MAGA:
The Centrist Movement
to Restore American Prosperity
7/7/2025
• MAGA as Centrist: The Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement is often mischaracterized as extreme but aligns with mainstream American values of fiscal responsibility and individual liberty, drawing independents with its common-sense, America First approach.
• DOGE’s Role: The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), initiated by President Trump, supports MAGA by exposing significant waste, fraud, and abuse in federal spending.
• Historical Context: Policies from past administrations, like the Roman Republic’s focus on high levels of welfare that drained the treasury and disincentivized production, have contributed to economic decline, which MAGA and DOGE aim to address through reform.
• Legislative Reforms: Eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act and rescinding the Impoundment Control Act would enhance Congress’s and the President’s ability to rein in spending and redirect funds responsibly.
Understanding MAGA’s Centrist Appeal
The MAGA movement, often labeled as far-right by critics, is better understood as a centrist effort to restore America’s economic vitality and reduce government overreach. Its slogan, “Make America Great Again,” reflects a widely shared desire to reverse the nation’s perceived decline, a goal that resonates with millions of Americans across political spectrums. The movement’s common-sense, America First approach—prioritizing national interests, economic opportunity, and fiscal responsibility—has drawn significant support from independents, contributing to Donald J. Trump’s return to the White House in 2024. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), launched by President Trump in January 2025, amplifies this mission by targeting inefficiencies in federal spending, providing evidence that supports MAGA’s call for reform. Additionally, eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act and rescinding the Impoundment Control Act would empower Congress and the President to better control spending and redirect taxpayer funds to critical priorities, aligning with MAGA’s fiscal responsibility agenda.
DOGE’s Impact on Exposing Waste, Fraud, and Abuse
DOGE, led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, has made headlines by identifying instances of wasteful government spending. Examples include significant expenditures on non-essential programs and mismanaged funds, which have struck a chord with taxpayers frustrated by government inefficiency. DOGE’s efforts to highlight specific cases of waste align with MAGA’s focus on accountability, reinforcing the need for legislative reforms like eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act to incentivize cost-cutting and rescinding the Impoundment Control Act to allow the President to redirect funds efficiently.
Addressing Historical Economic Challenges
MAGA’s critique of past policies, from the Federal Reserve Act to expansive entitlement programs, underscores the need for reform. DOGE’s work complements this by targeting modern inefficiencies, reinforcing the movement’s argument that unchecked spending undermines American prosperity. Legislative changes, such as eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act, would force Congress to justify spending increases annually, while rescinding the Impoundment Control Act would restore the President’s authority to prioritize funding, enhancing fiscal discipline.
Legislative Reforms for Fiscal Responsibility
• Eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act
The Baseline Budgeting Act, part of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, assumes automatic annual increases in federal spending based on inflation and other factors, regardless of program necessity or efficiency (Congressional Budget Act). This practice discourages cost-cutting and perpetuates bloated budgets, contributing to the $37 trillion national debt. Eliminating baseline budgeting would require Congress to evaluate and justify every dollar spent, incentivizing government agencies to implement cost-saving measures and ensuring responsible use of taxpayer funds. As the Heritage Foundation notes, “Baseline budgeting creates a bias toward spending increases, making it harder to achieve fiscal discipline” (Baseline Budgeting Reform).
• Rescinding the Impoundment Control Act
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 restricts the President’s ability to withhold or redirect congressionally appropriated funds, limiting executive flexibility to address wasteful spending (Impoundment Control Act). Rescinding this act would restore the President’s constitutional authority to manage federal funds efficiently, allowing the redirection of resources to critical priorities, such as infrastructure or national security, while curbing frivolous expenditures. Historical precedent, such as President Nixon’s use of impoundment to control spending, demonstrates its potential to enhance fiscal responsibility, though it sparked controversy leading to the act’s passage (Impoundment History). This reform aligns with MAGA’s goal of empowering the executive to act decisively in the interest of taxpayers.
• Navigating Opposition to Reforms
Proposals to eliminate the Baseline Budgeting Act and rescind the Impoundment Control Act may face opposition from those who argue they protect congressional authority or prevent executive overreach. However, these reforms, when balanced with oversight, could significantly enhance fiscal accountability, aligning with MAGA’s mission to ensure taxpayer funds are used responsibly.
MAGA: The Centrist Movement to Restore American Prosperity
The Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement is frequently portrayed by mainstream corporate media as an extreme right-wing ideology steeped in fascist tendencies. This narrative, however, is a deliberate misrepresentation. Far from being extreme, MAGA represents the most mainstream, centrist movement in the United States in the past century. Its core premise, restoring America’s greatness by addressing economic decline, reducing government overreach, and prioritizing the prosperity of its citizens, resonates with millions of Americans who seek a return to fiscal responsibility and individual liberty. The movement’s common-sense, America First approach, emphasizing practical governance and national interest, has drawn significant support from independents, contributing to Donald J. Trump’s return to the White House in 2024. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), initiated by President Trump in January 2025, amplifies MAGA’s mission by exposing and addressing waste, fraud, and abuse in federal spending. Furthermore, eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act and rescinding the Impoundment Control Act would enhance Congress’s and the President’s ability to rein in spending and redirect funds responsibly, reinforcing MAGA’s centrist appeal. This article explores why MAGA is a centrist response to unsustainable policies, counters the left’s attempts to label it as extremist, highlights DOGE’s role in exposing government inefficiencies, and advocates for key legislative reforms to ensure responsible use of taxpayer funds.
The Mischaracterization of MAGA
The mainstream media’s portrayal of MAGA as an extremist movement is a tactic to deflect attention from the left’s own radical policies. By framing MAGA as a fringe ideology, critics aim to marginalize a movement that appeals to a broad swath of Americans concerned about the nation’s trajectory. The term “Make America Great Again” reflects a desire to reverse the decline in America’s global standing and domestic prosperity, a goal that is inherently moderate and widely shared. Its common-sense, America First policies—such as prioritizing economic growth, border security, and fiscal responsibility—resonate with independents who value practical governance over ideological extremes. This broad appeal was a key factor in Donald J. Trump’s 2024 presidential victory, as exit polls showed 31% of independents supported Trump, citing economic concerns and dissatisfaction with government inefficiency (Edison Research, 2024). As political scientist John J. Pitney Jr. notes, “The appeal of MAGA lies in its simplicity and optimism, restoring a sense of national pride and economic opportunity is not an extreme position but one rooted in traditional American values” (Pitney, 2020).
This mischaracterization is not new. Historically, centrist movements challenging entrenched power structures have often been labeled as radical to preserve the status quo. For instance, the Tea Party movement of the early 2000s was similarly branded as extremist for advocating fiscal restraint and limited government, yet its ideas gained traction among a diverse coalition of voters (Skocpol & Williamson, 2012). MAGA’s focus on economic revitalization, border security, reducing bureaucratic overreach, and implementing legislative reforms like eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act and rescinding the Impoundment Control Act, bolstered by DOGE’s efforts to expose government waste, aligns with these earlier calls for reform, positioning it firmly in the center of American political thought.
The Decline of American Prosperity: A Historical Perspective
MAGA’s argument that America has seen a decline in its global and economic stature is supported by historical parallels and economic data. The Roman Republic’s fall serves as a cautionary tale, driven by high levels of welfare, such as the free grain dole, which drained the public treasury and created incentives for citizens to rely on handouts rather than produce, ultimately contributing to economic stagnation and collapse (Gibbon, 1776; Duncan-Jones, 1990). Similarly, the United States has faced growing economic challenges due to policies that prioritize short-term benefits over long-term sustainability, with waste, fraud, and abuse exacerbating the problem, as uncovered by DOGE. Legislative barriers like the Baseline Budgeting Act and the Impoundment Control Act have further hindered efforts to curb wasteful spending.
Woodrow Wilson’s Legacy:
• The Federal Reserve and the 16th Amendment
Under President Woodrow Wilson, two policies fundamentally altered America’s economic landscape. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 created a private banking system that controls monetary policy, removing Congress’s constitutional authority to “coin money and regulate the value thereof” (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8). Critics argue that the Federal Reserve, despite its name, is neither federal nor a reserve but a private entity that charges interest on currency it creates, contributing to the nation’s $37 trillion debt (Paul, 2009). This system, where taxpayers bear the cost of printing money while paying interest to a private institution, has been criticized as a departure from constitutional principles and a driver of inflation.
The ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913, also under Wilson, legalized the federal income tax. While proponents argued it was necessary to fund government operations, the Supreme Court has ruled that the amendment did not grant Congress new taxing powers beyond what it already possessed (Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 1916). This raises questions about the constitutionality of taxing individual labor, a practice that has become a significant burden on American workers. These policies, far from centrist, shifted wealth creation away from individuals and toward centralized institutions, setting the stage for future economic challenges, including the waste and mismanagement DOGE is now addressing.
Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Rise of Social Security
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal introduced Social Security in 1935, marketed as a modest tax on the wealthiest 1% to provide a safety net for the indigent elderly. However, Social Security has evolved into a bloated program that now consumes 17% of workers’ income (8.5% from employees and a matching 8.5% from employers) with no opt-out mechanism (Social Security Administration, 2024). Initially designed to support a ratio of 37 workers per retiree, the program now operates at a near 1:1 ratio, rendering it unsustainable (Munnell, 2018). Critics argue that Social Security resembles a Ponzi scheme, where current workers fund current retirees rather than building personal retirement savings, creating disincentives for individual financial planning similar to Rome’s welfare system. A private investment of the same 17% in a conservative market portfolio could yield significantly higher returns, offering Americans greater financial security (Kotlikoff, 2019). DOGE’s investigations have highlighted inefficiencies in Social Security, such as payments to deceased individuals, underscoring the need for reform to protect taxpayer dollars.
The Expansion of Entitlements: From Johnson to Biden
Subsequent administrations have compounded these issues. Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society expanded Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, further straining federal budgets and fostering dependency akin to Rome’s welfare policies. Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act (2010) increased healthcare costs for many Americans, despite promises of affordability, with premiums rising by an average of 34% from 2016 to 2018 (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2018). Joe Biden’s “New Green Deal” initiatives, while aimed at environmental goals, have contributed to inflation through massive spending, with consumer prices rising 20.2% from January 2021 to September 2024 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2024). These programs, while often well-intentioned, have placed an unsustainable burden on American taxpayers, with DOGE uncovering billions in improper payments and fraud, such as $59.3 million spent on housing illegal immigrants in luxury New York City hotels.
The national debt has ballooned to $37 trillion, with interest payments projected to reach $1 trillion annually by 2030 (Congressional Budget Office, 2025). This trajectory threatens the economic stability of future generations, undermining the ability of families to prosper, much like Rome’s treasury-draining welfare programs. DOGE’s findings, including $4.3 billion in wasted COVID relief funds and hundreds of millions in misspent foreign aid, highlight the extent of government waste that MAGA seeks to address. Eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act would force Congress to scrutinize spending annually, while rescinding the Impoundment Control Act would enable the President to redirect funds away from wasteful programs, enhancing fiscal discipline.
MAGA’s Centrist Solution: Removing Barriers to Prosperity with DOGE and Legislative Reforms
MAGA’s policy platform, amplified by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and supported by proposed legislative reforms, is not about dismantling necessary social safety nets but about removing barriers to prosperity and restoring fiscal responsibility, countering the disincentives created by excessive welfare programs. DOGE, established by executive order on January 20, 2025, is tasked with modernizing federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity, as well as cutting excess regulations and spending (White House, 2025a). Its mission includes exposing and addressing waste, fraud, and abuse in federal spending, which resonates with MAGA’s core values of limited government and individual empowerment, appealing to independents who value practical, America First governance.
These findings highlight the extent of government waste that MAGA seeks to address. DOGE is also reviewing all existing federal contracts and grants, prioritizing funds disbursed to educational institutions and foreign entities for waste, fraud, and abuse (White House, 2025b). This comprehensive approach ensures that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently and effectively.
The movement’s emphasis on border security also reflects a centrist concern for national sovereignty and economic stability, resonating with independents who see secure borders as a practical measure. Uncontrolled immigration has been linked to wage suppression for low-income workers, with studies showing that a 10% increase in the immigrant share of the labor force can reduce wages by 3-4% for native-born workers (Borjas, 2016). DOGE’s exposure of wasteful spending on immigration, such as the $83 million contract for an empty illegal alien facility and $80 million in FEMA funding for lodging in New York City, reinforces MAGA’s call for secure borders and efficient use of taxpayer funds.
DOGE’s impact on the MAGA movement is profound, as it provides concrete evidence of government waste, fraud, and abuse that validates MAGA’s critique of federal overreach. For instance, DOGE uncovered $20 million spent on a “Sesame Street” program in Iraq and hundreds of millions supporting poppy cultivation in Afghanistan, benefiting the Taliban. These findings resonate with Americans, particularly independents, frustrated by a government that squanders resources on frivolous or harmful projects, strengthening MAGA’s appeal as a centrist movement focused on accountability.
The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability has partnered with DOGE, using the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) High Risk List to target programs vulnerable to mismanagement, further aligning MAGA’s goals with bipartisan oversight efforts (House Budget Committee, 2025).
Eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act would further enhance Congress’s ability to rein in spending by requiring agencies to justify their budgets annually, incentivizing cost-cutting measures and reducing automatic spending increases that echo Rome’s treasury-draining welfare policies. Rescinding the Impoundment Control Act would restore the President’s authority to redirect funds from wasteful programs to critical needs, ensuring taxpayer money is used effectively. These reforms, combined with DOGE’s efforts, create a robust framework for fiscal responsibility that aligns with MAGA’s centrist vision and its appeal to independents seeking practical governance.
Countering the Extremism Narrative
The left’s portrayal of MAGA as extremist is a reaction to its challenge to entrenched power structures, now amplified by DOGE’s revelations and proposed legislative reforms. Policies like defunding the police, open borders, and expansive social programs, which have gained traction on the left, are far less mainstream than MAGA’s focus on economic opportunity and limited government. Polls consistently show that a majority of Americans support stronger border security (68%) and lower taxes (62%), aligning with MAGA’s priorities (Gallup, 2024). By contrast, only 29% of Americans support defunding the police, a policy championed by some progressive factions (Pew Research Center, 2021). MAGA’s common-sense approach, emphasizing America First policies, has drawn independents frustrated with partisan gridlock, contributing to Trump’s 2024 victory.
The media’s role in amplifying this narrative cannot be understated. Studies have shown that major news outlets exhibit a liberal bias, with 86% of coverage of MAGA-related issues framing it negatively (Groseclose, 2011). This bias distorts public perception, painting a centrist movement as extreme to protect the left’s policy agenda. DOGE’s high-profile findings, such as a $550 million bribery scandal at USAID, undermine this narrative by exposing the real extremism of unchecked government spending and corruption, further legitimizing MAGA’s call for reform and resonating with independents seeking accountability.
MAGA, amplified by DOGE’s efforts and supported by legislative reforms like eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act and rescinding the Impoundment Control Act, is not an extremist ideology but a centrist call to restore America’s economic vitality and individual liberty. Its common-sense, America First approach has drawn significant support from independents, contributing to Donald J. Trump’s return to the White House in 2024.
By addressing the unsustainable policies of the past, from the Federal Reserve’s monetary control to the expansion of entitlement programs that mirror Rome’s treasury-draining welfare system, and tackling the billions lost to improper payments and corruption, MAGA seeks to remove barriers to prosperity and empower Americans to build wealth. Historical parallels, economic data, public opinion, and DOGE’s findings, such as $175 billion in taxpayer savings through targeted cuts, support the movement’s premise that America’s decline can be reversed through fiscal responsibility and limited government. These reforms ensure that taxpayer funds are used responsibly, resonating with millions of Americans who want a stronger, more prosperous nation.
Resolving family legal issues can be stressful and complicated. Emotions run high, and it can be difficult to see the matter clearly. You need objective legal counsel from an experienced family attorney. Call the Law Office of John Williams in Charlotte, NC. John Williams can assist you if you're filing for divorce. He also handles child custody and guardianship cases.
Arrange for a consultation with a divorce attorney in Charlotte, NC today.
Commentary Archives
The articles contained herein do not necessarily reflect the views of Colorado DOGE Report or its management. They are the opinions of the authors alone.
