The military-industrial-technology complex runs this country, not the president

We're taught to think that America is a de facto democracy in which American citizens vote on the most important propositions, legislative representatives, and, every four years, who will or will not be the president of this nation.  This is the theory, but in practicality, we need to take into account that the military-industrial-technology complex appears to be the institution that is actually running the show, demonstrated by the fact that in this land, we see the unfathomable amounts of money earmarked for this complex, even though the United States is not at war with any country contiguous to its landmass and has no real reason to expend such a huge amount of its budget upon the military-industrial-technology complex: yet, it does.

 As they say, follow the money, and when we look at where the money is expended, this complex receives a gargantuan amount of money each fiscal year, even though this nation is not in the midst of World War III, and was founded upon the sensible belief that, as stated in its Constitution, when it came to its Army that “…no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” Instead, we have not only a standing Army that no other nation can match in the terms of expenditure devoted to such, but this Army exists and persists year after year after year.

 So too, one might think, that the Executive office in conjunction with Congress would do something of merit to reduce our monies devoted to the military-industrial-complex.  Indeed, one needs to recognize that the Executive office term is no longer than two terms of four years, and that congressional representatives are up for election every two years for Congressional representatives and every six years for Senators, signifying that these representatives are going to need funding from some entity, and those that receive money directly or indirectly from the military-industrial-technology complex are going to do their bidding.

 On the other hand, the military-industrial-technology complex does not have any of its personnel and important personages up for any democratic election.  That is to say, those in the military that rise to the top are often “lifers”, and those that are part of the industrial and technology institutions are those that perform at a satisfactory high level that is in conformance with what the board of directors and stockholders approve of, and are themselves typically long-serving executives who are strongly supported when perceived as being quite effective at securing additional revenue and profits for their respective institutions.

 Additionally, the military-industrial-technology complex makes it their point that they do not appreciate any surprises from the Executive office; therefore, they are very good at grooming only those candidates that will adhere to their desires and, for certain, these approved candidates will not ever consider standing against that complex.

 Indeed, while there are plenty of citizens who support as much as it takes for a strong “defense”, perhaps because they aren’t thinkers or have been indoctrinated, we do find that the billions upon billions of dollars directed to the military-industrial complex are the same dollars correspondingly taken away from American citizens that could have been utilized for the necessary improvement of this nation’s infrastructure, and of its education, and of its opportunity and fairness for all, as well as in support of the general welfare and well-being of this nation, but that hasn’t occurred and will not ever occur, because the military-industrial-technology complex comes first and foremost, and the devil takes the hindmost.

This will end the war with Iran within 24 hours

In a world in which a certain President bragged that they could end the Ukrainian-Russian war within 24 hours when elected, we find that this did not occur; yet, the idea that the United States has the capacity to end wars within 24 hours most definitely has its appeal and quite obviously is far better than the “endless” wars that America can’t seem to resolve sensibly.  This leads us to believe that anybody who comes up with an idea or concept that could end the current American war with Iran might be worth paying attention to, and indeed, a bold idea has come forth.

 When we consider that those who are in the highest positions of power and influence in this nation have made it abundantly clear that our Judeo-Christian heritage has no real accommodation to those of the Muslim faith, and further to the point, believes that the Muslim religion is not one of peace but rather of conflict and war, then it would seem that there needs to be done something of substance that would resolve this proximate problem.

 Fortunately, our Secretary of War has made it quite clear that America is a nation of testosterone-driven warriors, who are second to none to any other country or unchristian man in this world.  Secretary Hegseth is a fine specimen of a man’s man, and though he has perhaps reached that age in which his physical prowess has already peaked, we need to consider that Hegseth is quite obviously, as a conservative, faith-filled Christian man, by his definition, far superior to anyone representing the Muslim faith.  So too, the best way to prove that an American military man is more of a man than somebody else is not just in the field of warfare with mechanical armaments and such, but rather really comes down to what it was, back at the beginning, hand-to-hand combat, and not some unmanly affair in which one’s opponent could tap out when subject to intense pain or in an untenable, vulnerable position, and also not from some limp-wristed referee deciding that enough is enough, but rather such fights need to be what a real man’s fight represents, to the death.

 Indeed, the suggestion comes to the forefront that Iran itself also does not desire an endless war with America, so that there would seem to be a reasonable solution to such a problem that serves well both nations.  Let therefore the best of Iranian men, who quite frankly can’t be very good, manly, or strong, take on our warrior secretary Hegseth in a fight to be globally livestreamed to the death.  The winner, should it be improbably or impossibly an Iranian man, would be for the United States to cease all military involvement, directly or indirectly, with Iran, and should the winner be Hegseth’s America, which it surely would be, then America would take over all the Iranian oilfields and destroy Iran’s nuclear ambitions as their spoils of this fight.

 This fight to the death would be the culmination and proof positive of America’s strength and determination, for there isn’t a doubt in the world that Hegseth would succeed in the killing of that non-Christian heretical Iranian man, and thus bring peace on earth to all humankind, with the sure blessing and approval of Hegseth’s God, who is our true ultimate warrior benefactor.

When your child predeceases you

It used to be that American families were far larger in the number of children they had.  This had a lot to do with the fact that, back in the days of farmers and an agricultural workplace, children represented “free labor,” and the more hands on deck, the more of that necessary work could be accomplished.  So too, in an era in which there was no electricity, when dusk became night, there really wasn’t a lot for a family to do, and without any form of birth control, more children were created.

