Author: 1man1vote

Calling All Cars

During a recent meeting of the Carson City Council in the City of Carson, California, a heated discussion emerged around the city’s paratransit service program — specifically the contract for its “Dial-A-Ride” service for seniors and disabled residents. The focal point: the proposed shift in contract from the longtime local provider Yellow Cab of Los Angeles (and its affiliate) to the ride-hailing giant Uber. From the remarks of Councilman Jawane Hilton of District 1, who anchored much of the discussion, the decision appears to have been shaped by resident testimony, service-quality concerns, and the unique transportation needs of seniors and disabled individuals.

 

Councilman Hilton opened by noting that Carson residents spoke “clearly and passionately” about the dependable service they have received from Yellow Cab over decades — especially for seniors and disabled riders. According to his account, Yellow Cab has built relationships, trust, and service protocols familiar to clients who rely on curb-to-curb rides for medical appointments, trips to visit loved ones, and maintaining a quality of life. From his viewpoint, the motion to award the Dial-A-Ride contract to Uber — even though Uber currently lacks handicap-accessible vehicles and has a record of service complaints — risked undermining those relationships.

 

Hilton proposed a compromise: rather than sole-sourcing the service to Uber, split the contract so that Yellow Cab would continue providing transportation specifically for the seniors and disabled passengers, while also launching an outreach and education initiative to boost awareness of the service, aiming to improve access for residents who may not yet be familiar with how to use the program. His substitute motion prevailed after debate, ensuring that the senior and disabled segment would remain protected rather than shifted entirely to a new vendor.

The significance of the issue extends beyond the simple vendor choice. At stake is access, continuity of care, and service equity. Riders with disabilities or mobility constraints often rely not only on a ride being available, but on the driver’s familiarity with their needs, the timing and reliability of the ride, and the ability to book via phone rather than purely through smartphone apps. During the council meeting, residents and disability advocates emphasized that the ability to call in, the familiarity of the driver, and the consistency of service matter as much as cost or app-based convenience.

 

From publicly available meeting summaries, staff had recommended awarding the contract to Uber as the single contractor after a standard RFP. But following vigorous public comment and council debate, the Council directed city staff to develop a dual-provider approach, allocating trips between two vendors and returning to the Council with revised contract drafts. The city emphasized that any interim contract must include termination and performance remedies, ensure phone-based booking for residents unable to use apps, preserve the role of local taxi drivers, and prevent service disruptions during the transition.

 

From the resident perspective represented by Councilman Hilton, the key concerns were: (1) whether shifting to Uber alone would disrupt the continuity of service for seniors and disabled riders; (2) whether Uber’s fleet is equipped (or lacking) in terms of accessible vehicles for those who use wheelchairs or other mobility aids; (3) whether an app-based dispatch-only model sufficiently addresses the population in Carson who depend on low-cost, accessible transportation and might struggle with smartphone-only scheduling.

 

By securing a split contract and preserving Yellow Cab’s longstanding role, the council effectively hedged against the risk of service gaps or degradation. Councilman Hilton’s argument was that while innovation and new service models can offer efficiencies, the city cannot compromise the quality of service for vulnerable populations in the name of cost or modernization alone.

 

At the same time, the decision reflects a balancing act in municipal procurement: on the one hand, the possibility of integrating ride-hail platforms like Uber which may promise more flexibility or lower cost; on the other hand, the imperative to maintain local vendor capacity, ensure equity of access (especially for non-smartphone users), and preserve service relationships tailored to vulnerable users. The outreach and education component proposed by Hilton also signals a recognition that simply changing providers is not enough — residents need to know how to navigate the service.

 

One of the broader themes here is the intersection of public procurement, senior and disability services, and the evolving ride-share economy. As traditional taxi services face competition from app-based alternatives, municipalities like Carson are tasked with ensuring that vulnerable riders are not left behind in the transition. Issues of accessibility, trust, reliability, and digital literacy become just as important as pricing and vendor innovation.

 

Councilman Hilton’s emotional tone (“Yes I was passionate but at times that is what is required,” as he put it) underscored the stakes from his perspective: that seniors and disabled residents of Carson must not see a drop in service simply because of a shuffle in vendors. It was not about rejecting Uber outright, but about preserving local service infrastructure and ensuring that the replacement or addition of vendors does not erode service quality.