The Left's Stalinist Shadow:
A Wake-Up Call After the Tragedy of Charlie Kirk
The Assassination and Its Immediate Aftermath
In the annals of American political history, few moments have exposed the raw underbelly of ideological extremism as starkly as the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's assassination. On that fateful day in early 2025, the founder of Turning Point USA, a beacon of conservative youth activism, was gunned down in what authorities quickly labeled a politically motivated attack. What followed was not a unified national mourning or a call for introspection across the political spectrum. Instead, it revealed a disturbing truth: the modern Left has internalized the personification of Joseph Stalin, embracing tactics of elimination over discourse, hate over humanity, and ideological purity over pluralism. This is not hyperbole. It is a pattern evident in their rhetoric, their actions, and their unyielding disdain for anyone who dares to challenge their worldview.
Vile Reactions from the Left
Let us begin with the immediate reaction from prominent voices on the Left. Within hours of the news breaking, cable news networks like MSNBC and CNN were awash with commentary that veered perilously close to justification. Pundits, who claim to champion tolerance and empathy, twisted the narrative to portray Kirk as a provocateur whose "dangerous ideas" had somehow invited his fate. One MSNBC host, Matthew Dowd even suggested that Charlie Kirk’s “hate speech” led him to be shot in a segment that drew widespread backlash, suggesting that Kirk's advocacy for free speech on college campuses had "fueled division," implying that his elimination was a tragic but understandable outcome in a polarized society. This was no isolated incident. Social media platforms buzzed with left-leaning influencers and activists posting memes and threads that mocked Kirk's legacy, with hashtags like #NoSympathyForHate trending among progressive circles. Rather than condemning the violence outright, many on the Left framed it as a symptom of "systemic issues" exacerbated by conservatives like Kirk. This is the Stalinist playbook in action: dissenters are not debated, they are demonized and erased.
Echoes of Stalinist Tactics
Stalin, the Soviet dictator whose regime murdered millions in purges and gulags, perfected the art of eliminating opposition under the guise of protecting the collective good. He labeled critics as enemies of the people, justifying their removal as necessary for progress. Today, the Left employs a similar strategy, albeit through cultural and rhetorical means, escalating to celebration when physical elimination occurs. In Kirk's case, the vitriol was unrelenting. Progressive commentators on platforms like TikTok and X amplified conspiracy theories suggesting Kirk's organization had "incited violence" through its events, ignoring the fact that Turning Point USA has consistently promoted peaceful dialogue. This hate-mongering is not new. It echoes the treatment of other conservative figures, from Ben Shapiro to Jordan Peterson, who are routinely branded as "fascists" or "bigots" simply for questioning leftist orthodoxy on issues like gender ideology or economic policy. But with Kirk's death, the mask slipped entirely. The Left did not pause for reflection. They doubled down, proving that their commitment to "inclusivity" extends only to those who parrot their views.
Hypocrisy in Calls for Gun Control
Then there is the hypocrisy surrounding calls for gun control. In the wake of the assassination, Democratic leaders and left-wing activists flooded the airwaves with sanctimonious statements offering "thoughts and prayers" while demanding an end to "gun violence." The perpetrator carried out the attack in a gun-free zone, a venue where law-abiding citizens are disarmed while criminals operate with impunity. This pattern is not anomalous. Consider the 2022 shooting at a Colorado nightclub, where the attacker had ties to far-left extremism, or the 2017 congressional baseball practice assault by a Bernie Sanders supporter. Virtually every high-profile shooter in recent years shares a common thread: left-wing affiliations and operations in areas where guns are banned for the public. The Left ignores these realities because they shatter their narrative. They push for more restrictions, knowing full well that such policies disarm potential victims while empowering ideologues like Kirk's killer.
Indifference to Victims and Families
This uncaring attitude toward victims like Kirk and his family is sickening. The Left's rhetoric reveals a profound indifference to human suffering when it does not align with their agenda. Kirk's widow and children were subjected to a barrage of online harassment, with left-wing trolls posting vile comments about how the family "deserved" their grief for supporting "hateful" causes. Media interviews with progressive figures consistently spoke ill of the Kirks, framing them as enablers of extremism rather than a grieving family. One CNN analyst went so far as to question whether Kirk's "legacy of division" warranted national sympathy. Compare this to how the Left treats its own. When progressive icons face threats, the outcry is immediate and unified, with calls for investigations and protections. But for conservatives? Silence or worse, schadenfreude. This double standard underscores their lack of genuine compassion. They care no more about Charlie Kirk's family and the pain they are enduring, in fact, they are more interested in the welfare of a dead tree in the middle of the forest than they are of a conservative who simply wants to have an open and honest debate. Their focus is on power, not people.
Owning the Communistic Rhetoric
It is time for the Left to own their communistic rhetoric for what it truly is: hate. Communism, as embodied by Stalin, thrived on class warfare and the suppression of individual thought. Today's Left mirrors this through identity politics and cancel culture, where disagreement is equated with oppression. Kirk, in contrast, represented the antithesis of this mindset. He was the epitome of style, grace, class, and respect in political engagement. Through his campus tours and debates, he invited opponents to the table, allowing them to voice their opinions fully before posing thoughtful questions. He challenged their positions without belittling them, fostering an environment where ideas could clash without personal destruction. Watch any of his "Change My Mind" segments, and you see a man committed to the American ideal of healthy debate. He did not shout down speakers or resort to ad hominem attacks. Instead, he encouraged self-reflection, often leading participants to reconsider their stances through logic and evidence. This approach built bridges, even if temporary, in a divided nation.
Charlie Kirk: A Beacon of Civility
Yet, the Left could not tolerate such grace. Their response to Kirk's work was to label him a "threat to democracy”, a code word for anyone who opposes their march toward socialism. This rhetoric fuels the very violence they pretend to abhor. Stalin's purges began with words, escalating to actions. Similarly, the Left's constant demonization creates a permission structure for radicals. The assassin, radicalized by online echo chambers filled with leftist hate, cited Kirk's "fascist" views in a manifesto. This is not coincidence. It is causation. The Left must confront how their words contribute to a culture of elimination.
Broader Patterns and Damning Evidence
To substantiate this, let us examine broader patterns. Historical parallels abound. In the 1930s, Stalin's regime vilified "kulaks" and intellectuals, leading to mass executions. Today, the Left targets "MAGA" supporters and conservative thinkers as existential threats. Social media posts from verified left-wing accounts post-assassination included gems like "One less voice of hate," echoing Stalin's justification for silencing dissidents. Media outlets amplified this by platforming experts who downplayed the ideological motive, focusing instead on "mental health" or "gun access." But data tells a different story. According to FBI reports on political violence from 2018 to 2024, incidents motivated by left-wing ideologies outnumbered those from the right by a 2:1 ratio in targeted assassinations and attacks on public figures. Gun-free zones, meanwhile, account for over 90 percent of mass shootings since 2009, per studies from the Crime Prevention Research Center. These facts are ignored because they indict the Left's policies.
Moreover, the Left's treatment of Kirk's family post-tragedy mirrors their broader disdain for working-class Americans. Tax cuts under the Trump administration lifted millions out of poverty, yet Democrats decried them as "giveaways to the rich." Similarly, they dismiss Kirk's advocacy for economic freedom as "greed," while pushing socialist policies that burden the middle class. Their interviews and posts about the Kirks were devoid of empathy, filled instead with accusations of "privilege" and "complicity." This is Stalinism repackaged: the individual matters only insofar as they serve the collective narrative.
Kirk's Enduring Legacy
Kirk's legacy, however, endures as a counterpoint. He embodied the American dream, rising from humble beginnings to lead a movement that empowered young conservatives. His debates were masterclasses in civility, where he listened intently, responded thoughtfully, and parted with respect. Opponents often left his events with newfound appreciation for dialogue. In one memorable exchange at a university, a socialist student challenged him on wealth inequality. Kirk did not mock her views. He asked probing questions about incentives and history, encouraging her to explain her position fully. By the end, she admitted to rethinking her stance. This is the essence of democracy: ideas tested in the forge of discussion, not the fire of elimination.
A Call to Action and Conclusion
The Left's celebration of Kirk's death, veiled in calls for "unity," exposes their true colors. They advocate for "ending gun violence" while creating the ideological tinderbox that ignites it. Their hate is communistic at its core, prioritizing conformity over freedom. It is time for accountability. Americans must demand that the Left renounce this Stalinist shadow, embracing instead the pluralism that Kirk championed. Only then can we heal as a nation.
Charlie Kirk's assassination is a tragic milestone, not just for conservatism, but for America. The Left's response, dripping with vitriol and hypocrisy, proves they have strayed far from democratic ideals. They must own their rhetoric, confront their hate, and return to the table of debate. Kirk showed us how. Will they follow, or continue down the path of elimination? The choice is theirs, but the consequences are ours to bear. Let this be a wake-up call: Stalin's ghost haunts the Left, and it is time to exorcise it.
Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”
Michael is the father of five and grandfather of three, United States Air Force Veteran, International Recording Artist, passionate about the United States of America and the founders Genius of the Constitution and Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report (coDOGEreport.com).
The Perils of Justifying Political Violence:
Reflections After Charlie Kirk's Assassination
The Chilling Premise and Its Implications
In the aftermath of a tragedy that has shaken the nation, we must confront a sobering reality. On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk, the prominent conservative activist and co-founder of Turning Point USA, was fatally shot while speaking at an event on the campus of Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. If some can justify his murder by branding him a "fascist," then what barriers remain to stop those on the right from rationalizing and even celebrating the deaths of figures on the radical left, seen not just as communists but as followers of the most vicious forms, Stalinism and Maoism? These ideologies, as history attests, unleashed evils that surpassed fascism in their sheer magnitude and cruelty. And to set the record straight: Charlie Kirk was no fascist. Such claims arose from manipulation, echoing the "Big Lie" technique, where distortions are reiterated until they masquerade as fact.
The Escalation Toward Conflict
This dangerous normalization of violence forces a critical inquiry. Is this the path we choose, one hurtling toward outright civil war? Indeed, we appear already entrenched in conflict. For years, factions on the extreme left have propagated hatred against fellow Americans, progressively endorsing violence that has now escalated to murder. The shooting of Kirk, carried out by suspect Tyler Robinson amid a subsequent manhunt, exemplifies this trend, with authorities charging crimes including aggravated murder and felony discharge of a firearm. This pattern marks them not as advocates for justice but as foes of freedom. Patriotic Americans, anchored in truth and righteousness, will counter such forces through all means sanctioned by law and the Constitution.
Historical Lessons from Stalinism
To underscore the severity of this caution, examine the historical legacies of Stalinism and Maoism, which the premise correctly deems far more devastating than fascism owing to their immense toll on human life. Joseph Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union inflicted an estimated 20 million deaths through executions, forced labor in the Gulag, deportations, engineered famines such as the Holodomor, and massacres, often rationalized as measures against supposed fascist threats within his own populace. Archival data reveals at least 5.2 million fatalities from 1927 to 1938 during the Great Purge alone, a campaign of terror targeting perceived enemies. Broader tallies, including those from Soviet-era disclosures, reach up to 40 million when encompassing all forms of repression, far outstripping fascist regimes in scale.
Historical Lessons from Maoism
Likewise, Mao Zedong's policies in China caused between 40 million and 70 million deaths via famine, political purges, forced labor, and executions, eclipsing other 20th-century dictators in peacetime fatalities. The Great Leap Forward from 1958 to 1962 alone resulted in 30 million to 45 million starvation deaths, framed as pursuits of democratic socialism and rapid industrialization. The Cultural Revolution compounded this with approximately 1.5 million more deaths and injuries through widespread violence and ideological cleansing.
Comparing the Evils: Communism Versus Fascism
Contrasting these communist horrors with fascism highlights the imbalances in death tolls, illustrating why condoning violence against alleged "fascists" today is profoundly misguided. While fascism wrought undeniable atrocities, communist systems under Stalin and Mao exceeded them in fatalities and systemic oppression, both emerging as authoritarian twins demanding absolute control and perpetrating genocides on a global stage. Analyses like those in comparative studies of 20th-century tyrannies affirm that communism's reach amplified its devastations beyond fascism's.
A Call to Resist and Recommit
The message is clear: rationalizing murder through ideological smears fosters retaliation and deepens fractures. The annals of Stalin and Mao teach that these roads culminate in ruin. Rather than yield to violence, we ought to renew our dedication to discourse, veracity, and legal order. Falling short risks the civil war we profess to dread, turning political rivals into lethal adversaries. In memory of Charlie Kirk, patriotic advocates must remain resolute, safeguarding liberty from those who erode it via deceit and aggression.
~Fite4Truth~
When Ego Overrides Logic
It always amazes me when I see people allow their ego to overtake their logic. It completely clouds their judgment in a way that makes even some of the easiest and most logical decisions difficult. In an age of information overload and rapid decision-making, it is astonishing how often people let their ego eclipse their logic. This phenomenon turns straightforward choices into convoluted battles. It distorts reality and leads to regrettable outcomes. From boardrooms to personal relationships, ego-driven decisions reveal a fundamental flaw in human cognition. Psychological studies illuminate why this happens and underscore the need for self-awareness to reclaim rational thinking. Let’s explore the mechanics behind ego overtaking logic, backed by empirical evidence, and offers pathways to mitigate its grip.
Defining Ego's Role in Decision-Making
Ego, in psychological terms, often refers to the sense of self that mediates between impulses and reality. According to Freudian theory, the ego balances the id's desires with the superego's morals. However, in modern contexts, ego manifests as self-importance or defensiveness that prioritizes personal image over facts. When ego dominates, it clouds judgment by favoring emotional satisfaction over logical analysis. This override is not mere stubbornness. It stems from cognitive mechanisms studied extensively in psychology.
One key framework is ego depletion, where acts of self-control drain mental resources, making subsequent rational decisions harder. A landmark meta-analysis of 83 studies found that ego depletion significantly impairs task performance, including logical reasoning. Participants who exerted self-control in one task, such as resisting temptations, performed worse on follow-up tasks requiring logic. This suggests that ego, when taxed, defaults to impulsive or biased choices rather than deliberate thought.
The Science Behind Ego's Dominance
Psychological research consistently shows how ego depletion erodes logical decision-making. In a series of experiments, depleted individuals struggled with complex intellectual tasks. For instance, a study on intellectual performance and ego depletion revealed that participants performed worse on logic and reasoning tests after self-regulation efforts. They excelled at simpler tasks like memorization but faltered on those demanding extrapolation or critical analysis. This indicates that ego depletion selectively impairs higher-order thinking, allowing biases to prevail.
Another study examined ego depletion's impact on escalation of commitment, where people irrationally persist with failing courses due to sunk costs. Researchers found that depleted individuals were more likely to double down on poor decisions, overriding logical exit strategies. This mirrors real-life scenarios, such as leaders clinging to flawed policies to avoid admitting error. A related investigation showed depleted participants underperforming on logic, reasoning, reading comprehension, and arithmetic tests compared to non-depleted counterparts. These findings highlight ego's role in diminishing cognitive reserves, making even basic logic elusive.
Emotions intertwined with ego further complicate matters. A comprehensive review on emotion and decision-making noted that potent emotions, often ego-driven like pride or anger, can override rational processes unless checked by cognitive control. In moral dilemmas, initial emotional responses may be supplanted by reasoning, but this requires undepleted mental energy. When ego is inflated, such as in defensive situations, logic takes a backseat. A meta-analysis updating ego depletion effects confirmed that after correcting for publication bias, the phenomenon persists, particularly in high-demand cognitive tasks.
These studies collectively demonstrate that ego does not just influence decisions. It systematically undermines logic by depleting the willpower needed for objective evaluation.
Real-World Manifestations and Consequences
Consider everyday examples in which ego trumps logic. In politics, leaders often reject evidence-based advice to preserve their image, leading to lost elections and policy failures even in the face of certain doom. Business executives ignore market data favoring a rival's strategy, fearing it diminishes their authority. Personal relationships suffer too, with arguments escalating because one party cannot concede a point, even when facts prove them wrong.
The consequences are profound. Ego-driven decisions contribute to financial losses, as seen in investment biases where overconfidence overrides risk assessment. A study on consumer behavior and self-control linked ego depletion to impulsive purchases, showing depleted individuals more susceptible to temptations. On a societal level, this fosters polarization, where echo chambers reinforce ego over evidence.
In professional settings, ego depletion exacerbates biases. Research on free will in consumer behavior found that self-control lapses lead to choices misaligned with long-term goals. Similarly, a paper on intellectual performance emphasized that ego depletion impairs information processing, making logical overrides more common in fatigued states. These patterns explain why exhausted executives make erratic calls or why stressed individuals opt for comfort over correctness.
Strategies to Reclaim Logic from Ego's Grasp
Awareness is the first step. Recognizing ego depletion signs, like mental fatigue after stressful tasks, allows for breaks to restore cognitive resources. Mindfulness practices, supported by studies, enhance self-regulation and reduce ego's influence. For example, meditation improves decision-making by bolstering willpower reserves, countering depletion effects.
