Trump Seeks Control of 9/11 Memorial After Years of False Claims About Attacks

🧵1/5: Donald Trump is seeking federal control of the 9/11 Memorial & Museum, a site built from the grief and labor of families, survivors, and New Yorkers. The move would strip authority from the nonprofit that has raised three-quarters of a billion dollars in private funds and operated the memorial since 2014.
open.substack.com/pub/theintelle… 2/5: Trump frames it as a national honor, but his long record of false claims about 9/11 raises fears of politicization. Local leaders argue the memorial belongs to those who endured the attacks, not to Washington. At stake is whether Ground Zero remains a covenant of memory or becomes a conquest of narrative.

His own record underscores the concern.
open.substack.com/pub/theintelle…

The Bad Analogy: Why Comparing Donald Trump to Neville Chamberlain Flatters Trump and Stains Chamberlain.

1/9: Many compare President Donald Trump’s submission to President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation on Ukraine with Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Chancellor Adolf Hitler, but the analogy is wrong.

Prime Minister Chamberlain, though disastrously mistaken in pursuing appeasement, never sought to abolish Britain’s common law, its constitutional foundation, nor unleashed a mob against Parliament when he lost power to his Conservative colleague, Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

He remained loyal to the Crown, and no one ever credibly accused him of collaborating with Chancellor Hitler.

By contrast, President Trump betrayed allies and incited an assault on his own nation’s constitutional order.

Moreover, both the United States Senate Intelligence Committee and the Special Counsel Robert Mueller Report documented extensive contacts and Russia’s efforts at coordination with President Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election.
…eintellectualistofficial.substack.com/p/the-bad-anal… I. The Analogy That Distorts

2/9: In political commentary, analogies are rarely neutral. They compress history into symbols, wielding past figures as shorthand for present judgment.

One of the most common in recent years is the claim that Donald Trump is a new Neville Chamberlain—the British prime minister whose policy of appeasement is remembered as the ultimate failure of leadership, enabling Adolf Hitler’s aggression and paving the road to world war.

At first glance, the analogy seems intuitive: both men are associated with weakness in the face of authoritarian menace.

But the comparison collapses under scrutiny. Chamberlain, for all his catastrophic misjudgment, acted in what he believed was Britain’s best interest.

Trump’s record shows no such civic good faith—the duty to place constitutional order and democratic institutions above self-interest.

To equate the two diminishes Chamberlain’s sincerity and flatters Trump with a stature he has never earned.

…eintellectualistofficial.substack.com/p/the-bad-anal…

Trump's New Work Rules Are Triggering a Rural Hunger Crisis

One grocer lost 40% of her SNAP sales overnight. For the families who disappeared, the food isn’t unaffordable — it’s unreachable.

“We Had Fewer Carts. More Silence.”

🧵1/10: In Monticello, Arkansas — population just under 9,000 — the shelves aren’t empty, but the aisles have fallen quiet. For Teresa Johnson, who has run Johnson’s Market for over 16 years, the change was sudden and unmistakable. “Week one, it was like a light switch,” she said. “We had fewer carts, fewer kids, more silence” The New York Times.

Her store once served nearly 400 SNAP-reliant households, many shopping multiple times a week. But since enforcement of the new work requirement began in early July, Johnson estimates a 38 to 42 percent drop in food stamp purchases — almost entirely from regulars she used to see weekly.

The shift wasn’t tied to seasonal change or economic growth. It stemmed directly from the revised SNAP work policy implemented under President Donald Trump’s second term, passed as part of the June debt ceiling compromise. The rule increased mandatory work hours from 20 to 30 per week for childless adults under 60, classifying those who do not meet the new standard as ineligible The New York Times.

While federal officials defended the change as a way to promote employment and personal responsibility, small-town grocers say the reality is a cascading retail crisis. “They’re rationing,” Johnson said. “Some are sending one family member with a list for everyone else” The New York Times.

Monticello has just one major grocery store — the one Johnson owns. The nearest full-service alternative is nearly 45 minutes away. With fuel prices high and transit options scarce, every lost customer represents not just a personal hardship, but the fraying of a town’s entire economic loop.

“This isn’t a city where folks can hop on a bus to Aldi,” she said. “This is where you see your neighbor, buy your dinner, and sometimes ask if anyone’s hiring.”

As July wore on, Johnson noticed more parents counting coins, more elders holding off on protein, and fewer families walking through her automatic doors. “I’ve never seen anything quite like it,” she added. “Not even during COVID.”
…eintellectualistofficial.substack.com/p/trumps-new-w… SNAP Isn’t a Bonus — It’s the Business Model

2/10: For rural grocers like Teresa Johnson, SNAP isn’t a bonus — it’s the economic foundation. At Johnson’s Market, nearly 70 percent of all monthly transactions once involved SNAP Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards. Since the July work rule changes took effect, Johnson says her revenue has dropped by more than a third The Guardian.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has long been portrayed by federal policymakers as a welfare safety net. But in rural economies, it’s something else entirely: a stabilizer for private business. “If I lose my SNAP customers, I don’t have customers,” Johnson said.

That collapse is already visible across the country. Rural store owners from Mississippi to Missouri are cutting hours, laying off staff, and slashing fresh inventory. Some have already posted closure signs The Guardian.

In these communities, SNAP doesn’t just help feed families — it keeps grocery infrastructure viable. A single SNAP household might spend $100 to $250 a month, most of it on staple goods with low margins. But multiplied across dozens or hundreds of households, that spending represents the volume necessary for small retailers to qualify for bulk purchasing rates and maintain access to perishable suppliers.

“When those EBT cards stop scanning,” Johnson said, “the dairy truck stops coming.”

