Trump's arrogance and inability to deal with reality are harming the US.

No Trump derangement syndrome here, just the observation of people outside the US.

That's part of the problem with a country that holds a "World's Series" in which it plays with itself. 

Yes, bad pun intended.

Seriously, I don't get my news from US sources. And foreign newspapers often have an English edition, which I am providing the headline from Le Monde in English so that people in the US can see how Trump is trashing the country on the world stage.

Even in the 51st (51st-54th states?), the United Kingdom, which is fairly US friendly, he's taking a lot of heat. And Canada is on the outs with its neighbour to the south.

People in the US should realise that a lot is wrong with their country and it needs a serious overhaul of its system. This is especially true for its system of elections which is supposed to keep a clown like Trump from becoming president.

 

The Tory response to the State of the Union Address.

272 years ago, in 1754, another real estate speculator with an overblown sense of ego started a world war at Jumonville Glen. The bill for that war was presented to the people of the 13 Colonies and they revolted. Despite their not being able to properly unify to fight that war under the Albany Plan of Union. 26 years later, in 1776, they thought they were able to rule themselves, and started yet another war which bankrupted the nation and threw it into havoc.

They hastily cobbled together a Constitution in the hope that they could unify, but less than 100 years later, the US had another civil war. And now it looks as if the US may end up in another civil war under the leadership of another real estate billionaire and reality television star with an overblown ego.  

The system is broken and only works for a few.

Trump's belief in the US being a world power may cause its downfall.

 What exactly is the state of readiness of the US fleet in the Persian Gulf?

The United States needs to address its internal problems rather than be the world's bully. One is to learn its real history, not the myth. Wars cost money and are disruptive.

Just curious about the issue of standing armies

 So, I did a search. And even though I am against AI, I thought I would see what sort of response I received to the following query: "standing armies in british political thought". Here are the results.

Standing armies have been a contentious issue in British political thought, particularly due to fears of military despotism and the need for civilian oversight. The 1689 Bill of Rights established that no standing army could be maintained without Parliament's consent, reflecting a long-standing opposition to permanent military forces in peacetime.

Going further produced the following

Overview of Standing Armies in British Political Thought
The concept of standing armies has been a significant topic in British political thought, particularly concerning their role in governance and civil liberties. Historically, there has been a strong resistance to maintaining a permanent military force during peacetime.

Historical Context
Pre-17th Century
Before the mid-17th century, England relied on local militias, noble levies, and mercenaries for defense.
The absence of a standing army was a common practice, reflecting a preference for citizen-based military forces.

The English Civil War
The creation of the New Model Army by Oliver Cromwell during the English Civil War marked a shift towards a professional military.
This army demonstrated effectiveness but also raised concerns about centralized military power.

Key Developments
The Restoration and the Bill of Rights
After the Restoration in 1660, fears of military despotism influenced political thought.
The 1689 Bill of Rights established that no standing army could exist without Parliament's consent, reinforcing civilian oversight.

Eighteenth Century Perspectives
Opposition to standing armies persisted, with figures like James Ralph arguing that they were unconstitutional and advocating for reliance on militias.
Adam Smith later noted that standing armies were indicative of a modernizing society, necessary for effective warfare. 

Conclusion
The debate over standing armies in British political thought reflects a tension between the need for military preparedness and the desire to protect civil liberties. This historical context continues to influence contemporary discussions about military power and governance.

Explore More
What are the Historical arguments against standing armies in British politics
Historical arguments against standing armies in British politics often centered on the fear of centralized military power leading to tyranny and the erosion of civil liberties. Critics, such as John Trenchard, argued that standing armies were inconsistent with free government and posed a threat to constitutional order, advocating instead for reliance on militias for national defense.

How did the 1689 Bill of Rights influence Military oversight in Britain

The 1689 Bill of Rights established that a standing army could not be maintained during peacetime without the consent of Parliament, ensuring civilian oversight of military forces. This principle limited the monarch's power to control the military and reinforced the role of Parliament in military matters, shaping the modern British Army's reliance on parliamentary approval for its existence.

