Yes, you have guessed right. One of the two countries is the United States of America where cutbacks or reduction in spending and increase in tariffs is the order of the day promulgated by President Donald Trump who appears to consider himself king; his porohithaya Elon Musk dictating terms to him. His aim is to make America great again (MAGA) but his maga or path is actually making the rich in the US richer and making life more difficult for the ordinary US citizen with housing and food increasing in prices.

I feel I must explain what cut backs and cutbacks mean. The two word phrase is used as a verb while the one word is a noun.

Among several cutbacks “President Trump has signaled that next set of agencies on the chopping block, as his administration looks to cut down the size of the federal government agencies that serve wide ranging roles in the government, from addressing homelessness to funding libraries. One of these is the Institute of Museums and Library Services (IMLS) that funds grants to libraries and museums across the country. The group EveryLibrary – a nonprofit that has advocated for public library funding and fought against book bans – decried the looming cuts to the agency, arguing that IMLS is statutorily required to send federal funds to state libraries based on an Act passed by Congress.”

The present president is so very different to previous presidents like Jimmy Carter who initiated the first White House Conference on Library and Information Services (WHCLIS)

which took place in Washington DC in November1979. It was such a boost to libraries and spread of information and improvement of education all round as noted by a delegate to the 1979 and 1991 conferences in the White House: “a strengthened and increasingly dynamic role for citizen-trustees in guiding library development; the emergence of citizen leadership across the nation, spearheading a new synergy within the library profession: the concept of partnership –building as a means to advance the library agenda; and the use of information as the power to promote increased productivity, economic growth and enhanced quality of life for all citizens.”

The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLS) was an agency in the US government between 1970 and 2008. The activities of the NCLS were consolidated into the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) as an independent agency of the US federal government established in 1996. It is the main source of federal support for libraries and museums within the US to advance, support and empower them. Now they are to be stymied by law. “It marks the next step of the administration eliminating government entities Trump deems ‘unnecessary’ and it follows weeks of the Department of Government Efficiency, helmed by Elon Musk, slashing entire agencies, cutting off funds and instituting mass layoffs of federal workers.”

A Sri Lankan woman with a doctorate in Library and Info Science, living in Singapore, co-heads a unit in the American Library Association (ALA). She comments the IMLS was doing great work in disbursing grants to libraries and librarians to explore uncharted territories such as the use of AI. Trump clipping its wings to decrease federal expenses is a disaster, she opines.

Another agency on the chopping list of Trump and Musk is the US Agency for Global Media, which supervises US government funded media outlets globally including the Voice of America (VOA). Trump being a big critic of this agency is well known.

On Wednesday 19^th, I heard a video clip with Fareed Zakaria speaking on cuts on research in universities which he termed Trump’s “fury on academia” which is making drastic cuts on research funding and other funding to State universities in a bid to stop federal spending. Zakaria said that the US had 72% of the world’s best 25 universities. Also quoted was J D Vance who said: “We have to attack universities. University professors are our worst enemies.” (When the VEEP says such, an echo to Donald Musk, I wonder how his wife, an Indian intellectual reacts.)

Proved without doubt is what Sashi Tharoor said while on a visit to the US. He had met and spoken with the Presidents Bush; Clinton and Obama who showed personal mannerisms that distinguished American Presidents. They had statesmanlike gravitas “which I find totally lacking in this gentleman.” Referring to Trump with apologies for an Indian MP commenting thus. Personal not politics, he added.

All this is the bad news of this article. Considering Sri Lanka, we are so fortunate to have sensible persons as head of government and most ministers. You can bet your last thousand rupee note on our government not stinting on essentials like educational institutions and education; bankrupt though we be.

Vetoing excessive use of IT Now for the good news, at least to traditionalists and those averse to, or afraid of too rapid advancement of Information and Communication Technology (ICT). We of the Baby Boomer Generation 1946 – 64, even Silent Gen 1928-45, Generation X 1965 -80 are somewhat aghast at how readily, almost frantically, all ICT is grasped and incorporated in business, commerce, even education.

In Sweden they are cutting back drastically on use of electronic devises in schools: “Teachers all across the country are placing new emphasis on printed books, quiet reading time, handwriting practice and devoting less time to tablets, independent online research and keyboarding skills. The return to more traditional ways of learning is a response to politicians and experts questioning whether Sweden’s hyper-digitalized approach to education, including the introduction of tablets in nursery schools, had led to a decline in basic skills. Sweden’s minister for schools, Lotta Edholm, who took office 11 months ago as part of a centre-right coalition government, was one of the biggest critics of the all-out embrace of technology. “Sweden’s students need more textbooks. Physical books are important for student learning.”

