Monday, November 24, 2025

Ukraine: same song second verse: will it get better or will it get worse

 Trump and Putin are both singing the same songs they have all along, but it truly went off-key this past week when Trump claimed his peace plan turned out to be a suspected translation from Russian and did nothing but repeat what Putin has wanted since Trump and he met in Alaska. Putin's position has never wavered from a nearly complete surrender of Ukraine to him.  Without thinking, rolling off his tongue,  Trump demanded Zelensky accept this surrender or else "Trump says Zelensky can agree to peace plan or ‘fight his little heart out’ and once again implied or left open the question if the US will or will not send them more aid.

Not only should Trump be condemned for singing Putin's tune, but he is opening himself to another bipartisan legislative pushback post Eptsein doc flap as it is believed by observers that Ukraine has a significant number of supporters on both sides of the aisle. 

  I wrote this October 30 after Trump's address to the Israeli parliament, and nothing changed since then, either..  Only in the case of Trump's "acceptance of the Russian wish list", both Europe and the bipartisan Ukraine support in Congress pushed back with a roar and Europe and Zelensky met in Switzerland for an emergency meeting on November 23 and Secretary of State Rubio tried to mute and confuse things.. From my blog post October 30, Trump:  Once again, Trump discussed Ukraine in a very public forum, prefacing his remarks with the usual attempt to excuse his not being able to end the conflict on day one. It is always: he is always claiming that if he, Trump, were president at the time, there would never have been a war. The rest of that sentence should be: it was because Ukraine was absorbed into Russia with his blessing.. The message to Putin would have been from Trump: it is ok, Vladimir, to keep on going to reassemble the boundaries of the old USSR influence, Putin's publicly stated goal, and we would not help stop you.

Update 11/24/2025

How to end the conflict in Ukraine? Tom Friedman's opinion piece in the NY Times over the weekend made a lot of sense.
Freeze forces in place without ceding territory.
Station European/U.S. security forces along ceasefire lines.
Require Russia to pay reparations and remain under sanctions.
Guarantee Ukraine’s path to EU membership.
(My note: Ukraine's revolt against Russian domination began in 2014 with popular street demonstrations fueled by disgust of corruption by Putin's puppet presdient of Ukraine and by a desire to turn west to join the EU)

What is missing is how to get Russia to agree: Russia thinks time is on its side< but the only way to get them to agree is for the WEST, including the US, to give Ukraine the ability to keep the battle line frozen as it is now by providing long-term commitment of military aid.
The main obstacle to this is Trump himself, who puts Russia first, instead of the US, in some very mistaken thought that feeding the Russian beast will somehow stop Russia in its stated goal of conquering all of Ukraine and re-establishing Eastern Europe as its satellites. they dominated in the Cold War.
Note: Friedman leaves out Ukraine's NATO membership but agrees on EU membership. I would think that mutual defense treaties could exist outside of NATO, either with the EU or individually with willing individual partners. The security element is the vital requirement of any peace plan.
European allies disagree with the U.S. proposal to end negotiations over the Ukraine war. Big stumbling blocks: assurances on Ukraine's protection and security against further Russian aggression, and capping Ukraine's military size. Actually, these are more than just stumbling blocks: these are booby trapped, tank-teeth roadblocks. Ukraine had no input or presence in the Russian-US proposal or in the European meeting with the US in Switzerland. European allies disagree with the U.S. proposal to end Ukraine war negotiations. Big stumbling blocks: assurances on Ukraine's protection and security against further Russian aggression, and capping Ukraine's military size. Actually, these are more than just stumbling blocks: these are booby trapped, tank-teeth roadblocks. Ukraine had no input or presence in the Russian-US proposal or in the European meeting with the US in Switzerland. European allies disagree with U.S. proposal to end Ukraine war negotiations, per Fox News.