 

In sum: The City of Carson Council’s decision — guided by Councilman Hilton’s advocacy — reflects a cautious approach to modernizing paratransit services. By approving a substitute motion to split the contract rather than awarding it solely to Uber, the council upheld continuity for seniors and disabled riders via Yellow Cab while opening the door to new service models and outreach efforts. The resolution therefore attempts to balance innovation with equity, responsiveness with reliability, and cost-efficiency with human needs. The key test ahead will be the implementation: whether the dual-provider model maintains the service levels residents expect, whether the access and education programs reach the intended audience, and whether the transition avoids disruptions for those most dependent on the service.

 

As the writer of this story, I try to avoid editorialising and conflating personal perspectives into a piece, however I put myself through college, driving a yellow cab, and spent considerable time behind the wheel of a Super Shuttle, or Uber and recently retired as a Metro driver. I was often in the seat, servicing Carson residents on the 246 line down Avalon.

As a rule, passengers with disabilities will most always find comfortable accommodations on Metro buses, but the few times that I needed to accommodate a wheel chair when driving an Uber – it was not a great experience, because my vehicle was a compact SUV, when they should have ordered a Comfort, or even an Uber Black. The range and size of vehicle requests, sight unseen can sometimes vary, and cancellation is not always pleasant. When Councilman Hilton reached out to me, I was intrigued by the opportunity to help spread the word about such a dynamic issue, that while smoothed over in compromise, it may yet face continuous debate.

 

Stay Tuned.

 

Story: Charles Jackson

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Bank

Excus my attempt at translating Spanish. As I understand it, this organization donates meals, but you will have to call for information.

SUNDAY FOOD BANK

HELPING PEOPLE

AT 9:30 AM

RECEIVE FREE FOOD

4434 LENNOX BLVD

INGLEWOOD CA 90304

On this occasion you will receive a free bag of food and a prayer.

CALL (631) 339-2080

TO RESERVE YOUR BAG

 

Government Shutdown -V- Childhood Education

     On the seventeenth day of the government shutdown, Maxine Waters introduced the Head Start Shutdown Protection Act of 2025 (H.R. 5790) in the House of Representatives.  The proposed legislation seeks to shield the nation’s early-childhood education programs from disruption when federal funding lapses.

     The bill addresses a pressing concern: without federal allocations during a shutdown, local providers of the Head Start program face an immediate loss of access to critical support—placing children, families and staff in jeopardy. According to Waters’s office, these setbacks “grow worse over time.” 

     Under the act, state and local governments—as well as school districts—would be reimbursed for funds they expend to maintain Head Start or Early Head Start operations during a shutdown. The mechanism requires entities to front the cost and seek federal reimbursement after funding is restored. 

     Congresswoman Waters, a former assistant teacher and volunteer coordinator for the Head Start program in Watts, starting in 1966, emphasized the human dimension. She noted that vulnerable children, their families, and the dedicated teachers and staff who serve them should not suffer because of a funding impasse beyond their control. The intent, she said, is to ensure that grant-recipients remain open and can continue to serve. 

     While the bill responds to a specific shutdown scenario, its implications reach further: it underscores how early-childhood education programs operate at the intersection of federal, state and local systems—and how a lapse in one link can ripple across the system. For example, even temporary disruptions in Head Start programs can affect developmental milestones, parent-education supports, nutrition services and readiness for kindergarten.

 

     Social-media and crowd-sourced reports from local programs during the shutdown underscore the urgency: some Head Start centers report mounting unpaid bills, staff uncertainty, and concern about continuity of service. These snapshots mirror what Waters’s office described—programs losing access to funding and facing mounting challenges as the shutdown extends.

     From a policy-perspective, the bill raises questions about the role of federal contingency mechanisms in essential services. If local entities bear the upfront cost of continuity, states and districts with fewer resources may be disadvantaged—raising equity concerns. And while reimbursement after the fact provides relief, it does not necessarily mitigate the risk of short-term service interruption or cash-flow stress.

     Legislatively, securing co-sponsors and passage in the current political environment will be challenging. The bill’s fate depends on the broader shutdown resolution, appropriations discussions and negotiations over federal priorities. However, its introduction signals a push to protect early-education infrastructure from future funding volatility.

     The Head Start Shutdown Protection Act of 2025 positions itself as a safeguard for one of the nation’s most vulnerable populations—young children and families reliant on federally-supported early learning programs. With the shutdown now well into its fourth week, the legislation highlights how early-childhood education can become collateral damage in budget impasses—and offers one pathway to shielding these services from the effects of federal gridlock.

