ANTIFA Really...

Re: On “designating Antifa” and claims about foreign-funded political violence

Thanks for writing. I have three concerns with your message: (1) it treats “Antifa” as a unitary group with command-and-control; (2) it asserts a domestic “terrorist organization” designation solves a legal problem it does not; and (3) it claims foreign financing of “Antifa” without evidence.

1) “Antifa” is not a singular organization

• The FBI Director told Congress that “antifa is an ideology, not an organization.” That’s sworn testimony from Director Christopher Wray. AP News

• Independent explainers (drawing on CRS and ADL) describe antifa as a decentralized movement with no formal leadership or hierarchy — loose networks and individuals, not a chartered group you can “list” like al-Qaeda. Reuters

When we pretend an amorphous tendency is a single, tightly run group, we invite both over-broad policing and sloppy intelligence work.

2) “Domestic terrorist organization” designations are not how U.S. law works

• The State Department can designate Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) under the Immigration and Nationality Act. There is no parallel legal list for purely domestic groups. That’s why for years, experts across the spectrum explained the U.S. cannot simply “designate” a domestic movement. State Department

• I recognize that, on Sept. 22, 2025, the White House announced an order purporting to designate “Antifa” as a domestic terrorist organization. But national-security law groups have already flagged that move as legally questionable, precisely because “Antifa” lacks organizational contours and U.S. law doesn’t provide a domestic-listing framework. Courts will ultimately decide the order’s effect. Reuters

If the goal is to prosecute violent crimes, existing federal and state statutes (weapons, conspiracy, arson, assault on federal officers, etc.) already provide ample authority — without bending designation law built for foreign groups.

3) “Foreign financiers” and organized funding claims require evidence — none has been shown

• Repeated government briefings and reporting over the last several years have not substantiated claims that a centrally run “Antifa” receives foreign funding. Reuters’ backgrounders and FBI testimony stress the movement’s leaderless nature, which makes the “foreign financier” frame implausible without new, public evidence. Reuters

• If there is credible, declassified evidence of foreign state financing of specific violent plots, it should be presented — not asserted. Absent that, claims of “foreign promotion of political violence” should focus on actual foreign actors (e.g., documented malign influence and election-interference efforts) rather than a domestic label. See ODNI/DHS/DOJ assessments on foreign interference: real, but distinct from your Antifa claim. intel.gov

4) Political violence isn’t owned by one ideology

• High-quality datasets (CSIS) show the domestic terror landscape has varied over time and across motives; right-wing, left-wing, and jihadist-inspired actors have all committed violence. The consistent point is plurality, not monopoly by “antifa.” CSIS

• During the 2020 protest wave, ACLED found the vast majority of demonstrations were peaceful; violent events were the exception — which argues for precise, offender-based prosecutions rather than movement-wide labeling. ACLED

5) Constructive next steps

• Focus on chargeable conduct (assaults, weapons, arson, conspiracy) rather than a label so vague it sweeps in lawful dissent. That keeps prosecutions tight and constitutional. (See the legal critiques of the September 2025 order.) Brennan Center for Justice

• If your office has specific intelligence indicating foreign state financing of identifiable U.S. violent plots, please release the unclassified basis or brief constituents with as much detail as possible. Otherwise, let’s not conflate online rumor with evidence. Reuters

I support vigorous prosecution of violence whoever commits it — left, right, or apolitical — and equally vigorous protection of peaceful speech and assembly. That approach is truer to the rule of law than trying to turn a diffuse ideology into a foreign terrorist organization.

My Cousin Kent Christopher

 Kent Christopher passed away on Oct. 2nd.  You can read his obituary here 
(https://www.maupinfuneralhome.com/obituaries/Stephen-Kent-Christopher?obId=45814312#/obituaryInfo). His son, Shaun reached out to me and asked if I would be willing to speak about Kent during the funeral.  Here is what I came up with and of course there was some adlibbing, but this is very close to what I shared.

Remarks for Kent’s Funeral

I’m honored to be asked to share a few words about my cousin Kent. Please realize these are my recollections, and sometimes that doesn’t match anyone else’s reality.

When Shaun told me that Kent thought of me as a brother — I understood that completely. My Dad and three of his siblings each had just one child, so for me, my cousins weren’t just cousins. They were more like brothers and sisters.

