Taking Stock of the World

by Dan Lieberman / March 12th, 2025

Donald Trump’s distasteful State of the Disunion address urged salvation, anything to give relief from the madness. A lack of empathy and gruff manner displayed a chilling use of the anguish of parents of ravished children to promote the war on immigrants. Did the parents want to be there? Did they want their deceased children used for political opportunity? Naming public places after the children, as if the parents had won a prize, is unconscionable. If a close relative had a major accomplishment and died peacefully and graciously, relatives would welcome having his/her name forged in the consciousness of the American public. I doubt parents want to be daily reminded of the gruesome and untimely deaths of their children when they walk their neighborhoods.

Trump continued his sadistic excursion through graveyards by continually pointing to the Democratic aisle, letting everyone know the Dems and their previous leaders, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, were in charge during vicious attacks on Americans. Mentioning the capture of the “mastermind” of the Kabul airport killings of American citizens, “you know the killings during the mess that Joe Biden allowed,” in a State of the Union to both houses of Congress, just to ridicule Biden and show his mastery, made Trump equal in depravity to the “so called” mastermind. Is the person really the “mastermind,” or someone Pakistani intelligence willingly supplied for a few greenbacks? What does the revelation of a “capture” have to do with the state of the union?

Aggravating that we will have four years of this punishing behavior; more aggravating to realize that tens of millions support this malicious behavior; more and more aggravating is that we encounter similar disturbances in everyday life. Try to discuss Israel’s genocide at Columbia University.

It does not have to be this way. We don’t have to tear each other apart and subdue the rest of the world to live decently; the Ukrainians and Russians don’t have to fight and die for land that Russians and Ukrainians can peacefully determine by themselves; Jews can live well anywhere in the word, they don’t need to slaughter Palestinians to survive.

Without having economic or political power, having an effect in changing attitudes and the course of civilization is a difficult challenge. Exposing injustice is now leading to enhancing injustice ─ making it happen faster. Correcting false information is now leading to spreading false information faster; mendacity is appreciated. It’s the ancient story ─ good vs. evil, and the “good guys,” who refuse to adopt the winning methodology of “cheat, lie, and accuse,” have no chance. In all institutions — academic, medical, scientific, economic — those in control protect their agendas, regardless of validity or truth.

The apathetic and those disinterested in encouraging challenges accept conventional beliefs and concepts, even when thought exposes them as spurious. Many, accepted theories and notions deserve and need attack. Changing a programmed mindset and planning a strategy to liberation are official civil duties. The only alternative is revolution. Where is Georges Danton when we most need him?

“The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant.”- Maximilien Robespierre

Dan Lieberman publishes commentaries on foreign policy, economics, and politics at substack.com.  He is author of the non-fiction books A Third Party Can Succeed in America, Not until They Were Gone, Think Tanks of DC, The Artistry of a Dog, and a novel: The Victory (under a pen name, David L. McWellan). Read other articles by Dan.

The Return of Stagflation

by Elliott Lipinsky / March 11th, 2025

When investing, as in horror films, the most terrifying villains are the ones we thought were dead. Stagflation that economic nightmare of the 1970s characterized by stagnant growth paired with persistent inflation was supposedly dead and buried decades ago. But like any good movie monster, it’s clawing its way back to the surface, and Americans need to prepare for its return.

The warning signs are unmistakable. Despite the Federal Reserve’s aggressive rate-hiking campaign over the past two years, inflation remains stubbornly above target. February’s Consumer Price Index showed prices still rising at 3.2%, while previous months have delivered unwelcome upside surprises. Meanwhile, GDP growth has begun to sputter, at just 1.6% in the first quarter, down sharply from 3.4% in late 2023.

Even more alarming, the Atlanta Federal Reserve’s closely watched GDPNow forecast model has recently slashed its second-quarter growth projection. When the Fed’s regional banks signal economic deceleration while inflation persists, the stagflation alarm bells should be ringing loudly.

This toxic combination represents the classic stagflation recipe: prices rise faster than paychecks while economic momentum simultaneously loses steam. Conventional economic models struggle to address this scenario, as policies that fight inflation typically hamper growth, while growth-boosting measures often exacerbate inflation.