Unlike suburban chains, independent rural grocers don’t have the buffer of private equity or diverse customer bases. They operate close to the line, often stocking inventory on 30-day credit. When SNAP-funded purchases dry up, the line collapses.

The new policy’s impact isn’t just about economics, Johnson says. It also reshapes her sense of community. “I’m not just losing sales,” she said. “I’m losing neighbors. I’m losing Sunday church conversations. I’m losing the everyday check-ins that hold a town together.”
…eintellectualistofficial.substack.com/p/trumps-new-w…

The Descent of American Democracy Shows No Bottom

“I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”

― James Baldwin (1924–1987)

🧵1/11: IN 1968, just three years after Bloody Sunday and one month after Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, Black Americans in many Southern states were finally able to vote without fear of firebombs or billy clubs.

That was less than a lifetime ago—yet in those same states today, voters stand in line for hours, face surgical voter ID laws, or find themselves quietly purged from the rolls.

The weapons have changed—paper instead of chains, laws instead of whips—but the impulse has not.

The United States oscillates between emancipation and exclusion, between the promise of liberty and the practice of control.

But this latest swing isn’t natural. It is being pulled—by courts, legislators, billionaires, and ideologues.

And unless we confront that pull directly, democracy itself may not return to center.

…eintellectualistofficial.substack.com/p/the-descent-… A Democracy Built on Exclusion

2/11: From its founding, the United States has been animated by a paradox: a republic committed to liberty and built on domination.

Nowhere was this contradiction more violently expressed than in the American South, where an economy of cotton and blood sustained a regime of total subjugation—economic, legal, and spiritual.

Enslaved Africans were denied not just freedom, but even personhood—defined legally as property and spiritually as cursed.

The U.S. Constitution, for all its democratic pretensions, contained no affirmative right to vote.

It still doesn’t.

Voting was left to the states, many of which ensured that political power would remain white, male, and landed. Exclusion, in other words, was not a regional deviation. It was an architectural choice.

After the Civil War, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments promised something closer to full citizenship for the formerly enslaved.

But rights enshrined in law required power to enforce them—and that power collapsed quickly.

In 1877, as part of the infamous Compromise to resolve a disputed presidential election, Northern leaders withdrew federal troops from the South, effectively ending Reconstruction. In exchange for executive power, they surrendered the project of Black citizenship.

The Jim Crow order that followed was not a spontaneous backlash—it was a deliberate reassertion of racial control through literacy tests, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and racial terror.

The old slaveocracy had simply adapted to new constraints. It no longer needed chains. It had paperwork.

For nearly a century, democracy in the South was a mirage. Not until the passage—and federal enforcement—of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 did meaningful Black enfranchisement begin. And even then, it was incomplete. The Jim Crow order had not collapsed; it had simply rebranded.

Today, across many of the same states, polling places in Black communities are shuttered, voters are purged from rolls through “exact match” policies, and ID laws surgically target demographics unlikely to vote Republican. This is not a Southern betrayal.

It is an American design flaw—rooted in the founding omission of a constitutional right to vote, and perfected through a century of practice. The form is democratic. The function remains exclusionary.
…eintellectualistofficial.substack.com/p/the-descent-…

The Rise of Hitler: A History of How Democracy Fell in Germany and Its Parallels to Today

🧵1/11: His past was steeped in scandal—a felon, accused of treason and sedition, his actions and rhetoric frequently straddling the line of legality.

He was convicted for attempting to overthrow the government, yet this criminal history didn’t disqualify him.

It only made him more appealing to those who viewed the establishment as corrupt and broken. Instead of disqualifying him, his criminal record and charges became part of his defiant charm, painting him as an outsider willing to fight the system.

Every accusation, every charge of treason, only fueled his rise, showing his supporters that he could not be tamed and was the only one willing to challenge the powers that had held the nation in their grip.
open.substack.com/pub/theintelle… 2/11: At first, they dismissed him. The elites, the media, the political class—they thought they could control him. They mocked him as a sideshow, a foolish provocateur, destined to be forgotten.

But in the wake of high inflation, economic instability, and a country that had lost its bearings, his words struck a chord with those who had been cast aside.

In an age of rising populism, economic dislocation, and a shrinking middle class, his rhetoric didn’t promise solutions—it promised retribution.

It wasn’t just blame he offered; it was a convenient, scapegoated enemy to rally against.

His was a message soaked in anger, dripping with resentment for anyone deemed an outsider.

Minorities, immigrants, political rivals—all of them were the root of the nation’s collapse. And in this narrative of vengeance, he found his power.
open.substack.com/pub/theintelle…

Trump Savages His Own Base Over Epstein Questions — While His Decades of Ties to the Predator Haunt Him

🧵1/8: Donald Trump, already an adjudicated rapist and a convicted felon, has now turned his fury on his own supporters — for daring to ask questions about his long and sordid history with Jeffrey Epstein.
open.substack.com/pub/theintelle… Epstein Client List Demands

2/8: On July 16, amid growing calls from Republicans and MAGA influencers for transparency about Epstein’s client list, Trump lashed out at his base, calling them “weaklings” and accusing them of doing “the Democrats’ work” by continuing to press the issue.

“Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax," Trump declared on Truth Social. He went further in person, saying that Republicans questioning him were “stupid” and “foolish” and that he no longer wanted their support.
open.substack.com/pub/theintelle…

Black Saturday: The Day the United States Ceased to Be a Constitutional Democracy

The Moment Democracy Ceased to Function

🧵1/10: Saturday, March 15, 2025, may have seemed unremarkable to most Americans.

But in time, history will remember it as Black Saturday—the moment the United States ceased to function as a constitutional democracy.

