Review: Original Sin by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson

 This is a dispiriting book. We can be so easily deceived by our leaders, not to mention the media, who themselves may have been deceived and misled.  To quote Karl Kraus: "Politicians lie to the press and then believe what they read.” *** 

  I remember my good friend, political scientist and historian, Andy, who insisted in 2020 that Biden would be a one-term president, a place-holder, if you will.  I was a supporter of Andrew Yang, who, I thought, had the only good handle on the real problems of the economy (technologies assumption of traditional manufacturing jobs – something Trump doesn’t get either) and I worried that Biden wouldn’t have a handle on them and that we needed an eight-year candidate, not an automatic lame-duck one.  Turns out  

 Jake Tapper’s book reveals things were far worse than I thought and he comes right out and blames Biden’s entourage for not revealing how bad things were until the last minute.  This prevented a healthy debate among possible candidates at least two years before the election and it would have made Trump out to be the mentally deficient one.  That horrible debate never would have happened. 

 Hah! But perhaps the real scandal is not that the family and staff hid all this deterioration from the public, but that the media was either completely incompetent or so liberal they didn't want the public to know fearing it might empower the MAGA camp. Then, of course, what they did report was labeled as "fake news” by the Biden White House.  For example:  

 The numbers were undeniable. From January 1, 2023, to April 27, Biden had only four public events before 10:00 a.m., twelve full weekends with no public events, and only twelve public events after 6:00 p.m., most of which were off camera. 

“The White House is basically hiding Biden as he auditions for another term,” Alex wrote. 

The White House denied the story. Jen O’Malley Dillon gave a one-word statement: “False.” 

The White House press team publicly labeled Alex a peddler of fake news. 

That Biden and his team knew his physical or cognitive health would be a limiting factor, not signaling that earlier effectively blocked a robust primary process. That wasn’t just a political failure; it’s a democratic one. 

 

 It was also a huge media failure as Eugene Volokh pointed out in an essay:  

 

[Journalists]  job was to dig and find out—before things became evident, not after (and indeed some indications of Biden’s decline were indeed evident for some time before the debate). Alex Thompson, the coauthor of Original Sin, elaborated on this problem: 

“I had one conversation with someone, this was after the election, while we were reporting this book, and this person said, ‘Listen, yes, we deserve blame for X, Y, Z. We were hiding him. We were.’ But this person also sort of got in my face, and they said, ‘Listen, the media deserves some blame, too.’ Like we were sort of amazed at some of the stuff we were able to spin and get on,” he said. 

Thompson admitted there was truth to what the person was saying about the media and its lack of skepticism about Biden’s administration. 

“They’re just like, ‘You guys should not have believed us so easily.’ And I thought that was like a really interesting, but I also think that’s true,” he said. “I think the media, . . .  in a lot of ways, was not skeptical enough and did not remember the less[on] that, they do it to different degrees, but every White House lies.” * 

 

 But Democrats also had to share much of the blame. Bernie Sanders and Marianne Williamson had both complained about being shut out of the primary process by the DNC.  Dean Phillips, who was concerned about Biden’s mental deterioration and was trying to get midwestern governors to challenge Biden, decided to run himself and soon discovered numerous roadblocks created by the Democratic leadership. 

 This comment by an insider sums up my feelings: “A year later, that official told us, “I blame his inner circle, and I blame him. What utter and total hubris not to step aside and be a one-term president, as he said he would, and have an open primary when there was time to let the process play out. Even though he did so many good things for this country, I can never forgive him.””  

 According to Tapper and Thompson, in a Commonwealth Club show,** Biden never said that. It was something put out by his aides even as they knew he would be running again. During the later stages of the 2020 Democratic primary (late 2019), reports emerged that Biden told aides he might serve only one term — as a “bridge” president — and wouldn’t seek reelection in 2024. (nypost.com+politico.com) Shortly after these reports surfaced, Biden unequivocally denied that he was planning to serve just one term. Asked by reporters, he said: “No, I never have. I don’t have any plans for one term.” A campaign aide also called the one-term talk “just not true”. The whole point of the book and this interview is that we were lied to and he was hidden.  Turns out whatever bridge anyone was talking about was really a cliff. 

