Later in his remarks, Trump said, “It’s not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things. They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal. We have to take care of one thing: military protection. We have to guard the country.”

What Trump Calls “Day Care”

The “day care” that Trump was complaining about is Project Head Start—the early childhood federal program in the U.S. that promotes school readiness for children from low-income families from birth to age 5. Project Head Start was created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty” to break the cycle of poverty by providing comprehensive education, health, nutrition, and social services to low-income preschool children, while engaging parents as partners. It aimed to prepare disadvantaged children for school and support families. The program serves over a million children annually across the nation. For fiscal year 2026, Head Start and Early Head Start are funded at $12.36 billion.

Trump calls it “day care.”   Reducing Head Start to “day care” is not just inaccurate—it diminishes its purpose.  Dr. Mary Palmer, retired director of the child care centers at Southwest Community College in Memphis, with 40 years of experience in childcare, states that programs caring for children, “it is not ‘day care’ but ‘child care’. We don’t take care of the ‘day’, we take care of the ‘child’.

The Cost of War vs. The Cost of Children

Based on estimates from early March 2026, the United States is spending approximately $1 billion a day on military operations against Iran. And the first six days of the war (beginning around Feb 28, 2026) were estimated to have cost over $11.3 billion in munitions and direct costs. In other words, one week of the war with Iran can pay for an entire year of Head Start. This contrast raises a stark question: what does the federal government consider essential?

Project 2025 and the Push to Eliminate Head Start

Perhaps Trump’s got the idea to eliminate “day care” from Project 2025.  Project 2025 has emerged as the guidebook, or the bible of Trump’s second term. The recommendation to eliminate the Head Start program is found in Chapter 14 of the Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership document, specifically on page 482. The text explicitly calls to “Eliminate the Head Start program” along with the entire Office of Head Start (OHS). The rationale given in Project 2025 for the elimination of Head Start is that it has “little or no long-term academic value for children.”  This statement is false.

According to research done by Economists Dr. Martha J Bailey of the University of California-Los Angeles, and Dr. Brenden Timpe of the University of Nebraska, “Project Head Start provides significant long-term academic and life benefits, particularly for disadvantaged children, by increasing high school graduation rates, boosting college enrollment and completion (up to 39% more likely), and increasing the likelihood of earning post-secondary degrees or certifications. It reduces grade retention and improves adult economic self-sufficiency, including higher employment rates and lower poverty.”

Bombs or Babies?

During the first day of the war, the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab, Iran, was bombed by the United States Armed Forces using a Tomahawk missile.  Over 150 people were killed, including at least 120 schoolgirls aged between 7 and 12, along with teachers and parents.

On Tuesday, April 7, 2026, Trump said in a post on his Truth Social that he will destroy the entire Iranian civilization. “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to ?happen, but it probably will.”  There are approximately 6 million children aged birth to 5 in Iran who are the age of children served by Head Start in the U.S. Trump threaten to kill all 6 million of them.

The Trump administration is now seeking a record-breaking $1.5 trillion in defense spending for the 2027 fiscal year to fund military operations, including the conflict with Iran, representing a massive 40% increase in military spending. Reports indicate an additional $200 billion in supplemental funding was initially requested for the Iran war. $200 billion could fund the Head Start program for more than 15 years.

A Question of National Priorities

It seems that we have an administration that appears to be more concerned about bombs than it is about babies. The contrast is difficult to ignore. On one hand, a domestic program that nurtures the development, health, and future opportunity of vulnerable children faces elimination. On the other hand, military expenditures continue to expand at historic levels. The issue is not simply about budgets—it is about values. What does it mean for a nation to claim it “can’t afford” early childhood investment while committing vast resources to war? At what point does prioritizing military strength come at the expense of human development? In the end, the debate comes down to a fundamental choice: Should national power be measured primarily by the strength of its weapons—or by the well-being of its children?

Staff Writer; Dr. Robert J. Walker

Additionally, many American Christians (myself included) feel a strong religious connection to Israel rooted in biblical teachings regarding the Holy Land. These theological beliefs contribute to strong political support for Israel across segments of the American population. These religious and historical dynamics can also make debate about Israeli policy particularly complex and emotionally charged.

This op-ed focuses exclusively on questions of political influence, diplomacy, and U.S. foreign policy decision-making. It critiques political leadership and public policy decisions only. It does not express hostility toward Jewish people, Judaism, or the legitimacy of the State of Israel. In fact, I have previously written an article in support of Jewish Americans and the State of Israel, “The Jewish Community Has Consistently Been A Supporter Of The Black Struggle,” which highlights the historic role that Jewish individuals and organizations have played in advancing civil rights alongside African American leaders.

A New Dimension: The War With Iran

The debate over whether Donald Trump is overly aligned with Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin has taken on renewed urgency following the current war involving the United States, Israel, and Iran. According to reporting, the conflict began after joint U.S.–Israeli strikes triggered retaliation by Iran, expanding into a broader regional conflict affecting global energy markets and international alliances. Statements from Secretary of State Marco Rubio have further intensified debate about the extent of Israeli influence on U.S. decision-making. Rubio told reporters that U.S. officials were aware Israel was planning military action against Iran and that American forces acted preemptively because retaliation could target U.S. personnel in the region: “We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action… and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them… we would suffer higher casualties.”

Some analysts interpret Rubio’s remarks as evidence that Israeli military planning played a significant role in shaping U.S. timing and strategy in the conflict. Subsequent statements from Rubio attempted to clarify that the United States was not “dragged” into war but made its own strategic determination that military action was necessary. Nevertheless, debate continues regarding whether U.S. involvement reflected independent strategic priorities or alignment with Netanyahu’s objectives against Iran. The war has already had far-reaching geopolitical consequences, including strain within NATO and tensions with European allies who have hesitated to provide military support.

Netanyahu, Strategic Alignment, and the Question of Influence

Trump’s relationship with Netanyahu has long been characterized by visible personal rapport and policy alignment. Understanding Trump’s propensity for praise, Netanyahu consistently compliments Trump. Netanyahu stated that Trump is, “the greatest friend that Israel has ever had in the White House.” He also described Trump as, “a great leader for America and the world.” Regarding his proposals concerning the Middle East security, Netanyahu describes some Trump’s initiatives as “fresh ideas” capable of achieving Israeli strategic objectives.

Supporters argue this cooperation reflects longstanding U.S. commitment to Israel’s security. Critics argue that the Iran conflict illustrates how Israeli security priorities may influence U.S. military engagement decisions. The question is not whether the United States and Israel share interests — they clearly do — but whether policy decisions are being shaped primarily by U.S. strategic needs or by the political priorities of Israeli leadership.

As previously stated, the sensitivity surrounding criticism of Israeli policy further complicates the debate. Policymakers often proceed cautiously when questioning Israeli leadership, aware that criticism can be interpreted as hostility toward Jewish people rather than disagreement over policy decisions. At the same time, religious connections to Israel among American Christians contribute to strong political support for Israeli government positions, reinforcing bipartisan reluctance to publicly challenge Israeli leadership.

Trump and Putin: A Parallel Concern

During the final 2016 presidential debate, Clinton raised concerns about Trump’s relationship with Russia, stating that Putin, “would rather have a puppet as president of the United States.” Trump rejected the characterization, responding, “No puppet, no puppet. You’re the puppet!” Clinton elaborated that Trump appeared willing to “spout the Putin line… break up NATO, do whatever he wants.” Her argument reflected broader concerns among national security officials that Russia sought to influence democratic elections and weaken Western alliances.