For the first time in modern American history, a sitting president openly defied a direct federal court order—and nothing happened. No intervention. No enforcement. No consequences.

A legal ruling was issued, and the White House simply ignored it.

The White House’s Decision: Power Over Law

Inside the White House, the decision was not about law—it was about power.

A federal judge ruled against the administration. The debate inside Trump’s team was not whether the ruling was legal, but whether they could get away with ignoring it. They decided they could. And they were right.

This was not a clash between equal branches of government. It was the moment the judiciary was exposed as powerless.

The courts do not have an army. They rely on compliance.

But a court that cannot enforce its rulings is not a court—it is a suggestion box.

And a presidency that can ignore the courts without consequence is no longer constrained by law—it is an untouchable executive.

Trump did not declare the end of judicial authority in a speech.

He demonstrated it in practice.

This is how democratic systems collapse—not with a single act, but with the normalization of defiance, the expectation that a ruling can simply be brushed aside.
theintellectualist.com/black-saturday… How the System Failed to Stop Him

2/10: This moment did not happen in isolation. It happened because every prior attempt to hold Trump accountable has failed.

The system tried—and at every turn, it proved incapable of stopping him.

Impeachment failed—twice.

Criminal cases stalled.

The Supreme Court refused to rule on his disqualification.

Congress never moved to check his power.

At each step, Trump tested the system—and the system flinched.

He learned that laws are only as strong as the institutions willing to enforce them.

And so, when faced with a court ruling, he did what he had been conditioned to do—he ignored it. And nothing happened.

The Supreme Court’s Role in Making the Presidency Untouchable

The judiciary was already weakened by years of erosion, but in 2024, the Supreme Court itself ensured that when this moment arrived, there would be no legal recourse left.

In a landmark ruling, the Court expanded presidential immunity to such an extent that the office of the presidency is now functionally above the law.

A president can commit crimes while in office and face no immediate accountability.

And now, with Black Saturday, Trump has proven that he can ignore court rulings entirely without consequence.

This is not the separation of powers.

It is the absorption of power into a single branch. The courts were supposed to be the last line of defense. Instead, they have been reduced to issuing rulings the executive can freely ignore.

theintellectualist.com/black-saturday…

The Rise of Hitler: A History of How Democracy Fell in Germany and Its Parallels to Today

🧵1/11: His past was steeped in scandal—a felon, accused of treason and sedition, his actions and rhetoric frequently straddling the line of legality. He was convicted for attempting to overthrow the government, yet this criminal history didn’t disqualify him.

It only made him more appealing to those who viewed the establishment as corrupt and broken. Instead of disqualifying him, his criminal record and charges became part of his defiant charm, painting him as an outsider willing to fight the system.

Every accusation, every charge of treason, only fueled his rise, showing his supporters that he could not be tamed and was the only one willing to challenge the powers that had held the nation in their grip.
youtube.com/watch?v=ShqC31… 2/11: At first, they dismissed him. The elites, the media, the political class—they thought they could control him. They mocked him as a sideshow, a foolish provocateur, destined to be forgotten.

But in the wake of high inflation, economic instability, and a country that had lost its bearings, his words struck a chord with those who had been cast aside.

In an age of rising populism, economic dislocation, and a shrinking middle class, his rhetoric didn’t promise solutions—it promised retribution. It wasn’t just blame he offered; it was a convenient, scapegoated enemy to rally against.

His was a message soaked in anger, dripping with resentment for anyone deemed an outsider. Minorities, immigrants, political rivals—all of them were the root of the nation’s collapse. And in this narrative of vengeance, he found his power.
youtube.com/watch?v=ShqC31…

Trump Defies Second Court Order — Black Saturday Crisis Escalates

Black Saturday: The Day Democracy Ceased to Function

🧵1/9: Saturday, March 15th, 2025, may have seemed unremarkable to most Americans.

But history will remember it as Black Saturday—the day the United States ceased to function as a constitutional democracy.

A federal judge issued a lawful court order.

The President refused to comply.

No appeal. No enforcement. No institutional response.

The judiciary was defied—and nothing happened.

This was no routine conflict.

It was a constitutional orphaning—a power vacuum exposed in real time.

For the first time in modern history, a sitting president ignored a federal ruling without consequence.

The presidency, unbound by consequence, slipped outside the law.

Trump didn’t announce the end of the Constitution.
He demonstrated it.

Quietly.

Deliberately.
theintellectualist.com/black-saturday… The Rubicon Was Crossed—And Nothing Stopped It

2/9: This wasn’t erosion.
It was erasure.
The moment metastasized.
The judiciary became a suggestion box.
The system didn’t resist—it adapted.
Not to law, but to power.

Black Saturday wasn’t just an isolated incident. It was a line crossed with no return.

theintellectualist.com/black-saturday…

Bob Woodward on Donald Trump: “It looks like he wants to destroy the economy.”

A Warning from Watergate: Woodward Returns

🧵1/11: On March 28, 2025, Bob Woodward sat down with The Washington Post’s Colby Itkowitz for his first major interview since Donald Trump’s second inauguration.

It was more than a retrospective.

It was a warning.

A quiet alarm from the man who helped bring down Nixon, now sounding the signal again—this time, not over a break-in, but over the deliberate unraveling of an economy.

Woodward has written books on ten presidents. He’s interviewed Trump extensively. But in this conversation, he didn’t hedge.

When asked what Trump’s end goal appears to be, Woodward answered plainly:

“It looks like he wants to destroy the economy.”

theintellectualist.com/bob-woodward-t… Doctrine of Destruction: Trump’s Economic Endgame

2/11: To understand why a president might do that, you have to understand what he’s trying to build in its place.