Encouraging diverse perspectives combats ego biases. Teams that prioritize collective input over individual egos make better decisions, as per group dynamics research. Finally, reframing failures as learning opportunities diminishes ego's defensive posture, fostering logical growth.
Rational Reflection
When ego overtakes logic, it not only complicates simple decisions but erodes personal and societal progress. Psychological studies on ego depletion and emotional overrides provide irrefutable evidence of this dynamic. By understanding these mechanisms, we can cultivate habits that prioritize reason. In a world demanding quick judgments, reclaiming logic from ego's shadow is essential for wiser choices and a more harmonious existence. Let us commit to self-reflection, ensuring our decisions reflect clarity rather than conceit.
Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”
Michael is a father of five and grandfather of three, United States Air Force Veteran, International Recording Artist, passionate about the United States of America and the founders Genius of the Constitution and Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report (coDOGEreport.com).
The Power of Belief Over Truth
"People are not controlled by the truth, they are controlled by what they believe. And what they believe is not necessarily the truth."
Beliefs shape our world more profoundly than facts ever could. People navigate life not by objective truth, but by the narratives they hold dear, even when those narratives crumble under scrutiny. This phenomenon explains why debates rage endlessly, why relationships fracture over misunderstandings, and why societies cling to myths long after evidence disproves them. The premise that individuals are controlled by what they believe, irrespective of its veracity, reveals a fundamental human flaw: our minds prioritize comfort and consistency over accuracy. Once a belief takes root, uprooting it demands more than logic; it requires a seismic shift in perspective, often resisted at all costs.
Consider how this plays out in everyday decisions. A person might believe a certain diet guarantees health, ignoring scientific studies that contradict it, simply because early success reinforced the idea. Or an employee might view a boss as tyrannical based on one harsh interaction, overlooking years of fairness. These beliefs act as filters, coloring every subsequent experience to align with the initial conviction. Psychologists have long studied this through concepts like confirmation bias, where we seek information that supports our views and dismiss what challenges them. In a world flooded with data, this selective perception ensures that lies, half-truths, or outright fabrications can dominate a person's reality.
The difficulty in convincing someone otherwise stems from the emotional investment in their belief. Admitting error means confronting vulnerability, a prospect many avoid. Instead, they double down, constructing elaborate defenses. This resistance is not mere stubbornness; it is a survival mechanism wired into our brains. Evolutionary psychologists suggest that in ancestral environments, quick judgments based on limited information kept us alive. Today, that same trait leads to entrenched positions on everything from climate change to personal grievances. The result? A society where dialogue often devolves into echo chambers, and truth becomes a casualty of conviction.
Lessons from a Fractured Marriage
Personal stories illuminate this premise with stark clarity. Take the case of a divorce that unfolded not from irreparable harm, but from a distorted belief system. In one such instance, a marriage ended despite mutual acknowledgments of each other's strengths. The husband was far from perfect, yet his flaws were ordinary, the kind that couples typically navigate through communication and compromise. Issues like differing priorities or communication gaps were present, but nothing rose to the level of betrayal or abuse. Still, at the pivotal moment, the wife's belief painted a different picture, one of irreconcilable differences amplified by external influences or internal doubts.
She proceeded with the divorce, convinced it was the only path forward. Nearly two decades later, she now reflects differently. Now she describes him as the ideal husband and father, a testament to the relationship's underlying solidity. Their children thrive, and the former couple maintains a cordial dynamic, grounded in shared understanding. Yet the divorce stands as an irreversible fact, a monument to the power of belief over truth. What changed? Time allowed for reflection, stripping away the emotional fog that once obscured reality. Experiences post-divorce revealed that the grass was not greener, and the original issues were indeed workable.
This narrative is not unique. Many have encountered similar rifts where a partner's belief in a fabricated narrative drives irreversible actions. Perhaps a spouse believes an innocent friendship harbors infidelity, fueled by jealousy or misinformation. Evidence to the contrary, like clear communication, falls on deaf ears because the belief has already reshaped their worldview. Convincing them otherwise feels futile; arguments escalate, entrenching positions further. In therapy sessions, counselors often witness this dynamic, where one party clings to a lie not out of malice, but because admitting the truth would dismantle their self-justified stance.
The aftermath offers a glimmer of hope. In this story, maturity brought clarity. Both parties now grasp life's complexities, recognizing that beliefs can evolve with perspective. Their amicable post-divorce relationship underscores that while beliefs control actions in the moment, truth can emerge over time. For others in similar situations, this suggests patience as a strategy. Rushing to debunk a belief often backfires; instead, allowing life to unfold can naturally erode false convictions.
Beliefs in Broader Relationships
Beyond romantic entanglements, beliefs dictate the fate of friendships, family ties, and professional bonds. A friend might believe you slighted them based on a misinterpreted comment, leading to a fallout that endures for years. No amount of explanation suffices because their belief has rewritten the event in their mind. Family dynamics amplify this; siblings feud over inheritances, convinced of favoritism where none exists. Parents hold onto outdated views of their children's capabilities, stifling growth under the guise of protection.
In workplaces, this manifests as biases that hinder collaboration. A manager might believe an employee lacks dedication due to a single missed deadline, ignoring a track record of excellence. Efforts to correct this perception through performance reviews or direct dialogue often fail, as the belief has already influenced decisions like promotions or assignments. Human resources experts note that such entrenched views contribute to high turnover rates, where talented individuals leave rather than battle misconceptions.
The challenge lies in the invisibility of these beliefs. They operate subconsciously, making confrontation delicate. Approaching someone with "You're wrong because..." invites defensiveness. Instead, subtle shifts, like shared experiences or third-party validations, can chip away at false narratives. Yet even then, success is not guaranteed. Some relationships dissolve permanently, victims of unyielding convictions. This reality forces us to question how much energy to invest in persuasion versus acceptance. In many cases, moving forward without reconciliation proves healthier, allowing beliefs to fade in irrelevance.
Societal Echoes of Misguided Convictions
On a larger scale, the premise explains much of society's discord. Politics thrives on beliefs detached from truth. Voters cling to ideologies, dismissing facts that contradict their party's narrative. For instance, economic policies are debated not on data, but on preconceived notions of what "works." A policy proven effective through studies might be rejected if it clashes with a belief in self-reliance or government overreach. Media outlets exploit this, tailoring content to reinforce viewer beliefs, creating polarized bubbles where alternative views are vilified.
Social media accelerates this. Algorithms feed users content aligning with their beliefs, entrenching lies about elections, health crises, or social issues. During pandemics, some believed vaccines were harmful despite overwhelming evidence otherwise, leading to public health setbacks. Convincing them required not just facts, but stories from trusted sources or personal losses that pierced their belief armor. Yet many remained unmoved, illustrating the premise's tenacity.
Cultural myths persist similarly. Beliefs in stereotypes control interactions between groups, fostering discrimination. A community might believe another poses a threat based on historical lies, perpetuating cycles of mistrust. Efforts to educate, like diversity training, often falter because they challenge core beliefs head-on. More effective are immersive experiences, where direct contact humanizes the "other," gradually dismantling falsehoods.
The media's role cannot be understated. Sensationalism sells, so stories that align with popular beliefs gain traction, even if inaccurate. Fact-checkers work tirelessly, but their impact is limited; people trust sources that echo their views. This creates a feedback loop where beliefs solidify, making societal progress sluggish. Addressing this requires systemic changes, like promoting media literacy from a young age, teaching individuals to question their convictions.
The Mechanics of Resistance
Why is it so hard to sway someone ensnared by a lie? Cognitive science offers insights. When confronted with contradictory evidence, the brain experiences dissonance, an uncomfortable tension. To resolve it, people often reject the new information rather than revise their belief. This "backfire effect" means arguments can strengthen opposing views. Studies show that presenting facts to conspiracy theorists sometimes deepens their commitment, as they interpret the challenge as proof of a cover-up.
Emotional ties amplify resistance. Beliefs tied to identity, like religious or political affiliations, are particularly immovable. Admitting error feels like betraying one's self or community. In group settings, social pressure reinforces this; deviating risks ostracism. Online forums exemplify this, where echo chambers punish dissent, ensuring beliefs remain unchallenged.
Strategies for change exist, though imperfect. Building rapport before presenting evidence helps; people are more receptive from trusted sources. Using questions instead of statements encourages self-reflection: "What evidence would change your mind?" This Socratic approach avoids direct confrontation. Storytelling also works, as narratives bypass defenses, allowing empathy to erode false beliefs.
Yet some minds remain closed indefinitely. In these cases, the focus shifts to mitigation. Laws and policies can curb the harm from misguided beliefs, like regulations on misinformation. Education emphasizes critical thinking, equipping future generations to discern truth. Ultimately, recognizing our own susceptibility fosters humility, reminding us that we too are controlled by beliefs, not infallible truths.
Toward Collective Clarity
Time often serves as the ultimate arbiter, as seen in the divorce story. What seemed irrefutable in the heat of emotion reveals itself as illusion with distance. Societies evolve similarly; once-prevalent beliefs, like the earth being flat, yield to evidence over generations. This suggests optimism: while individuals may resist, collective progress inches forward.
Encouraging environments where beliefs are tested without judgment could accelerate this. Open forums, diverse media, and empathetic dialogues invite reevaluation. In personal spheres, forgiveness plays a role, allowing space for beliefs to shift without shame. The ex-spouses' amicable present exemplifies this; understanding replaced resentment, proving that beliefs, though powerful, are not eternal.
Reflecting on this premise urges self-examination. What beliefs control us unknowingly? Questioning them invites growth, bridging divides in relationships and society. While lies may dominate temporarily, the pursuit of truth, patient and persistent, offers a path to liberation. In embracing this, we honor the complexity of human perception, fostering a world where beliefs align more closely with reality.
Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”
Michael is a father of five and grandfather of three, United States Air Force Veteran, International Recording Artist, passionate about the United States of America and the founders Genius of the Constitution and Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report (coDOGEreport.com).
Defending All Liberties:
The Imperative of Universal Protection
The Foundation of Mutual Defense
In a society built on the pillars of individual freedom, the principle that "liberty for one is liberty for all" stands as a cornerstone of democratic life. This idea transcends personal preferences or ideological alignments. It demands that we defend every liberty, even those we may not endorse or fully understand, to safeguard the entire framework of rights that protects us all. The premise is simple yet profound: if we selectively champion only the freedoms that align with our views, we risk creating a precedent where our own cherished liberties become vulnerable to erosion. History and legal precedent alike warn us that liberties are interconnected; an attack on one is an assault on all.
Consider the analogy of sand on a beach. Each grain represents an individual liberty, and the waves symbolize the relentless pressures of societal, governmental, or cultural forces that seek to diminish them. Over time, unnoticed erosion can transform a vast, sandy expanse into a barren rocky shore. Just as the loss of a few grains does not immediately alarm us, the incremental restriction of unpopular rights often goes unchallenged until the entire landscape of freedom is altered. This op-ed explores why defending all liberties, regardless of agreement, is not just a moral imperative but a strategic necessity for preserving constitutional democracy. Drawing on legal and constitutional citations, we will examine historical precedents, foundational principles, and contemporary threats to illustrate this vital truth.
The United States Constitution, particularly through the Bill of Rights, enshrines these protections. The First Amendment, for instance, states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This broad language was intentionally crafted to protect even dissenting or controversial expressions, recognizing that liberty thrives only when universally upheld.
The Interconnected Nature of Liberties
Liberties do not exist in isolation; they form a web where the strength of one bolsters the others. When we fail to defend a liberty we disagree with, we weaken the entire structure. This interconnectedness is evident in how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution. For example, in the landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the Court overturned a conviction under a criminal syndicalism statute that punished advocacy of violence for political reform. The Ku Klux Klan leader Clarence Brandenburg had made inflammatory speeches, yet the Court ruled that speech could only be restricted if it incited imminent lawless action and was likely to produce such action. Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the majority, emphasized that the First Amendment protects "advocacy of the use of force or of law violation" unless it poses a clear and present danger. This decision protected a deeply unpopular viewpoint, rooted in white supremacist ideology, but in doing so, it reinforced free speech protections for all citizens, including those advocating for civil rights or environmental reforms.
The rationale here is clear: if the government could suppress Klan rhetoric, it could easily extend that power to anti-war protests or labor strikes. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which incorporates the Bill of Rights against the states, further underscores this. As the Court noted in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), freedoms of speech and press are "among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States." By defending the liberty of the Klan, the Court in Brandenburg ensured that no group, no matter how reviled, could be silenced without due process, thereby preserving the liberty for everyone.
This principle extends beyond speech. Consider religious freedoms, another facet of the First Amendment. In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), the Supreme Court struck down a compulsory flag salute requirement in public schools. Jehovah's Witnesses, who viewed the salute as idolatrous, refused to comply, leading to their children's expulsion. Justice Robert H. Jackson famously wrote: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." This ruling protected a minority religious practice many found unpatriotic during wartime, but it established a precedent that shields all conscientious objectors, from pacifists to those with emerging spiritual beliefs. Failing to defend this liberty could have paved the way for compelled conformity in other areas, such as mandatory vaccinations or ideological oaths.
The interconnectedness is further illustrated by the right of association, protected under the First Amendment. In NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), the Court reversed a state order requiring the NAACP to disclose its membership lists, which could expose members to harassment during the Civil Rights era. The majority opinion, penned by Justice John Marshall Harlan II, held that compelled disclosure violated the right to privacy in association, stating: "This Court has recognized that the effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association." Here, the liberty of a civil rights organization was defended against state intrusion, but the ruling's broader impact protects all advocacy groups, from labor unions to political parties, even those with views we might oppose, such as far-right militias. If we had allowed the erosion of the NAACP's associational rights, it could have set a precedent for monitoring any unpopular group, ultimately threatening our own "pet liberties," like the right to join environmental or feminist organizations.
Lessons from History: Defending the Unpopular to Preserve the Whole
History provides stark lessons on the consequences of selective liberty defense. During the Red Scare of the 1950s, the government targeted communists and suspected subversives, often trampling on due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Yet, cases like Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), where the Court overturned convictions for advocating abstract ideas rather than direct incitement, drew from the Smith Act trials and reinforced that mere belief or association cannot be criminalized. This protection for communist speech, unpopular in Cold War America, later shielded anti-Vietnam War activists and whistleblowers like Daniel Ellsberg.
Another poignant example is Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), where the Court ruled 5-4 that burning the American flag as political protest is protected symbolic speech under the First Amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention to protest Reagan's policies, a act many viewed as deeply offensive. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." This decision, protecting an act that symbolized disrespect for national symbols, has since been cited in cases involving Confederate flag displays or other controversial symbols. By upholding Johnson's liberty, the Court prevented a broader chilling effect on protest rights, ensuring that future generations could challenge authority without fear of prosecution for "offensiveness."
The Skokie case, though not reaching the Supreme Court directly, exemplifies this through related precedents. In 1977, the National Socialist Party of America sought to march in Skokie, Illinois, a village with many Holocaust survivors. Lower courts initially blocked the march, but the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, relying on First Amendment principles from cases like Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197 (7th Cir. 1978), ruled it protected. The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in effect affirmed this, building on Brandenburg. This defense of neo-Nazi speech, as abhorrent as it was, preserved the right to assemble and speak for all, including civil rights marchers in the South or LGBTQ+ pride parades. As the Bill of Rights Institute notes, the First Amendment protects even "extremely offensive" views to maintain a marketplace of ideas.
These historical cases demonstrate that when we defend unpopular liberties, we fortify the constitutional bulwarks. The Preamble to the Constitution aims to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," a collective endeavor requiring mutual vigilance. Ignoring this invites the very attacks on our preferred freedoms, as seen in how McCarthy-era suppressions later echoed in attempts to silence Black Lives Matter protesters.
Constitutional Safeguards: The Legal Backbone
The U.S. Constitution provides the legal framework for universal liberty protection. Article VI declares the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land," binding all states and officials. The Ninth Amendment further reinforces this by stating: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This ensures that unlisted liberties, like privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), are not diminished by focusing only on enumerated ones.
The First Amendment's absolutist language has been interpreted through the "clear and present danger" test from Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), refined in Brandenburg to protect seditious speech unless it meets strict criteria. Similarly, the Second Amendment's right to bear arms, upheld in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), protects individual self-defense, even for those whose views on gun control we oppose. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the amendment codifies a pre-existing right, applicable against states via the Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation doctrine from McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).
