A Man tough to Describe

 Trump - a complex individual that can't be described in just a few words. 

But here's a try: 

Corrupt, Immoral, Deceitful, Dishonest, Unethical, Treacherous, Sinful, Hypocritical, Ruthless, Malicious, Arrogant, Selfish, Greedy, Liar, Narcissistic, Cruel, Callous, Vindictive, Manipulative, Spiteful, Jealous, Toxic, Abusive, Exploitative, Predatory, Bullying, Domineering, Intolerant, Oppressive, Untrustworthy, Devious, Angry, Bitter, Resentful, Hateful, Hostile, Cold, Vicious, Petty, Brutal, Villainous, Monstrous, Tyrannical, Criminal, Dishonorable, Inhumane, Malevolent, Destructive, Perfidious, Wicked, Nefarious, Odious, Execrable, Ignoble, Abominable, Depraved, Vile, Loathsome, Contemptible, Reprobate, Miscreant, Blackguard, Knave, Wretch, Scoundrel, Villain, Rogue, Fiend, Charlatan, Degenerate, Diabolical, Maleficent, Pernicious, Iniquitous, Heinous, Atrocious, Detestable, Abhorrent, Flagitious, Putrid, Apish, Pestilent, Abject, Sordid, Infamous, Crude, Con Man, Weak, Cheater, Uneducated, Felonious, Pedophile, Rapist, Flatulent, Unprincipled, Immature, Old, Stupid, Incompetent, Pigish, Deeply Flawed, Unfaithful, Base, Foul, Morbidly obese, Uses Face Paint, and Smells.

You're welcome,

PS. All gloves are off regarding this incredibly flawed human. 

MAGA, wake up for Pete's sake. Wait ... no ... wake up for America's sake.

Sandspur

Why Illegal Orders Must NOT Be Obeyed

 

Hank Honig posted this on Facebook a few days ago. It refers to and reprints a great explanation regarding how the U. S. Military defines and follows legal command orders as opposed to those which are not. As he says, it's offered as a "Public Service" in light of today's news concerning the United States Defense Dept. destroying boats and killing those aboard that MAY be involved in illegal drugs purportedly headed to the U.S. It's an important read.
November 29 at 2:21 PM 

Thanks to JoJo Liszbet for the best explanation of why illegal orders must not be obeyed

Good Morning! Just a PSA to those who have never been in the service and a “reminder” to those who have or are currently serving.

What an Illegal Order Actually Is —

People are yelling “treason!” at Senator Mark Kelly for reminding troops of something every recruit learns on DAY ONE:

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

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), U.S. service members must obey lawful orders — and must refuse unlawful ones.

That isn’t “treason.”

That isn’t “defiance.”

That isn’t “undermining the chain of command.”

That is literally the LAW.

It’s the cornerstone of military professionalism.

And since so many folks are pretending they suddenly don’t understand what an “illegal order” is, let’s do the work they refuse to do and walk people through it.

1. What the UCMJ actually says about unlawful orders

Under Articles 90, 91, and 92 of the UCMJ, troops must follow lawful orders.

But the military’s own doctrine is even clearer:

Troops must refuse “manifestly unlawful orders.”

If they follow an illegal order, THEY can be prosecuted.

“Just following orders” is not a defense. That principle comes straight from post-WWII law and is baked into every modern military on Earth.

The idea is simple:

The U.S. military follows the Constitution and the law — not the whims of a politician.

So what’s an illegal order?

Let’s be specific.

2. What makes an order illegal? (The real definition)

An order is illegal when it requires a service member to:

• Use lethal force where lethal force is not legally justified

• Harm civilians or noncombatants

• Break domestic criminal law

• Violate the Law of Armed Conflict

• Treat noncombatants as enemy combatants

• Use military power as law enforcement without legal authorization

• Engage in disproportionate or unnecessary force

• Commit acts prohibited by treaty or U.S. statute

These standards don’t disappear because a president gets angry, or because social media influencers yell about “toughness.”

The law doesn’t care about vibes.

3. When is it LEGAL to fire on vessels?

This is where it becomes obvious why people are suddenly uncomfortable.

Under U.S. and international maritime law, you can only use lethal force against a vessel if:

A. The vessel poses an imminent threat

Examples:

• It is firing on U.S. forces

• It is attempting to ram

• It is demonstrating clear hostile intent

B. The vessel is a lawful military target in an armed conflict

This only applies if:

• The U.S. is in a declared or authorized war

• The vessel is an enemy warship or armed combatant

We are NOT in an armed conflict with Venezuela.