 In today’s world, while not every child is an expected or planned child, couples do have the capacity to control those things, and in consideration that most potential parents understand well that children are no longer free labor but represent a financial burden, that is, an expense, there is more consideration made before having a child.  Further to the point, women are much more career-oriented in their lives, and therefore don’t have the time or energy to birth a lot of children, and when they do so, it’s typically at a far later age for those mothers than was the case back in the 18th century.

 In consideration that one of the main reasons why child mortality was relatively high back in the 18th century had a lot to do with communicable infectious diseases which could not be prevented, because vaccines to deal with such didn’t exist, and also considering that poor sanitation and susceptibility to infectious diseases were part and parcel of the living conditions for a significant swath of Americans, childhood mortality therefore was a fairly common occurrence, signifying that the burying of one’s child was not infrequent in many a case.

 In today’s world, we have community sanitation that is quite good, and not only vaccines that will eradicate communicable diseases, but we also have a modern healthcare system that is structured to be quite competent in dealing with children and their potential illnesses. This would seem to strongly suggest that children of today would seldom predecease their parents; yet, we find that this is not such an uncommon occurrence, because things such as auto fatalities and other deadly accidents occur far more frequently than we might imagine.  So too, suicides of adolescents are far higher than what they were back in the 18th century, along with the fact that gun violence is endemic in certain areas of our communities, as well as we also have the deadly scourge of drug overdoses, killing our children way before their time.

 So then, it is really not uncommon for parents of today to have to bury their own child, which seems to be the very opposite of what those parents believed would occur when their child was first born and therefore makes it hard for those parents to deal with such, because it is so unexpected and unwanted.  Yet, it happens, and when it does, it provides those parents with the sure knowledge that our great expectations for those that we love did not ever occur, and this leaves us barren, especially because we know that what has been lost cannot be replaced.

Does America have the right to invade any country for regime change?

The short, concise answer to the above question is no.  After all, nations are sovereign in and of themselves, and any justification for invading and bringing war upon another country must follow rules; nations that do not adhere to those laws have violated the law and are thus subject to sanctions.

 Since it is a known fact that the United States in recent times has brought war upon many countries, though it prefers to use alternative words to war, during which it has not suffered from any international or United Nations sanctions, this would seem to suggest that this warfare is absolutely justified and therefore America is right in its actions.  The real reason why the United States has seemingly become immune to being sanctioned really comes down to the fact that the United States is the sole empire of the world, and practical nations are not wont to get on its bad side.  Additionally, there are those nations of importance that prefer the United States to take action and thus to suffer from any potential opprobrium should the perception be that America is conducting itself unjustly towards other nations, via that warfare.

 So too, it needs to be understood that since American warfare operates whether it be the Republicans or the Democrats that are in charge of either the legislature or the executive office, the reality is quite obviously that there are hidden powers that are themselves deciding as to who, what, and when warfare is initiated by America.  That hidden power in America is its military-industrial-technology complex, which is driven not just by empire-building and augmentation, so of, in pursuit of power and profit, but also because it has no choice but to see that America is bringing war against some enemy or enemies, because it is necessary for their business enterprise foundation.

 Indeed, it just seems like a real shame that institutions such as the United Nations are, when it matters most, of no influence upon what does or does not occur in international affairs regarding warfare, in particular, when it comes to the United States. Additionally, even though the Constitution of the United States makes it quite clear that it is Congress that must authorize war, this has consistently been circumvented in the modern age.  So then, those nations that get on the wrong side of America’s desires and interests have placed themselves in the unenviable position of having to suffer from America's vengeance and ire, without any real recourse, as the rule of law and heralded international institutions will do nothing of substance on their behalf.

 All of the above signifies that America, while not having the right to invade any country of its choice for regime change, can still do exactly that, because there isn’t any one country or group of countries that will stand in its way, and some of the time, those other nations of import are quite satisfied to see such regime change, mainly in the hopes that there is profit in there, for them, as well.

Global military yearly spending is nearly $3 trillion

We read at sipri.org that “World military expenditure reached $2887 billion in 2025.”  Perhaps that is a good thing, because countries all over the globe need to expend money to protect and to defend themselves from enemies both domestic and foreign.  Then again, perhaps this is a very troubling thing, for we have institutions such as the United Nations, specifically structured to promote international peace, defend human rights, and to thereby reduce the need and desire to wage war upon one another.

 Clearly, when we look at the sheer amount of money devoted to military expenditures, we need to recognize that these monies not only are not being spent to promote the general welfare of the people, but are specifically for armaments which, when used, are meant to kill people and damage infrastructure.  So too, monies spent on armaments have a strong tendency to keep on rising, because those that are in that business, whether it be the selling or the buying, have a strong incentive to justify such expenditures by the usage of those armaments on trouble, or perceived trouble, whether that be domestic or foreign.

 Look, it has to be acknowledged, that the world has been completely discovered, and never has there been more information available to the general public as we see today, which signifies that the people pretty much know what is going on, and understand that the unjust taking of resources from certain countries, isn’t right, and that the purpose of treaties and the general understanding of one country to another, should always be about coming up with diplomatic solutions that thus do not necessitate the involvement of military affairs, as contrasted to the belief that it is somehow right for one country with far greater firepower to demand “tribute” from another country, or simply to take it over, for its own greed and exploitation, so of.

 What any country generates from its GDP comes from the labor of its people, in conjunction with the infrastructure and machines so utilized to make that labor in the manufacture of items more efficient.  This signifies that those who control the levers of governance are provided with a choice as to how to direct the monies being allocated to that labor, and while it is true that the defense of any homeland has its place, it is also true that the object of the exercise should be to have peaceful relations with all people and nations, which thus provides a far better construct for those people in achieving desired aims of a good life, as well as a reasonable opportunity to pursue happiness.