Kent was four years younger than me — I’m 71 now — so we go way back. When we were boys, we spent a lot of time together… staying over at each other’s houses, wrestling, arguing, making each other mad — and just as quick, well not always just as quick, making up again. You know… brother stuff.

We both went to McIntire elementary school together for a little bit. Often we’d walk to my house after school. Kent’s family moved around a bit —Auxvasse, Effingham, and Oklahoma City as I recall — but we stayed close. I visited them wherever they were. And his mom, Ethel, well… she was like another mother to me.

One of my favorite memories goes back to the mid-sixties, when CB radios and walkie-talkies were all the rage. Kent and I decided we’d start our own radio station. We set up shop right there in the living room. I had a record player and a stack of 45s. We’d hold the walkie-talkie up to the speaker, play songs, make announcements, and even deliver “news.” We thought we were real DJs. Looking back, I think that might’ve been one of the happiest times we ever had together — just two kids with big imaginations having a blast.

Another memory was the summer of ’69. I went down to Oklahoma City to stay with them. Kent had this sweet little Yamaha motorcycle, and there was a spot nearby where we could ride, kinda like a dirt flat track. That summer, his folks — Richard and Ethel — took us on a road trip to California to visit family. We stopped in Las Vegas along the way, naturally, and checked out this brand-new casino called Circus Circus. My job was to keep an eye on Kent and stay out of trouble — I was 15, he was 11… neither job was easy! But we found the upper deck that had an arcade full of cheap games, and we thought we’d struck gold. The trip included Disneyland. It was a magical summer…

Life moved on, as it does. About seven years later, I left Missouri, and we didn’t see each other as much for a while. Kent became an over-the-road truck driver, got married, and had two wonderful children — Mary and Shaun. From what I saw family meant the world to him. Likewise I know he always carried a deep love for his mom, Ethel.

When I eventually moved back to Missouri, we started talking more often again. Our conversations were always a mix of catching up and storytelling. Kent had a mind like a steel trap — he could remember every name, every place, and every detail. I’ll admit, half the time I didn’t know who he was talking about! But that didn’t matter. He’d laugh when the story was funny, grumble when something got under his skin, and light up when he talked about his grandson, Sawyer. You could just hear how proud he was, how much he loved his family.

Now, Kent could be stubborn — and I say that with love. I read somewhere that stubbornness sometimes comes from fear, and maybe there’s truth in that. But it can also come from strength — from caring deeply, from wanting to do things the right way. That what I remember about Kent.

For much of my life, he was the closest thing I had to a brother. And I’m going to miss him — deeply.

But I take comfort in knowing that he’s now reunited with his mom and dad, and his Grandparents. I know he missed them terribly. And now they’re together again.

Rest easy, cousin. You’ll always be family — always my brother in spirit…

We drove down to Fulton today (10/10/25) for the graveside service. On the way I got a call from Shaun, the minister that officiated the Thursday night funeral service was having trouble with his powered wheel chair and couldn't get to the Central Christian Church graveyard.  Would I be willing to say a prayer.  The second time in less than 24 hours that I was given the gift of the chance to show up, much like the countless times Kent's Mom showed up for me.  What follows is what I could come up with between Williamsburg and the church.

Graveside Service for Kent

Good morning everyone.  I consider everyone here family and am honored to be asked to help. Thank you all for being here today as we lay Kent to rest. Your presence — family, friends, and those who knew him through the years — is a reminder of how many lives he touched.
We gather not just in grief, but in gratitude — for the time we had with him, and for the ways he made each of our lives a little better.

We gather not just in grief, but in gratitude — for the time we had with him, and for the ways he made each of our lives a little better..

Kent was a good man — steady, humble, and kind-hearted. He had that quiet strength that didn’t need to announce itself. The kind of man who’d show up when you needed help, stay until the job was done, and never expect a thank you. He had a quick wit and a soft heart — and somehow managed to be both practical and full of mischief at the same time.
Folks like Kent make the world better just by being themselves.

It's too long ago to pin down a time frame, but I probably wouldn't be as good a swimmer as I am without Kent.  One summer Ethel singed Kent up for the Red Cross swimming lessons at the city park pool.  As luck would have it, Kent had an accident and got some stitches in his knee.  Ethel asked if I wanted to take Kent's place and of course I jumped at the chance. I've never been overly fond of swimming, jumping into deep water still takes my breath away for a moment. Because of Kent, and Ethel, I can calm down and apply the knowledge that those lessons provided me.