The Head Start Shutdown Protection Act is also cosponsored by:
Representatives Gabe Amo (RI-01), Yassamin Ansari (AZ-03), Joyce Beatty (OH-03), Wesley Bell (MO-01), Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. (GA-02), Nikki Budzinski (IL-13), Andre’ Carson (IN-07), Emanuel Cleaver, II (MO-05), Angie Craig (MN-02), Jasmine Crockett (TX-30), Danny K. Davis (IL-07), Debbie Dingell (MI-06), Dwight Evans (PA-03), Cleo Fields (LA-06), Shomari Figures (AL-02), John Garamendi (CA-08), Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-04), Sylvia R. Garcia (TX-29), Dan Goldman (NY-10), Vicente Gonzalez (TX-34), Steven Horsford (NV-04), Glenn Ivey (MD-04), Jonathan Jackson (IL-01), Hank Johnson (GA-04), Greg Landsman (OH-01), Summer Lee (PA-12), April McClain Delaney (MD-06), LaMonica McIver (NJ-10), Seth Moulton (MA-06), Kevin Mullin (CA-15), Joe Neguse (CO-02), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-00), Jimmy Panetta (CA-19), Emily Randall (WA-06), Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), Terri Sewell (AL-07), Bennie G. Thompson (MS-02), Dina Titus (NV-01), Rashida Tlaib (MI-12), Ritchie Torres (NY-15), Juan Vargas (CA-52), Nydia M. Velázquez (NY-07), and Frederica S. Wilson (FL-24).

https://share.google/CzwLlg6O7mqdfd4v2

 

Charles Jackson Author

Urgent Communication

Urgent Communication

 

The office of Maxine Waters (D-CA) has issued a strong condemnation of what it describes as a “mass firing” at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) during the current federal government shutdown. On October 14, 2025, Waters — ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee — released a statement asserting that roughly 442 HUD employees have been terminated, citing figures from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 

According to the figures shared by Waters’ office, the breakdown of the terminations includes: 103 employees from HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing; 36 from Housing Counseling; 50 from Housing Operations; 114 from Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity; and 30 from Community Planning and Development. 

The statement alleges that the firings occurred amid the ongoing “Trump-Republican shutdown,” linking the move to broader efforts by the federal government to reduce workforce numbers and weaken HUD’s ability to deliver on its mandate. Waters characterized the action as “cruel, dangerous, and disgraceful,” and argued that it jeopardizes assistance programs relied on by millions of Americans. 

Earlier this year, Congresswoman Waters raised concerns about field-office closures at HUD, including allegations that the agency under Scott Turner may be planning to shutter a significant portion of its regional presence. In April 2025 she sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and HUD’s Office of Inspector General seeking inquiry into whether HUD was meeting its legal obligations to maintain regional offices. 

A protest at HUD’s Washington, D.C. headquarters earlier in March backed the concerns. Federal workers and community advocates gathered to protest workforce reductions and warn that staffing cuts could delay housing assistance and negatively impact vulnerable households. Waters participated in delivering a letter to HUD, according to local coverage. 

In her press release Waters emphasized that HUD’s key programs support extremely low-income households, noting that wide-scale terminations of staff would hamper the agency’s ability to carry out its mission: “Millions of Americans depend on,” she said, “federal assistance to keep a roof over their heads.”

While the press release makes strong claims about the legality of the action — stating that the firings were “illegal” because Congress has already appropriated funds and the President cannot eliminate mandated programs — external independent sources have not yet fully verified all aspects of the firings, such as the exact number or each affected office. 

For Angelenos and other Americans who depend on programs administered by HUD — such as tenant-based housing vouchers, project-based rental assistance, and public housing — the staffing reductions, if accurate, could mean slower processing of claims, fewer enforcement actions for housing discrimination, and increased workload on remaining staff. Waters’ office places the number of Americans who rely on HUD programs at roughly 9 to 9.3 million, nationwide.

As the shutdown continues, and as congressional Democrats press oversight of HUD’s actions, the outcome of these staffing changes — including any legal challenges and operational impacts — will bear watching. Congresswoman Waters has pledged to “hold this Administration accountable” and to continue fighting for safe and affordable housing access “regardless of race, zip code, or income.” 

 

Full Press Release

https://1man1vote.com/wp/full-press-release/

 

 

Charles Jackson: Author

American Pay Day

Whoopi Goldberg urges lawmakers to forgo pay as shutdown’s human toll deepens

As the federal government shutdown that began on October 1, 2025 stretches into its third week, public frustration is widening — and some high-profile voices are calling for an unusual form of accountability. During the October 15 episode of The View, cohost Whoopi Goldberg publicly asked both Republicans and Democrats to “not take their salary” until lawmakers reopen the government, a plea that drew loud applause from the studio audience and quickly spread across social media.