C. The vessel refuses lawful commands and poses a threat that cannot be handled by non-lethal means

Even in law-enforcement situations (like drug interdiction), the rules are strict:

• You must hail the vessel

• You must attempt non-lethal compliance measures

• You must try to board

• You must escalate force only when absolutely necessary

• Lethal force is LAST resort and only if there is a threat to life

Drug smuggling suspicion does not make someone a combat target.

Ever.

4. What is NOT legal?

Here’s what is not allowed:

Shooting a boat because it “might” have drugs

Destroying a vessel because it fled

Using lethal force as a shortcut to interdiction

Treating smugglers as enemy combatants

Blowing up civilian vessels in international waters

Acting like the high seas are a free-fire zone

Using military force without congressional authorization

None of that becomes legal just because the administration spins it after the fact.

5. Now let’s talk about the Venezuelan boats.

The government is now publicly admitting that U.S. forces have shot Venezuelan vessels out of the water, with the justification that they were “drug boats.”

Even if they were, that doesn’t magically transform those boats into:

• Combatants

• Military targets

• Enemy vessels

• Armed threats

Drug smuggling is a CRIME.

It is not an act of war.

There is no legal theory under which drug suspicion authorizes sinking a vessel.

Which means:

If troops were ordered to destroy those boats without an imminent threat, that is a manifestly illegal order.

Exactly the kind of thing the UCMJ requires troops to refuse.

And this is why the people screaming “treason!” at Mark Kelly don’t want to talk about details. Because once you understand what an illegal order actually is, you realize this isn’t abstract at all.

Some of these orders may already be crossing the line.

6. Why the political outrage is backwards

Telling troops:

“You must refuse illegal orders”

is not treason.

Ordering troops:

“Shoot that boat even though we’re not in a war, it’s not a threat, and the law doesn’t allow it”

—that’s the thing the UCMJ is designed to prevent.

It’s not complicated:

• Lawful orders must be obeyed

• Unlawful orders must be refused

• Political fantasies do not override law

• Congress controls war, not the president

• The U.S. military is loyal to the Constitution, not individuals

If ExSeth’s Department of Defense is leaning into a “shoot first” posture that doesn’t follow maritime law, then they’re the ones issuing potentially illegal orders, not the people warning troops to follow the law.

7. Final point

You don’t fix the military by telling troops to obey illegal orders.

You fix the military by making sure the people giving orders understand the law — or are replaced if they don’t.

This isn’t treason.

This is civics.

And the people yelling the loudest are the ones most afraid you’ll learn it.

Trumpism cracking?

Did you know that:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered Special Operations to kill the survivors of a September 2 strike on a small boat off Venezuela, and the Senate and the House Armed Services Committees have announced they intend to conduct “vigorous oversight” and “gather a full accounting” of the operation.

Did you know that:
Former judge advocate generals (JAGs), military lawyers, in the Former JAGs Working Group issued a statement declaring that it unanimously “considers both the giving and the execution of these orders, if true, to constitute war crimes, murder, or both,” and called for “anyone who issues or follows such orders [to] be prosecuted for war crimes, murder, or both.”

Did you know that:
Hegseth purged J(Judge) A(Advocate) G(General)s from the Army and Air Force and systematically dismantled the military’s legal guardrails. And that, “Had those guardrails been in place,” they wrote, “we are confident they would have prevented these crimes.”

Did you know that:
A Gallup poll released yesterday shows President Donald J. Trump’s job approval rating at 36% with disapproval at 60%, and that since last month, Trump’s approval has plummeted 11 points.

Did you know that:
Republicans’ approval of Trump has fallen seven points to a second-term low, while approval among Independents has fallen eight points to its lowest point in either term.

Did you know that:
Trump’s threat to attack Venezuela attracts the support of only 30% of Americans. Seventy percent oppose such military action.

Did you know that:
Only 55% of those who voted for Trump in 2024 see themselves as MAGA and that 38% do not consider themselves as MAGA and are less enamored of him than are his MAGA loyalists.

Did you know that:
Florida governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican, recently joined California governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, in speaking out against the Trump administration’s plan to offer up to 34 offshore drilling leases off the coasts of Alaska, California, and Florida.