During Trump’s first term, in January 2018, he summoned his economic advisors to the Oval Office.

He wanted tariffs—aggressive ones.

His chief economic advisor, Gary Cohn, warned him that tariffs would backfire. They’d raise prices on American consumers.

They’d jeopardize the very stock market gains Trump often boasted about. They’d risk triggering retaliation from allies.

Trump didn’t flinch.

He dismissed Cohn, called him a “globalist,” and told him to sit on the couch—like a subordinate being punished.

That word, globalist, wasn’t random.

In far-right discourse, it’s a term saturated with anti-Semitic overtones—used to cast Jewish figures as manipulators of finance and internationalism.

Cohn, a Jewish man and former president of Goldman Sachs, wasn’t just being ignored.

He was being marked. It wasn’t a policy debate.

It was a purge.

theintellectualist.com/bob-woodward-t…

Trump to Unveil Largest Tax Increase in World History

A Hidden Tax Bomb, Not Passed—But Imposed

🧵1/10: What if the biggest tax hike in U.S. history wasn’t passed by Congress—but snuck in through a tariff?

That’s exactly what President Trump is planning, according to economic columnist Matthew Lynn, writing for The Telegraph on March 31, 2025.

Liberation Day: A $600 Billion Fiscal Earthquake

The initiative is called Liberation Day.

It’s expected to be unveiled this week, and it could impose tariffs so sweeping that they’d generate an estimated $600 billion a year in revenue.

That’s not a side policy—it’s a fiscal earthquake.

To put that in perspective, it would exceed all corporate tax revenue in the United States and instantly become the third largest source of federal funding, behind only income taxes and payroll taxes.
youtube.com/watch?v=kvdfyn… Navarro’s Pitch: A Massive Tax Shift Without a Vote

2/10: Trump loyalist Peter Navarro pitched the plan on Fox News, saying the goal is to tax imports—particularly foreign cars and manufactured goods—in a way that “brings jobs back.”

But Navarro also admitted that the federal government could collect $600 billion a year through this new tariff structure.

If that happens, it would amount to a 15% increase in total U.S. tax revenue, without a single act of Congress.

How Trump Can Do This Alone

How is this possible?

Because under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the president has unilateral authority to impose tariffs.

That means this $600 billion tax could materialize without a single Congressional vote.

It’s a stunning shift in the structure of American taxation—executive fiat replacing legislative deliberation.

youtube.com/watch?v=kvdfyn…

To Help Trump Defy the Constitution, a GOP Senator Proposes Ending Judicial Independence

When the Judge Serves the Ruler

🧵 1/10: What happens when the judge serves the ruler?

That question haunted the Founders. They had seen what power could do to justice—and what justice must do to constrain power. That’s why they built a system where the law stands above the leader, not beneath him.

Imagine if a president lost in court—not because of bias, but because the law and the facts weren’t on their side.

A federal judge rules that the president’s actions are unconstitutional or unlawful.

Checks and balances working exactly as designed.

Now imagine that president simply creates a new court—one that agrees with him.

A custom court. A bench dressed to obey.

That isn’t reform.

That’s absolute power, rubber-stamped and notarized.

So ask yourself: What happens when the courts are no longer independent—but installed?

When the robes answer not to law, but to loyalty?

youtu.be/Stodp_iUn6U The Proposal

2/10: On March 25, 2025, Ashley Moody, a Republican U.S. Senator from Florida, proposed exactly that.

Appearing on Fox News, she suggested that the federal government should create “specialty courts” to bypass federal judges who issue rulings unfavorable to President Donald Trump.

Some defenders argue this is a fix for judicial bias—a counter to so-called “liberal” courts.

But reform operates within the system.

This proposal operates above it.

Reform seeks to uphold the rule of law.

This replaces it.

And this comes as the administration Moody defends openly defies court orders, purges civil servants, and rewrites institutional norms in real time.

Moody, a former federal prosecutor and Attorney General of Florida, framed it as reform.

But in truth, it was an attempt to sidestep judicial independence altogether.

Her proposal isn’t reform.

It’s an attempt to selectively silence the courts—using tools that history, and the very Framers whom people like Moody claim to venerate, explicitly condemned.

It echoes the kind of system the Founders studied, feared, and rejected.

The Star Chamber

The Founders knew what happens when rulers shape courts to serve their will.

In pre-democratic England—before the 1689 Bill of Rights—prerogative courts operated under direct royal authority.

Unlike common law courts, they had no juries, followed no standard legal procedures, and weren’t accountable to the public.

They held secret hearings and punished dissent without due process.

They didn’t exist to deliver justice—they existed to enforce the monarch’s will.

The most infamous of these was the Star Chamber. It answered directly to the crown. It bypassed juries, ignored legal protections, and became a tool for silencing opposition.

Its original mission was noble—punishing powerful nobles who intimidated the courts.

But once the king controlled it, it became something darker: law in appearance, repression in practice.

Its abolition in 1641 wasn’t just legal housekeeping.

It was a declaration: liberty cannot exist where power controls judgment.

The Disappeared: Trump’s Mass Deportation Machine and the Shadow Prison in El Salvador

A Knock at the Door, Then Nothing

🧵1/10: Imagine waking up one morning to discover that your brother is gone.

Not missing—disappeared.

No phone call. No charges. No lawyer.

And days later, a message appears—he’s been deported to a country he’s never been to, locked in a concrete hell designed for gang leaders and killers.

That’s not a story from Argentina’s Dirty War or Stalin’s gulags.

It happened in the United States—in 2025.

And it’s still happening, as you read this.