For due process, the Fifth Amendment prohibits deprivation of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," mirrored in the Fourteenth. In Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), though later critiqued, it initially protected economic liberties like contract freedom, showing how even business rights interconnect with personal ones. Modern substantive due process, as in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), decriminalized private consensual acts, protecting intimate liberties that were once unpopular.
These safeguards compel us to defend all rights. As Justice Louis D. Brandeis noted in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), concurrence: "Those who won our independence believed that... the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty." This duty extends to supporting liberties we disdain, lest our own become the next target.
Contemporary Challenges: Erosion in the Digital Age
Today, liberties face new threats from technology and polarization. Social media platforms, often acting as quasi-public forums, have censored content under private policies, raising First Amendment questions. In Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017), the Court struck down a law banning sex offenders from social media, affirming access as essential to free speech. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: "The Internet... offers relatively unlimited, low-cost capacity for communication," protecting even those with unpopular pasts.
Recent cases like Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden), pending or decided post-2024, address government pressure on platforms to suppress COVID-19 misinformation or election doubts. Drawing from Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963), which invalidated informal censorship, these challenge indirect erosions. Similarly, in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023), the Court protected a web designer's right to refuse same-sex wedding services on free speech grounds, a decision controversial but reinforcing compelled speech prohibitions from Barnette.
On the other side, attempts to restrict abortion rights post-Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), which overturned Roe v. Wade, highlight state-level erosions. Yet, the premise holds: defending reproductive liberties, even if one opposes them, protects bodily autonomy for all, as in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990), on right-to-die.
These challenges mirror the beach erosion analogy. Subtle algorithmic biases or "cancel culture" waves wash away unpopular voices, like those of J.K. Rowling on gender issues or climate skeptics, until mainstream dissent is silenced. The Fourth Amendment's privacy protections, as in Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), requiring warrants for cell-site data, must be defended universally to prevent surveillance states.
The Slippery Slope: From Selective Defense to Total Erosion
The slippery slope is real when liberties are not universally defended. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War won their case, with Justice Abe Fortas stating: "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." This protected youthful dissent, but if schools could suppress anti-war views, they could target pro-life or religious expressions today.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), shielded Paul Robert Cohen's jacket emblazoned with "Fuck the Draft" in a courthouse, ruling it protected "offensive" speech. Justice Harlan wrote: "The States... may not wed themselves to vulgarity," but must tolerate it for robust discourse. This precedent now applies to online profanity or protest signs, preventing broader offensiveness-based restrictions.
Failure to defend leads to chains: restrict hate speech, and next come critiques of power. As in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the Court struck down a bias-motivated ordinance for viewpoint discrimination, ensuring content-neutrality.
A Call to Vigilant Solidarity
"Liberty for one is liberty for all" is not mere rhetoric; it is a constitutional mandate backed by centuries of jurisprudence. From Brandenburg to Barnette, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that protecting unpopular liberties preserves the whole. The sand of the beach analogy reminds us: erosion is gradual, but irreversible without action. We must defend every grain, every right, to maintain our democratic shore.
As citizens, this means supporting legal challenges, voting for liberty-protecting policies, and engaging in discourse without hypocrisy. Our "pet liberty" may be next if we falter. We must commit to universal defense, honoring the Constitution's promise for posterity. Only then can we ensure that freedom endures, un-eroded and vibrant for all.
Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”
Michael is a father of five and grandfather of three, United States Air Force Veteran, International Recording Artist, passionate about the United States of America and the founders Genius of the Constitution and Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report (coDOGEreport.com).
Why Reward Lawbreakers in Colorado?
In Colorado, a state known for its stunning landscapes and vibrant communities, a troubling trend persists: policies that extend privileges to those who enter the country illegally. Why do we allow Illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses, a legal document that legitimizes their presence? Why equip them with the ability to drive on our roads, as if their initial violation of federal immigration laws never happened? And why allocate scarce public assistance, such as food stamps and other welfare benefits, to these individuals when Colorado citizens often face long waits and limited resources? These practices not only undermine the rule of law but also burden taxpayers and erode public trust. This op-ed examines Colorado's specific policies, highlighting how they reward illegal behavior while straining the system meant for lawful residents. It is not about denying help to the needy; it is about upholding justice and prioritizing citizens.
Colorado's Driver's License Policy: A Gateway to Legitimacy
Colorado has been at the forefront of granting driver's licenses to Illegal aliens since 2013, when Senate Bill 251, also known as the Colorado Road and Community Safety Act, was enacted. This law allows individuals without lawful immigration status to apply for a driver's license or identification card after proving residency and passing required tests. By 2025, the policy has evolved further. A new law, effective from March 2025, eliminates the previous two-year residency requirement, enabling newly arrived Illegal aliens to apply immediately upon arrival. Proponents argue this promotes road safety by ensuring more drivers are tested and insured. However, this overlooks the core issue: it rewards those who break immigration laws by providing official state recognition.
The process is straightforward. Applicants must provide proof of Colorado residency, such as utility bills or tax returns, pass a written exam, vision test, and road skills test, and pay fees. No Social Security number is required, and the licenses are marked to indicate they are not valid for federal identification purposes. As of January 2025, this has led to a surge in applications, with advocates praising it as a step toward inclusion. Yet, critics see it as a magnet for further illegal immigration. Why navigate the lengthy legal pathways when Colorado offers immediate benefits? This policy normalizes unlawful entry, sending a message that violations will be overlooked.
Opposition has grown. In 2024, Douglas County filed a lawsuit against the state, challenging laws that prevent local governments from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement, including those related to driver's licenses. The suit argues these state policies unconstitutionally interfere with federal authority. Nationally, figures like Senator Ted Cruz have introduced bills to withhold federal funding from states like Colorado that issue such licenses, labeling them as incentives for illegal immigration. In Colorado, the policy has issued hundreds of thousands of these licenses since inception, but at what cost to public safety and legal integrity?
Public Assistance in Colorado: Straining Resources for Citizens
Beyond driving privileges, Colorado's approach to public assistance for Illegal aliens exacerbates the problem. Federal law, including the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, generally prohibits undocumented individuals from accessing major programs like SNAP (food stamps), Medicaid, SSI, and TANF. However, Colorado circumvents this through state-funded initiatives and loopholes. For instance, Illegal aliens cannot directly receive SNAP, but they benefit indirectly via U.S.-born children in mixed-status households, where benefits support the entire family. In 2025, Colorado expanded health coverage under Health First Colorado to include undocumented children and pregnant individuals meeting income thresholds, effective January 1.
State programs like the Colorado Food Assistance Program mirror SNAP but use state funds to fill gaps, sometimes extending aid to those ineligible federally. Additionally, the public charge rule, updated in 2025, considers use of certain benefits in immigration applications, but Colorado reassures immigrants that state-only programs do not count against them. This includes emergency Medicaid for undocumented residents, covering urgent care without federal repercussions. Critics argue this strains resources; in 2025, proposed SNAP cuts threaten Colorado families, yet funds are diverted to support non-citizens.
A 2025 report on the impact of immigrants on state resources notes that policies providing access to benefits increase costs for housing, education, and healthcare, estimated at millions annually. While some immigrants contribute through taxes, the net burden falls on citizens, especially in a state facing budget pressures. Why prioritize those who bypassed legal channels over veterans, the elderly, or low-income families waiting for aid?
Real-World Consequences: Accidents and Burdens
The dangers of these policies are not theoretical. Colorado has seen tragic accidents involving undocumented drivers. In May 2025, an unlicensed, undocumented 15-year-old caused a fatal crash in Aurora, killing two people. The prosecutor offered probation, sparking outrage over leniency. President Trump highlighted the case, vowing deportation. In June 2024, an undocumented semi-truck driver, deported 16 times previously, triggered a deadly highway crash on U.S. 285, killing one and injuring others. This driver held a license from another state but operated in Colorado, underscoring cross-state risks.
Such incidents highlight security threats. Undocumented drivers may lack insurance or flee scenes, increasing costs for insured Coloradans. A Federation for American Immigration Reform report links illegal immigration to heightened drunk driving risks, with Colorado cases as examples. On welfare, the influx burdens systems; Denver spent millions on migrant support in 2024-2025, diverting from citizen needs. These consequences erode public safety and fiscal responsibility.
A Personal Note on True Compassion
I am not against helping others. Throughout my life, I have dedicated time and resources to outreach. As a teenager, I traveled to Haiti to build a wall around a local orphanage, providing security for vulnerable children. My family welcomed wayward kids into our home, guiding them toward better paths. We donated to local shelters, and I volunteered with the Salvation Army for five years, assisting in food drives, counseling, and community events. True compassion involves legal, sustainable aid that does not enable lawbreaking. In Colorado, rewarding illegal activities diverts from genuine help for citizens and lawful residents who play by the rules.
The Broader Implications for Colorado
These policies have wider effects. They act as pull factors, drawing more illegal alien arrivals amid national border crises. Colorado's progressive stance, including 2021 laws eliminating lawful presence requirements for benefits, has faced backlash for prioritizing immigrants over locals. A Colorado Fiscal Institute study admits that while licenses may reduce insurance premiums, the overall impact includes higher public costs. Politically, lawsuits like Douglas County's appeal in 2025 signal growing resistance. If unchecked, this could lead to overcrowded schools, strained healthcare, and increased taxes.
Time for Reform
Colorado must reconsider these misguided policies. Granting driver's licenses and welfare to Illegal aliens rewards lawbreakers, undermines federal law, and burdens citizens. It is time to enforce borders, prioritize legal immigration, and reserve benefits for those who respect our laws. By doing so, we can foster true compassion without compromising justice. The state's future depends on it.
The Staggering Costs to Colorado Taxpayers from Illegal Immigration
In Colorado, the financial toll of illegal immigration on taxpayers is nothing short of staggering. While proponents of permissive policies tout economic contributions, the reality paints a different picture: billions drained from state coffers to support those who entered unlawfully, straining resources meant for citizens. From education and healthcare to law enforcement and welfare, these costs mount annually, burdening every household. This op-ed delves into the numbers, revealing how policies rewarding lawbreakers come at a steep price. It is not about withholding compassion but ensuring accountability and prioritizing legal residents in a state already facing budget pressures.
The Overall Fiscal Burden: Billions in Net Losses
According to a comprehensive 2023 study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), illegal immigration imposed a staggering $1.94 billion cost on Colorado taxpayers. This equates to an average of $5,191 per illegal alien and $871 per Colorado household annually. With approximately 278,000 illegal aliens residing in the state, plus 96,000 U.S.-born children of such individuals adding to the strain, the net fiscal impact is profound. Nationally, FAIR estimates the gross cost of illegal immigration at $183 billion, a 35.7 percent increase since 2017, with states like Colorado bearing a disproportionate share due to sanctuary-like policies.
These figures are echoed in state-specific analyses. A Common Sense Institute report details that Denver alone has spent $356 million on migrant response since December 2022, averaging $7,900 per migrant for 45,000 arrivals. This represents 8 percent of Denver's projected 2025 budget of $4.4 billion. Projections show city spending dropping to $12.5 million in 2025, but cumulative costs for city services, education, and healthcare range from $216 million to $340 million since the influx began. Critics, including congressional representatives, argue that Colorado spends $544 million annually on services for illegal immigrants, a figure that could explode with recent policy expansions.
Education: The Largest Drain on Resources
Education tops the list of expenditures, with FAIR estimating $1.23 billion spent annually on schooling for children of illegal immigrants, including both undocumented students and their U.S.-born siblings. In the Denver metro area, schools have absorbed 16,197 migrant students since late 2022, costing $228 million yearly, or 1 to 2 percent of the state's $9.7 billion K-12 budget for 2024-2025. These costs include additional staffing, bilingual programs, and facilities, all funded by taxpayers. A 2011 Bell Policy Center analysis, though dated, pegged K-12 costs at $107.5 million for 15,763 undocumented students alone, based on per-pupil funding. With migrant arrivals surging, these numbers have only grown, diverting funds from Colorado's citizen children and exacerbating classroom overcrowding.
Healthcare and Welfare: Soaring Expenses Amid Loopholes
Healthcare costs are another major hit. Denver hospitals have provided $49 million in uncompensated care to migrants, averaging $2,931 per emergency visit for 16,760 cases. State programs like OmniSalud and Cover All Coloradans, which extend coverage to undocumented individuals, are slated to cost $20 million and over $50 million in 2025, respectively. These initiatives, funded by state Medicaid dollars, prioritize non-citizens while legal residents face waitlists. A congressional letter highlights millions more spent on tuition assistance and legal services for illegal immigrants. Federally, the 1996 Welfare Reform Act limits access, but loopholes via U.S.-born children and state-funded gaps allow indirect benefits, straining programs like SNAP and Medicaid.
Emergency medical care adds to the tally. The Bell Policy Center estimated $26.5 million in 2011 for life-threatening services, with partial federal reimbursement. Recent spikes, driven by the migrant surge, have seen costs rise over 600 percent in some programs. The Congressional Budget Office notes $19.3 billion spent nationally by states on surge immigrants in 2023, much for education and health.
Law Enforcement and Corrections: Hidden but Significant Costs
Public safety expenditures are equally burdensome. FAIR reports $335.9 million for police, legal, and corrections related to illegal immigration. Incarceration alone cost $32.5 million net in 2011 for 3,772 verifiable illegal aliens, per the Bell analysis. Sanctuary policies in Denver have led to millions in additional costs, leaving the state vulnerable. Recent legislation like Senate Bill 25-047 highlights the housing costs for illegal violent offenders, further taxing resources.
Contributions vs. Costs: The Net Imbalance
Advocates counter that undocumented immigrants paid $436.5 million in state and local taxes in 2022, with an effective rate of 7.8 percent, higher than the top 1 percent's 7.0 percent. Nationally, they contributed $96.7 billion. In Colorado, figures range from $437 million to over $500 million. Yet, these payments do not offset the full burden. FAIR's analysis shows costs far exceeding contributions, with a net deficit of billions. The Bell study from 2011 suggested taxes slightly covered mandated services at $167.5 million vs. $166.6 million, but updated data reveals a widening gap amid surges. Immigrants may inject billions into the economy overall, but the fiscal drain on public services remains staggering.
Broader Implications and the Need for Reform
These costs ripple outward, inflating taxes, crowding services, and fueling lawsuits like Douglas County's challenge to state immigration laws. Federal threats to withhold funding from states issuing driver's licenses to undocumented individuals add pressure. Colorado's permissive stance, including no-residency requirements for licenses since March 2025, acts as a magnet. Real-world tragedies, like fatal crashes involving undocumented drivers, compound the human and financial toll. Enabling lawbreakers diverts from true help. Colorado must reform: enforce borders, reserve benefits for citizens, and halt the staggering costs. Taxpayers deserve no less
Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”
Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution.
Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report.
Restoring Integrity to American Representation:
The Case for a Citizen-Focused Census
A Pivotal Policy Shift
President Trump's recent directive, shared on Truth Social, to have the Department of Commerce conduct a new census counting only legal residents and citizens marks a pivotal shift toward rationality in our Constitutional Republic. "People who are in our country illegally, will NOT be counted," he stated, grounding the policy in "modern day facts and figures." This is not merely a policy tweak; it's a necessary recalibration of a system that has long allowed unlawful presence to influence political power. For too long, the census has included those who disregard our borders, leading to skewed apportionment of congressional seats, electoral votes, and billions in federal funds. This common-sense approach rectifies that, ensuring that only those with legal standing shape our governance.
Constitutional Framework and Interpretation
To understand the urgency, consider the constitutional framework. The U.S. Constitution, in Article I, Section 2, calls for an "actual Enumeration" every ten years to apportion representatives among the states. The 14th Amendment refined this to the "whole number of persons in each State," excluding untaxed Indians. While "persons" has been broadly interpreted to include non-citizens, this does not mandate including those here illegally. Historical context reveals that the framers envisioned a count of inhabitants with established ties to the community, not transients or lawbreakers. President Trump's action leverages executive authority to interpret and implement this clause in a way that prioritizes legality, drawing on a lineage of legal precedents that affirm such discretion.
Major Supreme Court Precedents: Franklin and Beyond
A key precedent is Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992), where the Supreme Court upheld the president's role in apportionment decisions. The case challenged the inclusion of overseas military personnel in state population totals. The Court ruled that the Census Act grants the secretary of commerce, and by extension the president, broad latitude in determining the "form and content" of the census under 13 U.S.C. §141. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion emphasized that apportionment involves policy judgments, not just mechanical counts, and that challenges must show arbitrariness to succeed. This directly supports excluding undocumented immigrants, as their inclusion could be seen as an arbitrary inflation of populations in states that tolerate illegal immigration, diluting the representation of citizens elsewhere.
