Many Native American tribes practiced forms of captivity and bondage before and after European contact. Traditionally, indigenous cultures took captives during regional conflicts and tribal warfare.

During the colonial era, some tribes participated in the commercial slave trade (Chattel Slavery), capturing members of rival groups to sell to European colonists in exchange for manufactured goods and weapons.

In the 18^th and 19^th centuries, a small number of nations (Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muscogee or Creek, and Seminole) adopted the southern plantation style of Chattel Slavery. Wealthy members within these specific nations held thousands of enslaved African Americans prior to and during the Civil War.

Transportation Act of 1718 (English and Irish “criminals”)

This was a British law that allowed British courts to send criminals to the American colonies as forced laborers. From 1718 until the Revolutionary War stopped the practice in 1775, over 50,000 convicts arrived in America. Colonists bought the prisoners at docks as “indentured servants” to work on farms and plantations. Minor crimes got 7 years of forced labor. Serious crimes pardoned by the King of England got 14 years of forced labor. The British government paid English shippers to ship the prisoners to the American colonies.

Under the same act, 162,000 convicts consisting of men, women (15%) and children from Britain (3/4) and Ireland (1/4) were sent to penal colonies in Australia from 1784 through 1868.

Slaves from Africa

African societies had their own systems of enslavement rooted in crime, death or war. Fellow Africans were traded by their African captors to Europeans in return for European firearms.

Between 1525 and 1866, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage. That leaves 1.8 million souls who died while being transported by ship. When the number who were worked to death on sugar plantations is added, the historical result is a Black Holocaust.

The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade resulted in 388,000 to 450,000 enslaved Africans landing directly in mainland North America. The addition of re-exported African captives from the Caribbean brings the number in North America to 500,000 to 650,000 by 1776. In 1776, about 90% of the African population in the 13 colonies were enslaved. This amounted to less than 4% of the total volume of enslaved Africans trafficked across the Atlantic Ocean.

The enslaved population in the American colonies grew significantly through higher birth rates and longer life expectancies than in the Caribbean and South America.  

Where were the other 96% of enslaved Africans shipped to?

Brutal Sugar Plantation Economies throughout the Caribbean and South America resulted in high mortality rates requiring constant fresh importations of African slaves. For example, descendants of African slaves in America (42 million) represent about 65 times the original 650,000 slaves from Africa, whereas descendants of African slaves in Brazil (21.8 million) represent about 4.5 times the original 4.9 million slaves from Africa.

Number of African slaves shipped to Caribbean and South America

Portuguese Brazil 4.9 million

Other English colonies (Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Bahamas) 2.6 million

Spanish colonies (Caribbean and South America) 1.5 million

French colonies (Haiti, Martinique, Guadeloupe, and Saint Lucia) 1.3 million

Brazil 2026 population demographic (total 213.7 million)

Brown (mixed race) 45.3% (96.81 million)

White 43.5% (92.96 million)

Black 10.2% (21.80 million - originally from Africa 4.9 million) multiplier 4.45*

Indigenous 0.6% (1.28 million)

Asian 0.4% (0.85 million)

USA 2026 population demographic (total 349 million)

Hispanic/Latino 19% (66.31 million)

White 57.5% (200.6 million)

Black 13.5% (47.11 million – originally from Africa 0.65 million) multiplier 72.28

(Estimated descended from original African slaves = 42 million) multiplier 64.61*

Indigenous 1.5% (5.23 million)

Asian 6.0% (20.94 million)

When was slavery outlawed in the Americas?

It took half a century to outlaw slavery in the New World, 1838 through 1888.

British colonies – August 1, 1838

French colonies – April 27, 1848

United States of America – January 1, 1863

(Spanish) Puerto Rico – March 22, 1873

(Spanish) Cuba – October 7, 1886

(Portuguese) Brazil – May 13, 1888

Summary

As I have stated previously, there is probably not a race of people on earth whose ancestors, at one time in history or another, were both slaveholders and slaves. I performed the research above to demonstrate that, as Louis Gates Jr. has stated, “Guilt is not heritable”. Individuals bear no moral responsibility for the past actions of their forebearers. We all need to learn from the mistakes of our ancestors but we are not responsible for reparations to victims of their misdeeds. Also, we need not be ashamed of ancestors who were enslaved… many of the world’s greatest public works were built by slaves. Only those former slaves who live in freedom today may honestly share whether or not they are proud of the work they performed under the thumb of a slaveholder.

Love = Work + Courage

I speak from experience on this topic, so let me offer words of encouragement to the would-be skin cancer patient. I have had over two dozen basal and squamous cancers removed including one pre-melanoma cancer. Additionally, I have had pre-cancerous skin treatments too numerous to count to remove damaged skin before it becomes cancerous. These include chemical eradication as well as photodynamic therapy, freezing, and electrodessication.

In 1977 at the tender age of 34 I had a “reality check.” A weeping sore on my left temple proved to be an obvious clue. The sore would scab over, revert to a scaly patch, and soon break open again. Lab results from a biopsy confirmed the tissue to be basal cell carcinoma, the most common but least dangerous skin cancer.

