retirement. Finally, a justice’s tenure ends upon their death.

Well, what’s it going to be Justice Jackson? It’s a retorical question. Leftist elitists never ever give up their government largesse, especially if it’s the right thing to do.  

________________________________________

1. Jackson was generally viewed as a progressive. She has a DEI Ivy League education(Harvard). She had very little record for Republicans to attack during her Senate Confirmation Hearing. She had only been an appellate judge for about eight months and had only written two appellate opinions, both for unanimous courts. While she had written many trial court opinions, those were generally on dry, procedural issues. There was no record to indicate her views on abortion rights, affirmative action, voting rights, free speech or any other controversial constitutional issues that are often at the center of confirmation battles. 

2. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: No. 24A1174; DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITEDSTATES, ET AL. v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, ET AL., ON APPLICATION FOR STAY[July 8, 2025].

3. Ibid.

4. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED States, TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. CASA, INC., Et AL. No. 24A884. Argued May 15, 2025—Decided June 27, 2025*

 5.Ibid.

6. https://legalclarity.org/can-supreme-court-justices-be-fired

Israel - Iran Cease-Fire Deal: Trump’s Mistake

 

On January 16. 2025, this blog delineated an analysis of a cease-fire and hostage exchange between Israel and Hamas (a Terrorist Organization), scheduled to take effect on Sunday, January 19, 2025. Israel’s War on Terrorism: Lessons From History https://thegreygrater.blogspot.com/2025/01/israels-war-on-terrorism-lessons-from.html

It did not turn out as was planned or well for Israel. Half of the Israeli hostages, both the living and dead, remain in captivity in Gaza. It was widely recognized that the cease-fire was achieved because of ultimatum by Donald J. Trump who would be  inaugurated as the 47th president of the United States of America, on January 20, 2025.

Now, Israel and Iran have agreed to a cease-fire following 12 days of intense conflict, with the ceasefire now in effect as of June 24, 2025. The cease-fire was brokered by US President Trump, which was initiated at the request of Iran, and its diplomatic proxies, and begrudgingly accepted by Israel. 

However, reported today (June 26,2025) in The Times of Israel and other publications through out the world: “Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei claimed US President Donald Trump had “exaggerated” the impact of strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, while threatening to repeat the “slap” his country had dealt American forces in the region, speaking in a televised address Thursday (June 26, 2025).” Khamenei “also hailed his country’s “victory” in the 12-day air war launched by Israel, which he claimed had “almost collapsed” because of Iran’s strikes.” Furthermore, he said. “Surrender will never happen. Our nation is powerful.” Khamenei told viewers that the US had only intervened in the war because “it felt that if it did not intervene, the Zionist regime would be utterly destroyed.”

Well, there you have it President Trump.

It is usually others who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity! Like the Hamas cease-fire in January, the Iran cease-fire in June will not bring change to the middle-east so desperately needed and hopefully sought. Yes, Iran’s nuclear capability has been diminished. However, its raison d'être has not been “obliterated”!

The lessons of history clearly predict that this settlement will result in further bloodshed and negate the sacrifices already made by Israel’s soldiers and civilian population, and US interests.

Like in Gaza, John David Lewis’s book, Nothing Less Than Victory: Decisive Wars And The Lessons of History (Princeton University Press, 2010), is instructive. Professor Lewis imparts this important lesson:

    “that the fact of defeat ... led to lasting peace only when the fact of defeat was openly recognized             and the legitimacy of the victor’s terms was accepted by the vanquished."

It should be clear, Iran and its proxies believe they have not been vanquished,  have not been defeated, and that the Regime lives on to fight another day. And fight they will.