This is the story of The Disappeared—238 Venezuelan men secretly deported by the Trump administration to El Salvador’s most notorious prison, CECOT—a facility condemned by the United Nations, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch for crimes against human dignity.
youtube.com/watch?v=pJIGxn… Not Criminals—Targets of Vulnerability

2/10: They weren’t taken because they were criminals.

They were taken because they were vulnerable—asylum seekers, migrants, dissidents—fleeing persecution, hoping for protection under American law.

Instead, they were swept up under a statute from 1798—the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime relic once used by John Adams to jail immigrants.

The Trump administration revived it and reinterpreted it to enable a deportation machine without trial, judge, or oversight.

This wasn’t a crackdown on MS-13.

Most had no criminal records.

Some were flagged only for tattoos—like Jefferson José Laya Freites, deported because of a lion on his forearm. It was assumed to be gang-related. It was actually a tribute to his Christian faith.

Or Arturo Suárez Trejo, a Venezuelan singer living in Houston, legally awaiting an asylum hearing. One morning, ICE agents came to his door.

“He’s being transferred to finish processing,” they told his daughter.

He never came home.

His family later identified him in a prison photo—head shaved, shackled, kneeling in the white uniform of El Salvador’s mega-prison.
youtube.com/watch?v=pJIGxn…

The Rise of Hitler: A History of How Democracy Fell in Germany and Its Parallels to Today

🧵1/13: His past was steeped in scandal—a felon, accused of treason and sedition, his actions and rhetoric frequently straddling the line of legality.

He was convicted for attempting to overthrow the government, yet this criminal history didn’t disqualify him.

It only made him more appealing to those who viewed the establishment as corrupt and broken. Instead of disqualifying him, his criminal record and charges became part of his defiant charm, painting him as an outsider willing to fight the system.

Every accusation, every charge of treason, only fueled his rise, showing his supporters that he could not be tamed and was the only one willing to challenge the powers that had held the nation in their grip.
youtu.be/ShqC3146Shw?si… 2/13: At first, they dismissed him. The elites, the media, the political class—they thought they could control him. They mocked him as a sideshow, a foolish provocateur, destined to be forgotten.

But in the wake of high inflation, economic instability, and a country that had lost its bearings, his words struck a chord with those who had been cast aside.

In an age of rising populism, economic dislocation, and a shrinking middle class, his rhetoric didn’t promise solutions—it promised retribution.

It wasn’t just blame he offered; it was a convenient, scapegoated enemy to rally against.

His was a message soaked in anger, dripping with resentment for anyone deemed an outsider.

Minorities, immigrants, political rivals—all of them were the root of the nation’s collapse. And in this narrative of vengeance, he found his power.
youtu.be/ShqC3146Shw?si…

Trump’s War on Lawyers Leaves His Critics Defenseless

When the Law Stands Down

🧵1/9: Some stories reveal injustice. Others show how justice itself disappears.

In a March 25, 2025 report published by The Washington Post, journalist Michael Birnbaum reveals that major U.S. law firms are now refusing to represent opponents of President Donald Trump, as the administration escalates retaliatory actions that many legal scholars warn are reshaping the American justice system itself.

Weaponizing the Legal Profession

President Donald Trump is no longer just targeting political adversaries—he’s targeting their lawyers.

Through executive orders, punitive sanctions, and quiet threats, the administration is redrawing the boundaries of professional risk.

Once-proud firms that challenged Trump’s first-term agenda are retreating, fearing loss of federal access, clients, and economic survival.

“The law firms have to behave themselves,” Trump declared.

“They behave very badly, very wrongly.”

His message is clear: resistance has consequences. And America’s legal firewall is starting to crack.
theintellectualist.com/trump-legal-cr… The Chilling Effect in Action

2/9: The tactics are surgically coercive.

Targeted law firms are barred from federal buildings.

Their attorneys stripped of security clearances.

Executive orders direct federal agencies to sever all contracts with any business that employs them.

The chilling effect is deliberate—and immediate.

Former Biden officials now facing litigation say they can’t find lawyers.

One had five firms withdraw, including a pro bono partner who backed out the day after Trump signed an order against Perkins Coie.

“The partner was livid,” the former official said, “but said leadership wouldn’t take the risk.”

When the law firms tasked with defending liberty retreat, what remains to defend the Constitution?

Compliance vs. Consequence

The harm is financial, reputational—and constitutional.

Perkins Coie estimated losses of 25% of its revenue after the order.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell issued a restraining order and expressed deep alarm:

“It sends little chills down my spine.”

In response, the Justice Department tried to remove her from the case, accusing her court of bias.

Another firm—Paul Weiss—chose compliance over confrontation.

After a closed-door meeting at the White House, it agreed to donate $40 million in legal work aligned with Trump’s policy goals.

The executive order against it was promptly rescinded.

Resistance brings punishment.

Compliance brings reprieve.
theintellectualist.com/trump-legal-cr…

The Disappeared: Trump’s Mass Deportation Machine and the Shadow Prison in El Salvador

A Knock at the Door, Then Nothing

🧵1/10: Imagine waking up one morning to discover that your brother is gone.

Not missing—disappeared.

No phone call. No charges. No lawyer.

And days later, a message appears—he’s been deported to a country he’s never been to, locked in a concrete hell designed for gang leaders and killers.

That’s not a story from Argentina’s Dirty War or Stalin’s gulags.

It happened in the United States—in 2025.

And it’s still happening, as you read this.

This is the story of The Disappeared—238 Venezuelan men secretly deported by the Trump administration to El Salvador’s most notorious prison, CECOT—a facility condemned by the United Nations, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch for crimes against human dignity.
theintellectualist.com/the-disappeare… Not Criminals—Targets of Vulnerability

2/10: They weren’t taken because they were criminals.

