Who Will We Choose to Be?

America stands at a crossroads. Are Nebraskans willing to decide? Or will many ignore history and choose the path of least resistance, comfortable in the safety of their whiteness (for now)?

Ask yourself: Was Joe Biden elected president in 2020? Current president Donald Trump says no, that he won the election and Biden stole it. There is zero credible evidence for this assertion. But here we are, more than five years later, with insurrectionists on the loose, pardoned by the president. Several have been arrested for new crimes. One—Jared Wise—is a senior advisor at the Justice Department.

Does the First Amendment guarantee freedom of speech? Is due process of law guaranteed to “any person,” as it says in the Fourteenth Amendment, before they can be deprived of their liberty?

What kind of system does the president prefer? He told America in 2018 that he and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un had “fallen in love.” He has said that he admires the “loyalty” the people have for Kim (loyalty which is state-mandated), and Trump has said he wishes Americans would display that same reverence for him. It’s quite similar to statements he’s made praising “president for life” Vladimir Putin’s post-democratic Russia.

And during his second term, MAGA has repeatedly floated this idea of a third term, as well as a dynastic transfer of power to one of Trump’s children.

On Sept. 12, when a Fox News reporter asked Trump about the current rash of political violence on the right and left, offering him a chance to call for calm and national unity, he had this to say:

“The radicals on the right are radical because they don’t want to see crime … The radicals on the left are the problem – and they are vicious and horrible and politically savvy.”

The statement appears to make the claim that right-wing political violence stems from righteous anger at lawlessness, while left-wing radicals are simply “vicious”. Seizing the moment, Attorney General Pam Bondi noted

that the Justice Department would “go after” Americans for “hate speech,” a statement she later walked back.

But just recently, Nebraska Senator Deb Fischer told Nebraska Public Media, “It’s not free speech to celebrate the death of someone,” and that those who do so need to be “held responsible.”

***

Now the National Guard is spreading nationwide—Portland is next— coordinating with ICE and behaving as an occupying force rather than the emergency-response “citizen army” that is their charter.

Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen is all in, circumventing the legislature to offer the McCook prison facility to ICE for detainment of those they sweep up in raids of workplaces, streets, and residential neighborhoods.

But they are not sweeping up the white male citizens who dominate the American assassination game in their dragnet.

Meanwhile Pete Hegseth, our hair-sprayed celebrity Secretary of Defense, has called every single flag officer in the US armed forces, wherever they may be, to an auditorium in Quantico, Va., on Sept. 30, ostensibly to hear a speech from him.

Many officers reportedly fear a loyalty purge well beyond the anti-DEI cuts to the GOFO (General Officer/Flag Officer) ranks Hegseth has made thus far. Aside from that, it is an unprecedentedly expensive and dangerous gathering that will impact military readiness in multiple active theaters of war. Is that important?

As a matter of history, at least one retired general pointed out online that Hitler called a meeting of all of his general officers in 1935 to extract a loyalty pledge prior to implementing his domestic plans. Hegseth’s winking response? “Cool story, General.”

And at a recent memorial for a MAGA-friendly pundit who was just the latest political figure—this time on the right—to be assassinated by a disturbed man with a gun, White House senior advisor on immigration Stephen Miller harkens back to a famous speech of the 1940s. He dramatically describes the “storm” that this particular killing has generated, rhetorically transforming the trigger-pulling “him” into a non- specific, broadly threatening, anti-American “they”—then switching to an ominous “You”:

“They cannot conceive of the army that they have arisen in all of us…You have nothing. You are nothing. You are wickedness. You are jealousy. You are envy. You are hatred. You are nothing.”

You get the idea. The many thousands in the crowd, in their Trump gear, heard him loud and clear. One man’s car was painted with the slogan, “Tolerance Killed Charlie Kirk.”

Now the environment appears right for Pam Bondi to make good Trump’s threat to prosecute his political enemies, as former FBI director James Comey—a lifelong Republican—faces a Justice Department indictment.

Of course, the administration’s “border czar”, Tom Homan, was just reported to have taken $50,000 in bribes from the FBI. The Justice Department apparently will not prosecute, and his job appears safe.

But it seems Trump will not rest until he finds a prosecutor to charge a member of the Federal Reserve—one he wants out—with a crime of his invention.

Former President Obama is being “investigated.” Former UN ambassador John Bolton’s home was recently raided. Dozens of career government prosecutors have been fired, and some are being investigated, for working on the January 6 insurrection cases.