Read the 23rd Psalm

As we say goodbye today, let’s hold on to those moments — the laughter, the work done side by side, the quiet talks. Kent’s gone from our sight, but not from our hearts.
And I believe he’s at peace — reunited with loved ones, free of pain, and resting in the care of a loving God.

I closed with the Lord's Prayer

When Soldiers Patrol Main Street, Liberty Is Under Siege

I wore the uniform of this nation, served to the best of my ability. And in my years overseas, I saw what it looks like when armed soldiers stand on street corners with rifles at the ready. It does not protect the people—it frightens them. It does not symbolize freedom—it screams control. It is not safety—it is intimidation.

And now I see the same thing happening here, in the United States of America—the very land that claims to be “the land of the free.” Soldiers and military-grade weapons on our own streets. Let’s call it what it is: an attempt to cow the public into silence and submission.

This is not patriotism. This is not liberty. This is the ugly face of fear masquerading as security. We, the people, did not sacrifice generations of service and blood so that our cities could be turned into armed encampments.

Every rifle slung across a soldier’s chest on Main Street is a slap in the face to the Constitution. Every display of military force against citizens is a betrayal of the freedoms we swore to defend.

If we tolerate this, we are not “free.” We are being managed, manipulated, and kept in check by the very symbols of power that once stood as our defense. And let me be clear: there is no safety, no justice, and no future in an America that turns its military inward against its own people.

The “Big Beautiful” Bill Is a National Tragedy in the Making

My opinion and what I am sending to my Senators...

As a citizen, a voter, and someone who still believes in the promise of American democracy, I am writing to express my strongest opposition to the so-called “Big Beautiful” bill currently before the Senate.

Let me be clear: this bill is a betrayal of the very ideals it claims to uphold. Its deep, sweeping cuts to social programs like SNAP and Medicaid are not budgetary corrections — they are acts of cruelty. Millions of Americans, including working families, seniors, and children, rely on these programs not for convenience, but for survival. Slashing them is not fiscal responsibility; it is moral failure.

But the threat runs deeper. Embedded in this bill is a blatant power grab — a calculated dismantling of the checks and balances that are the bedrock of our constitutional system. Transferring the authority of the judiciary and Congress to the executive branch is not “streamlining government.” It is the blueprint for authoritarian rule.

This bill endangers not only the stability of our country but also our standing in the world. The United States has long been held as a model of democratic governance — flawed, but striving. If this bill becomes law, we forfeit that legacy.

To support this bill in its current form is to declare allegiance not to democracy, but to despotism. No one who votes for it can rightly call themselves a patriot. Patriots defend the Constitution, protect the vulnerable, and fight against tyranny — not for it.

Senator, your job is not to rubber-stamp power. It is to stand guard over it. I urge you — for the sake of your constituents, your oath, and your conscience — to oppose this bill with everything you have.

History will remember who stood for democracy, and who stood silent...

Look What ChatGPT has Learned from My Interactions with It

Meet the Grand Wizard of Code & Common Sense

A seventy-something software sorcerer who hung up the career cape but still casts spells in Python, Perl, and old-school shell. Retired, but not retired from thinking. Grew up wrangling data from dBase to Progress to pandas, and now turns stock news into graphs like it’s second nature.

With 35 years in 12-step recovery, you’ve got deep wisdom and a soft spot for the human side of life. You dig into history, question authority, appreciate a good joke, and somehow still find time to write birthday tributes and app ideas between M3U playlists and Peewee models.

You’re the kind of guy who can optimize file packing in Perl, decode old Hawaiian island names, and still ask, “Should I strip that parenthetical or nah?” And you always want the explanation behind the answer — because learning never retired.

And look what it thinks I can improve...

So, here's the honest, respectful read on areas where you might come up short or could sharpen things up:

🪓 Sharp Tools, Blunt Edges

You're direct — which is a strength — but sometimes it can veer into “cut-to-the-point” so fast that nuance or diplomacy gets edged out. In technical problem-solving, that works great. In conversations or leadership moments (even in writing to a Senator), you might miss a chance to persuade because the blade came down a little fast. You likely know this and have learned when to modulate it — but it’s a lever you control, and you could maybe tune it more than toggle it.