Stagflation is particularly pernicious because it confounds traditional economic remedies. When inflation and unemployment rise simultaneously, policymakers face an impossible choice between fighting one problem while exacerbating the other.

The warning signals extend beyond inflation and growth statistics. Federal agencies have begun implementing hiring freezes and initiating workforce reductions as budget pressures mount. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that federal government employment declined by 5,000 jobs in January alone, with more cuts potentially looming. These job losses contribute to economic stagnation without addressing the underlying inflation problem.

Meanwhile, fiscal austerity measures designed to address budget deficits have reduced government spending across multiple agencies. While necessary for long-term fiscal health, these spending cuts remove economic stimulus precisely when private sector growth is already slowing, amplifying stagflationary pressures.

Perhaps most concerning for millions of Americans is the resumption of student loan payments after a three-year pandemic pause. With average monthly payments of $200-$300, the Department of Education estimates that borrowers collectively face over $7 billion in monthly payments—essentially a massive consumer spending tax that dampens economic activity without addressing supply-side inflation drivers. For many households, these payments come on top of significantly higher housing costs, energy bills, and grocery expenses.

Labor markets offer another concerning indicator. Despite headlines touting low unemployment, job growth has slowed considerably. In contrast, wage growth hasn’t kept pace with inflation in many sectors. Companies are increasingly caught in a vise between rising costs and consumers unable or unwilling to absorb higher prices.

The roots of our current predicament are not hard to identify. Years of extraordinary monetary accommodation followed by trillions in pandemic stimulus created excess liquidity. Supply chain disruptions, geopolitical tensions, and energy price volatility fueled the fire. We’re left with an economy where growth is cooling, but prices refuse to follow suit.

For investors, the stagflation playbook requires a dramatic departure from conventional wisdom. The investment landscape of the next several years will reward those willing to adapt and punish those clinging to outdated strategies.

First and foremost, commodities deserve a prominent place in any stagflation-resistant portfolio. During the 1970s stagflation, the S&P GSCI commodity index delivered a staggering 586% return over the decade. Gold performed even more spectacularly, rocketing from about $269 per ounce in 1970 to over $2,500 by 1980.

Why do commodities shine in stagflationary environments? They represent tangible assets with intrinsic value that tend to rise with inflation. Hard assets become monetary safe havens when currencies weaken through policy interventions or economic uncertainty.

Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) also merit serious consideration. Unlike conventional bonds, which suffered brutal losses during the 1970s with approximately negative 3% annualized actual returns, TIPS adjust their principal value based on the Consumer Price Index. This built-in inflation protection can preserve purchasing power when conventional fixed-income investments crumble.

Investors should pivot decisively toward defensive sectors within equities—consumer staples, healthcare, and utilities. These industries provide essential goods and services people need regardless of economic conditions, and many possess the pricing power to pass inflation through to consumers. During past stagflationary episodes, U.S. consumer staples delivered average quarterly returns of +7.9%, while consumer discretionary stocks declined by 1.3%.

The dangers of stagflation extend far beyond investment portfolios. The most insidious aspect of stagflation is how it methodically erodes societal living standards. When prices rise faster than wages for extended periods, everyday purchases become increasingly painful. Essentials consume a growing share of household budgets, leaving less for discretionary spending, savings, or investments in the future.

The psychological toll shouldn’t be underestimated either. During the 1970s stagflation, consumer confidence plummeted to record lows as Americans believed economic malaise was permanent. This pessimism affected everything from marriage rates to entrepreneurship, creating a downward spiral of reduced risk-taking and investment precisely when the economy needed it most.

Stagflation particularly punishes those on fixed incomes especially retirees whose pension or Social Security benefits fail to keep pace with true living costs. It also penalizes savers, and those with traditional fixed-income investments, who watch their purchasing power diminish monthly.

For younger Americans already grappling with housing affordability challenges and now facing resumed student loan payments, stagflation compounds financial stress. Many millennials and Gen Z workers entered a labor market already characterized by stagnant real wages; persistent inflation threatens to erase what little progress they’ve made.

