Of Me, By Me, and For Me: Conclusion

Having left off at #1— Former Illinois Governor (D) Rod Blagojevich in the previous blog-post, I will pickup at the next section now. Thank you all for your patience and understanding with my deceased mother who suffered from Early Alzheimer’s Disease and her daily care during those last weeks. Meanwhile, her affairs have limited my free-time to blog, but are now receding as my wife and I return to a more normal life together. Without further adieu I pick up where I left off in October 2025…

∼ ∼ ∼ § ∼ ∼ ∼

Just how pervasive is corrupt money in our 21st-century U.S. politics? It is much worse than you might imagine. Let’s take a close look at Ohio’s political corruption between 2017–2020.

#2 – Borges, Householder, Clark, Cespedes, Longstreth, & FirstEnergy Corp.

U.S. Federal Marshals cuffed up conservative politician Matt Borges, the former chairman of the Ohio Republican Party, soon after being arrested for the largest corruption scandal in Ohio’s history. A day earlier a U.S. District Judge dealt out to Ohio House Speaker, Larry Householder, a 20-year sentence for organizing the scheme known as the FirstEnergy Corp. and Ohio utilities scandal or HB-6 scandal. Using FirstEnergy Corp. they funneled $38-million into dark money groups, i.e. anonymous, secret Super PAC’s, that funded Republican election campaigns and legislation. In other words, bribes. Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Singer who prosecuted the racketeering conspiracy further said, “It’s interesting that some people are piling on (Householder) after the fact,” he said. “So many knew what was happening in real time and did nothing about it. Not only did they do nothing about it, they helped facilitate it.

FirstEnergy public corruption trial begins, Jan. 27, 2026 — Chuck Jones, left, and Michael Dowling, right. (Photos by WEWS.)

It is worthy to note that this one scandal in Ohio’s Congress and the dark money corporations funding legislatures while company CEOs, CFOs, etc., take kickbacks from “favorable” state laws, is a nationwide problem reaching an epidemic far worse than it was in the Gilded Age of the 1800’s.

Neil Clark was an Ohio political lobbyist and a mule, for lack of a better word, a broker for hyper-wealthy donors, corporations, and executives, and their state legislative counter-parts. Clark was more than willing to commit illegal bribes, payoffs, buy legislation, or give kickbacks if it meant “everyone” wins and everyone gets filthy rich (see above image of Chuck Jones and Michael Dowling). But Clark was facing charges of major federal crimes and briberies investigated by the FBI. Days later Clark was found dead by suicide March 15, 2021, by the Collier County Sheriff’s department wearing a “DeWine for Governor” t-shirt.

Ohio Governor, Mike DeWine, was never indicted of illegal activity in the scandal, however, he was heavily associated with FirstEnergy’s scandal through shady relationships and secret backroom deals. The Ohio Capitol Journal writes about DeWine’s political-corporate relationships as “Big Money, Big Favors” in an April 2024 article found here. He and Neil Clark met frequently during election campaigns and specific legislative bills. Clark apparently had lost control and saw no way out (see image below).

Why does someone take their own life? To escape punishment and shame? What did Neil Clark leave behind after his suicide? Well, as a matter of fact Clark’s memoir, “What Do I Know? I’m Just A Lobbyist,” sheds light on Ohio corruption and the events leading to his suicide. Consider another similar situation with no way out that ended the same for another rich, powerful man. It’s the question equally valid being asked today, Why did the two guards on duty fall asleep that night and did not check on Jeffrey Epstein at regular intervals? Why did Jeffrey Epstein kill himself in jail and why were the two surveillance cameras in his cell the night of August 9th, 2019, malfunctioning? Lots of “coincidences” and similarities between Clark and Epstein falling perfectly in line on one single night.

Neil Clark’s crime or suicide scene and body in a remote lawn near Naples, Florida.

In his memoirs Neil Clark writes that he had a slew of ugly nicknames like “Prince of Darkness” and “Prick” to name just two. Is it a coincidence that Clark was proud of his deep Sicilian background? He goes on to write:

The FBI had many phone taps and body wires/mics recording Clark and his lobbying tactics that he arrogantly, brazenly boasted about freely in wealthy Columbus, Ohio restaurant meetings with government clients or potential slush-fund clients:

Neil Clark was swept up into unlimited money-waves where he could no longer recognize what was Constitutional (right) and what was Un-Constitutional (wrong and very illegal) nor how egregiously he was breaking the laws. But like a gambling addict, he didn’t care. Clark power-brokered Super PACs that soon made the highly controversial Pro-choice or Anti-abortion acts in Ohio by unprecedented, small wealthy minority groups—i.e. abortions were now illegal in Ohio even if the mother’s life was at serious risk of death—get passed into law. As a result, the untempered colossal amounts of slush money bought off those Ohio legislators ushering in the state laws whether the majority of Ohioans wanted them or not. How did this happen against the Ohio majority that didn’t want abortions banned?