Did you know that:
Indiana state senator Greg Walker, a Republican who is standing firm on his refusal to vote in favor of redistricting, said, “I was taught as a child the difference between right and wrong,” Walker told The (Columbus) Republic, “and this is just wrong on so many levels.”

Did you know that:
Walker also said, "The president trying to save his own skin by holding a majority in Congress,” and, “It’s so that he’s not impeached again. That’s all this (mid-decade redistricting) is about.”

(All the above is from Heather Cox Richardson, Letters from an American <heathercoxrichardson@substack.com>

USMC Helicopter Support in Vietnam Congressional Gold Medal Act

If you are a Marine, served in Vietnam, and flew or worked in a helicopter squadron, you'll want to read this. It's a little long for a social media post, so find a comfy place with good lighting and take your time. It's probably one of the most definitive renditions of the role we played "in country," including the places and battles, all with stark numbers that define the missions we had in cold reality. It's the writeup, i.e., "Findings," that has been included with the proposed act mentioned above under consideration by Congress now as H.R.5939.

This Pricey Land Deal Stinks—Here’s why

 

This Pricey Land Deal Stinks—Here’s why

I live in the country, as most might describe it, where smells from various agricultural operations can sometimes be expected and in most cases accepted. It’s part of country living and I’m okay with that.

One smell we get occasionally, though, is when the field across the road we live on gets fertilized with chicken manure. At least that’s what I think it is. After harvesting each year, the field is left fallow for several months, then truckloads of some kind of stuff that wreaks with an odor similar to week-old roadkill appear. Two, maybe three piles - 5-10 feet high - left in the sun. Which is bad, just not horrible bad. But then the spreaders arrive a week or two later and start broadcasting that stuff across the field. Well, that’s when the rank can be so bad it will keep you indoors with all the windows closed spraying camphor up your nose until the wind shifts … which it eventually does, and we get back to the country living we are so thankful to be able to enjoy.

But, having said such, there is a growing smell coming from Tallahassee that is just as odorous and offensive, if not worse, that just isn’t going away and is getting way more objectionable.

In today’s St. Pete Times, the frontpage headline was “Lobbyist wrote proposal for land deal.” It’s more about that land purchased by the Florida Cabinet for four acres of panhandle beach sand up in Destin for $83 million of your dollars meant for the Wildlife Corridor you’ve been reading about.

It’s a purchase authorization at Florida’s highest level that came out of nowhere, was not on any conservation list where such proposals are deeply vetted to assure they are appropriate land buys for conservation purposes, and was approved by Governor DeSantis, Ag Commissioner Wilton Simpson, and Attorney General Ashley Moody. The only Cabinet member who did not vote in support was Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia but later inferred it was okay because it was such a done deal.

Here's why the stench is wafting ever more repugnantly across our beloved state.

1.      Massive overpayment:

·       The state paying over 10 times what the seller originally paid—$83 million for land bought for ~$8 million in 2016–2017.

·       Seller-controlled appraisals: The budget language allowed use of appraisals commissioned by the seller, undermining impartial valuation.

·       No competitive review: The deal leapfrogged other conservation priorities without undergoing standard cost-benefit analysis.

2. Procedural Manipulation

• Lobbyist-written budget language: A lobbyist for the landowner hand-delivered the purchase language to a legislative aide, which was later inserted into the state budget.
• Fast-tracked approval: The deal was rushed through with minimal public scrutiny, and bundled with other projects to avoid individual debate.
• Opaque process: The budget provision didn’t name the parcel, owners, or price—concealing key details from lawmakers and the public.

3. Conservation Concerns

• Low ecological value: The land is a sandy peninsula in a heavily developed area, not part of the Florida Wildlife Corridor it was funded through.
• Misuse of conservation funds: Money earmarked for protecting critical wildlife habitat was diverted to buy land with limited environmental benefit.

4. Political Favoritism

• Seller is a major GOP donor: Robert Guidry, who controls the land-owning LLCs, has donated hundreds of thousands to Florida politicians including Gov. DeSantis.
• Cabinet members voted despite donor ties: DeSantis and Attorney General James Uthmeier, both recipients of Guidry’s donations, voted to approve the deal.

5. Public and Internal Dissent

• Outrage from lawmakers and conservationists: Even Republican officials expressed confusion and concern over the deal’s speed and cost.
• Cabinet member objected post-vote: CFO Blaise Ingoglia voiced concerns after the vote, but DeSantis dismissed them as the deal was already bundled and approved.

