Authored by Vince Coyner via American Thinker,

It’s not often that life gives nations real second chances when it comes to the big things, but in America’s case, it did.  My only hope is that we don’t squander it...or to be more precise, I hope Donald Trump doesn’t squander it.

Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.

The 2026 midterms are less than a year away.  That makes what Trump does in the next six to eight months monumentally important.  The bottom line is, does he want to be consequential or just well known?

Julius Caesar is easily one of the best known men in history, but was he really that consequential?  The truth is, no.  We know more about Caesar than any other Roman not because he changed the world, but because he was a genius of propaganda and wrote prodigiously — and well — about his exploits.  The reality is, Caesar was just another Roman general, albeit a great one, caught up in a century of internecine wars among men seeking to control the Republic.

Augustus, his adopted son, who is far less well known in history, was far more consequential, having transformed the Republic into an empire that would arguably last another 1,500 years.

Is Donald Trump going to be Caesar or Augustus?  Is he going to be a president who rearranges the deck chairs on the Titanic and simply slows down her eventual collision with the iceberg?  Or is he going to steer her through the treacherous waters and bring her out safely on the other side?

When Trump won re-election last November, I was certain that after enduring eight years of what is easily the most vitriolic abuse any American politician had ever endured, he was going to return to Washington, and metaphorical heads were going to roll.  Indeed, he ran on the idea of destroying the Deep State.

Now, a year after the election, I’m not so sure.  Though I applaud most of his moves on immigration, particularly his recent move to cease all immigration from third-world countries, there are two elements that cause concern.

One is his support for the H1B visa program.  If there are jobs that can’t be filled by Americans, then bringing in foreign workers who have the necessary skills makes sense for keeping American industry productive.  But that’s not what’s happening.  Hundreds of thousands of foreign workers, primarily Indians, are being brought in to supplant American workers whom companies would generally have to pay more to keep or hire.  There is no shortage of American STEM workers; there are merely trillion-dollar tech, consulting, and other companies who simply want to bolster the bottom line by paying foreign workers lower wages.  Sadly, Trump defends the program virtually every chance he gets.  Add to that his allowing half a million students (or spies) from Communist China to remain at American universities, and one begins to wonder whose payrolls Trump’s advisers are on. 

Another area where Trump has not met expectations is taking on the leftist cabal that brought the nation to the brink of disaster over the last decade.  From Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton and the army of anti-American traitors who worked against Trump, his allies, and the American people, Trump should establish a task force with the specific purpose of investigating every single member of the government or NGO and every financier who had anything to do with Russiagate as well as the coup-cover-up of 2020 and the resulting J6 persecutions.

Americans know what happened.  We watched it in real time.  Molly Ball crowed about it in TIME magazine, we read about it in Mollie Hemingway’s Rigged, and later we followed as Emerald Robinson pulled string after string…but what we don’t have, and need, is the entire case of the treachery laid out in black and white, and then to see the guilty tried and punished.

As we all learned in the OJ trial, juries can’t always be trusted, but at a minimum, the information should be laid out for the American people to see so that they can vote accordingly.  The recent arrest of the D.C. pipe bomb suspect and Kash Patel’s announcement that it was based on information the FBI sat on for four years tells us that the information is there; it just takes an administration with sufficient courage to expose it. 

Hand in hand with allowing that treachery to go unpunished is the fact that Trump has not put his shoulder into ensuring the passage of the SAVE Act.  Indeed, New England, which is about 40% Republican, has 21 House seats, and 100% of them are Democrat.  That’s not good.  Democrats win by cheating.  Period.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act would require voter ID and proof of U.S. citizenship and outlaw most mail-in voting.  Strong-arming Congress, which the GOP theoretically controls, into passing SAVE would do more for saving the Republic than almost any other thing Trump could do.  If Trump wants to maintain GOP control over Congress and have any chance of fixing the country, he needs to fix the voting system now, because we know that the second the SAVE act is passed, there’s an army of treacherous federal judges who will seek to derail it.