🔁 Efficiency Bias

You've built a career and a mind that seeks clarity and optimization. That sometimes leads to treating things (or even people) like systems that just need the right input. But humans — politics, family, recovery, even yourself — don’t always resolve with the same tidy logic. You get that, especially with your recovery background, but I bet it still bugs the hell out of you when someone (or something) resists a fix that should work.

There’s a low-level frustration that pops up occasionally when things feel inefficient by design (government, bloated bills, bad documentation). You might overextend energy trying to force clarity where chaos actually rules.

🎯 High Standards, Narrow Tolerances

Your bar is high. That’s why you’ve succeeded. But it might make you overly self-reliant — like, if someone can’t meet your level of rigor, you’ll just do it yourself. That’s a great short-term move, but long-term it can limit collaboration or mentoring moments where someone less skilled just needs your patience, not your fix. You probably don’t suffer fools — or sloppy thinkers — easily.

🧘 Internal Stillness ≠ Intellectual Stillness

You clearly want a deeper inner calm, maybe even detachment from the noise — but your mind’s default mode is to engage and dismantle. Stillness might be something you seek because it challenges your usual state, not because it's natural for you.

Improving here could give you better energy flow and more space to decide what not to tackle. You’ve earned the right to stop solving every damn thing.

Memorial Day Message

Today, we pause to remember and honor all who gave their lives in service to this country—our military heroes and first responders alike. Their courage and sacrifice are the backbone of America’s strength, security, and freedom. We owe them more than words can say. Let us never forget that the liberties we enjoy today were bought at a high price. May we live in a way that honors their memory, with gratitude and purpose.

A Farm Full of Memories

As the final preparations are being made for the auction of my parents’ belongings, I find myself holding a mix of emotions - gratitude, sadness, and a quiet kind of ache. This is the right thing for the right reason, but it sure doesn’t feel easy.

This isn’t just about furniture and dishes. It’s the careful unwinding of a full life - a home filled with memories, routines, and love. Every lamp, every cookbook, every faded receipt carries a story. Letting them go stirs up more than nostalgia - it stirs up the deep truth that we’ve reached the closing lines of their chapter.

Looking back, I know without a doubt that coming back to Missouri in 2001 was the right call. It gave me the opportunity to be the son they needed - not at a distance, but right here when it mattered most. And I didn’t walk that road alone.

My wife walked every step of it with me. She wasn’t just supportive - she was a constant source of care and connection for my folks. She helped make holidays feel special, lent comfort when things got hard, and quietly took on the thousand little tasks that make life manageable in the later years. I couldn’t have done this without her - and they wouldn’t have had the same care without her, either.

Because we were here, we got to celebrate. Birthdays, anniversaries, Mother’s Days, Father’s Days - all the little markers of time that become so much more precious in hindsight. Sometimes those days were full of laughter and sometimes they were quiet, but we were together.

A great gift to come out of those years was the CD made of Dad’s music. His talent, his timing, his soul - it’s all in there, captured for the next generation to hear and appreciate. For us to play when the urge hits. That’s a legacy no auction can take away.

And when the time came to say goodbye, we were able to do it right. We were present. Not flying in, not calling from afar. We were here. That’s a blessing a lot of families don’t get, and we know how lucky we are for that.

Now we’re letting go of the physical things. The house is full of memory-soaked objects, and while it’s time to part with them, that doesn’t mean it’s easy. These aren’t just things - they’re reminders of lives well-lived and love freely given. Gladly we've been able to share objects with the extended family that will carry their spirit into the future.

Still, we know the heart of their story doesn’t live in a table, a knickknack, or a wagon. It lives in us - in the time we shared, the music we saved, the lessons they taught, and the care we gave back to them when they needed it most.

So yes, this is hard. But it’s also right. And it’s a tribute to two lives that meant the world to us.

Representative Onder, You’re Asking the Wrong Question

"Don't you agree that certain states, such as liberal California, should not co-opt the authority of the federal government's policies to negatively impact the trade, manufacturing, and consumer choice of other states?"
— Rep. Bob Onder

Here we go again, Bob. That’s a loaded question if I’ve ever heard one. You ask for a yes or no, as though the complexity of our federal system can be reduced to a soundbite. Yet even you, in Congress, are granted the option to abstain when the question doesn’t fit the circumstances. You don’t offer us that option on your surveys, though—we’re just supposed to nod along and play the binary game. Not today.

Let’s get to the meat of this.