This is a textbook case of corruption at the state’s highest level. Hopefully, a Grand Jury investigation will be initiated and indictments could be forthcoming. BUT, in this day and age where a former Grand Jury found little concern for one of the greatest cases of multiple child predation by a leveraged multimillionaire ever, and basically let him off with a slap of his hand, I’m not confident the smell is going to get any better soon, as the air in Florida grows ever more foul.

In any case, there is no public record or credible news report confirming that a grand jury has been initiated. The situation remains controversial, and calls for investigation continue, but no formal legal action has been reported

The following is based upon my inquiry and a response by Microsoft’s Copilot

Current Status

• No formal grand jury or criminal investigation has been publicly announced regarding the $84 million Destin land deal as of late October 2025. The deal has generated significant controversy, media scrutiny, and calls for investigation, but there is no official confirmation of legal proceedings or investigative actions by law enforcement or the courts.

What Happens Next?

1. Public and Media Pressure

• Journalists and advocacy groups continue to investigate and publish findings about the deal’s origins, the role of lobbyists, donor influence, and procedural irregularities. This ongoing scrutiny may prompt further action from oversight bodies or law enforcement. [yahoo.com]

2. Legislative Oversight

• State lawmakers and Cabinet members who objected to the deal (notably CFO Blaise Ingoglia) may push for legislative hearings or request an official review of the transaction. Such hearings could examine the budget process, appraisal methods, and the bypassing of standard conservation vetting.

3. Potential for Audit or Review

• The Florida Auditor General or other state oversight agencies could initiate an audit of the purchase, focusing on whether taxpayer funds were used appropriately and whether the deal complied with state law and conservation priorities.

4. Legal or Criminal Investigation

• If evidence of wrongdoing emerges—such as fraud, bribery, or misuse of public funds—state or federal prosecutors could open a formal investigation. This could lead to subpoenas, interviews, and potentially a grand jury if criminal charges are considered. However, as of now, there is no public indication that this step has begun. [yahoo.com], [yahoo.com]

5. Community and Political Response

• Local officials and community groups may continue to demand transparency, public comment, and accountability. The controversy could influence future land deals and prompt reforms to prevent similar situations. [weartv.com], [floridarea...tewire.com]

Key Points from Recent Coverage

• The deal was fast-tracked and bundled with other purchases, limiting individual debate and public comment.
• The seller is a major political donor, and the purchase price far exceeded the original acquisition cost.
• Lawmakers and conservationists have expressed confusion and concern, but procedural hurdles have so far prevented reversal or deeper inquiry. [yahoo.com], [yahoo.com], [midbaynews.com]

---

Summary:
The next steps depend on whether public pressure leads to legislative hearings, audits, or a formal criminal investigation. At present, the most likely immediate actions are continued media investigation, possible legislative review, and calls for an official audit.

Sandspur

 

An astounding summary of President Barack Obama's accomplishments while in office.

 This is a Facebook post by Stuart Rogel shared from an earlier post by Kent Garry. It was written by Teri Carter of the Lexington-Herald Leader. Teri Carter is an opinion columnist who writes about rural Kentucky politics and issues for publications including the Lexington Herald-Leader. As of October 2025, she also contributes regularly to the Kentucky Lantern.  

It's an astounding summary of President Barack Obama's accomplishments while in office.

Sandspur

"Trump supporters say, 'We suffered 8 years under Barack Obama.'

Fair enough. Let’s take a look.

The day Obama took office, the Dow closed at 7,949 points. Eight years later, the Dow had almost tripled.

General Motors and Chrysler were on the brink of bankruptcy, with Ford not far behind, and their failure, along with their supply chains, would have meant the loss of millions of jobs. Obama pushed through a controversial, $80 billion bailout to save the car industry. The U.S. car industry survived, started making money again, and the entire $80 billion was paid back, with interest.

While we remain vulnerable to lone-wolf attacks, no foreign terrorist organization has successfully executed a mass attack here since 9/11.

Obama ordered the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden.

He drew down the number of troops from 180,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan to just 15,000, and increased funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

He launched a program called Opening Doors which, since 2010, has led to a 47 percent decline in the number of homeless veterans. He set a record 73 straight months of private-sector job growth.