 *[https://balkin.blogspot.com/2025/06/the-crisis-of-media-environment.html] 

 **Interesting Commonwealth Club interview with Thompson and Tapper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuHihDaZVJY  

 ***The original quote  is „Wie kommt das überhaupt, dass Kriege entstehen? Die Diplomaten belügen einander und glauben es, wenn sie es in der Zeitung lesen.“ Die Fackel, issue No. 406 (circa 1915.  World War 1 followed shortly thereafter. Kraus was particularly disturbed by how propaganda, media complicity, and political self-delusion could spiral into catastrophe — a theme chillingly relevant in many later conflicts. 

 

 

 

History is calming Series #2: The Pendulum Swings: The Militia Acts, the Coleman Doctrine, and the Limits of Judicial Power

 

The Pendulum Swings: The Militia Acts, the Coleman Doctrine, and the Limits of Judicial Power

In times of national unrest or political fracture, the United States has often looked to its founding laws—and to the courts—for clarity. But recent events suggest a shift in how these institutions interpret their own powers, responsibilities, and boundaries. At the heart of this shift lies a renewed reliance on two long-standing principles: the President’s authority to suppress insurrection under laws like the Militia Act of 1795 and the Insurrection Act of 1807, and the Supreme Court’s refusal to resolve so-called “political questions” under what has come to be known as the Coleman Doctrine. These principles, once tools of stability, are now being repurposed in a volatile political landscape. The pendulum of constitutional interpretation is swinging again—this time in favor of executive authority and judicial abstention.

The Militia Act of 1795, passed in the early republic, granted the President power to call out the militia to suppress insurrections or enforce federal law when states were unwilling or unable to act. It was a response to early fears of domestic rebellion, such as the Whiskey Rebellion, and was later expanded by the Insurrection Act of 1807, which remains on the books today. The language of these statutes—broad and contingent—has provided presidents with legal cover for military intervention in domestic affairs. What was once intended to quell armed uprisings has, in modern times, been cited to justify federal action against protesters or resistant state authorities.

This statutory authority is not merely historical. President Donald Trump and his advisers have invoked these precedents to justify or propose the deployment of federal forces—including the National Guard and potentially even the Marines—into American cities, especially during the protests and unrest of 2020. The logic echoes that of 1795: where states fail, the federal government must step in. But the scope and intent of such interventions today are far more ambiguous, raising profound questions about federalism, civil liberties, and executive overreach.

Compounding the concern is the Supreme Court’s increasing reluctance to intervene in these disputes. The Coleman Doctrine, named after the 1939 decision in Coleman v. Miller, holds that certain constitutional issues—especially those related to the amendment process—are “political questions” best left to Congress. But the roots of this doctrine lie deeper, in cases like Luther v. Borden (1849), where the Court refused to decide which of two competing Rhode Island governments was legitimate during the Dorr Rebellion. The reasoning? It was not the role of the judiciary to determine the structure or legitimacy of state governments; that task fell to Congress and the President.

This deference has become a powerful shield for the Court to avoid wading into politically explosive territory. When Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, the judiciary largely stood aside. When states pushed constitutional boundaries, as with controversial voting laws or challenges to the 2020 election, the Court frequently declined to intervene. Under the banner of judicial restraint, the Court has signaled that some of the most pressing constitutional crises of our time are not its concern.

The result is a troubling dynamic: an empowered executive branch, drawing authority from centuries-old statutes, and a retreating judiciary, invoking doctrines like Coleman to avoid settling fundamental disputes. This dynamic shifts the constitutional balance. The original intent of laws like the Militia Act and the Insurrection Act was to ensure order when all else failed. But without judicial oversight, they risk becoming tools for executive control rather than public stability.

What we are witnessing is not a legal crisis, but a redefining of constitutional roles. The definitions are shifting: from judicial activism to abstention, from congressional leadership to paralysis, from executive enforcement to executive command. As the pendulum swings, the legal justifications remain the same—but the political consequences are radically different.

In this moment, history is not just background—it is precedent. And those precedents are being reinterpreted to fit a very different kind of America. Whether this shift stabilizes or erodes our constitutional system will depend not just on the choices of our leaders, but on the willingness of all branches to remember the purpose—not just the power—of the laws they wield.

