Browsing: Opinions

   There exists within the foundation of American democracy a sacred promise—one that transcends politics, personalities, and power. It is a promise sworn not to a king, not to a president, not to a party, but to an enduring framework of law and liberty: the U.S. Constitution. Every general who rises to command within the United States military swears an oath to support and defend this Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This oath is not ceremonial. It is not symbolic. It is a binding moral contract that demands courage not only in battle—but in judgment.

Is No Kings Becoming A Movement And Will You Be A Part Of It?

    The first face-to-face high-level talks between the US and Iran since 1979 have ended without agreement. Hardly surprising; both sides put forward positions not subject to actual bargaining. On the US side, according to JD Vance:

    Should the United States be bound by international law? Donald Trump doesn’t think so nor does his defense secretary. Last January President Trump told the New York Times, “I don’t need international law.” According to Pete Hegseth, “We will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies.” Not only has “no quarter” been considered a war crime since the 1899 Hague Convention; it violates the United State War Crimes statute which has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Hegseth has dismissed such concerns as “stupid rules of engagement.”  Nor is it likely that the Trump administration would prosecute him for following the orders of the President.

    In the wake of President Trump’s monstrous nuclear threat to obliterate Iran’s civilization, calls for his removal from office are rising, understandably. Doing so via the 25th Amendment, which would require Vice President J.D. Vance and the spineless supine sycophants in the Cabinet to certify Trump unfit for office, is the longest of long shots, though U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a former Constitutional law professor and ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, notes the amendment mentions the ability for Congress to establish its own mechanism to remove an incompetent chief executive.

    We are living in an Upside Down moment, and the danger is no longer metaphorical. You don’t need to have watched Stranger Things to recognize that the threat is real, not lurking in another dimension. It’s prowling in the White House, and no blinking lights are spelling out SOS.

    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, speaking within a worship context tied to military life, drew from the Psalms: “I pursued my enemies and overtook them, and did not turn back till they were consumed.” In that setting, the words do not remain safely in the past. They are re-entered as invocation, carried from ancient text into the present tense of state power.

    Let’s be clear: Every President since World War II has tried to stretch his authority to act abroad. Whether we’re talking about Truman in Korea, Kennedy and Johnson in Vietnam, Nixon in Cambodia, George W. Bush in Iraq, or now Donald Trump in Iran, all abused presidential power. The President’s role as commander in chief has for a long time meant the power to deploy US forces wherever he judges “national security” to be in danger—and then challenge critics to reverse his decision.

    The U.S. government, under President Trump, has been bombing Iran since June 2025, bypassing Congress and the checks meant to restrain any president. In the latest wave of strikes, launched February 28 without a vote in Congress, a school was hit. At least 175 people were killed, mostly children.

   This perspective is not abias to be dismissed, it is an expertise to be valued. Yet too often, it is met with skepticism or discomfort, particularly when it challenges dominant narratives. The cost of speaking up, then, becomes more than professional disagreement. It becomes pers-onal. It is the weight of holding the stories of families who have been marginalized, while navigating systems that may not be prepared to hear those stories. It is the risk of being labeled, dismissed, or silenced for bringing forward truths that complicate the narrative.