So very true, I echo. Not just theoretically but from experience.

We of the school generation of more than half century ago learned in the pirivena style of teaching and learning, where teaching was all important and learning left much to the child’s inclination. Competition was less then and parents left their kids to study at their own pace. By ‘pirivena style’ I mean the teacher teaches (or lectures) and students absorb the imparted knowledge or often fritter their school time away. But from that generation emerged experts in various fields, some of whom made their name overseas too: doctors, astronomers, economists et al.

Education is of course much better and will certainly bring better results if there is insistence on student learning undertaken by each student. Guidance is necessary hence the need for good teachers. The project method of teaching and learning (names of teaching systems would have changed with time) was an excellent way of getting knowledge across to the child. The teacher outlines a subject area, say countries of the world, and gives detailed outlines of what is needed to be found. Students, singly or in groups, work in the library with reference books and write out reports on the country he/she/they were assigned. Submitted reports are edited by the teacher, rewritten, read out by the leader of each group or individual student, and kept available in class. Thus students engage in self-learning and share their knowledge so the entire class knows about the assigned countries. Of course now it would be internet etc that is consulted by the students, but following Sweden’s example, insistence on consulting printed books too needs to be done; and writing.

I heard a British educationist who said she was of the opinion that going back to traditional methods of education in schools is a must since research has proved that IT learning fell short of what education should be. So two of the three traditional Rs should be brought back to importance and incorporated in school education. This is particularly advisable in poor countries like Sri Lanka. We know how some students – less financially able, living in remote areas – were drastically affected during Covid times when teaching was on-line.

I left teaching long ago. Sure the Education Department of Sri Lanka has incorporated new methods of teaching. Good to hear more on this subject.

Born April 29, 1935, Mr. Muttetuwegama served as a MP for over 12 years representing the Kalawana seat from the Communist Party from 1970 to 1981. Sarath began his Parliamentary career in 1970.

A bright young Attorney- at- Law representing the Communist Party, he spoke so eloquently on many subjects and contributed very much to debates on Law and Justice. He was known for his eloquence in debate, being equally proficient in English and Sinhalese.

He married Manouri who was Dr. Colvin R. de Silva’s elder daughter. I recall him being a thorough gentleman, politely knocking on my office door and asking me if he could enter. I became very close to him and told him he need not do all that and to just walk in as 1 so enjoyed chatting with him on personal and political matters.

He hailed from an aristocratic family in Kuruwita and his father was very well respected Rate Mahattaya in that area. The story goes that one of Sarath’s constituents had come to his father’s ancestral waluwwa and asked his father “Can I meet Sarath sahodaraya (comrade)?”. The annoyed father had retorted, “Umbata kohomada yako magey putha sahodaraya wenne? (“How the hell can you be my son’s brother?”).

He had set such a high benchmark with his sheer eloquence in speech I had the privilege of choosing him to be a speaker along with President J.R. Jayewardene when the latter opened the new Parliamentary complex building at Kotte. As usual he made a brilliant speech and was complimented by the President himself, before being invited to join him for lunch after the event.

Very sadly he met an untimely death crashing against a tree while driving his vehicle near Ratnapura. I attended the funeral of a dear friend and eminent Parliamentarian and continued to be in close touch with his wife Manouri, who passed away some years later. His daughter Ramani has been recognized as a human rights activist, being appointed a member of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, an astute lawyer. She is also a close friend of my daughter from her days at Ladies College.

Anura Dias Bandaranaike

Born February 15, 1949, Mr. Bandaranaike served Parliament for nearly 30 years from August 1977 to 2007 in the Second National State Assembly, First and Second Parliaments. He served as Leader of the Opposition, Minister of Higher Education and National Reconciliation. He also served as Speaker of Parliament for two years.

Since he entered Parliament, I was privileged to form a close association with him. Above all I respected and admired him for his sheer brilliance as a very eloquent and witty speaker. This was evident in all the contributions he made in Parliament. His oratory skills were best displayed when I called on him to speak on behalf of the Opposition when Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of UK, paid a ceremonial visit to Parliament to address the House after her historic visit to the Victoria Dam in Digana, Teldeniya. Prime Minister Ranasinghe Premadasa who was out of the country had given the text of his speech to Minister Montague Jayawickrema who was the Leader of the House. But sadly, Minister Jayawickrema abandoned that speech and spoke on his own which did not go too well with the members.