 We live in a modern age, in which it has to be acknowledged that justice does not ever come from the barrel of a gun, which signifies that all these armaments aren’t going to provide a working solution and bring peace and justice in our time, because threats and usage of armaments do not bring peace, but rather they bring violence.  So then, humankind has a decision to make as to whether they will make it their principal point to forego expenditures on military armaments with the intent to get along, or keep on bringing on more war, and thus more hell on earth, ad nauseam.

Is it patriotic to condemn imperialism?

In recent times, America seems to be on an imperialist drive, indicating its desire to control countries such as Greenland, Venezuela, Cuba, and even Canada.  It's unclear how serious America is about these sovereign nations, but it should be taken seriously, especially when the executive office expresses a desire to control more nations in what appears to be a deliberate imperialistic drive.  Perhaps some Americans embrace it, desiring for America to be the boss of countries such as they were with the Philippines, or to essentially transfer territories such as was done with the Hawaiian Islands and subsequently make them a State.

 America has been around for a long time, and the 1912 Democratic Party platform stated: “We reaffirm the position thrice announced by the Democracy in national convention assembled against a policy of imperialism and colonial exploitation in the Philippines or elsewhere.”  This indicates that imperialism and colonial exploitation had been up for debate and discussion before, and that one political party was dead set against such, because that party believed that what this nation should concentrate its efforts upon was to take care of its own and not to unnecessarily involve America in disputes outside its domain and border, which thus meant American taxpayers having to suffer from those incumbent expenditures. In other words, the job of this government should be to focus first and foremost on keeping its own house in order, and not getting thereby involved in international affairs that were not necessary for domestic contentment.  Rather, America, as a great nation, should lead by example and not fall into becoming a military might, imposing its will on foreign people, for exploitation or other reasons that were unbecoming of a great republic.

 So then, when it comes to imperialism and the understanding of our Constitution, it should be recognized that the primary objective of this government should be to promote the general welfare of its people, and thereby to forsake its involvement in military foreign affairs and in particular, to not exhibit imperialism, which would thus keep this country strong and in control of its own domestic affairs, as contrasted to concentrating an undue amount of monies, personnel, and armaments in the defense of that imperialism, for empire building, which is anathema to our Constitutional principles.

 The pressing problem that America has at present, is the unseemly amount of funding earmarked for its military affairs, of which this governance doesn’t seem to comprehend that monies devoted to the military which aren’t really for any defensive purpose, reflects thereby America’s desire to be an empire and through its implicit imperialistic desires this creates not only trouble with other nation-states, who would themselves prefer to remain sovereign and thus in charge of their own lot, but also that the expenditures so allocated, take away from the housing, infrastructure, and domestic tranquility that this nation owes to its own people.  In other words, monies spent on imperialistic affairs are monies taken away from the people of America, and thus weaken its people, who are therefore prone to take out their frustration through civil unrest, because those that lack the accouterments so necessary to live a decent life, because that money has been allocated to imperialistic ambitions, have been cheated and they know it.

America’s physical health is abysmal

The very first thing to recognize about a nation that is insistent that it is the greatest nation in the world is that, in the sure recognition that America is without a doubt the wealthiest nation in the world, to be truly great signifies that the people that make up this land ought to be the healthiest, beyond question, of any other nation, without exception, whatsoever.  That is to say, those who are unhealthy, or even worse, those who have died before their time, are the same ones who are not experiencing how great and how rich this nation is; so, a fair review of this nation would be to ascertain how healthy Americans really are.

 In truth, America’s physical health is abysmal when compared to other Western and developed nations, in which we find, as reported by anh-usa.org, that it had the worst chronic illness score out of 50 countries so analyzed, despite America spending more money on health care than any of these other 50 countries on a per capita basis.  Look, the bottom line is that Americans, in aggregate, aren’t healthy, and the money so being devoted to health care is quite obviously structured in a way that it isn’t accomplishing what it should be accomplishing, which reflects that unless there are fundamental changes in how our health care is addressed, that America’s health isn’t going to change for the better, and may, as per its trendline, get even worse.

 While it is true that good health necessitates many factors, the two most prominent ones come down to nutrition, that is, the food that we ingest, and the exercise that we do or do not accomplish.  Indeed, those that eat food which has no nutritional value, and/or eat food that have additives that are known to be damaging to the body, are going to eventually suffer for the eating of those food items, which is why this nation needs to do a whole lot more to first make sure, that its most vulnerable people, which are our children, are eating a healthy diet, which can readily be augmented by this nation, through the provision of good nutritional food at school, and by providing guardrails for those that receive “food stamps” that the food choices that are available for them, are good nutritional choices.

 So too, our health care institutions need to do a better job of forgoing the belief that a given pill is going to resolve issues, and concentrate more on the whole person, which means that patients need to comprehend better that they have agency in their own person, and part of achieving good health is the decisions that they make, day by day, and that while a pill may well have its place, the object of the exercise is less pharmaceuticals, and more of making the right decisions in the eating and exercising, which thus signifies that this nation needs to hold accountable all those that provide ultra processed foods that they are thereby required to expend more money and research in the development of modified processed foods which are better for the body, and not as harmful.

 Where America goes from here really comes down to the urgency of the matter, which functionally means a top-down approach to these issues, and in fact, to acknowledge that the health of Americans should be a very great and critical national concern, which, if done right, will make Americans healthier and happier, and if not, won’t.

Remember how they lived, not how they died

There are plenty of people who don’t concentrate much on the living or the dying and pretty much take each day as it comes without further thought.  Still, for most of these people, sooner or later, they will subsequently reflect that everybody who is born into this world will, at some point, also die.  This means that, for all of us, we need to consider how we should react when someone we know or admire is no longer amongst the living.