What are the Modern implications of standing armies on British civil liberties

Modern implications of standing armies on British civil liberties include concerns about government intrusion and the potential for military power to threaten individual freedoms. The historical distrust of standing armies has shaped contemporary views on the need for civilian oversight and the protection of personal privacy from military influence.

 My observation on this:

It's a nice summary, which is something AI can do pretty well. Although, it is sort of garbage in, garbage out depending on the material out there. I tried getting summaries on self-defence in common law and gun rights in common law, but those two topics are polluted with pro-gun propaganda, which can pretty much be discounted as inaccurate for a myriad of reasons. The basic one is that a good portion of the material is taken out of context. I don't have the time to cite check it all, but I have given examples in other posts. 

Probably the best example of how gun rights has misconstrued and misunderstands the primary sources is shown in the quote I gave from Heller in my last post.

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. 

Do I need to say any more to show how aberrant the concept of gun rights happens to be?

This is a really good article that shows the issue was standing armies if you will actually sit down and read the primary source material. Trust me, it doesn't take too long for it to become obvious unless you are incapable of understanding English:

https://allthingsliberty.com/2018/05/standing-armies-the-anti-federalists-and-federalists-constitutional-debate/

 

Scalia's fallacious reasoning

I could write a very long book to show that District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) is nonsense, but that's superfluous since Scalia does it himself with this piece of gibberish which shows he has no idea of what he is talking about. In fact, I would say a statement this ignorant shows he was unqualified for the position he held: 

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. 

Unfortunately for Scalia, this precursor to the Second Amendment from the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 provides a good idea of what the founders' mindset happened to be:

13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

And like all the previous US supreme court decisions on the Second Amendment, it contradicts the Heller and subsequent decisions. Those two paragraphs show that the Heller decision is bumpf in an elegant manner. 

The issue of standing armies was a very hot topic in the 17th and 18th centuries, where as personal arms were not.

Fortunately, Donald Trump is proving another point I have been making about Heller, and that is that its invalidating of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), demonstrates that "judicial review" is unconstitutional and can pretty much be ignored.

I made a quip about Scalia writing a decision which permits the persecution of catholics. He didn't do that since he never lived long enough to write that decision. 

Hillary Clinton labelled ‘psychopath’ after ‘lying’ about her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein

Sure, Sky News Oz is totally off to the right, but it's always fun to watch. Rita Panahi may not be totally correct about lefties, as is the case with most of the rest of the talking heads. I mean Oz has a lot of the policies they criticise as being lefty, with really strong immigration control to boot. 

 Australia's tough on immigration, as is the case with the rest of the commonwealth, is something I agree with. It's dumb for people on the left to want to support open borders for a plethora of reasons. Unless they are doing it to highlight the idiocy of US imperialist, warlike policies, but that action is really lost in translation.

Revenons à nos moutons!

I've made it clear that I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton even if ranked Choice was an option. She would definitely come in behind my write in votes for my dogs and Bozo the clown if there were still choices.

But this video shows that Hillary is up there with 'Orrible 'Arris for bad candidates fielded by an awful party.

No Russians involved! Unless Russians run the DNC.

 

And about that photo of Ghislaine Maxwell at Chelsea's wedding: It's easily searchable at Getty Images. There are at least three copies: https://media.gettyimages.com/id/103183991/photo/chelsea-clinton-marries-marc-mezvinsky-in-rhinebeck-new-york.jpg?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=hwRpJ3P-iRaanxtDIQ_yWaQL3LNMJoz-ddvP7bP1ans=

The Real History of the Second Amendment: Debunking the Individual Right Hoax

 OK, I pretty much agree with him, but he neglects the complaints in the Declaration of Independence were:

• He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. 

• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

This gets into the real history of the mindset behind the Second Amendment which is the conflict between a professional, full time standing army and a part time force (the militia). The Federal government had an army, and the states had their militias.

