2/24/26

BREAKING: Democrats Declare War on Trump's State of the Union With Boycotts, Counter-Rallies and Epstein Survivors

Democrats are refusing to play along with Donald Trump's State of the Union pageant tonight, mobilizing a full-scale show of resistance that includes boycotts, dueling counter-events, and a powerful symbolic move that will put Epstein survivors inside the Capitol chamber itself. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries made clear his caucus has two acceptable options: attend in "silent defiance" or join alternative programming happening across Washington, and Democrats are doing both in a big way.

Thousands are expected to gather on the National Mall for the "People's State of the Union," hosted by MoveOn Civic Action and featuring everyday Americans hit hardest by Trump's agenda. Senators Ed Markey, Chris Murphy, Adam Schiff and others will be there instead of giving Trump the audience he craves. A second counter-event, the "State of the Swamp," is being held at the National Press Club, and the name alone says everything about how Democrats view this administration.

Some members are skipping Trump's speech altogether. Rep. Ami Bera put it plainly, writing that after watching Trump "run roughshod over the Constitution" and "openly engage in corruption," he refuses to give Trump the dignity of his presence. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Dina Titus and Sen. Ruben Gallego are also staying away.

But perhaps the most powerful protest is happening inside the chamber itself. Rep. Ro Khanna will bring Epstein survivor Haley Robson, calling her presence proof that accountability must come to "the Epstein class." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is also bringing an Epstein survivor. Democrats are making sure the faces of Trump's failures and cover-ups are impossible to ignore tonight.

Members of the Democratic Women's Caucus will wear white, honoring the generations of women who fought for the right to vote and sending a message that they are still in that fight, especially as the Trump administration wages specific attacks on women's voting rights.

Jeffries summed it up perfectly: "We're not going to Donald Trump's house. He's coming to our house."

 

 

 

February 23, 2026 10:00A.M.

 

This morning in Brussels, NATO confirmed that Canada has formally requested Article 4 consultations — a serious step that allows member states to meet when they believe their security or sovereignty is threatened. This is only the seventh time Article 4 has ever been invoked — and the first time it has been used over concerns about another NATO member.

Canada did not name the United States directly, but its request references statements questioning Canadian sovereignty and threats to review NORAD. Canada is asking NATO to reaffirm member sovereignty, review North American defense stability, and explore backup intelligence and defense coordination if U.S.–Canada cooperation weakens.

Several NATO countries — including the UK, France, Germany, and others — have expressed support for consultations. The White House dismissed the move as political, while the Pentagon signaled it would participate constructively, revealing internal U.S. divisions.

This puts Washington in a difficult position: engaging validates Canada’s concerns, while rejecting the process risks isolating the U.S. within its own alliance.

Three possible outcomes: the U.S. retreats under alliance pressure, NATO becomes internally divided, or Canada gradually realigns its defense relationships toward Europe.

What happens next could shape the future of NATO and Western security.

 

 The Russian Civil War, Foreign Intervention, and the Myth of Wall Street Control

The Russian Revolution and Civil War (1917–1921) remain among the most dramatic political collapses in modern history. Because the period was chaotic, secretive, and violent, it has generated many theories — some supported by evidence, others not.

I. The Bolsheviks and War Communism (1918–1921)

After seizing power in October 1917, the Bolsheviks faced:

• World War I collapse

• Economic breakdown

• Civil war against anti-Bolshevik forces

• Foreign military intervention

To survive, they implemented War Communism, which included:

• Nationalization of major industries

• Abolition of private trade

• Forced grain requisition from peasants

• Centralized control of banks

• Strict state distribution of goods

This resulted in:

• Hyperinflation

• Collapse of the monetary system

• Urban depopulation

• Severe famine

There was widespread confiscation of property belonging to nobles, clergy, merchants, and political opponents.

This is well documented in Soviet archives and mainstream scholarship.

II. The Red Terror

In 1918, following assassination attempts and internal unrest, the Bolsheviks launched the Red Terror:

• Political repression through the Cheka (secret police)

• Arrests and executions of perceived “class enemies”

• Confiscation of property

• Suppression of dissent

The Red Terror was a brutal consolidation of power. It did involve seizure of wealth from elites. However, historical evidence shows these resources were primarily used to sustain the regime and its war effort — not to finance foreign bankers.

III. Foreign Nationals in the Red Army

The Red Army included non-Russian fighters, most notably:

• Latvian Riflemen (who played an important role in early Bolshevik security)

• Former Austro-Hungarian POWs

• Some Hungarians, Germans, and Chinese workers

However:

• Most were stranded prisoners of war after World War I.