 Indeed, while death can come suddenly upon any of us, through some form of accident or tragic event, it also can be drawn out over an exceedingly long period of time, such as through an extended illness.  The thing about seeing someone dying or that has recently died, is many of us become fixated only upon the death event, which leaves us suitably sad and in remorse, thus consequently having some difficulty in remembering the best of that person, as they were, which is really what we should concentrate our thoughts upon, because it is in the doing that we are defined, thus fairly remembered not just by the people who knew that person, but also by all those that were beneficiaries of their actions, which is why we need to recall all the good that those that have departed this world, accomplished, so that we can provide a better tribute to them, in our mind’s eye and expression, so of.

 In life, there are those times which call for reflection, and when someone that we knew has died, this is one of those times in which we need to reflect upon how that person positively affected us and then to express that to others, so that they will have the opportunity to hear our stories, and thus, by our doing this, to demonstrate our homage and our consideration to the dearly departed.

 In this world, we will be challenged, and how we address those challenges reflects who and what we really are. When someone who has meant something of significance to us has left this world, we have an inherent obligation not just to remember who they were, but to impart that information to others, so that they will know not just how much that person meant to us, but also learn more of the goodness that our friend represented so that their tale can be heard and remembered.

 For each of us, how we live is reflected in our influence on others and the deeds that we have done, which are our fair contribution to the society that we are members of, and since the dead cannot speak for themselves, it is up to each of us to remember them as they were, and to express that to others, so that they will know what they meant to us, and to tell some stories of the good that they have done, thus providing our fair input and honor to those that have fallen in this world, but have risen in the world beyond.

The Mexican-American War

Our present-day States of California, Utah, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona were once part of Mexico but are now part of the United States of America, largely because President Polk believed manifest destiny meant these former Mexican territories were destined to be part of America.  Future President Ulysses S. Grant stated when he was an officer of the American armed forces that the Mexican-American War was “…one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation.”

 One of the questions that typically is not asked is why didn’t the United States simply annex the whole of Mexico since, during this war, the United States effectively captured Mexico’s capital, Mexico City, and thus was in prime position not just to dictate the terms of surrender between these two nations, but also placed itself in position to control and to take over the whole of Mexico.  The answer to that question really comes down to the fact that Mexicans are not white Protestant Anglo-Saxons, and because of this, the United States government believed that the better part of valor was to take from Mexico its far less populated northern territory, and mesh that into the United States of America, by making sure to soon populate what would become future created States of America, with a makeup consisting of the appropriate complexion of white Anglo-Saxons, which it subsequently did.

 Indeed, whenever we look at the territorial expansion of America, first and foremost in their thinking, it has always been to maintain the power structure and power look of America, which is the whiteness of America, and in those situations in which there is a lack of whiteness, such as in Hawaii or the Philippines, not only is there a significant reluctance to consider these as being part and parcel of the United States, it is also a belief that power should not be shared with those that lack whiteness, and while this philosophy has been modified over the ensuing years, it certainly was not the case when it came to the Mexican-American war, which was a war in which the purpose was to annex those portions of Mexico which had few Mexicans, thus making it a relatively easy case of populating these future States with whiteness and enforcing the rules of the road on those that remained who were Mexican, that they would now understand their new reduced place and status in this racial hierarchy.

 While the United States is known for its soaring Declaration of Independence words, such as the equality of all men as well as our unalienable rights, it needs to be remembered that this has historically really meant that only those of the favored race were entitled to those true unalienable rights, and that equality came down to how the judicial branch of governance so defined it, which typically meant that the white man had no equal, and everybody else would only get what the white man was willing to sacrifice or bestow upon them, which was at their discretion, and today has only been modified, to mean that those that are rich, well-positioned and privileged are entitled, and everyone else, is subject to law and order, as defined by those elites.

Wars and serious civil unrest have created the refugee crisis

Many people in various countries, including the United States of America and Western European nations, currently face some serious pushback from their citizens over illicit immigration and refugees entering their countries.  These refugees are a contributing factor to these nations having a strong tendency to reduce much of their previous liberal beliefs and governance by replacing them with more right-wing politicians as their legislative representatives, primarily because too many of their citizens aren’t succeeding all that well themselves, thus making refugees and illicit immigration easy targets to attack as the reason why the native-born or naturalized citizens are suffering from their own lack of opportunity and social benefits, which seem to have been wrongly structured to be siphoned off by these refugees.

 There are a couple of notable things to recognize about refugees, which is that most people do not have a strong desire to leave their country, because for better or for worse, it is the country of their birth. They are used to it, but whenever there are wars or rumors of war, and civilians are being harmed or are subject to a high likelihood of being harmed, they are going to look for alternatives because they are no longer safe and secure within their nation.  In other words, there are refugees because war causes the normal course of events to substantially change for the worse, and thus people are going to be susceptible to leaving where they currently are to seek refuge in another country, not just for its safety but also in the hopes that it will provide opportunity.

 So too, those who are illicit immigrants are typically people who are suffering from a significant degree of civil unrest, or are living within a construct in which it appears unlikely or pretty much hopeless that they will ever get beyond mere subsistence, so they are going to have a strong inclination to look at other opportunities because when there appears to be no hope within their homeland, thinking and motivated people are going to not just look elsewhere, but are going to pursue such, especially when they are listening to a “siren song” for a set monetary price to be paid to those that promise them that across the border is the land of milk and honey.