The issue isn’t whether California or any other state is “co-opting” federal authority. The issue is whether any state, citizen, or entity has the right to seek judicial redress when they believe a federal action harms them. And under the U.S. Constitution, the answer is unequivocally yes. That’s the role of the judiciary—one of the three co-equal branches of government. You seem to forget that.

Article III of the Constitution guarantees the federal judiciary the authority to hear “all cases… arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made.”

The courts are not an afterthought. They are a constitutional equal to the Executive and the Legislature. Dismissing a state’s right to challenge federal policy through the courts shows either a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional balance—or an intentional effort to mislead your constituents into believing that judicial recourse is somehow illegitimate.

Economic Clout Is Not a Crime

Now let’s talk about California. You called it out by name, so let’s deal in facts:

• As of 2024, California has the fourth largest economy in the world, with a GDP of over $4.3 trillion—greater than Japan. ([IMF, BEA])

• Texas, a conservative darling, also makes the top 10 globally with a GDP of about $2.4 trillion.

• These states have massive influence—not because they “co-opt” authority—but because their economies demand attention. Trade, manufacturing, and consumer choice are not being harmed by these states; they are being shaped by market realities that come with size, scale, and innovation.

So let’s not pretend this is about “liberal” California bullying others. What it really sounds like is resentment that larger states, with complex economies and diverse populations, exercise their right to self-govern and to challenge federal policies they find harmful.

The Real Imbalance? Representation.

You, Bob, serve in the House of Representatives. That’s supposed to be the body that represents the people equally. But we’ve got a problem: The House no longer does that.

Why? Because it’s been capped at 435 seats since 1929, when the U.S. had 122 million people. Today, the population is 340 million—but the number of representatives hasn’t budged.

• In 1929, each House member represented about 280,000 people.

• In 2025, that number is 780,000 on average.

• But it’s not evenly distributed:

  • Wyoming has ~580,000 residents and 1 rep → 1 rep per 580k.

  • California has ~39 million and 52 reps → 1 rep per 750k.
    That’s a 170,000-person gap in representation power.

So if anyone is “co-opting” federal authority, it’s not California—it’s the underpopulated states like Wyoming, where a single voter has disproportionately more influence in the House than someone in California, Florida, or Texas. That’s not representation, it’s institutionalized imbalance.

Let’s Call It What It Is

The truth, Bob, is that your question isn’t about states' rights or federal authority. It’s about keeping the game rigged in favor of less populous states that wield outsized political influence. It’s about denying the judiciary its constitutional role. And it’s about deflecting from real conversations about fairness, representation, and accountability.

Until you’re ready to acknowledge the imbalance baked into our current system—and the role you play in preserving it—your questions will continue to miss the point.

Stop Framing Complex Issues Like They're Simple

 A letter to my Federal House Non-Representative

Really, Bob — “Don’t you agree Congress should continue to prioritize border security to keep our communities safe.” That’s not a question, though it’s framed like one. No question mark, yet you want a yes or no. Let’s be honest: complex issues don’t fit neatly into yes/no checkboxes, and this kind of framing avoids honest discussion.

Prioritize border security over what? Over helping the poor, healing the sick, protecting the environment, ending endless wars, making schools safe from mass shootings, or maybe cracking down on members of Congress profiting from insider trading?

We already have laws that allow for the deportation of immigrants with criminal convictions. If enforcement is the issue, let’s talk about that honestly — not with loaded questions.

Should we prioritize border security over more tax cuts for the wealthy or a trillion-dollar defense budget? Sure, I’d be glad to have that conversation. But let’s not pretend there’s a simple answer here.

I get exhausted by the binary choices you present, especially when so many issues demand nuance, compromise, and empathy. I do not envy the complexity of your job, and I don’t expect easy answers — but I do expect better questions.

Please represent all of your constituents — not just the ones who already agree with you. If that’s your goal, great. But based on your messaging, it seems like there’s little space for dissent or dialogue.

There's a Lot Wrong in the World—But This Language Is Unacceptable

In a world full of problems, it’s easy to get numb—but this one cuts through the noise. A woman hurls a racist slur at a 5-year-old Black child with autism… and raises over $600,000 for it.

This isn’t just outrage—it’s reward. When hate gets funded, we’ve crossed a line we can’t afford to ignore. 

