The daily news cycle is full of the stories of migrants crossing our southern border. We’re constantly reminded of their struggles as they seek a better future. From the comfort of our homes, we watch on our TV screens the scenes of despair—migrants trapped behind barbed wire, their faces etched with hope for a new future and the suffering from which they emerged. It’s impossible to look at these images and not feel a deep desire to act compassionately, a sentiment rooted in both religious teachings and the innate human yearning for kindness.

As expressed in Matthew 25:35-40:

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me. Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you as a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the Lord answered them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'

Not that I’m a religious person, but I get the symbolism. The Lord dwells within each of us, and to feed, clothe and house a stranger is the same as providing for the Lord Himself.

Yet, we struggle. Amidst our own financial uncertainties, a sense of self-preservation hardens our hearts. This conflict between compassion and self-interest is a natural human response, especially in a society where resources are increasingly scarce and competition is fierce.

Our current strategy, it seems, is to bus these desperate souls to distant cities, perhaps to give someone else an opportunity to practice the writings of Matthew. But alas, those people in distant cities struggle with their own financial uncertainties, and their hearts quickly harden.

This strategy fails on two levels. Not only do those folks in distant cities harden their hearts, but the migrants themselves are never presented with an honest opportunity to earn their way in our society. They came here seeking the American dream, and instead they were bussed to the American nightmare. Opportunities are lost everywhere. It becomes a colossal waste of taxpayer money and does little but make the problem worse. Most recently, we hear of school children in New York City being unable to attend their schools and having to fall back on remote learning, because the schools are occupied by migrants in need of shelter.

It’s clear that our federal government is unprepared for this sustained influx of migration, and instead of offering help from the federal level, they kick the can down the road, leaving it to cities and states to figure out their own solutions.

So, what is the answer? How should a compassionate nation respond?

One obvious solution is to forsake compassion altogether by turning away migrants who attempt to cross the border. Erect an impenetrable wall, locking out the desperate families seeking a better life. I am certain, however, that this solution is not sustainable. It not only challenges our moral beliefs, but it becomes impractical to enforce. A $99 ladder from a local hardware store can easily breach a billion dollar wall. Already, some migrants have cut holes in the current border wall with Mexico and stepped through with impunity. I can’t say I blame them; if I were fighting for my family, a simple border wall is not going to stop me.

Thinking outside the box and sticking my neck out more than just a little bit, I propose a solution that may be fraught with complexities, but in the long run, it will solve many of the problems with illegal migration. It will solve the problem on both moral and logistical planes, costing us far less in the long run. It relies on working with the issue not as a burden but as a potential.

We allow the migrants and refugees to build their own city.

Imagine a city created by its own inhabitants. A city built in on government land that functions autonomously. A city that becomes a model for other similar cities that can be built around the world, each of which houses migrants and refugees, where each resident contributes to the well-being of its society.

In this city, skilled doctors, once tending wounds in war-torn fields, take up scalpels in clinics built to the best medical standards, healing not just bodies but hope. Architects and engineers, their blueprints weathered by exile, design and build apartment buildings, not cages, but homes echoing with love and a true sense of belonging for its inhabitants. Bricklayers, calloused hands once laying the foundations of shattered lives, now raising walls of hope, brick by brick.

The residents of this city would not necessarily be permanent; as their children attend school and they work on their careers, they can apply for asylum in other countries. When asylum is granted, they will enter the country of their choice already prosperous in mind and spirit, and ready to meet the expectations of their adopted country.

Such a city functions on a social contract documented in a charter sanctioned by the UN or other international governing body. It would be a contract of human dignity. Employment, healthcare, housing - not entitlements, but cornerstones of a self-sufficient society. Schools would be erected to educate the young and retrain the adults, staffed with teachers drawn from the pool of incoming migrants and refugees. Police, firemen and other essential services of any city would be drawn from that incoming pool.

It’s true that outside aid will be needed to start such an ambitious project. Money could be found from a pool of cooperating countries who seek to solve their own migrant crises in a way that doesn’t threaten the fabric of their communities while still granting dignity and respect to the migrants and refugees seeking a better life. Essentially, the raw materials to construct such a city is all that the world needs to provide, and leave it to the incoming refugees and migrants to organize themselves and build their own city.

Yes, there will also be a need for city planners who may be drawn from people outside the pool of incoming migrants and refugees. City planning would also require an outside source of water and power as well as a way to handle trash and sewage. These are familiar services that every city in the world is familiar with, so the expertise for constructing such projects is plentiful. Eventually the city would be able to take over many of these services and act with increasing autonomy. Essentially, the world would provide a bridge of support until the city finds its own feet. Like seedlings reaching for sunlight, these communities will blossom with international cooperation, a consortium of like-minded nations recognizing the universality of this human journey. Perhaps not a global chorus, but a potent quartet, weaving harmony from their combined resources and vision.