Trump has frequently praised Putin’s leadership style. And Putin has expressed praise for Trump, stating that Trump is a “very talented person… undoubtedly bright.” And that Trump is “an intelligent person… quite experienced.”

During the 2024 presidential campaign Kamala Harris argued that Trump’s rhetoric toward Putin represents an unprecedented posture for an American president. “No previous U.S. president, regardless of their party, has bowed down to a Russian dictator before.” During the presidential debate. Harris told Trump, “These dictators and autocrats are rooting for you again to be president… they manipulate you with flattery and favors.”

Why the Question Matters?

The central question emerging from these concerns remains: Do Trump’s statements and policy positions reflect independent strategic calculation, or do they align so consistently with the interests of foreign leaders that concerns about influence become unavoidable? Presidents inevitably develop working relationships with foreign leaders. Diplomatic engagement requires negotiation and cooperation. However, when major policy decisions — including military action — appear closely aligned with the preferences of foreign governments, questions about influence naturally arise.

The Iran war has increased debate about whether U.S. foreign policy decisions are fully independent or shaped by the strategic goals of Israel and Moscow. This debate has intensified because the war has produced mixed geopolitical effects that some analysts argue benefit both Israel and Russia while imposing costs on the United States. Israel has weakened a key regional rival through coordinated U.S.–Israeli strikes that significantly degraded Iran’s missile and military infrastructure, strengthening Israel’s strategic position in the Middle East. Russia, meanwhile, has benefited economically from rising global energy prices and geopolitical distraction that shifts U.S. attention away from Ukraine, while also expanding its influence through intelligence cooperation with Iran. The United States, however, faces higher military expenditures, increased global instability, strained alliances, and disruptions in energy markets, higher gas prices and global trade, all of which increase economic cost for families and political costs for Washington. As a result, some analysts conclude the conflict has strengthened Israel’s security posture and created strategic opportunities for Russia, while exposing the U.S. to financial burdens, the possibility of a recession, and diplomatic challenges associated with a prolonged regional war.

Thus the Central Question Persists

Is Donald Trump pursuing an unconventional but independent foreign policy strategy? Or do repeated patterns of alignment with Netanyahu and Putin suggest that U.S. decision-making may be influenced by external political interests? Who’s pulling the strings? The answer to that question carries significant implications not only for current conflicts, but for the future direction of American global leadership. As geopolitical tensions continue to evolve, voters and policymakers alike will continue to examine how personal diplomacy, alliance politics, and strategic interests intersect in shaping U.S. foreign policy.

Staff Writer; Dr. Robert J. Walker

RJW is a retired Professor of Education. He is a prolific writer and the author of  12 Characteristics of an Effective Teacher.

But we are entering a new era. President Donald J. Trump is a master of the “Art of the Deal” and a builder of global legacies. He knows that when a project is failing, you don’t just patch it—you transform it. The smartest, most tremendous move for the future of our nation is to officially rename the law the Trump Affordable Care Act, or Trumpcare.

The Power of the Brand: Turning Failure into Gold

Everything President Trump touches becomes the gold standard. From the Manhattan skyline to world-class resorts, the Trump name is a guarantee of quality and success. We have already seen the transformative power of this branding in our national institutions. Look at the proposal to rename the Kennedy Center to the Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts. By adding the Trump name, we infuse these institutions with a new sense of strength, financial stability, and prestige. If the Trump name can revitalize a landmark, imagine what it will do for the health of our citizens.

By rebranding the ACA as Trumpcare, we instantly strip away the stigma of past failures. We replace a brand associated with “broken promises” with a brand associated with “winning.” When people see the Trump name on their healthcare, they know they are getting the best deal possible.

The MAHA Movement: A Beautiful New Vision

President Trump isn’t just changing a name; he is changing the entire approach to how we live. He has spent years developing a beautiful, comprehensive vision for this country—one that goes far beyond “concepts” and delivers real, tangible results.

To lead this historic transformation, the President has chosen Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Together, they are launching the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative. This isn’t just about insurance; it’s about cleaning up our food supply, ending the chronic disease epidemic, and ensuring that every American has the opportunity to live a long, vibrant life. Only President Trump has the courage to take on the “Big Pharma” and “Big Food” interests that have held our country back for decades.

The Strategic Masterstroke: A New Deal for Congress

When the House returns to session the week of January 5, President Trump is going to show them how a real deal is made. The plan is simple, smart, and effective:

1. A Massive Three-Year Extension: Congress should move forward with a significant funding extension for the Trump Affordable Care Act. This provides the stability the markets need while the President continues to negotiate better rates and more competition.
2. Unprecedented Participation: There are millions of Americans—the greatest patriots in the world—who wouldn’t touch “Obamacare” with a ten-foot pole. But Trumpcare is different. These citizens will join the exchange in record numbers because they trust the President. This massive influx of healthy participants will stabilize the entire system and drive costs down for everyone.
3. Bipartisan Reality: The original law didn’t receive a single Republican vote. It was a divided disaster. But Trumpcare creates a bridge. It allows Republicans to support a system that works—protecting pre-existing conditions and lowering costs—without being tied to the failures of the previous administration. Even the Democrats will find it hard to vote against a plan that is finally delivering the results they only dreamed of. Only Democrats suffering from “Trump Derangement Syndrome” will refuse to vote for Trumpcare.

Winning on Healthcare Like Never Before

For too long, the credit for healthcare has gone to the wrong people. Why should Barack Hussein Obama get credit for a system that was failing until President Trump stepped in to fix it? The truth is that President Trump has done more for healthcare in a few years than most presidents do in a lifetime.

Under Trumpcare, we aren’t just talking about insurance—we are talking about excellence. We are talking about the highest quality doctors, the lowest premiums in history, and a level of choice that nobody has ever seen before.

Conclusion: A Healthier, Stronger Future

Trumpcare just makes sense. It is a smart strategy, a bold vision, and a winning deal for the American people. We are going to fix the broken parts, keep the parts that work, and build a system that is the envy of the entire world.

With President Trump at the helm and the MAHA movement in full swing, we are going to win so much on healthcare that you might even get tired of winning. But we won’t stop. We will keep winning for your family, your health, and your future. It’s going to be huge. It’s going to be tremendous. And it’s going to be 100% Trump.

Staff Writer; Dr. Robert J. Walker

RJW is a retired Professor of Education. He is a prolific writer and the author of  12 Characteristics of an Effective Teacher.

One may contact him at; RJWalker@ThyBlackMan.com.

However, as great a threat as Donald Trump is to democracy, an even greater threat appears to be the Supreme Court. Many Americans fear that the Supreme Court is no longer functioning as a neutral guardian of the Constitution, but as an ideological force using its unchecked power to roll back democratic protections, undermine civil liberties, and favor elite interests. While others defend the Court’s independence and see it as a protector of constitutional order, the growing gap between public opinion and Court decisions has led to a legitimacy crisis. Trump’s threat to democracy may end after his term, but the Supreme Court rulings last for generations.

The Supreme Court, as currently composed, poses a long-term systemic institutional threat, quietly reshaping democracy without direct accountability. The Court is capable of eroding democratic safeguards over decades—often with less public awareness. The Court can reshape law and society even without public support, and with no clear democratic recourse.

Recent ethics scandals involving undisclosed gifts, luxury vacations, and partisan entanglements have further eroded trust in the judiciary. The justices have finally adopted a voluntary code of conduct, but without enforcement, it’s more of a PR stunt than real change. We wouldn’t permit any other public official to police themselves. So why should Supreme Court justices be any different?