• Many joined for ideological, political, or survival reasons.

• They were not primarily mercenaries funded by foreign capital.

The claim that 200,000 foreign mercenaries were paid by Western financiers is not supported by mainstream academic research.

IV. Allied Intervention in the Russian Civil War

Several foreign powers intervened against the Bolsheviks:

• Britain

• France

• United States

• Japan

• The Czechoslovak Legion

Their motivations included:

• Preventing German access to Russian resources

• Protecting Allied war supplies

• Attempting to reopen the Eastern Front

• Containing Bolshevism

However:

• The intervention was limited and inconsistent.

• Western governments were war-weary after World War I.

• There was no unified strategy to restore the Tsar or decisively defeat the Bolsheviks.

• Allied withdrawal occurred largely due to domestic political pressure and lack of commitment — not because Bolsheviks repaid debts.

V. Wall Street and the Bolsheviks

Wall Street and the Russian Revolution by Richard B. Spence examines financial interactions between Western bankers and revolutionary Russia.

Spence argues:

• Some American and British financiers engaged pragmatically with Bolshevik authorities.

• There were complex financial dealings involving gold and bonds.

• Certain business interests sought opportunities amid chaos.

However:

• There is no strong archival evidence that Washington financed the Bolshevik Revolution.

• There is no proof that Wall Street orchestrated Russia’s collapse.

• Western investors actually lost enormous sums when the Bolsheviks repudiated Tsarist debt in 1918.

If Western elites had intended to profit from the Revolution, the immediate outcome was largely financial loss.

VI. Confiscation and “Asset Stripping”

During War Communism:

• Aristocratic estates were seized.

• Church valuables were confiscated (notably in 1922).

• Palaces and museums were appropriated by the state.

• Banks were nationalized.

There was chaos, corruption, and some looting.

Estimates of hundreds of millions of dollars in seized valuables appear in historical discussions. However:

• Most confiscated wealth remained under Soviet state control.

• There is no reliable evidence that these assets were systematically transferred to Western financial institutions as repayment.

VII. What Can Be Concluded

Historically Supported

• The Bolsheviks confiscated wealth.

• The Red Terror involved repression and expropriation.

• Foreign nations intervened in the Civil War.

• Some Western financiers had limited financial dealings with the new regime.

Not Supported by Strong Evidence

• That Wall Street engineered or financed the Bolshevik Revolution.

• That Red Terror wealth was used to pay American bankers.

• That 200,000 foreign mercenaries were funded by Western capital.

VIII. Philosophical Reflection: Revolution and Power

The Russian Civil War illustrates a recurring historical pattern:

Revolutions often dismantle existing elites — but replace them with new hierarchies.

The Bolsheviks destroyed:

• Aristocratic privilege

• Church authority

• Private capital

• Traditional social hierarchy

They created:

• Party bureaucracy

• Centralized state power

• Political repression

• A new ruling class

Rather than making Russia “amendable to capitalism,” the Bolsheviks constructed a state-controlled economic system that remained fundamentally anti-capitalist until reforms decades later.

Final Assessment

The Russian Civil War was primarily the result of:

• World War I exhaustion

• Economic collapse

• Political radicalization

• State breakdown

• Ideological extremism

Foreign opportunism existed. Financial entanglements occurred. But the claim of a coordinated Western conspiracy to fund Bolshevism and destroy Russia is not supported by strong documentary evidence.

History is often tragic enough without adding hidden puppet masters.

https://substack.com/@rodermortega

Actor Martin Sheen recently criticized Donald Trump, urging him to reconnect with what Sheen described as a sense of basic humanity. He also accused members of Trump’s inner circle of reinforcing behavior he views as harmful, calling on the former president to distance himself from advisers he characterized as loyalists rather than candid voices.

The comments quickly gained traction across media and social platforms, sparking strong reactions from across the political spectrum. Supporters of Sheen say he is voicing concerns shared by many Americans, while critics contend that celebrities often wade into political debates in ways that can intensify polarization.

The moment highlights the increasingly close overlap between entertainment and politics — and raises a broader question: when public figures from outside government speak out so directly about elected leaders, do they shape public opinion or deepen existing divides?

#MartinSheen #USPolitics #DonaldTrump

 

 

The Quiet Weapon of Evil: Bonhoeffer on Stupidity and Moral Responsibility

There is evil in the world. Not merely as myth or metaphor, but as historical reality. Wars, genocides, corruption, and betrayal testify to its presence. Good people often believe their duty is to stand against evil — to resist injustice, defend truth, and protect the vulnerable.