 All told, refugees and illicit immigration are part and parcel of a world that has the type of unrest that leads to people desiring to improve their situation, or at a minimum to get out of being in a place that is unsafe and has little opportunity, with no real hope that this will change for the better.  That is to say, refugees do not just come out of nowhere; they come out of wars and regime change that upset the normal course of events, with the sure recognition that people the world over just basically want to live their lives in a manner in which they have employment and security of their person and household goods, and in consideration that this is what the best of America and Western Europe represents, they thus come this way.

The insanity of such a huge governmental debt

Those individuals, or companies for that matter, that aren’t able to conduct their affairs without sustaining a loss, each and every year, are in constant danger of becoming bankrupt, especially when the entity lending the money no longer believes that the risk is commensurate with the perceived reward.  Somehow in America, it has gone terribly wrong, for American governance has not been able to put forth a fiscally responsible budget in twenty-five years and doesn’t seem on track to ever do so again.

 There is a price to be paid for borrowing money, whether by an individual, a company, or a government, and that price is not just the nation's creditworthiness, but also the cost of borrowing to sustain itself.  In America, we find that, as reported at pgpf.org, for FY26 the American government is on track to have a deficit of $931 billion for its interest expense, which signifies that this nation spends nearly the same amount on Medicare as it does on its interest obligations.

 Somehow, it seems like those who determine this nation’s budget as well as its tax policies seem to have devolved into believing that we can always have our cake and eat it too, which is why we have the fiscal problems that we currently have, because this nation will not correct its budget to reflect more fiscal responsibility, and simultaneously will not tax the people to meet the demands that it has to meet to thereby be responsible not just to the present generation, but also to those generations, yet unborn.

 To believe, somehow, that this nation can continue to run such high fiscal deficits, ad nauseam, is to believe in absolute foolishness, for surely there will be a reckoning, and to not recognize that such a reckoning could bring everything about America and what it stands for to its knees, or even worse, is not to understand that fiscal irresponsibility writ large will create fundamental changes to this nation, and will be extremely unfortunate for all those that must bear that burden.

 Here we are at present, running massive deficits, for two main reasons: one being that there is a tremendous amount of money earmarked for national defense, which isn’t even necessary, and when we look at every other nation in the world, it reflects that the United States sees gremlins and hobgoblins in seemingly every other foreign nation, and thus keeps spending ever more on its defense against these phantoms.  Additionally, in a nation in which there is a multitude of super-rich people and super-rich corporations, this nation doesn’t have the resolve to tax those entities appropriately, even though these super-rich entities could easily pay what they fairly owe as their duty to that government that thus provided them with the opportunity to become super-rich.

 In sum, we should remember this well: monies spent for the national interest on our debt benefits no one, because it does not provide any good or service, but truly reflects that this nation must continually pay the piper at a price that is ever increasing, without seeming to realize that there will come a time when the piper no longer desires to play his instrument at any price for this nation anymore

Population matters

There seems to be a strong contingent of our citizens who would like to see the population reduced for various reasons, some of which are legitimate, such as a concern for the environment, for sustainability, for resources, and so on, under the general belief that there is a limit on everything, and that more people create intense pressure to sustain what we already have.  Then there are those who want population, if not reduced, to concentrate on sustaining certain peoples and evicting others so that the country can remain in conformance with various preferred orthodoxies such as religion, race, and the origin of one’s nationality. 

 What seems to have been pushed aside when it comes to those that desire to reduce population or to cherry-pick who should or should not be permitted into this country, is the general fact that countries that provide fair opportunity for all, and concentrate on seeing that their citizens are well educated and treated with equal respect, are developing the type of citizens which will be not just a credit to the nation, but will help that nation to remain strong and vibrant for the long haul.

 Further to the point, how dynamic and how persuasive a given country is has a significant amount to do with its overall global footprint, and those nations that have relatively small populations, though they may be well educated and diligent, aren’t going to have enough numbers to effect positive global change that they would achieve if they had a larger amount of people.  Indeed, population matters because there is inherent strength in numbers, and those numbers can be exceedingly influential when those that make up that population are driven to do the right thing and are determined to get it done.

 So too, what needs to be remembered is that the color of one’s skin, or the size of one’s billfold, should not be the determining factor of how valued or valuable a given person is considered to be in society, but rather it should be about the content of one’s character, and the grit and determination of these people making their mark on society, by focusing on doing their fair share to help this nation to become better, through their valued participation in augmenting the good values of this country which helps to present our nation at its best.

 Those who believe that we need only the “right” people immigrating here, and to forsake all those that do not fit into that “cookie-cutter” belief, have got it all wrong.  Rather, what is needed is a governmental objective, fairly structured and open to all, that makes the point of this governance to see that not only is nobody left behind, but that all of our people need fair access to the resources that make for a well-educated and a good citizen, by a collective belief in pursuing what this country stands for, which is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 When this occurs, the foundation of why population matters will become clear because those who come from different backgrounds but who have bought into the American way at its best are the same ones who collectively make for a powerful force that other nations and peoples can emulate. Indeed, this produces the best citizens and is a powerful and influential global force when it also represents a large population.

LBJ at his best

President Johnson's greatest mistake was the Vietnam War, and if he had made different decisions and listened to different advisors, his legacy might have been much better than what it became.  In March 1965, while introducing the Voting Rights Act, LBJ was at his absolute best because the words and sentiments he put forth were a masterclass in espousing what this nation is and what this nation could become.  In that speech, LBJ disavowed empire-building and made the point that he desired to feed the hungry, to educate the children, to help the poor, to end hatred among our citizens, while simultaneously promoting love among our diverse population, and finally to end war. 