Businesses suffer, too, caught between rising input costs and price-sensitive consumers. Profit margins contract, leading to reduced hiring, investment cuts, and, in many cases, layoffs. Small businesses with less pricing power and financial cushion are particularly vulnerable, potentially leading to increased market concentration as only the largest firms survive.

Stagflation will eventually end through successful policy intervention or economic adjustment, but the transition may prove lengthy and painful. The 1970s stagflation persisted for nearly a decade before Paul Volcker’s Federal Reserve crushed inflation, with interest rates approaching 20%.

Today’s policymakers face a similar dilemma, but even higher debt levels constrain their options. The Fed has signaled reluctance to cut rates while inflation remains elevated, yet maintaining restrictive policy risks further dampening growth—the very definition of our stagflationary trap.

Preparation means building financial resilience for individuals: reducing high-interest debt, maintaining emergency savings, and seeking opportunities to increase skills and income potential. Homeowners with fixed-rate mortgages benefit from what amounts to an inflation discount on their housing debt, while renters may need to budget more aggressively as housing costs continue climbing.

Though difficult, stagflation is ultimately a surmountable challenge. Following the 1970s ordeal, America entered a period of extraordinary growth and prosperity. The pain of adjustment, while real, eventually gave way to renewed economic vitality. The same can happen again if we make the difficult choices necessary to restore price stability while fostering sustainable growth.

The stagflation monster may be back, but America has faced and overcome economic challenges throughout its history. By understanding the nature of the threat and taking appropriate actions both as individuals and as a society, maybe we can weather this economic storm and emerge stronger on the other side. The alternative of ignoring the warning signs until a crisis forces our hand will only prolong the pain and deepen the eventual reckoning. The time for clear-eyed assessment and deliberate action is now.

Whilst observing the questionable economic decisions of our elected officials, it seems that no one will bury stagflation back in the graveyard.

Elliott Owen Lipinsky is an Attorney and Counselor at Law. Read other articles by Elliott.

 

Worthy and Unworthy: How the Media Reports on Friends and Foes

by Devan Hawkins / March 12th, 2025

The following is an extract from the introduction to the book Worthy and Unworthy: How the Media Reports on Friends and Foes (2024) by Devan Hawkins.

In the predawn hours of April 3, 1948, rebels assembled on the slopes of Mount Hallasan, a volcano that is located at the center of Jeju Island. On that highest peak in South Korea, the rebels lit fires that were meant to signal the start of armed resistance against both the occupation of South Korea by the United States and in support of the reunification of Korea, which had been divided in half since the end of the World War II. This uprising was preceded by previous incidents in which police fatally fired on protesters.

In a letter sent to residents of the island, the rebels wrote:

Fellow citizens! Respectable parents and siblings! Today, on this day of April 3, your sons, daughters, and little brothers and sisters rose up in arms for the reunification and independence of our homeland, and for the complete liberation of the people. We must risk our lives for the opposition to the betrayal of the country and the unilateral election and government. We rose up in arms against the brutal slaughter done by American cannibals that force you into hardship and unhappiness. To vent your deep-rooted rancor we rouse up in arms. You should defend us who fight for the victory of our country and should rise up along with us, responding to the call of the country and its people.

Over the course of the next day, these rebels would launch attacks on police outposts and on other locations thought to contribute to repression on the island.

This was the beginning of the Jeju Uprising. Following failed negotiations with police, additional troops would be sent to the island to crush the rebellion. During the next several months, periodic fighting would continue between rebels on the island and Korean forces. Following an incident where members of the South Korean military sent to the island mutinied and killed many of their commanders, dictator Syngman Rhee declared martial law. As part of the military’s efforts to end the rebellion, horrific incidents including the destruction of entire villages, mass rape, and the massacre of thousands of civilians occurred. Reports of the number of dead vary significantly from a low of 15,000 to a high of 65,000. The vast majority of civilian deaths were the responsibility of South Korean security forces. Tens of thousands fled from Jeju to Japan to escape the violence. Three hundred villages and tens of thousands of houses were destroyed.