They were taken because they were vulnerable—asylum seekers, migrants, dissidents—fleeing persecution, hoping for protection under American law.

Instead, they were swept up under a statute from 1798—the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime relic once used by John Adams to jail immigrants.

The Trump administration revived it and reinterpreted it to enable a deportation machine without trial, judge, or oversight.

This wasn’t a crackdown on MS-13.

Most had no criminal records.

Some were flagged only for tattoos—like Jefferson José Laya Freites, deported because of a lion on his forearm. It was assumed to be gang-related. It was actually a tribute to his Christian faith.

Or Arturo Suárez Trejo, a Venezuelan singer living in Houston, legally awaiting an asylum hearing. One morning, ICE agents came to his door.

“He’s being transferred to finish processing,” they told his daughter.

He never came home.

His family later identified him in a prison photo—head shaved, shackled, kneeling in the white uniform of El Salvador’s mega-prison.
theintellectualist.com/the-disappeare…

Trump’s USAID Cuts Leave Starving Babies Without Food as American Aid System Collapses

A Life-Saving Mission Crumbles

🧵1/6: In a detailed report by CBS News correspondent Graham Kates, titled “American manufacturer of food for malnourished babies lays off staff amid USAID funding upheaval,” published March 20, 2025, an American-made humanitarian crisis is unfolding with devastating global consequences.

At the heart of it is Edesia Nutrition, a Rhode Island-based nonprofit that produces Plumpy’Nut—a shelf-stable, peanut-based paste used to treat severe acute malnutrition in children.

The company has been a crucial partner in U.S. foreign aid for 16 years, supplying ready-to-use therapeutic food to famine-stricken regions.

But after a sweeping overhaul of USAID led by the Trump administration eliminated more than 80% of the agency’s foreign assistance contracts, Edesia—though technically spared—was still forced to lay off 10% of its workforce due to non-payment of invoices for already fulfilled orders.
theintellectualist.com/trump-usaid-cu… Layoffs Amid Plenty: When Compassion Meets a Wall of Bureaucracy

2/6: CEO Navyn Salem called the layoffs “the hardest thing I’ve ever had to do.”

Although her USAID contract remains active on paper, multiple invoices have been rejected in recent weeks, causing shipments to halt and her warehouse to overflow with unsent product.

One invoice was rejected because the goods had not yet shipped; another was denied despite being tied to a batch that had shipped.

Meanwhile, American peanut farmers and suppliers—integral parts of Edesia’s domestic supply chain—have gone unpaid, creating ripple effects that undercut both U.S. agriculture and global health aid.

A Fictional Baby, A Real Crisis

To understand what’s truly at stake, consider one fictional but fully representative case: a baby girl named Nyalok, living in a remote region of South Sudan, one of the countries currently experiencing extreme famine.

Born prematurely and weighing less than five pounds, Nyalok showed signs of acute malnutrition—sunken eyes, distended belly, and barely the energy to cry.

Her mother, Abuk, walked hours to a rural health clinic where Plumpy’Nut had saved another child’s life two years earlier.

This time, the staff had nothing to offer. “A shipment was supposed to come,” one nurse told her, “but it never arrived.” The food had been produced in the United States—but it never left the port, because USAID hadn’t paid for it.

To be absolutely clear: Nyalok is a fictional case, based on conditions widely reported by humanitarian organizations like UNICEF and Doctors Without Borders.

She is not real, but her story is representative of thousands of real children whose survival now hangs in the balance. Babies just like her will now go without food. Some will die.

And not because the world lacks resources—but because the U.S. government, under Donald Trump’s leadership, has broken the system that used to deliver help.

theintellectualist.com/trump-usaid-cu…

In Social Media Post, Trump Demands Submission From Maine’s Governor

“We need a full-throated apology from the Governor herself, and a statement that she will never make such an unlawful challenge to the Federal Government again.” — President Donald J. Trump

A Defiant Response from Governor Mills

🧵1/8: At the recent White House Governors’ Conference, Maine Governor Janet Mills responded to President Donald Trump’s criticism of state policies concerning transgender athletes with a succinct remark:

“I’ll see you in court.”

Standing among her peers, Governor Mills invoked the rule of law, signaling readiness to resolve disputes through judicial means.
theintellectualist.com/trump-demands-… Trump’s Demand for Submission

2/8: President Trump’s reaction was swift and pointed. He publicly demanded that Governor Mills issue a personal, “full-throated” apology and pledge never to challenge the federal government in such a manner again.

Despite Maine’s prior clarification on the matter, the President dismissed it as insufficient, emphasizing that Governor Mills herself must make the concession. This response transcended typical political discourse, resembling a demand for personal submission.
A Familiar Pattern with Women in Power

Observers note that this incident aligns with a recurring pattern in President Trump’s interactions, particularly with female leaders who openly challenge him.

Historically, figures such as Hillary Clinton, Gretchen Whitmer, and E. Jean Carroll have faced similar responses characterized by demands for public contrition or personal attacks. This consistent behavior raises questions about the President’s approach to dissent and governance.

theintellectualist.com/trump-demands-…

🌍Spanish: How The Language of A Once Tiny Kingdom Became Global

🧵1/9: The roots of Spanish stretch back to the spoken Latin of the Romans on the Iberian Peninsula, a language that has undergone extensive transformation to become the rich and complex Spanish we recognize today.

This evolution was not in isolation; the Arabic influences during the Almoravid rule introduced a wealth of vocabulary and grammatical nuance to the language.

These influences were integral in shaping modern Spanish, which now boasts the status of being the fourth most widely spoken language in the world. The emergence of Spanish as a national language is a relatively recent phenomenon, mirroring the historical trend where diverse dialects unify into a single standard language.