This city won't be a Utopian ideal, but a crucible of human potential. Mistakes will be made, challenges faced, but within its walls will echo the indomitable spirit of those who refused to let circumstance dictate their destiny. They will build, they will heal, they will create, not just for themselves, but for the desperate souls that enter the city after them, looking for a second chance in life.

I’m also mindful of the fact that building a city is not a trivial process. Even though virtually all the labor will be provided by the residents themselves, the initial cost would be enormous. Consider, however, that the cost burden would not fall exclusively on one nation. A border town with Mexico, for example, would draw upon resources from both countries. The United Nations could also get involved by helping to recruit other nations to “chip in” and help fund the experiment. The payoff would be a great reduction - if not total elimination - of migrant crises worldwide. The city would be able to absorb migrants and refugees over a long period of time, amortizing the cost over many years instead of months. Additionally, if the city proves viable, the rest of the world could follow the example, realizing an economy of scale as more such cities are constructed.

Think not of this as a radical experiment, but a return to our shared humanity. As I pointed out, migration is not a recent plague, but a constant in our history, an endless story of displacement. From the nomads seeking greener pastures to the refugees fleeing war-torn lands, mankind has always grappled with the ebb and flow of humanity.

It's time we stopped building walls and started raising homes. It's time we saw not burdens, but potential partners in this great human experience. Let us, together, not just manage migration, but harness its energy, create not temporary shelters, but cities of hope, testaments to the enduring spirit that whispers, "Beyond barbed wire, a city awaits."

This is a call to action, not just for politicians and policymakers, but for all of us. Let us embrace the vision of a self-sufficient migrant city, not as a distant utopia, but as a potential seed we can all help plant. Share this story, ignite the conversation, and who knows, somewhere beyond the razor-wire fences, a city of hope might just blossom.

In the United States, a sense of discontent with the government isn't just a passing trend; it's a deep-seated issue that manifests as a loss of trust in our institutions. I believe this isn't a coincidence or a mere product of circumstance. It appears to be a deliberate strategy, part of a larger plan to undermine the very fabric of our democracy. Tragically this erosion of trust may well lead us toward losing our freedom and democracy, to be replaced with an autocratic reality that serves not the needs of the many, but only the needs of the few.

Where does this distrust come from?

Think back to some of the defining moments in our recent history that have shaped our current sense of mistrust in our government. The Vietnam War is a tragic example of why American citizens have a legitimate basis for distrusting their government. Built on a foundation of fabricated justifications like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the conflict spiraled into a bloody quagmire that claimed over 58,000 American lives and countless Vietnamese casualties. The televised horrors of the war - complete with body counts - fueled a burgeoning counterculture in the late 1960s, as young Americans disillusioned with government pronouncements took to the streets in protest. The final, devastating blow to public trust came with the release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971, a classified trove of documents exposing the lies and deceptions that had led the nation into war. The Vietnam War remains a painful scar on the American psyche, a horrific reminder of the dangers of government officials acting with impunity and expressing contempt for those who would question their decisions.

Similarly, the 2003 Iraqi invasion, justified by dubious claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction, is another instance where the government's narrative was later debunked, yet those responsible faced no consequences, while many Americans - and countless Iraqis - paid a high price with their blood.

This lack of accountability has been a recurring theme, further seen in the response to the 2008 financial crisis. The government's bailout of the very banks and financial institutions that triggered the collapse contrasted sharply with their complete disregard for the real suffering taking place in people’s homes across the nation. Banks and financial institutions, backed by a corrupt court system, illegally foreclosed on people’s homes, kicking them into the street while Wall Street executives received multi-million dollar bonuses and partied on their yachts. Nobody - not a single person - was ever pursued by the Department of Justice for robbing the nation blind. It was obvious by 2012 that the rich and powerful were in full control of this nation, not the citizenry.

The opioid epidemic is an even more heartbreaking example. Companies like Purdue Pharma were aware of the addictive nature of their products but continued to promote them aggressively. The government’s response was largely muted, with the FDA exercising far too much leniency. This was a critical moment where the government could have intervened robustly to protect public health, but instead, their actions – or lack thereof – contributed to a public health disaster.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the controversy surrounding its origins brought to light yet another aspect of governmental failure. Initially, experts claimed it originated in Wuhan's wet markets, but later theories about lab origins, possibly linked to gain-of-function research, emerged. This inconsistency in messaging and the perceived lack of transparency further fueled public mistrust in our government and its institutions of democracy.

These incidents - and similar ones too many to mention - haven’t just eroded trust; they've led to a backlash. Movements like the Tea Party, Black Lives Matter, and Occupy Wall Street emerged as direct responses to blatant government failures. These movements reflect a society grappling with economic, racial, and political injustices, fueled by a sense that the government has completely abandoned its people.

Like a wildfire consuming everything in its path, the creeping erosion of trust in major institutions like the government and media has opened the door for a dangerous trend: the spread of conspiracy theories. Traditional sources of information, often weakened by financial pressures from the wealthy and powerful, struggle to maintain public trust. This disconnect fuels frustration and a search for alternative explanations, making many people receptive to unverified and often outlandish narratives offered by conspiracy theories.