Sunday, November 23, 2025

Why call the Trumpist control of government a regime, and not an administration

 The demonstratios in DC this weekend were calling for regime change.(Impeach and remove) Why call the Trumpist control of government a regime, and not an administration? The use of the term " regime " is justified.    It is not worthy of the term "administration" because in the past nearly 10 months, what the Trumpists have done to the executive branch is contrary to their role laid out in the Constitution: to faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress. Instead, it has behaved like a wannabe dictatorship, signing executive orders like they are decrees and to be treated like the laws of the land, refusing to spend money Congress appropriated unless it contributes to a power grab or the Trump ideology. In many instances, even then, the act was unconstitutional... done until some lower court ruled otherwise months after the act was committed. Now, some of these court rulings are awaiting the Trump-friendly, empowering Supreme Court to rule in ways that overturn prior decisions. For example, the Trump regime is sending active duty and naitonal guard troops into citites, gerrymandering to politically advantage while trampleing civil rights provisions of the Constitution, passing sweeping tariffs with a stroke of a autopen that is in the purvue of Congress, ordering thhe Department of Justice to launch investigations into political enemies witthout probable cause, and threatening to invade: Greenland, Venezuela, Nigeria, and anyone else that Trump thinks he can try to look like a bully whileattempting to withdraw from NATO, UN, and any other entity that stands in the Trumpist way in fits of rage or to ivert attention from other negative news., while forcing those in the MAGA orbit who challenge Trumpist policies to resign after threats of violence unleashed by words and withholding campaing money. That kind of behavior is more like dictatorships of Orban or even Putin (gulags are only for brown migrants in the US, though).

Friday, November 21, 2025

excerpts from a post of 11.20 2025 re the issue of whether military must obey illegal orders

From MUFTIC FORUM BLOG: Pinch me. Am I hearing the Queen of Hearts in Wonderland or a president in the White House? 

The GOP and Trump went ballistic, claiming that the 6 members of Congress (all with combat or intelligence experience) were encouraging the military to disobey orders, while deceptively leaving out the important words the Congresspeople clearly used "illegal orders'.  .  The flip side of that is does the GOP want the military to carry out illegal orders? Should Trump have required US military to shoot the Black Lives Matter demonstrators in the legs in his first term?In fact, per the military code of justice, those who commit illegal acts can be subject to prosecution. What the military oath of enlistment says about legal and illegal orders - ABC News

From my FB posting 11/20/2025: The issue is if military enlisted personnel believe the orders given to them are unconstitutional or against the military code of justice, can they refuse? I found this site, which may be helpful. Basically, obey your commanding officer first and fight it out in court-martial. Usually, the burden is on the officer who gave the order in court-martial proceedings. I recall that Hitler's minions at Nuremberg were hanged, and their defense was "just following orders". Officers have the real burden, and if they disagree with the president's orders, they could resign their commissions. This first came to head when Trump discussed with Gen. Milley ordering the military to shoot the legs out of the black lives matter demonstrators. Milley refused.

Note in the article: when military law, the Universal Code of Military Justice, conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution is the superior law.

Thursday, November 20, 2025

Pinch me. Am I hearing the Queen of Hearts in Wonderland or a president in the White House?

 We have entered the world of Alice in Wonderland with the mad queen of hearts shouting infamously, "off with their heads"at every slight to demonstrate her power and her short temper. Like the Queen of Hearts, the president is now shouting "they ought to be shot" .in a rage. It is not the first time, either. President Trump has publicly accused Representative Jason Crow and five other Democratic lawmakers, all military or intelligence veterans, of "seditious behavior, punishable by DEATH" after they appeared in a video urging U.S. service members to uphold the Constitution and refuse "illegal orders". That is not the first time Trump had a tantrum, acting like the Queen of Hearts shouting "execution' when challenged. Gen. Milley, former head of the Joint Chiefs on retirement, said the US Military does not take orders from a wannabe dictator. Trump had floated the idea that Milley ought to be executed. Biden issued a pardon for Milley to protect him a Trump court martial.. https://newrepublic.com/.../trump-suggests-executing...

Trump's rages began with attacks at an ABC reporter and, yes, Jeremy Kimmel again. Jimmy Kimmel blasts Trump over ‘quiet, piggy’ outburst aimed at female reporter | The Independent   He wants them taken off the air.

The GOP and Trump went ballistic, claiming that the 6 members of Congress (all with combat or intelligence experience) were encouraging the military to disobey orders, while deceptively leaving out the important words the Congresspeople clearly used "illegal orders'.  .  The flip side of that is does the GOP want the military to carry out illegal orders? Should Trump have required US military to shoot the Black Lives Matter demonstrators in the legs in his first term?In fact, per the military code of justice, those who commit illegal acts can be subject to prosecution. What the military oath of enlistment says about legal and illegal orders - ABC News

From my FB posting 11/20/2025: The issue is if military enlisted personnel believe the orders given to them are unconstitutional or against the military code of justice, can they refuse? I found this site, which may be helpful. Basically, obey your commanding officer first and fight it out in court-martial. Usually, the burden is on the officer who gave the order in court-martial proceedings. I recall that Hitler's minions at Nuremberg were hanged, and their defense was "just following orders". Officers have the real burden, and if they disagree with the president's orders, they could resign their commissions. This first came to head when Trump discussed with Gen. Milley ordering the military to shoot the legs out of the black lives matter demonstrators. Milley refused.