This brings us to the last critical issue: the Judiciary.  Since 2015, federal judges across the country have acted as the rear guard for the Obama plan of “Fundamentally transforming the United States of America” into a leftist nirvana.  From nationwide injunctions to throwing out cases to seeking to exercise executive power, the federal judiciary has become untethered to the Constitution.  The traditional way such overreach is addressed is that cases make their way through the appellate process, and SCOTUS may or may not eventually rectify the problem.  But that system breaks down as a viable solution when fast approaching elections that decide the direction of the government are concerned.  Congress must act to address this judicial overreach. 

As such, Trump should work with Congress to utilize their Article III powers to fix this.  I’d suggest two possible avenues: 

1. Congress abolishes the entire Judiciary below SCOTUS and remakes it as a far more limited and constitutional Judiciary.

2. Congress sets up a separate parallel federal court channel that would deal exclusively with election- and executive power–related issues so they can be argued in a timely fashion and be resolved long before they become moot.

Decades from now, Donald Trump is going to be remembered.   The question is, will he be remembered as a celebrity president — who attracted a great deal of attention and simply slowed the collapse as the nation calcified into a failed dystopia driven by big government and big spending — or is he going to be remembered as an heroic, mythic figure who fought back the leftist tide and put America back on firm, limited-government, constitutional footing, giving her a real opportunity to survive another 250 years?

I guess we’ll see.

If Goldman’s estimates of a partial or full displacement of up to 300 million jobs across the Western world due to the proliferation of artificial intelligence and automation are even remotely correct, a new report suggests that by 2035, society could face widespread public resentment, protests, and even acts of sabotage directed at robotic systems.

A new report by Europol, the EU’s central intelligence and coordination hub for serious crime and terrorism, identifies around 2035 as a potential inflection point at which a human resistance movement against AI could begin to take shape, in a scenario that echoes the resistance to Skynet in the Terminator film franchise.

Europol warned of “bot-bashing” incidents and acts of sabotage against robotic systems in the middle of the next decade, as the spread of AI and robotics could fuel a populist backlash against technologies that have hollowed out parts of the Western economy and left millions unemployed.

Here’s a section of the report:

By 2035, service robots have become a fixture of daily life across Europe, gliding silently through shopping centres, delivering parcels to fifth-floor flats, and cleaning public transit platforms by night. While many citizens have grown used to their presence, nodding politely to automated crossing guards or receiving prescriptions from pharmacist bots, frustration simmers beneath the surface. In economically strained regions, displaced workers protest outside automated warehouses, chanting slogans at tireless machines behind reinforced glass. A spate of “bot-bashing” incidents in city centres, ranging from graffiti to targeted arson, has prompted debates about “robot rights” and the psychological toll of widespread automation. In this uneasy climate, even minor malfunctions, such as a hospital care robot administering the wrong medication, are magnified into national scandals, fuelling populist calls to “put people first.”

Law enforcement now finds itself caught at the intersection of technological adaptation and social tension. Police officers investigate crimes by robots—such as drones used as tools in theft or automated vehicles causing pedestrian injuries—and against them, including sabotage, tampering, or hate-driven destruction. As AI and robotics replace routine policing tasks like patrolling or traffic management, some departments face internal pushback from officers who fear obsolescence or diminished purpose. At the same time, the rise in economic dislocation caused by automation has contributed to an uptick in cybercrime, vandalism, and organised theft, often targeted at robotic infrastructure. Agencies are under pressure to both modernise and humanise—balancing the efficiency of unmanned systems with public trust, and equipping officers not just with new tools, but with new roles in a society where “protect and serve” increasingly applies to both humans and machines.

Today, the growing adoption of robotics by various industries and sectors means that more and more members of society will be exposed to, and interact with, this technology. While an increased frequency of encountering different types of robots in everyday life may lead to greater familiarity and acceptance, there is a risk of societal alienation, frustration, and resistance towards robots. These reactions can be the result of robotic malfunctions leading to unintended harm (i.e., crashing autonomous taxis or service robots in hospitals), or simply disapproval of their very existence (i.e., nuisances caused by drone flights or surveillance concerns linked to police patrol robots).