These theories, despite lacking solid evidence, provide a sense of control and understanding in a world that feels increasingly uncertain. This reliance on alternative narratives, however, creates a fragmented society where people hold entirely different realities, divided not just by opinions but by fundamental perceptions of the truth. This disease of misinformation and disinformation infects the entire political spectrum - from the extreme right to the extreme left - further polarizing our communities and making productive dialogue nearly impossible.

Further exacerbating mistrust, individuals within the government continue to feed the monster of mistrust.  Ironically, political figures have often been the most vocal critics of the system they are a part of. You can trace this back to Ronald Reagan’s 1981 inaugural speech where he famously criticized the government as the problem, not the solution. Such statements, coming from within the system, purposely destabilize the government.

As distrust in government institutions has deepened, an alarming trend surfaced – the search for a savior. This tendency, deeply rooted in human history, can lead to vastly different outcomes depending on who rises to this call and how they wield their power and influence.

Historically, the concept of a “savior” has been a double-edged sword. On one hand, we've seen figures like Moses, who led the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt, embodying the role of a liberator. Jesus, too, offered hope and guidance in times of turmoil. Similarly, Joan of Arc's leadership during the Hundred Years' War and Mahatma Gandhi's nonviolent resistance against British rule in India are examples of saviors who stepped in during critical moments of history and led their people towards greater freedom and justice.

However, this quest for a savior has also led to disastrous consequences when such figures have exploited the situation for personal gain or pursued misguided ideologies. Julius Caesar, for example, used his popularity and military might to end the Roman Republic and establish a dictatorship. Napoleon Bonaparte's initial rise as a reformer eventually led to widespread warfare and his eventual downfall. Of course, the most egregious recent example is Adolf Hitler, whose promise of restoring Germany's glory resulted in one of the darkest chapters in human history.

In recent years, figures like Donald Trump have emerged, capitalizing on a sentiment of mistrust in government. Trump, an admittedly flawed and divisive figure, promised to "drain the swamp" and bring about a new order, challenging traditional democratic norms in the process. His approach and rhetoric, while appealing to a significant section of the populace frustrated by government ineptitude, also raised concerns about the health and future of democratic institutions. By portraying himself as a victim, Trump successfully cemented his bondage with the average person, who feels similarly victimized by a corrupt government and a dubious media industry. The very words, “Make America Great Again,” hearkens back to a period of a largely mythical past - post World War II - where things simply “worked,” and trust in our government, its institutions of democracy and the media were solid.

But this is a Pandora’s Box. When people, disillusioned with the system, pin all their hopes on a single individual, it always leads to a concentration of power that's antithetical to the principles of democracy. The balance of power, a key element in preventing autocracy, is disrupted. The narrative of a single hero coming to rescue society simplifies complex political and social issues, often overlooking the need for collective action and systemic reform. It neither fixes the problem nor creates a long term solution to our collective ills.

We are, therefore, at a crucial point in our nation’s history as we inch toward autocracy. The gradual dismantling of regulatory safeguards, like those seen before and after the 2008 financial crisis, hints at a system increasingly controlled by a few, at the expense of the many. This dismantling of regulations is taking place under the premise that the government, its institutions of democracy and the media cannot be trusted. This is an intentional development, perpetuated by those whose motivations are highly questionable.

Ironically, I agree that this sense of mistrust is legitimate. It is well-founded based on the examples I provided here. We, as a nation, certainly need to move in a different direction. Whether a Democrat or a Republican is at the helm, the end result is inevitable. The Republicans, I believe, will accelerate this inevitable conclusion, but the end result is the same nevertheless. In my opinion, we already live in a veritable oligarchy, but at the very least, we still have a democratic constitution to fall back upon. For now, at least. But this can - and will - change very rapidly unless we the people take actions that are consistent with any thriving democracy.

The first order of business is to restore trust in our government. Though this may seem like a lost cause, I believe we nevertheless must focus on this singular element. Transparency is the key in this pursuit. Recognize that most media outlets do a horrible job at exposing our elected officials. So rather than yelling at the TV, we the people must do the work ourselves. Reach out directly to your elected representatives. Demand that they attend town halls and explain their positions. Put direct pressure on them to perform their jobs, such as demanding that the Pentagon actually conduct and pass a financial audit.

Recognize that our democracy is not a mere spectator sport; it's an active endeavor that requires the engagement and participation of every citizen. The principles of a government of, by, and for the people aren't archaic relics of the past; they are dynamic and vital principles, calling us to action in the present day. This is a critical time in our history. We must seek collective awakening and involvement. Every voice matters, every action counts. From voting in elections to engaging in community dialogues. From holding our elected officials accountable to advocating for policies that reflect our values. From protesting in the streets to making our voices heard at our local school board. From supporting a candidate for office to running for an elected office ourselves. There are numerous ways we must actively participate in shaping our society. It's about moving beyond the realm of online discourse. It’s about moving beyond accepting the media’s simplistic and biased explanations of our government. It’s about stepping into the arena of tangible action. Whether it's through volunteering, community organizing, running a podcast, running for office, or simply staying informed and educating others, our involvement is the cornerstone of a robust democracy.