It was then the turn for Anura, then Leader of the Opposition, to speak. He made a brilliant speech referring to the days he was a student at London University and how closely he followed Mrs. Thatcher’s speeches in the House of Commons and her great contribution to British politics earning for her the title of ‘Iron lady’. It was a speech delivered with warmth and affection; applauded by the entire House. I recall most members of the Government crossing over to Opposition benches to congratulate him and for saving the day for Parliament.

Many years later our paths crossed again after Anura was elected Speaker of Parliament. Soon after, then in retirement, I received a messages through his close friend Lajpat Wickramasinha that he wanted me to work for him as advisor, but I politely refused. Thereafter Anura himself rang me on four or five occasions insisting that I work with him as advisor saying he had even asked his mother, Mrs. Bandaranaike, who had readily agreed and that a cabinet paper was being presented to make provision for that post. Since I was fond of him and admired him as an eloquent speaker, I found it impossible to refuse his request and acceded to it. I had the great pleasure of working with him as long as he held the post of Speaker, but sadly only for a few years.

His medical advisor was a close friend of mine, Dr H.H.R. Samarasinghe who told me that as his liver was in a poor state and I should advise him to refrain from any form of alcohol. This I did talking very confidentially with him and he promised faithfully that he would abide by my request. I am so glad to say during that crucial period, he did so drinking a soda while I sipped a ginger beer.

The highlight of my association with him was the historic ruling given by him on June 20, 2001. A Supreme Court bench of three Judges had issued a Stay Order restraining the Speaker from appointing a select committee to inquire into the conduct of Chief Justice relating to a Motion of Impeachment.

I was abroad with my family when I got a message through our High Commission in Malaysia asking me to return to Colombo immediately, which I did.

With Anura we sought the advice of senior distinguished lawyer H.L. de Silva. We both visited him at his residence and spoke at length giving us his thoughts. On his advice, I drafted the Ruling. I got this historic ruling printed at his request and I still have a copy in which he wrote that if not for my help, this ruling would not have been possible. I was happy to be associated with him in this ruling which was printed as a booklet with his photo on the front cover and I had it sent to all Speakers of the Commonwealth parliaments as a historic decision of a Commonwealth Speaker reaffirming and upholding the supremacy of Parliament and that the Supreme Court had no power to interfere with the proceedings of Parliament. This decision is quoted even today in Parliament proceedings and I was privileged to have had a hand in it.

Anura was a gentle and kind host. All too often he invited me to his Geoffrey Bawa designed house in Rosmead Place. The house was full of memorabilia with books, pictures of his favourite film actors and directors. He was a great conversationalist and spoke of films, film stars, literature, and biographies. I enjoyed all these very much.

I was extremely sad over his untimely passing away. His body was brought to Parliament premises for all to pay their last respects .I was among the many who joined to mourn his passing and sympathized with his sisters Sunethra and Chandrika adding that I had lost the company of a great friend and gentleman.

Anandatissa de Alwis

Mr. De Alwis served Parliament from 1977 to December 1988 for over 11 years in the Second National Assembly and First Parliament. During his tenure he served as Minister of State and Minister of Information as well as being Speaker of the National State Assembly and Speaker of Parliament, and finally as a member of the Western Provincial Council.

When Anandatissa de Alwis entered Parliament, I recall him being appointed Speaker in August 1977. We found him to be a friendly and warm person. I and the staff took instantly to him. I recall telling him that he played a very special role in that it was the very first instance that a private sector business executive was chosen by Mr. JR Jayewardene to become the Permanent Secretary to JRJ’s Ministry of State, normally held by a senior public servant, when JR was miniser.

We welcomed him very warmly to our midst and he recounted stories of his family and how his dear wife was not too well. He soon endeared himself to the entire staff with his warm and friendly approach. It was great to work with him as Speaker and Head of Parliament.

It was at this time that President Jayewardene had decided that Parliament should be relocated elsewhere as the British period building housing the State Council could accommodate only 101 members. This had now increased to 157. So, there was not enough space. President Jayewardene had asked members of his party and Geoffrey Bawa to find a new location. When he did , Anandatissa de Alwis asked me to accompany him to see the site , popularly referred to as Duwa in Kotte.

A photograph of that model is still available in our Parliamentary records and was reproduced in a publication of the new administrative capital Sri Jayewardenepura done by the Urban Development Authority (UDA). It was quipped then that President Jayewardene had chosen this spot to perpetuate his own name.

As Parliament was about to shift from Galle Face to Kotte, I was overpowered by the size of the edifice of over 48,000 square feet. I told Anandatissa that I was not competent to handle the housekeeping of this huge building. He was very close to the Oberoi Hotel authorities. Thanks to him the entire house keeping staff had to work with a specially assigned Indian lady who supervised the work of our staff and did an excellent job being firm with them.