Due to Obama’s regulatory policies, greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 12%, production of renewable energy more than doubled, and our dependence on foreign oil was cut in half.

He signed The Lilly Ledbetter Act, making it easier for women to sue employers for unequal pay.

His Omnibus Public Lands Management Act designated more than 2 million acres as wilderness, creating thousands of miles of trails and protecting over 1,000 miles of rivers.

He reduced the federal deficit from 9.8 percent of GDP in 2009 to 3.2 percent in 2016.

For all the inadequacies of the Affordable Care Act, we seem to have forgotten that, before the ACA, you could be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition and kids could not stay on their parents’ policies up to age 26.

Obama approved a $14.5 billion system to rebuild the levees in New Orleans.

All this, even as our own Mitch McConnell famously asserted that his singular mission would be to block anything President Obama tried to do.

While Obama failed on his campaign pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, that prison’s population decreased from 242 to around 50.

He expanded funding for embryonic stem cell research, supporting ground breaking advancement in areas like spinal injury treatment and cancer.

Credit card companies can no longer charge hidden fees or raise interest rates without advance notice.

Most years, Obama threw a 4th of July party for military families. He held babies, played games with children, served barbecue, and led the singing of “Happy Birthday” to his daughter Malia, who was born on July 4.

Welfare spending is down: for every 100 poor families, just 24 receive cash assistance, compared with 64 in 1996.

Obama comforted families and communities following more than a dozen mass shootings. After Sandy Hook, he said, “The majority of those who died today were children, beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old.”

Yet, he never took away anyone’s guns........

He sang Amazing Grace, spontaneously, at the altar.

He was the first president since Eisenhower to serve two terms without personal or political scandal.

He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

President Obama was not perfect, as no man and no president is, and you can certainly disagree with his political ideologies. But to say we suffered?

If that’s the argument, if this is how we suffered for 8 years under Barack Obama, I have one wish:

may we be so fortunate as to suffer 8 more."

by Teri Carter, Lexington Herald-Leader

Former Speaker Byrd, please understand, regulators don't regulate just to regulate

Settle in, I've got a lot to say here. You've read my Facebook October 3 response to Johnnie Byrd's comment and some have asked to know if he responded. Well he did. And here is my response to his response. (No, this exchange will not go on any further.

So here was Johnnie's response to my October 3 post:

"Sonny, I know trusting individuals to make their own choices is hard for those who have spent a career as government regulators steeped in bureaucratic power to compel compliance from the populace. Deregulation can be scary but freedom is what makes us a great country."

And here is my response:

Johnnie,
Your comment is clearly trying to paint my public service career as antithetical to personal freedom. Nothing could be further from actuality.

I served 13 months in Vietnam as a U. S. Marine helicopter pilot where I flew over 200 combat missions and served as Forward Air Controller for the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, on the ground, where my job was to call in air support when my unit was under fire. My service to my country — whether in Vietnam or with the St, Johns River water Management District, or the Southwest Florida Water Management District, or the Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority — attests to my dedication to public service and a free American Democracy and should not be confused with any uneducated thoughts to the contrary.

Nevertheless, let me share some thoughts for you to consider.

I appreciate your passion for individual liberty—it's THE cornerstone of our democracy. Having spent decades in water management, I can tell you firsthand that responsible governance isn’t about controlling people. It’s about protecting the freedoms we all depend on, i.e., clean water, public lands, access to natural resources that aren’t owned by any single individual or corporation, etc.

Regulation, when done right, isn’t a power grab—it’s a safeguard against exploitation, short-sighted development, and the erosion of shared assets (see Tragedy of the Commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons).

I’ve seen what happens when deregulation goes unchecked: polluted and disappearing springs, dried up lakes and wetlands, saltwater intrusion, loss of access to public lands, and communities left to foot the bill for someone else’s profit or unintended mistake.

And let me be clear: I’ve never met a regulator who regulates for the sake of regulating. The professionals I’ve worked with—scientists, engineers, planners—don’t wield personal authority. They operate within frameworks created by elected officials, tasked with implementing laws passed through democratic processes. As you know, in Florida, as elsewhere, regulatory authority is not self-generated, it’s provided through laws and rules propagated by the legislature or other elected bodies.

