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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
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.
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.Message I sent to my Federal Non-Representative Bob Onder
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.
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?