 While it could be said that LBJ and the American government fell well short of these noble goals, it needs to be recognized that those who know what the right thing to do is are surely on the right path, and in order to get to where we need to go, there needs to be the determination, fight, and drive to get it done through being true to that righteous path.  LBJ and the American public did not get done what should have been done, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t pick up the baton in the present and take it to the finish line, if only the people, in conjunction with their government, would make it their point to do exactly that.

 Unfortunately, we live in a troubling time, which, by governmental actions, seems to have turned its back on peace, on dealing constructively with impoverishment, on improving education, on ending hatred, and instead is intent on focusing on being an empire, in which its motto is that “might makes right.”  This surely indicates that America has lost its way, and because of this, we suffer from all the ills that a country that is divided and on the wrong track could conceivably suffer from.

 It must be acknowledged that within America, we still have good people who desire to do the right thing, but too many of those who are at the highest levels of power are not on the same page with the sentiments so wisely expressed by LBJ, and thus we are in the throes of a country that is divided, and because of that division it does not stand strong, because its aggregate moral compass has been corrupted by greed, injustice, hatred, and oppression in far too many ways.

 Where we go from here should be up to the American people, and what we should fight for is to see that all Americans are entitled to all of their Constitutional rights, and that the business of American governance should be to promote the general welfare of the people, above all, and thus cast aside empire building in pursuit of doing right by the people, in honor of those that sacrificed so much to bring about American independence, by remembering that we need to have malice towards none, and charity towards all, so as to bring forth a new dawn of liberty, justice, and opportunity for all of our people.

It’s either labor or capital

In the United States, many people are dismayed that those who already have it all are acquiring even more assets and wealth, largely at the opportunity expense of those who own hardly anything.  It would be one thing if the number of superrich relative to the impoverished were at some reasonable percentage, so there weren’t so many superrich compared with those many who are nearly completely indigent; but that's not the case at all.  Indeed, we read at federalreserve.org that in the 1st quarter of 2026, those in the top 0.1% of wealth had an incredible $25.07 trillion, and the bottom 50% of Americans in total were worth a mere $4.27 trillion.  This type of financial domination, in which such a small percentage of Americans lord it over 50% of Americans, doesn’t seem right, but that is the way that it is.

 Indeed, for a large percentage of Americans, the income that they receive comes solely from their labor, which is typically augmented via governmental or other charitable handouts.  This signifies that the poorest amongst us pretty much have little or no capital.  On the other hand, those at the very top of wealth, though they may well labor, have essentially a significant portion of the money that they have via inheritances, dividends, monetary interest, real estate, equities, and pretty much anything that represents capital that they own and thereby invest with.  This would seem to strongly indicate that those with capital have far more wealth and far more power than those who simply labor.  Further to the point, what has got to be seen as distressing is the fact that capital is clearly lording it over labor, which is demonstrated by the fact that labor unions in America are in a steep decline, and without strong unions, the percentage of national income going to capital will continue on the same present trajectory, which is ever more to capital.

 In a country that truly cared about its people, it would be governmental policy to try to even the tables between capital and labor by taxing labor far less in every aspect, especially for those that make modest wages, and to tax more those that have a lot of capital.  Additionally, it would behoove that nation to see that, by definition, every American who labors would earn a living wage.  That should be national policy, but instead of that, we have a government that seems to be nearly completely captured by capital, which is why this, the richest nation that the world has ever known, has such a high percentage of its population that not only struggles paycheck to paycheck, but has no true security for its present or its future.

 This then seems to say that there is a perpetual battle between labor and capital, and this government has thrown in its hat with capital, which is why the wealth and income distribution in this nation is getting ever more extreme, which isn’t good for democracy, it isn’t good for the bulk of Americans, and it clearly doesn’t represent a government of, for, and by the people, nor is that government promoting the general welfare of those people.

The American Revolution and the confiscation of Loyalists' property

When it comes to war, there will always be winners, and there will surely always be losers.  We see this in the Revolutionary War, won by the colonial revolutionaries, which produced courageous winners who put it all on the line to achieve freedom from the United Kingdom's dominion.  This meant that those who pretty much went with the status quo, as loyal therefore to that crown, or took an active interest in supporting that crown, were vanquished, and in consideration that a fair amount of those people had property and assets in this nation, it meant that there needed to be some resolution as to what to do with their property and those people.

 Indeed, one possibility was to reintegrate those who were formerly loyalists into being productive citizens of the United States of America, because quite obviously nations should have an abiding interest in keeping those who have plenty of assets, initiative, and the drive to be successful.  After all, that is beneficial to any nation, as opposed to imprisoning or banishing them.  The other main choice pretty much came down to vengeance and greed, where the objective of the exercise was to remove loyalists from this country, voluntarily or not, and to confiscate their property, which could then be redistributed to those in the know, as the profits of war.

 That said, it needs to be acknowledged, that there aren’t many people or governments for that matter, that would not consider the taking of others’ property that had backed the wrong horse in a revolution, and the American revolution was no exception to this rule, and those that did not understand that wars, typically have people defined as being on one side or the other whether they were intimately involved or not, meant that those on the losing side, might well be subject to losing their assets, which dutifully occurred here in America.

 The thing about confiscation of what use to be other people’s property, is that this seizure can definitely be beneficial not just to the people, in whole, and its government, but for those that are well placed in such, personally quite beneficial, which is why we see that these things tend to occur, under the color of governance as thereby being appropriate, whereas it could be argued, that this is unjust greed or war profiteering, disguised as justice, because perhaps those that fairly own property and other assets, should be entitled to keep such, as long as they promise to keep their noses clean under their new governance.