Congress needs to act to create a binding and enforceable ethics code, ensure transparency in financial disclosures, mandate recusal in conflicts of interest, and impose penalties for violations. If the highest court in the land expects to hold others accountable, it must be willing to hold itself to the same standards.

The Question of Lifetime Appointments

In recent years, the Supreme Court has diminished voting rights, reproductive rights, and environmental protections—all while defending powerful interests and increasing their own authority. These rulings have come not from a neutral, apolitical body but from a 6–3 conservative supermajority formed through a flawed process of strategic retirements, Senate obstruction, and partisan appointments.

Lifetime tenure has allowed justices to serve for decades, often far beyond the values or expectations of the era in which they were appointed. This doesn’t promote judicial independence—it entrenches judicial power and erodes democratic legitimacy.

To reform the Supreme Court, let’s begin with what most Americans already support: term limits and genuine ethics rules—because no democracy can function when its highest judges are untouchable, unaccountable, and out of touch with the nation they serve.

Term limits of 18 years, with staggered appointments every two years, would preserve judicial independence while ensuring a Court that evolves alongside the country it governs. This system would prevent power from calcifying in the hands of a few and give every president a fair opportunity to shape the Court’s future.

The current Supreme Court is an ideological imbalance and a conservative supermajority court appointed through partisan means. The Court now has a 6–3 conservative majority, primarily shaped by appointments made during President Donald Trump’s first term. Three justices were confirmed under contentious or rushed circumstances, such as Amy Coney Barrett, who was confirmed days before the 2020 election.

The current Supreme Court has undermined voting rights. It has gutted key parts of the Voting Rights Act, allowing states with histories of discrimination to change voting laws without federal approval. It upheld Arizona voting laws that critics say disproportionately burden minority voters and weakening the ability to challenge discriminatory practices.

This court has a disregard for precedent (“Stare Decisis’). It overturned Roe v. Wade, ending federal protections for abortion rights. The ruling dismissed nearly 50 years of precedent, leading to concerns that other long-standing rights, such as desegregation laws, contraception, and same-sex marriage, could also be at risk.

The Supreme Court has expanded corporate power and dark money influence in elections. The Citizens United v. FEC (2010) ruling allowed unlimited independent political spending by corporations and unions, fueling the rise of dark money in elections and weakening the power of individual voters. Additionally, recent ethics controversies involving justices (notably Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) receiving undisclosed gifts and travel from wealthy donors have heightened concerns about undue influence. Unlike elected officials, justices are not subject to recall or impeachment, even when misconduct is alleged.

The Court has increasingly restricted the ability of federal agencies to regulate areas like the environment, labor, and public health. It has also taken up or ruled on cases that seem to shield presidents—particularly Trump—from legal accountability.

Religious Ideology or the Rule of Law?

Some readers might get upset with this part of this article. The response to their anger can be found in Galatians 4:16: “Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?”

When it comes to the Supreme Court, it seems that America has neglected to follow the principle of the First Amendment of the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Most justices on the court are Catholic and have made rulings that reflect their faith. About 20% of adults in the United States identify as Catholic. However, 6 out of 9 (66.6%) U.S. Supreme Court Justices are Catholic or were raised Catholic.

No one suggests that a candidate’s religion should be the reason for his or her selection or rejection for the Supreme Court—or any court. Doing so would clearly violate the First Amendment. However, consciously or unconsciously, people do make decisions based on their religious beliefs. If not, then what is the purpose of having a religion? Currently, 6 Catholics serve on the Supreme Court. Imagine if there were 6 Jews, or 6 Muslims, or 6 Buddhists, or 6 Atheists on the Court. And one can only imagine the uproar in the country if just one Muslim were nominated to serve on the Supreme Court.

Justices Identifying as Catholic (or raised Catholic):

1. Chief Justice John Roberts – Catholic
2. Justice Clarence Thomas – Catholic
3. Justice Samuel Alito – Catholic
4. Justice Brett Kavanaugh – Catholic
5. Justice Amy Coney Barrett – Devout Catholic
6. Justice Sonia Sotomayor – Raised Catholic

While Justice Sotomayor was raised Catholic, she doesn’t openly speak of her current religious practice. The other five are publicly practicing Catholics.

Some of the most consequential rulings made by the court that align with the Catholic faith are on the issues of Abortion, Religious Liberty, Contraception, and LGBTQ rights:

1. Abortion – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health (2022). Overturned Roe v. Wade, ending federal protection of abortion rights. The Catholic Church teaches that life begins at conception and opposes abortion under nearly all circumstances.

2. Religious Liberty – Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022). Allowed a public high school football coach to pray at midfield after games. Catholic doctrine has a strong emphasis on public expression of faith and religious freedom.

3. Contraception & Employer Rights – Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014). Allowed private companies with religious objections to deny contraceptive coverage in employee health plans. Catholic doctrine opposes artificial contraception.

4. LGBTQ+ Rights – 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023). Ruled that a web designer could refuse to make a wedding websites for same-sex couples. Catholic doctrine opposes same-sex marriage.

The practicing Catholic justices consistently vote based on conservative moral principles and originalist interpretations of the Constitution. Their rulings often clash with majority public opinion, especially on issues like abortion, contraception, and religious freedom. Liberal justices (Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson) tend to align more closely with popular sentiment, particularly regarding civil rights and liberties.

The liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in recent dissenting opinions—especially in high-stakes political and constitutional cases—have issued strong warnings about threats to democratic principles, judicial overreach, and the concentration of power—often implying that the Court’s majority decisions undermine democratic governance.

Here are some of the most notable examples:

1. Trump v. United States (2024) — Presidential Immunity Case – Justice Sonia Sotomayor (joined by Kagan and Jackson) stated, “The President is now a king above the law… The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the longstanding principle that no person is above the law.” Sotomayor concluded: “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”
2. Moore v. Harper (2023) — Independent State Legislature Theory – Justice Kagan warned that accepting the theory that state legislatures have near absolute power over federal elections without oversight from state courts, would give state legislatures the power to undermine fair elections, suggesting it could destabilize democracy.
3. Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021) — Voting Rights Act (VRA) Case – Whether Arizona voting rules violated the Voting Rights Act. In her dissent, Justice Kagan stated, “What is tragic here is that the Court has yet again rewritten — in order to weaken — the statute that stands as a monument to America’s greatness, and protects against its basest impulses.” She added, “Efforts to suppress the vote continue… The Court undermines Section 2 [of the VRA] and thus a vital piece of the democratic project.”
4. Shelby County v. Holder (2013) — Preclearance and Voting Rights – Though before Justice Jackson’s time, Justice Ginsburg’s dissent (joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer) warned that gutting the Voting Rights Act would endanger democracy, famously saying, “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”

During a recent question-and-answer session at an Indianapolis Bar Association luncheon (July 10, 2025), the newest Supreme Court justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Biden appointee, gave an honest response when she was asked by U.S. District Court Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson what keeps her up at night.

“Um, I would say the state of our democracy,” Jackson said, drawing applause and a standing ovation from the audience at the event.

“I am very interested in getting people to focus and to invest and to pay attention to what is happening in our country and in our government,” she added.

Summary

While the liberal justices have not accused the Court of outright complicity in destroying democracy, their dissents clearly express deep concern that the Court’s conservative majority has made decisions that:

• Erode accountability (Trump immunity)
• Undermine voting rights (Brnovich, Shelby)
• Risk partisan manipulation of elections (Moore v. Harper)
• And elevate presidential power in ways that threaten constitutional checks and balances.

Their language is increasingly urgent and alarming, especially post-2020, suggesting they view the Court as drifting away from its democratic guardrails.