Simple. It was the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United vs. FEC landmark decision to allow mega-wealthy American corporations to spend unlimited amounts of political money in anonymous donations to special interest campaigns and government officials, most often through a power-broker like Neil Clark. That SCOTUS decision January 21, 2010, threw open the flood-gates for rampant, massive, unfettered, indirect government and corporate corruption schemes and they did not care about The People’s democracy, voice, or votes. Worse still SCOTUS suggested to Americans that these limitless amounts of money donations would be transparent for public viewing. Unfortunately for the ordinary American voter, that did not happen. Enter stage Right the IRC 501(c)(4) organizations.

Unlike 501(c)(3)’s, 501(c)(4)’s have no limits on how much money is donated for “social welfare organizations and the organization’s purposes” of massive political money bags and “must be intended to benefit a community or the public at large, not a private group.” Yet again, this did not happen. It happened only for very small interest groups and mega-wealthy individuals, all of whom in the minority of public opinion. Worse still is that these millions and billions of donated dollars are totally anonymous, or dark. Untraceable for the most part. And this secrecy is deliberately intentional, to cover up corrupt motives and/or ideologies and their backroom activities. Neil Clark was so swept up into the power-funding that when he was being caught red-handed, it cost him his mental health and life.

Ohio lobbyist Juan Cespedes, image by The Columbus Dispatch

Juan Cespedes, a Columbus-area lobbyist like Neil Clark, was part of the HB-6 bribery scandal with Borges, Householder, Jeffrey Longstreth, another corrupt Ohio lobbyist, and Neil Clark. They all used dark money briberies and “anonymous” donations to build up Householder’s political power in Ohio’s Congress while also enriching their own private lives. National Public Radio (NPR) reported in July 2021:

Jeffrey Longstreth was the other power-broker in the Ohio FirstEnergy Corp. and HB-6 scandal. Along with Cespedes they pleaded guilty to participating in a racketeering conspiracy involving more than $60-million paid to again, a 501(c)(4) entity (that Citizens United and SCOTUS allowed) to pass and uphold a billion-dollar nuclear plant bailout. Indicted by a federal grand jury in July 2020 they were all charged with confiscated documents alleging Larry Householder, of Glenford, Ohio, Matthew Borges, of Bexley, Ohio, Neil Clark, of Columbus, Jeffrey Longstreth and Juan Cespesdes of whom conspired to violate the racketeering statute through honest services wire fraud, receipt of millions of dollars in bribes and money laundering. The 501(c)(4) entity Generation Now was also charged. According to the U.S. Attorneys Office of the Southern District of Ohio’s website:

Jeff Longstreth, then the campaign manager for Ohioans for Health Care Reform, in an appearance on “The State of Ohio” in July 2011.

Cespedes and Longstreth both made plea deals to avoid prison in return for cooperation with prosecutors and federal government investigators.

Tragically for 20th and 21st-century U.S. state and federal lobbyists, the politics and government puppets controlled or bought by mega-wealthy corporations and their executives, no thanks to Citizens United, and the rampant immorality, dark money, and depraved ethics… doesn’t stop in Ohio. This cancer, if you will, has reached even the highest court in the land: the U.S. Supreme Court bench.

#3 – Clarence Thomas and Brett Cavanaugh

It is an often employed legal-political defense tactic by attorneys and their wealthy, powerful male clients caught in, or accused of degrees of sexual misconduct, to assault, or to raping a woman. The tactic? It is to humiliate, to marginalize, to demean, or to verbally assault the character of a female victim or victims. The current Jeffrey Epstein files, Epstein and Maxwell’s illicit illegal sex-trafficking and pedophile crime-ring, and the cover-up and/or divert facts and events that allow very powerful men (such as President Trump) to repeatedly escape prison sentences and convictions. Blame the victim and rip up the (absent? indifferent? mentally-ill?) parents because big-money buys unaccountability and avoids real justice, especially for the victim(s), family, and close friends. There are two prime examples of this defense tactic: Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh.

Associate Justices Clarence Thomas (left) and Brett Kavanaugh (right) of the U.S. Supreme Court

The date is October 6, 1991 and soon after conservative lawyer Clarence Thomas’ nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court by then President George H.W. Bush – (R), debate proceedings were to take a sordid, ugly turn.