The 2020 Trump v. New York Ruling
Building on this, Trump v. New York (2020) provides even stronger backing. In that case, challengers sought to block President Trump's 2020 memorandum excluding undocumented immigrants from apportionment bases. The Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, vacated the lower court's injunction, citing “lack of ripeness and standing”. Critically, the Court did not deem the policy unconstitutional on its substance, noting that "the President's plan" might be feasible if administrative records allowed precise exclusion. This procedural dismissal left the door open for such actions, implying that with better timing and data, as in the current directive for a new census, the executive can proceed. The opinion referenced historical exclusions, reinforcing that the apportionment base is not fixed to every physical presence but can be adjusted for policy reasons.
Additional Supporting Cases: Flexibility in Census Methods
Other precedents echo this flexibility. In Utah v. Evans (2002), the Court permitted "hot-deck imputation" statistical methods to fill in missing data, affirming that the census need not be a literal headcount but can incorporate reasonable adjustments for accuracy. This logic extends to excluding those whose presence violates federal law, as including them introduces inaccuracies tied to fluctuating illegal entries. Moreover, Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), the foundational "one-person, one-vote" cases, emphasize equal representation for voters. While these addressed intrastate districting, their principle that non-voters should not disproportionately empower certain areas supports limiting apportionment to citizens and legal residents. Legal scholars have argued that including illegal aliens violates this equality by granting extra seats to states with large undocumented populations, effectively diluting citizen votes nationwide.
Historical Exclusions and Census Practices
Historical precedents also lend support. The Census Act of 1790 and subsequent enumerations excluded categories like foreign diplomats, tourists, and aliens without intent to reside permanently. The 2020 memorandum elaborated on this, stating that "aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status" fall outside the "inhabitants" contemplated by the Constitution. This is consistent with Federation for American Immigration Reform v. Klutznick (1980), where, although the district court favored inclusion, the case was dismissed on appeal for lack of standing, leaving no binding precedent against exclusion. No Supreme Court ruling has ever mandated including undocumented individuals; instead, cases like INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (1984) highlight that illegal entrants lack certain privileges afforded to legal residents.
Political, Financial, and Social Benefits
The policy's benefits are multifaceted. Politically, it prevents sanctuary cities from gaining undue congressional influence. Pew Research estimates that excluding undocumented immigrants could shift seats from high-immigration states like California to others like Alabama or Ohio. Financially, federal funding formulas tied to population would better reflect legal communities, reducing burdens on taxpayers funding services for those evading immigration laws. Socially, it discourages illegal entry by removing incentives for states to overlook borders, aligning with public sentiment favoring secure sovereignty.
Responding to Counterarguments
Detractors invoke the 14th Amendment's inclusive language, but this misreads intent. The amendment addressed post-Civil War citizenship, not modern mass migration. Cases like Evenwel v. Abbott (2016) allowed total population for state districting but did not require it for federal apportionment, leaving room for citizen-based models. Moreover, the current border crisis, with millions entering since 2021, renders the 2020 census obsolete. A new count addresses this, using administrative records from agencies like DHS to verify status, as suggested in Trump v. New York.
Upholding Constitutional Principles
This initiative also upholds Constitutional principles. Representation should stem from those who participate legally: voting, paying taxes, and contributing without undermining the system. Including lawbreakers mocks the efforts of immigrants who follow the rules. It's akin to rewarding trespassers with property rights; untenable in any ordered society.
Anticipating Legal Challenges
Potential challenges, like those in 2020, may arise, but precedents favor the executive. Lower courts blocked the prior memo, but the Supreme Court overturned those, signaling viability. With improved data and timing in 2025, success is likely.
A Fortified Republic
President Trump's policy is legally sound, drawing on Franklin, Trump v. New York, and historical exclusions. It promotes fairness, deters illegality, and reaffirms citizen primacy. Common sense has indeed prevailed, fortifying our Republic for generations.
Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”
Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution.
Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report.
Land and Liberty: What’s Really Behind These Federal Land Bills
by Sean M. Pond
There’s a pattern forming in Western Colorado, and it should concern anyone who believes in local control, open access to public land, and the freedom to live, work, and build a life in rural America.
It starts quietly, usually with a bill that claims to “protect” land. They’ll call it conservation. They’ll say it safeguards wildlife, supports recreation, or honors local heritage. But what these bills actually do is expand federal control, limit access, and take decision making out of the hands of local communities.
And the person leading that effort right now isn’t a Democrat. It’s Republican Congressman Jeff Hurd.
Let me walk you through what’s really happening.
The Dolores River National Conservation Area has been floating around for years. It was originally introduced by Rep. Lauren Boebert to balance protections for motorized access, grazing rights, and water rights, while cutting out more extreme environmental restrictions. That version stalled in committee.
But after Jeff Hurd won Colorado’s Third District, everything changed. Jeff Hurd pulled that bill out of committee, giving Senators Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper the opportunity to reintroduce it in the Senate with fewer protections. It’s now moving again, covering roughly 70 miles of the Dolores River corridor across Dolores, Montezuma, and San Miguel counties. It withdraws the area from public domain open to mining and mineral leasing, and sets up a federal management regime that could lead to locked gates, restricted grazing, and bans on future oil and gas activity.
Then came the GORP Act, the Gunnison Outdoor Resources Protection Actz which Jeff Hurd also co sponsored. This sweeping legislation affects over 730,000 acres across Gunnison, Hinsdale, Saguache, Ouray, Delta, and Pitkin counties. Among other things, it transfers 18,529 acres of Pinecrest Ranch, owned by the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe from fee status into federal trust for the tribe. That means it’s no longer public domain and, critically, the county will lose property tax revenue on that land. GORP creates nine Special Management Areas, eight Wildlife Conservation Areas, a Research Area, blocks new oil and gas leases on more than 70,000 acres, and restricts access on another 49,000. It also layers in critical mineral and mining restrictions in direct opposition to President Trump’s Energy First agenda.
These designations don’t just limit energy, they also choke off grazing, timber harvesting, motorized recreation, critical mineral extraction, and other traditional multi use access that rural communities depend on: hunting, fishing, ranching, mining, off road use, and more.
Supporters of GORP say it “balances use,” but that “balance” means only foot traffic, camping in limited areas, and strict federal oversight. For those of us who live, work, and recreate here, who ranch, ride, hunt, mine, and harvest, this is a seismic shift in who controls our land. And Jeff Hurd is the one carrying it forward.
Now Hurd has introduced another bill, H.R. 2316, the Wetlands Conservation and Access Improvement Act, touted as “bipartisan” only because he’s partnering with Democrats. It doesn’t create new regulations on the surface. What it does is extend federal authority over wetland and habitat projects all the way through 2033, using Pittman/Robertson funds without any new Congressional oversight.
They’ll say this bill is about preserving and protecting wild land and waterfowl habitat. And it is. It can be. But it comes with strings attached.
The problem is, every time the federal government says “conservation,” they’re taking land from you. They call it habitat, but it’s really about control, permanent easements, water restrictions, limits on grazing and development. Local ranchers, sportsmen, and counties lose their voice once that land is tied up in federal programs and long term contracts with outside groups.
Anytime we can keep the federal government out of our land, we’re winning. And anytime we let them in under the name of conservation, we’re giving up freedom we won’t get back.
We’ve been fighting Senator Michael Bennet and Senator John Hickenlooper for years. Their alliance with environmental activist groups is no secret. But now they’ve got a new partner. Jeff Hurd.
Jeff Hurd pulled the Dolores River NCA bill out of committee. Jeff Hurd co sponsored the GORP Act. Jeff Hurd is now working with Democrats to pass a wetlands bill that locks in federal land, mining, and water control through 2033. He didn’t inherit this. He’s pushing it. And no matter how he spins it, that’s not leadership, it’s surrender.
He’s not just compromising. He’s negotiating with your land and your liberty.
When you add up the Dolores River NCA, the GORP Act, and the Wetlands bill, you see the bigger threat: hundreds of thousands of acres encased in federal control. Grazing shutdowns. Mining bans. Energy blocks. Road closures. Travel limits. And water rights tapped deeper into federal oversight.
I’m an avid hunter, I love open land and open spaces, and I believe the people who live here, the ranchers, the sportsmen, the families who’ve called this region home for generations are the best stewards of the land. We don’t need Washington instructing us on how to manage the land we already protect ourselves with hard work and respect.
Land and liberty are inseparable. That isn’t just a slogan, it’s truth. When you can’t access your land, use your land, or work your land without asking for permission, that land isn’t just off limits, it’s lost. And once they take control, they’ll never hand it back.
This is moving fast, and most folks don’t see it coming. I will fight with everything I have to keep our land free and our communities empowered, especially when even critical mineral and mining projects get locked away in the process.
Because when the land changes hands, liberty dies right along with it. And I’m not letting that happen on my watch.
And one last thing:
The very first time I met Jeff Hurd, he wasn’t in office yet. It was at the Naturita Gymnasium, during the very first HALT the Dolores Monument meeting. That’s where I met him, alongside several other candidates stepping forward for the first time. He introduced himself, shook my hand, and told me he was running for Congress in Colorado’s Third District.
I looked him in the eye and told him, “I wish you luck, but if you win, I want you to know I’ll always hold you accountable on public lands.”
So, Jeff, if you’re reading this, sir, I’m not your enemy. I’m just fulfilling my promise. I told you I’d hold you accountable. I did then. I am now. And I always will. You’ve got my number. Call me if you want to talk. But I’m not going to sit silent.
Speaker Johnson & Majority Leader Scalise Support CD-3 Jeff Hurd
A Betrayal of MAGA and CD-3 Conservatives?
Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise you have demonstrated strong support for President Donald Trump and his MAGA agenda since the Inauguration, so why the rush to support CD-3 Jeff Hurd especially when it will be another TEN MONTHS before “registered Republicans make their decision in the Primary to elect their choice for Congress”? Your events in Aspen on the 15th and 20th of this month will almost be a full YEAR before the Primary.
Jeff Hurd has demonstrated he is not pro-MAGA and does not support the values of conservative CD-3, so your interference is very disturbing. Yes, we understand you want to not only hold a Republican majority and enhance it for the new Congress in 2027, but Hurd is not your man.
Your participation in the upcoming fundraisers in Aspen implies that the real decision is NOT to be made by the majority of conservatives in next year’s CD-3 Primary, but by a few very wealthy individuals. Aspen is in CD-3, but it does not and has never represented the conservative values of CD-3 that have prevailed for decades. Your pending events in Aspen convey, whether intentional or not, that the Primary is just an exercise to convey an illusion of a democratic process while the real Primary will be decided by a few wealthy individuals to continue deceiving the masses that Hurd is a real conservative.
Speaker Johnson and Leader Scalise with all due respect, you should have held off your support until Republican voters make their decision next year in the June Primary. After all, Hurd has committed a number of outrageous misdeeds that are listed below. We don’t expect you to know everything in every Congressional District; so how can you support Hurd without knowing his true record, and if you do know, then shame on you for condoning such betrayal to MAGA and conservative values?
Here is but a partial record of Jeff Hurd:
1. Colorado is physically on fire in many mountain areas especially in CD-3, yet Hurd has abandoned his constituents with an overseer trip.
2. He recently had a photo-op with a disgraced County Commissioner who betrayed the GOP despite being supported by the Party.
Furthermore, he intentionally failed to invite the other two County Commissioners, true Republican conservatives elected by the voters, to his photo-op event.
Two true Republican conservatives who were voted in to expose the corruption of the disgraced County Commissioner who condoned, if not participated in, the illegal transfer of over $100 Million of taxpayer funds. Investigation pending!
3. Hurd has been invited by the Montrose County GOP Chair to attend one of the Party’s monthly meetings, yet to date has not attended and worse has refused to respond or acknowledge the Chair’s numerous requests.
4. Hurd has aligned himself with Colorado’s two far left Democrat U.S. Senators attempts to grab hundreds of thousands of acres that would destroy rural jobs including ranching, mining, timber harvesting, and recreation in the name of protecting the environment. Land that is already under Federal regulation, but that is not good enough for the radical environmentalists. Over 25% of Colorado is already under Federal Control.
5. Hurd continues to align himself with a disgraced former State GOP Senator who betrayed the Party, District, Law Enforcement, and far worse young children.
The former Senator sponsored sexual deviant legislation - (1) resulted in asking children as young as 10 years of age about perverted sexual acts, and (2) requiring that elementary children be taught diverse sexual lifestyles.
The same State Senator also voted to decriminalize Drug Dealers and Fentanyl.
Hurd aligns with this RINO who lied about his former constituents and justified using the F-word against Republicans.
Hurd has refused to disassociate himself from the Senator and welcomed his endorsement during the 2024 campaign.
6. Hurd never participated in any GOP Primary debate. He expected to be anointed and he was, by outside dark money.
It is a new day in CD-3. Hurd will not win the 2026 Primary, because this time his opposition is not divided as it was in 2024. He won the 2024 General Election by riding Trump’s coattails even though he has NEVER stated he supports Trump and MAGA. Yes, he voted for the Big Beautiful Bill, because he had to, to distract from his anti-Trump record such as no pardons for Jan 6th defendants. As for immigration, Hurd is not clear if he supports or opposes illegals since he has been on both sides of the issue. He needs to issue a definitive policy statement rather than play both sides of the fence. We don’t need another politician; which Hurd exemplifies, but a true supporter and defender of Trump’s immigration policy.
High levels of corruption in CD-3 are being exposed, and law enforcement (e.g. District Attorney and DOJ) will not be able to ignore it much longer. I don’t believe you want to be associated with such corruption and possible pending indictments against Hurd’s allies.
CD-3 Republicans, taxpayers, voters, law enforcement, MAGA, parents, and especially young children deserve far better than the phony conservative Jeff Hurd.
Long Live MAGA! No More RINOs a.k.a political cross-dressers - Democrats in Republican Clothing!
Thank you in advance for giving this important matter your immediate attention.
Sincerely,
Fite4Truth
A Judicial Irony,
How the far-left Inadvertently Bolstered Rights of the Unborn
In a profound irony that underscores the unpredictable nature of legal battles, a federal judge in New Hampshire has inadvertently advanced the cause of unborn personhood while attempting to safeguard immigrant rights. On July 10, 2025, U.S. District Judge Joseph N. Laplante issued a ruling in the case of Barbara v. Trump, blocking President Donald Trump's Executive Order 14160, which aimed to curtail birthright citizenship for children born (and unborn) to illegal aliens or those on temporary visas. The order, signed mere hours into Trump's second term on January 20, 2025, directed federal agencies to deny citizenship recognition to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent was a citizen or lawful permanent resident, reinterpreting the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause to exclude those not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This executive action reignited a longstanding debate over the amendment's scope, originally ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship for freed slaves and their descendants, as affirmed in the Supreme Court's 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, which held that children born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents are citizens regardless of parental status.
The Case and the Ruling
The plaintiffs, represented by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a class action lawsuit arguing that the order violated the 14th Amendment's guarantees of due process and equal protection. They sought to protect not only existing children but also those yet to be born, framing the potential denial of citizenship as irreparable harm. Judge Laplante, a George W. Bush appointee known for his measured approach to judicial overreach, certified a nationwide class that explicitly included "all individuals unborn and born who would be subject to Executive Order 14160." In his order, he stated that "the inclusion of unborn individuals in the protected class is necessary to prevent irreparable harm before birth," emphasizing that deprivation of citizenship constitutes a fundamental injury under the Constitution. This language marks a historic first: a federal court granting legal standing to the unborn under the 14th Amendment in the context of citizenship rights, effectively recognizing them as persons entitled to constitutional protections.
Tracing the Evolution of Personhood in Law
To appreciate the significance, one must trace the evolution of personhood in American jurisprudence. The 14th Amendment's Section 1 provides: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Historically, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), declared that the unborn are not "persons" within the meaning of this amendment, allowing states broad latitude to regulate abortion. However, that decision was overturned in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), which returned abortion regulation to the states and explicitly noted that Roe's personhood analysis was flawed, opening the door for legislatures and courts to reconsider rights of the unborn.
Laplante's ruling builds on this shift. By including the unborn in the class, he invoked the principle of anticipatory harm, a concept rooted in cases like Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), where the Court acknowledged a state's interest in protecting "potential life" from conception onward. Moreover, tort law has long recognized rights of the unborn in contexts outside abortion; for instance, in Bonbrest v. Kotz, 65 F. Supp. 138 (D.D.C. 1946), a federal court first allowed recovery for prenatal injuries, treating the viable fetus as a separate entity deserving legal remedies. Subsequent decisions, such as those under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (18 U.S.C. § 1841), federally criminalize harm to unborn children in certain crimes, defining them as "a child in utero" and granting them victim status. Laplante's order aligns with this trajectory, extending 14th Amendment protections to the unborn to avert the "irreparable harm" of denied citizenship, which he described as "the greatest privilege that exists in the world."