Mistrust in our government - and to a lesser degree, mistrust in our media - has brought us to the brink of an irreversible slide toward autocracy, and possibly fascism. To a large degree, most people have accepted a new reality where we are mere spectators instead of active participants in our government. Misinformation and Disinformation have lulled us into a slumber, and as we sleep, our government robs us blind of both blood and treasure. For the time being, we still have a constitution, and we the people should start using it as we lace up our boots and jump onto the playing field. Autocracies demand a subservient citizenry; democracy demands we participate. If we act subservient, we will receive autocracy, but only if we participate can we keep our democracy.

The only thing worse than driving over a cliff is to drive over it again. Unless we take corrective action, this is precisely what will happen within our financial system.

The 2008 financial crisis was not just a result of financial misadventure but also of profound corruption. Wall Street's entanglement with Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) and similar complex financial instruments was at the heart of this debacle. These MBS, which were nothing more than bundles of home loans repackaged as attractive investments, were aggressively marketed by a network of financial experts whose integrity was compromised. As the housing market began to crumble, the inherent risks and volatility of these securities became painfully evident. This led to a domino effect across financial markets, culminating in the downfall of key financial institutions. The crisis was so devastating that its ripples were felt not just on Wall Street, but across the global economy, underscoring the catastrophic impact of corruption in the upper echelons of finance.

Faced with potential economic disaster in the fallout, the U.S. government stepped in to bail out numerous banks and financial institutions, injecting trillions of dollars into the economy to avert a complete meltdown. This move, while stabilizing the financial system, was not without its controversies. One of the most glaring was the lack of significant legal or financial repercussions for the individuals and institutions whose corrupt actions had contributed to the crisis. In a twist that many viewed as adding insult to injury, several key figures involved in these corrupt ventures later assumed influential roles within the very industry they had endangered, overseeing the banking sector and its regulations. The bandits were not punished, freeing them to continue their bad behavior.

Today, as the shadows of the 2008 financial crisis linger, Wall Street finds itself at another crossroads, one that echoes past corruption. Despite the lessons that should have been learned, major banks are once again pushing the boundaries, this time in the derivatives market. Wall Street on Parade recently published an article that sheds light on a concerning trend: financial giants are resisting regulatory efforts aimed at ensuring greater stability in the financial system. A key point of contention is the requirement for banks to hold more capital as a buffer against potential losses. Wall Street argues that such requirements restrict their ability to invest, specifically in the derivatives market. This pushback is alarming, considering the risky nature of derivatives trading and its potential consequences. It would appear that the same bandits are at it again; the only lesson they learned the last time around is that the government has their back.

Some brief background regarding derivatives: Derivatives are complex financial instruments whose value is derived from the performance of other assets, like stocks, bonds, commodities, or market indexes. They are often used for hedging risk or speculative trading. While derivatives can provide significant gains, their complexity and reliance on shaky predictions make them highly susceptible to market fluctuations. This volatility is compounded by the use of leverage, where small initial investments can lead to large exposures. The derivatives market, vast in size and scope, is therefore a hotbed for potential financial turbulence.

The situation today is reminiscent of the past, where high-risk financial practices were pursued at the significant risk of economic stability. Wall Street's current resistance to holding more capital as a safeguard reveals a worrying inclination to prioritize short-term gains over long-term security, potentially setting the stage for another financial debacle.

No doubt, the government will cover for Wall Street’s foolishness once again. The intricate dance between Wall Street and Washington is a tale of influence, power, and financial might, where the ordinary citizen is merely a pawn that is willingly cast off the chess board of life in pursuit of ultimate greed. This Wall Street - Washington relationship is particularly evident in the pressure exerted by financial institutions on bank regulators and members of Congress. A case in point is Congressman Jason Smith, chair of the Ways and Means Committee, whose campaign financing paints a telling picture. According to a report from OpenSecrets.org, Smith has currently received over $270,000 in contributions from the Securities and Investment industry for his upcoming 2024 campaign, making this industry his top contributor. Such figures raise critical questions about the impartiality of political decision-making in financial regulation.

This situation is not unique to Smith but is indicative of a broader trend where campaign financing significantly influences legislative and regulatory actions. The financial industry, with its deep pockets, appears to be investing strategically in political campaigns. In doing so, they aren't just supporting candidates; they are purchasing influence. This influence is crucial when it comes to legislation and regulatory decisions affecting Wall Street's operations, particularly concerning high-risk investments like derivatives.

The concern is that members of Congress, swayed by these financial contributions, may push for leniency in regulations, allowing Wall Street to continue engaging in risky financial practices. The narrative of another government bailout looms large in this context. The implicit understanding that the government will step in to cover losses emboldens these firms to persist in their high-stakes financial gambles. It's reminiscent of Charles Givens' notion of “Wealth without risk,” but at a colossal scale and with public funds at risk.