Note in the article: when military law, the Universal Code of Military Justice, conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution is the superior law.

Tuesday, November 18, 2025

Time to make corruption a resistance issue, as powerful as affordability and NO KINGS

 Corruption is corruption whether committed in secret or in plain view. The difference is that a significant number of American voters do not care if it is in secret or in the open. For them, it is part of Trump's macho, big-businessman mystique and/or he serves some other purposes. We, the people, get the kind of rulers we deserve... and we do not deserve this. When affordability and NO Kings have become the issues motivating political activism, it is also time to add corruption to the list of reasons for a serious regime change in Washington, DC. These three issues, affordability, NO Kings, and corruption, are related, either as a harmful result or empowering the president to act as he does against the interest of the people over which he thinks he rules by executive order. So far, his respect for the rule of law is to abuse it as long as he can get away with it, until challenges reach "his" Supreme Court. Then what?

Populist revolts against corruption, like the Maidan revolution in Ukraine, which eventually led to the Russian invasion, are what tyrants and dictators fear the most. Fear of this motivates these autocrats to crack down even further on those who would expose them. Putin's actions against Navalny are a case in point. Navalny's revolt was fueled by his outrage over Putin and his oligarchs' corruption. (Navalny ended up dead in a gulag). When Viktor Orbán of Hungary faced criticism for his new luxury digs from whatever was left of a free press, he doubled down, destroying the pesky media. In all of these cases, the greed and corruption of these modern-day dictators were hidden from public view until some challenger exposed them.

That is not the case in the USA when Trump is being corrupt right out in the open. His demanding $230 million from the federal cookie jar to cover his legal costs is jaw-dropping. His crypto wealth is based solely on the value of his name and is bought or invested by those seeking favors and foreign policy advantages worldwide, or relief from tariffs in side deals, and pardons for his enablers. These are not decisions that serve the needs of US citizens or that motivate him to faithfully execute the laws of the land, as required by the Constitution. Instead, it contributes to decisions that harm ordinary people's ability to cope with daily pocketbook needs.

Affordability is not just "the groceries". It is also making health care unaffordable to pay for tax breaks for those who do not heed them, wielding power over who and what is subject to tariffs, or giving regulatory relief from consumer and environmental protections.. Tariffs are indeed raising consumer costs, are considered taxes by his allies on the Supreme Court, and he is now selectively backpedaling on a few, in effect admitting they cost consumers. Acting like a king, he grants regulatory favors (with the help of loyal appointees to agency heads and boards or Musk's chainsaw) to big business. This means axing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, ending consumer protections against practices that led to the 2008 financial crisis, or ending refunds for those who were wrongfully scammed by illegal financial institution practices. In nine months, he has also removed or controlled any in-house government watchdogs that find and report abuses and corruption to a GOP-controlled Congress and his Justice Department, which has been made moot since both are subservient to him. He threatens the media and press with delicensing or halting mergers if they report inconvenient truths, including those that expose corruption. Trump's increased wealth and political power are also based on favors and tax breaks he has granted and instigated on behalf of his "oligarch" billionaires, whom he sees as his peer group and Mar-a-Lago cronies. Top of his list: reducing their taxes and cutting services and support of the middle class to pay for it.

Once Trump is out of office, the crypto bubble he has ridden to feather his nest will collapse because its value is only access to Trump himself and the power and fear he wields as president. He has monetized his position as president, and when he is no longer president, the value of his family's crypto will decline, too. In the meantime, his crypto has enabled Middle Eastern regimes to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in his family's businesses.

Trump has been able to do this without fear of criminal prosecution because the US Supreme Court granted him immunity. The only other option for addressing corruption is impeachment. Impeachment is only an indictment, but the Senate finding him guilty and removing him is very unlikely because of the supermajority required. For that reason, he survived two other impeachments. Any retribution for his crimes will have to wait until he leaves the Oval Office. If he has his way, he will not leave. It is up to " we the people" to make sure his term is indeed over.

His moral corruption is a whole other issue. His cruelty, his infidelities, his rubbing elbows with sex traffickers and their customers, his p-grabbing boasts and assault (even found liable in court), are worthy of disgust, yet those who profess to be fine Christians look the other way because he serves whatever other purposes they have.

Update 11/19/2025 comments on the Epstein file release vote that cleared Congress 11/28/2025.