 In sum, while patriotic Americans may well see the confiscation of loyalists' property as being right, this needs to be tempered with the knowledge that should some other revolution occur within these United States, the tables may well be turned, and those that are rich in this present construct, may be dismayed should they be on the losing side, whether they were contributors to that cause or not, because confiscation, especially of those that have plenty to be confiscated, is something that many a person and nation, finds to be irresistible, and when it can be seemingly justified, it will be done.

For real change, “give peace a chance”

In 1969, John Lennon of Beatles fame wrote the song “Give Peace a Chance”, which expressed the clear sentiment that we needed to find a way to turn away from all the violence and discord, and to instead be more considerate, caring, and peaceful towards one another.  This seemed to say that the way to make progress in human, as well as governmental sponsored actions, was to replace violence, armaments, greed, and the attitude that might makes right, by embracing all the good qualities of those that desire for peace, which include justice, charity, disarmament, civility and concentrating on the better angels of our nature to bring about peace, which truly would be a real change.

 Regrettably, more than fifty years later, and this world, and the societies along with the governments that make up this world, don’t seem to have made much progress and while it’s true that there are various achievements which humankind could rightly be proud of as representing progress in human civility and justice, the bottom line is that country after country, and society after society, have for the most part seemingly got even more violent than they were before, or if they have improved, that improvement has not been nearly enough to say that we are in a truly more peaceful sustainable construct than we were back then.

 Look, it has to be acknowledged that it doesn’t seem that the powers that be, who have an incredible influence on what societal programs are financed, and how they are implemented, have actually made a conscious choice to do the right thing by the people, and though there are times when we have seen progressive change, this seems to be countered again and again, with those at the top that insist that we need more law and order, and thereby more of the boot upon the people’s neck. 

 Instead of what we have now, we need to recognize that those that believe that somehow we can achieve peace through unnecessary violence, unfair restrictions, and constant surveillance of what we are doing, will not work to bring lasting peace and there isn’t any reason that it will ever work, for it seems the object of the exercise for those that are at top of power in governments all over the world, is to first take care of their own, and if by doing so, the people as a whole are dealt with unjustly, so be it.

 In sum, the road to peace requires buy-in not just from the general public, but from our legislative representatives and the executive office as well, because working together toward a common goal requires everyone to lend a helping hand.  To achieve lasting peace is one of the most worthy goals, and it is no easy task, which thereby requires blood, sweat, and tears to get us to a more peaceful and just society. Still, as it has been said, the arc of time bends towards justice, and those who desire real change need to do their fair part to actuate this sooner, as compared to all the heartbreak if it is later.

The military-industrial-technology complex owns America

There are all sorts of things to worry about in life, but considering that the two countries that are contiguous to America are not bellicose towards it, and are often quite accommodating to America’s needs and concerns, it is very surprising that so much money, indeed, such a high percentage of our GDP, needs to be allocated to “defense” spending.  The fact is that America spends so much more than any other individual country on its defense needs, that this must clearly reflect that our governance is not of, for, and by the people, at all, but rather the most important thing for those that control the levers of governance and its influencers, is for more and more money to be allocated yearly to our defense expenditures, which is thus taking away from the people and society their needful things.

 At this point, when America points its finger at the big, bad wolf, there is a general acknowledgment that Russia simply doesn’t have the money, the personnel, or the ability to conquer America, and quite frankly, has no desire to do so.  So, when it comes to potential enemies that could challenge America’s global dominance, only one nation is big enough in population and spends enough on defense to conceivably pose as being a true rival: China.  The thing about China is that even though its population is one billion more people than the United States of America, its defense spending as a percentage of GDP is about half of the USA, and at a sheer dollar level is far below the United States.  Indeed, Copilot Search tells us that in the years 2016-2026, America spent a bit over ten trillion dollars on defense, and China spent just under three trillion dollars, leaving a considerable difference of seven trillion dollars between these two nations.  Not only does this seem to strongly suggest that America is wildly overspending on defense, but it also has to be acknowledged that those monies that have been allocated to defense could have been allocated elsewhere, such as in the infrastructure of this nation and the social benefits to the people of this country, instead.

 Indeed, it would appear that to promote the general welfare of the people, which is an important Constitutional clause has given serious ground to defense spending, which is why this the richest nation that the world has ever known, has a considerable amount of its people, struggling not just paycheck to paycheck, but struggling just to have a decent life, because this nation through its governance has decided that a significant swath of the people of this land don’t really matter, and thus they have been left behind and essentially treated as refuse to be ignored and considered to be an irrelevance to the greater glory of military power and might.

 In truth, the decisions that our governance makes absolutely matters and when those decisions are for ever more armaments at the expense of the people, than the die has been cast, and the decision is that the business of America is only that which is in conformance to the desires and dictates of the military-industrial-technology complex, and those that are its most vulnerable and needful can have no better than the scrapes off the masters’ table.

Outward appearances can be deceptive

We are instructed not to judge a book by its cover because outward appearances do not necessarily reflect or typically reflect a person's true character.  We need to remember that the look and accouterments people present in public may or may not be a deception, so we should reserve our opinion of someone until we actually get to know them.  Additionally, it is important not to place too much trust in someone that we don’t even know, by virtue of the fact that they look nice or appear to be nice, for when we are quick to believe that all is well when we don’t really have enough information to actually know, we can get ourselves into a potentially troubling situation, by being way too trusting in a situation that doesn’t warrant such.