Anita Hill, of Oklahoma and a graduate of Oklahoma State University (Bachelor’s Science) and Yale University (Doctorate of Law) and later admitted to the District of Columbia Bar in 1980, Hill had a successful law career to look forward to and the opportunities to go far in the U.S. Justice courts. She had everything ahead of her and as a result had no ulterior motives to risk that bright future. None at all. Why do that?

But Hill was subpoenaed by Congress to testify publicly in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing regarding her FBI interview about sexual harassment done to her by Clarence Thomas, also of Yale University, and her supervisor at the Department of Education and the EEOC.

Hill endured over 8-hours of grueling questions by an all white-male judiciary committee, some of which were ridiculous and not relevant to the accusations at hand on Clarence Thomas’ misconduct. The October 1991 Thomas scandal turned out not to be about the details of his behavior, but the real scandal was all the evidence that America did not get to hear and witness. Why not? The Senate judiciary committee—again all white males—worked to change and to redirect the conversation away from the character and background of Clarence Thomas, a potential justice in our land’s highest court. Instead, the committee made it about the victim. The hearing devolved into a he-said-she-said spat or squabble. Americans watching didn’t know what was true and what was fabricated. And keep in mind, Senator Joe Biden (D) was the chairman of that hearing.

For the sake of argument, if it were only one woman bringing the accusations against Clarence Thomas, then perhaps it was a bad misunderstanding, a squabble between coworkers. That is the oversimplified view that can overlook human errors, as is often done with powerful men and the American public soon loses interest and forgives and forgets any wrong-doing. After all, Americans have a long, long history of romancing our famous or infamous bad boys and/or girls, almost a weird love-hate affair for deviant bad boys and girls like Bonny and Clyde, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, or Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid to name three duos. But that was not the case with Clarence Thomas.

When at least two other women (and perhaps more) corroborate and support Anita Hill’s testimony of Clarence Thomas, that is different than one woman; very different. And after the televised treatment of Anita Hill by the Senate Judiciary Committee to the nation, any other corroborating women with similar stories of Thomas’ sexual misconduct at work in 1991 would understandably think twice and fear for their public image and careers. Furthermore, it begs the question again, Why would Anita Hill risk all in doing this alone publicly and also damaging her reputation in the field of law as a successful lawyer? What did she have to gain other than her conscience, that felt it her duty to the American people to testify about Clarence Thomas’ integrity, character, and inappropriate sexism against women in the workplace?

Notably the other women were Angela Wright, Sukari Hardnett, Rose Jourdain, and Moira Smith, perhaps others who were too afraid to risk all from a pro-misogynist Senate Judiciary Committee in front of the world. This alleged behavior of Thomas indicates or suggests a trend of sexual misconduct that goes unreported, and maybe unpunished, repeatedly, but also not examined or investigated by authorities. If anything, this clearly shows very questionable patterns in Thomas’ views or beliefs about women, particularly a certain type of woman (not all women) that tempt or drive Clarence Thomas to inappropriate, unprofessional words, innuendos, and actions in secret without possible witnesses. Otherwise, Clarence Thomas wouldn’t have multiple women in his past accusing him of rude, vile, sexual misconduct in the workplace. If he were beyond reproach, there would be no women coming forward risking their public image, careers, and dignity in front of the nation.

What has America learned from the Anita Hill vs. Clarence Thomas hearings? As Cornell University grad, Harvard Law School grad, and University of Wisconsin Law School, Kimberlé W. Crenshaw states, “Very little,” and we certainly haven’t progressed enough in stopping the abuse of women and holding abusers accountable as she writes in her report on Civil Rights and Discriminations against women entitled, “We Still Have Not Learned from Anita Hill’s Testimony.”

Why haven’t we learned something? Continue reading.

Brett Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court bench on July 9, 2018, by then first-term President Donald Trump. Almost as if the American people were reliving the interrogation and spectacle that was the 1991 Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings from Anita Hill vs. Clarence Thomas, once again another associate justice nominee seemed to have a checkered past with women, Brett Kavanaugh.

The question once again, as it was 27-years ago with Clarence Thomas, was about Cavanaugh’s past behavior, ‘is there more than one woman accusing Cavanaugh of sexual assault or misconduct unbecoming of a Supreme Court justice?‘ And once again there was more than just one woman; there was at least three other women, perhaps more.