This standardization reflects the broader pattern of emerging modern nation-states during the early modern period, where language played a critical role in constructing national identity.

The Linguistic Evolution of the Iberian Peninsula

Long before modern borders were drawn, the Iberian Peninsula was a melting pot of languages. Each community spoke a distinct language, contributing to a colorful linguistic patchwork. When the Romans came, they brought Latin with them, which slowly began to weave its way into the local dialects, becoming the common thread among the various communities.

However, not all languages blended with Latin. The Basque language, spoken in the mountainous region between Spain and France, stands out as a unique member of this linguistic family. It is unrelated to the Romance languages that sprouted from Latin and remains a living example of the Peninsula’s ancient linguistic diversity.

After the fall of Rome, Latin’s unifying influence faded, and the Peninsula fragmented into a series of kingdoms, each with a language that was a mix of Latin and local speech.

Over time, these languages began to consolidate—a process where, slowly but steadily, one language extends its influence over others. This can happen for many reasons, like the power of the kingdom that speaks it, the prestige of its literature, or its use in trade and governance.

In the case of the Iberian Peninsula, the language of the Kingdom of Castile, known as Castilian, gained the upper hand. As Castile expanded its territory and power, so did its language. Castilian spread through the Peninsula, in schools, in laws, and in everyday conversation, gradually becoming the dominant language.

This is the language we now recognize as Spanish, a testament to the historical process of language consolidation where one regional tongue becomes the voice of a nation.

The Almoravid Influence on Castilian Spanish

When North African invaders, known as the Moors, swept into the Iberian Peninsula, they brought with them not only their armies but also a rich and complex culture.

These conquerors, reaching as far as present-day France, were halted at the Battle of Tours, an event that could have significantly reshaped European history had they succeeded. This pivotal moment marked the northernmost expansion of the Moors, with the Iberian Peninsula remaining their stronghold.

The era of Moorish rule, particularly under the Almoravids, gave rise to Al-Andalus, a time and place where cultures converged, and the arts and sciences thrived. It was here, amidst this vibrant intellectual milieu, that Castilian Spanish absorbed a wealth of Arabic vocabulary.

The Arabic language, renowned for its contributions to science, mathematics, and philosophy, left an indelible mark on Spanish, as seen in the many Spanish words prefixed with ‘al,’ a direct lift from Arabic articles. Al-Andalus stands out in history as a beacon of learning and tolerance, and its linguistic legacy is still audible in the Spanish we speak today. Words like “alcohol,” “algebra,” and “almohada” (pillow) are but a few examples of this enduring Arabic influence.

theintellectualist.com/spanish-how-th… The Almoravid Influence on Castilian Spanish

2/9: When North African invaders, known as the Moors, swept into the Iberian Peninsula, they brought with them not only their armies but also a rich and complex culture.

These conquerors, reaching as far as present-day France, were halted at the Battle of Tours, an event that could have significantly reshaped European history had they succeeded. This pivotal moment marked the northernmost expansion of the Moors, with the Iberian Peninsula remaining their stronghold.

The era of Moorish rule, particularly under the Almoravids, gave rise to Al-Andalus, a time and place where cultures converged, and the arts and sciences thrived. It was here, amidst this vibrant intellectual milieu, that Castilian Spanish absorbed a wealth of Arabic vocabulary.

The Arabic language, renowned for its contributions to science, mathematics, and philosophy, left an indelible mark on Spanish, as seen in the many Spanish words prefixed with ‘al,’ a direct lift from Arabic articles. Al-Andalus stands out in history as a beacon of learning and tolerance, and its linguistic legacy is still audible in the Spanish we speak today. Words like “alcohol,” “algebra,” and “almohada” (pillow) are but a few examples of this enduring Arabic influence.

This blending of languages under the Almoravids illustrates the depth of cultural interplay that occurred and highlights the role of conquests not only in changing borders but also in enriching languages.

The Gradual Reconquista and the Development of Spain’s Modern Languages

The Reconquista, a centuries-long period of intermittent battles, was not just a military campaign but also a crucible for the languages of the Iberian Peninsula. As Christian kingdoms in the north began to reclaim territory from the Moorish south, they found themselves not only fighting against a common enemy but also vying for dominance amongst themselves. Each kingdom—be it Castile, Aragon, or Leon—had its own version of the Romance languages that had emerged after the fall of Rome.

It was during this period that Castilian began to take on a role larger than just the language of a single kingdom.

Under King Sancho III of Castile, a concerted effort was made to standardize this dialect, laying the groundwork for its future as the national language. This standardization included the adoption of certain grammatical and orthographic rules, making Castilian more consistent and widely intelligible across the various regions of the kingdom.

As the Reconquista progressed, so did the expansion of Castilian.

It was a gradual process, with each victory against the Moors also serving as a catalyst for the spread of Castilian culture and language.

By the time the Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella completed the Reconquista in 1492, Castilian had already taken root as the primary language of governance and commerce throughout the reconsolidated territories.

The final seal of linguistic unity came with the political unification of Spain.

As the new Spanish state began to emerge, Castilian was increasingly seen as the language of the Spanish identity, a sentiment that was formalized when it became the official language of the entire kingdom. This official status secured Castilian’s position as the national language, a status it has maintained into modern times.

Today’s linguistic landscape in Spain is still marked by the diversity that characterized the early days of the Reconquista, with languages like Catalan, Galician, and Basque holding official status in their respective regions. However, the story of Castilian’s rise reflects the historical power dynamics that have shaped national languages worldwide.

theintellectualist.com/spanish-how-th…

The Poisoning of the American Mind: How Fox News Conditioned A Nation for Tyranny

🧵1/9: There is no single moment when democracy dies.