Constitutional Republic or fanatical patriot cult? Respectful political opposition and rule of law, or constant attempts to frighten and dominate domestic “enemies” with dehumanizing Christian Nationalist rhetoric and veiled threats against citizens, all emanating from openly partisan elected officials? Which will it be, Nebraska?

As someone who wasn’t born in America, I think I’ve made my choice.

Commentary originally submitted and accepted by the Nebraska Examiner. I declined requested rewrites demanded from a “national editor (not the Nebraska Examiner editor), so the article was not published. I provide the final submitted version here.

Dear Senator Fischer: This Must End Now

Recently, Nebraska Senator Deb Fischer published another of her occasional updates for constituents. 

Ms. Fischer, on message as usual under the banner of “fiscal sanity,” related various earmarking victories for Nebraska communities and the common-sense approach the Republican-controlled Senate brings to America’s fiscal challenges.

In defending the Trump administration’s wholesale overhaul of the federal government’s mission—including canceling global aid programs and silencing the Voice of America overseas, pardoning dozens of violent criminals convicted of assaulting police, putting an unqualified person who traffics in conspiracy theories in charge of the nation’s health, offering insults and threats to our allies in Europe and the Americas rather than cooperation, accusing Ukraine of “starting a war” while laughing with Putin on his red carpet, sending troops into “Democrat”  cities against the will of local leaders (an action just ruled illegal), imposing tariffs on nations we don’t even trade with, and so on—Ms. Fischer argues that what she and her GOP colleagues are about is “reducing the reckless spending that has helped push our national debt past $37 trillion.” 

It’s true, you know, about the debt. It’s big. It was true in 2012, when Ms. Fischer was elected to the Senate. The debt was big in 2017, before Trump’s first term, and even bigger after. And, with the recent extension of the 2017 tax cuts, along with a quickly executed debt ceiling rise of some $4 trillion, it is projected to be even bigger in 2028. 

Because Republicans only complain about the nation’s debt when Democrats are in charge. As soon as a Republican president appears, these fears are magically transformed into “investing for growth” (i.e., tax cuts). That particular debt is supposed to pay for itself, right? Yet here we are. 

Of course, a revenue source apparently escaping the senator’s notice is at work in the form of the president’s sweeping, on-again/off-again tariffs, which were just declared illegal by a federal judge because Congress is assigned that power by the Constitution. (Apparently this judge, we will be told, is one of those who are ideologically aligned against the “president’s mandate,” something that doesn’t exist. And this sentiment will be echoed by those in the Senate who, according to law, actually hold the power Trump is exercising.) 

The tariffs are indeed pulling in millions of dollars every day. And it’s not a tax on you or me! Not technically. But since a tariff is charged to the importer of the goods (on the American side), not the foreign shipper, guess who will ultimately be paying it? Hint: not foreigners.

Now the government needs a budget, and that will require Democrats to vote for it. But Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, referring to Trump slashing funds already appropriated by Congress via legally questionable “pocket rescissions”, said that it’s “hard to justify voting for bills that aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.” Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, in a recent letter to colleagues, said that “Senate Republicans must decide: Stand up for the legislative branch or enable Trump’s slide toward authoritarianism.”

I agree. While a focus on numbers and debt may sound “serious” (and traditionally Republican) in print, Ms. Fischer’s message ignores other immediate emergencies facing this nation. 

I will add, Senator Fischer: remember how you felt on January 6, 2021? Many of the rest of us still feel that way. Your brief, three-sentence statement on that day was quite clear: “These rioters have no constitutional right to harm law enforcement and storm our Capitol. We are a nation of laws, not some banana republic. This must end now.

That, too, remains true. We are indeed a nation of laws. Yet, as Ms. Fischer surely knows, one of those violent, lawless men who attacked the police on that day while yelling, “Kill ‘em!”—Jared L. Wise—is now employed by Donald Trump’s Justice Department as a “senior advisor.” 

So I offer your message back to you, Ms. Fischer, regarding this president who acts, with the blessings of his party, as a law unto himself: 

This must end now.

Submitted for publication to the Nebraska Examiner, not accepted

A Quiz for the Nebraska Delegation

Unpublished Editorial

“L’etat, c’est moi.”
—Apocryphal saying attributed to Louis XIV of France

Here’s a fun quiz for the Nebraska Congressional delegation. It’s an easy Yes/No quiz — only one-word answers are required, and that one word is “Yes” or “No.”

Why insist on this? Because in the world of politics, skill is often displayed by not answering the question.