A week later I went under the surgeon’s knife. In an hour-long procedure he excised the basal cell and covered the half-dollar-size wound with a skin graft taken from my collar bone area. Scarring resulted. That was my first encounter with skin cancer. I wish the physicians treating me in the 1970s knew then what they know now. In retrospect, I wish I knew then what I know now.

The slow transformation of sun-damaged skin into skin cancers occurs often. Damaged skin may be pre-cancerous. However, if undetected , the damage may transition to full cancer.

There are three basic skin cancers typically resulting from over exposure to the sun. Basal cell carcinoma, of which I have had many,  is the most common type and is easily treated. Treatments may include excision as in my case, electrodessication, radiation treatment, laser surgery, or micrographic surgery. More about this last type in a moment.

Squamous cell carcinoma is the second most usual form of skin cancer. Although squamous skin cancer is caused by sun damage, it can also occur from burns, scars, X-rays, and chemicals. Treatments are the same as basal cell carcinoma. Squamous cells seldom spread throughout the body.

Melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, is the least common type. It may initially look like a mole then change in size and color. If these signs appear, or if otherwise in doubt, a dermatologist should be consulted at once. If not detected early, colonies of melanoma cells may spread to internal organs.

At this writing I am preparing for another surgery to remove squamous carcinoma. As mentioned above, I have had well over two dozen skin cancers removed, mostly by ultramodern Mohs surgery. Mohs surgery is a specific type of micrographic skin cancer removal developed by Dr. Fredrick Mohs in the 1930s. Using this technique, a trained dermatologist removes skin cancers one layer at a time. This ensures all cancer has been completely removed. It also ensures that the least amount of good tissue is removed with minimum scarring.

So, why have Mohs surgery? Mohs surgery removes skin cancers with a higher risk for extensions or “roots” not seen with the eye and that can typically be bigger than appear on the skin’s surface. Here are other reasons for using the Mohs procedure: 1) recurring skin cancers following previous unsuccessful treatment, 2) some cancers that show an aggressive pathology as indicated from a biopsy, 3) cancers that are large or rapidly growing, or 4) cancers that cannot be clearly defined. Mohs surgery techniques are typically used near the nose, eyelids, lips, ears, scalp, hands, or feet.

During Mohs surgery, after numbing the area, the surgeon removes all visible skin cancer. An added 2–3-millimeter margin of skin around the wound is removed. While the patient waits with an open wound, the tissue is marked, “mapped,” frozen, and processed. Under the microscope the surgeon examines the tissue for evidence of cancer. If found, the procedure is repeated removing the cancerous tissue until all cancer is excised. This may take one to three iterations. Stitches may or may not be necessary depending on the location and depth of the wound.

The advantage of Mohs surgery speaks for itself. Mohs surgery results in the highest cure rate -- 95% to 99%. Other methods have a cure rate of 50% to 90%.

Experience is a great teacher. In my case, I consent to undergo a full body scan twice a year by my dermatologist.

My advice to anyone would be to ask questions of your primary care physician during your physical exam. Note any suspicious spots or blemishes beforehand. Referral to a dermatologist may be in order. As the saying goes, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at bnt0019@gmail.com.

“When did recognizing rights become something radical?  When did empathy become something exceptional?”  These are the words of Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez.  Let’s just take him at his words, then.  He suggests here that a nation is bound to recognize rights.  Well, what of the rights of the people of Spain - his own people - who are being terrorized in their own homes by these uncontrollable mobs?  Sanchez has invited these insane criminals into his country and thus into the homes of his Spanish people (or wherever else to which they want access).  Doesn’t Sanchez have a sacred duty - by his own admission - to recognize rights?  These mobs have no rights to recognize.  Many are outcasts in their own countries because of their criminality and basic worthlessness.  Now they want to come into a developed nation and skim off the top of their economy.  They are locusts.  They have no more rights than they have accountability for their crimes.  

“Empathy”?  Sanchez has misplaced his empathy.  He should have empathy with women who are no longer safe in Spain, for children, for the shop owner who is being looted out of business.  Where is his empathy for his own people?

Sadly, this is not unique to Spain.  England and France are notable for the same wrongheaded attitude.  And their people are suffering for it too.  

Declining populations and “aging” populations are cited as excuses to welcome these third-world hordes.  But maybe the solution is easier than this.  The population decline coincided with certain social and political events.  One is the establishment of the European Union.  Any people whose nation has bonded with the EU is suffering - either for complying with its mindless doctrines of open borders or by being fined for rejecting them.  There is no reason on earth for any nation to remain entangled in this failed project.  Failed, that is, in the sense of a better quality of life.  It is a roaring success if you want to see the decline and early demise of Europe itself.  Other factors which really ought to be carefully considered before resorting to a replacement of a nation’s population, have to do with the discouragement of family life in these nations.   Young women should not be prodded into STEM studies!  A woman should only pursue this if it is her own personal, life-long wish, not influenced by society, by her teachers or even her parents.  You simply cannot sustain the family unit, which is the one bulwark against tyranny as well as eventual extinction, if you channel women away from having and raising children and into some office or lab for their life’s work.  You cannot persist in disparaging and attacking  young men simply because they are males if you want a healthy society with family and home life as part of it.  Why would any young man choose this?  Our western society - including the United States and the rest of the western hemisphere - has done exactly this in a systemic way, with predictable results.  It is odd that the cultures our leaders hold up to us for a model to emulate do none of these things - women really have no choice at all in their lifestyles, young men are free to abuse women and children.  