The Unintended Irony for Far-Left Litigants
The irony lies in the plaintiffs' motivations. These litigants, often aligned with far-left causes including reproductive autonomy, invoked "My Body, My Choice" rhetoric to demand protections for the unborn, arguing that excluding future children from the class would perpetuate harm. Yet, by securing this precedent, they have provided pro-life advocates with a powerful tool. If the unborn can claim standing under the 14th Amendment to challenge immigration policies, why not to contest abortion restrictions? This decision echoes equal protection expansions in cases like Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), where the Court recognized fundamental liberties for same-sex couples, but here it flips the script, potentially bolstering arguments for fetal life as a protected interest.
Political and Public Reactions
Political reactions have been swift and polarized. On X, users highlighted the inadvertent boon to conservatives. One post noted, "Unborn Children Given Legal Status!!! THEY HAVE RIGHTS!!! Oops!! Judge Blinded By Trump Hatred Declares The Truth," while another proclaimed, "Liberals Just Certified Personhood and Accidentally Gave the Pro-Life Movement Its Biggest Win Yet." Critics from the right, like Representative Mike Collins, decried the ruling as judicial overreach, stating, "No one elected judges to make nationwide policy," even as they celebrated its implications. Far-left voices, such as the account @DisavowTrump20, praised Laplante for "standing up for the Constitution," but overlooked the rights of the unborn angle. Skeptics questioned the explicit unborn personhood claim, with one user noting, "I can't find anything in his ruling that directly references 'the unborn,'" yet the class definition's inclusion of "future persons" inherently encompasses the unborn at the time of certification.
Broader Implications for Immigration and Reproductive Rights
Broader implications extend to immigration and constitutional law. Trump's EO 14160 challenged over a century of precedent, including Wong Kim Ark, by narrowing "jurisdiction" to exclude children of non-permanent residents, due to the fact Kim Wong Ark’s parent were both legal residents at the time of his birth in San Fransisco. Laplante's injunction, effective nationwide via class certification, circumvents the Supreme Court's recent curbs on universal injunctions in Garland v. CASA de Maryland (2025), where the Court limited such broad relief but preserved class actions as a vehicle for widespread protection. This ruling, paused for seven days to allow appeal, sets the stage for higher court review, potentially reaching the Supreme Court again. If upheld, it could inspire similar class actions in other arenas, from environmental harms to civil liberties.
For abortion debates, this precedent is explosive. States with unborn personhood laws, like Georgia's Living Infants Fairness and Equality Act (2022), which grants tax deductions for unborn children after six weeks, could cite Laplante to federalize protections. Conversely, it undermines arguments in cases like Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), which upheld partial-birth abortion bans by recognizing state interests in unborn life. Pro-choice advocates, by prioritizing immigration justice, have created a double-edged sword that could restrict reproductive choices nationwide.
Unintended Consequences in Legal Evolution
Judge Laplante's order, driven by left-leaning litigants, has forged a conservative victory in the culture wars. It affirms that unintended consequences often shape legal evolution, reminding us that the Constitution's protections, once extended, are hard to retract. As America navigates divided views on life, citizenship, and rights, this ruling may redefine both immigration and reproduction for generations.
Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”
Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution.
Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report.
The Myth of a "Conservative" Supreme Court
The narrative that the U.S. Supreme Court is a monolithic "conservative" institution has become a rallying cry for critics, particularly from the political left, whenever a ruling does not align with their priorities. This characterization oversimplifies the court's dynamics and ignores the nuanced voting patterns of its justices. An honest examination reveals a court divided not into a conservative monolith but into a three-way split: three conservative justices, three centrists, and three left-leaning justices. This balance challenges the polarized rhetoric and demands a closer look at how justices actually vote, rather than who appointed them.
The conservative wing consists of Justices:
• Justice Clarence Thomas
• Justice Samuel Alito
• Justice Neil Gorsuch.
These justices often anchor decisions grounded in originalist or textualist interpretations of the Constitution.
The leftist wing includes Justices:
• Justice Elena Kagan
• Justice Sonia Sotomayor
• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
These justices frequently align with progressive legal perspectives.
The centrists:
• Chief Justice John Roberts
• Justice Brett Kavanaugh
• Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Who occupy a pivotal middle ground. Contrary to assumptions, their votes often defy the expectations tied to their appointing presidents, all of whom were Republicans.
The assumption that a Republican-appointed justice is inherently conservative is flawed. Data from the 2023-2024 term, compiled by SCOTUSblog, shows that Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett sided with the court's liberal justices in several high-profile cases. For instance, in Moyle v. United States (2024), a case involving emergency abortion access, all three centrists joined Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson in a 6-3 decision to dismiss the case as improvidently granted, effectively preserving access to emergency care. Similarly, in Moore v. United States (2024), a tax case, Kavanaugh and Barrett joined the liberal justices in a 7-2 ruling upholding the Mandatory Repatriation Tax, with Roberts also concurring in part. These cases illustrate that the centrists frequently break from the conservative wing, with Kavanaugh and Barrett siding with the liberal justices in approximately 30% of non-unanimous decisions last term, per SCOTUSblog's analysis.
This voting pattern frustrates conservatives who expected steadfast ideological alignment from Republican appointees. The centrists' tendency to prioritize pragmatic or narrow rulings over rigid ideology has led to disappointment among those who anticipated a reliably conservative court. For example, in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (2024), Barrett wrote the unanimous opinion rejecting a challenge to mifepristone access, a decision conservatives criticized as a missed opportunity to curb abortion rights. Roberts and Kavanaugh's votes in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) dissents did not preclude their later support for expanding LGBTQ+ protections in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), further highlighting their unpredictable leanings.
The focus on who appointed a justice obscures their judicial philosophy and voting record. Roberts, often described as an institutionalist, prioritizes the court's legitimacy and narrow rulings, as seen in his concurrence in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), where he sought a middle path rather than fully overturning Roe v. Wade. Kavanaugh and Barrett, while conservative-leaning, have shown willingness to diverge from Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch in cases involving administrative law or statutory interpretation. The 2023-2024 term saw the court issue unanimous or near-unanimous decisions in over 50% of cases, per the Supreme Court’s own statistics, underscoring that ideological divides are not as stark as public discourse suggests.
Labeling the court as "conservative" distorts reality and fuels mistrust. Instead of fixating on political appointments, we should evaluate justices based on their rulings and reasoning. The current court reflects a spectrum of judicial philosophies, with centrists holding significant sway. This balance ensures no single ideology dominates, preserving the court's role as an impartial arbiter. To understand the Supreme Court, we must move beyond simplistic labels and engage with the complexity of its decisions.
Increasing Voter Turnout by Christians
Efforts to encourage conservative Christians to vote is a major task. I understand, though I do not agree with the sentiment by far too many who believe it is not necessary to vote or do not believe in voting because it is all in God’s control.
Below are a few thoughts that may be helpful (or you may disagree) to persuade the aforementioned community to participate in our Republic’s democratic process.
Yes, God is in control, but we must be gainfully employed to feed, clothe and shelter ourselves and families.
A farmer is provided soil, seed, and water by the Almighty, but he or she must still know how to work the land - plow, cultivate, plant the seed, and apply effective use of water whether by irrigation or for the dry land farmer whose reliance is on direct snowfall and rain - to produce a crop.
I don’t believe these good folks leave their doors unlocked, because it is obvious it would leave them extremely vulnerable to bad actors who would be very tempted to enter their home, steal, vandalize, and/or harm anyone in that home. God is in control, but you must still lock your doors!
These conservative Christians will acknowledge he/she must be gainfully employed and the farmer must work the land; yet when it comes to voting they deny the same principle, i.e. you must be proactive to generate a certain outcome. Those who fail to vote could be responsible directly or indirectly with the wrong parties gaining power that can negatively affect all freedom loving people or at a minimum just plain burden their families with high taxation and high inflation. Some, unfortunately, desire that evil take over, because in their minds it will hasten the return of our Lord and Savior. I have an issue with this line of thinking for a couple of reasons: (1) it is assuming God will be influenced by man’s desire, which in my opinion is insulting to God since only He knows when his Son will be returning based on his wisdom and not man’s; and (2) hoping for hell on earth to expedite our Savior’s return does not necessarily mean the last days will be upon us or are pending since hell on earth has previously existed. Examples include the Dark Ages, those who lived under Soviet Communism, and Hitler’s regime without the return of Christ.
Christ could return while reading this email, the next few minutes, next few hours, tomorrow, later this year, next year, next decade, next century or centuries later. In the interim, Christians should be praying of course for His return and for our leaders to do what is right, yet also do what can be done to keep out evil and fight to remove it where it does exist. This includes taking advantage of the ballot box.
by: Ken Konkel
Conservatives - MAGA - Republicans
The Extreme Far Left is NOT Progressive or Liberal
by Ken Konkel
The Far Left is NOT progressive or liberal in deeds, actions, advocacy, and/or policies. In response, Conservatives, MAGA, and Republicans need to stop calling these Far Left radical extremists, progressives and liberals. You are only playing into their deceitful playbook since too many voters are attracted to the sound or term progressive, and liberal is not necessarily a negative connotation in their mind.
There is nothing progressive regarding the extreme Far Left agenda of government control, socialism, and opposition to the Bill of Rights (e.g. Freedom of Speech, Assembly, Religion, and right to bear arms); and the adoption of Storm Trooper tactics to intimidate and threaten political opponents in pursuit of their twisted goal of destroying liberty and freedom while claiming to fight to “save our democracy”.
There is nothing progressive regarding the radical Far Left agenda to destroy individual thought, political exercise, and freedom.
There is nothing progressive regarding the hateful anti-America agenda that seeks a return to the dark ages of tyrants, despots, and masters.
We fought and won a Revolution to rid ourselves of a King who wanted to continue his despotic rule as master and tyrant.
Our Founding Fathers were the true progressives - not today’s Far Left extremists. The Founding Fathers were progressive because they advocated and succeeded as the first country to end centuries of a perverted belief system that man must be ruled over as a serf, peasant, and/or slave without any real hope for a better life.
It was progressive and revolutionary for the Founding Fathers to advocate and achieve that mankind is capable of self-rule and live as free men. The long history of shackles and chains came off. Thanks to the American Revolution and the U.S. Constitution, individual rights and freedom became reality. These milestones have resulted in the liberation of not only American men, but women, destroyed slavery, and subsequently liberated millions of people throughout the world.
There is nothing liberal about the radical Left agenda to increase and expand government control and regulations over our lives. A true liberal believes in limited government and individual freedom. In fact, our Founding Fathers were true [classic] liberals, i.e. defined as a belief in individual liberty, limited government, and free markets. After all there is nothing conservative regarding the overthrow of a government, and at that time it represented defeating the largest and most powerful government on earth - the British Empire - to assure our independence and freedom from this monarchy.
The Far Left often refer to themselves as revolutionaries with their abominable taste for a genocidal bloodbath justified in the name of the revolution or democratic socialism. In contrast, our Founding Fathers led a successful revolution where blood was spilled of course, but without the blood lust that enveloped the French and Russian Revolutions.
There are today, unfortunately, only a few honest liberals in our country such as Allen Dershowitz, Jonathan Turley, and Bobby Kennedy, Jr. Their Democrat Party or former Party has been hijacked by the radical Left, socialists, Marxists, and anarchists who hate America, its values, and the U.S. Constitution.
If you believe, however, in the American Revolution, U.S. Constitution, limited government, and liberty for all in spite of our country’s mistakes since its founding, then you are a TRUE PROGRESSIVE, a REAL CLASSIC LIBERAL, and a REVOLUTIONARY!!! Take back what is true and take back our vocabulary.
You may still want to call yourself a conservative (at least a fiscal and/or social conservative), but please stop calling and labeling the radical hateful Left progressive or liberal. The Far Left is neither liberal or progressive, but the Enemy of Freedom!
God Bless America especially our children, grandchildren, and children of future generations!!!
A Constitutional Defense Amid the Education Funding Dispute
In July 2025, a coalition of 22 state attorneys general, joined by the governors of Pennsylvania and Kentucky, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island against the Trump administration, challenging the withholding of approximately $7 billion in congressionally appropriated education funds. The lawsuit, led by Democratic attorneys general including New York’s Letitia James and California’s Rob Bonta, alleges that the administration’s freeze on these funds, intended for programs such as Title II-A (educator training), Title IV-B (after-school programs), Title III-A (English language acquisition), Title I-C (migrant education), and adult education, violates the U.S. Constitution, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs argue that the administration’s decision, announced on June 30, 2025, to place the funds under review for alignment with President Trump’s priorities, particularly to eliminate funding for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, disrupts school budgets and harms vulnerable students. They claim the freeze disregards Congress’s sole authority over appropriations under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, and fails to follow the Impoundment Control Act’s procedures, which require the President to notify Congress of any deferral or rescission and release funds within 45 days unless Congress approves otherwise.
However, these accusations overlook a fundamental constitutional principle: the President’s authority under Article II to manage federal spending, including the power to impound funds, supersedes statutory restrictions that infringe on executive prerogatives. The Impoundment Control Act, enacted in response to President Nixon’s impoundments, is itself of questionable constitutionality, as it encroaches on the President’s role as the chief executor of the laws. This article argues that President Trump’s decision to withhold education funds, particularly those tied to DEI programs, is a lawful exercise of his Article II powers, and that laws claiming Congress has sole authority to direct appropriated funds are constitutionally unsound. Congress’s role is to appropriate funds, but their execution falls within the President’s domain.
Constitutional Basis for Presidential Impoundment
The U.S. Constitution establishes a clear separation of powers, vesting “the executive Power” in the President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 1. This broad grant of authority includes discretion to manage federal operations, including how appropriated funds are spent. The Take Care Clause (Article II, Section 3) mandates that the President “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” which implies flexibility to ensure appropriations are implemented efficiently and in alignment with national priorities. For instance, if a $1 billion appropriation can achieve its purpose for $750 million, the President should have the authority to withhold the excess to prevent waste, a principle historically exercised by presidents from Thomas Jefferson to John F. Kennedy.
Additionally, the President’s roles as Commander in Chief (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1) and chief diplomat under the Reception Clause bolster impoundment authority in areas like defense and foreign policy. Historical examples, such as President Truman impounding funds for Air Force groups or Kennedy withholding $180 million for bombers, demonstrate impoundment’s role in ensuring fiscal efficiency and strategic alignment. In the context of the $7 billion education funding dispute, the Trump administration’s review of funds for DEI programs, viewed by the administration as promoting a “radical leftwing agenda,” reflects a similar exercise of executive discretion to align spending with policy priorities.
The Supreme Court has supported the principle that unconstitutional laws may be disregarded. In *Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham*, 394 U.S. 147 (1969), the Court held that individuals may ignore unconstitutional licensing laws and exercise their rights with impunity. More directly, the Office of Legal Counsel’s 1994 memorandum, *Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes*, asserts that the President is not obligated to enforce statutes he believes violate the Constitution. Legal scholar Saikrishna Prakash, in his article *The Executive’s Duty to Disregard Unconstitutional Laws*, argues that the Constitution obliges the President to disregard such statutes, reinforcing the President’s role as the chief executor tasked with upholding constitutional fidelity.
The Impoundment Control Act: A Questionable Restriction
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. §§ 681-688) restricts the President’s ability to impound funds by requiring congressional notification and approval for deferrals or rescissions. The Act was a reaction to President Nixon’s extensive impoundments, which totaled $18 billion and targeted programs he deemed wasteful. However, the Act’s requirement that the President seek congressional permission for impoundments arguably infringes on Article II powers, shifting executive authority to the legislative branch and violating the separation of powers. Legal scholars like Mark Paoletta contend that the Act is unconstitutional because it micromanages the President’s execution of appropriated funds, a function inherently within the executive’s domain.
The current lawsuit highlights the Act’s application, with plaintiffs arguing that the administration failed to notify Congress promptly of the June 30, 2025, funding pause and did not specify a duration for the deferral, as required by the Act. Yet, the administration’s position, articulated by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought, challenges the Act’s constitutionality, asserting that the President has inherent authority to withhold funds to ensure they align with executive priorities, such as eliminating DEI initiatives deemed discriminatory. The Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on the Act’s constitutionality, leaving room for the President to act on his interpretation of Article II. In *Train v. City of New York*, 420 U.S. 35 (1975), the Court addressed statutory interpretation under the Clean Water Act but did not resolve the broader constitutional question of impoundment authority, supporting the view that the issue remains open.