If you were a dedicated reader of The New York Times—the paper which declares on its front page that it publishes “All the News That’s Fit to Print”—during the Jeju Uprising you would know very little about the horrors that transpired on Jeju Island in 1948 and 1949. Using the Times search database, I only identified eight articles that discussed Jeju (then rendered as Cheju) for the entirety of 1948 and 1949. All of these articles were fairly short reports, appearing in the newspaper’s back pages. Many of them focused on the activities of the rebels:

     Communists on Cheju Attack Villages—Demand Police Surrender, No Election

     Constabulary Chief on Cheju Shot While Sleeping

     Snipers Fire at U.S. Plane At Airport in South Korea

As well as alleged involvement by the Soviet Union:

     Soviet Submarines Said To Help Reds in Korea

In the last article identified about Jeju, on April 1949, the Times devoted less than 50 words to publishing a United Press report about “1,193 Koreans Slain on Cheju” and the thousands more left homeless. The report makes no mention of responsibility for those dead, despite the fact that the vast majority of civilians were killed by the South Korean military. The number reported as being killed is an underestimate, at least by a factor of ten.

On the same day that last report about Jeju was published by the Times, a story appeared in the Times about the Berlin Airlift, an operation led by the United States and United Kingdom to supply West Berlin (an exclave of the United States-allied West Germany) with supplies after it had been blockaded by the Soviet-allied East Germany, which surrounded it. The period of the blockade and the airlift that followed almost perfectly matched with the period of the Jeju Uprising. During this period, there were over a hundred articles describing the blockade and the airlift that followed, many featured on the front page of the Times.

There are numerous reasons why the Berlin Airlift likely received more attention than the uprising and massacre on Jeju Island. Berlin is located in the center of Europe, while Jeju is a relatively remote island in East Asia. However, a year after the Jeju Uprising when the Chinese Communists captured Hainan, another remote island in East Asia, from the Chinese Nationalists, the Times published dozens of articles about the operation, suggesting that remoteness does not make significant reporting impossible.

Berlin was also seen as the frontline of the Cold War, while in the years before the Korean War, the Korean Peninsula was often treated as a periphery issue. However, during the period of the Jeju Uprising, the Times published hundreds of stories about Korea, many of which focused on infiltration of communists from the north into the south. Furthermore, the United States was already heavily invested in Korea, having occupied the southern half of the peninsula since the end of

World War II. At the time of the uprising, there were thousands of US troops in Korea. Indeed, a report from the South Korean government published decades after the uprising found that the United States shared responsibility for the military operations on Jeju Island.

The role that disregard for non-Europeans might play in the dearth of coverage should also be considered. Jeju Islanders, unlike Berliners, were East Asians and, therefore, potentially less sympathetic in the minds of some readers of the Times. To compare Jeju Island to another contemporaneous issue in Europe, the final operation of the Greek Civil War, which occurred a few months after the conclusion of the Jeju Uprising, received more coverage in one month than the Jeju Uprising received in a whole year. The fact that the Greek Civil War involved Europeans may have been a factor in this higher level of coverage.

There is another possible cause for the general lack of coverage of the Jeju Uprising: geopolitics. Berliners were a sympathetic population who were being oppressed by the new official enemy of the United States—the Soviet Union. In contrast, the people of Jeju Island were the victims of a regime that had been put into place and supported by the United States with the goal of preventing the spread of Soviet-aligned communism.

Stated another way, the people of Berlin were worthy victims and the people of Jeju Island were unworthy victims.

This formulation of Worthy and Unworthy victims was first developed by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in their seminal book Manufacturing Consent. As they wrote:

Our prediction is that the victims of enemy states will be found “worthy” and will be subject to more intense and indignant coverage than those victimized by the United States or its clients, who are implicitly “unworthy.” Put another way, the media will be more likely to portray the victims of actions of official-state enemies in unfavorable terms, while portraying the victims of allies in more favorable terms.

In the book Herman and Chomsky go on to show how crimes committed in client states of the Soviet Union received far more attention than crimes in client states of the United States. For example, the murder of Catholic Polish priest Jerzy Popieluszko “not only received far more coverage than Archbishop Oscar Romero, murdered in the U.S. client-state El Salvador in 1980; he was given more coverage than the aggregate of one hundred religious victims killed in U.S. client states, although eight of those victims were U.S. citizens.” Herman and Chomsky’s book has been influential in how the US media and Western media are viewed more broadly, with writers like Robert McChesney, John Nicholas, and Alan MacLeod expanding on the work.