To accommodate that political reality, none of these questions requires elaboration. Each is the presentation of a documented action regarding the president or his administration, followed by a version of the question: Do you agree with this?

Anyway, let’s get started.

1. According to the Washington Post, Elon Musk has no official role in DOGE. Folks in Congress know that Executive branch officers (such as Cabinet Secretaries) must be Senate-approved, and even lower-level officers must occupy roles defined by statute. Do you agree with putting a non-vetted corporate titan in charge of a massive federal undertaking, given that he has no “official” role and therefore cannot be subjected to oversight by Congress?

2. According to former Labor secretary Robert Reich, “When Trump took office, the National Labor Relations Board had 24 investigations into Musk’s corporations for violating workers’ rights. But…Trump fired three officials at that agency, effectively stalling the board’s ability to rule on cases.” Is that okay with you? 

3. Trump also fired Justice Department prosecutors who worked on January 6 cases. Do you agree these non-political public servants should be fired for following the evidence of  now-documented January 6 crimes, as directed by their politically appointed superiors at the Justice Department? 

4. Trump pardoned jailed supporters who violently attacked the Capitol and injured police in their attempt to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential victory. Some have since been arrested for other crimes. Do you support these blanket pardons, along with Trump’s portrayal of January 6 offenders as innocent “hostages” as justification for the pardons?

5. Oh, and by the way, did Joe Biden win the 2020 election? 

Of course, in a world helmed by authoritarians, lesser authorities have no objective reality or traditional morality to draw upon when questioned. In such regimes, the truth is whatever the current leadership says it is. It’s the same for what is “good” or “bad”. What is true, good or bad changes over time; but such changes are not acknowledged, only implemented. Because what is true today has always been true. 

And tomorrow? Tomorrow’s truth, though different than today’s, will be equally unassailable.

In such systems, the plasticity of “political” truths goes without saying. Because saying something could land you in hot water. Remember that gallows the Trump mob erected on January 6?

So this should be the easiest question for you all, the quiet observers and “no comment” Congressional enablers of Trumpism: 

6. When this president violates the law, is it your preference that we all simply look the other way? 

Just yesterday, Trump posted, in his curious random capitalization style and without context, a quote sometimes attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte: “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law”. 

The quote, which is actually from the largely Soviet-financed 1970 theatrical film Waterloo, begins with  the Napoleon character musing as he dictates a letter: “I did not usurp the crown. I found it, in the gutter, and I picked it up with my sword. And it was the people, Alexis, the people who put it on my head.”

A victorious savior crowned by the people! What law—or lawmaker—can compete with that? 

7. So—regarding that golden-crowned “Long Live the King” Trump portrait the White House tweeted yesterday…you know what? Forget it. How could your answers matter? We are now all bystanders at Trump’s glorious Battle of Austerlitz. Whatever comes of it will belong to him.

Perhaps, in the end and with your continued laissez-faire approach to Congressional oversight, Trump will whip up just as much glory for Americans as Napoleon did for the French. I think I’ll see if Waterloo is available on Netflix this weekend. 

A Shadow Looms Over Omaha’s Leaders 

Unpublished editorial

This Tuesday, Omaha Mayor Jean Stothert and Police Chief Todd Schmaderer held a press conference intended to “quell apprehension amplified by national reports of imminent deportations under the new Trump administration,” according to the Nebraska Examiner.

Asked what would happen if federal officials insisted on help, Schmaderer said he doesn’t have to stray from his defined mission: 

“The federal government can’t come one day and give a directive to the Omaha police chief, to the mayor, to say, ‘This is what you’re going to do.’”

The two were responding, as the Associated Press reports, to a new memo written by acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, which instructs the Justice Department’s civil division to work with a newly formed “Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group.” The group will  identify state and local laws and policies that “threaten to impede” the Trump administration’s immigration efforts and potentially challenge them in court, according to the memo.

This action, and this memo, are generally being reported nationally as a tool to go after heavily Democratic cities that “hinder” Justice Department anti-immigration efforts, such as via statue, policies or immigrant-friendly court actions. 

But the leading argument is not the most salient one for Omaha. Later in the 3-page memo, we find this: 

“Federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands and requests.” (Emphasis added)

Chief Schmaderer is probably banking on that word “lawful” to hold the status quo and allow him to resist any federal “commands” he finds distasteful (or professionally dangerous). But let’s look closely, here in 2025, at the legal parameters of the authority of the executive branch—charged with enforcing the nation’s laws—as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Consider that one reason Trump is back in office is a series of Trump-friendly rulings by the conservative Court, culminating in Trump v. United States (2024), which grants presidents unqualified immunity from any laws they may break while engaged in acts “within their core constitutional purview.” 