 While it is appropriate to be civil to one another, it is not appropriate to provide what we would consider to be rather personal information about ourselves to someone that we do not really know to fill their supposed need to know  Additionally, we should always be careful in dealing with those that we do not know, because the bottom line is that those that are up to no good, recognize intuitively that they are going to be more successful in their shameful acts when they have taken on the aura of being respectable by looking the part by being well dressed and well mannered, which encourages us to bring ourselves closer to them, and thus endangers our person, when they are something entirely unexpected and out to damage us.

 So too, there are plenty of people that we are quick to judge without having spoken a word to them, because, for instance, they don’t look the way that we think is appropriate, or they don’t smell the way that reflects cleanliness, or they act in a manner that we find to be weird, and so on. While it is absolutely fine to be wary of that which we don’t feel comfortable with, this doesn’t mean that we ought to judge them, mainly because we don’t know them, and while it makes sense to be circumspect and careful around those that discomfort us, it doesn’t mean that they are bad people, mainly because we don’t know them or their circumstances.

 Additionally, because so many of us live in communities which are so large we find that we typically are not in a position to truly know one another, we thus therefore need to comprehend that those that have bad intentions, appreciate the anonymity that exists all around them in big cities because in a very small town, people’s reputations, fairly or unfairly, precede them, while in a big city they do not, which is why it is imperative that we consider our own safety first, before we place ourselves in a position in which someone that we do not know can take advantage of us.

 So then, don’t put too much credence into outward appearances, or be quick to give credit where credit is not due, because those with bad intentions are savvy about hiding who they really are, and adept at deceiving us, which is why we need to be eternally vigilant for our own safety.

The devil can cite Scripture for his own purpose

Regrettably, there are plenty of people who will take our words and even our actions out of perspective to try thus to show us as being something that we really are not.  While this is frustrating to deal with, it demonstrates that those who are intent upon impugning our character will do what they do so that they can, by bringing ourselves down, justify themselves better.  That is to say, one of the reasons why we may have to deal with unjust criticism from others that distorts who we are is because these people who are up to no good are attempting to move the spotlight from their own faults and make it to be about our own, thus somewhat absolving them of their character faults.

 So then, we find that the devil and others can cite Scripture for their own purpose, because they desire to take what would appear to be an authoritarian, sacred, and well-respected book and twist it in a way in which whatever position that they favor appears to be in accordance with God, when in actuality, it isn’t, because the Scripture so being utilized, has been misinterpreted, taken out of context, or truncated in a way that its original purpose has been compromised.  In other words, those who are intent upon hurting us can find ways to do so by editing our true viewpoint, or overemphasizing some of our words at the expense of other words that we have spoken, to make it look like we are something different than what we truly are.

 We find that there are those people who have no hesitation in doing whatever it takes to hurt us, especially when, by doing so, it makes them look better so as to take the pressure off of them, which is why they are doing what they have done.  Those who purposely distort our words to make us appear to be something that we are not may well have success in their dastardly acts, but will at some point suffer the fair consequences for their immoral and wrongful actions.  Indeed, we need to recognize that there will be justice and a fair accounting of who and what we are, so that those who make it appear that Scripture says the very opposite of what it is intended for will have to answer for their deception, in one way or another, sooner or later.

 When it comes to those who are out to get us through foul and unfair means, all we can basically do is ask people to take into account who they know us to be, as well as for them to consider the source of those who attack us, and pretty much leave it at that, because there isn’t any good point in endlessly fighting against those that have an agenda against us, because not every critic or potential argument or accusation, necessitates our continual attention to it, for in the end, in the skeins of time, truth will always win out.

The fault is in ourselves

There are plenty of people who have lives of quiet desperation and disappointment, in which they are often quick to point out how unfair life has been to them, which may actually be valid.  That said, no matter how a given person’s life becomes, at some point, those responsible and in the know need to take agency over who and what they are becoming, because in the end, what has been done or not done is assigned to the person who is involved in those moments in time.  This signifies that the very first thing that all of us need to do is to fully comprehend that we are responsible for how we think and, consequently, how we act, and the wrong thinking has a whole lot to do with the wrong acts subsequently done.

 One thing we need to understand better is that during a storm with very heavy rainfall, water will find a way into our homes, even if the way in is small and seems inconsequential, because where there is a leak or a weakness, relentless water will find it.  This means that we should consider our full character and that which we are weak at so that we can shore it up, or else that weakness could easily bring us down, or be exploited by others that read us well, and thus they will take advantage of us in those moments when our vulnerability is most evident.

 So then, we find, while there a whole bunch of character faults that most of the people suffer from in some way at some time, such as anger, lust, greed, and envy, we almost always know where our greatest weaknesses are, because these are the same types of mistakes and errors, that we repeat, time and time again, which signifies that these are the most telling mistakes that need to be dealt with constructively because quite obviously they aren’t being corrected on their own.

 Of course, we are human and obviously subject to the lures that society seems to entice us with.  Still, the bottom line is that we have the capability to improve our character if we make this a focus of our lives, for when we are quick to get angry and frustrated, we should try to ascertain what it is that triggers such anger and then do something about it, so that we don’t keep making the same sort of mistake, because quite obviously we aren’t progressing.  Further to the point, when we reflect upon our error and are suitably embarrassed by it, we ought to see this as something which is reminding us that we should and can do better, because the very first step in correcting bad behavior is the sure recognition that we have erred.

 Indeed, while life will present us with plenty of challenges, we need to see these not as something that we hate having to deal with, but rather as our opportunity to rise to the occasion and to deal constructively and correctly with it, so that we can progress into becoming a wiser and more mature person, who has successfully develop not just the self-awareness of who we really are, but demonstrates again and again, that our responses, so of, are consistent with those that have not just learnt their lessons well but are applying such for their own betterment and also as their contribution to the society that they are a good member of.