In fact, if memory serves, you were the Speaker of Florida’s House of Representatives, the very institution from which water management regulatory authority emanates pursuant to Florida’s Constitution. So you are very much aware that the rules we subsequently developed weren’t dreamed up in a vacuum. They were guided by your statutes and further guidance by administrative dictates of the Governor’s Office and State departments AND, then debated at an advertised public forum, voted on, and enacted by water management Board members appointed by the Governor.

So, when we talk about regulation, there’s no regulating just to regulate. We’re talking about the will of the public expressed through laws, laws designed to protect the long-term interests of Floridians, not to stifle them.

Freedom isn’t just the absence of rules. It’s the presence of fairness, accountability, and shared responsibility. That’s what I’ve spent my career defending, not bureaucratic control, but the kind of thoughtful balance that, hopefully, will keep Florida’s natural heritage and sensitive natural systems intact a little longer for future generations.

Sandspur

Former Speaker Johnnie Byrd comments and Sandspur Responds

In response to my post of October 3, former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Johnnie Byrd, https://www.facebook.com/johnniebyrd, asked me this question:

"Sonny I am wondering if you could spell what a great job Kamala would be doing if elected other than to bring in another 10 million undocumented Democrats …"

Photo courtesy of

The Florida Bar

Here's my response:

Dear Johnny,

Thank you for your interest in my post written by Heather Cox Richardson who provides a factually documented - and frightening - summary of events that are threatening the very essence of our American Democracy.

I find it unfortunate that you, a person of significant stature, would choose to ignore Ms. Richardson's extraordinary assessment of the dangers facing the future of our country and instead pose a meaningless and blatantly untrue tired political trope to score some kind of point.

Nevertheless, here some facts you might want to consider:

The claim that Kamala Harris would “allow 10 million illegal immigrants to enter the country” is not only misleading—it’s factually baseless and politically inflammatory. As someone who has spent years working in public policy and community advocacy, I believe we, you and I, owe it to whomever might read this to separate rhetoric from reality.

The facts:
Kamala Harris has never proposed an open-border policy. In fact, her immigration stance would blend enforcement with reform. As Vice President, she supported a bipartisan border security bill that would have added over 1,500 Border Patrol agents, expanded detention capacity, and increased the number of immigration judges to reduce backlogs.

As Vice President her primary assignment on immigration was diplomatic: to address the root causes of migration from Central America. She worked with leaders in Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico to reduce violence, poverty, and corruption—factors that drive irregular and illegal migration. It was a long-term strategy aimed at stabilizing the region, not encouraging unlawful entry.

The “10 million” figure you cited actually refers to cumulative border ENCOUNTERS—not successful entries. Many were repeat attempts, and the vast majority are processed and either expelled or detained. According to Customs and Border Protection, THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF MIGRANTS ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN THE U.S. SINCE 2021 IS CLOSER TO 2.4 MILLION—a far cry from your hyperbolic claims.

Finally, Ms. Harris has stated her support for creation of legal pathways to citizenship for Dreamers, long-term undocumented residents, and essential workers. This approach is consistent with long held American values and economic interests, not partisan manipulation.

Many believe that a Harris administration could “chart a new course” by restoring asylum protections, managing the border humanely, and recognizing immigrants’ contributions to our communities. That’s a far more nuanced and responsible vision than the extreme and hurtful measures now underway by the radical right.

For your consideration.
Sandspur

OUR COUNTRY IS IN REAL DANGER

 https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/

MY FRIENDS.
PLEASE, PLEASE, READ THIS.
THEN CALL, WRITE, SPEAK UP.
DO SOMETHING!
OUR COUNTRY IS IN REAL DANGER.

Heather Cox Richardson is an American historian who works as a professor of history at Boston College, where she teaches courses on the American Civil War, the Reconstruction Era, the American West, and the Plains Indians. She previously taught history at MIT and the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Sandspur
___________________________________________________________
October 2, 2025
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104

OCT 3

At about 1:00 on Tuesday morning, federal agents from Border Patrol, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) raided an apartment building on Chicago’s South Shore Drive. Using helicopters and large vehicles, as well as flash-bang grenades, and dressed in military fatigues, agents broke down the doors of the residents of the five-story building and pulled them from their homes in zip ties, some of them naked. Agents left the people tied up outside for hours before letting all but 37 of them go. The apartments residents returned to were trashed.

Cindy Hernandez of the Chicago Sun-Times reported on the raid, noting that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said some of those arrested ““are believed to be involved in drug trafficking and distribution, weapons crimes and immigration violators.” It also said the neighborhood was “a location known to be frequented by Tren de Aragua members and their associates.”