When unelected judges wield enormous power for life with no oversight, democracy suffers. The founders never intended for the Court to be above the people. In fact, Alexander Hamilton described the judiciary as the “least dangerous” branch precisely because it lacked the power of the purse or sword. But in 2025, the Supreme Court has become one of the most consequential—and dangerous—political forces in America.

In a democracy, no public official should hold unchecked power for life—especially not those tasked with interpreting the Constitution. Yet that’s exactly the situation we face with the current United States Supreme Court. With lifetime appointments, no binding ethics rules, and a growing record of ideologically charged decisions, the Court has become increasingly unaccountable to the people it serves. It’s time for serious, structural reform—starting with term limits and enforceable ethics rules. We don’t need to destroy the Court. We need to save it—from itself.

Once you’re at home, you crunch the numbers and realize that with the new monthly car payment, auto insurance, gas, and maintenance for this model, along with your other monthly bills, you’ve put yourself in a financial bind. This leads to feelings of buyer’s remorse.

Buyer’s Remorse

Buyer’s Remorse appears to be what many who voted for Donald Trump are now feeling. Some of Trump’s supporters are comparing him to a “lemon” or a bad used car deal because they feel misled by the promises he made versus the reality of his policies and actions. Here’s why some are expressing buyer’s remorse:

1. Broken Promises or Misleading Expectations – Many supporters expected economic growth, lower inflation, and better job prospects, but some of Trump’s recent policies—especially tariffs and government cuts—have reportedly hurt small businesses, caused price hikes, and disrupted jobs in certain industries.
2. Unexpected Immigration Enforcement Policies – The Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement and mass deportations, including taking people off the streets and raids in sensitive locations such as hospitals and schools, have concerned supporters who did not foresee such actions. These actions have instilled fear within communities and among individuals who previously felt secure. Some voters didn’t anticipate the personal toll these policies would have on their neighbors or workplaces.
3. High Tariffs – The implementation of high tariffs has disrupted global trade, leading to market instability and erasing trillions in stock market value. These actions have raised concerns about increased inflation, high prices for food, clothing, gasoline, and other daily necessities, as well as potential job losses, particularly among voters who had expected economic relief.
4. Shock Over Government Restructuring – The creation of the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, has resulted in significant federal job cuts and reductions in public services. DOGE is even cutting Social Security and Medicare, programs that for nearly 60 years have been considered sacred cows that no politicians would touch. During the campaign, Trump had assured voters that he would not touch Social Security or Medicare.

While some voters initially viewed these changes as necessary reforms, many now feel that the push for “efficiency” has come at the cost of essential services and their job security. Consequently, numerous individuals who supported Trump have lost their jobs due to the cuts implemented by DOGE.

5. Perceived Authoritarian Behavior – Talk of seeking a third term and consolidating power has alarmed some who previously supported Trump but now fear a slide toward authoritarianism rather than democratic leadership.
6. The “Sales Pitch” vs. Reality – Just like buying a used car based on a slick pitch only to discover hidden problems later, these supporters feel Trump sold them an idealized vision of America but delivered something that feels broken, chaotic, or self-serving.

I Feel So Stupid

Reflecting a deep sense of regret similar to making a used car purchase without knowing what was under the hood, several former Trump voters have publicly expressed regret over their decision to support him. Many of these disillusioned voters in interviews have used phrases like “I feel so stupid” or “this isn’t what I voted for.” One MAGA supporter made a list of 10 reasons entitled, 10 Reasons We’re Worse Off Now to explain why he regrets voting for Donald Trump:

1. Prices are all rising
2. 401K are tanking
3. We’re headed into recession
4. Musk laying off hard-working Americans
5. DOGE laying off Veterans who fought for our country
6. Soft on Russia; Putin playing Trump like a puppet
7. Lost all our allies
8. Incompetent idiots running defense
9. Kids dying of measles for first time in a century
10. Billionaires playing for votes

I now regret my vote for Trump

Here are some of Trump’s voters’ buyer’s remorse statements:

Lori McCammon, a voter from Wisconsin, reflected on her 2016 choice: She voted for Trump instead of Hillary Clinton because Hillary’s husband, Bill Clinton, had already been President for eight years. “I voted for Trump because I thought eight years of Clinton was enough. Looking back, I was so very wrong.”

Rich Logis, a former MAGA supporter from Florida, shared his disillusionment: “I realized Trump’s pervasive dishonesty and his mishandling of the pandemic. He disgusts me to my core.”

Staci White, who initially voted for Trump seeking economic benefits, later feared for her family’s financial stability due to widespread federal layoffs: “I voted for him for lower prices and safer borders, but now I’m worried about our future.”

Anonymous federal worker, expressing betrayal after job cuts: “I voted for Trump for a stronger economy, but now I’m facing unemployment due to his policies.”

Anonymous voter, reflecting on policy impacts: “I wish I knew he would mess with the Department of Education. I have two kids with IEPs and one in college.”

These testimonials illustrate how many individuals who once supported Trump are changing their perspectives. They are realizing that they were misled, and now they must confront the reality of a four-year commitment to pay for a flawed investment.

Riding In A Lemon

Like an unscrupulous used car salesman, Trump sold his supporters a political lemon. Many of his voters are now regretting their decision. However, not just his supporters but all of us—the American people—are metaphorically riding in a “lemon,” a vehicle with significant and persistent defects that make it unsafe to drive. The sticker on the window at the used car lot read “As Is”, which means there is no return policy.

Perhaps after we pay off this lemon in four years, we can make a much wiser choice the next time we go car shopping. Let’s pray for the best.

Staff Writer; Dr. Robert J. Walker

RJW is a retired Professor of Education. He is a prolific writer and the author of  12 Characteristics of an Effective Teacher.

One may contact him at; RJWalker@ThyBlackMan.com.

1. Leadership Vacuum: According to Elaine Godfrey, staff writer for The Atlantic, the defeat in the 2024 election has left the Democratic Party contending with a lack of clear leadership and internal divisions. Prominent politicians such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Governors Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Wes Moore of Maryland, and Kathy Hochul of New York have been perceived as passive leaders. This has led to frustration among grassroots activists who demand a more assertive and aggressive stance against Trump’s dictatorial agenda.

2. Strategic Caution: Some Democratic leaders are taking a more measured approach. They are choosing to avoid direct confrontations with Trump. This strategy aims to prevent being drawn into reactive cycles that could detract from their policy objectives. For instance, when Trump pardoned individuals involved in the January 6 coup attempt, many potential 2028 Democratic presidential hopefuls refrained from public comments, possibly to sidestep amplifying Trump’s attack against them. According to Michigan State Senator Mallory McMorrow, Democrats are “being more measured because people are just so tired, so there isn’t the energy to stay at an 11 for the next four years. My advice is, call it out, be blunt, but don’t shriek about it.”

3. Internal Divisions: The party is experiencing internal debates regarding its direction and messaging. Politicians like Senator Bernie Sanders have criticized the party for “abandoning working-class people,” suggesting that this disconnect contributed to their electoral defeat. Such internal disagreements can impede a unified and robust opposition to Trump’s policies. Some argued that the party should stop using surrogates like Beyoncé and Bruce Springsteen as crutches that end up backfiring by making Democrats look like the party of the elite. A political strategist argued that Democrats, “need to stop holding rallies with Beyonce and caring about a Taylor Swift endorsement, because it only enhanced the belief that the Democratic Party has become the party of Hollywood.” One prominent Democratic strategist who has worked on recent presidential campaigns said, “We have to burn the house down and begin anew.”