I would argue that Mr. Trump regards his America First crackdown on illegal immigration as a very “core” act with regard to enforcing the law, especially since deporting undocumented immigrants was the main plank of his campaign platform. And, to be clear, those who cross the border without going through channels have broken the law.

But Mr. Trump, as we have seen, breaks the law and then claims political persecution is driving anyone hoping to hold him accountable (those 34 felonies and numerous former federal indictments). Rather than Trump, it is often the DA or prosecutor coming after him whose professional life ends in tatters. So what’s to stop him now, with his immunity ruling in hand, from breaking any law that gets in his way? 

Given the immunity ruling and Trump’s penchant for defining legality under his own terms, it is safe to say that any law designed to constrain this president from executing what he believes to be his “core” functions—to include  punishing people who impede those functions—is no longer a law. It is a “suggestion” at best. And to Trump, any suggestion that his power should be limited is seen as a challenge. 

So what becomes of Omaha? Lincoln? Admirably, you have pledged to tread the legal path and obstain from operating outside your purview, even if so ordered. 

But what of the divergent path the president may believe to be “more” legal—perhaps even “perfect”—given his history and the power of immunity recently bestowed upon him? 

In 2025, we must ask—which of those represents the “legal” choice? It looks like only time will tell.

Trump’s Return: Implications for U.S. Democracy

January 9, 2025

From Exile to Victory

Today is a National Day of Mourning. As I write this, the body of Jimmy Carter lies in state at the Capitol, the hallowed center of America’s democracy that was violently attacked by Donald Trump’s supporters four years ago last Monday. 

He told them to go to that same Capitol and “fight like hell” as Congress attempted to certify the results of a free and fair election, so they did. It was a counterpart for today; it was a national day of shame. The world looked upon the United States as a democracy losing itself to violent hooliganism.

But in eleven days, the same Donald Trump who refused to recognize the vote of the people, the one who tried to engineer a reversal of Democratic President Joe Biden’s win by whatever means necessary, who has been convicted of 34 felonies, who assaults women, who “allegedly” stashed a trove of secret government documents in his bathroom (I guess we’ll never know), who calls America a “garbage can” fighting “forever wars” while praising Putin’s blood-soaked Russia—this man will be sworn in as president once again. 

He will be sworn in by a member of the Supreme Court, a conservative majority of which has  granted him constitutionally questionable immunity from prosecution for his many alleged crimes. As I write this, that same Court has just narrowly decided not to try to erase his 34 state felony convictions for crimes committed before he was in office. 

This is not to mention the literally thousands of lawsuits Trump has been hit with, the payouts to hoodwinked “students” of the phony Trump University, his civil trial for sexual assault of Ms. E. Jean Carroll (for which he was found liable), or the many other women who have come forward to accuse him of assault. 

Remember the Donald Trump who admitted barging into the dressing rooms of his Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants to “inspect” the half-dressed contestants? Because he could? The Trump whom we heard on tape claiming that he could not help himself, could not resist grabbing and kissing beautiful women? It’s the same Trump now. 

As Gallup notes, the Supreme Court protecting Trump from accountablity presides over a court system that it appears Americans no longer trust. In 2020, 59% of those polled said they have confidence in the courts. A few weeks ago, Gallup released a poll showing that in the last five years, the number has dropped to 35%. According to Gallup, this is the kind of rapid decline in confidence seen during recent upheavals in countries like Myanmar, Venezuela, and Syria.

Yet it is by design. A democraticaly elected president cannot become a “dictator on day one,” as Trump has publicly promised, without a little help from his friends. As Putin and his ilk have done in Russia, Hungary, Syria, Venezuela, and other former democracies, Trump must undermine the authority of the courts in the eyes of the public before he can bend them to his will. 

Ironically, in the case of the Supreme Court, the unaddressed ethical lapses and outrageous behaviors of conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, as exhaustively reported by Pro Publica, have aided this campaign against the courts’ general credibility. Chief Justice Roberts’ annoyed dismissals of any hint of wrongdoing, as if to suggest that wrongdoing by members of a powerful court with no one to answer to but itself is impossible, have also likely moved the needle. 