We used to have a middle ground where we all felt safe and valued.  Now, a woman who chooses to stay home is sneered at and condescended to (personal experience here), while men can’t do anything “right”.  Well, that’s the context, but now to the immediate emergency.

Fifty years ago, the current invasion of Ceuta would not have happened.  These hooligans would have been warned well in advance that they would be shot if they attempted to enter illegally.  Legal means are available for people who qualify, so this is fair.  Then, if this warning were ignored, ARMED CITIZENS as well as police would simply shoot them before they reached the shore.  Their little boats would have been sunk.  This is all fair.  Fair, because they would have known in advance what would happen.  Those who did come ashore would be shot on shore.  There would not be that many either, because they would have known.  There would be no food, no shelter, no jobs, no anything offered.  If an immigrant chose to apply, the rules would be followed and it would be orderly.  There is never a reason for more than one individual or family at a time to attempt to immigrate.  And while we’re talking about families, where are these “families”, these “women and children”?  Presumably abandoned back in Morocco or Afghanistan or subsaharan Africa, where these migrants have left them.  

These people are invaders, not immigrants or even “migrants”.  Invaders.  And a sane government run by sane people would have seen it as such and defended its nation against them.  (It is almost amusing how much praise has been lavished on the Trojan Horse prop in the new Odyssey movie for it’s quality.  Those praising this movie prop have totally missed Homer’s point.)

Perhaps these measures sound harsh.  They could only sound harsh to someone who has lost the ability to reason, who has lost all logic.  But unless we want to look ahead to winning our nations back over a struggle of 700 years, which is what Spain went through, followed by even harsher measures to keep it, as Spain also went through, we are going to have to wake up and be serious about this.  The barbarians are not at the gate - they have breached the gate.  What will we do about it?  What will Spain do?  We know that Spain has lost its normal kind of tourist, the one who pays the bills there.  The kind they have let in now won’t leave an art gallery, a statue, a park or garden or a shop standing by the time they move on to the next victim nation.  

It is important to watch from our advantage across an ocean to see what Europe has done to destroy itself and act to avoid the same fate.  We don’t have that much time.  The world is shrinking.  What is happening in Europe as we speak could be here in less than a year’s time IF WE LET IT.  We have - and our leaders have - an absolute duty to protect our country.  We saw last week that Iran can tamper with our water supply from afar.  And even now we have numb-headed fools who thought that war with that regime was not necessary!  How??  For fifty years the Iranian government has been long-term planning to destroy America - even as our own Jimmy Carter gave them a hand up and Obama a hand out.  They have used every bit of it to destroy us long-distance.  Fatwahs, terrorism, bleeding us dry with attacks here and there and everywhere, making alliances with others who want to see us die, like China.  And had this been stopped even twenty years ago we might have moved on to a peaceful relationship with a normal government there.  We have no choice but to crush the rogue Iranian regime.  It is them or us, J.D. Vance and his limp-wristed negotiation notwithstanding.  But we should do it faster and stop pausing to let them regroup.  

As to “legitimate refugees”, we need to stop taking responsibility for these “asylum seekers”.  There needs to be some different kind of response to taking them in.  Perhaps air drop some food to camps in adjoining areas to the “war zone” for women and children, but do not facilitate or encourage their migration away from homelands.  We don’t owe the world a home or dinner.  Compassion has been used against civilized nations long enough.  Compassion becomes a weapon used against us.  And it is false.  Our compassion brings more misery to the intended beneficiaries than almost anything.  Compassion was used to tear families apart in Central America and Mexico where children were entrusted to traffickers by parents who thought we would “help” them.  Our “help” in the Ukraine resulted in untold misery there - all unnecessary because absent a directive FROM US a peace deal would have been done long before the first thousand deaths and before WE blew up the Russians’ pipeline that supplied Europe with gas.  Compassion needs to be chucked in the dumpster and we need reason instead.   We’ll all be the better for it, including the beneficiaries of our “largesse”.  This compassion argument is a self-serving pat-yourself-on-the-back act of self indulgence and virtue signaling.  Let’s just stop that.  

We have a lot of clean-up to do at home, obviously, but we can’t afford to ignore the developments abroad.  They will be here long before we are ready for them.  It is imperative that Democrats never gain high office again.  Perhaps a better kind of loyal opposition will form in their place, one, which, like the old-time Al Smith Democrats, love America and offer alternative solutions rather than the destructive and traitorous bent of the current crop - from A.O.C. to Sanders, to Hilary, to Omar, to Mamdani, to all the rest.  

And we must remember that the cost of freedom truly is eternal vigilance. 