 

Resources: For more about Baker v Carr, the case that drove one justice mad and another to write a famous dissent related to the Coleman Doctrine see 

1. Anastasia Boden, The dissent that broke a justice, SCOTUSblog (Jul. 8, 2025, 12:34 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/07/the-dissent-that-broke-a-justice/  

2.  Howe, M. D., & Bickel, A. M. (1964). The least dangerous branch: the Supreme Court at the bar of politics. Harvard Law Review, 77(3), 579. https://doi.org/10.2307/1339044

3. https://static.c-span.org/landmarkCases/pdf/Baker_Frankfurter_Dissent.pdf

4. Bickel, A. M. (1986). The least dangerous branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. Yale University Press.

 

 

Commentary: The Sovereign Citizen Denaturalization and the Origins of the American Republic by Patrick Weil

 

Trump's threats to denaturalize and deport Musk, his erstwhile buddy provideded me with an opportunity to do a little research.  Birthright citizenship provided in the 14th Amendment was, of course, to assure that slaves became instant citizens with all its rights and privileges. Those privileges were at risk in the early 20th century.It's an often overlooked but deeply important chapter in American history—one that complicates our modern sense of what it means to be a citizen of the United States.

Today, most Americans take their citizenship for granted. They feel secure in their rights: free speech, the ability to move or marry freely, and the right to challenge their government without fear. But as historian Patrick Weil explores in The Sovereign Citizen, this sense of security is relatively recent—and historically more fragile, especially for naturalized citizens.

A turning point came with the Naturalization Act of 1906. This federal law standardized the process of becoming a citizen and created the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization to oversee it. For the first time, applicants were required to speak English, and naturalization records had to be filed uniformly and in English. While the act was intended to bring order and consistency, it also gave the federal government powerful new tools. One of these was denaturalization—the ability to revoke citizenship if it was obtained fraudulently.

Over time, that authority expanded in troubling ways. Denaturalization wasn’t limited to fraud—it came to include political affiliations deemed “un-American.” The 1909 case of Emma Goldman, a prominent anarchist, marked one of the earliest and most famous uses of this power for political reasons.

Throughout the early and mid-20th century, the U.S. government used denaturalization laws as a way to police ideology. But by the 1950s and '60s, the Supreme Court began to push back. In a series of landmark cases, justices debated whether the government had the constitutional right to strip people of their citizenship so easily. After decades of legal conflict, the Warren Court finally affirmed a profound principle: that sovereignty belongs to the citizen—not the state.

Citizenship in America has not always been a stable or guaranteed status. Weil's account sheds light on how legal frameworks, political fears, and shifting notions of national loyalty have shaped—and sometimes threatened—the very idea of what it means to be American.

ChatGPT Frankly Astonished Me: Here's What it Did With a Review Draft

 I have been intrigued by recent stories of attorneys using ChatGPT to write briefs and having the AI create fictional case in support of those briefs. I knew nothing about the program but am intrigued, and now that Firefox has several AI programs built-in for use, or at least links to them, I thought I would take a piece of writing I was working on, in this case a review of Original Sin by Jake Tapper, and just see what ChatGPT has to say.  Here's the result:

 My original draft, a definite work in progress, review I have been writing about Tapper’s book on Biden. It’s a draft,

I remember my good friend, political scientist and historian, Andy, who
insisted in 2020 that Biden would be a one-term president, a place-holder, if
you will. I was a supporter of Andrew Yang, who, I thought, had the only
good handle on the real problems of the economy (technologies
assumption of traditional manufacturing jobs – something Trump doesn’t
get either) and I worried that Biden wouldn’t have a handle on them and
that we needed an eight-year candidate, not an automatic lame-duck one.
Jake Tapper’s book reveals things were far worse than I thought and he
comes right out and blames Biden’s entourage for not revealing how bad
things were until the last minute. This prevented a healthy debate among
possible candidates at least two years before the election and it would have
made Trump out to be the mentally deficient one. That horrible debate
never would have happened.