But, as Hernandez reports, DHS did not offer any evidence to support its assertions. Some of the people detained during the raid are U.S. citizens.

Eyewitness Eboni Watson told Cate Cauguiran, Craig Wall, Tre Ward, and Lissette Nuñez of ABC News 7 that the people “was terrified. The kids was crying. People was screaming. They looked very distraught. I was out there crying when I seen the little girl come around the corner, because they was bringing the kids down, too, had them zip tied to each other. That’s all I kept asking. What is the morality? Where’s the human? One of them literally laughed. He was standing right here. He said, ‘f*ck them kids.’”

Eyewitness Darrell Ballard told the reporters: “We’re under siege. We’re being invaded by our own military.”

Today, Charlie Savage and Eric Schmitt of the New York Times reported that the Trump administration informed congressional committees that the president has decided the U.S. is in a formal “armed conflict” with the drug cartels the administration has labeled terrorist organizations. If the U.S. is engaged in such an armed conflict, the administration said, those suspected of smuggling drugs for the cartels are “unlawful combatants.”

This declaration backfills the administration’s justification for striking three boats in the Caribbean in September, killing 17. According to international law, Savage and Schmitt explain, in an armed conflict it’s lawful for a country to kill enemy fighters even when they don’t pose a direct threat.

This redefinition is problematic not just because most overdose deaths in the U.S. come from fentanyl from Mexico, not drugs from Venezuela, the home base of the boats the administration struck. Legal experts say that trafficking an illicit consumer product is not the same as armed conflict. It is problematic also because the administration did not identify any of the drug cartels it claims it is engaging in armed conflict, who must be engaged in organized armed combat to be part of an armed conflict.

Even more problematic, as retired judge advocate general (JAG) lawyer Geoffrey S. Corn, who was the Army’s senior advisor for interpreting the laws of war, told Savage and Schmitt, the administration’s declaration is an “abuse” that crosses a major legal line. “This is not stretching the envelope,” he said. “This is shredding it. This is tearing it apart.”

Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), the highest-ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, posted: “Every American should be alarmed that Pres[ident] Trump has decided he can wage secret wars against anyone he labels an enemy. Drug cartels must be stopped, but declaring war & ordering lethal military force without Congress or public knowledge—nor legal justification—is unacceptable.”

The declaration means that the administration is laying claim that the U.S. is in an active armed conflict, which would give the president extraordinary wartime powers. This dovetails with the September 17 demand of DHS that the “media and the far left” must stop “the demonization of President Trump, his supporters, and DHS law enforcement.” It also supports Trump’s warning to military leaders on Tuesday that “[w]e’re under invasion from within, no different than a foreign enemy,” followed by complaints that “Venezuela emptied its prison population into our country” and a vow to “straighten…out” the cities “run by the radical left Democrats.”

That assault is underway now, not only through raids like the one in Chicago on Tuesday, but also by administration figures who are using the government shutdown to hurt Democrats and their constituencies. Independent journalist Marisa Kabas reported this morning that the Department of Education changed out-of-office email replies for furloughed employees from generic messages to ones blaming Democrats for the government shutdown. Leah Feiger and Vittoria Elliott of Wired reported that when employees changed their out-of-office responses back to neutral language, the message changed back to blaming the Democrats.

Office of Management and Budget director Russell Vought has vowed to cut $26 billion from projects in New York City that Congress approved, despite the illegality of such impoundments, and has vowed to slash the federal government, again without a lawful basis for such cuts. A shutdown gives Vought no more legal authority than he ever had.

Jordain Carney of Politico reports that even Republicans are concerned about the damage Vought is doing to their own constituents as he attempts to weaponize the government against Democrats. But, as Carney reports, Senate majority leader John Thune (R-SD) says the Republicans have no control over what Vought might do.

The nation’s rapid advance toward authoritarianism is one story right now, but there is another: the administration is rotting from inside.

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo reports that the groundwork required for the mass layoffs Vought has threatened is not apparent, suggesting the administration is trying to project power it does not have.

The Republicans are trying to pin the blame for the shutdown on the Democrats, but Trump is apparently so unstable he is hurting their cause. The Democrats are insisting they will not be complicit in slashing through Americans’ healthcare. The law the Republicans passed in July—the one they call the “One Big, Beautiful Bill Act”—extended tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations but permitted the premium tax credits that subsidized the Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) to expire at the end of 2025, and people are already seeing dramatic increases in their healthcare premiums.