A year ago, a young (white) mother and her child were in a public park in Rochester, Minnesota. They were there to give the little one some fresh air, a little outing. What happened next has given rise to one of the most consequential Constitutional issues of our time. A migrant Somali child of 8 or 9, got into the mother’s tote bag and stole an item. She confronted him angrily. She berated him, using the “n” word. As it just so happened, another Somali - an adult male - just happened to be loitering in the children’s playground that day and happened to be filming. This should raise a few red flags, but he decided to follow the mother and taunt and harrass her and film her. He persisted in attempting to get her to repeat the word she used to the child-thief and unfortunately for her, she finally took the bait. She punctuated it with an obscene gesture involving one finger. The Somali stalker then put this on the internet to further harass her. It resulted, ultimately, in an eager Minnesota prosecutor bringing charges against her.

The charges with regard to the child-thief were apparently dropped - they never went to trial, but this mother, who was stolen from and then stalked, harassed and threatened by another strange Somali man, was charged with “disorderly conduct” with respect to said Somali stalker who had inserted himself into the incident. She had repeated the “offensive word” and made a gesture at this man. Apparently, in Minnesota, harassment and stalking and putting it on the internet, and filming children in a park are okay, but speech is not. A gesture is normally considered a form of speech. So this young mother, whose only intention that day was to spend some fun time with her child in the park, ended up embroiled in a criminal case.

Her attorney made a good First Amendment argument but in a Minnesota court it fell on a woke judge’s deaf ears. Well, what would you expect? Long ago Minnesota seceded from the America under our Constitution. Minnesota courts don’t even honor Minnesota state laws if race is ever a presence.

Personally, I don’t use the “n” word. I think there are more accurate and expressive words in the English language. But this is an absolute right. The only exceptions we have countenanced to free speech - legally - would be 1) a real threat; 2) an incitement to violence; or 3) yelling “fire!” in a crowd. Other speech, however vile, or silly, or even false, is protected by the First Amendment. Yet here, under the pretext of “disorderly condut” (consisting of a gesture followed by walking away from the “victim”), a judge just erased The First Amendment to the Constitution. She refused to allow the jury to hear the First Amendment - refused its introdution into the case. She manipulated the jury and the process by deciding what they could or could not hear in order to get the result she desired beforehand. She earned another notch in her “woke belt”, which she obviously felt was well worth bartering her integrity for and eliminating a sacred right to free speech that American men and women have fought and died to establish and protect.

Our First Amendment was not written - or fought for - to protect politially correct speech or polite speech or agreeable speech. We never needed to protect that. It was expressly designed to protet the speech many people find objectionable or obnoxious - speech that challenges the status quo or authority. We can disagee with such speeh, we can argue or debate with it, we can counter with speech of our own. But we must never silence it. If we want a one-way ticket to tyranny, we would put restrictions on speech.

The mother in this case, Shiloh Hendrix, was convicted of “disorderly conduct” by this jury. If this is now the new standard for “disorderly conduct” we are all in a lot of trouble. We had better stay indoors, not stray from our homes or visit public places like parks. We dare not write letters for publication or speak at a rally.

If we take an interest in the situation that has befallen the people of Britain, we should slow our roll into censorship. There, a simple tweet can result in a Soviet-style knock on the door at 3:00 a.m., handcuffs and jail these days. The time-honored tradition of the soapbox in Hyde Park is no more. Unless the speech is along the lines of “Free Palestine!” or “Allahu akbar!” you’d best remain mum. Keep your thoughts to yourself. In time you won’t even need to think anymore - and that is the end game, after all. The power of speech - spoken, written, symbolic - is so great a threat to tyrants that it is the first thing they must abolish. They must silence us.

“Well,” you say, “the ‘n’ word isn’t partiularly important to protect.” So, then, should we curate a list of worthwhile words or speech that we protect? No. It’s all or nothing, with the very narrow exceptions alluded to herein. Who would you appoint as Arbiter of Acceptable Speech? Anyone who would accept that job would be unfit to hold it.

Apparently, Ms Hendrix is planning to appeal. Let us all hope she does, and in federal court on First Amendment issues. And if she does not prevail we have turned a very dark corner in our 250th year as a free country. There is a cost to freedom. We need to pay it or lose that freedom. If our threshold is intolerance of a word we don’t like then we have lost it.

The illegal immigrant population likely peaked in 2024 at 14-15 million (The Bad). Actual numbers may be double those reported by several sources. Interestingly, the legal naturalized citizen population (The Good) is roughly the same.

Judge Not

When you are out and about, remember that the person that “looks” like an illegal to you has a 50% chance of being legal.

The Ugly

More than 1.7 million illegal immigrants (about one out of eight or nine) are from countries that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has determined to pose a national security threat to the United States.

Among the “ugly” are at least 382 listed on the US Government’s Terrorist Watchlist.

These “Special Interest Aliens” (SIA) come from 26 nations, including Afghanistan, Cuba, Iran, Libya, Nigeria, Syria, Turkey, China, North Korea, Kyrgystan, Mauritania, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Venezuela.

The “Non-Detained Docket”

According to DHS, 662,566 non-citizens with criminal histories are roaming freely throughout our country.