Christine Blasey Ford stated to the Senate Judiciary Committee during Kavanaugh’s nomination hearings in September 2018 that a very drunk Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in the summer of 1982, along with Brett’s friend Mark Judge watching, at a party in Bethesda, Maryland, and had “corralled” her in a closed bedroom at the house pinning her on the bed, groped her, and tried to remove her clothes. But both Kavanaugh and Judge were too drunk to rape her and she escaped. It is interesting to note that Judge, today a journalist and author, suffered from alcoholism growing up in the D.C. suburbs, recovered from alcohol abuse and later wrote about that rehab and recovery in his book, Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk. The Washington Post did a 7-minute fact-checking video that determined Brett Kavanaugh’s veracity about the questions the Senate Judiciary Committee asked him under oath and his rebuttals of Ford’s testimony with regard to the other three accusers named. The video fact-check paints a very bad picture of Kavanaugh’s ability to be a real justice on the U.S. Supreme Court bench. Watch below…

Ironically, or not, on September 29, 2018, other individuals who spoke to the FBI who knew Brett Kavanaugh at Yale University and Mark Judge in his teens and young adult years, detailed claims of violent drunken behavior by Kavanaugh at Georgetown Preparatory School and in college, and that he lied about the full extent of his heavy drinking at the Senate hearings. This was reported by Charles Ludington, a Yale classmate, to the FBI. For some unknown reason the Judiciary Committee never had Ludington testify or pursue the investigation of his claim.

The details of the other women accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault or witnessing the drunken assaults by Kavanaugh were soon muddled up, redirected to defending Kavanaugh, and shut out by the Judiciary Committee members. They are well documented and easy to research today. The FBI investigations into the allegations against Kavanaugh were ignored or blocked by White House Counsel and never given the go-ahead authority “to unilaterally investigate the 4,500 tips it received without first receiving further approval from the White House Counsel” and the President. Five years later after Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the bench, “the FBI confirmed that it didn’t investigate many of those tips. When it actually followed up on some relating to Kavanaugh, the White House curtailed the scope of the investigations and let them fizzle out and fade into history.”

Retired Justice Anthony M. Kennedy administers the Judicial Oath to Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh in the Justices’ Conference Room, Supreme Court Building. Mrs. Ashley Kavanaugh holds the Bible – image: Fred Schilling / Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

In my mind, whether or not these allegations against Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh—from multiple women ready to talk to authorities at the FBI about these two men’s behavior toward them and other untold numbers of women—isn’t so much the the real issue. What it does represent is a still pervasive abuse or harassment culture on women in this nation by wealthy, powerful men and likewise their male and female accomplices, partners, or protectors in their “Good Ole Boys Club” circles. Felony crimes or not, many rich, powerful men get away with it time and time again because of said American patriarchal culture. Furthermore, it is actually more telling, more damning of the men and those perverted patterns they are still insulated from that are the crushing realities in this country. Women in the U.S. are still vulnerable and unprotected by our law-enforcement, justice system and investigators from (male dominated) local areas to the (male dominated) top federal or corporate sectors by these free-range sexual male predators. Trends tell a story, patterns and track-records tell a more whole story, and where there is smoke or multiple smoke plumes over time, there is almost always fire and more fires.

This abuse has to be stopped. It has to be punished appropriately with thorough investigation, due process, and the current “Boys Club mentality” in this country must be exposed for what it is and how they get away with it over and over with repeated cover-ups and victim shaming by their power, authority, and money. Is that what America stands for, discriminating justice for some, and less so for others?

∼ ∼ ∼ § ∼ ∼ ∼

Has America increasingly become a safe-haven for wealthy, powerful white men and their unspoken backroom “Good Ole Boys Club” shelters? If so, then we are no better than those evil, undemocratic, lawless, drug-cartel countries of authoritarian rule and male domination at the expense of the unprotected and victims of misogyny, or racism, or religious persecutions by men who take and do whatever they want.

By the way, is this honestly the United States of America today?:

The Professor’s Convatorium © 2025 by Professor Taboo is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 

SCOTUS Have Lost Their Minds

∼ ∼ ∼ § ∼ ∼ ∼

There are five (5), maybe six (6), U.S. Supreme Court Justices that have literally lost their minds and abandoned the core foundations of our sacred Charters of Freedom, the precedents, and what it means contextually to live and govern a nation by laws, not personal opinions or beliefs. Who are the “rogue” federal justices? They are from most radical (MAGA puppets) first, to least conservative at the end:

  • Samuel A. Alito – appointed under George W. Bush’s administration.
  • Clarence Thomas – appointed under George H.W. Bush’s administration.
  • Neil Gorsuch – appointed under Trump’s administration.
  • Amy Coney Barrett – appointed under Trump’s administration.
  • Brett Kavanaugh – appointed under Trump’s administration.
  • John Robertsthe least radical, appointed under George H.W. Bush’s administration.
Chief Justice Roberts’ Supreme Court, October 2022

The other three justices which are not ultra Conservative or extreme radical are Ketanji Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, the most liberal according to Axios. What is the obvious indication that these five justices (six?) have completely lost their way and forsaken their Constitutional vows? Read this…

On Thursday, April 25th, 2024, a Trump lawyer argued to the Supreme Court justices that “the president could assassinate a political rival and be immune from prosecution.” But the most shocking, appalling part of this brazen claim is that the five (six?) MAGA Supreme Court justices agreed with him! 😲

Assassinations of political rivals or enemies today happen in countries like Russia (Vladimir Putin & Alexei Navalny), Venezuela (Nicolás Maduro), Saudi Arabia (Mohammed bin Salman), Syria (Bashar al-Assad), or China, if one speaks out publicly against Xi Jinping and his communist government, you disappear in prison for life. But this isn’t supposed to happen in the United States. Our Founding Fathers clearly designed our nation to be ruled and governed by the law, not anarchy, authoritarianism, or societal trends or ideologies.

Furthermore, when the U.S. declared its independence to Great Britain in 1776 then drafted and ratified its Constitution in 1788, it was with the full intention of moving away from the kings, rulers, and despots of unstable colonial Europe.

Thomas paine, a core founding father
Left to right: Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Mao Zedong, and Kim Il-Sung

When I was a 4th thru 8th grade History-Social Studies teacher in 2010–2014, I often did a role-playing activity for my 8th graders called “Rule of Law or Rule of Man.” All my students would receive a Post-It note with words or phrases such as:

Public SafetyDissentDictator
Executive BranchConstitutionLiberty
AnarchyConsensusFreedom
Inalienable RightsFairnessProtest
ProtectionLawyerMob
GangCourtPrison
ResponsibilityLegislative BranchViolence
HedonismDemocracyEquality
AbuseSeparation of PowersSelfishness
InequalityChecks & BalancesJudicial Branch
Independent JudiciaryBest Interest of CountryBest Interest of One Person

After giving each student about 5-minutes to consider what their Post-It note says, then have them put their Post-It note in the correct column of the Big Chart which is divided in two: Rule of Law on the left; Rule of Man on the right.

Once all students have placed their note in one of the columns—it’s possible that some notes can be in either column, hence ‘on the line’—then ask the 8th-graders to make a consensus classroom definition of the Rule of Law and the Rule of Man. Next would be a set of discussion questions. For example:

  • When and where did our system of law originate and how?
  • How do laws today affect each of us daily?
  • What functions do laws serve in our society?
    • Be sure to discuss at least nine sub-topics of this question.
  • Are there flaws in our system of law? How are they resolved?
  • What role does our government’s Separation of Powers play in ensuring adherence to the Rule of Law?
  • Why is an Independent Judiciary fundamental to the Rule of Law?
  • It has been said for over 235 years that based on our Constitution, we are “a nation of laws, not people.” What does that mean?
  • Why is it so critically important to be well educated about our Founding documents and Founding Fathers like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?
  • Why is it critically important all Americans, especially our elected officials, follow the Rule of Law?

These are just a sampling of the important questions I would’ve asked my 8th-grade students. I would also have my students role-play in groups of 3-to-6 students per group assigning one of them to be the group Director. Following are a sample of the role-playing scenarios students would play:

  • Scenario #1 — “Brown vs Board of Education,” Little Rock, Arkansas. This case involved the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • Scenario #2 — “Mapp vs Ohio,” Cleveland, Ohio. This case involved seized evidence without a legal search warrant was deemed inadmissible in state courts according to the Fourth Amendment.
  • Scenario #3 — “Gideon vs Wainwright,” Panama City, Florida. This case involved the Circuit Court judge denying Clarence Gideon his right to a state attorney to represent him when he couldn’t afford one himself, according to the Sixth Amendment.

And here is the real gut-punch scenario for the 8th-grade students:

  • Scenario #4 — This scenario is based on the Watergate scandal. The Constitution states that an Executive (like the U.S. President) who puts himself/herself above the law and deliberately abuses his or her powers of office may be impeached and even sent to prison. President Richard Nixon obstructed legal proceedings into the scandal by refusing to comply to the special prosecutor’s demands for Nixon’s wire-tapping tapes. Nixon resigned from office before he could be convicted. SCOTUS determined that Executive Privilege was not and is not limitless.