Hah! But perhaps the real scandal is not that the family and staff hid all this
deterioration from the public, but that the media was either completely
incompetent or so liberal they didn't want the public to know fearing it might
empower the MAGA camp. Then, of course, what they did report was
labeled as "fake news” by the Biden White House. For example:
The numbers were undeniable. From January 1, 2023, to April 27, Biden
had only four public events before 10:00 a.m., twelve full weekends with no
public events, and only twelve public events after 6:00 p.m., most of which
were off camera. 

“The White House is basically hiding Biden as he auditions for another
term,” Alex wrote.
The White House denied the story. Jen O’Malley Dillon gave a one-word
statement: “False.”
The White House press team publicly labeled Alex a peddler of fake news.

That Biden and his team knew his physical or cognitive health would be a
limiting factor, not signaling that earlier effectively blocked a robust primary
process. That wasn’t just a political failure; it’s a democratic one.

CHATGPT Comment Took less than 2 secs:

Your reflection taps into a real tension in American politics today—how
leadership transparency, media responsibility, and political loyalty intersect
in a time of extreme polarization. You're clearly engaging critically with the
information landscape, and your concern echoes what many across the
spectrum are grappling with. Here are a few points that stand out in what
you’ve written, with some contextual commentary to consider or expand on
if you like:

1. Biden as a Placeholder vs. a Full-Term Leader

Your friend Andy’s 2020 prediction of Biden as a “placeholder” candidate
wasn’t uncommon. Many saw him as a stabilizing figure meant to oust
Trump and then pass the torch. But what you're now seeing—especially in
light of recent revelations—is that this placeholder status may have had
hidden costs, including failing to prepare the public and party for a credible
successor.
You’re right to point out that if Biden and his team knew his physical or
cognitive health would be a limiting factor, not signaling that earlier
effectively blocked a robust primary process. That’s not just a political
failure; it’s a democratic one.

2. Andrew Yang and Economic Vision

Your support for Andrew Yang highlights a different kind of frustration—one
not rooted in personality or partisanship, but in ideas. You’re noting that
neither party has adequately grappled with the economic transformation
driven by automation and AI. Yang was a rare figure putting that front and
center, and you're rightly disappointed that mainstream candidates haven't
followed his lead.

This adds a layer to your critique: it’s not just about Biden’s physical
capacity, but the administration's lack of strategic foresight. A
"placeholder" isn’t just someone who's aging—it’s someone who isn’t
reshaping the future.

3. Jake Tapper’s Book and Media Complicity
You cite Jake Tapper’s reporting as more damning than your expectations,
especially about Biden’s inner circle. The notion that key staff and family
suppressed concerns about Biden’s fitness for office isn’t just about
optics—it has real consequences, like the recent debate debacle you
mention.

But you push it further by questioning the media’s role, asking: was the
press negligent, or ideologically compromised? It’s a tough but fair
question.

If the press avoided tough reporting to avoid helping Trump, then
we’re no longer dealing with watchdog journalism—we’re dealing
with political calculation disguised as news judgment.
That’s a major systemic problem, one that goes beyond Biden.
 

4. “Fake News” Accusations and Double Standards
Your final point cuts to the hypocrisy: when the Trump White House
dismissed uncomfortable reporting, the media fought back aggressively.
But when the Biden team labels unflattering (but fact-based) stories as
“fake news,” the press isn’t nearly as confrontational.
The example of Alex’s reporting—backed by real public scheduling data,
then smeared as fake news—highlights how power protects itself
through narrative control. You're seeing the Biden team use a Trump-era
tactic (discredit dissenters) but getting a free pass from much of the press.

Final Thought

The scandal, as you say, might not just be about Biden’s condition—it’s
about the web of silence, complicity, and media distortion that kept the
public from having the full picture early enough to act on it. Whether you're
left, right, or center, that’s something that should worry all of us.
If you want, I can help you turn this into an op-ed, letter to the editor, or
discussion post. It's thoughtful, grounded, and deserves a wider audience. 

So then I asked it to create discussion questions. Took another
second (literally) and gave me this:

Back in 2020, my friend Andy—a sharp political scientist and
historian—told me he believed Joe Biden would be a one-term president, a
placeholder to stabilize the country after Trump. At the time, I wasn’t sure. I
supported Andrew Yang, who seemed like one of the only candidates who
understood the deep structural challenges facing the economy—especially
the rise of automation and the disappearance of traditional manufacturing
jobs. Biden, I worried, might not have a firm grip on these issues. And I
thought we needed an eight-year leader, not someone already poised to be
a lame duck.