The most disconcerting part of this dynamic is the direct impact on ordinary Americans. Much of our pension and retirement funds are tied up in these financial markets. Thus, when Wall Street engages in risky derivatives trading, it's not just their capital on the line – it’s the financial future of millions. This situation effectively holds the country’s financial security hostage. If Wall Street falters, it's not just the big banks that suffer; it's the retirement plans and savings of ordinary citizens. In this high-stakes game, it seems that Wall Street has managed to secure a safety net for itself, underwritten by the government and, by extension, the taxpayer.

If you're like me, the realization of the scale at which Wall Street operates will not just make you sit up in your chair but quite possibly fall out of it in disbelief. Picture this: according to a Wall Street on Parade newsletter, the towering titans of Wall Street hold an astonishing $157.3 trillion in derivatives, a figure that eclipses the entire world's GDP last year by a staggering $56.7 trillion. This isn't merely a national concern; it's a colossal risk hanging over the global economy. Imagine the scenario where even a fraction of these derivatives goes south and is not covered by capital on-hand. The resulting domino effect could obliterate that $157.3 trillion, sending shockwaves that would make the 2008 crisis look like a mere dress rehearsal.

The magnitude of this potential economic calamity is starting to sink in, and the reaction is a mix of fear and pragmatism. Some people, in their justified uneasiness, are increasingly turning to gold as a safe haven. It's as if the lyrics from the Police echo the current sentiment: “When the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around.” In today's tumultuous financial landscape, gold appears to be the best of what’s still around for many. Its enduring value in times of economic uncertainty offers a glimmer of stability amidst a sea of volatile and complex financial instruments.

But this shift to gold is more than a trend; it's a stark indicator of the dwindling trust in our financial systems and institutions. It reflects a growing awareness among the public of the precarious nature of the financial maneuvers on Wall Street. The question remains: How long can we continue on this high-wire act without a safety net? The answer, unfortunately, might be found in the not-too-distant echoes of the past, unless significant regulatory and structural changes are made to ensure financial stability and restore public confidence.

In light of the precarious situation we find ourselves in, it becomes a civic duty for each of us to take a stand. The Wall Street mega banks, bolstered by their armies of lobbyists, are poised to weaken the proposed capital rules that serve as a safeguard against their high-risk financial practices. We cannot stand idly by and watch this unfold. It's time for action.

I urge everyone reading this article to make their voice heard. Reach out to your U.S. Congressmen and Congresswomen today. You can do this by contacting the U.S. Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. This is your direct line to the decision-makers who have the power to influence the course of our financial future. When you speak to your Congressperson (or more likely, their staff), express your concerns clearly and firmly. Tell them to uphold and enforce stronger capital rules for the so-called “casino banks” of Wall Street. It's essential that our banking regulators maintain stringent regulations to curb the risky behaviors that could lead us into another financial disaster.

This is more than just a call to action; it's a plea for vigilance and responsibility towards the financial stability of our nation and the world. We've witnessed the consequences of lax regulations and unchecked financial gambits. It's time to learn from our past and work towards a future where economic stability is not a gamble, but a guarantee. Let your voice be heard, and let's strive for a financial system that prioritizes the well-being of all, not just the few.

In short, let’s not drive that car over the cliff again.

Earlier this week, I attended two campaign kick-off events that left me with starkly contrasting emotions. One, held in a cozy American Legion hall on a sunny Sunday afternoon, felt like a welcoming hug. The other, tucked away in a sterile hotel meeting room on a bustling Monday morning, felt like a cold, calculated handshake. It was a personal journey through the contrasting landscapes of inclusion and exclusion, tolerance and hate.

In the American Legion hall, the air was alive with authentic excitement and anticipation. Local folks from the surrounding towns mingled freely as if in a large wedding reception, sharing food, laughter, and stories. The candidate, dressed in comfortable jeans, a button-down shirt and a cowboy hat, spoke contemporaneously from the heart. It appeared he had some notes in front of him, but his eyes never really looked down at his notes; instead, he looked out toward the audience and shared anecdotes and personal stories, solidly connecting with the diverse crowd. His words resonated with a message of hope and unity, emphasizing that "we can disagree on policy, but we don't have to hate each other." The smiles across the audience came easily, and the applause felt genuine, a wave of shared emotion rippling through the room. In a private conversation with his wife after the speech, I was told that the line “we don’t have to hate each other,” was made up on the spot. It spontaneously came to the candidate as he related to the people in the room. That line, by the way, drew the biggest applause.