This formulation of “Worthy and Unworthy victims” is part of Herman and Chomsky’s larger Propaganda Model, which postulates that “the media serve, and propagandize on behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them. The representatives of these interests have important agendas and principles that they want to advance, and they are well positioned to shape and constrain media policy. This is normally not accomplished by crude intervention, but by the selection of right-thinking personnel and by the editors’ and working journalists’ internalization of priorities and definitions of newsworthiness that conform to the institution’s policy.”

Herman and Chomsky’s argument is compelling and provocative because it argues that despite the fact that media in the United States is not state-run and press freedom is generally protected in the country, the media still serves a similar purpose as it did in the Soviet Union and other countries where media is
predominately state-run and where journalists do not have the same press freedom protections.

To explain their Propaganda Model, Herman and Chomsky proposed that there are five filters that tend to restrict media coverage in Western countries, particularly the United States. These filters are:

Ownership: Media companies are mostly large corporations with the fundamental imperative to make a profit. These companies are disincentivized from covering topics that may threaten their profit.

Advertising: In a similar way, almost all media companies are dependent on advertising for their revenue. Therefore, media companies are also disincentivized from covering topics that may lose them advertisers.

Sourcing: Media outlets frequently use official, government sources for their information. These sources will tend to reflect the biases of the government.

Flak: Individuals who provide dissenting viewpoints will often face concerted campaigns to discredit them. These campaigns will make journalists less likely to decide to cover stories that may result in such flak, including those that may portray allies of the United States in a negative light.

Anti-Communism/Fear: Reporting will often play into the fears of official enemies (Communists during the Cold War, Islamic Terrorism during the War on Terror, etc.). Playing into these fears will often mean that official state enemies will receive more coverage.

Together, these filters create a situation where even in a country, like the United States, with relatively few state controls on the media, reporting will tend to reflect the official standpoint of the government.

This tendency for reporting to reflect the standard positions of the government is seen most powerfully in foreign affairs.

Unlike domestic issues, where there is at least some daylight between the two major parties, with respect to foreign policy there is much less difference in foreign affairs. While the language used and the particular issues emphasized will often be different, the fundamental positions of both Democrats and Republicans do not tend to differ substantially. For example, if you compare each party’s platforms 5,6 before the 2016 election (in 2020 the Republicans did not adopt a new platform, not allowing for a direct comparison) with respect to Venezuela, Iran, Israel, China, and Russia, you generally see only minor differences. This book will try to make the argument that this same general uniformity in political perspectives about foreign affairs is reflected in media coverage in the United States.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Devan Hawkins has been a freelance writer for the past ten years, writing about a wide variety of subjects including foreign policy, inequality, and health. Professionally, he is an Assistant Professor of Public Health with a Doctor of Science Degree in epidemiology. Read other articles by Devan.

Reflections on My Arrest and Lessons Learned

by Yves Engler / March 13th, 2025

An extreme Jewish supremacist activist convinced the police to arrest me for criticizing her racist posts. She’s likely acting as a front for a vast Zionist ‘lawfare’ initiative hostile to embarrassing Canadian leaders.

Over the past 16 months I’ve annoyed many among the Jewish Zionist establishment. My writing, social media commentary and reporting on protests have circulated widely. But it’s a particular type of social media journalism/activism that’s had the widest impact.

Around two million watched an interview I did with the mayor of the Montreal suburb Hampstead, Jeremy Levi, in which he said he was okay with Israel killing 100,000 Palestinian children because “good needs to prevail over evil”. As with some of the other interventions, my post was reported on by the Montreal Gazette and international media such as RT and Middle Eastern Monitor. Many also watched my exposing Anthony Housefather, Mitch Garber and Heather Reisman as genocidal Jewish supremacists. Over 10 million watched a video I did mocking a McGill rally promoting genocide.