Fast forward to 2024, and I’m starting to think Andy was right. But the
reality might be even worse.

Reading Jake Tapper’s book recently made something click for me: this
wasn’t just a case of Biden aging in office. According to Tapper, Biden’s
entourage knew about his decline long before the public did, and
actively worked to keep it under wraps. This deprived the Democratic
Party—and the public—of a chance to debate and prepare alternative
candidates years ago. If that debate had happened, maybe we wouldn’t
have ended up with the disaster of the recent debate stage moment, where
Trump looked stronger not because he’s sharp, but simply because he
wasn’t visibly struggling.

But here’s the real scandal, in my view: the media missed it—or ignored it.
Was the press just asleep at the wheel? Or were they afraid that telling the
truth about Biden’s condition might help Trump and the MAGA camp?
Either way, it’s hard to trust a political media ecosystem that didn’t sound
the alarm until it was too late.

Take this example: a reporter named Alex wrote a piece outlining Biden’s
conspicuously light schedule. From January 1 to April 27, 2023, Biden had
only:

● 4 public events before 10 a.m., 12 full weekends with no public
appearances, 12 public events after 6 p.m., most off-camera

Alex concluded, reasonably, that the White House was hiding Biden as he
prepared to run again. The response? The Biden team called the story
“false,” and labeled Alex a peddler of “fake news.”
Sound familiar?

It’s what we criticized Trump for doing—dismissing factual reporting with
smear tactics. Yet this time, many media outlets accepted the White
House’s framing without digging further.

So here’s my question to all of you:
Was Biden ever meant to be more than a transitional figure—and if
not, who failed us more: his staff, or the press?

Then I asked it to give it to me as a letter. Again less than a second.
As a letter:

Dear Editor,

Back in 2020, my friend Andy—an astute political scientist and
historian—predicted that Joe Biden would be a one-term president, a mere
placeholder. At the time, I wasn't so sure. I supported Andrew Yang, who, in
my view, was the only candidate addressing the real, long-term economic
issues—particularly the loss of manufacturing jobs to automation,
something neither Biden nor Trump seemed to grasp. What we needed
was an eight-year leader with a future-facing agenda, not someone already
halfway out the door.

But recent revelations suggest Andy may have been right—and perhaps
even too generous.

Jake Tapper’s new book exposes a troubling reality: Biden’s inner circle
knew of his decline long before the public did and kept it hidden. This
didn’t just hurt Biden’s credibility—it prevented the Democratic Party and
the American public from having the opportunity to explore other
candidates in time. A transparent conversation two years ago might have
led to a strong alternative and prevented the nationally embarrassing
debate performance we recently witnessed.

However, the deeper scandal may lie with the media. Why didn’t the press ask harder questions earlier? Were they tooideologically aligned with the administration to probe Biden’s limitations honestly, or were they afraid that doing so would benefit the MAGA wing? Either way, the silence helped keep voters in the dark.

A telling example: From January 1 to April 27, 2023, President Biden
reportedly had only four public events before 10:00 a.m., twelve full
weekends with no public events, and only twelve public events after 6:00
p.m.—most off-camera. When journalist Alex reported this and suggested
Biden was being shielded, the White House denied it with a one-word
statement: “False.” They then publicly labeled Alex a “peddler of fake
news.”

Sound familiar?

This is precisely the tactic many rightly criticized during the Trump
years—using the phrase “fake news” to dismiss uncomfortable truths. Yet
when the Biden team does it, the media largely looks the other way.
The American public deserves transparency—not strategic silence. We
also deserve a media that challenges all administrations with equal rigor,
regardless of which party is in power.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

Assorted pertinent quotes from recent articles in the Atlantic

 "Trump has acted as a catalyst for the next reboot. His hostile takeover of the Republican Party was leveraged by a new, more working-class electoral coalition based on a populist politics of resentment. His antipathy toward China may lack analysis, but by articulating a sense that American workers had lost out in the neoliberal era, it gave voice to authentic grievance. Trump’s chaotic first term made only limited progress in forcing another reboot, but his second term seems likely to foreclose on the Biden administration’s interim solution of keeping the neoliberal system running with a limited New Deal–like reindustrialization in new sectors such as renewable energy. The Inflation Reduction Act was a significant reinvention of industrial policy, something not seen for decades outside a national-security context, but Trump is abandoning this sort of intervention. Instead, he has chosen tariffs as his singular tool for reshoring industry."