On April 26, 1982 at the auspicious time of 10.18 am President Jayewardene opened the new Parliamentary Complex. He and four others spoke on that historic occasion.

I was abroad when Anandatissa de Alwis passed away. The former De Alwis Advertising Agency he founded; I believe is still functioning today. He is remembered very fondly by the entire staff of Parliament.

Dr. NM Perera

Dr.N.M.Perera’s service to the Legislature commenced from the Second State Council in 1936 and continued for over 34 years in Parliament. It stretched from the Second State Council and continued from the First to the Seventh Parliament to the first National State Assembly in 1972. During his tenure, Dr.Perera was the Finance Minister and presented seven budgets in all to Parliament. These were the budgets starting from October 1970, and continuing in November 1971, 1972,1973, 1974, 1975 and the last one in November in 1976.

Dr. Perera will be remembered most for his competent performance as a Member of Parliament and most of all for his role as Minister of Finance during which he presented seven budgets in all. As a Parliamentarian he will be remembered for his absolute mastery of parliamentary procedure and eloquent speech. He had his undergraduate studies at the prestigious London School of Economics.

A few months after the 1978 Constitution (under JRJ) was promulgated, Dr.N.M.Perera wrote a short essay titled “A Critical Analysis of the 1978 Constitution.” In it he forecast some of the problems that would arise once the Constitution came into operation. It is so prescient and erudite of him to have forecast the problems that we are seeing today. That essay is often quoted when discussing the merits and demerits of the 1978 Constitution even at present.

I had the opportunity of accompanying Dr.N.M.Perera with a parliamentary delegation to West Germany with a few other MPs. I recall the reception given to him by the Sri Lankan Ambassador to Germany at the time. H.E. Glannie Pieris, I recall how Dr. N.M. asked for a particular brand of white wine which he had obviously enjoyed in his student days. At the reception accorded to us by the Sri Lanka Ambassador, I recall how many young ladies greeted him warmly and it was obvious some among them had known him for some years.

Dr. Perera was a student of the prestigious London School of Economics and received his doctorate from that University. That is how he came to be recognized as almost an authority on parliamentary procedure. Whenever he spoke on these issues, many listened to him with admiration and respect knowing these were the words of a person who was knowledgeable on the subject.

With his passing in 1979 , the country lost a dynamic leader but his predictions about the danger the country could face under the 1978 Constitution continue to be spoken of today all too often and quoted in Parliamentary debates and other discussions.

(Excerpted from Memories of 33 years in Parliament by Nihal Seneviratne)
Sarath Muttetuwegama

by Rajan Philips

Donald Trump is sucking almost all of the world’s political oxygen. Daily he is stealing the headline thunder in all of the western media. The coverage in other countries may not be as extensive but would still be significant. There is universal curiosity over the systemic chaos that Trump is unleashing in America. There is also the no less universal apprehension about what Trump’s disruptive tariffs will do to the lives of people in reciprocal countries. There are legitimate fears of a madman-made recession not only in America but in all the countries of the world. There is even a warning from a respected source of a potential repeat of the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The question of this article obviously shows its Sri Lankan bias. For there is no country in the world that has been so much preoccupied, for so long, on so constitutional a matter – as the pros and cons of a parliamentary system as opposed to a presidential system. And only in Sri Lanka will such a question – whether Trump could be a king in a parliamentary system – makes sense or find some resonance, any resonance. Insofar as the current NPP government is committed to reverting back to its old parliamentary system from the current presidential system, the government could use all Trump and his presidential antics as one of the justifications for the long awaited constitutional change.

A Historical Irony

It is not that every presidential system is inherently prone to being turned into an upstart monarchy. The historical irony here is that America’s founding fathers decided on a presidential system at a time when there was no constitutional model or prototype available in the world. In fact, the American system became the world’s first constitutional prototype. The founding fathers had all the experiential reason to be wary of the parliamentary system in England because it was associated with the King who was reviled in the colonies. Yet the founding fathers were alert to the risks involved. James Maddison reminded that “If men were angels, no government would be necessary;” and John Adams warned that man’s “Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net.”

But for over 200 years, no American president tried to break the country’s political constitutional system for reasons of avarice, anger and revenge, as Trump is doing now. Presidents in other countries with far less traditions of checks and balances have been dealt with both politically and legally for their excesses and trespasses. In Brazil, the system was turned against both the current President Lula and his previous successor Dilma Rousseff. In between them, Jair Bolsonaro imitated Trump in Brazil and even tried to launch a coup after his re-election defeat in 2022, emulating Trump’s insurrection in Washington, in January 2021. But in Brazil, Bolsonaro has been accused of and charged for his crime, while in America its Supreme Court let Trump walk away with immunity and to be back as president for another round.