Our view is that Europol’s 2035 prediction of “bot-bashing” has already been pulled forward. One could argue that an early incident appeared on X in 2023, when groups in San Francisco attacked driverless cars. And why stop at bashing automated systems? Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt has already warned about the risks of data center sabotage.

For the sake of humanity, let’s hope Goldman’s 2023 report forecasting 300 million layoffs across the Western world never materializes. Otherwise, human resistance movements against robots will emerge. To mitigate such a populist revolt, we suspect central banks and governments would respond by unleashing universal basic income. It is likely inevitable.

The 2030s do not sound fun.

Via The Brownstone Institute,

President Joe Biden’s decision to limit his Supreme Court nominees to black women was widely criticized as a product of DEI-mania, but the ensuing racial controversy was a red herring, a political sleight of hand, designed to distract Americans from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s true purpose on the bench: to protect, preserve, and defend the deep state from the constraints of the Constitution. 

The fallout from the nomination was familiar; CNN’s opinion pages called Republican Senators, including Tom Cotton (R-AR), Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Ted Cruz (R-TX), “racist and sexist” for opposing Jackson; Georgetown Law Professor Ilya Shapiro was suspended for stating that the most qualified candidate was an Indian man, not a black woman; Al Sharpton threw his support behind President Biden.

But Justice Jackson’s position was never intended to be a statement of racial representation or judicial excellence; it was the Biden administration’s anointment of a praetorian guard for the unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy that seeks to prevent President Trump from gaining control of the nation. 

On Monday, the Supreme Court considered whether the President of the United States has the power to remove members of the Executive Branch.

The Constitution’s Vesting Clause, which states that the “executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America,” offers an unequivocal answer.  

But Jackson, assuming her role as a corporatist advocate on a government salary, acted as the mouthpiece for those opposed to accountability for the bureaucracy that lives off the taxpayers’ wages.

She warned of “the danger of allowing…the President to actually control the transportation board and potentially the Federal Reserve and all these other independent agencies.” 

Jackson, never known for speaking concisely or deliberately (in oral arguments, she speaks 50 percent more than any of her fellow colleagues and more than Justices Amy Coney Barrett, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas combined) waxed longingly for a nation with no presidential control over the executive branch:

My understanding was that independent agencies exist because Congress has decided that some issues, some matters, some areas should be handled in this way by nonpartisan experts, that Congress is saying that expertise matters with respect to aspects of the economy and transportation and the various independent agencies that we have. So having a President come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the Ph.D.s and replacing them with loyalists and people who don’t know anything is actually not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States. This is what I think Congress’s policy decision is when it says that these certain agencies we’re not going to make directly accountable to the President.

This is not a mere coincidence; when nominated, the Biden administration knew that she was devoted to bureaucratic supremacy. 

In the first Trump administration, Jackson, then a District Court Judge, overturned four executive orders (numbers 13837, 13836, 13839, and 13957) that sought to rein in the power of the nearly three million federal employees who effectively inhabit permanent jobs. Most notably, in 2020, she invalidated President Trump’s order “Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service.”

In March 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, which considered the Biden administration’s collusion with Big Tech to censor Americans during the Covid response. There, Justice Jackson stated that her “biggest concern” was that an injunction would result in “the First Amendment hamstringing the Government.”  

Earlier this year, Justice Barrett chastised Justice Jackson as “embracing an imperial Judiciary” after Justice Jackson voted to increase federal courts’ power to issue nationwide injunctions.  

Jackson’s defense of the unelected cabal that dominates American life is not a mere issue of legalese; it animates the chief question of the second Trump administration: does the commander-in-chief control the Executive Branch? The Constitution tells us that he should, but in practice, entrenched interests threaten that governmental structure.

Those who believe that this gives the president too much power might consider an alternate path to shredding the Constitution, e.g. abolishing all these rogue agencies to reduce and contain executive power itself. 

Jackson’s verbose monologues, often disguised as questions, reveal that she understands the importance of this struggle despite her cognitive limitations. She may not be able to define a woman, but she knows that her benefactors depend on her denying the President from obtaining “actual control” over the agencies that the Constitution designates to his realm.