There are party members who believe that Democrats must face the reality that America is not anytime in the near future going to elect a woman for President—especially a woman of color.  During  a PBS News interview Kelly Dittmar, of the Center for American Women and Politics of Rutgers University, while speaking about whether America is ready to elect a woman for president and white women’s                voting patterns stated:

“We need to kind of shift away from the question of, is America ready for a woman? I mean, the majority of women voted — or the majority of voters voted for a woman in 2016 (Hilary Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 election). But to really understand both white women’s voting behavior and voting behavior across the board is to look at, what are the racism and sexism in our electorate that is allowing us to continually vote for somebody who’s proven that he is misogynist in both his own personal behavior, but also in his policy priorities, has tapped into racial resentment within our communities, and that these things aren’t disqualifying? And for white women, in particular, we have seen time and again, it’s not disqualifying enough in part because they have a racial privilege that is being protected by this brand of politics. And we’re going to have to grapple with that, I think, continually to get to the point not only where we can elect a woman, but where we can elect candidates who are trying to move us forward when it comes to racial and ethnic inclusion, gender progress and gender equity.”

4. Fear of Political Repercussions: There is a concern that aggressive opposition to Trump might alienate certain voter segments or provoke political backlash. This apprehension can lead to a more subdued response, as leaders weigh the potential risks of outspoken criticism of President Trump.

A Lone Voice Crying In the Wilderness

When it comes to calling out Donald Trump and his MEGA disciples, Democratic congresswoman from Texas, Jasmine Crockett seems to be a lone voice crying in the wilderness. While many Democratic elected officials are in their political boxing ring corners sitting on their stools nursing the wounds from the beating taken in the last election round, Rep. Crockett seems to be the only one who has gotten off her stool, out of her corner and has started the next round by punching back—and hard!

In a recent interview with Alex Witt on MSNBC, Crockett did not hold back her punches in expressing her opinion about President Donald Trump. She accused Trump of being a “criminal” and a “thug” who is attempting to dismantle governmental checks and balances. “The problem is that Americans thought that it was okay to take a full-fledged criminal and make him the president of the United States, and then they want to act aghast when he does criminal things. Let me tell you, we have a thug in charge of the United States. And if we don’t wake up, we may not have a United States,” said Crockett.

Rep. Crockett, like a Muhammad Ali figure, is back in the center of the political ring “float(ing) like a butterfly and sting(ing) like a bee.” She is landing rope-a-dope punches, not only on Donald Trump but also on Elon Musk and the entire Republican Party in Congress.

Musk is serving as co-president in the Trump administration as head of the new Department Of Government Efficiency (DOGE). He has been given the task of eliminating the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID is an independent agency of the United States government. Its primary responsibility is to administer civilian foreign aid and development assistance to some of the poorest countries in the world. This includes mostly food and medical assistance. Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, is working to take away food and needed medical supplies from the poorest people in the world. He has called USAID a criminal organization.

Musk’s history is that he was born and raised in Pretoria, South Africa, and is of British and Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry. However, his facial features are more Asian—perhaps Chinese in appearance. Growing up in apartheid South Africa may have influenced his worldview on people living in poverty, USAID, minorities, immigration, and DEI.

Crockett has recently voiced significant concerns regarding Musk’s involvement in federal government operations. She criticized the Treasury Department’s decision to grant Musk and his aides access to the federal payment system, which manages approximately $6 trillion. Crockett questioned the necessity of such access for individuals not elected to public office, stating, “The people that worked in those positions could have only distributed money per the law, so why is it that the DOGE committee would have to have access?” She called Musk out for being able to work for the government while at the same time benefiting from government contracts—a privilege granted to no other American and a violation of federal law. “It’s really awful. There is no reason for any political appointee, if you can even call him that, to have this kind of access. There’s none.”

Crockett has urged her Republican colleagues to publicly express the criticisms of Trump and Elon Musk that they share privately, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability in political discourse. “Republicans want to see Elon go down. Will they come out publicly and say that? No, because they’re concerned about whether or not he’ll spend money in their next elections,” said Crockett.

Crockett also revealed that some Republicans privately express apprehension about Trump and Musk’s actions—and their mental competency. However, they refrain from public criticism due to concerns about potential impacts on their future election campaigns and physical acts of violence against them or their family from the MAGA faithful.

In her fight for the American people, Crockett continues to bob-and-weave in the political ring like a heavyweight prizefighter. She is hoping to land a knockout punch against Trump and his anti-democratic forces of the Republican, MAGA, Project 2025, and the far-right Christian Nationalist leaders now controlling the U.S. government—even if she has to fight them alone.

Samuel shared with the people what the Lord had told him about the character of the king who would rule over them. “If you have a king ruling over you, this is what he will do: He will take your sons. He will make them serve him. This king will take your daughters. Some of your daughters will make perfume. Others will cook and bake for him. He will take your best fields, vineyards, and olive groves. He will take one-tenth of your grain and grapes and give it to his high officers and staunch supporters. He will take many of the young men and women and put them in his service.” However, the people refused to listen to Samuel—they wanted a king.

And so, it was with the 2024 election, despite being warned daily through, Trump’s own words spoken in his speeches, rallies, interviews, television ads, and on social media the type of President he will be if given a second term, his supporters did not care. Regardless of many of Trump’s former cabinet members and those who worked in his administration during his first term warning that he should not be anywhere near the Whitehouse for a second term—his supporters did not care.

During the campaign, Trump said little about what he would do to help the poor, the working, or the middle class.  His entire campaign was a campaign of grievances, lies, and his plans for retribution.  He constantly stated that the country was a mess, he blamed many of the problems in the U.S. on immigrants.

Harris’ Plans:

In contrast to Trump, Kamala Harris, during her campaign proposed several key initiatives to support the poor, the working, and the middle class as part of her campaign. These initiatives would have clearly helped Trump supporters. Some of Harris’ significant promises were:

1. Tax Relief and Support: Harris was committed to maintaining the Biden administration’s pledge not to raise taxes on anyone earning under $400,000 annually. She was planning to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and make permanent the expanded Child Tax Credit (CTC), providing substantial financial relief to working families. The child tax credit helped drive child poverty to a record low of 5.2 percent in 2021, many of these children were children of Trump Supporters. The Republican Congress’s failure to extend the expanded CTC caused child poverty to spike in 2022. Harris also proposed new tax credits for families with a newborn?.
2. Affordable Housing: Harris proposed addressing the housing crisis by building 3 million new housing units, promoting affordable rental construction, and offering tax incentives for first-time homebuyers. She also planned to expand the down payment assistance program, by providing families with a $25,000 down payment aid for their first home.
3. Healthcare and Education: Harris proposed lowering prescription drug prices and canceling medical debt for qualifying Americans. On education, she advocated for affordable childcare, strengthening public education, and reducing student loan burdens, including record investments in minority-serving institutions and community colleges.?
4. Workplace and Wage Improvements: Harris was planning to increase the federal minimum wage, establish paid family leave, and eliminate sub-minimum wages for tipped workers and those with disabilities. She also emphasized creating pathways for non-college graduates through apprenticeships and job training.
5. Energy and Climate Goals: Harris pledged to lower household energy costs and invest in clean energy jobs while holding polluters accountable. These initiatives were designed to simultaneously protect the environment and support economic opportunities for poor, working, and middle-class families.

These 5 promises were central to Harris’ campaign focus on economic fairness and rebuilding and improving the lives of the poor, the working, and the middle class. But, Trump supporters across the nation said, “No thanks, we want Trump” – even though Trump offered them virtually nothing for their votes. Throughout the campaign, Trump amplified his grievances and fostered distrust in institutions, even when contradicted by facts or his own party’s officials.