By contrast, the Monday morning event felt like a tightly controlled stage play. The audience, composed mostly of staff and press, sat in a small hotel meeting room, the expressions on their faces seemed calculated. The candidate, adorned in a crisp business suit, delivered a tightly crafted speech that reeked of fear and division. By watching his eyes, I could see that he read directly from the speech without deviation. Overall, the speech was a discourse on hatred and intolerance. He spent his time demonizing entire groups of people, including LGBTQ, illegal immigrants, “groomers,” subscribers of woke ideology, liberals, ad nauseam. He played on our insecurities to further stoke the flames of hatred. The applause felt forced, a rehearsed response to pre-determined cues.

Even the details spoke volumes. In the Sunday gathering, the warm greetings and casual attire created a sense of belonging. My jeans and jacket vest blended seamlessly with the crowd, accepting me as one of them. In the Monday event, by contrast, I wore the same attire and immediately felt underdressed and out of place amidst the formal attire. These were the invisible barriers of exclusion and elitism erected by the campaign. Even the doorman seemed robotically programmed to receive; the first question he asked was "who are you with?," echoing the campaign's message of exclusion. Had I told him that I was with Democracy on the Move, I’m sure his programming would have kicked in, and he would have blocked my entrance. Instead, I returned a confused glance, looked around, shrugged my shoulders and said “I’m with myself.” This apparently confused him, so he stepped aside and allowed me to enter.

These contrasting experiences laid bare the growing divide in our political landscape. One side offers a vision of inclusivity, where differences are embraced and solutions are sought through collaboration. The other feeds on fear, division, and the dehumanization of “others,” leading us down a dark path of hate and intolerance.

As we approach the critical moment of choosing our leaders, these contrasting tales offer a profound lesson. Will we embrace the warmth of inclusion and tolerance, or will we succumb to the cold calculating grip of exclusion and hate? The choice lies in our hands, and the future of our nation hangs in the balance.

Kevin Howard's book, Onward, At Last, presents itself as a compelling mirror to modern American society, revealing the deep-seated troubling issues underlying the pursuit of the American dream. Through a series of insightful essays, Howard dissects the paradoxes and dilemmas faced by individuals striving for success in a society increasingly defined by division, competition, and self-interest.

The journey of Howard himself, as depicted in his book, resonates with the narrative of transformation and self-discovery. From his early achievements and a successful banking career to a profound personal crisis at he neared the age of 40, Howard's story is a testament to the hidden costs of the much-coveted American dream. His eventual move towards a more introspective lifestyle, against the backdrop of the Pacific Northwest's serene nature, lays the foundation for the book’s central themes.

Subscribe now

Critiques and analyses of Onward, At Last have highlighted its in-depth exploration of the root causes of American unhappiness, particularly focusing on how societal values like independence and self-interest, while driving economic growth, often impede genuine contentment and ecological sustainability. The book's structure, comprising 80 short but impactful essays, allows readers to engage with its content in a reflective manner, fostering personal introspection and societal critique.

Furthermore, Howard’s work is lauded for its bold interrogation of contemporary American values and its unflinching look at the disillusionment often accompanying it. The book serves as both a diagnosis of the ailments afflicting modern American society and a prescription for a more interconnected and empathetic way of life. It challenges readers to rethink their understanding of success, happiness, and communal living in the 21st century.

A recurring theme in Onward, At Last is the concept of “Universal Oneness” – an ideology advocating for a deeper understanding of our interconnectedness and interdependence. This idea, set against the backdrop of contemporary issues such as political divisiveness, economic inequality, and global pandemics, underscores the necessity for a shift in perspective from individualism to a more communal and empathetic worldview.

Critics have also noted the book's relevance to current educational and political discourse, suggesting that its insights could profoundly impact the next generation's understanding of economics, politics, and social responsibility. Howard's personal narrative, combined with his incisive analysis of societal trends, makes Onward, At Last a compelling read for anyone interested in understanding and addressing the challenges facing modern America.

In our podcast interview with Kevin Howard, we explore these multifaceted discussions, revealing how Onward, At Last not only critiques the American dream but also offers a hopeful vision for a more unified, compassionate future. Join us in this enlightening conversation as we uncover the transformative potential of embracing our collective humanity.

Listen to the Podcast

In this week's podcast, we're joined by Patrick Lovell, co-producer of the eye-opening 5-part docu-series The Con. Lovell, who personally experienced the devastating impact of the 2008 financial crisis, losing his home, delves into the depths of a compromised American financial system that continues to exploit the middle and lower classes to this day.

Initially, Lovell, like many others, internalized the blame for his predicament. Mainstream media perpetuated a common belief that individuals should bear responsibility for their mortgages, and a sense of shame was placed on people acting so irresponsibly. However, as Lovell's journey into the crisis reveals, this was far from a simple case of personal financial mismanagement. Across the nation, a domino effect ensued: as the economy faltered, job losses skyrocketed, leading to an unprecedented number of home loan defaults. This cycle of doom was not a natural economic downturn but the result of a meticulously constructed house of cards by financial institutions and their fraudulent schemes.