15,000 charged or convicted of Murder

20,000 of sexual assault

60,268 of burglary, larceny or robbery

105,146 of assault

16,820 of weapon offenses

3,971 of “commercialized sex crimes” (human trafficking)

3,372 of kidnapping

70,000 of drug crimes

12,106 0f fraud

12,000 of obstruction of justice

The Complicit

There are currently estimated to be more than 500 “Sanctuary” cities, counties and states that prohibit cooperation with federal authorities (funded by federal taxpayers) that enforce our immigration laws.

Government officials promoting illegal alien “sanctuary” jurisdictions that are disobeying federal law and refusing to cooperate with federal authorities are in violation of Title 8 US Code 1324 (iii) which states it is a felony to harbor and conceal an illegal alien from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. Penalty for the first violation is up to 10 years imprisonment and between 5 and 15 years for subsequent violations or aggravated circumstances (commercial advantage or private financial gain are aggravated circumstances).

Underage Illegal Immigrant Labor - Examples

These victims released into our country by the Biden-Harris administration are performing the following dangerous jobs for low pay:

12-year-old roofers in Florida and Tennessee

Underage slaughterhouse workers in Delaware. Mississippi, and North Carolina

Underage sawmill workers working night shifts in South Dakota

Underage migrants running milking machines in Vermont

Underage meal deliverers in New York City

Underage coffee harvesters and lava rock wall builders in Hawaii

13-year-old immigrants washing hotel sheets in Virginia

Each of us has seen similar illegal activities in our own cities, towns and rural areas.

Some lawbreaking employers actually get on radio and TV to complain about ICE shutting down their illegal employment of illegal alien adults and children.

Connection to Socialism and Communism

According to the Communist Manifesto, Democratic Socialists are those “the communists can work with”.

From the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels:

Abolition of private property

Graduated Income Tax

Abolition if Inheritance

Confiscation of property

Central State Bank Monopoly

Public education

State ownership of communication and transportation

State ownership of means of production

Trump Administration Anti-Communist Reversals

Defunding of Corporation for Public Broadcasting (our TASS, Pravda, and Izvestia)

Phased elimination of the federal Department of Education’s monopoly on education

Executive branch ability to fire any federal appointed official

Lowering of federal inheritance tax

Removal of the WOKE agenda from the military

Vastly Lower Crime Rates

“Save Act” Imperative

Congress must pass the SAVE ACT before August 2^nd, 2026 to ensure federal voting integrity! We have, for decades, instructed third world countries on the administration of their elections; it is time we followed the same rules ourselves!

Love = Work + Courage

There was a time when Vice President JD Vance was hailed by Republicans as the embodiment of the American Dream - a young man raised in poverty and disadvantage in the Appalachians by a loving grandmother (his “mee-maw”), to rise to leadership.  Vance served with honor as a U.S. Marine, he became a successful entrepreneur, wrote a book about his journey which was made into a major movie, married a beautiful and wealthy lady with whom he has three adorable children.  He was chosen as Trump’s Vice President from his one term in the U.S. Sentate.  JD Vance seemed the very essence of the all-American rags-to-riches saga.  

JD Vance has lost his way.

The cracks in this lovely façade are beginnng to show.  I’m not referring here to his acquiessence to inappropriate fondling onstage in Mississippi, no less, nor his subsequent disparagement of his wife’s religious beliefs and upbringing as a Hindu, although these certainly revealed a different character than the one we thought we knew.  My larger issues with Vance are his political beliefs, which pertain directly to his role as Vice President (potentially President) and his viability as a presidential candidate in 2028.

Let’s look at his official performance and behavior.  At a time when former TV host an commentator Tucker Carlson has been disgracing himself in his blatant anti-semitism and championing of Islam, Shariah and Nick Fuentes, Vance hired Carlson’s son as his personal aide and has become very close to Tucker.  Very weird.

Vance’s own anti-semitic comments and his public beratement of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu at a time when we are allies in a hot war with Iran, have been compounded by such ineptitude in diplomacy as to call into question whether his “MOU” (Memorandum of Understanding) might actually have been some kind of 5-D chess move of Trump’s to “fool” Iran.  Sadly, it seems to have been negotiated “for real” by Vance.  Of course it had no potential for success.  And Trump himself has been tearing it apart.  The current Iranian regime (to be distinguished from the normal people of Iran who have courageously opposed it) has two major goals:  1) to assassinate Trump himself and 2) to bring down the West and all of its friends in a nuclear dust cloud.  It is not possible to pursue deals with a regime with these openly stated goals (whch have been constant since 1979).  And yet here is Vance, conceding that Iran might be left in control of the Strait of Hormuz while scanning about to find some way funnel cash to this terrorist regime by ending sanctions.  We all know that Iran would use this money for a couple of very naughty things - to reconstitute its nuclear threat capability and to fund terrorism around the globe.  And to revisit the assassination idea with regard to anyone they don’t like.  In his efforts to basically advocate for Iran, Vance has become a laughing stock or at least a suspicious character in the world of diplomacy.  Vance has no interest in getting rid of the current regime.  He claims it is because 90 million Iranians are all terrorists and would fan out all over the world and blow things up.  Is he even aware of the conflict that has sparked the counter-revolution that has been raging there?  Or that this regime has murdered more than 40 thousand of its people for simply marching - unarmed - to protest the abuses to which they have been subjected.  This is beyond mere ignorance.  It borders on evil.  His strength, if he has one, is not in the area of international relations.  