Goldberg framed the demand in starkly practical terms: until lawmakers feel the financial pinch their constituents are experiencing, she argued, there is less incentive to settle the impasse. Her remarks came amid broader coverage of the shutdown’s effects on federal operations and workers — from furloughed employees missing paychecks to staffing shortages that have disrupted air travel and other services. Journalistic accounts show the shutdown began at 12:01 a.m. EDT on October 1 and, by mid-October, had furloughed or left unpaid hundreds of thousands of federal workers.

The reaction on crowdsourced social platforms was rapid and varied. Clips of Goldberg’s remarks circulated widely on Instagram and Facebook, with users amplifying the segment and many commenters echoing the sentiment that elected officials should share the immediate consequences now borne by rank-and-file federal employees. On Reddit and in other comment threads the response mixed praise, calls for broader ethics reforms, and criticism that refusing pay is more symbolic than structural.

The shutdown has also produced other high-visibility flashpoints that fueled the online conversation. Airports in several cities declined to run a video produced by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem that blamed Democrats for the funding lapse; airport authorities cited concerns about partisan messaging in public spaces. That episode, covered by national outlets and shared across social feeds, became another focal point in debates about blame, messaging, and the appropriate role of government communications during a funding crisis.

Experts and advocates who have followed previous shutdowns note that voluntary refusals of salary would not by themselves solve underlying budget and policy disputes. Congressional pay is governed by law, and proposals to condition or withhold pay have surfaced in past impasses; legal, logistical, and political questions remain even where public appetite for punishment or sacrifice is high. Reporting on the current shutdown stresses the real-time human consequences — delayed paychecks, potential layoffs, interrupted services — that make symbolic gestures resonate with a broad audience even as they may have limited immediate policy effect.

What is unmistakable in the public record is the intensity of sentiment across platforms: broadcast segments like Goldberg’s have become catalysts for online debate, and social media has amplified both first-hand accounts from affected workers and broader calls for accountability. Whether Goldberg’s proposal will translate into legislative action, or remain a galvanizing public plea, will depend on the same political calculations that led to the shutdown — and on whether lawmakers decide to respond to public pressure in ways beyond rhetoric. For now, the conversation underlines how a prolonged funding gap can shift civic discourse as quickly on daytime television and social feeds as it does on the floors of Congress.

 

 

Play Ball

Story: Charles Jackson

Fallout From Shutdown

In October 2025, the Trump administration issued mass layoff notices across federal agencies during a partial government shutdown, triggered by administrative over-reach and multiple layers of failed policy directives.

Among the hardest hit was the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), where approximately 442 employees were terminated, distributed across offices such as Public and Indian Housing, Housing Counseling, Housing Operations, Fair Housing & Equal Opportunity, and Community Planning & Development.

In response, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), speaking as the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, condemned the action as “cruel, dangerous, and disgraceful,” accusing the administration of using the shutdown to intentionally weaken HUD’s ability to administer housing programs. (Her full statement framed the firings as part of a broader campaign to “dismantle” HUD.

Ms. Waters’s critique aligned with broader concern that these personnel cuts would disproportionately undermine HUD’s fair housing enforcement. In particular, media outlets and housing advocates flagged that a significant portion of the firings targeted fair housing investigators nationwide — personnel whose work is essential to investigating claims of discrimination based on race, disability, religion, and other protected categories.

This wave of terminations came amid already deep staff reductions at HUD. The agency’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), for example, had reportedly lost 45 percent of its workforce since the start of the Trump administration, a reduction Waters and others cited as evidence of a long-standing effort to weaken civil rights enforcement in housing.

Notably, whistleblower accounts surfaced shortly before the mass layoffs. Two HUD civil rights attorneys, Paul Osadebe and Palmer Heenan, alleged the department had engaged in political interference in fair housing enforcement, and that discrimination complaints were being deprioritized. Within days of going public with those complaints, the attorneys were terminated — a move critics described as retaliatory and illegal.

On October 15, a federal judge in San Francisco, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, granted a temporary restraining order blocking these firings. In her ruling, she characterized the layoffs as “politically motivated,” “arbitrary and capricious,” and likely exceeding executive authority. The judge ordered that no further reduction-in-force (RIF) notices be enforced until further review, and demanded a detailed accounting from the administration about the layoff plans.