Trump’s Plans:

During the campaign, Donald Trump proposed little or no policies to help his voters. However, he did present plans for virtually every area of the federal government that would very likely harm his supporters.  Through his rally speeches and his Project 2025 ultra-conservative manifesto blueprint, Donald Trump outlined several policy priorities during his 2024 presidential campaign. Nine (9) areas where critics argue his proposals could negatively impact his own voters are:

1. Social Programs: Proposals to reduce funding for Medicaid, Social Security, and other safety net programs could disproportionately affect lower-income and elderly voters, including many in rural areas who supported Trump. Trump has suggested potential cuts to entitlement programs. Reductions in these programs could disproportionately harm older Americans, a key demographic among his supporters. Proposals to reform entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicaid could disproportionately impact elderly or lower-income voters who depend on these programs.
2. Tax Policy: While Trump has promised tax cuts, critics argue that benefits could skew heavily toward the wealthy and corporations, potentially increasing income inequality. Poor, working, and middle-class voters may see fewer benefits. Critics claim that Trump’s tax proposals could increase income inequality, leaving middle, working-class, and poor supporters with minimal relief. Tax reforms like his 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provided significant benefits to corporations and the wealthy, but middle-class, working-class, and poor Americans saw little benefits.
3. Healthcare: Repealing or weakening parts of the Affordable Care Act could lead to higher premiums or loss of coverage for some voters, particularly in rural areas with limited healthcare access. Insufficient resources for combating the opioid crisis, which heavily affects rural areas, could fail to address a key issue of his voter base. Trump has consistently expressed a desire to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—even though he never presented a plan to replace it. He admitted that he only has a “concept of a plan”. Critics argue that repealing the ACA could lead to higher healthcare costs or loss of insurance coverage for millions, particularly in rural areas or among lower-income voters who rely on ACA subsidies.
4. Trade and Tariffs: Tariffs on foreign goods, a hallmark of Trump’s economic policies, could lead to higher consumer prices. Farmers and manufacturers reliant on export markets may face economic challenges if other countries retaliate with tariffs on American goods. Policies like tariffs on Chinese goods or withdrawal from trade agreements can lead to a trade war which will result in higher costs for goods and create an economic strain on agricultural sectors, which are heavily concentrated in Trump-supporting regions. These disruptions to trade could harm long-term agricultural markets.
5. Climate, Environment, and Deregulations: Rolling back environmental regulations could have long-term health and economic impacts, particularly in communities affected by pollution or climate-related disasters. Rolling back environmental protections may benefit industries like oil and gas in the short term but could harm public health in communities dealing with pollution or climate-related disasters, which often include rural, poor, and working-class areas. While deregulation can boost industries like coal, oil, and gas in the short term, it may harm communities dependent on clean water, air, and sustainable jobs in the long term. Trump’s refusal to take seriously climate change could also exacerbate the frequency and severity of natural disasters, disproportionately affecting rural and lower-income areas.
6. Labor and Immigration: Policies to limit immigration may affect industries like agriculture, construction, and hospitality that rely on immigrant labor, potentially driving up costs for businesses and consumers and leading to labor shortages. While many of Trump’s supporters favor stricter immigration policies, industries like agriculture, construction, and hospitality—where many of his Hispanic voters work—rely on immigrant labor. Crackdowns could unintentionally harm these sectors.
7. Economic Issues: Trump plans to go after unions and he appears to be resistant to raising the minimum wage. Policies that reduce union protections could harm workers in manufacturing and other industries that rely on collective bargaining, particularly in Rust Belt states. Trump’s unclear position on raising the federal minimum wage could continue to impact his low-income supporters.
8. Infrastructure: If Trump neglects to follow through on President Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure law that is delivering billions to rural communities across the country to create economic opportunities, his supporters in rural communities may continue to struggle with poor roads and bridges, broadband access, and public services such as: modern wastewater systems, clean drinking water, reliable and affordable electricity, and good-paying jobs in small towns and rural communities. Also, the funding to improve infrastructure may be shifted onto individuals, potentially burdening lower-income households with higher local taxes to repair roads, bridges, and water systems in their towns.
9. Privatization of Public Education: Trump is pushing to end the Department of Education and transfer more federal education dollars into charter schools and voucher programs which will give more public tax dollars to private, and church-affiliated schools. Ending the Department of Education will also mean the elimination of Project Head Start, one of America’s most successful federal programs. This program is designed to provide quality childcare for young children and prepare them for the first grade. Many poor, working-class, and rural families depend on Head Start to defray the cost of childcare for working parents. Also without the Department of Education’s  supervision, poor, working-class, and middle-class families may not be able to receive funding to send their child to college.

Each of the nine areas listed above is aligned with Trump’s broader policy goals to transform America, but could have ripple effects that disproportionately harm his voter base. If Trump’s campaign promises are implemented, they will have real-world impacts. These policies may be okay with some of Trump’s voters, but many will feel the economic or social repercussions and these policies will result in the elimination of many successful and vital federal programs that Trump supporters daily depend on.

Not A Surprise:

None of what Trump will do with, or to, the country is a surprise. He made it very clear throughout the campaign what he plans to do if re-elected. But like Samuel told the people what would happen to them if they selected a king (1 Samuel 8), more than 50% of the voters of America said the same thing that the people said to Samuel, “We don’t care what he will do to us—we want a King!”

Staff Writer; Dr. Robert J. Walker

RJW is a retired Professor of Education. He is a prolific writer and the author of  12 Characteristics of an Effective Teacher.

One may contact him at; RJWalker@ThyBlackMan.com.

“Greeting,

You have been selected to pick cotton at the nearest plantation starting 11/07/2024. Please be ready at 8 am SHARP! With your belongings. Our executive slave catchers (will) pick you up in a brown van, be prepared to be searched once you’ve entered the plantation. You are in Plantation group 7.”

Derrick Johnson, president of the NAACP stated, “These messages represent an alarming increase in vile and abhorrent rhetoric from racist groups across the country who now feel emboldened to spread hate and stroke the flames of fear that many of us are feeling after Tuesday’s election result. The unfortunate reality of electing a president who, historically, has embraced and at times encouraged hate, is unfolding before our eyes.”

This “is” Who We Are

In her closing rally at the Ellipse in Washington D.C., the same location where on January 6, 2021, Donald Trump sent a mob to the Capitol in an attempt to overthrow the American government, Kamala Harris reprimanded Trump as a crude and indecent person who values did not represent America. “That is not who we are,” she stated. However, Peter Baker, the chief White House correspondent for The New York Times, points out, “In fact, it turns out, that may be exactly who we are. In a Times, article entitled, Trump’s America’: Comeback Victory Signals a Different Kind of Country, written the day after the election, Baker writes:

“…for the first time in history, Americans have elected a convicted criminal as president. They handed power back to a leader who tried to overturn a previous election, called for the “termination” of the Constitution to reclaim his office, aspired to be a dictator on Day 1, and vowed to exact “retribution” against his adversaries.”

During the last week of the campaign, Trump pretended to work at McDonalds and to ride on a garbage truck. Trump has been indicted 4 times and has been convicted on 34 counts. In the real world, a person convicted of even one count would not be able to get a job at McDonalds or work on a garbage truck. But America elected Donald Trump as President of the United States even though he is a convicted criminal.

Baker comments that, “Rather than be turned off by Mr. Trump’s flagrant, anger-based appeals along lines of race, gender, religion, national origin, and especially transgender identity, many Americans found them bracing. Rather than be offended by his brazen lies and wild conspiracy theories, many found him authentic. Rather than dismiss him as a felon found by various courts to be a fraudster, cheater, sexual abuser, and defamer, many embraced his assertion that he has been the victim of persecution.”