He takes Israel to task for supposedly wanting a never-ending state of war in Iran.  Well, of course Israel would want to end the current regime.  These Ayatollas have done all they  can to bring an end to the Jewish state, directly and indirectly.  This will never end until this regime is put our of power.  Israel would like peace but peace is perpetually denied there and everywhere else by this rogue Iranian government.  Of course the Israelis don’t want half-measures.  They were also not consulted on this “MOU”.  What would Vance expect?  When we decided to go to war with Nazi Germany we didn’t say, “Well, we kicked them out of Poland, so we don’t really need to finish them off.”  That would have been absurd.  Better we had just stayed out of it if we were going to do that. 

JD Vance is our new Jimmy Carter.

Not content with his botching of the MOU, Vance has turned to our internal affairs.  He has now begun attacking free market economics.  Yes.  He specifically took Margaret Thatcher’s administration to task (it is arguably far worse since her departure) and the principles espoused by Milton Friedman.  Now if you are an American conservative, Friedman is your economic Bible, your go-to   for the principles of a free society.  Everything that has made America successful and great has its roots in this freedom.  America rejected statism in 1776, in favor of good old colonial meritocracy.  We did not win the Revolution by state-run policy.  We did not set up our new Constitution to form a safety net of socialism.  America has worked because our free market principles and policies have encouraged innovation, development of goods and services and useful ideas.  Apparently Vance has turned on his younger self, the young man, the hero of his story,  who worked hard and earned success.  We’re not supposed to want to do that anymore, according to the aging Vance.  Now we are supposed to desire safety nets and public programs to stand in for the meritocracy that has been making America great for 250 years.  Just who does Vance even think he is?    He is now claiming that Friedman’s ideas worked back in the 1980s, when we were a more “Christian” nation.  What??  He seems to have lost his mind.

Firstly, is he conceding some notion that America is no longer founded in Christian beliefs?  And what does this have to do with Friedman’s principles?  This is insane.  It is a bit like saying the law of gravity applied back in the 1980s when we were more of a “Christian” nation.  These are universal principles.  The Pilgrims found out firsthand how this worked in the Plymouth colony and went back to the drawing board when their socialism failed.  What, exactly, does Vance look to for a model?  The rusted-out Soviet system that collapsed after staggering to its death in 1991?  Or maybe he thinks the Brits finally have it right now, under Starmer.  Maybe he, like Justin Trudeau, would have us emulate the CCP?  Or something more basic when none of that works - like trading fish for beads?

It is time now, and not a moment too soon, to look beyond Vance as the assumed successor in 2028.  There is actualy a fairly wide field.  Secretary of State Marco Rubio for one, seems far more capable when it comes to foreign policy, and a far more intelligent defender of America and our interests.  Better yet, look at the atonishing administrative and political success of Florida’s governor, Ron de Santis.

De Santis will be timed out as governor this year (another clear demonstration of the stupidity of term limits).  Having skyrocketed from a win of less that 1%  for his first term, to a win of 20% for his second, he has proven that success and competency wins votes.  His state is the prime destination for those fed up with the incompetency and failure in their own states.  He has brought down taxes and is working right now to eliminate a large category of residential property tax; he is having a positive impact on crime, he has supported sound judges and courts, he kept his state open for business when other states foundered during the “covid pandemic”, defying the powerful pharmaceutical establishment and Dr. Fauci.  He was proven right, too.  He has consistently stood for conservative values and protection of minors from life-altering “gender care”, he has been highly innovative and effective in rescuing Americans from Israel and the danger zones of the middle east during the October 2023 terrorism.  He has been very successful in efforts to restore services and recover from natural disasters.  He is always ready to act in emergencies - and to offer assistance to other states in time of need.  Most of what he has accomplished has been with the cooperation of his state’s legislature - it is not some one-man band operating on proclamations that will evaporate once he is personally out of office.  He would be my prime candidate for 2028.

The point is, we all need to get off of the JD Vance Express and look for better options.  Vance is revealing himself as more of a socialist than a conservative.  He sounds more like Bernie Sanders than like Ronald Reagan.  In fact, he has specifically discarded the strong economic policies of Reagan, preferring those of Sanders.  This is dangerous.  It is easy to get into a socialist economic system but difficult to extricate ourselves from it when it fails.  Too often we have to bottom out with it.  So let’s get off the bus, regain our equilibrium and look around at the vastly better options.

In general elections, this is often what demagogues want you to do. In practice, though, voting for “the person” may just mean being distracted by personality — like a woman falling for a serial killer’s charms. More on that later.

As for my charms, I won’t seem to have any if I “tell you how to vote.” So I’ll just explain how I vote and why (and why you should vote that way, too!).

When people ask me how I could support _______ (fill in anyone you consider controversial), my answer is always the same:

Politics, famed German leader Otto von Bismarck noted, is “the art of the possible.” It’s not the art of “You get whatever you want, 100 percent, right now, no questions asked” — but of the possible. The late President Ronald Reagan, never accused of lacking conviction, understood this well.

“I have always figured that half a loaf is better than none,” he famously said, “and I know that in the democratic process, you’re not always going to get what you want.”

This was being pragmatic, but not unprincipled. After all, adhering to the truth that politics is “the art of the possible” is an exercise of principle itself.

And I certainly can relate. However “outside the box” you (if you’ve long read me) may consider me, well, multiply that by 10 and you’re probably closer to the truth. I’m best characterized, after all, as Mayberry meets the Middle Ages. This means, of course, that no matter what happens in an election, I never get even a decent percentage of what I want. (Oh, but if I were king….)

As to this, my ideal president would be me. That, however, is not going to happen. Next on the list would be figures such as Alan Keyes or Pat Buchanan (who has aged out); that’s not going to happen, either. Of course, there might be some relatively attractive third-party candidate registering 1.5 percent in the polls, but he also won’t win. So what’s possible is the Republican or Democrat contender.

Next January, either the GOP or Democrats will control Congress; in 2029, a Democrat or Republican will be president. Oh, sure, there will occasionally be an independent or third-party candidate who can compete in a race (e.g., Jesse Ventura in Minnesota in 1998), but this is rare. Even so, too, if they’re congressional independents, such people virtually always caucus with one of the two major parties. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), for example, caucuses with the Democrats.

In other words, in practice (not in law) we have a two-party system. A voter must understand this to cast an informed ballot, and this brings me to why a wise citizen always votes for the party, not the person in general elections. It’s simple:

Because the person will almost always vote with his party.

Don’t believe me? Alright, considering some examples, let’s start with ex-congressman Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), infamous for her anti-Trump rhetoric. I mean, she just hates Trump, right?

Perhaps, but when in office she voted with him 92.9 percent of the time.

Then there’s Senator John Fetterman (D-Pa.). He’s a real maverick who’ll tell the Democrat establishment what for, no?

Maybe, but he votes with the Democrat establishment 91 percent of the time.

Then there’s Senator Susan Collins (R-Me.), who’s fighting to retain her seat this year. Many rank-and-file Republicans call her a RINO, and she’s certainly no Barry Goldwater. Nonetheless, she has voted with President Donald Trump 90 to 95 percent of the time. Yes, really — and she’s known as one of the Republicans most likely to break ranks.

As to this, do you really think someone more right-wing than Collins will be elected in Maine? She’s not only “possible,” but probable.

These figures aren’t outliers, either. The average Democrat Member of Congress has voted with his party (leadership or majority position) roughly 90 to 95 percent of the time in recent sessions. In 2025, House Democrats’ voted with their party ~93 percent of the time; Senate Democrats’ average party unity was around 92 percent.

As for the GOP, the average Republican Member of Congress has voted with Trump 90 to 96 percent of the time. In 2025, House Republicans supported Trump ~95 percent of the time on votes where he took a position; Senate Republicans’ party unity came in at ~96 percent.

The bottom line: Whether we realize it or not, we’re always voting for the party, not the person because the person is merely another vote for the party’s agenda. We just do need to realize it.

(Note: You vote for the person in the primaries. That’s when it matters.)

What this means is that you don’t need so much to know a candidate’s positions. You must know his party’s positions.

Put differently, it’s best to conceptualize general election candidates as tools that serve a purpose. Your decision is only whether to give the Republicans or Democrats another tool in their shed to build their world (advance their agenda).

This framing is valuable because helps forestall an emotionalism that clouds judgment and leads to bad voting decisions. It can help prevent:

• “Marrying” a candidate—idealizing or heroizing one is dangerous because politicians will inevitably disappoint you. (Why? Partially because politics is “the art of the possible” for them, too.) You then can be left angry, feeling like a jilted love interest, and take your ball and go home.
• Hatred-induced derangement—a candidate’s personality can rub you the wrong way, impelling you to vote against the country’s interests. Remember Ben Franklin’s warning, “Passion governs, and she never governs wisely.”
• Saying things such as, “I have to not vote, or support the other side, because the ________ [fill in the party] need to be taught a lesson.” Usually uttered by disgruntled conservatives, this never works. Here’s what the GOP usually concludes after “lesson”-caused losses: “Following the culture, we have to move farther left to win.” You teach a party “a lesson” in the primaries. The MAGA contingent has been doing this with the Republicans, and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is currently doing it with the Democrats.

So if the primaries offer a better tool, certainly, discard the old one. Until then, as the saying goes, “Ya’ gotta’ dance with the girl ya’ brung.”

In fact, we can take a lesson here from the DSA. Say what you will about it, the group is smart enough, and disciplined enough, to know that victory is achieved by working through and gradually seizing the prevailing institutions. Change under our constitutional republic is generally evolutionary, not revolutionary. If you made our Congress seven percent better last cycle, that’s fine. Then you make it another eight percent better this time, three percent next time, 11 percent after that, etc. This kind of discipline and perseverance is the only way to succeed via electoral means. When people get emotional and cast angry or vengeful votes, or refuse to participate, they so often just end up following one step forwards with two steps back.