From this above 8th-grade classroom activity you might have deduced that the Separation of Powers was specifically designed by the Core Founding Fathers to protect against one office, one person, one branch of government seizing total or near-total, authoritarian power. Even 8th-graders, and 9th-graders to 12th-graders grasp and understand these basic Constitutional principles. They all know what a bully is like in the school yard and if not stopped what will eventually happen.

Yet, there is a sizable U.S. contingent within our state and federal governments as well as in the Supreme Court and within the general public who fail to comprehend, protect, and enforce this core Constitutional precept against bullies! Their deliberant naïvety is appalling as well as deeply disturbing. This November Americans might well be adding another man to the above image of history’s most infamous dictators: Donald J. Trump.

Some food for thought and debate…

Should this Trump lawyer’s and the supporting MAGA Supreme Court Justices’ logic somehow prevail and win out for a President’s total immunity to assassinate, should President Joe Biden consider assassinating Donald Trump? After all, you can’t have it both ways or apply the law when it suits you best and disregard it when it doesn’t. Why shouldn’t Biden entertain the idea of erasing Trump while he is the sitting President? Or why not imprison Trump in some remote Siberian location just as Vladimir Putin, Nicolás Maduro, Mohammed bin Salman, Bashar al-Assad, and Xi Jinping all do with regularity? If it is legal for Trump to do it, then it follows that Biden can do it.

What has Trump stated publicly and explicitly he will do if put back into the White House? Here are just three Project 2025 action plans, out of a litany of others, which he and MAGA Republicans promise to execute beginning in January 2025:

  • Incite violence against anyone, including political opponents, he deems a threat to his ambitions. Trump hasn’t just verbalized this intent, he has actually done it. Just last month Trump posted on his social media platform a video of President Biden hog-tied in the back of a pickup truck, bound and gagged with what appears to be a bullet-hole in his head. Regular threats such as these against the POTUS is in fact a crime.
  • Completely overhaul and dismantle civil service positions to favor his political allies that will loyally do his biddings. Within Project 2025 there is already a documented plan to replace thousands of agency employees with his own loyal sycophants, then undo hundreds of environmental protections and reduce even more civil rights for Americans.
  • Turn the FBI and other law enforcement agencies into his personal police state and imprison—just like Putin did with Alexei Navalny—all political or social opponents he deems a threat to himself. These are Trump’s words verbatim, “If I happen to be president and I see somebody who’s doing well and beating me very badly, I say, ‘Go down and indict them.’ They’d be out of business.

Anyone with a quality, fair and well-rounded education of American history and American government must admit that the above rhetoric and promises made by Trump 2024 and his MAGA cult members/minions, including 5-6 Supreme Court Justices, flies in the face of everything this nation was founded on by our six core Founding Fathers and the Charters of Freedom they drafted and the states ratified.

I cannot stress enough nor vehemently enough just how monumental this November will be. Not just for the future of the United States, but also the world. Mark my words right now, if the Orange Orangutan Baby gets back into the Oval Office, that is the beginning of the end of this democratic republic from which we may never recover.

The Professor’s Convatorium © 2023 by Professor Taboo is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 

Part 4: A New U.S. Constitution

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of [man and his] government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

James madison – federalist no. 51, feb. 8, 1788; bracketed insert my own

We continue now from Part 3 if you have been following this series.

Delegation vs. Non-delegation

As early as 1826 and again in 1866, and still again in 1895 the controversial debate began over whether Congress can or should delegate its legislative powers to other Branches and agencies of federal and state government. The argument has been raging ever since, even after the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913. What was all the controversy about? Let’s look at a streamlined timeline:

  • 1826 — Members of the 20th U.S. Congress were to be elected, but during a transitional period of the First Party System to the Second Party System. This caused deadlocks between several state legislators electing Senators. Many Senate seats remained vacant for up to 2-years.
  • 1864 — John Stockton of New Jersey is controversially elected as Senator, but done so by the New Jersey state legislatures changing rules of election from a majority vote to a vague plurality vote.
  • 1866 — The Senate eventually threw out John Stockton’s election then passed a law establishing uniform procedures for election of senators by state legislatures. Indiana had a similar flawed election.
  • 1895 — Following the Civil War, disputed senate elections, constant tampering with election regulations by state legislatures, and increased deadlocks leaving Senate seats vacant for long periods, e.g. Delaware, eventually prompted many states to adopt the “Oregon System.”
  • 1906Cosmopolitan magazine published the David Graham Phillip’s series, “The Treason of the Senate” which garnered and galvanized public support for widespread senatorial election reform.
  • 1911 — Senators Joseph Bristow (KS) and William Borah (ID) offered resolutions to amend the Constitution followed by 29 states supporting the amendment measure. The Senate then passed the amendment.
  • 1913 — The House passed the amendment, thus ratifying the Seventeenth Amendment with the necessary three-fourths majority.

During those 87-years the biggest problems the 17th Amendment helped resolve was the chronic deadlock of state legislatures paralyzing the federal Congress from doing its job: debating and passing laws for the benefit of the nation and American people. During the 19th-century many powerful, wealthy, influential corporations were seeking to control state legislatures to capture the Senate in Washington D.C. Subsequently, those senators would construct political mechanisms focused primarily on their own interests—and those of the corporations—rather than those of their own state, and worse, their own people of their state!

However, by the 21st-century, the basic problems persist with keeping our Republic democracy truly representative of We the People, A) the distortions, corruptions, and/or purveyors of “state’s rights” and ‘we don’t need no Yankees (Feds) telling us Rebels how to live happily with slavery/free-labor’ or B) the covert, repressive inequality schemes in individual states which always scream “state’s rights” the loudest and longest. Today they’ve only re-disguised their argument into modern political rhetoric that to very gullible, naïve hearing ears… sounds Constitutional and in-defense of the Founding Fathers. On the contrary, upon closer examination the rhetoric is destructive of all basic principles those same Founders intended to create: a Republic democracy for all citizens, no exceptions.

The problem today is not vacant senate seats lasting for up to two years of the 19th-century, but how often Congress delegates policy decisions to small federal agencies—heavily influenced by corporate lobbying groups and dollars—under very broad and vague standards. Care to guess who appoints the leadership controlling most of these agencies?

Yep, the President.

A prime example of the Bicameral Congress and its members skirting accountability to do their sworn job is the country’s 60-year epidemic of gun-control and domestic massacres by high-capacity, lethal, often military assault weapons. Even when a House majority might pass no-brainer, reasonable legislation for tighter, more thorough red-flag laws, for bans on all military-styled weapon sales to the general public, and higher smarter age-limits for gun-buyers along with mandatory 6-month gun-safety training minimum, our current 18th-century Constitution makes it quite easy for Senators (representing a distinct minority of the population) to block it or let it die.

Furthermore, and here is the jagged pill to swallow, as of September 2019, Senators from twenty-nine states with the HIGHEST average levels of gun-ownership control over 58% of the votes in the Senate, despite the fact that their own states represent just 46% of the nation’s population. The worst part of this ill-gotten misrepresentation is that even if the Senators from states of the majority of the American population all supported better, tighter, more gun-control laws, they would not have the necessary votes to pass it in the Senate. Hence, gridlock, unaccountability, more massacres of more students and/or church-goers occur, then the transgenerational damage is passed on to the next. Repeat again in four months or so, or less.

Folks, this is bicameralism at its finest for the last 60-years and counting. Or its worst. This is appalling! And should I cover widespread Climate Change denialism via false propaganda? I’ll spare my readers for now.

Due to 1) this incessant Congressional members irresponsibility, 2) defunct bicameralism causing gridlock and legislative inactivity or collapse, and 3) Congressional-careerists delegate increasingly more amounts of authority to the Presidents and Vice-Presidents—who often become their scapegoats in national tragedies. All too often Presidents and their political party’s platform and ideals become easy targets of opportunity for the opposing Party. Repeat it all over again during the next Administration’s tenor. Ladies and gentlemen, in our nation’s many, many domestic tragedies and multiple deaths of innocent Americans, rarely is the White House the sole problem of the tragedy. No, many times it is Bicameralism and career Congressional members not fulfilling and doing their Constitutional duties. They pass the buck.

Therefore, by default and dysfunction, our Supreme Court, who now repeatedly helps Congress to abdicate their Constitutional responsibilities—in gridlock and inactivity—makes the SCOTUS much more powerful than it was ever designed to be, and throws the sacred concept of Tri-Equal Authority within Separation of Powers out of balance, thus causing further dysfunctions.

The Supreme Court Turned Goliath by Default

Because for the last six decades Congress has increasingly and deliberately treated political risks not as their legislative duty, but as fodder for court disputes, our SCOTUS today is a behemoth of final authority and impunity. They have become more a nine member panel of supreme kingly/queenly rulers than actual court justices commissioned to overseeing the Executive and Legislative Branches as well as the appropriate interpretation of the Constitution; their originally designed function. Not anymore.