The union groups that brought the challenge — including the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and AFSCME — applauded the decision, arguing that federal employees should not be treated as political pawns.

The broader context of the layoffs extends far beyond HUD. The administration had publicly acknowledged that approximately 4,200 federal employees across multiple agencies — including Education, Health and Human Services, Treasury, EPA, Commerce, and Housing — received or were slated to receive RIF notices as part of the shutdown. In some cases, proceedings were already underway before the judge’s halt; in others, agency field offices were shuttered entirely.

On social media and in online forums, federal employees shared copies of layoff notices, expressed shock at being targeted during a pay blackout, and speculated about the motives behind selecting particular offices for cuts. Some federal workers also raised concerns about lack of access to human resources during the shutdown, making it difficult to appeal or even know one’s status.

Critics warn that eliminating staff in fair housing and community development jeopardizes protections for vulnerable families, especially as housing costs and homelessness continue rising. The National Low Income Housing Coalition has long warned that reductions in HUD capacity — especially during a housing crisis — could lead to evictions, stalled affordable housing construction, and weakened civil rights enforcement.

As the legal battle proceeds, Ms. Waters and her Democratic colleagues have pledged to restore HUD’s mission and hold the administration accountable. But for many public servants and people relying on HUD programs, the pause ordered by the judge may only delay further disruptions. The outcome remains uncertain — and the human consequences are already being felt.

Talk show host Whoopi Goldberg has urged members of Congress to refuse their salaries during government shutdowns, arguing on The View that lawmakers should feel the same economic strain as the citizens they represent. Her remarks have reignited a long-standing public debate over congressional pay during shutdowns.

Although Goldberg’s stance struck a chord with many Americans, the U.S. Constitution mandates that congressional salaries continue regardless of funding lapses. Still, some lawmakers have voluntarily requested to have their pay withheld or pledged to donate their salaries in solidarity with furloughed federal workers.

Her comments join a broader chorus of public voices criticizing political gridlock. Late-night hosts such as Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, and Seth Meyers have also used humor to condemn the recurring shutdown crises, emphasizing the toll on government employees and the broader economy.

Across social media and talk shows alike, the consensus remains clear: the financial burden of shutdowns falls hardest on everyday workers, not elected officials. Goldberg’s challenge underscores a growing frustration among both celebrities and citizens who believe lawmakers should share in the consequnces of their inaction.

 

 

 

 

 

Defend America. VOTE

The state of California leads the charge to defend against Donald Trump’s deceptive attempt to rig upcoming battles for congressional seats. VOTE!

The major special election for California in 2025 is the Statewide Special Election on Tuesday, November 4, 2025.

​All registered voters in California will receive a ballot for this election, which includes a vote on Proposition 50.

​Key Dates for the November 4, 2025, Statewide Special Election:

​October 6, 2025: Vote-by-mail ballots begin to be mailed to all registered voters.

​October 20, 2025: Last day to register to vote.

​November 4, 2025: Election Day.

The Authoritarian Abuse of Power

Maxine Waters Condemns Indictment of James Comey, Accuses Trump of Authoritarian Abuse of Power

 

Washington, D.C. — Congresswoman Maxine Waters (CA-43) issued a blistering statement Thursday denouncing the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey by the Department of Justice under President Donald Trump. Waters characterized the action as “payback and retaliation,” warning that it represented an alarming erosion of democratic norms in the United States.

“The indictment of James Comey is not just another headline. This is a five-alarm fire signaling the collapse of American democracy as we know it,” Waters declared. “Donald Trump is dragging the United States down the dark and dangerous path toward dictatorship.”

The Justice Department announced the indictment earlier this week, following Trump’s repeated public demands that Comey be prosecuted. Waters argued that the charges were politically motivated and baseless, describing the process as an example of the administration weaponizing federal power against perceived opponents.

Accusations of Retaliation and Political Targeting:
In her statement, Waters accused Trump of creating and manipulating evidence when existing legal grounds for prosecution were lacking. She claimed that federal prosecutors who resisted bringing charges against Trump’s critics were dismissed from their posts. Waters highlighted Trump’s firing of the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who had declined to pursue cases against both Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

 

She also pointed to Trump’s past public clashes with members of Congress and state officials as examples of a broader strategy of political retaliation. “There are no ifs, ands, or buts – let’s call it what it is, Donald Trump is an authoritarian,” Congresswoman Waters said. “He is systematically transforming government into a tool for personal and political revenge on his enemies.”