The crux of the crisis lay in the creation and misrepresentation of Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS). These financial instruments, packed with overvalued and unstable mortgages, were a ticking time bomb. Lovell's documentary exposes the ground-level malpractices: mortgage brokers inflating property values, falsifying loan applications, and even altering paperwork to approve loans. This widespread fraud was facilitated by a bonus structure that blatantly ignored glaring risks.

The mortgages, bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities, were passed around like a hot potato in the financial markets. Alarmingly, some buyers of these toxic assets were aware of their dubious nature but continued trading them, often offloading them onto retirement funds. The collapse of this fragile structure led to catastrophic losses for countless individuals, wiping out life savings and retirement funds overnight.

The government's role, or lack thereof, in preventing this catastrophe is another critical aspect The Con addresses. High-ranking government officials, including those appointed by the President, often had deep ties to the banking and finance industries. The documentary highlights the revolving door between government and finance, exemplified by figures like former Attorney General Eric Holder, who refused to pursue justice over the catastrophe and instead returned to a law firm representing major financial institutions after leaving office. This conflict of interest meant that those responsible for the crisis evaded any accountability, walking away with substantial financial gains.

The Con is a five-part series that sheds light on how large banks and financial institutions have hijacked the American financial system, exacerbating the wealth gap. As Lovell discusses in this week’s podcast, the 2008 financial crisis was not an isolated event but part of an ongoing exploitation of America's middle and lower class. With many fearing that we are on the brink of another financial upheaval, The Con is a timely and crucial exploration of the systemic issues plaguing our economy.

Introduction

Due to a busy schedule, I recently paused my weekly podcast production. This break was necessary to manage other commitments effectively. During this pause, things seemed to go well; the pressure eased a bit, and I was able to devote my free time to other matters. But in a sense, I missed doing the podcasts. When I finally got back into interviewing people and putting together more podcasts, it was like returning to your favorite pet after a long journey abroad.

I enjoy podcasting. It’s a labor of love. Our listener base is growing steadily, and I'm excited about reaching more people in the future. In the meantime, I get to meet lots of interesting people and have fulfilling conversations.

The Interview

Such was the case last Tuesday when I met with Franklin Delano “Denny” Roth. Denny is gearing up for a challenging campaign for the U.S. Congress, representing the 8th District in Missouri. As a Democrat, his opponent in the primary will be Randi McCallian, whom we’ve hosted here on the podcast on two previous occasions.

The reason I say his campaign will be difficult is because the incumbent, Jason Smith, a Republican, handily beat his Democratic opponents in the past five elections. During this time, no Democratic opponent ever managed to get more than 25% of the popular vote. Furthermore, Representative Smith is currently the chair of the Ways and Means Committee, a powerful group in Washington that has great influence over legislation, which adds to his list of credentials during his upcoming campaign next year.

Despite a relatively caustic current political climate, rife with heated debates on women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and the events of January 6, the incumbent’s standing is largely unaffected. The well-entrenched Republican base in the 8th district remains largely unswayed by Democratic challengers. This phenomenon might not solely reflect the district's moral stance, but rather, it highlights broader dynamics within our political system. The Democrats, for various reasons, are not perceived as a substantially better alternative by many voters in this district. As a result, any Democrat vying to unseat Jason Smith faces a daunting challenge.

Addressing these challenges in the 8th district is Denny Roth. His campaign website presents a range of proposals aimed at tackling the district's most pressing issues. A critical concern is the district's economic status. Among Missouri's eight districts, the 8th has the lowest per-capita income and is ranked in the 10 most distressed congressional districts nationwide, according to a November 3 report last year by the Economic Innovation Group. A stark illustration of these economic woes is Dexter, Missouri, a town that recently faced the closure of a Tyson Foods' chicken processing plant, resulting in the loss of approximately 700 jobs. This closure has had a ripple effect, impacting not only the workers but also local farmers who had invested in supplying the plant, as well as related industries like trucking, food service, and hospitality. These events underscore the significant economic challenges faced by the district.

During my interview with Denny, we talked a bit about his background as a farmer and a truck driver while working his way through college. Regarding current issues, we touched on the following topics:

• The Economy

• Healthcare

• Reproductive Rights

• Social Security

• Education

• Equal Rights and Immigration

• Firearm Regulation

In my interaction with Denny, I gained insightful perspectives on his views and approach. Our meeting took place at his residence outside Hillsboro, Missouri, set amidst a serene backdrop of woods and farmlands. I was greeted warmly by Denny and his wife, Sandy, and we convened at their kitchen table for an in-depth political discussion. It's often my practice to engage in preliminary talks before formal recording, which allows for a more natural and thoughtful dialogue. This approach was particularly effective in this instance, as it provided a relaxed atmosphere for a candid and reflective conversation about the pressing issues and challenges facing the 8th district.

I hope you enjoy this podcast as much as I enjoyed producing it. As I said in the beginning, I love podcasting because I get to meet some of the most fascinating people and really probe into the issues to gain a better understanding of different perspectives and different ideas.

Happy listening!

P.S. - The interview will drop on Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 4PM Central. Just click on the “Podcast” link in the menu bar.