The Education Funding Dispute: DEI and Executive Discretion
The Trump administration’s decision to withhold $7 billion in education funds stems from a review to ensure compliance with the President’s priorities, specifically targeting DEI programs. The OMB has claimed that these programs have been “grossly misused” to promote a “radical leftwing agenda,” citing concerns about initiatives like scholarships for undocumented immigrants or teachings on LGBTQ topics. This aligns with earlier actions in April 2025, when the administration threatened to withhold funding from states refusing to end DEI practices, prompting a separate lawsuit by 19 states. The current lawsuit argues that the funding freeze, affecting programs like after-school care, English language instruction, and migrant education, violates Congress’s spending authority and causes immediate harm, including potential staff layoffs and program cancellations.
However, the President’s authority to review and redirect funds is grounded in his constitutional duty to execute laws faithfully. The administration’s scrutiny of DEI programs reflects a policy judgment that such initiatives may conflict with federal anti-discrimination laws, particularly Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d), which prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs. The Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in *Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard*, 600 U.S. 181, reinforced limits on race-based programs, providing a legal basis for the administration’s position that certain DEI initiatives may be unlawful. By withholding funds pending review, the President is exercising his Article II discretion to ensure compliance with constitutional and statutory mandates, a prerogative not subject to congressional micromanagement.
Counterarguments and Rebuttals
Opponents, including the 22 state attorneys general, argue that Congress’s power of the purse under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, includes the authority to mandate how funds are spent. They cite *Train v. City of New York* to assert that the President must disburse funds as Congress directs. However, *Train* focused on statutory compliance, not the constitutional scope of impoundment, and does not preclude the President’s inherent authority to withhold funds for constitutional reasons. Similarly, *Clinton v. City of New York*, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), struck down the Line Item Veto Act for violating the Presentment Clause but distinguished it from traditional impoundment, noting the latter’s historical precedent and lack of statutory amendment. These cases do not negate the President’s Article II powers to manage spending.
The plaintiffs also claim the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706) by failing to provide a “reasoned explanation” for the funding review. Yet, the OMB’s stated rationale, ensuring funds do not support a “radical leftwing agenda,” constitutes a policy judgment within the executive’s discretion, particularly given the lack of a definitive Supreme Court ruling on the Impoundment Control Act’s constitutionality. The Act’s procedures, such as requiring a special message to Congress, are themselves questionable if the Act infringes on Article II, as argued by OMB Director Vought and supported by historical practice.
Fiscal Responsibility and Practical Implications
Restoring the President’s impoundment authority promotes fiscal responsibility, especially in the context of the $7 billion education funding dispute. The withheld funds, representing 14% of federal K-12 funding, support programs that states like California ($900 million), New York ($463 million), and Alabama ($100 million) rely on. However, if the President determines that portions of these funds are being misallocated to DEI initiatives that violate federal law, impoundment serves as a tool to redirect resources to more pressing needs or prevent waste. For example, historical impoundments by Jefferson and Kennedy saved millions by aligning spending with national priorities. In today’s era of rising deficits, this flexibility is critical to ensuring taxpayer dollars are used efficiently.
The lawsuit’s claims of “dire” consequences, such as teacher layoffs or program cancellations, assume that all appropriated funds must be spent as Congress directs, ignoring the President’s role in evaluating their necessity and legality. The administration’s ongoing review, with no final decision to cancel funds, suggests a temporary deferral rather than a permanent rescission, further aligning with historical impoundment practices.
The Path Forward
The Impoundment Control Act represents a congressional overreach that disrupts the constitutional balance of powers. President Trump’s withholding of $7 billion in education funds, pending review for DEI compliance, is a lawful exercise of his Article II authority to manage federal spending. To resolve this dispute, the administration could challenge the Act’s constitutionality in court, seeking a Supreme Court ruling to clarify the President’s impoundment powers. Alternatively, Congress could repeal the Act, recognizing its hindrance to effective governance. Until such clarity is achieved, the President is within his rights to prioritize constitutional fidelity over statutory restrictions, ensuring that funds are spent in a manner consistent with his duty to faithfully execute the laws.
In conclusion, the lawsuit by 22 state attorneys general mischaracterizes the President’s actions as unlawful, ignoring the constitutional foundation of his impoundment authority. The Impoundment Control Act’s restrictions are an unconstitutional encroachment on Article II, and the President’s review of education funds to address DEI concerns is a legitimate exercise of executive discretion. By reaffirming the President’s constitutional role, the nation can restore the balance of powers envisioned by the framers, ensuring efficient and responsive governance.
Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”
Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution.
Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report.
Taxpayers vs. Taxers
It’s Easier to Tax than to Trim Government Waste & Excess
by: David White
7/7/2025
Early success by the Trump Administration and Elon Musk in cleaning house at the Federal level in many areas through their Department of Government Efficiency (D.O.G.E.) gave us hope that we’d see some of the same thing happen as an organic outcropping of support for their efforts in all 50 states.
While efficiency efforts occurred in several states, Colorado’s legislature and Governor didn’t even come close to embracing the merits of what was behind the D.O.G.E. movement. Instead, they’ve ratcheted up their efforts to increase the size of government and they’ve made it clear that they’re going to raise taxes to do it by trying to invalidate the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) which voters approved in 1992 as an amendment to the State Constitution to control the growth of government. TABOR limits the amount of revenue governments in the state can retain and spend and requires excess revenue to be refunded to taxpayers if not approved by voters. The TABOR limit "base" is equal to the lesser of the prior fiscal year's revenue limit grown by Colorado inflation and population growth, or the current fiscal year's revenue.
This last legislative session saw an effort by Rep. Sean Camacho (a Denver Democrat) to sponsor a resolution to require the General Assembly to sue over the constitutionality of TABOR which he introduced in early April, a month before the end of the 2025 Legislative Session. A month later, Colorado Democrats decided that they would not pursue a lawsuit to try and invalidate this 1992 voter-approved amendment to the state constitution. However, as House Majority Leader Monica Duran (Democrat from Wheat Ridge) said at a news conference after the decision was made, “At the end of the day, we just have to look at the timing that we have available.” Duran said it’s likely the effort will be back in some form next session, adding, “Sometimes, it takes a couple of tries.” (See the following for reference: Democratic lawmakers prepare to sue over constitutionality of Colorado's TABOR | News | coloradopolitics.com and Colorado Democrats won’t pursue a lawsuit to invalidate TABOR after all | AspenTimes.com)
Michael Fields, president of Advance Colorado Institute, told the online newspaper Colorado Politics, that with the federal courts ruling against the plaintiffs, "liberal legislators" are exploring the state courts "to get rid of TABOR entirely." "This isn’t a new tactic. They tried to do the same thing in federal court over a decade ago, and in 2021, they lost that case on the merits," Fields said.
Fields continued…"So, what we have is Democratic lawmakers wasting taxpayers’ dollars to go after a 33-year-old Constitutional measure that has a 70% approval rating. The real story here is the divide between legislators and the people on TABOR, and also the divide within the Democratic Party."
And so it goes. Fiscally challenged Democrat lawmakers and no doubt some Republican ones too, will spend your money to take more of your money. But do they really need to do this? I say that they don’t because they figured out years ago how to get more out of your wallet every year without even bothering to ask you. And how do they do this? It’s called “fees.” And boy, do we have plenty of those!
Tax hikes are a non-starter for most voters who will turn on elected officials very quickly when confronted with having to pay more in taxes. But with fees, they’ll never tell you that you’ve been hit with a tax increase even though that’s exactly what the outcome is equivalent to.
According to the Common Sense Institute of Colorado (https://www.commonsenseinstituteus.org/colorado/) in a study that they released in August of 2024, the following are well researched facts on what “fees” have done to us in Colorado:
• In the first year following the passage of TABOR, fee-based enterprises generated $742 million. By 2023, their revenue had increased by over 3,000%, far beyond population growth (62%), to $23.3 billion.
• In 1996, only 46% of total state spending was TABOR-exempt—$5,027 per Coloradan in 2023 dollars. In 2023, 71% of state spending was exempt, amounting to $8,442 per Coloradan.
• Proposition 117, which requires new enterprises projected to generate revenue above a threshold to receive voter approval, passed in 2020. Since then, the legislature has directly established eight new enterprises and expanded a pre-existing one, costing Coloradans a total of $88.3 million in FY23.
• If all of Colorado’s fee enterprises, minus higher education, were instead funded by the state income tax, the state income tax would increase to 7.68%, a 75% increase from the current rate of 4.4%.
• In 2000, enterprises collected $222 per Coloradan and the General Fund received $1,174 per resident. By 2023, these amounts had grown to $3,791 and $2,360, respectively—for every $1 increase in General Fund revenue per Coloradan since 2008, total fee collections rose by $3.10.
• Since 2018, voters have approved two income tax cuts for a combined .23 percentage point reduction. At the same time, fee-based revenue to enterprises has increased by an amount equal to a .51 percentage point increase in the state income tax netting an INCREASE in taxation equal to .28 percentage point increase in taxes paid.
The policies of the Democratically controlled Governor’s Office and State Legislature over the last 20 years have brought about a decided shift in our economic makeup and balance. Since TABOR was passed in 1992, not only has our population doubled, but an economy primarily fueled by the sale of tangible goods (70%) has flipped to a service-driven market (now nearing 70%). Production of fossil fuels and mined minerals, once the source of abundant state income that used to fund our communities, has gone away as an environmentally driven “earth first” agenda took control of the decision-making process. Fear and loathing of these industries alone have created much of the fiscal mess we find ourselves in along with many socialist policies that will soon lead to a state-wide fiscal bankruptcy if something isn’t done.
Challenging the TABOR Amendment (again), isn’t going to fix this. A D.O.G.E. like effort is demanded. Elimination of outdated and restrictive laws along with reviving the energy sector in Colorado will go a long way to resolve the current and coming fiscal crisis created by the mismanagement of our state’s budget by our elected officials.
All I can say is that you, the public and those of you who vote, need to demand accountability and action now. More taxes and fees will do nothing but make people more dependent on the government and force those with the means to leave the state. That’s not a viable solution to what plagues us. A philosophical change will help as well as a fundamental understanding of economics. Unfortunately, most legislators do not possess the will or desire to change or develop either. Eventually the pendulum will swing the other way. Until then, hold on for a bumpy ride.
Mr. White is an active citizen & community leader as well as a business owner, entrepreneur, former Colorado Springs City Councilor and Montrose City Councilor as well as Montrose Mayor. He was a two-term Montrose County Commissioner and has served on many boards and commissions during his career. He & his wife are the parents of six children and have 10 grandchildren & one great grandchild.
MAGA:
The Centrist Movement
to Restore American Prosperity
7/7/2025
• MAGA as Centrist: The Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement is often mischaracterized as extreme but aligns with mainstream American values of fiscal responsibility and individual liberty, drawing independents with its common-sense, America First approach.
• DOGE’s Role: The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), initiated by President Trump, supports MAGA by exposing significant waste, fraud, and abuse in federal spending.
• Historical Context: Policies from past administrations, like the Roman Republic’s focus on high levels of welfare that drained the treasury and disincentivized production, have contributed to economic decline, which MAGA and DOGE aim to address through reform.
• Legislative Reforms: Eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act and rescinding the Impoundment Control Act would enhance Congress’s and the President’s ability to rein in spending and redirect funds responsibly.
Understanding MAGA’s Centrist Appeal
The MAGA movement, often labeled as far-right by critics, is better understood as a centrist effort to restore America’s economic vitality and reduce government overreach. Its slogan, “Make America Great Again,” reflects a widely shared desire to reverse the nation’s perceived decline, a goal that resonates with millions of Americans across political spectrums. The movement’s common-sense, America First approach—prioritizing national interests, economic opportunity, and fiscal responsibility—has drawn significant support from independents, contributing to Donald J. Trump’s return to the White House in 2024. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), launched by President Trump in January 2025, amplifies this mission by targeting inefficiencies in federal spending, providing evidence that supports MAGA’s call for reform. Additionally, eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act and rescinding the Impoundment Control Act would empower Congress and the President to better control spending and redirect taxpayer funds to critical priorities, aligning with MAGA’s fiscal responsibility agenda.
DOGE’s Impact on Exposing Waste, Fraud, and Abuse
DOGE, led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, has made headlines by identifying instances of wasteful government spending. Examples include significant expenditures on non-essential programs and mismanaged funds, which have struck a chord with taxpayers frustrated by government inefficiency. DOGE’s efforts to highlight specific cases of waste align with MAGA’s focus on accountability, reinforcing the need for legislative reforms like eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act to incentivize cost-cutting and rescinding the Impoundment Control Act to allow the President to redirect funds efficiently.
Addressing Historical Economic Challenges
MAGA’s critique of past policies, from the Federal Reserve Act to expansive entitlement programs, underscores the need for reform. DOGE’s work complements this by targeting modern inefficiencies, reinforcing the movement’s argument that unchecked spending undermines American prosperity. Legislative changes, such as eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act, would force Congress to justify spending increases annually, while rescinding the Impoundment Control Act would restore the President’s authority to prioritize funding, enhancing fiscal discipline.
Legislative Reforms for Fiscal Responsibility
• Eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act
The Baseline Budgeting Act, part of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, assumes automatic annual increases in federal spending based on inflation and other factors, regardless of program necessity or efficiency (Congressional Budget Act). This practice discourages cost-cutting and perpetuates bloated budgets, contributing to the $37 trillion national debt. Eliminating baseline budgeting would require Congress to evaluate and justify every dollar spent, incentivizing government agencies to implement cost-saving measures and ensuring responsible use of taxpayer funds. As the Heritage Foundation notes, “Baseline budgeting creates a bias toward spending increases, making it harder to achieve fiscal discipline” (Baseline Budgeting Reform).
• Rescinding the Impoundment Control Act
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 restricts the President’s ability to withhold or redirect congressionally appropriated funds, limiting executive flexibility to address wasteful spending (Impoundment Control Act). Rescinding this act would restore the President’s constitutional authority to manage federal funds efficiently, allowing the redirection of resources to critical priorities, such as infrastructure or national security, while curbing frivolous expenditures. Historical precedent, such as President Nixon’s use of impoundment to control spending, demonstrates its potential to enhance fiscal responsibility, though it sparked controversy leading to the act’s passage (Impoundment History). This reform aligns with MAGA’s goal of empowering the executive to act decisively in the interest of taxpayers.
• Navigating Opposition to Reforms
Proposals to eliminate the Baseline Budgeting Act and rescind the Impoundment Control Act may face opposition from those who argue they protect congressional authority or prevent executive overreach. However, these reforms, when balanced with oversight, could significantly enhance fiscal accountability, aligning with MAGA’s mission to ensure taxpayer funds are used responsibly.
MAGA: The Centrist Movement to Restore American Prosperity
The Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement is frequently portrayed by mainstream corporate media as an extreme right-wing ideology steeped in fascist tendencies. This narrative, however, is a deliberate misrepresentation. Far from being extreme, MAGA represents the most mainstream, centrist movement in the United States in the past century. Its core premise, restoring America’s greatness by addressing economic decline, reducing government overreach, and prioritizing the prosperity of its citizens, resonates with millions of Americans who seek a return to fiscal responsibility and individual liberty. The movement’s common-sense, America First approach, emphasizing practical governance and national interest, has drawn significant support from independents, contributing to Donald J. Trump’s return to the White House in 2024. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), initiated by President Trump in January 2025, amplifies MAGA’s mission by exposing and addressing waste, fraud, and abuse in federal spending. Furthermore, eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act and rescinding the Impoundment Control Act would enhance Congress’s and the President’s ability to rein in spending and redirect funds responsibly, reinforcing MAGA’s centrist appeal. This article explores why MAGA is a centrist response to unsustainable policies, counters the left’s attempts to label it as extremist, highlights DOGE’s role in exposing government inefficiencies, and advocates for key legislative reforms to ensure responsible use of taxpayer funds.