 

There Are Broad Concerns Over Executive Power.
Waters expanded her criticism beyond Comey’s indictment, citing a pattern of executive actions she described as unconstitutional. According to her statement, Trump had issued Executive Orders targeting universities with what she called “fabricated violations,” as well as directives aimed at private law firms, restricting the types of cases they could take and compelling them to provide pro bono services in areas favorable to the administration.

She alleged that institutions or firms refusing to comply faced repercussions, including revoked security clearances, canceled federal contracts, and restricted access to government facilities.

In one of her most pointed criticisms, Waters condemned what she described as threats to media freedom. She claimed Trump’s Federal Communications Commission chair pressured Nexstar Media Group to remove late-night host Jimmy Kimmel’s program from its ABC affiliates, allegedly tying compliance to approval of a pending corporate merger.

Silence from Republicans and a Call to Action:
Waters reserved sharp words for congressional Republicans, accusing them of failing to uphold their constitutional responsibilities. “To my surprise, Republicans, the so-called champions of free speech and the party of law and order, have been eerily silent all week as Trump tramples on free speech and breaks the law with impunity,” she said.

She also issued a direct appeal to the private sector, urging corporations not to capitulate to political pressure. “You do not have to cave to his threats. You do not have to be complicit in the silencing of speech, the erosion of law, and the criminalization of dissent,” Waters stated.

Commitment to Resistance
Waters emphasized that Democrats would continue opposing what she described as authoritarian overreach. She encouraged citizens to remain active in public demonstrations and political advocacy. “Democrats will continue fighting to protect American democracy and the rule of law. But we cannot do it alone,” she said. “I continue calling on the American public to keep resisting, keep showing up on the streets, and keep giving them hell.”

The indictment of Comey has sparked intense debate across the political spectrum, with questions mounting over the use of prosecutorial power in cases involving political adversaries. Waters’ statement underscored the concerns of critics who argue that the move sets a dangerous precedent in American governance.

Consensus:
We the people have passed this way before and faced legal Implications of Firing Prosecutors Who Declined Politically Sensitive Cases.

The firing of federal prosecutors has long been a contentious issue in American politics, raising questions about the balance of power between the executive branch and the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The president has constitutional power to appoint and remove U.S. attorneys, who serve at the president’s discretion. While legal, firings tied to political interference in ongoing or potential cases challenge the principle of prosecutorial independence.

Department of Justice norms require the DOJ to traditionally operate with autonomy from the White House. Presidents may set priorities, but specific prosecutions are expected to remain free from political influence. Firings that appear retaliatory risk undermining this independence.

Yet, those norms have faced historical challenges.
The Saturday Night Massacre (1973): President Richard Nixon ordered the dismissal of Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox, fueling a constitutional crisis.

In 2006 Several prosecutors were dismissed under President George W. Bush, leading to congressional hearings and the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

      Here we go again. As a private citizen, this resident was never one to shy away from frivolous or oft times vexatious litigation, even when he was spending his daddy’s money. Now, with the virtually unlimited resources of the taxpayer’s money, the threat of lawsuits and endless appellate actions serve to crush any and all citizen attempts to reign in or challenge his consistent stream of executive orders and personal agendas. Without the partnership of a willing congress, we the people stand alone with only the voice of the minority, to act as our sounding board.

So we stand by watching, while his whimpering demands for Comey’s Prosecution become solidified, as he boldly fires his way through the voices of reason. Finally, the indictment was announced, and the Justice Department brought chargesl0IXfznpbAwGUXZO against James Comey.

Bypassing congressional oversight, he pens Executive Orders Against Universities, issuing directives requiring them to pay millions in penalties over alleged violations.

He scribbles his signature on  Executive Orders, Targeting Law Firms that silence their mastery of the law itself. He implemented new rules dictating which cases law firms could take and compelled them to provide pro bono services for administration-backed causes. Firms that refused reportedly lost contracts and security access.

Recent FCC Threats Against Nexstar Media Group effectively turned their business plan sideways. The administration’s FCC chair warned the broadcaster to pull Jimmy Kimmel’s program or risk complications with a pending merger approval. The network had to choose between presidential threats to shut them down, and customer threats to cancel their streaming services. At risk – Trumpian ire, if they keep Kimmel’s show on the schedule until May, when his contract sunsets. Whatever mergers they were planning will be delayed at least through the holidays. By then, Don Quixote will undoubtedly be distracted by other giant windmills.