No grand funeral.

No sirens wailing in the streets.

It vanishes step by step—one norm broken, one institution hollowed out, one truth buried beneath a pile of lies.

And when the final threshold is crossed, most people don’t even realize it.

They wake up, drink their coffee, scroll their news feed, and assume the world is as it was yesterday.

But it isn’t.

The rules have changed. Power is no longer constrained by law.

What was once unthinkable is now just another headline.

Another day in America.

Black Saturday: The Day the Rule of Law Collapsed

March 15, 2025—Black Saturday—the day checks and balances failed.

A sitting president, in open defiance of the judiciary, brazenly violated a federal court order, authorizing the deportation of over 200 alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador despite Judge James E. Boasberg’s directive to halt and return the flights.

With that single act, he shattered the foundations of constitutional government, proving that the rule of law no longer applied to those in power.

Future historians will mark it as a day of infamy—spoken in the same breath as December 7, September 11, and January 6.

It was the moment a court order became a mere suggestion rather than a constitutional19: There is no single moment when democracy dies.

No grand funeral.

No sirens wailing in the streets.

It vanishes step by step—one norm broken, one institution hollowed out, one truth buried beneath a pile of lies. l.

No tanks rolled through the streets. No new constitution was signed.

But make no mistake—this was the day democracy in America ceased to function.

A federal court issued a direct order to the President of the United States. The White House ignored it.

And nothing happened.

No enforcement. No accountability. No constitutional crisis that led to immediate consequences.

This is how democracy falls—not with a bang, but with silence.

Not through a dramatic coup, but through quiet acquiescence.

Black Saturday was the moment it became clear: the law only matters if those in power choose to obey it.

A System Already Hollowed Out

This was not the first time a leader defied the rule of law.

But this time was different.

This time, there was no backlash, no intervention, no meaningful resistance.

The political system had already been eroded to the point where consequences no longer applied.

Congress would not act—Trump’s party had become a rubber-stamp legislature, too afraid or too complicit to challenge him.

The Supreme Court—stacked with justices who believe in an all-powerful executive—would not intervene.

The Justice Department—purged of officials with even a shred of independence—would do nothing.

And the press?

The press would cover it, debate it, analyze it—then move on.

Because the machine that had poisoned the American mind for decades had already done its work.
theintellectualist.com/?p=73800 Fox News: America’s Chief Poisoner

2/9: Fox News, one of the chief architects of America’s democratic decay, had conditioned the public to expect lawlessness from their leader.

To justify it.

To celebrate it.

This is the legacy of Rupert Murdoch’s empire.

Not just misinformation.

Not just propaganda.

But the systematic destruction of the American public’s ability to see reality, to process truth, to respond to corruption with outrage.

Fox News did not act alone.

It built the foundation for the others who would follow—OAN, Newsmax, the radicalization of Facebook’s algorithm, and the transformation of Twitter into X.

But Fox was the original poisoner. The one that made the others possible.

The one that trained millions to distrust any information that did not conform to their worldview.

The one that taught its audience that the courts, the press, and the opposition were not just wrong, but illegitimate.

That any act taken in the name of power was justified, as long as their side was the one doing it.
theintellectualist.com/?p=73800

Black Saturday: The Day the United States Ceased to Be a Constitutional Democracy

The Moment Democracy Ceased to Function

🧵1/10: Saturday, March 15, 2025, may have seemed unremarkable to most Americans. But in time, history will remember it as Black Saturday—the moment the United States ceased to function as a constitutional democracy.

For the first time in modern American history, a sitting president openly defied a direct federal court order—and nothing happened. No intervention. No enforcement. No consequences.

A legal ruling was issued, and the White House simply ignored it.

The White House’s Decision: Power Over Law

Inside the White House, the decision was not about law—it was about power.

A federal judge ruled against the administration. The debate inside Trump’s team was not whether the ruling was legal, but whether they could get away with ignoring it. They decided they could. And they were right.

This was not a clash between equal branches of government. It was the moment the judiciary was exposed as powerless. The courts do not have an army. They rely on compliance.

But a court that cannot enforce its rulings is not a court—it is a suggestion box.

And a presidency that can ignore the courts without consequence is no longer constrained by law—it is an untouchable executive.

Trump did not declare the end of judicial authority in a speech.

He demonstrated it in practice.

This is how democratic systems collapse—not with a single act, but with the normalization of defiance, the expectation that a ruling can simply be brushed aside.
theintellectualist.com/black-saturday… How the System Failed to Stop Him

2/10: This moment did not happen in isolation. It happened because every prior attempt to hold Trump accountable has failed.

The system tried—and at every turn, it proved incapable of stopping him.

Impeachment failed—twice.

Criminal cases stalled.

The Supreme Court refused to rule on his disqualification.

Congress never moved to check his power.

At each step, Trump tested the system—and the system flinched.

He learned that laws are only as strong as the institutions willing to enforce them.

And so, when faced with a court ruling, he did what he had been conditioned to do—he ignored it. And nothing happened.

The Supreme Court’s Role in Making the Presidency Untouchable

The judiciary was already weakened by years of erosion, but in 2024, the Supreme Court itself ensured that when this moment arrived, there would be no legal recourse left.

In a landmark ruling, the Court expanded presidential immunity to such an extent that the office of the presidency is now functionally above the law.

A president can commit crimes while in office and face no immediate accountability.

And now, with Black Saturday, Trump has proven that he can ignore court rulings entirely without consequence.

This is not the separation of powers.

It is the absorption of power into a single branch. The courts were supposed to be the last line of defense. Instead, they have been reduced to issuing rulings the executive can freely ignore.

theintellectualist.com/black-saturday…