The Mischaracterization of MAGA
The mainstream media’s portrayal of MAGA as an extremist movement is a tactic to deflect attention from the left’s own radical policies. By framing MAGA as a fringe ideology, critics aim to marginalize a movement that appeals to a broad swath of Americans concerned about the nation’s trajectory. The term “Make America Great Again” reflects a desire to reverse the decline in America’s global standing and domestic prosperity, a goal that is inherently moderate and widely shared. Its common-sense, America First policies—such as prioritizing economic growth, border security, and fiscal responsibility—resonate with independents who value practical governance over ideological extremes. This broad appeal was a key factor in Donald J. Trump’s 2024 presidential victory, as exit polls showed 31% of independents supported Trump, citing economic concerns and dissatisfaction with government inefficiency (Edison Research, 2024). As political scientist John J. Pitney Jr. notes, “The appeal of MAGA lies in its simplicity and optimism, restoring a sense of national pride and economic opportunity is not an extreme position but one rooted in traditional American values” (Pitney, 2020).
This mischaracterization is not new. Historically, centrist movements challenging entrenched power structures have often been labeled as radical to preserve the status quo. For instance, the Tea Party movement of the early 2000s was similarly branded as extremist for advocating fiscal restraint and limited government, yet its ideas gained traction among a diverse coalition of voters (Skocpol & Williamson, 2012). MAGA’s focus on economic revitalization, border security, reducing bureaucratic overreach, and implementing legislative reforms like eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act and rescinding the Impoundment Control Act, bolstered by DOGE’s efforts to expose government waste, aligns with these earlier calls for reform, positioning it firmly in the center of American political thought.
The Decline of American Prosperity: A Historical Perspective
MAGA’s argument that America has seen a decline in its global and economic stature is supported by historical parallels and economic data. The Roman Republic’s fall serves as a cautionary tale, driven by high levels of welfare, such as the free grain dole, which drained the public treasury and created incentives for citizens to rely on handouts rather than produce, ultimately contributing to economic stagnation and collapse (Gibbon, 1776; Duncan-Jones, 1990). Similarly, the United States has faced growing economic challenges due to policies that prioritize short-term benefits over long-term sustainability, with waste, fraud, and abuse exacerbating the problem, as uncovered by DOGE. Legislative barriers like the Baseline Budgeting Act and the Impoundment Control Act have further hindered efforts to curb wasteful spending.
Woodrow Wilson’s Legacy:
• The Federal Reserve and the 16th Amendment
Under President Woodrow Wilson, two policies fundamentally altered America’s economic landscape. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 created a private banking system that controls monetary policy, removing Congress’s constitutional authority to “coin money and regulate the value thereof” (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8). Critics argue that the Federal Reserve, despite its name, is neither federal nor a reserve but a private entity that charges interest on currency it creates, contributing to the nation’s $37 trillion debt (Paul, 2009). This system, where taxpayers bear the cost of printing money while paying interest to a private institution, has been criticized as a departure from constitutional principles and a driver of inflation.
The ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913, also under Wilson, legalized the federal income tax. While proponents argued it was necessary to fund government operations, the Supreme Court has ruled that the amendment did not grant Congress new taxing powers beyond what it already possessed (Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 1916). This raises questions about the constitutionality of taxing individual labor, a practice that has become a significant burden on American workers. These policies, far from centrist, shifted wealth creation away from individuals and toward centralized institutions, setting the stage for future economic challenges, including the waste and mismanagement DOGE is now addressing.
Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Rise of Social Security
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal introduced Social Security in 1935, marketed as a modest tax on the wealthiest 1% to provide a safety net for the indigent elderly. However, Social Security has evolved into a bloated program that now consumes 17% of workers’ income (8.5% from employees and a matching 8.5% from employers) with no opt-out mechanism (Social Security Administration, 2024). Initially designed to support a ratio of 37 workers per retiree, the program now operates at a near 1:1 ratio, rendering it unsustainable (Munnell, 2018). Critics argue that Social Security resembles a Ponzi scheme, where current workers fund current retirees rather than building personal retirement savings, creating disincentives for individual financial planning similar to Rome’s welfare system. A private investment of the same 17% in a conservative market portfolio could yield significantly higher returns, offering Americans greater financial security (Kotlikoff, 2019). DOGE’s investigations have highlighted inefficiencies in Social Security, such as payments to deceased individuals, underscoring the need for reform to protect taxpayer dollars.
The Expansion of Entitlements: From Johnson to Biden
Subsequent administrations have compounded these issues. Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society expanded Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, further straining federal budgets and fostering dependency akin to Rome’s welfare policies. Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act (2010) increased healthcare costs for many Americans, despite promises of affordability, with premiums rising by an average of 34% from 2016 to 2018 (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2018). Joe Biden’s “New Green Deal” initiatives, while aimed at environmental goals, have contributed to inflation through massive spending, with consumer prices rising 20.2% from January 2021 to September 2024 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2024). These programs, while often well-intentioned, have placed an unsustainable burden on American taxpayers, with DOGE uncovering billions in improper payments and fraud, such as $59.3 million spent on housing illegal immigrants in luxury New York City hotels.
The national debt has ballooned to $37 trillion, with interest payments projected to reach $1 trillion annually by 2030 (Congressional Budget Office, 2025). This trajectory threatens the economic stability of future generations, undermining the ability of families to prosper, much like Rome’s treasury-draining welfare programs. DOGE’s findings, including $4.3 billion in wasted COVID relief funds and hundreds of millions in misspent foreign aid, highlight the extent of government waste that MAGA seeks to address. Eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act would force Congress to scrutinize spending annually, while rescinding the Impoundment Control Act would enable the President to redirect funds away from wasteful programs, enhancing fiscal discipline.
MAGA’s Centrist Solution: Removing Barriers to Prosperity with DOGE and Legislative Reforms
MAGA’s policy platform, amplified by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and supported by proposed legislative reforms, is not about dismantling necessary social safety nets but about removing barriers to prosperity and restoring fiscal responsibility, countering the disincentives created by excessive welfare programs. DOGE, established by executive order on January 20, 2025, is tasked with modernizing federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity, as well as cutting excess regulations and spending (White House, 2025a). Its mission includes exposing and addressing waste, fraud, and abuse in federal spending, which resonates with MAGA’s core values of limited government and individual empowerment, appealing to independents who value practical, America First governance.
These findings highlight the extent of government waste that MAGA seeks to address. DOGE is also reviewing all existing federal contracts and grants, prioritizing funds disbursed to educational institutions and foreign entities for waste, fraud, and abuse (White House, 2025b). This comprehensive approach ensures that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently and effectively.
The movement’s emphasis on border security also reflects a centrist concern for national sovereignty and economic stability, resonating with independents who see secure borders as a practical measure. Uncontrolled immigration has been linked to wage suppression for low-income workers, with studies showing that a 10% increase in the immigrant share of the labor force can reduce wages by 3-4% for native-born workers (Borjas, 2016). DOGE’s exposure of wasteful spending on immigration, such as the $83 million contract for an empty illegal alien facility and $80 million in FEMA funding for lodging in New York City, reinforces MAGA’s call for secure borders and efficient use of taxpayer funds.
DOGE’s impact on the MAGA movement is profound, as it provides concrete evidence of government waste, fraud, and abuse that validates MAGA’s critique of federal overreach. For instance, DOGE uncovered $20 million spent on a “Sesame Street” program in Iraq and hundreds of millions supporting poppy cultivation in Afghanistan, benefiting the Taliban. These findings resonate with Americans, particularly independents, frustrated by a government that squanders resources on frivolous or harmful projects, strengthening MAGA’s appeal as a centrist movement focused on accountability.
The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability has partnered with DOGE, using the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) High Risk List to target programs vulnerable to mismanagement, further aligning MAGA’s goals with bipartisan oversight efforts (House Budget Committee, 2025).
Eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act would further enhance Congress’s ability to rein in spending by requiring agencies to justify their budgets annually, incentivizing cost-cutting measures and reducing automatic spending increases that echo Rome’s treasury-draining welfare policies. Rescinding the Impoundment Control Act would restore the President’s authority to redirect funds from wasteful programs to critical needs, ensuring taxpayer money is used effectively. These reforms, combined with DOGE’s efforts, create a robust framework for fiscal responsibility that aligns with MAGA’s centrist vision and its appeal to independents seeking practical governance.
Countering the Extremism Narrative
The left’s portrayal of MAGA as extremist is a reaction to its challenge to entrenched power structures, now amplified by DOGE’s revelations and proposed legislative reforms. Policies like defunding the police, open borders, and expansive social programs, which have gained traction on the left, are far less mainstream than MAGA’s focus on economic opportunity and limited government. Polls consistently show that a majority of Americans support stronger border security (68%) and lower taxes (62%), aligning with MAGA’s priorities (Gallup, 2024). By contrast, only 29% of Americans support defunding the police, a policy championed by some progressive factions (Pew Research Center, 2021). MAGA’s common-sense approach, emphasizing America First policies, has drawn independents frustrated with partisan gridlock, contributing to Trump’s 2024 victory.
The media’s role in amplifying this narrative cannot be understated. Studies have shown that major news outlets exhibit a liberal bias, with 86% of coverage of MAGA-related issues framing it negatively (Groseclose, 2011). This bias distorts public perception, painting a centrist movement as extreme to protect the left’s policy agenda. DOGE’s high-profile findings, such as a $550 million bribery scandal at USAID, undermine this narrative by exposing the real extremism of unchecked government spending and corruption, further legitimizing MAGA’s call for reform and resonating with independents seeking accountability.
MAGA, amplified by DOGE’s efforts and supported by legislative reforms like eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act and rescinding the Impoundment Control Act, is not an extremist ideology but a centrist call to restore America’s economic vitality and individual liberty. Its common-sense, America First approach has drawn significant support from independents, contributing to Donald J. Trump’s return to the White House in 2024.
By addressing the unsustainable policies of the past, from the Federal Reserve’s monetary control to the expansion of entitlement programs that mirror Rome’s treasury-draining welfare system, and tackling the billions lost to improper payments and corruption, MAGA seeks to remove barriers to prosperity and empower Americans to build wealth. Historical parallels, economic data, public opinion, and DOGE’s findings, such as $175 billion in taxpayer savings through targeted cuts, support the movement’s premise that America’s decline can be reversed through fiscal responsibility and limited government. These reforms ensure that taxpayer funds are used responsibly, resonating with millions of Americans who want a stronger, more prosperous nation.
Disagreeing with President Trump is Not Betrayal
7/7/2025
In today’s polarized political climate, loyalty to a leader is often mistaken for unwavering agreement. The narrative that disagreeing with Donald Trump equates to “stabbing him in the back” has grown tiresome and misleading. Political disagreements are a natural part of our Republic, and conflating dissent with disloyalty oversimplifies complex issues and undermines healthy discourse. Here we will explore why disagreement within Trump’s base is not betrayal but a sign of a vibrant political process.
Disagreement is Not Disloyalty
No two individuals agree on every issue, even within the same political camp. Supporters of any leader, including Trump, can align with core principles while diverging on specific policies. For instance, a 2024 Pew Research Center survey found that 63% of Republican voters support Trump’s leadership, yet only 41% agree with his stance on every major policy issue, such as trade tariffs or immigration reform (Pew Research Center, 2024). This gap highlights that loyalty to a leader does not require blind agreement.
Consider the issue of trade policy. Trump’s push for tariffs on foreign goods has been a cornerstone of his economic agenda. However, some conservative economists and business leaders, while supportive of his broader vision, argue that tariffs could increase consumer prices. A 2023 study by the Tax Foundation estimated that Trump’s proposed tariffs could raise costs for American households by an average of $625 annually (Tax Foundation, 2023). Voicing this concern does not make one a traitor; it reflects a reasoned critique grounded in economic analysis.
The Danger of Blind Trust
Blind trust in any leader is a recipe for stagnation. Ronald Reagan’s famous phrase, “trust but verify,” encapsulates the need for critical evaluation, even of those we support. Reagan’s approach ensured accountability, fostering trust through scrutiny rather than unquestioning allegiance. Applying this to modern politics, supporters should feel empowered to question policies without fear of being labeled disloyal.
Historical data supports the value of constructive dissent. During the Reagan administration, internal debates within the Republican Party led to refined policies, such as the 1986 Tax Reform Act, which simplified the tax code after extensive intra-party negotiations (Congressional Research Service, 1986). Similarly, Trump’s supporters can strengthen his agenda by offering critiques that refine policies rather than rubber-stamping them.
The Role of Healthy Disagreement
Disagreement within a political movement is not a weakness but a strength. It fosters innovation and prevents groupthink. For example, during the 2020 election cycle, some Trump supporters advocated for a stronger focus on healthcare reform, citing rising costs as a voter concern. A Gallup poll from 2020 showed that 65% of Americans, including many Republicans, wanted more government involvement in reducing healthcare costs (Gallup, 2020). These voices within the base pushed for a broader platform, demonstrating that dissent can expand a leader’s appeal.
Labeling dissent as betrayal also alienates potential allies. The Republican Party is a coalition of diverse groups (Harmony, NOT Unison), from evangelical Christians to libertarian-leaning business owners. A 2022 YouGov poll found that 28% of Republican voters identify as “somewhat independent,” valuing policy debate over strict party loyalty (YouGov, 2022). Shutting down these voices risks fracturing the coalition that Trump relies on.
Moving Forward
The “stabbing in the back” narrative is a distraction from substantive policy discussions. Supporters should be encouraged to engage critically with Trump’s agenda, offering ideas that strengthen his platform. Our Republic thrives on diverse perspectives, not monolithic agreement. Reagan’s “trust but verify” remains a timeless guide: loyalty is earned through accountability, not enforced through silence. By embracing disagreement as a natural part of political life, Trump’s base can build a stronger, more resilient movement. Let’s retire the betrayal trope and focus on ideas that advance the common good.
A personal reflection on the course of America
7/7/2025
I’ve been grappling with the idea of wealth redistribution, especially after listening to Thomas Sowell’s sharp analysis. His arguments hit home for me, and I want to share why I think he’s right that redistribution isn’t the fix for inequality it’s often sold as. It’s not just about shifting money from the rich to the poor. There’s a bigger picture involving how wealth works, what motivates people, and why good intentions can go wrong.
I used to see wealth as a fixed pie. If someone has a big slice, someone else is left with scraps. Sowell flipped that view for me. Wealth isn’t static. It’s created through hard work, innovation, and people trading value. A business owner who makes something people want isn’t stealing. They’re growing the pie. Taxing them heavily to redistribute wealth can scare them off from investing or innovating. I’ve seen small businesses cut jobs or close under tax burdens. That doesn’t help anyone, especially those redistribution is meant to lift.
Then there’s the government’s role. I get why people trust it to handle redistribution. It sounds fair. But it’s often a mess. Bureaucracy eats up funds. Studies show that in some welfare programs, only a fraction of the budget reaches those in need, with the rest lost to overhead or mismanagement. It’s maddening to think my tax dollars, meant to help, are getting stuck in the system. That’s not compassion. It’s waste.
Sowell’s take on incentives really got me thinking. If people get money without effort, it can sap their drive. I’ve seen this locally. Some folks are caught in a cycle where welfare keeps them going but doesn’t push them forward. It’s not their fault. The system sets it up that way. Research backs this: generous, long-term benefits in some countries correlate with higher unemployment. It’s not laziness. It’s human nature. Why grind if you’re covered? On the other hand, taxing success heavily tells entrepreneurs to slow down. That’s a loss for everyone.
I understand why redistribution feels right. Inequality stings. Seeing someone struggle while others live large seems unfair. But Sowell’s point that emotions don’t equal results stuck with me. Policies like price controls, meant to help the poor, often backfire. Rent control in cities like San Francisco has led to housing shortages. Redistribution can do the same, throwing markets out of whack. It’s like trying to fix a leaky pipe by flooding the house.
Sowell also made me rethink the rich. They’re not always villains hoarding wealth. People like Steve Jobs or my neighbor who runs a bakery got ahead by creating value. Her success comes from serving customers, not exploiting them. Taxing her to death won’t help the poor. It might shutter her shop. Wealth often comes from benefiting others, and punishing that hurts us all.
Some say redistribution works, pointing to places like Sweden. But Sowell notes those countries are different. They’re smaller, less diverse, with high trust in the system. In the U.S., redistribution often sparks resentment, with groups fighting over government handouts. Data shows welfare programs can fuel social tension in diverse societies.
When the government picks winners, it breeds conflict.
I’d rather see a focus on opportunity. Better schools, more jobs, fewer barriers to starting a business help people climb without handouts. Look at Hong Kong, where free markets slashed poverty in a generation. I want that for my community: a system where anyone can rise, not one that traps people in dependency or punishes success.
Sowell’s ideas have me rethinking fairness. Redistribution sounds good, but it often creates more problems than it solves. I’d rather we bet on people’s potential, giving them tools to build their own wealth, not just a cut of someone else’s. That’s the way forward.
Get legal guidance from an experienced attorney