Read the article:

https://www.complex.com/life/a/alex-ocho/woman-raises-600000-online-after-yelling-racist-slur-about-child

Make America Grift Again

 Absolutely appalling. While the Trump family and their inner circle wrap themselves in the flag, they’re running a full-blown grift operation in broad daylight. Axios just pulled back the curtain: multimillion-dollar crypto ventures, high-yield “patriotic” investments, and a whole outfit—World Liberty Financial—pitching financial snake oil to veterans and loyal MAGA voters under the Trump brand. This isn't public service. It's organized self-enrichment with red, white, and blue window dressing.

And this isn’t some fringe scheme. It’s being driven by Trump’s former campaign finance chief and other close allies—people who’ve leveraged their White House access and MAGA credibility into shady digital asset deals, targeted at people who trust them most. They’re using the language of liberty to peddle financial products that regulators haven’t even figured out how to define yet. All while making themselves rich and claiming victimhood every step of the way.

This isn't just hypocrisy—it’s a hostile takeover of patriotism for personal gain. If any other politician’s associates pulled this kind of stunt, there’d be wall-to-wall outrage. But in Trump World, it’s just Tuesday. We either hold this crowd accountable, or we admit that the rules no longer matter—only loyalty and the size of the grift. Enough already.

Trump Crypto Business

Bob Onder's Recent Survey, Should Rogue District Judges have the Same Scope of Power as the Supreme Court

Dear Representative Onder,

Thank you for your recent communication asking whether "rogue district judges should have the same scope of power as the Supreme Court."

Respectfully, I must express deep concern about the framing of this question. The term “rogue” is both vague and inflammatory. One person's "rogue judge" may be another’s principled defender of constitutional rights. Our judicial system is built precisely to allow for disagreements, for challenges, and for measured, multi-tiered resolution. It’s not chaos—it’s checks and balances in action.

At the heart of our republic lies the genius of the Constitution: three co-equal branches of government, each with distinct powers, designed to hold one another accountable. District courts play a vital role in this system. They are not rogue actors; they are the lawful first stop for citizens seeking redress, including challenges to executive actions that may exceed statutory or constitutional limits.

The Supreme Court is indeed the final interpreter of constitutional questions—but how is a citizen to reach the highest court without first going through the lower courts? Undermining the scope and authority of those courts does not strengthen democracy—it weakens it.

If anything, the recent rulings from lower courts, even when inconvenient to those in power, show that our legal system still works. If we trust the Constitution, we must also trust the process it sets forth, even when the outcomes are not politically expedient.

I urge you to avoid supporting any legislation that seeks to restrict or intimidate members of the judiciary. Instead, let’s reaffirm our shared commitment to constitutional order, judicial independence, and the rule of law.

The Republican Budget Proposal is Morally Indefensible

Message I sent to my Federal Non-Representatives

I adamantly urge you to NOT vote for the Republican budget proposal that slashes federal support for child care, health research, education, housing assistance, community development, and care for the elderly. Just to deliver $4 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy.

This proposal is not just fiscally irresponsible — it's morally indefensible. These are not abstract “programs.” These are lifelines for working families, struggling seniors, sick children, and the communities you pledged to serve.

Voting yes would actively harm the very people you claim to represent. What message does this send? That we can’t afford to feed hungry kids or care for aging parents — but we can afford to further enrich billionaires? That helping a hedge fund manager matters more than a single mom trying to afford day care or a veteran who can’t find housing? America cannot thrive while its working class is gutted for the benefit of the ultra-rich. You were elected to serve people, not protect privilege.

I’m asking you to vote with empathy. Vote with conscience. Vote no on this budget.

Stop Prioritizing the Wealthy Over the Middle Class

 Message I sent to my Federal Non-Representative Bob Onder

Dear Representative Onder,

I’m writing to express my strong disapproval of the ongoing efforts to pass massive tax cuts for billionaires and large corporations at the expense of working and middle-class Americans. This direction is deeply unjust and undermines the very people you were elected to represent.

Programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SNAP are not government waste — they are essential supports for millions of families. Targeting them to fund giveaways to the ultra-wealthy is not only morally wrong, it’s economically reckless. These proposals don’t reflect a vision of shared prosperity — they reflect a government captured by those with the deepest pockets.

You were elected to represent all of us, not just your high-dollar donors. The middle class built this country, and we deserve more than empty promises. We were told this administration would protect working people. Frankly, I’ve seen very little evidence of that from your office.