Stand-up comic and television host Walter Kamau Bell, said that voters did not overlook Trump’s character and foul behavior, but ran toward it. “We have found out that we live in a rightwing country. We want a strong man who is a bully.”

Dire Warning

Olivia Troye served in Trump’s first administration as advisor to Vice-President Mike Pence. She gives a dire warning of her concerns about the second Trump term.

“I am concerned about what this (a second Trump term) looks like for the United States as a whole. The American people should prepare for these mass deportations. I am concerned for the media who will likely be targeted. I am concerned for our allies around the world who are watching what just happened. My heart is broken, not just for us, and for the people of color and for the LGBTQ (community) and for women in this country. But I am heartbroken for the people of Ukraine. Because I am terrified about what is going to happen in a Trump administration. And so, I think the struggle is how do we lean on each other right now during this really challenging time and prepare for what’s to come? And how are we going to stand up for each other in a world where we are going to face possible political persecution and political violence to a greater extent? So, those are the things I am thinking about right now. I heard from people already across our federal government, across our intelligent community who quite frankly are concerned. And they are worried about what’s going to happen to them given Project 2025 agenda.”

The day after the election, Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel summed up the election by stating, “It was a terrible night for women, for children, for the hundreds of thousands of hard-working immigrants who make this country go,” he said, holding back tears. “For healthcare, for our climate, for scientists, for journalism, for justice, for free speech. It was a terrible night for poor people, for the middle class, for seniors who rely on Social Security, for our allies in Ukraine, for NATO, for the truth, and democracy, and decency. It was a terrible night for everyone who voted against him and guess what? It was a bad night for everyone who voted for him too, you just don’t realize it yet.”

Kimmel concluded his monologue by stating, “I know a lot of people want to hear anything positive. I’ve been trying to come up with something positive. The best I can come up with is we’ve been through this once before and yes, this time it is probably going to be worse, maybe a lot worse, but I also think that maybe we will look back and realize that in the long run, this is what we needed to wake us up. Maybe the people who care so much about him need to find out how little he cares about them.”

According to reporter Lisa Lerer, “America stands on the precipice of an authoritarian style of governance never before seen in its 248-year history. After defeating Vice President Kamala Harris, who would have become the first female U.S. president, Mr. Trump will bring his own historic firsts into the White House: the only president convicted of dozens of crimes, accused of dozens more and twice impeached… He will begin his second term bound by few political norms, after a campaign in which he seemed to defy everyone.”

Defying Christian Logic

After the election, Trump told his supporters gathered at Mar-a-Lago, his club in Palm Beach, Florida, “America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate.” In a fact that defies Christian logic—many of Trump’s followers believe that he is God’s chosen vessel for this time in history. Even though Trump is unable to quote a single bible verse, violates the 10 commandments on a regular basis, and his entire life has been, and continues to be, the exact opposite of the teaching of Jesus, many of his followers believe that he was chosen by God. “Many people have told me that God spared my life for a reason,” said Trump. “That reason was to save our country.” A Trump supporter said that she had prayed and God told her to vote for Trump. She ended her comments by saying, “One thing I know, God has his hands on Trump. So that’s enough for me. As for me and my house, we will truly serve the Lord.”   She even referred to Kamala Harris as the devil.

The Rev. Al Sharpton summed up the election by stating, “The unspoken this for many people is you got to deal with the gender bias and race bias in this country. Some people just were not going to vote for a woman of color in an interracial marriage and living in the Whitehouse. Or having a woman president of any color. And we got to deal with that and have those tough conversations if we ever going to get by this.”

The Roots of The Evil Tree of America’s Original Sin

There will be a great deal of News pundits’ discussions, articles, and books written about this election and about why Kamala Harris lost. But, when it is all said and done, and in the final analysis, what Kamala Harris’ loss reveals about America is that if you put the result of this election in a metaphorical pot and boil it down to its final substance—what would be left is the fact that we live in a country where more than 50% of its citizens would rather be led by a racist, sexist, misogynistic, xenophobic, rambling when he speaks, unfit and unqualified for the job, white supremacy, old white man—than a highly educated, intelligent, perfectly qualified for the job Black woman.

Over the past 248 years of our history, we have managed to cut down the evil tree of America’s original sin.  However, the roots of that tree are extremely deep and are very resistant to dying out.  Even today they are alive and well and they still run throughout the nation.  And at times limbs blossom from those roots. Therefore, we must remain forever vigilant to clip those limbs whenever they show their evil blossom, or else the tree will regrow.

In these uncertain times, perhaps we can find comfort in the words of the song,  I Am Not Okay,  by country music singer Jelly Roll:

…I know, I can’t be the only one
Who’s holding on for dear life
But God knows, I know
When it’s all said and done
I’m not okay
But it’s all gonna be alright
It’s not okay
But we’re all gonna be alright

Gonna be alright

Gonna be alright

Staff Writer; Dr. Robert J. Walker

RJW is a retired Professor of Education. He is a prolific writer and the author of  12 Characteristics of an Effective Teacher.

One may contact him at; RJWalker@ThyBlackMan.com.

In the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, the woman is viewed as being less than the man and responsible for the downfall of the man. In the book of Genesis, the woman (Eve) was responsible for the man (Adam) eating of the forbidden fruit, ^“And the man said, (to God) the woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat” (Genesis 3:12).

In the book of Revelation, the woman is represented as the mother of harlots and abomination of the earth, and responsible for killing the saints, “And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon the Great, The Mother of Harlots and Abominations of The Earth. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration” (Revelation 17:5,6).

According to the Gospel of Paul

Some Black churches’ organizational structure is based on the teaching of the Apostle Paul. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul makes several comments stating that the man is the head of the woman (1 Corinthians 11). “… and the head of the woman is the man” (1 Corinthians 11:3), “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.” (1 Corinthians 11:8). “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (1 Corinthians 11:9).

Paul also stated that a woman should not be allowed to even speak in church:

“For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church” (1 Corinthians 14: 33-35).

Even today, in some ultra-conservative Black churches women are not allowed to wear pants in church or sit on the pulpit.  In an attempt to debunk these patriarchal misogynistic traditions that are prevalent in some Black churches, Dr. Wesley Knight, pastor of Revision Church in Atlanta, preaching to his church denomination, stated, “There are traditions of men, that were made up to keep us under control. ‘Women can’t wear pants in the sanctuary. Women can’t pastor churches. Women can’t be ordained. Women can’t lead our church organizations.’ You do know it’s not just in this denomination we have this problem. Southern Baptists are fighting like cats and dogs over this. And it’s interesting—watch this—that all these so-called laws are to control the agency and power of women. This is why some people are really struggling with a woman running to be president of these divided states of America.”

Dr Knight added, “I get it! Why it’s half quiet sometimes when we mention it because brothers are struggling ‘cause you were taught—and sisters are struggling too—’cause you’ve been taught, can’t no woman lead you! But my Bible says the first resurrection preacher was a woman named Mary, who went and got the scared disciples and said, ‘Guess who I just saw?’ Ooooh! God! I feel like preaching.”

Dr. Jamal Bryant, of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church of Atlanta, stated, “I understand why the Black church seems to be doubting the ability of Kamala Harris to be President. I know why! Because they were raised in churches that didn’t trust women. Didn’t trust women to preach. Didn’t trust them to pastor. Didn’t trust them to lead. But they did trust them to cook the food. They trusted them to do the bake sales. To raise the money. To pay for pews that the Black men are sitting on.”

