DJ Trump issued first on Truth Social and then on X-Twitter a quotation attributed
to Napoleon Bonaparte, to whit: “He who saves his country does not violate any
law.” On X-Twitter DJ Trump then attached the statement to the well known
heroic image of the military general Napoleon mounted on his steed.

Immediately there came to me the association with a fairly well known, but
unfortunately stereotypically inappropriate, Italian anecdote I first heard from a
professor of romance languages back in about 1978. Napoleon on his major
campaigns through other parts of southern Europe and then down into Egypt was
said to engage in extensive plundering. In the late 1960s an aunt of mine took us
on a tour of her native Bern, Switzerland, and pointed out the treasury of the
wealthy burger city that was one of the victims of Napoleon’s plunder. When
Napoleon got down into Italy, however, he was himself the victim of the extensive
plundering of his army’s baggage train and was supposed to have asked the
Italians: “Sono tutti gli Italiani dei Ladri?” – Are all the Italians thieves? – The
response was “No, non tutti, ma buona parte.” – No, not all, but a goodly part. – Of
course, the “double entendre” with Napoleon’s original Italian-Corsican surname
became immediately pronounced. Coming from Corsica, with its own reputation
for characters of ill disposed thievery, Napoleon himself was veritably designated
the major thief himself.

So DJ Trump like Napoleon before him is supposedly saving his country? And
he’s not violating any laws and engaging in any thievery? That is – Not as the
supposedly atruistic political leader being substantially involved in selfaggrandizement?
Not violating the laws passed through legislative authority? Not
violating the laws or principles and structures laid out in the constitution? Not
violating any commonly accepted ethics, nor the laws of a commonly accepted
Judeo-Christian God?

It took the combined armies of Europe to stop Napoleon’s propagandistic
demagoguery and thievery. And that brought with it the restoration of European
aristocracy, autocracy, and the delay of essential democratic progress for the
peoples of Europe.

History is replete with demagogic geniuses, or phony populist wannabe autocrats,
who didn’t make their country great again. Yuval Noah Harari in his book Nexus.
A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI, provides a short
excursion of how Napoleon did not make France great again (pp. 268-269 and 275-
276). The ultimately legitimate goals of France hardly aligned with Napoleon’s
preliminary genius military accomplishments. Harari discusses Napoleon in the
context of Carl von Clausewitz’ analysis of war – along with the impossibility of
human judgment to align with any ultimately legitimate goals of war and politics,
and much less the impossibility of artificial intelligence to do so.

My own academic research, having to confront German nationalistic, autocratic
and propagandistic discourse, has definitely led to the conclusion, and not only for
me, that Hitler hardly made Germany great again.

Do many supporters really believe that a fake populism, not really concerned with
the betterment of the greater masses of the population, is going to make America
great – again? Napoleon, Hitler and Trump did not, and will not make, their
country great again. Their strategy and goals were/are (self-?)delusions.

So maybe DJ Trump (like the atheistic Ron Reagan?) is not particularly afraid of
either mortal or immortal judgment. Indeed, what apparently seems to be most
important to DJ Trump is leverage, power and acclaim. But perhaps it’s about time
for his acolytes, particularly those professing any religious persuasion, to come to
the realization that DJ Trump is absolutely not, neither for his country, nor
particularly for his various religious supporters, any kind of savior.

Jay F. Bodine
Former Associate Professor of German
3/18/2025

Only Donald Trump—the famously inattentive father of five children with three different women—would use Mother’s Day as an opportunity to receive gifts.

And, oh, what a gift it was.

ABC News’ Jon Karl and Katherine Faulders reported on Sunday morning that:

In what may be the most valuable gift ever extended to the United States from a foreign government, the Trump administration is preparing to accept a super-luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from the royal family of Qatar—a gift that is to be available for use by President Donald Trump as the new Air Force One until shortly before he leaves office, at which time ownership of the plane will be transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation, sources familiar with the proposed arrangement told ABC News.

The plane is estimated to cost $400 million and is so luxurious it’s known as the “palace in the sky.”

Qatar is not doing this out of the kindness of its heart. They want to win favor with Trump. They know the way to his heart runs through his wallet. This is not a gift.

It’s a bribe—pure and simple.

This is the most brazenly corrupt move by any president in U.S. history, and it’s not close. It’s no different than Qatar handing Trump $400 million in cash in a duffel bag under the table. Democrats, the media, and everyone who isn’t a Trump sycophant should treat Trump accepting this “gift” as the massive scandal it is.

This Is a Bribe

Foreign governments often give gifts to U.S. government officials. I once received a box of jewels during President Obama’s 2009 visit to Saudi Arabia. I immediately handed the gift to a State Department official because the law prohibits government officials from accepting gifts from foreign governments without congressional approval. Every official—from President Obama down to the lowest-ranking traveling aide—does this, even for the smallest of gifts. If the president or another official wants the gift, they can buy it at market value from the U.S. government. (I couldn’t afford the Saudi Arabian jewels.)

By accepting this jet, Trump isn’t following the law. He’s breaking it…

Continue reading this post for free in the Substack app

Claim my free post

Several weeks ago, I watched a very fine movie rendition of ”Fiddler on the Roof”. You will probably recall that “Fiddler on the Roof” was originally a theater production depicting life in a small Jewish community in the small fictional Jewish village of Anatevka in Czarist Russia, just after the beginning of the 20th century when Nicholas II reigned as czar in imperial Russia. You will recall it was at that time that some serious pogroms against the Jewish people broke out in Russia. This was a time before a period of extreme repression leading up to the cataclysmic events of the Russian Revolution which lead eventually to the Bolshevik take over in Russa, ushering in the period of extreme social unrest around the world, the advent of extreme politics , the Nazi rise in Germany, the 2nd World War and its aftermath of Cold War.

Following the rise of extreme politics on both the Left (in the rise of Stalinism in the Soviet Russia), and on the Right (with the rise of fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany) leading to the cataclysm of the 2nd World War and the horrendous slaughter and genocide of whole groups of people, a period of reconciliation and general goodwill entered the politics of the Western Democracies. These politics were given official impetus in the policies fostered and lead by the United State, England and the Western allies and found political expression in the formation of the United Nations and the alliances formed around the American core values in the form of NATO and SEATO and others to check the spread of totalitarian political systems perceived in the West as being championed by the politics of the Soviet Union and Maoist China.

The political climate in America and many of its democratic allies in the West, found probably. the most important and humanitarian official expression in the policies of the Marshall Plan, which the United States made available to the countries of Europe, some of whom had been our prior enemies in the war, entailing the expenditure of millions of dollars (in today’s dollars billions) in aid to rebuild their war-ravaged countries. The outlay of financial aid through the Marshall Plan was probably the most important public action taken in rebuilding the war devasted economies of Western Europe, strengthening the West’s ability to contain totalitarianism from the Soviet Union and issuing in a period when the Government of the United States took the side of altruism, help and goodwill.

I had the privilege of living through this time and witnessing the basic goodness and attitude of generosity and help that came from our country, both from its individual citizens and its government.

During this period my two brothers and I had the wonderful opportunity to sing as a trio both religious songs in church meetings and at numerous funerals, and folk songs at entertainment events throughout the Upper Valley. A song that we sang which encapsulates the private and public sentiments of the age, better than any other, was a song entitled “Let there be Music”. Some of the lyrics of this song, to me, catch the essence of the age of the 1950’s, 1960’, and 1970’s in the United States:

Let kindness and forbearance make this land a glorious place,
Where each man feels a brotherhood, unmarred by creed or race

May the songs of men inspire our deeds to be so designed . . .
That we may glorify our God and live to serve mankind. (emphasis added)

We need to return to this powerful message and policy. This is, in my opinion, the central issue of our age. There is a modern song sung by the singer Andrea Bocelli “I believe” which contains the message:

One day I’ll see men of all colors sharing words of love and devotion.
Stand up and feel the Holy Spirit, find the power of your faith.

Open your heart to those who need you,
In the name of love and devotion.

These two songs summarize what our message as Americans should be in these chaotic and dark days.

The Jews of Anatevka had a place to go when they were driven out of their homes by the official policies of an imperial, tyrannical czar. Tevya and his family could go to New York City and his friend and neighbor could go to Chicago, both in America.

They had a place of refuge in our country. They would not, necessarily, have a place of refuge presently in America.

The message of freedom, hope, openness and welcome found engraved on the Statue of Liberty
“Give me your tired your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shores, send these the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door”, is under assault.

We are the ones who need to stand up and restore the meaning of these principles.

In addition to the principles identified above, the following additional policies for America could restore our moral conscience, confidence and well-being as a people and nation:

1. Returning to and restoring America’s place as the leader of democracy around the world.
2. Returning to and restoring America’s role as the leader of free peoples everywhere from the oppression of tyrants, dictators and strong men.
3. Returning to and restoring the rule of law in America and reaffirming that no one is above obeying, honoring and sustaining the law.
4. Returning to and restoring America’s place as a place of refuge to the politically, religiously and materially oppressed around the world.
5. Returning to and restoring a strong middle class in America and ameliorating extreme divisions of wealth and poverty.
6. Returning to and restoring clear separation between church and state guaranteeing to all creeds, religions and beliefs equal treatment under the law and equal right to practice differing beliefs.
7. Returning to and restoring broad based strong public education.
8. Returning to and reaffirming the importance of true science in our society.
9. Returning to and restoring a sense of honesty and fact-based discussions in politics.
10. Returning to and restoring a sense of brotherhood and gentility in public affairs and politics.
11. Pursuing and supporting policies and specific legislation on the national and state level that would achieve these broad principles.

G. Rich Andrus, retired lawyer
April 14, 2025

On May 1, Donald Trump took out his novelty-sized marker and scrawled his jagged signature on another stupid and legally baseless “executive order.”

This one claims to zero out federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS).

Why is Trump — like so many Republicans before him — attacking NPR and PBS?

• Because Trumpists are desperate to eliminate any source of objective news that honestly reports on the stupid, cruel, and illegal things the regime is doing.
• Because Trumpists can’t stand how programs like Sesame Street and Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood teach kids that it is OK to have feelings and to be empathetic.
• Because Trumpists know that a thriving, independent public media system — a bulwark of democracy — is fundamentally at odds with their project of autocracy, corruption, and power.

For decades, Republicans have been ranting about money going to NPR and PBS. Never mind that the amount of funding for public radio and television is not even a drop in the bucket of overall federal spending. And never mind that those same Republicans are — as we speak — actively plotting to increase the Pentagon’s budget by tens of billions of dollars.

Now, Congress specifically set up the nation’s public broadcasting to NOT be under the control of any president. But Trump is trying to assert control anyway.

Tell Congress:

There is utterly no good reason to eliminate federal funding for NPR and PBS. And Donald Trump has no authority to unilaterally do so regardless. We call on every member of Congress — those whose hearts have not hardened into gravelly nuggets of grievance and insecurity, at any rate — to do everything in their power to assert Congress’ rightful control over federal funding for public broadcasting and to save NPR and PBS from the illegal MAGA buzzsaw.

Click to add your name now.

Thanks for taking action.

For progress,

– Lisa Gilbert & Robert Weissman, Co-Presidents of Public Citizen