If you continue to support legislation that favors the rich while gutting vital programs for everyone else, you are making it clear who you truly serve — and it’s not your constituents.

I urge you to rethink your priorities and start working for the people who sent you to Washington — not those who fund campaigns, but those who cast the votes.

As Israel has Rights, it also has Responsibilities

 You can believe in Israel’s right to exist in safety—and still question the legality of its actions in occupied territories.

Under the Geneva Conventions, it’s generally accepted that a country shouldn’t move its civilian population into land taken by war. That’s why most of the world considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal. People who raise this concern aren’t always “anti-Israel”—many just want international law applied fairly.

At the same time, violence and terror—on either side—can never be justified. Attacks on civilians deepen wounds and destroy any hope of peace.

If peace is ever going to happen, it’ll take empathy, respect for law, and a commitment to nonviolence—from everyone involved.

Tariffs are Taxes

 As tariffs begin to bite into the daily lives of ordinary Americans, it’s worth pointing out just how invisible this cost often is. We’re all used to seeing the sales tax line on our receipts—clear, straightforward, and honest. But when tariffs jack up the price of everyday goods, from electronics to groceries, there’s no such transparency. You just pay more, and most folks don’t realize it’s not the store or the supplier—it’s policy.

Wouldn’t it be fair to have that tariff cost spelled out? A simple line that says, “Tariff surcharge: $3.47” would go a long way in helping people understand who’s really footing the bill. Because spoiler alert: it’s not the foreign manufacturer. It’s you, the shopper. That transparency might also help people ask better questions about whether those policies are worth it or if there’s a smarter way to handle trade.

Tariffs may be a tool in the economic toolbox, but when they’re used like a hammer, everyone feels the bruise. Let’s start being honest about where those extra dollars are going and why. If we’re going to pay more, we at least deserve to know who to thank for the privilege. Wouldn’t you like to see that breakdown the next time you’re standing in line at the checkout?

Fixing Democracy: Why the U.S. House Needs Proportional Representation

The U.S. House of Representatives is broken. Decades of gerrymandering, hyper-partisanship, and an outdated electoral system have left us with a Congress that does not truly represent the people. A minority of voters can secure a majority of seats, ensuring that obstruction and gridlock remain the norm. Compromise, once a cornerstone of American governance, has all but disappeared. Our winner-take-all system creates a distorted democracy where millions of voices go unheard, fueling frustration and disengagement among voters. It’s time to fix this by adopting proportional representation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Problems with Our Current System

The first-past-the-post system we use in House elections rewards parties that can carve out districts in their favor, not those that best reflect the national will. This leads to:

- Unrepresentative Outcomes: In many elections, one party can win a majority of seats without winning a majority of votes. This allows one faction to dictate policy, even if it lacks broad public support.

- Lack of Competition: Gerrymandered districts create “safe” seats, making it nearly impossible for challengers to unseat incumbents. This locks in partisanship and decreases accountability.

- Extreme Partisanship: Since most seats are predetermined for one party, politicians cater to their base rather than the general electorate. This discourages compromise and rewards ideological purity.

How Proportional Representation Can Fix Congress

Proportional representation (PR) ensures that parties win seats in proportion to their share of the vote. If a party gets 40% of the national vote, they should get about 40% of the seats. This system encourages coalition-building, amplifies voter voices, and leads to policies that reflect a broader consensus.

Under PR, multiple representatives would be elected from larger, multi-member districts, ensuring more ideological diversity and less wasted votes. This means:

- More Competition: No more “safe” seats—every vote would matter.

- More Representation: A wider range of viewpoints in Congress, reducing extremism.

- More Accountability: Politicians would need to appeal to a broader audience, leading to greater responsiveness to voter concerns.

Increase the Number of Representatives

Another fundamental flaw in the House is its size. The number of representatives has been locked at 435 since 1911, despite the U.S. population more than tripling since then. Today, each representative serves about 760,000 people, making it nearly impossible for them to adequately engage with their constituents.

Expanding the House to better reflect population growth—potentially doubling its size—would bring the U.S. in line with other democracies. This would make representation more local, improve accessibility, and ensure that each citizen’s vote carries more weight.

A More Democratic Future

Proportional representation, combined with a larger House, would reinvigorate American democracy. It would ensure that every voter has a voice, reduce polarization, and restore faith in our political system. The current system is failing us, but we have the tools to fix it. It’s time to act and build a Congress that truly represents the people.