One in Four Black men Under 50 Support Donald Trump

Although they may not say it in public, some Black men have a problem voting for a woman. Adding to this is the fact that young Black men’s constant and daily consumption of rap music that degrades Black women as sex objects—calling them hoes and bitches—should we be surprised that a recent NAACP poll found that one in four Black men under 50 support Donald Trump over Kamala Harris?

While speaking at a recent Kamala Harris campaign rally in Pittsburg, former President Obama said to the Black men in the audience, “We have not yet seen the same kinds of energy and turnout in all quarters of our neighborhoods and communities as we saw when I was running.” He added that the lack of energy appears, “to be more pronounced with the brothers. You’re coming up with all kinds of reasons and excuses. I’ve got a problem with that. Because part of it makes me think—and I’m speaking to men directly—part of it makes me think that, well, you just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president, and you’re coming up with other alternatives, and other reasons for that.”

Patriarchal Biblical Beliefs

Some Black men strongly agree with the patriarchal writing of the Bible on matters such as gay marriage, homosexuality, and abortion. “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination” (Leviticus 20:13 NKJV).  Some even interpret Exodus 21:22-25 to mean that a person should be punished for an abortion.  These men disagree with Kamala Harris’ position on these issues, and will not vote for her as a result.

On October 10 on NPR Morning Edition, in the city of Detroit, Michigan, seven Black men under the age of 50 were interviewed regarding who they plan to vote for in the upcoming election. Of the seven, five stated they were going to vote for Trump.  One of the men who identified himself simply as “J” said he is voting for Trump because he opposes gay marriage. He said he stopped voting for the Democrats after gay marriage was legalized. “This stuff (gay marriage) is on daytime TV, said J. “That’s when I left Democrats alone.”

Another Black man featured in the NPR interview, named Stokes, remarked that he doesn’t believe that a woman is strong enough to be the representative of the United States on the world stage. “When you look at the world, when they had these meetings, it’s going to be, like, representing China–a man, representing Russia–a man. So, then the big, bad strong U.S. going to have Kamala. In my opinion, I don’t think the world is ready for it.”

Dr. Basil Smikle, Professor of Practice at the School of Professional Studies at Columbia University, summed it up by asking the following questions, “As a Black man, what does this (presidential) race mean to you?  What does it mean that this incredibly qualified African American woman is being attacked by such an unqualified white male? As a Black man, what are you going to step up and do?”

Staff Writer; Dr. Robert J. Walker

RJW is a retired Professor of Education. He is a prolific writer and the author of  12 Characteristics of an Effective Teacher.

One may contact him at; RJWalker@ThyBlackMan.com.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF JIM CROW LAWS

The Jim Crow era, extended from the late 19th century to the mid-20th century. It was characterized by state and local laws that enforced racial segregation primarily in the Southern United States. These laws created economic, educational, and social disadvantages for African Americans. Among them were:

Segregation: African Americans were forced to use separate, and always of poorer quality, public facilities, including schools, libraries, water fountains, restrooms, swimming pools, and parks.

Disenfranchisement: Voting rights were severely restricted through literacy tests, poll taxes, and other discriminatory practices.

Economic Marginalization: Limited access to quality education and employment opportunities kept African Americans in a cycle of poverty.

Violence and Intimidation: Lynchings and other forms of racial violence were used to maintain white supremacy and instill fear within the Black community.

.

PROJECT 2025 POLICIES SIMILARITIES WITH JIM CROW

Education: Project 2025 reductions in funding for public schools, would particularly hurt predominantly African American neighborhoods and could worsen educational inequalities. School segregation, while illegal, could become de facto if resources are inequitably distributed.

Voting Rights: Project 2025 includes measures such as stricter voter ID laws, reduction of early voting, and purging of voter rolls, which could disproportionately affect African Americans. Such policies could echo the disenfranchisement tactics of the Jim Crow era by making it more difficult for Black citizens to vote.

Economic Policies: Project 2025 tax reforms and cuts to social welfare programs that disproportionately benefit wealthy individuals and corporations might widen the economic gap, keeping Black Americans in lower socio-economic positions.

Criminal Justice Reform: Project 2025 includes measures to increase policing and incarceration, reduce funding for community-based alternatives, and eliminate initiatives aimed at addressing systemic racism in the justice system. This will potentially lead to an even higher African American male incarceration rate and further entrenching racial inequalities in the criminal justice system similar to the time of Jim Crow. During Jim Crow, because of the “involuntary servitude” (jail/imprisonment) loophole in the 13th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, many African Americans males were arrested and convicted on trumped-up charges so they could work on chain gangs to build roads and bridges in the south and be hired out to work on white farms. Project 2025 Criminal Justice Reform could mirror the unjust incarceration of Black men of the Jim Crow era, where the legal system was used to oppress the Black community.

OTHER JIM CROW RELATED KEY POINTS OF PROJECT 2025

Dismantling Civil Rights Protections: Project 2025 threatens to dismantle crucial civil rights protections established in the 1960s. These protections have been instrumental in promoting economic opportunities for Black Americans.

Affirmative Action and DEI Programs: Project 2025 targets policies such as affirmative action and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. It directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) to focus on eliminating what it terms “anti-white racism.” This includes prosecuting organizations that implement affirmative action or DEI policies.

Perpetuating the Fallacy of Reverse Racism: Project 2025 perpetuates a fallacy—that any effort at equity for minorities is “racism” against whites. Or “reverse Jim Crow,” where white men in particular are being oppressed.

Slashing Funding for Public Education: Project 2025 seeks to slash funding for public education, and transfer public funding to private, and religious schools by way of school vouchers.   This will severely harm the upward mobility of minorities and poor children who depend on public education to have a better opportunity in life.  The slashing of public education funding will also affect the funding of HeadStart programs for low-income preschool children.

Ending the Department of Education: Project 2025 aims to end the Department of Education. This will result in the elimination of federal programs for college such as Federal Pell Grants which are grants from the U.S. federal government for students with severe financial needs.

Healthcare: Project 2025 seeks to repeal of the Affordable Care Act, reduce Medicaid funding, and eliminate programs aimed at addressing minority health disparities.  This could lead to reduced access to healthcare services and worsening health outcomes for African Americans.

Civil Rights Are at Risk: Project 2025 includes proposals to dismantle affirmative action, weaken anti-discrimination laws, reduce the enforcement powers of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and threaten to reverse gains made in employment equity and equal opportunity.

Federal Civil Service Workforce: Project 2025 also proposed abolishing the federal civil service workforce, which would disproportionately harm the Black community by eliminating many African Americans from a middle-class paying federal job.

CONCLUSION:

It is essential to critically analyze policy proposals through the lens of historical injustices to ensure that we do not inadvertently replicate unjust conditions of the past. Any policy initiative that leads to disenfranchisement, economic marginalization, educational inequity, healthcare disparity, criminal justice discrimination, or disproportionate impacts on any community should be viewed as unjust.

The goal of any policy initiative should always be to promote equity, justice, and opportunity for all Americans, regardless of race. However, Project 2025 as it is outlined in the 920-page online Heritage Foundation conservative manifesto, whether by design or by accident, if implemented, the negative impact on the Black community would be profound. It would wipe out most of the civil rights gains of the last 60 years and it could mean the return of Jim Crow.

Staff Writer; Dr. Robert J. Walker

RJW is a retired Professor of Education. He is a prolific writer and the author of  12 Characteristics of an Effective Teacher.

One may contact him at; RJWalker@ThyBlackMan.com.