On Tuesday, after his 70-minute incoherent speech to the nation’s top military leaders, Trump proved Democrats’ point when he told White House reporters that the administration intends to use the shutdown to cut programs the American people want, including ones that give them access to medical care.

Trump said: “We can do things during the shutdown that are irreversible, that are bad for [Democrats] and irreversible by them. Like cutting vast numbers of people out, cutting things that they like, cutting programs that they like. And you all know Russell Vought, he’s become very popular recently because he can trim the budget to a level that you couldn’t do any other way. So they’re taking a risk by having a shutdown because because of the shutdown, we can do things medically, and other ways, including benefits. We can cut large numbers of people out.” Then, as if recognizing that he had just proved the Democrats’ point, he added a non sequitur: “We don’t want to do that, but we don’t want fraud, waste, and abuse, and you know we’re cutting that.”

Trump reiterated his support for Vought’s program today, posting: “I have a meeting today with Russ Vought, he of PROJECT 2025 Fame, to determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut, and whether or not those cuts will be temporary or permanent. I can’t believe the Radical Left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity.”

This is another unforced error, with Trump tying himself to Project 2025 after assuring voters before the 2024 election that he had nothing to do with it and knew nothing about it. An NBC News poll from late September 2024 showed that voters who knew about Project 2025 hated it. Only 4% of voters said they liked the plan. It was unpopular even among voters identifying as MAGA Republicans; only 9% of them liked it. As the administration has put Project 2025 into place, it’s unlikely people like it more than they did before. Government agencies are not “Democrat Agencies”; they are agencies that provide services and protections for all Americans. Cuts to them have been widely unpopular.

Yesterday, the day after Trump’s 70-minute rambling talk in front of the nation’s top military leaders, Representative Madeleine Dean (D-PA) confronted House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA). A camera caught the exchange:

Dean: “The president is unhinged. He is unwell.”
Johnson: “A lot of folks on your side are, too. I don’t control him.”
Dean: “Oh my God, please. That performance in front of the generals?”
Johnson: “I didn’t see it.”
Dean: “That is so dangerous! You know I serve on Foreign Affairs and Appropriations, this is a collision of those two things. Our allies are looking elsewhere. Our enemies are laughing. You have a president who is unwell.”
Johnson: “I just left the Speaker’s apartment.”

Trump has been posting on social media often since Tuesday but has not appeared in public. Vice President J.D. Vance took the White House press briefing today to answer questions about the government shutdown.
—
Notes:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/10/01/massive-immigration-raid-on-chicago-apartment-building-leaves-residents-reeling-i-feel-defeated
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/us/politics/trump-drug-cartels-war.html
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/09/17/dhs-calls-media-and-far-left-stop-demonization-president-trump-his-supporters-and
https://rollcall.com/factbase/trump/transcript/donald-trump-speech-department-of-defense-leaders-quantico-september-30-2025/
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/01/john-thune-interview-shutdown-00591176
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/10/02/congress/john-thune-russ-vought-warning-00591596
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/shutdown-dogs-that-arent-barking-russ-vought-abject-degeneracy-follow-up-edition
https://abc7chicago.com/post/ice-chicago-federal-agents-surround-south-shore-apartment-building-dhs-requests-military-deployment-illinois/17908911/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/poll-project-2025-broadly-known-severely-unpopular-voters-rcna172660
https://www.wired.com/story/government-workers-say-their-out-of-office-replies-were-forcibly-changed-to-blame-democrats-for-shutdown/
X:atrupar/status/1973066469165400441
Bluesky:
shipwreck75.bsky.social/post/3m27jtuhdb22e
reed.senate.gov/post/3m2a7c44nis2n
whitehouse.senate.gov/post/3m27tgwvz7c2d
thebulwark.com/post/3m27q5rdwdk2b
atrupar.com/post/3m26cxb7ixo2e
marisakabas.bsky.social/post/3m27ovc4xm22j
Share
You’re currently a free subscriber to Letters from an American. If you need help receiving Letters, changing your email address, or unsubscribing, please visit our Support FAQ. You can also submit a help request directly.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Upgrade to paid

© 2025 Heather Cox Richardson
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104