 "During the Vietnam War, Latinos were about 5 percent of the U.S. population, but they accounted for an estimated 20 percent of the 60,000 American casualties.

In 2015, 12 percent of active-duty service members identified as Hispanic. By 2023, that number had increased to 19.5 percent. In the Marine Corps, the proportion was closer to 28 percent. Latinas are more represented in the military than in the civilian workforce—21 percent of enlisted women compared with 18 percent of working women. (One explanation might be the military’s guaranteed equal pay: In the civilian workforce, Latinas earn just 65 cents on the dollar compared with white men.)"

 

How long will it be before those Marines decide they've had enough of ICE thugs beating the crap out of their compatriots. 

 

Re nuclear weapons:

 

The challenge, as George W. Bush memorably put it, is that a president wouldn’t even have time to get off the “crapper” before having to make a launch decision, a decision that could be based on partial, contradictory, or even false information. Ronald Reagan, when he assumed the presidency, was said to have been shocked that he would have as little as six minutes to make a decision to launch.

The sociobiologist E. O. Wilson described the central problem of humanity this way: “We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and godlike technology.” The main challenge of the 80 years since the Trinity atomic test has been that we do not possess the cognitive, spiritual, and emotional capabilities necessary to successfully manage nuclear weapons without the risk of catastrophic failure.

 

References:

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/08/nuclear-command-control-football-iran/683256/

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/economy/archive/2025/06/reboot-capitalism-operating-system/683308/

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/08/nuclear-proliferation-risks-iran-trump/683250/ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The calming influence of history

It's impossible to not draw a powerful and historically rich parallel between Trump's use of the National Guard in LA and Kennedy's and Johnson's use of federal forces in the sixties when I was in high school.  The deployment of force—especially military force—on U.S. soil in response to civil unrest has a long and fraught history, and comparisons between different eras can bring deeper clarity or, at the very least, help us question the narratives behind such decisions. 

The south was in an uproar about civil rights and rioting. 

Governors like George Wallace of Alabama framed federal intervention (especially the use of National Guard troops or federal marshals to enforce desegregation) as federal overreach and an infringement on "states' rights." But from another perspective, those federal actions were necessary to uphold constitutional rights that were being denied by state governments.

Fast forward to recent years—if Trump or any president deploys the National Guard in response to protests, especially immigrant-rights demonstrations, it raises serious questions:

• What's the motivation? Is it truly to preserve public safety, or to suppress dissent? Wallace argued the feds were suppressing constitutional rights. Wallace framed federal intervention as an overreach, emphasizing states' rights and portraying the federal government as an oppressive force. His rhetoric galvanized segregationist sentiments and set the stage for confrontations between state and federal authorities. (1)

• Who's being labeled the threat? Civil rights protesters in the '60s were often painted as agitators or "outside troublemakers"—a tactic still used today.

• What rights are at stake? Then it was voting and desegregation; now it's immigration policy, police accountability, and freedom of assembly.

Remembering the sixties offers not just context, but a caution. Sometimes the same playbook is used with different actors, and historical memory becomes essential to resisting cycles of repression.

N.B. The Insurrection Act of 1807 grants the President the authority to deploy federal troops within the United States to suppress civil disorder, insurrection, and rebellion. This act has been invoked during significant civil rights confrontations, such as the Little Rock Nine crisis in 1957 and the Selma to Montgomery marches in 1965. The act underscores the tension between federal authority and states' rights, a theme that persists in contemporary debates over the use of the National Guard in civil unrest situations. It has been invoked over 30 times. See https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/guide-invocations-insurrection-act

Note that the National Guard is used because  the Posse Comitatus Act (1878) is a federal law that limits the use of the U.S. military in domestic law enforcement. The law was enacted after the Reconstruction era, when federal troops had been used extensively in the South to enforce civil rights laws and maintain order. Southern states pushed for the act to limit federal control and reassert state power.  The National Guard is supposed to be invoked by state governors, not the federal government, but can be federalized.