At the end of April, I questioned lawyer Neil ‘cancel man’ Oberman who has instigated over a dozen injunctions or legal threats against opponents of genocide, including the Palestine encampment at McGill university. (Oberman’s ‘lawfare’ is part of a vast legal effort in service of genocide detailed recently in a Canadian Jewish News article explaining that “CIJA’s new legal task force is suing the federal government, universities and school boards to ‘make people behave’.”) Subsequently, Oberman yelled at me in court. At that point I was on ‘ban who I can’ Oberman’s radar and he assisted extremist Zionist influencer Dahlia Kurtz.

In early July Kurtz, a woman happy to play Jewish victim, retweeted a message I posted a week earlier in a threatening manner, suggesting some police or legal campaign was planned. She wrote Hello, @EnglerYves. I’m advising you in this one message only that you are harassing me. You’re threatening and you’re making me afraid for my safety. You must stop this harassment — and communication with me. Stop now.” (I responded, “I’m advising you in this one message to stop promoting Israel’s holocaust in Gaza. Stop now.”)

While she accused me of “harassment” for responding to her racist and violent messages on X, Kurtz didn’t block me as others say she’s done to them. I’ve never met, messaged or threatened Kurtz and don’t even follow her on X.

In the summer the police investigated Kurtz’s claims against me. After deciding there wasn’t sufficient evidence to press charges they closed the file. But, when Oberman sent a legal letter on Kurtz’s behalf in mid-December the file was reopened (I assume Oberman assisted Kurtz from the get-go).

Kurtz’s allegations against me have broad personal and political implications. Finding me guilty of harassment for simply responding to her racist, violence promoting, messages would set a negative precedent. Snarky, biting, political statements in response to genocidal supremacism is a low bar for harassment. It would grant some legal legitimization to Zionist tears/victimhood or what a recent meme labeled the “Am Yisrael Cry” phenomenon.

At a personal political level if I “harassed” Kurtz then the legal system might also find I’ve “harassed” a slew of other (mostly non-Jewish) political figures with my journalism/activism/commentary. I’ve attended or interrupted a dozen press conferences with Steven Guilbeault. I live in the environment minister’s riding and have bumped into him on the street and at the Biblioteque Nationale. If I’ve “harassed” Kurtz then I’ve definitely “harassed” Guilbeault.

The situation is similar for Montreal Mayor Valerie Plante who also happens to swim at the community centre near my home. Ditto for foreign affairs minister Melanie Joly and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who’ve I’ve challenged many times in person and on X. Housefather also has a far greater claim against me than Kurtz since I’ve challenged him on numerous occasions and responded with the same type of hard hitting, snarky, commentary to his (albeit less directly) racist and violence promoting posts.

Levy, Garber, Melissa Lantsman, B’nai Brith, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and many other pro genocide accounts have blocked me on X. I haven’t created any ghost account to continue responding to their genocidal Jewish supremacism. I do everything in my name and am proud of my commentary, writing and activism. Similarly, when I attend press conferences to question politicians, I employ my own name.

Challenging a political system promoting war, inequality and climate breakdown is the least we can do. Canadian support for Israel’s genocide has exposed the rot of Canadian foreign policy.

Now that I’ve had some time to reflect on my arrest, incarceration, experience with the legal system, and outpouring of support, another lesson has been learned. Every time Zionists employ police-state methods to shut down criticism of Israel more people understand what Palestinians face daily.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Yves Engler is the author of 12 books. His latest book is Stand on Guard for Whom?: A People's History of the Canadian Military. Read other articles by Yves.

When Dissent Becomes a Crime: The War on Political Speech Begins

by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead / March 13th, 2025

Once the principle is established that the government can arrest and jail protesters… officials will use it to silence opposition broadly.

— Heather Cox Richardson, historian

You can’t have it both ways.

You can’t live in a constitutional republic if you allow the government to act like a police state.

You can’t claim to value freedom if you allow the government to operate like a dictatorship.

You can’t expect to have your rights respected if you allow the government to treat whomever it pleases with disrespect and an utter disregard for the rule of law.

There’s always a boomerang effect.

Whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now—whether it’s in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America great again—rest assured, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you.

Arresting political activists engaged in lawful, nonviolent protest activities is merely the shot across the bow.