And of course, Trump relentlessly attacks every judge, prosecutor, or DA who dares to come after him, casting them as the Spanish Inquisition and himself as a modern Jesus of Nazareth. But as with those juries that have found him to be less than innocent, to me the publicly available evidence alone makes him look more like a criminal being prosecuted by the law than a politician being persecuted by his enemies. There’s just no evidence of the latter, unless you look all the way back to the 2019 Ukraine debacle, Trump’s mob-like pressure campaign to force the Ukranian government to smear the reputation of candidate Joe Biden (the subject of Trump’s first impeachment.)

Speaking of protecting the public from wrongdoers, that was also Aileen Cannon’s job in presiding over Trump’s trial for allegedly stealing top secret government documents. We all saw what happened with Trump’s appointee in charge—endless delays and needless hearings on every frivolous motion, followed by prompt pre-election dismissal of the case based on the already-defeated notion that the special prosecutor was “illegally appointed.” 

That was the end, as they say, of that. But it should have been only the beginning. Special Counsel Jack Smith was ready to appeal. 

Then Trump won the election. 

From Victory to Retribution

Yes, once again, Trump won. Now, like a character in a novel rescued from unjust banishment and restored to the throne, Trump’s ignominious past begins to fall away in favor of an imagined “return of the king” narrative favored by the administration and its friends in high (and low) places.

Indeed, the major media, much of which is now owned by Trump’s fellow billionaires, seem to be suffering a major case of amnesia regarding the historic coup attempt. Three days ago was the fourth anniversary of the January 6 attack. In perusing the media that morning, one of the two articles I saw on the topic was from never-Trump conservative David Frum, writing in The Atlantic on the topic of—you guessed it—how the incoming administration and its apologists are trying to “erase” the legacy of January 6. 

It must be erased, because this king has returned for “retribution” and “justice,” as promised when he announced his candidacy in early 2023. Before even  taking office, he has already threatened our neighbors both north and south, throwing in Panama and Denmark for good measure. He has threatened GOP elected officials like Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney with “military tribunals”, whatever that is supposed to look like. 

You may recall that four-star General Mark Milley, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, spoke on the phone with his Chinese counterpart during the mayhem of January 6, 2021. As the world press was live-reporting on a possible coup by Trump’s supporters, who were marching through the halls of the Capitol chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” and defecating on elected officials’ desks, and while Trump himself did nothing but watch the sordid show unfold on television, Milley took responsibility for assuring the Chinese government that the United States nuclear arsenal was under control and that there was no threat of an unprovoked nuclear strike. 

The Chinese were completely blind regarding what may have been happening in terms of the security of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and chain of command. Further, U.S. intelligence indicated that weeks earlier, the Chinese had acquired intelligence of their own suggesting a possible first strike by the U.S. So Milley’s call may have been instrumental in averting an accidental nuclear exchange. 

But Trump, after a couple of years spent rehabilitating himself among his supporters, was retroactively livid. He said publicly in September 2023 that Milley’s actions were treasonous and, in past times, would have merited court-martial and execution. In other words, he was insinuating that his former Joint Chiefs Chariman, a decorated war hero and a symbol of the modern military, could be put to death for calming the global situation while Trump sulked in front of his TV, watching the insurrection he co-authored. 

What’s more, at the time, Milley’s call had been discussed and authorized by the then-Secretary of State and acting Secretary of Defense. While it may be argued Milley exceeded his statutory authority in making the call, it may also be argued—and more convincingly—that bridging the gaping hole in the chain of command left by the absent president was the more immediate concern.

Professor Tom Nichols of the U.S. Naval War College said as much, writing in The Atlantic at the time that “[t]he Constitution of the United States has no provision for the control of planet-destroying weapons while the President is losing his mind and trying to overthrow the government itself.”

Since that time, General Milley has become a standard-issue MAGA pariah, to the point that he has been forced to barricade his home and hire private security for his family. It’s a familiar story now. By taking a stand for the Constitution and the public good, Milley has become  the symbolic anti-MAGA warrior who must be diminished.

Let’s remember what Trump confidant (and fellow convict) Steve Bannon has been saying for years: “Our goal is the deconstruction of the administrative state.” 

Milley has since said publicly that Trump is “the most dangerous person ever” and “a fascist to the core.” With Trump about to gain unchecked power, I am very concerned for the general’s future, and by extension the future of all who value the checks and balances of the Constitution, the integrity of the courts, and the rule of law. 

But we who value such things are no longer the majority. Instead, the country will inherit the kind of future that a small plurality of Americans and a decisive majority of Nebraskans asked for with their votes last November. It’s a future they have gifted to Trump the Immune, but whatever fruits it bears will fall to all of us. 

They say the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Let us see how this future unfolds.