Show Notes

I need to make a correction: During the interview, I guessed that Dexter Missouri’s population is around 3,000. According to the latest census, it’s actually about 7,800.

For the list of the 10 most distressed districts in the nation, see the Economic Innovation Group’s website at https://eig.org/economic-wellbeing-of-congressional-districts/

You can find Denny Roth’s campaign website at https://fdrii4mo.com/

Introduction

In our podcast episode released on November 12, 2023, we delved into the escalating concerns about fascism in America. Our guest, Jojo Stewart, brought a unique perspective to this discussion. Not only is she an activist and a mother, but she also holds the role of Social Media Manager for Randi McCallian's campaign. Randi is a Democratic candidate vying for a congressional seat in Missouri's 8th district.

When conducting interviews, I try to prepare extensively. My method involves spreading numerous reference materials around me. These are then summarized into a script, which I display on my computer screen in front of me. This script mainly consists of a series of topics or questions, each followed by brief paragraphs that enumerate the points I would like to cover. I refer to these paragraphs during the interview to ensure the discussion stays relevant and informative.

Below is the script I used during our discussion. You may find additional nuggets of information in these notes that we were unable to cover during the podcast, due to time constraints.

NOTE: The show notes appear below this section.

Script

What is Fascism?

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultra-nationalist ideology and political movement that emphasizes the unity of the nation and of the people, the authority of the leader and the importance of the state. The word "fascism" is derived from the Italian word "fascio", which refers to a bundle of sticks bound together. This symbol was used by Benito Mussolini, the founder of Italian fascism, to represent the strength and unity of the Italian people.

Fascism has its roots in the early 20th century, in Italy, Germany, and other European countries. It emerged in response to the social and economic upheavals of the First World War and the Russian Revolution. Fascist leaders promised to restore national pride, revive the economy, and create a strong, united state.

What Conditions Give Rise to Fascism?

Fascism typically arises in periods of social and economic upheaval, when there is a widespread sense of disillusionment with the existing order. The following conditions are often associated with the rise of fascism:

• Economic instability: Economic crises, such as high unemployment and inflation, can create a sense of insecurity and fear among the population.

• Political instability: Weak governments and a lack of political trust can also contribute to the rise of fascism.

• Social unrest: Social divisions, such as ethnic or religious conflicts, can create an atmosphere of fear and hatred.

• Loss of faith in democracy: A decline in public trust in democratic institutions can make people more susceptible to the appeal of authoritarian leaders.

What Conditions Exist Today for Fascism?

There are a number of conditions in America today that could be seen as conducive to the rise of fascism. These include:

• Economic inequality: The gap between the rich and the poor has been growing in recent decades, which has led to a sense of resentment among many Americans.

• Political polarization: The two major political parties in the United States are increasingly divided, which has made it difficult to address common problems.

• Rise of white nationalism: There has been a resurgence of white nationalism in the United States in recent years, which has been accompanied by an increase in hate crimes and violence.

• Decline in trust in government: Public trust in government has been declining in recent decades, which has made it more difficult to address the challenges facing the country.

Isn’t Fascism an Overused Term These Days?

The term "fascism" is sometimes used too loosely, to describe any political movement that is seen as being right-wing or authoritarian. It is important to use the term accurately, to avoid trivializing the history of fascism and to understand the real dangers of this ideology.

How to Recognize Fascism?

There are a number of warning signs that can indicate that fascism is on the rise. These include:

• The rise of hate speech and violence: An increase in hate speech and violence, particularly against minority groups, is a sign that fascism is taking root.

• The suppression of dissent: The suppression of dissent, such as the silencing of journalists and activists, is a sign that a government is becoming authoritarian.

• The cult of personality: The cult of personality, in which a single leader is praised and idealized, is a sign of fascism.

What Can We Do About Fascism?

If people recognize these warning signs, they can take action to oppose fascism. This may include:

• Speaking out against hate speech and violence: It is important to speak out against hate speech and violence whenever possible.

• Supporting organizations that fight for democracy and human rights: There are many organizations that are working to protect democracy and human rights. People can support these organizations by donating money, volunteering their time, or simply spreading awareness of their work.

• Voting for candidates who support democratic values: It is important to vote for candidates who believe in democracy and who will protect the rights of all citizens.

Show Notes

Below are some notes taken during the podcast:

• Here’s a link to a particularly disturbing FEC document regarding the Trump campaign: https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7968/7968_14.pdf

• The Heritage Foundation published a manifesto, outlining their plan of action, should they re-take the presidency in next year’s election. It’s called “Project 2025,” and it’s worth a read. As I mentioned during the podcast, it’s a horror novel, so beware! Here’s the link: Project2025

• Here’s a link to the article I referenced, written by Josh Hawley. It was actually published in 2012, not 2010. You might find it interesting how Josh, now a U.S. Senator, looks at his role in our nation’s government. A Christian Vision for Kingdom Politics: Immanentize the Eschaton!