But evil rarely appears, announcing itself.

It adapts.

It hides.

Not only that, but it infiltrates.

And sometimes, it does not conquer through hatred — but through something far more subtle.

It works through stupidity.

Bonhoeffer’s Disturbing Insight

While imprisoned by the Nazi regime in 1943, Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote a short but powerful reflection on what he called “the theory of stupidity.” He had witnessed how an advanced, educated society could descend into moral catastrophe under Adolf Hitler. The question haunted him:

How could so many intelligent people cooperate with something so destructive?

His conclusion was unsettling.

He wrote that stupidity is more dangerous than malice. Evil intentions can be confronted. A malicious person can be exposed or restrained. But a stupid person — in his sense — cannot be reached by argument. Facts do not penetrate. Evidence does not persuade. Contradictions do not disturb.

Why?

Because this kind of stupidity is not a lack of intelligence.

It is the surrender of independent moral judgment.

Stupidity Is Not Low IQ

Bonhoeffer did not mean uneducated people.

He did not mean simple-mindedness.

He did not mean people who disagree with us.

In fact, highly intelligent people can become “stupid” in his sense.

For him, stupidity was a moral and social condition. It occurs when individuals:

• Allow a movement, ideology, or leader to think for them

• Replace critical reasoning with slogans

• Surrender personal responsibility for the comfort of belonging

Under the influence of power — especially authoritarian power — people can become strangely detached from reality. They repeat phrases without reflection. They defend contradictions without discomfort. They act without examining consequences.

At that point, evil no longer needs to force them.

It operates through them.

The Social Nature of Stupidity

Bonhoeffer believed stupidity is not primarily an individual defect. It is socially produced.

When power rises — political, religious, cultural — it often demands conformity. In such environments:

• Dissent feels dangerous

• Doubt feels disloyal

• Questioning feels like betrayal

The pressure to belong can be stronger than the desire for truth.

And so ordinary people — even good people — surrender their autonomy.

This is why evil can infiltrate institutions, including churches and religious communities. It does not enter necessarily through overt wickedness. It enters through unexamined loyalty, through fear of exclusion, through the comfort of group identity.

The danger is not that “stupid people exist.”

The danger is that anyone can become stupid under the right conditions.

Why Argument Often Fails

One of Bonhoeffer’s most sobering observations is that stupidity resists correction. When someone has surrendered their independent thinking to a collective identity, logical debate can feel like a personal attack.

Facts become threats.

Reason becomes hostility.

Correction becomes persecution.

In such cases, the issue is not ignorance but identity. The person is psychologically and socially invested in the belief system. To question it would mean questioning their belonging.

And belonging is powerful.

The Puppet Problem

Bonhoeffer warned that a person in this state becomes easily manipulated. Guided by fear, stirred by outrage, steered by propaganda — they move predictably.

They may believe they are acting freely.

But they are reacting.

Evil, then, does not always need monsters. It needs uncritical participants.

History shows this clearly. Totalitarian systems, mass movements, and ideological fanaticism do not survive on cruelty alone. They survive on ordinary people who stop asking questions.

The Hardest Truth: No One Is Immune

The most uncomfortable part of Bonhoeffer’s insight is this:

Stupidity is not something that only affects “other people.”

It can affect us.

Whenever we:

• Stop examining our own side

• Dismiss disagreement without reflection

• Prefer belonging to truth

• Repeat ideas we have not tested

We risk surrendering the very responsibility that protects us from becoming instruments of harm.

The line between good and evil does not only run through governments or institutions.

It runs through each conscience.

The Antidote

If stupidity is a social surrender of responsibility, then its remedy is not humiliation or mockery.

It is courage.

The courage to think independently.

The courage to question even those we admire.

The courage to stand alone if necessary.

Bonhoeffer himself embodied this courage. As a Lutheran pastor, he resisted Nazi control of the German church and ultimately joined the resistance movement. For this, he was executed in 1945.

His warning was not theoretical. It was lived.

Final Reflection

Evil does not only shout. Sometimes it whispers. Sometimes it persuades. Sometimes it comforts.

It thrives where responsibility fades.

The greatest danger may not be malicious villains. It may be the quiet surrender of independent thought in the name of security, loyalty, or belonging.

The question, then, is not simply:

“Who is evil?”

But:

“Where have I stopped thinking for myself?”

That question — asked honestly — may be the beginning of resistance.

https://substack.com/@rodermortega