The chilling of political speech and suppression of dissident voices are usually among the first signs that you’re in the midst of a hostile takeover by forces that are not friendly to freedom.

This is how it begins.

Consider that Mahmoud Khalil, an anti-war protester and recent graduate of Columbia University, was arrested on a Saturday night by ICE agents who appeared ignorant of his status as a legal U.S. resident and his rights thereof. That these very same ICE agents also threatened to arrest Mahmoud’s eight-months-pregnant wife, an American citizen, is also telling.

This does not seem to be a regime that respects the rights of the people.

Indeed, these ICE agents, who were “just following orders” from on high, showed no concern that the orders they had been given were trumped up, politically motivated and unconstitutional.

If this is indeed the first of many arrests to come, what’s next? Or more to the point, who’s next?

We are all at risk.

History shows that when governments claim the power to silence dissent—whether in the name of national security, border protection, or law and order—that power rarely remains limited. What starts as a crackdown on so-called “threats” quickly expands to include anyone who challenges those in power.

President Trump has made it clear that Mahmoud’s arrest is just “the first arrest of many to come.” He has openly stated his intent to target noncitizens who engage in activities he deems contrary to U.S. interests—an alarmingly vague standard that seems to change at his whim, the First Amendment be damned.

If history is any guide, the next targets will not just be immigrants or foreign-born activists. They will be American citizens who dare to speak out.

If you need further proof of Trump’s disregard for constitutional rights, look no further than his recent declaration that boycotting Tesla is illegal—a chilling statement that reveals his fundamental misunderstanding of both free speech and the rule of law.

For the record, there is nothing illegal about exercising one’s First Amendment right of speech, assembly, and protest in a nonviolent way to bring about social change by boycotting private businesses. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-0 in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982) that nonviolent boycotts are a form of political speech which are entitled to First Amendment protection.

The problem, unfortunately, when you’re dealing with a president who believes that he can do whatever he wants because he is the law is that anyone and anything can become a target.

Mahmoud is the test case.

As journalists Gabe Kaminsky, Madeleine Rowley, and Maya Sulkin point out, Mahmoud’s arrest for being a “threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States” (note: he is not actually accused of breaking any laws) is being used as a blueprint for other arrests to come.

What this means is that anyone who dares to disagree with the government and its foreign policy and express that disagreement could be considered a threat to the country’s “national security interests.”

Yet the right to speak out against government wrongdoing is the quintessential freedom.

Indeed, the First Amendment does more than give us a right to criticize our country: it makes it a civic duty. Certainly, if there is one freedom among the many spelled out in the Bill of Rights that is especially patriotic, it is the right to criticize the government.

Unfortunately, the Deep State doesn’t take kindly to individuals who speak truth to power.

This is nothing new, nor is it unique to any particular presidential administration.

Throughout history, U.S. presidents have used their power to suppress dissent. The Biden administration equated the spread of “misinformation” with terrorism. Trump called the press “the enemy of the people” and suggested protesting should be illegal. Obama expanded anti-protest laws and cracked down on whistleblowers. Bush’s Patriot Act made it a crime to support organizations the government deemed terrorist, even in lawful ways. This pattern stretches back centuries—FDR censored news after Pearl Harbor, Woodrow Wilson outlawed criticism of war efforts, and John Adams criminalized speaking against the government.

Regardless of party, those in power have repeatedly sought to limit free speech. What’s new is the growing willingness to criminalize political dissent under the guise of national security.

Clearly, the government has been undermining our free speech rights for quite a while now, but Trump’s antagonism towards free speech is taking this hostility to new heights.

The government has a history of using crises—real or manufactured—to expand its power.

Once dissent is labeled a threat, it’s only a matter of time before laws meant for so-called extremists are used against ordinary citizens. Criticizing policy, protesting, or even refusing to conform could be enough to put someone on a watchlist.

We’ve seen this before.

The government has a long list of “suspicious” ideologies and behaviors it uses to justify surveillance and suppression. Today’s justification may be immigration; tomorrow, it could be any form of opposition.

This is what we know: the government has the means, the muscle and the motivation to detain individuals who resist its orders and do not comply with its mandates in a vast array of prisons, detention centers, and concentration camps paid for with taxpayer dollars.