What an omnipotent SCOTUS looks like

Congress is not naïve or ignorant about legislative vagueness or ambiguity in their language. They are very aware when they have passed ambiguous or potentially UN-constitutional legislation. As a stop-gap they intentionally pass this responsibility to the courts skirting any blow-back upon their careers and reelection.

There are two more prime examples of malfunctioning Balance and Separate Powers directly resulting from chronic congressional gridlock:

  1. The 2000 Presidential Election & the Courts – in the state of Florida in December 2000, the people’s votes may have given Florida’s twenty-five Electoral College votes to the Democratic candidate Al Gore if a legal recount had been allowed. Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Republican candidate George W. Bush won the popular vote in Florida, overruling the Florida Supreme Court’s demand for a legal recount. Essentially, only nine Justices (people) usurped, threw out the people’s votes in Florida, handing Bush the Presidency. This begs the simple question: Was this really a democratic free election by the people of Florida? Reading the dissenting opinions of the four (losing) Justices are recommended and generally agreed with by legal, constitutional scholars. Nevertheless, this Supreme Court decision allowed members of Congress, Carte Blanche to escape accountability for Bush’s presidential win as a minority president.
  2. The Affordable Care Act vs. the U.S. Supreme Court – in the landmark decision of NFIB vs Sebelius, SCOTUS had the final authority on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and the Affordable Care Act. In the end, the Supreme Court decided that in all future cases, whether many Americans lived at or below the national poverty line, it did not matter. They could NOT afford or receive adequate medical care if they lived in a state which refused healthcare based on their available or lack of financial status. In other words, your healthcare and well-being depended not on whether you were an American citizen or not, but in what zip code you resided, working or unable to work.

Bottom line? The Constitution’s Separation of Powers no longer functions as was originally designed by the Core Founding Fathers. Only a new, people’s Constitutional Convention—as written in our current constitution’s Article Five—can successfully and adequately reform our dead or decaying system as a whole, and return it to a true, more perfect union as a Republic. A Republic that actually functions for and serves its people, not the oligarchies, or corporations and a few court justices suppressing or oppressing its peoples well-being!

∼ ∼ ∼ § ∼ ∼ ∼

In the next installment of this series, Part 5, I will show that our antiquated 18th-century Constitution has failed as a foundation for a representative democracy. I hope my loyal readers will join me again then. Thank you too for your continued patience with this series. Meanwhile, please do feel free to offer your feedback and thoughts in comments below. 😊

Live Well – Love Much – Laugh Often – Learn Always

The Professor’s Convatorium © 2023 by Professor Taboo is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 

Intrusive Intruders

Given the events in America over the last two to three weeks with our January 6 Select Committee Hearings—another one today unexpectedly announced late yesterday—the Supreme Court’s extreme radical decisions into every American’s intimate privacy as well as disregard for public safety on so many levels, and finally their decision about public praying on a football field’s 50-yard line on public property at a public school’s campus, i.e. favoring one religion over others, thus violating the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause… I thought Gary Numan’s song and lyrics below, from either side of the arguments, was terribly appropriate for this unprecedented time in U.S. government history. After reading and listening to his song, you might agree:

I could listen to you scream
Pretty music to my ears
I could listen to it all day
If you want me to

I could talk about my world
How you brought about ruin
I could talk about your greed
If you want me to

I could look into evil
See a heart just like mine
I could throw away reason
If you want me to

I could walk into darkness
Find the hole you crawled into
I will be the intruder
If you want me to

You can whisper your Lord’s prayer
And pretend that it matters
But don’t you wish you’d just listened more?
You can hide in the shadows
And pretend I won’t find you
But don’t you wish you’d just listened more?

I could listen to more lies
About promises you kept
Will you walk on water
Like you said you would?

I could make you my prisoner
But you were dead man talking
When you burned the oceans
Like you said you would

You can beg for God’s mercy
And pretend that He hears you
But don’t you wish you’d just listened more?
You can drown in your sorrow
And pretend you were helpless
But don’t you wish you’d just listened more?

This was always your one life
I won’t pretend that it matters
But don’t you wish you’d just listened more?
This was always your one home
I won’t pretend that I’ll miss you
But don’t you wish you’d just listened more?

Share your thoughts and opinions below if you’d like, about Numan’s song or whatever else. I certainly have many of my own, but will reserve them, for now, unless otherwise required. Such dark days in this country now and ahead for the foreseeable future. Why are Originalists forcing us back to the 17th and 18th-centuries!? 🤦‍♂️

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://professortaboo.com/contact-me/.