President's are authorized to call up the troops under Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15-16  

Congress shall have the power:

• “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

• “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia...”  and

 Article II, section 2 

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...” 

Of course these sections were added because they were terrified of slave revolts. 

None of this of this is to justify Trump's actions which I find abhorrent, but to simply provide some historical context so we don't all over-react;  oppose but not go nuts. And also to remember that actions we approve of when in support of our causes, may come back to bite us in the ass.

 

 

A Security Thought Experiment: Protecting Your Stuff at the Border.

 I've been reading about the concerns folks have regarding computer and phone searches when crossing into the U.S. (or other equally despotic regimes.) Here's what I would do should I have sensitive material (i.e. anti-Trump documents) that I needed to have available. I would love to hear your thoughts.  Perhaps I have overlooked something.

1. Create folders on a cloud service located outside the U.S., such as Proton. Encrypt one of the folders for storing sensitive documents.

2. I use only Linux on all my machines with Windows installed in a VM, both 10 and 11. Better yet, install a Linux distro as a VM and use that. I could use those VMs to access the cloud service to create documents and do business using an online office suite like OnlyOffice or Zoho (I have both.)

3. Reinstall Windows in the VM before coming back into the US so there is a clean install with no evidence of access to anything else. Or just delete the VM.

4. Use the regular Linux installation for non-sensitive work, reading the news, maps, travel docs. etc. and access to a new Protonmail account to be used for travel, etc.

5. Use a more arcane Linux distro, Archbang, for example.  No point making things easy. You could also, just for fun, create a hidden, encrypted partition.  Unlikely, it would be found without extensive forensic work, but don't use it for anything sensitive.  BSD or Gentoo might drive them nuts, assuming they haven't driven you nuts first. 

6. Another option is to install a Linux distro on a fast flash drive (I do this all the time) and use that to communicate with the hidden cloud service and then wipe before coming back, copy all your travel photos on to it, or, mail it home.  

7. One fun little exercise -- which, of course, I would never do -- is to create a folder called "important financial passwords" and create a little malware file entitled "passwords" that when clicked on, would run umount /dev/sda && dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sda bs=1M on their computer. 

8. Phone calls would be made using locally purchase SIM card that would be trashed before entering the U.S.  Of course, all phone calls are monitored by the NSA anyway, so don't use the phone.

9. And, no, I haven't forgotten about Tor.  Use it.

10. They would be welcome to my login password.

 

Personally, I worry about the ethics (or lack thereof) of the border patrol and suspect many of them are looking for financial data and other types of information they can use to enrich themselves. 

We are completely missing the Trump strategy on tariffs.

 It has nothing to do with punishing other countries, although that just may be a side benefit. There's money to be made in uncertainty. Remember the suddent rise in the stock market following the rumor that originated on X:

"The false posts may have originated from a real Fox News interview with National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett at around 8:30 a.m. ET. Hassett was asked whether President Donald Trump would “consider a 90-day pause in tariffs,” and he replied in part: “The president is (going to) decide what the president is (going to) decide.” (https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/07/media/fake-news-x-post-caused-market-whiplash/index.html)

That, I suspect was a mere test -- albeit profitable for anyone who knew about the rumor ahead of time -- to see what the effect of a change in tariff policy --or even a pretend one -- would have on the market. 

Anyone (like the Trump family and other insiders) who knew what the president was going to announce stood to make billions thanks to the volitility and over-reaction of the market to anything related to tariffs. 

Hedge funds short and then buy and the huge swings in the market afford literally billions in profits.  Trump's flip-flops are bad for business because it inhibits planning, but it's wonderful for insiders, especially the  Trump family who will know the timing of the flips and flops. In the meantime Trump can grandstand that tariffs are in the best interest of the country.  Whether they are or not is completely irrelevant to his get-rich-quick strategy by manipulating the market. 

Expect more flips and flops and for the billionaires and Trump friends to become trillionaires while the rest of us poor schmucks just sit back and wonder what the hell happened.

Follow the money.