This precursor to the Second Amendment from the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 for a good idea of what the founders' mindset happened to be:

13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

 That's pretty much the Second Amendment's significance is a nutshell. But this video gives a better idea of how the topic plays out in proper Anglo-American/Common law jurisprudence. 

The US NEEDS to become a true multiparty democracy.

This comes from a quote from Brent McKenzie's When Separation of Powers becomes a Suggestion in Fulcrum, where he says:

The Framers assumed ambition would counteract ambition. What they did not anticipate was a political culture in which party loyalty would eclipse national loyalty.

Not true since the Founders understood that political factions, which we now call parties, could pose challenges to the system and had significant debates about them. Some saw them as a natural outcome of a free society. George Washington warned against the dangers of political factions in his farewell address, emphasizing their potential to disrupt national unity.  The contentious election of 1800 with its rivalry between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans proved him correct.

James Madison emphasized the need for a system that controls the influence of factions on governance  in Federalist No. 10. Madison believed that a large republic would help control the influence of factions, as diverse interests would make it difficult for any single group to dominate. Unfortunately, he didn't see the problem with the current duopoly system which allows for control of the political sphere by a small group.

The Constitution does not explicitly mention political factions, despite the founders dislike for them. It was thought that the effects would be controlled through the system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, as we are seeing, those checks and balances are ineffective and quickly eroding until we will see a constitutional show down similar to the English Civil War, where the legislature takes on the Executive branch. Unfortunately, this is something which the US Constitution does not truly address with its system for amending the constitution.

The issues of factionalism, demagoguery, and the balance of power that concerned the founders still plague us today. I would say they are as bad if not worse now than they were at the beginning of this experiment. 

The "Westminster"/Parliamentary system requires that any failure to pass a budget results in new elections. Of Course, it's "Westminster" since Belgium holds the record for the longest time without a government in peacetime, lasting 589 days from April 2010 to December 2011. This period began when Prime Minister Yves Leterme resigned, and no new parliamentary majority could be established despite extensive negotiations. And, as of February 2026, Brussels is experiencing another political stalemate, having gone 542 days without an elected government. This ongoing crisis reflects the challenges of forming a coalition in a bilingual political landscape, where parties often struggle to find common ground.

Yet another reason I'm glad I didn't apply for Belgian citizenship when I was living there, despite speaking all four languages and feeling an affinity for the place. I mean, the beer is the best.

Anyway, Belgium's political deadlock highlights the importance of strong federalism and regional autonomy, allowing local governments to maintain essential services even without a central government. Additionally, it demonstrates the need for political compromise and the potential risks of deep divisions within a nation, which can prolong governance challenges. 

While running a government like a business is generally a bad idea. Competition in this sphere to prevent monopolisation as well as cooperation between similar factions is helpful in preventing the ownership of the government by powerful factions. It's long past time the people took control of their government.

I can't say "took back control" since the system has never been one where the people are properly represented in the legislature. This has never, and will never, happen under the current system.

Sunday laws in a secular society

There's a reason that the US is a secular nation. And it happened because the religious people who founded this country knew the mischief that comes from having an established church.

That's because most of them came from, or were descended from people who were escaping state interference in religion. And that's pretty much the case for a good portion of my ancestors on my mother's father side who had been in North America before it was the United States.

It's also made clear in this video since there is no consensus as to WHEN the sabbath occurs. So, while a day of rest is found in Islam (Friday) and Judaism ("Saturday". Well, Friday sundown to Saturday sundown): It's not that cut and dried in Christianity. Most sects observe that day on Sunday, but not all of them do.

 I'm not sure whose Heritage the Heritage Foundation seeks to recreate, but it is in no way mine.

The US was founded as a secular nation, and that is in the Constitution. The Establishment Clause is part of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits Congress from establishing an official religion or favoring one religion over another. It is often interpreted as requiring a separation of church and state, ensuring that the government does not interfere with religious practices or promote any particular faith.

The people who created the United States knew that intention very well and misguided people who don't understand the constitution should avoid messing with it. 

Besides, these laws once existed, but they were repealed.