It’s just a matter of time.

It no longer matters what the hot-button issue might be (vaccine mandates, immigration, gun rights, abortion, same-sex marriage, healthcare, criticizing the government, protesting election results, etc.) or which party is wielding its power like a hammer.

The groundwork has already been laid.

Under the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the President and the military can detain and imprison American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a terrorist.

So it should come as no surprise that merely criticizing the government could get you labeled as a terrorist.

After all, it doesn’t take much to be considered a terrorist anymore, especially given that the government likes to use the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.

This is what happens when you not only put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police but also give those agencies liberal authority to lock individuals up for perceived wrongs.

It’s a system just begging to be abused by power-hungry bureaucrats desperate to retain their power at all costs.

Having allowed the government to expand and exceed our reach, we find ourselves on the losing end of a tug-of-war over control of our country and our lives. And for as long as we let them, government officials will continue to trample on our rights, always justifying their actions as being for the good of the people.

Yet the government can only go as far as “we the people” allow. Therein lies the problem.

This is not just about one administration or one set of policies. This is a broader pattern of governmental overreach that has been allowed to unfold, unchecked and unchallenged. And at the heart of this loss of freedom is a fundamental misunderstanding—or even a deliberate abandonment—of what sovereignty really means in America.

Sovereignty is a dusty, antiquated term that harkens back to an age when kings and emperors ruled with absolute power over a populace that had no rights. Americans turned the idea of sovereignty on its head when they declared their independence from Great Britain and rejected the absolute authority of King George III. In doing so, Americans claimed for themselves the right to self-government and established themselves as the ultimate authority and power.

In other words, as the preamble to the Constitution states, in America, “we the people”—sovereign citizens—call the shots.

So, when the government acts, it is supposed to do so at our bidding and on our behalf, because we are the rulers.

That’s not exactly how it turned out, though, is it?

In the 200-plus years since we boldly embarked on this experiment in self-government, we have been steadily losing ground to the government’s brazen power grabs, foisted upon us in the so-called name of national security.

The government has knocked us off our rightful throne. It has usurped our rightful authority. It has staged the ultimate coup. Its agents no longer even pretend that they answer to “we the people.”

This is how far our republic has fallen and how desensitized “we the people” have become to this constant undermining of our freedoms.

If we are to put an end to this steady slide into totalitarianism, that goose-stepping form of tyranny in which the government has all of the power and “we the people” have none, we must begin by refusing to allow the politics of fear to shackle us to a dictatorship.

President Trump wants us to believe that the menace we face (imaginary or not) is so sinister, so overwhelming, so fearsome that the only way to surmount the danger is by empowering the government to take all necessary steps to quash it, even if that means allowing government jackboots to trample all over the Constitution.

Don’t believe it. That argument has been tried before.

The government’s overblown, extended wars on terrorism, drugs, violence and illegal immigration have all been convenient ruses used to terrorize the populace into relinquishing more of their freedoms in exchange for elusive promises of security.

We are walking a dangerous path right now.

Political arrests. Harassment. Suppression of dissident voices. Retaliation. Detention centers for political prisoners.

These are a harbinger of what’s to come if the Trump administration carries through on its threats to crack down on any and all who exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech and protest.

We are being acclimated to bolder power grabs, acts of lawlessness, and a pattern of intimidation, harassment, and human rights violations by government officials. And yet, in the midst of this relentless erosion of our freedoms, the very concept of sovereignty—the foundational idea that the people, not the government, hold ultimate power—has been all but forgotten.

“Sovereignty” used to mean something fundamental in America: the idea that the government serves at the will of the people, that “we the people” are the rightful rulers of this land, and that no one, not even the president, is above the law. But today, that notion is scarcely discussed, as the government continues its unchecked expansion.

We have lost sight of the fact that our power is meant to restrain the government, not the other way around.

Don’t allow yourselves to be distracted, derailed or desensitized.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the moment these acts of aggression becomes the new normal, authoritarianism won’t be a distant threat; it will be reality.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

John W. Whitehead, constitutional attorney and author, is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He wrote the book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015). He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Read other articles by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead.