Here are the steps Republicans will use to stain and subvert the upcoming elections.
Dear Editor,
Will the 2026 Midterm elections be conducted in a “free and fair” manner? Could they be compromised in some fashion? Yes, but how?
Step One: Mr. Trump will declare, without verifiable evidence, that voter fraud will take place during said elections in Blue states. He signs an Executive Order limiting mail-in voting.
Step Two: Legislators in some Red states will promulgate creative laws to allow the “redrawing” of congressional district maps, to “gain” additional U.S. House of Representatives seats.
Step Three: Given unverified voter fraud allegations, the Department of Justice will instruct the FBI to initiate criminal/civil court proceedings against Blue states suspected of perpetrating such fraud.
Step Four: Again, based upon voter fraud allegations, the Department of Homeland Security will deploy ICE agents to large cities in Blue states to monitor, patrol, question, and detain registered voters “deemed suspicious.”
Step Five: Republican members of Congress will be instructed to promulgate new laws and statues designed to prevent full participation by all citizens eligible to vote, by introducing VOTER ID requirements, eliminating mail-in ballots, etc..
Step Six: Both the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of the CIA will declare evidence of foreign government interference with voting machines in Blue states and will impound said machines until a thorough investigation has been conducted. The election results will, therefore, be postponed until further notice.
Mr. Trump has installed loyal sycophants in all of the agencies cited above, who are more than willing to subvert “free and fair” elections taking place especially in Blue states.
WARNING, free and fair Midterm elections may not take place in 2026.
John M. Mishler Harpswell, ME
About the author ~
John M. Mishler was a former Associate Vice Chancellor for Research and Professor of Basic Life Sciences, Medicine, and Pharmacology at the University of Missouri. He currently resides in Harpswell, Maine.
Haunting memories of a child's measles death in rural Nepal take on new urgency as the disease surges across America with over 900 cases in just six weeks. A former immunization team leader warns that declining vaccination rates threaten to return the U.S. to an era of preventable childhood deaths.
by Mary Anne Mercer, MPH, DrPH
The escalating number of measles infections in the U.S. brings haunting memories from the year I spent leading an immunization team in Nepal. I was trekking through a rural district without roads, electricity, or modern conveniences. We immunized kids under age five against diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, and tuberculosis, but a heat-stable measles vaccine was not yet available. Sadly, in those small villages the deadliest, most feared illness was measles.
I wrote in my journal about a day I was called to see a child suffering from measles.
We moved into the shadows of a low-slung house and stepped inside. An elderly woman sat on a mat, holding the now lifeless body of a small child, pale and still, in her arms. She was half-singing, half-crying an ancient sound of mourning, rocking him gently and fondling his face, arms, and legs. It was a painful sight, almost too difficult to witness. I took a deep breath, fighting back tears, an immense effort to keep my composure in the face of this tragic scene.
“There’s the boy’s mother,” whispered the local health assistant, pointing with his chin to a younger woman weeping quietly next to the grandmother. In her arms was an older child, also suffering from measles. Other adults and children milled about the shadows of the room. Dust motes floated in the narrow beacon of sunlight streaming through one small window.
We approached the two women with a deep namaste. “Kasto dukhha, Aama,” I said and bowed respectfully. So much pain. The child’s mother looked up with the saddest of eyes and nodded her acknowledgement.
Before a vaccine was widely available, measles caused two to three million deaths around the world every year, most often among malnourished kids. The first measles vaccine required freezing and refrigeration at every point prior to injection, so it was years before a new formulation was available that could be used in areas without electricity. Even today, measles is still a leading cause of child death in poor countries, killing over 100,000 children annually.
In pre-vaccine U.S., measles was an expected rite of passage for kids. “Just get it over with,” was the usual advice. During that era, around half a million U.S. kids came down with measles and roughly 500 of them died every year. When immunization programs were launched after 1963, the numbers gradually dropped to fewer than 100 cases a year by the late 1990s.
But now -- it’s coming back. In 2025, more than 2200 cases were reported in the US, most in families with religious or other objections to immunizations. Three of them died. In only the first six weeks of 2026 over 900 cases have been reported, encompassing half the U.S. states. Among that group are many children of “anti-vaxxer” parents, who unknowingly put their children at risk by refusing the vaccine. Even college campuses are seeing a surge in infections because of generally lower immunization rates among incoming groups.
Why such rapid spread? Measles is in fact one of the most infectious diseases we know: Just spending a few minutes in a room soon after a measles patient has left is enough exposure to lead to infection. Similarly, touching something contaminated by droplets from the sick person’s sneezing or coughing also will do it.
We can combat deaths from measles with widespread vaccinations. “Herd immunity” for measles requires that 95% of susceptible people are vaccinated, and as coverage drops below that level, the risk of outbreaks increases. But the value of vaccines is apparently not understood by our Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Though without formal health training, Kennedy has expressed unverified concerns about the safety of many routine childhood immunizations.
Before President Trump took office, the U.S. was a major supporter of organizations providing vaccines and other basic health interventions for children around the world. But funding for vaccines meant to save children’s lives was cut by the Trump administration, and other sources of support have been slow to emerge. The result: many families—some who live in the most impoverished places on earth—are on their own to provide for their children’s health.
Vaccines prevent kids’ dying from measles and other infectious diseases. We must not return to the era of tragic, needless child deaths that I encountered in Nepal - which could return to this country, unless we safeguard the system that protects our most vulnerable.
About the author ~
Dr. Mary Anne Mercer is a University of Washington public health faculty member and author whose four-decade career has focused on maternal and child health in developing nations. Beginning with her transformative year providing immunizations in rural Nepal in 1978, she has developed health projects in 14 countries and authored books including Beyond the Next Village (2022) and Sickness and Wealth: The Corporate Assault on Global Health. Her recent work strengthening midwifery care through mobile technology in Timor-Leste has been adopted as a national program.
More Editorial Viewpoints
What do you think?
Whether you agree, disagree, or want to build on the ideas in this piece, we’d love to hear your voice. If you have an opinion you’d like to share — on this topic or any other — you can find our submission guidelines here: Sentinel submission guideline.
We welcome a wide range of viewpoints and would be glad to consider your perspective for publication on OurSentinel.com. . Send your letter or commentary to editor@oursentinel.com and help keep the community conversation moving forward.
TAGS: measles outbreak 2026 United States cases, childhood vaccination rates declining America, RFK Jr vaccine policy concerns, herd immunity measles 95 percent threshold
Public funds are acceptable when they glorify power. Fiscal conservatism has not been compromised. It has been discarded.
by Van Abbott
Monuments say more about power than rhetoric ever can. They harden priorities into stone and steel. Donald Trump’s proposed triumphal boulevard arch, advanced under the banner of celebrating America’s 250th anniversary, is not merely an aesthetic project. It is a public declaration that the Republican Party has severed itself from the conservative identity it once claimed and replaced it with spectacle, excess, and personal glorification.
For most of the twentieth century, Republican branding rested on restraint. The party presented itself as the steward of limited government, fiscal discipline, institutional continuity, and skepticism toward executive indulgence. From Eisenhower through Reagan, Republicans spoke of balanced budgets, federalism, and respect for civic inheritance. Even when they expanded federal power, they framed it as reluctant and bounded. Conservatism was defined not by grandeur but by limits, not by monuments but by moderation.
That identity has been steadily hollowed out, but Trump’s arch makes the transformation unmistakable. Republicans once criticized Democrats for symbolic excess and taxpayer funded vanity projects. Now the party’s dominant figure promotes a massive public monument whose purpose is neither national defense nor civic necessity, but legacy narcissistic creation. It inverts conservative logic. Government is no longer something to restrain. It is a branding instrument.
In imperial Russia, lavish displays of power coexisted with mass deprivation and political paralysis.
The problem is not commemoration. Many Americans welcome recognition of the nation’s 250th anniversary. The problem is appropriateness. At a moment when millions of Americans struggle with access to health care, food security, and affordable housing, the allocation of millions or potentially hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to a monument that will almost certainly be named after Trump is not patriotic celebration. It is misaligned priority.
That symbolism deepens when viewed alongside other indulgences. Plans for a $400 million gold accented White House ballroom, gold leaf ornamentation throughout Whitehouse executive spaces, the destruction of historic elements of the Rose Garden, and a broader pattern of aesthetic excess reflect the same governing philosophy. Public funds are acceptable when they glorify power. This occurs while Republicans preside over some of the largest annual federal budget deficits in American history. Fiscal conservatism has not been compromised. It has been discarded.
History offers sobering parallels. In late stage France, monumental court spending continued even as bread shortages worsened. In imperial Russia, lavish displays of power coexisted with mass deprivation and political paralysis. In both cases, monuments were not symbols of confidence. They were warnings of elite detachment. Revolutions rarely begin with ideology alone. They begin when citizens conclude that those in power no longer inhabit the same reality.
Long after the speeches fade, the stone may whisper what the slogans never admitted.
That conclusion is increasingly visible in American political conversation, including among conservatives themselves. There is growing discussion about whether the Republican Party can survive in its current form. A party that embraces executive personalization, rejects fiscal restraint, and treats government as a vehicle for self celebration has vacated the philosophical ground it once occupied. Political vacuums do not remain empty.
It is plausible that a new party could emerge within the next decade, formed from disaffected conservatives, institutionalists, and independents seeking restraint without cruelty and order without authoritarianism. American realignments unfold gradually. They move through donor shifts, primary challenges, and regional coalitions before they become visible nationally. The collapse of the Whig Party in mid-1850s was not widely predicted until it was unavoidable. Similar dynamics may already be in motion.
Whether such transformation requires a revolution depends on definition. The United States is unlikely to experience violent overthrow. But revolutions can be electoral and institutional. When trust erodes, legitimacy fades, and consent weakens, political systems change even if their outward forms remain intact. That process does not announce itself. It accumulates.
Looking ahead ten years, stability is the least likely outcome. Fragmentation is far more plausible. If the Republican Party continues to equate power with pageantry and governance with self display, it risks becoming a personal vehicle rather than a durable institution. In that environment, a reconstituted conservative movement or an entirely new party becomes not radical but necessary.
If that future arrives, Trump’s triumphal arch may stand as a monument of exquisite irony. Built to proclaim national greatness, it may instead serve as the gateway marking the Republican Party’s exit from restraint and its embrace of spectacle. Long after the speeches fade, the stone may whisper what the slogans never admitted: a movement that once warned against excess decided that a very large, very expensive monument to itself was somehow conservative after all.
About the author ~
Van Abbott is a long time resident of Alaska and California. He has held financial management positions in government and private organizations in California, Kansas, and Alaska. He is retired and writes Op-Eds as a hobby. He served in the Peace Corps in the late sixties. You can find more of his commentaries and comments on life in America on Substack.
The shutdown is expected to shave 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points of annualized inflation-GDP growth per week.
by Glenn Mollette, Guest Commentator
Glenn Mollette
The American government shutdown impacts about 1.4 million federal workers, with roughly 700,000 furloughed and another 700,000 deemed essential continuing to work without pay. This number doesn’t include the 42 million Americans who rely on SNAP benefits.
About 13,000 air traffic controllers and about 50,000 TSA officers are currently working without pay. Once the government shutdown ends they will receive their pay. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck so this is a tough time.
The shutdown is expected to shave 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points of annualized inflation-GDP growth per week. It’s also delaying the release of economic data, which could make it harder for the Federal Reserve to make informed decisions on interest and monetary policy. However, many economists believe the negative effects will be temporary and will be recovered when normal operations resume.
The major holdup is that Democrats want a spending plan that includes an extension of Covid-19 pandemic-era enhanced Obamacare subsidies. Republicans want a spending bill first, and then they’ll talk about the extension of those subsidies.
During the government shutdown, the average US congressman makes around $14,500 per month. Their annual salary is $174,000. They will also receive government health insurance. They will receive their ongoing matching contributions paid into their retirement plan by the government, paid time off, free gym membership and other perks.
US Congress members still receive salaries during a shutdown because the 27th Amendment to the Constitution prevents congressional pay raises or decreases during their current term. Their salaries come from a permanent appropriation that isn’t tied to annual spending bills. They are considered essential workers, even though they’re not directly affected by the shutdown like other federal workers.
Most Americans think it’s unfair for Congress to get paid during a shutdown while federal workers don’t. Many argue it’s hypocritical and unjust. However, there are several members of Congress who reportedly have chosen to not receive their pay until the shutdown is resolved.
During the shutdown, Americans can contact their representatives to express concerns. Donate to charities helping furloughed workers. Participate in peaceful protests/rallies. Support local businesses and national parks. Volunteer for organizations helping federal workers. Stay informed through credible news sources. Reach out to neighbors who are federal workers to offer help. Vote at the upcoming election.
About the author ~
Glen Mollett is the author of 13 books including Uncommom Sense, the Spiritual Chocolate series, Grandpa's Store, Minister's Guidebook insights from a fellow minister. His column is published weekly in over 600 publications in all 50 states.
More Editorial Viewpoints
The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization. We welcome comments and views from our readers. Submit your letters to the editor or commentary on a current event 24/7 to editor@oursentinel.com.
by Glenn Mollette, Guest Commentator
Artificial Intelligence, AI, is a wonderful tool for research and information. However, I don’t want my deepest relationship to be with a chatbot, chatgpt, robot or anything related to AI.
Glenn Mollette
There is a mega billion-dollar AI movement that is connecting people with their own personal AI bot who will be their dearest and best friend. Someone who cares, who is attentive and fulfills all their conversational needs regardless of the topic. I hope our planet doesn’t become so desperate for companionship that everyone starts spending hours every day talking to “something” that doesn’t really exist but is able to hold a conversation about any topic for hours on end without stopping.
So much of our world already lives in isolation. Millions, perhaps billions of people live in seclusion with their faces continually focused on their phones or tablets. We don’t call people on the telephone or visit them in person like we used to do. Now people can socialize even less as they may find their AI bot, configured to any personality or gender they desire, more interesting than talking to real people.
I am grateful that I have Jesus, my beautiful wife, family and people associated with my work to talk with. I would surely be sad if I felt that I had to turn to something mechanical for conversation.
Japan is already in a sad situation. Over 3000 men have married virtual girlfriends since 2017. One man, reportedly married his robot girlfriend, Gatebox’s Hologram Girl, in 2018. Japan does not recognize these as legal but symbolic marriages. Between now and 2065 Japan’s population is supposed to drop from 128 million to 88 million people.
There are several reasonsfor this including an aging population, low birth rate and limited immigration. A love life that is centered on a virtual character will do nothing to help their dwindling population.
In America our choices are growing. Realbotix robots are supposedly fully interactive and mobile. Lovot is a soft warm robot for emotional connection. Aibo is Sony’s AI-powered robot dog that learns and adapts to owners. Elliq is a robot that keeps elderly users active and engaged. Vector is a small robot that responds to voice commands. Kiki is an AI powered pet robot that recognizes faces. Ami is a caregiving robot that assists with daily activities. Amazon has Astro which is a home monitoring and smart assistant robot. The list goes on. Maybe, you are more interested now in one of these or something different that is certain to come.
The AI market is expected to reach $1.81 trillion by 2030, growing at a rate of 35.9 percent.
Artificial Intelligence is here and we can make it a great tool or allow it to become a negative influence in our lives. It’s kind of like television, pizza and candy bars. A little bit is good but we can overdo it as we can with most anything.
About the author ~
Glen Mollett is the author of 13 books including Uncommom Sense, the Spiritual Chocolate series, Grandpa's Store, Minister's Guidebook insights from a fellow minister. His column is published weekly in over 600 publications in all 50 states.
The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization. We welcome comments and views from our readers. Submit your letters to the editor or commentary on a current event 24/7 to editor@oursentinel.com.
We are entering into a different season in America. It’s not a season everyone likes or voted for but the season is changing. For some it’s better, for some it’s worse. For some it’s good news, for some it’s bad news.
Your perspective colors your season. For example, if you love Autumn then you have enjoyed the current season in much of America. You haven’t enjoyed it if you’ve been in the path of a hurricane but you’ve enjoyed it if you live in most any other place in America, We’ve had a dry
Fall season but it has been beautiful. Many dread the winter months, while some welcome cool weather over the long months of dry hot weather. If you live in Southern Arizona, you are ready for some cooler weather.
Political seasons are hard on our nation. We’ve been immersed in political advertisements for months. The Presidential campaign has gone on forever. We are so ready to move forward. For many in America this doesn’t feel good while others think it’s great.
Seasons come and seasons go. No season lasts forever. There is always a new season around the corner. It’s best for all of us if we can make the best of whatever the season of life is at the time. Winter or Summer, make the most of the season. Youth or old age, they pass by so enjoy your season. Small children or adult children, love them and roll with the seasons. Young parents or old parents, roll with the seasons. Making great money or making less money, roll with the seasons.
Try to make the best of your current season in life. It’s not always easy. We don’t like the seasons of life when we are sick or even dying. Some seasons are difficult and even harsh and cruel but they come to us all if we live long enough. So, enjoy the good seasons, tread water or make the best of what seems to be a bad season because in time in some way the season will change.
Glen Mollett is the author of 13 books including Uncommom Sense, the Spiritual Chocolate series, Grandpa's Store, Minister's Guidebook insights from a fellow minister. His column is published weekly in over 600 publications in all 50 states. The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization. We welcome comments and views from our readers. Submit your letters to the editor or commentary on a current event 24/7 to editor@oursentinel.com.
Abortion is a critical, if not the most important, issue for many voters – especially women, according to polls – ahead of the U.S. presidential election in November.
Harris and Trump have starkly different track records on abortion.
Harris and Trump have starkly different track records on abortion. As an academic, my scholarship focuses on reproductive health law, health care law and family law. In this piece, and in anticipation of the election, I briefly consider the broad strokes of each candidate’s past positions on and actions regarding abortion.
Harris’ abortion record
As California’s attorney general, Harris co-sponsored the Reproductive FACT Act, which, among other requirements, mandated that crisis pregnancy centers inform patients that they are not licensed medical facilities and that abortion services are available elsewhere. These centers are nonprofit organizations that counsel pregnant people against abortion, sometimes using deceptive tactics.
As a U.S. senator, Harris opposed anti-abortion bills that would have conferred personhood rights on fetuses.
In 2017, Harris investigated the tactics of undercover videographers at Planned Parenthood clinics who, through deception and fraud, sought to entrap clinicians into making controversial, though legal, statements, and who possibly contravened state law on secret recordings.
Conversely, Harris championed various bills that would have protected and advanced reproductive rights. In 2019, for example, Harris was a co-sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would have enacted a federal statutory right to abortion. It also did not pass.
Finally, during Harris’ tenure as vice president, the Biden administration has used its executive power to ease barriers to abortion access, primarily through federal agency actions. The Food and Drug Administration, for example, removed a rule in 2021 that prohibited mailing medication abortion.
The Department of Health and Human Services issued guidance affirming that federal law requires emergency rooms to perform an abortion when it is medically necessary to stabilize a patient needing urgent care.
The Biden-Harris administration also supported federal legislation that includes accommodations for abortion. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, enacted in 2023, requires employers to provide time off for a worker’s miscarriage, stillbirth or abortion.
Trump began his presidency in 2016 by promising to appoint Supreme Court justices who wouldoverturn Roe v. Wade.
Although the Biden-Harris administration’s abortion policy is not necessarily based on just the vice president, Harris, since Roe’s reversal, has been at the helm of the administration’s “Fight for Reproductive Freedoms” tour, speaking nationally in support of a right to abortion. Harris has also stressed the damage done in 14 states, in particular, where abortion is banned throughout pregnancy or after six weeks of gestation.
Trump’s abortion record
During Trump’s tenure as president, he supported various changes – in the form of judicial appointments, federal funding and agency actions, some led by anti-abortion federal employees – in the service of making it harder for people to gain access to abortion care.
Trump began his presidency in 2016 by promising to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. He nominated three justices – Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch – who joined the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, reversing Roe in June 2022.
The Trump administration unsuccessfully tried to replace the Affordable Care Act and undermine its coverage for contraceptives as well as its neutral stance on insurance coverage for abortion. Trump supported bills such as the never-passed American Health Care Act to limit abortion coverage in private health insurance plans.
Trump also appointed several people with anti-abortion positions to his administration, including Charmaine Yoest, the former CEO for the anti-abortion group Americans United for Life, who served as a top communications official at the Department of Health and Human Services.
The Trump administration advanced numerous other anti-abortion policies. For instance, the Department of Human and Health Services’ 2017 strategic plan defined life as beginning at conception – a decision that supported funding for crisis pregnancy centers and abstinence-only education programs.
Finally, the Trump administration adopted an anti-abortion approach when it came to foreign policy. Trump reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy, also known as the Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign nongovernmental organizations that receive U.S. funding from performing abortions or referring patients for abortion care elsewhere. Under the Mexico City Policy, Trump in 2017 removed US$8.8 billion in U.S. foreign aid for overseas programs that provide or refer for abortions.
In the coming weeks, both candidates will have a lot to say about abortion, possibly refining or changing their stances on aspects of abortion law. In assessing what both candidates have to say about how their administration will approach abortion, voters might consider what we know about their past actions.
While admitting that Medicare and Medicaid “help many,” the authors of Project 2025 nonetheless declare that the programs “operate as runaway entitlements that stifle medical innovation,
by Sonali KolhatkarConservatives have done the United States a huge favor by explaining in detail what they’ll try to do if Donald Trump is reelected.
Project 2025, a “presidential transition project” of the Heritage Foundation, helpfully lays out how a group of former Trump officials would like to transform the country into a right-wing dystopia where the rich thrive and the rest of us die aspiring to be rich.
Declaring in its Mandate for Leadership that “unaccountable federal spending is the secret lifeblood of the Great Awokening” (really!), the plan focuses heavily on reversing social progress on the rights of racial and sexual minorities.
It also promises to decimate the most popular benefits programs in the U.S.: Medicare and Medicaid.
In a section dedicated to the Department of Health and Human Services, Project 2025 declares that “HHS is home to Medicare and Medicaid, the principal drivers of our $31 trillion national debt.”
This is a popular conservative framing used to justify ending social programs. In fact, per person Medicare spending has plateaued for more than a decade and represents one of the greatest reductions to the federal debt.
While admitting that Medicare and Medicaid “help many,” the authors of Project 2025 nonetheless declare that the programs “operate as runaway entitlements that stifle medical innovation, encourage fraud, and impede cost containment, in addition to which their fiscal future is in peril.”
To solve these imaginary problems, they suggest making “Medicare Advantage the default enrollment option” rather than traditional Medicare.
But Medicare Advantage (MA) is not a government-run healthcare program. It’s merely a way to turn tax dollars into profits for private health insurers. The more that MA providers deny coverage, the more money their shareholders make. There is no incentive for them to cover the health care needs of seniors.
There is plenty of evidence that MA programs not only fleece taxpayers by submitting inflated reimbursement bills to the government but also routinely deny necessary medical coverage.
In other words, they’re drinking out of both sides of the government trough.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research pointed out in a March 2024 paper that the “insurance companies that run these MA plans spend significant sums of money to blanket seniors with marketing” while relying on “heavily restricted networks that damage one’s choice of provider along with dangerous delays and denials of necessary care.”
But Project 2025 claims, without evidence, that “the MA program has been registering consistently high marks for superior performance in delivering high-quality care.”
Medicaid, the government program that covers health care for the lowest-income Americans, including millions of children, is also a major target of the conservative authors.
They want to add work requirements to the benefit, adopting the familiar conservative trope of low-income Americans living off tax dollars because they’re too lazy to work. And like the MA programs, they want to allow private insurers to get in on the game.
Calling Medicaid a “cumbersome, complicated, and unaffordable burden on nearly every state,” Project 2025 complains about the program’s increased eligibility while at the same time claiming to care about how it impacts “those who are most in need.”
But a June 2024 report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concludes that Medicaid’s expanded eligibility rules have helped insure millions of Americans who would otherwise be uninsured and saved money in state budgets.
Most encouragingly, “the people who gained coverage have grown healthier and more financially secure, while long-standing racial inequities in health outcomes, coverage, and access to care have shrunk.”
Project 2025 claims to have the underlying ideology to “incentivize personal responsibility,” as if its authors simply want Americans to begin acting like responsible grownups. But they mysteriously don’t apply this same standard to wealthy elites — perhaps because that’s precisely who they are.
Sonali Kolhatkar is the host of “Rising Up With Sonali,” a television and radio show on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. This commentary was produced by the Economy for All project at the Independent Media Institute and adapted for syndication by OtherWords.org.
I’ve never bought a copy of The National Enquirer. However, I’ve read from it some down through the years. If I’ve been standing in a grocery store checkout line for a few minutes then the tabloid has been a source of comic fodder. It’s always been a good comic book.
I’ve never read anything in the publication that I took as gospel truth. Typically, the headlines have been something sensational like, “Green Creatures from Mars Visit the White House,” or, “76-year-old woman has triplets. Democrats blame it on George H.W. Bush.”
The former publisher David Pecker, recently admitted in New York City court that the tabloid had made up the story about Lee Harvey Oswald being associated with Ted Cruz’s father Rafael Cruz. The story was completely fabricated along with fabricated pictures. The fabrication was that Rafael Cruz and Oswald were handing out pro Fidel Castro propaganda prior to Oswald’s assassination. The point of the whole lie had to be to cost Cruz just enough votes to drive him out of the 2016 run for President. This is a rear-end busting moment for The Enquirer.
In recent days, we have also heard about the tabloid buying stories from individuals just so they could simply kill the story. If the publication did not promise they were publishing the story, then they had every right to buy the story and not follow through with publication. They paid for it and had every right to decide not to use the story.
So, what if they had used any of the stories they did not publish? Many Americans are like me they take the stories of The National Enquirer with a grain of salt. However, of course, some people believe everything they hear and read. Even though the story about Ted Cruz’s father was a big lie, many Americans surely believed it because some believe anything that’s in print.
Sadly, we can’t believe everything we hear on television and we can’t believe everything we read in The National Enquirer, if anything.
In today’s world do you believe everything you hear on television or read in print?
Many of us miss the good ol’ days of Walter Cronkite or the evening news with Huntley-Brinkley. You probably don’t even know who I’m talking about but it was back in the old days when pushing a certain political candidate on any news format would not have been tolerated.
We live in a different day, or do we? The National Enquirer, has always been The National Enquirer. Stormy Daniels, has always been Stormy Daniels. She is a pornographic actress. David Pecker has admitted to being who he is, someone who is willing to publish a lie to bring about pain and suffering regardless of the cost. Former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden are who they are and most likely you have made up your mind which way you are voting.
Regardless of how much you enjoy reading the garbage of The National Enquirer just remember that even though you might put feathers on a frog it will never fly and will always bust its butt every time it jumps.
He is the author of 13 books including Uncommom Sense, the Spiritual Chocolate series, Grandpa's Store, Minister's Guidebook insights from a fellow minister. His column is published weekly in over 600 publications in all 50 states. The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization. We welcome comments and views from our readers. Submit your letters to the editor or commentary on a current event 24/7 to editor@oursentinel.com.
In his State of the Union address, President Joe Biden referred to an American dilemma – the shrinking Snicker’s bar. He pointed out that his Snicker’s bar purchase had less or fewer Snickers. I’m not exactly sure what a Snickers is, nuts, chocolate, sugar, the content of the bar. Size matters, when you’re hungry. It’s just a bad thing when you stop at your local convenient store to buy a soda pop and you walk out with a Snicker’s bar that cost more but has less in the wrapper. Apparently, there must be less Fritos and Cheetos in the bags as well. This is a sad time in America.
I remember buying a large bottle of coke, a bag of chips and a pastry for 25 cents. Those were the days but they are long past.
It’s an epidemic of course. It’s not just candy bars and junk food. Check the size of your fast-food hamburgers and the cost. You are paying more for less. A hundred dollars doesn’t go very far at the grocery store. American families are having a difficult time putting food on the table. A mother who cooks for her family every day is having to stretch her budge more and more.
President Biden is concerned about the problem but it’s been a growing problem for three years. It’s not getting better When does he propose to fix the problem, after he is reelected? Why not now? Or, why not over the past three years? People are hurting today. Promises of a better life if he is reelected are not reassuring to many Americans.
The border crisis is our number one issue this election. It’s not a priority with President Biden. He’s had three years to be walking that border. He’s had three years to stop the invasion of illegals and gang members into our country. His recent photo op to the border is too little too late. Joe Biden stopped the progress of the border wall. He opened the gates wide to the illegals. The results are not positive. We have major cities on the verge of economic collapse. Public schools, housing and more are suffering. Mayors are pleading for help.
Recently, Biden submitted a Border Immigration Bill to Congress that has not been approved. The bill still allows for an average of 5000 people a day over seven days to come into the United States illegally before closing the border. Or, the one-day maximum number is 8,500 entries before the border is closed. This a larger number of people than some of our rural counties in America. Over the course of a year this would amount to a city the size of Indianapolis or larger coming into our country. This is not border security, but only a continuation of Biden’s insanity.
We do need to help Ukraine. Putin is not anyone’s friend. Trump made a stupid statement about Putin attacking non-supportive NATO countries. However, the border security and Ukraine expenditures should be separate bills. If we don’t tightly secure our border our children are going to have a scary place to grow up. Sadly, we may already be in that place.
He is the author of 13 books including Uncommon Sense, the Spiritual Chocolate series, Grandpa's Store, Minister's Guidebook insights from a fellow minister. His column is published weekly in over 600 publications in all 50 states. The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization. We welcome comments and views from our readers. Submit your letters to the editor or commentary on a current event 24/7 to editor@oursentinel.com.