The value of the Epstein files vote is recognition that

1)sex trafficking of underage girls is vile, and

2) the issue is non-partisan, condemned by those on both sides of the aisle, and

3) the victims deserve our sympathy, and

4) enforcement of actions against sex trafficking deserves our support and the support of political leaders. The heroes, of course, were the incredibly brave women who, as underage girls deemed too young by law to consent, risked threats to their lives and exposing a painful past to public scrutiny, came forward before world media. Bravo.

5) Whether Trump did any more than rub elbows with Epstein and look away is yet to be determined, but he at least can be judged by the company he once kept.

The challenge for both those advocating for keeping the democracy we have and for exposing corruption is to help voters understand how it impacts them. Autocracies trample on the rights of citizens and their ability to influence public policy that benefits ordinary people. Corruption is the means by which wannabe dictators gain and maintain power. Once these autocrats are in control, they are more interested in protecting their self-interests, remaining in power, and secretly maintaining privileges they value than in protecting the safety and needs of those over whom they rule.

Tsk, tsking, and moral outrage are not enough to end sex trafficking if the ruling powers do not care or are participating in the practice. Class warfare, blaming the ultra-rich for paying for such depravity, is not enough, because human sex trafficking also involves victimizing the poor, less educated, underage, and undeserved. The johns are not always the ultra-rich, either. For sex trafficking to flourish depends upon the powers that be charged with enforcing laws to look the other way with a wink and a nod to boys will be boys.


Sunday, November 16, 2025

Health savings account instead of Obamacare? A trojan horse

Update: 11/24/2025; An interesting about-face? Originally, Trump floated the idea of just giving money to those who need health insurance, and others proposed putting that into already existing health savings accounts. He made a big deal of going around the "middlemen", the insurers, and putting the money in the hands of consumers. That proposal got pushback: The problem: What happens when someone gets a catastrophic health problem and uses up the paltry amount in their account? Go bankrupt or sell their homes? Someone got to Trump: the insurance lobby? Now he favors extending Obamacare with some restrictions that will also limit who can qualify for the subsidized insurance offerings.

Continuing with the original post 

It looks like the GOP is going to try to substitute Obamacare with a health savings account...a long-time conservative proposal. The problem is that if you have a catastrophic illness like cancer, plan on going bankrupt or selling your home to pay the bills. What might happen is that those with means will buy catastrophic insurance out of their own pockets, and everyone else will just be taking a risk that they do not get seriously ill. If you have a pre-existing condition, good luck in finding catastrophic insurance you can afford. This is is gift horse that is a Trojan horse. The gift horse, say conservative think tanks and Trump, gives consumers more choice and cuts out the middleman, but what consumers want more than choice is efficient, affordable, and adequate coverage. By itself, health savings accounts are not adequate, and insurance middlemen still play a role.. They have to be combined with other insurance to be adequate.

FYI: Obamacare, so much hated by the GOP and now so popular with public opinion, is actually based on the plan instigated by a Republican governor. The 2006 Massachusetts healthcare law, commonly known as Romneycare  share several key features and architects with Obamacare.  "The insurance company lobby is a powerful one and whatever Trump says about the middlemen and insurers, guaranteed: the GOP Congress will not cross insurance companies...nor will Trump.

The only plan for consumers that gets rid of the middleman, gives consumers choice, is efficient, affordable, and adequate, would be Medicare for All..

So what about the interim when this all-new approach has to be established by law? Trump proposes a $2k gift to everyone. A person I know with treatment for a pre-existing condition said it would cover one month of his medical expenses.

"But FSA money generally can’t be used to pay premiums — meaning that patients would be on their own when it came to paying the regular monthly costs to stay insured.
FSAs are “great for buying eyeglasses and going to the dentist, but if you have a catastrophic health event, they’re not going to help,” said Thomas Buchmueller, a University of Michigan economist who served in the Biden administration. "

Health savings accounts have existed since 2004 and are used in combination with other insurance plans, such as employer-provided insurance and catastrophic insurance. As a stand-alone substitute for Obamacare/ACA, it is not, and if combined with Obamacare and subsidized by the federal government, there are serious repercussions to consumers. Health savings accounts were discussed during the debate on the establishment of Obamacare and rejected. Obamacare could collapse under Trump’s new plan, policy experts say - POLITICO

Even in existence, the health savings accounts have had problems: (per my Google AI search)
  • Eligibility Restrictions: To be eligible for an HSA, an individual must be enrolled in an HDHP, which can expose them to high out-of-pocket costs before the deductible is met. (My observation: it has only been approved when combined with another insurance plan...so insurers still get their cut and the middle man is still involved) 
  • Cybersecurity Threats: The growing value of HSAs has made them a prime target for cybercriminals and fraud, leading to security incidents and the need for robust account protection measures.
  • Underutilization of Investment Potential: While funds can be invested, research indicates that only a small percentage of HSA owners invest their balances. 




GOP plans to replace Obamacare have failed. Here’s what lawmakers propose now.

Tuesday, November 11, 2025

Trump's new concept for health care insurance. Pay retail and get less for your money..


Update 11/17/2025 Trump says he’s talking to Democrats about direct health care payment plan   "The insurance company lobby is a powerful one and whatever Trump says about the middlemen and insurers, guaranteed: the GOP Congress will not cross insurance companies...nor will Trump.

Continuing with original post:

Trump has a concept for health care: send consumers a couple of thousand dollars toward their health care costs. Nutty and stupid. "This is, unsurprisingly, nonsensical," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) posted on X. "Is he suggesting eliminating health insurance and giving people a few thousand dollars instead? And then when they get a cancer diagnosis, they just go bankrupt?" Trump says cut out the middleman (meaning ACA), and take federal money, and find your own, and then, red flag warning. pay full retail price and any shortfall? To whom? Of course, the insurers.

The insurers would really like this one. These insurance companies could now charge as high retail rates as they can get away with for individual purchasers and screw those with pre-existing conditions, or refuse to insure anyone with pre-existing conditions, and then offer less preventative care for more bucks. That's just like it was before Obamacare, only now you would have some money from the feds to buy your own. Insurance companies could now make off like bandits with nothing to stop them from gouging their customers with less coverage for more money. and the insurance companies will be thanking Trump on the way to the bank..They have found a way around anti-price-fixing laws by using third party hubs, so any open-market competition would not drive down prices. This is Trump's deal that takes the place of group rates with large pools to spread around risk like Obamacare offered, and without insurers having to bid against competitors, meet the required preventative care coverage, to be offered in the state marketplace.

The ACA was designed to do the major things: cover the affordability gap for those who did not get insurance from employers, Medicare, Medicaid, but the cost of private insurance was too high for their income level (subsidies are based on income level; a kind of means test), to spread risk around (the pool) so those with pre existing conditions could get insurance they could afford; and provide affordable access to preventative care and early diagnosis. There are far more efficient and cost-effective plans like Medicare for All out there, but this is what we have now...and the GOP has never come up with anything for a decade. High-risk pools have failed where they were tried, like Colorado did once. Health savings plans have been around for years, but have never worked out. These alternatives failed so badly that they led to Obamacare/ACA, which is less than perfect but at least addresses subsidies based on need and covers pre-existing conditions and preventive care.

Such a benign wannabe despot, Donald Trump, is: zap.$2k to pay oops on tariffs to all but the rich, and a couple of thousand so you can pay more for worse health insurance. Budget hawks in his party must be getting ulcers.. So you think a couple of thousand dollars, a one-time gift from the US Treasury, like Trump proposes, will make a difference?

That "oops, we screwed up so here's some bucks", worked during COVID as a political plus, but this Trump concept is different. It is a political trick to get the GOP through the 2026 midterms that does not do anything to fix the long-term damage to health care affordability. This "such a deal" is no more than a band-aid without adhesive, and half covering a wound. COVID would end; your needs for affordable health insurance will not. I predict this Trump concept will have an early death.

Some thoughts on Medicare for All replacing the ACA or the entire health care insurance system.Trump's proposal to give people 2K in compensation for making the ACA unaffordable recognized one fact. The insurance companies, the middleman, are the problem. In doing so, he opens the door to what insurance companies fear the most: Medicare for All or something comparable. The advantage of the Medicare for All approach is that the mechanism already exists, but would have to be scaled up. The wheel need not be reinvented.  The other advantage is that the "pool" of subscribers would contain many more ... likely healthy, young, spreading the risk around. The more the merrier in the world of insurance means lower costs for all in the pool. What about those middlemen?  They can still rake in bucks in Medicare Advantage and supplements, and depending on how it is structured, employer-provided insurance..  Medicare covers 80% of procedures now, and those who have the means could pay for a medigap (as some Medicare advantage plans offer), but at least those who do not will not go bankrupt or mortgage the house and they would have preventative care and cancer screenings and hospitals and providers will be assured they no longer have to write off non-pays or shift the cost to paying patients.  The largest pool would be if Medicare for All meant everyone, but a form could be just replacing the ACA with a medicare program that would be available to the self-employed, the unemployed,  young and healthy not covered by employers' insurance,  and the same requirements to cover preventative care, annual physicals, cancer screenings, and pre-existing conditions.. How the cost of prescription drugs would be handled is still an issue.  Whether it would be offered only to those of certain income levels is another issue.