So the decision this November is actually fairly simple. Ask yourself if you support the following:

• The “transgender” agenda.
• Sexual-distortion treatments (euphemistically called “gender-affirming care”) for minors.
• Putting boys in girls’ sports and spaces (and vice versa).
• The institutionalized unjust discrimination prescribed by DEI.
• Playing groups against one another for political gain; e.g., peddling the “white supremacy” lie.
• Enabling a de facto foreign invasion via open borders.
• Favoring illegal aliens over citizens.
• Administering slap-on-the-wrist “justice” and letting dangerous illegal migrants roam free.
• Rampant prenatal infanticide (abortion).
• Funneling taxpayer money to left-wing groups via entities such as USAID.
• Having more Ketanji Brown Jackson-like, DEI judges occupying the courts.

If you support most or all of the above, then the Democrats are for you. That is what they’ll seek to deliver.

If you oppose the above, then the Republicans are your choice. It isn’t complicated.

Of course, as with a magician, demagogues would distract you with misdirection. “Look at the candidate’s personality!” (Don’t look down there at the issues.) “Listen to his syrupy rhetoric and, oh, what charm!” (Don’t note that he’ll be an obedient party tool.) Behold James Talarico with his boy-next-door bearing. Absorb Justin J. Pearson with his Afro and preacher-like persona. Go gaga over a Graham Platner type with his country-boy kayfabe.

It’s all nonsense. Pretty or plain, charming or churlish, sophisticated or simple, they generally vote in lock-step in office.

Of course, we’d all like better choices and government. But for that, we must transform Americans’ hearts and minds. For under representative government, politics can’t deliver what the culture won’t allow.

In November, we have a binary choice that while not as different as Heaven and Hell, is very much like virtue vs. vice. Choose your tool set wisely.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on X, Truth Social, MeWe, Gettr, Tumblr, Instagram or Substack or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

This background leads to something that caught my eye. A small quarter-page monograph discussed the sixth President of the United States, John Quincy Adams, son of President John and Mrs. Abigail Adams. My curiosity piqued as I glanced over his early exposure to the American Revolution. At age 10 he went with his father on diplomatic missions. At age 14 he was secretary and French interpreter to the American ambassador to Russia. At age 16 he was secretary to the American commissioners in France who negotiated the peace treaty ending the American Revolution. Not too shabby for a young lad.

Then came the kicker. John Quincy Adams served as US President from 1825 to 1829. After losing the1828 election to Andrew Jackson, he retired to Quincy, Massachusetts but was persuaded to run for Congress. I had never heard of this. He handily won election to the US House and served for the next 14 years until his death in office due to a stroke. (Americaslibrary.gov)

Adams was particularly independent of political parties which allowed him to champion the anti-slavery movement as an abolitionist. He worked tirelessly for universal emancipation. However, in 1836 the Southern members of Congress passed a “gag” rule forbidding any discussion of slavery in the US House of Representatives. (Silencing discussion – cancelling -- sound familiar?) In 1844 Adams finally secured a vote of 108 to 80 to overturn the gag rule.

Enter Wayne Allyn Root, a contemporary conservative radio talk show host (USA Radio Network) and his exclusive one-on-one interview with Donald Trump on the “Wayne Allyn Root: Raw & Unfiltered” radio show. That show aired on June 4, 2021. Root covered many topics with the former President. Then Root sprang his suggestion, his idea, and his game changer.

Trump cannot run for another term as President. But what if the former President ran for a congressional seat in Florida? This would not be to oust another Republican but to replace someone willing to retire. The plan might look like this. Trump steps down in 2028 at a convenient time. Vice President Vance becomes president and then runs for president in November 2028 -- the same time Trump runs for congress. Trump responded to the idea as “very interesting.”

Trump is popular in Florida as well as throughout the US and would undoubtedly win the seat if he ran. But this move is bigger than just one House seat. Seventy-four million supporters across the nation would vote for their own House candidates many of whom would support Trump. His coattails are long enough and broad enough to pull many other Republicans along with him in their own races thereby claiming a Republican majority in the House in 2028. Root believes that with Trump’s leadership the Republicans could gain a sizable House majority – a repeat of the 2010 and 2014 elections.

The next step would be to secure his election as Speaker of the House of Representatives, the second most powerful position in Washington. That should not be difficult given his current support among House Republicans. This could only be the Democrats’ worst nightmare.

Imagine for a moment the criminal investigations Trump could launch against those committing fraud, election malfeasance, and “deep state” shenanigans. More importantly, Trump could stymie, if not block, every piece of legislation liberal Democrats and Democrat Socialists would propose. Trump would go down in history as a true American folk hero. He could remain as the House as Speaker controlling legislation for the next decade.

Root acknowledges that Trump was clearly fascinated by the idea. Obviously, Trump could not agree to it on the air. Nor would the Republican National Committee respond. But the seed has been sown.

Envision Speaker of the House Donald J. Trump sitting behind any Democrat President as he or she delivers the State of the Union speech to a joint session of Congress. Imagine Trump’s facial expressions each time that President uttered an incredibly false and stupid remark, committed a faux pas, or spoke untruths fed him by his staff. Would Trump’s antics be unbecoming? No more so than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tearing up President Trump’s State of the Union remarks on the House dais.

What the swamp breeds, the swamp deserves – good and hard!

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at bnt0019@gmail.com.