In Philippines, the current government of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has turned over its former President Rodrigo Duterte to stand trial at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, on charges of crimes against humanity for his allegedly ordering the killing of as many as 30,000 people as part of his campaign against drug users and dealers. In Sri Lanka, Mahinda Rajapaksa tried to be king, unsuccessfully sought a third term, and set up the system for family succession. But the people have spurned the Rajapaksas and questions as to whether they have been given undue protection from prosecution keep swirling. To wit, the contentious Al Jazeera interview of former President Ranil Wickremesinghe.

In the US, Trump is nonstick and remains untouched. Unlike the prime minister in a parliamentary system, an American president has no presence in the legislature except for the ceremonial State of the Union address. And unlike no other president before him, Trump has created the theatre of daily press conferences, rather chats, before an increasingly hand picked group of journalists. There he turns lies into ex cathedra pronouncements, and signs executive orders like a king issuing edicts. No one questions him instantly, his base hears what he wants them to hear, and by the time professional fact checkers come up with their red lines, Trump and his followers have moved on to another topic. This has become the daily parody of the Trump second term.

No prime minister in any parliament can get away with this nonsense. Every contentious statement will be instantly challenged and refuted if necessary. Parliamentary question periods are the pulse of the political order especially in crisis times. After being in the House of Commons gallery during a visit to England, President Richard Nixon was astonished at the barrage of questions that Prime Minister Harold Wilson had to face and provide answers to. These are minor differences that are hardly noticed in normal times. But the Trump presidency is magnifying even the minor shortcomings of a major political system.

Trump’s cabinet is another instance where the American system is falling apart. The President’s cabinet in America is based on unelected officials approved by the Senate. Until cabinet secretaries or ministers have generally been well equipped academics or professionals and were selected by successive presidents based on their known political leanings. Their ties to corporate America were well known but that was always somewhat qualified by the clear motivation to excel by providing exceptional service to the country.

Trump’s second term cabinet comprises a cabal of self-serving ‘yes’ men with no stellar background in the academia or the professions. They are all there to do Trump’s bidding and to disrupt the orderly functioning of government. Their ineffectiveness is now daily manifested in the drama over Trump’s decisions on tariffs which vary by the time of day and his mood of the moment. The reciprocal countries do not know what to expect, but they have learnt that any agreement that they reach with Trump’s ministers means nothing and that there will be nothing certain until Trump makes his next announcement.

Americans, and others, will have to go through this for the next four years, but in a parliamentary system there could be quicker remedies. A prime minister cannot erratically hold on to power for a full term, and as British parliamentary experience has recurrently shown prime ministers are brought down by cabinet ministers when they have outlived their usefulness to the government and the country. There is no such recourse available in the US. The device of impeachment is simply inoperable in a divided legislature and Trump has demonstrated this twice in one term.

Growing Pushback

Yet after the initial weeks of shock and awe, push-back to Trump is now growing and is slowly becoming significant. Within America the resistance is mostly in the courts, especially the lower federal courts, where the judges are ordering against the stoppage of USAID contract payments, the manifestly illegal firing of government employees, indiscriminate accessing of government data by Musk and his DOGE boys, and the barring by executive order of a law firm that had once represented Hillary Clinton from doing business with the federal government.

Also, in the highly watched case against the deportation order served on the Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian with Green Card status and married to a fellow Palestinian who is a US citizen, the courts have ordered the government to stop the deportation process until the case is resolved. Mr. Khalil was a prominent leader of the student protests at Columbia against the Israeli devastation of Gaza, and the District Judge ordering the temporary ban on deportation is Jesse Furman, an exceptionally qualified American Jew who was appointed by President Obama and was once touted as a potential Supreme Court judge.

The wider push-back is mostly overseas and is predicated on retaliatory tariffs by countries that Trump is imposing tariffs against. In different ways and for different reasons, China and Canada are aggressively pushing back. Mexico is resorting to both flattery and firmness. And the EU is launching a systematic response. Other countries will be forced into the fray if Trump lives up to imposing the much anticipated reciprocal tariffs against all countries that now charge tariffs on imports from the US.

Even without tariffs their uncertainty has been enough to roil markets with stock indices plunging dramatically from the heights reached soon after the November election and the much promised regime of monumental tax cuts. One of the worst stock slumps has been that of Elon Musk’s Tesla. In what is being considered to be the worst such slide in the history of the auto industry, Tesla has lost all of the 90% increase in value it achieved after the presidential election and now gone lower than its pre-election value. Between December 2024 and March 2025, Tesla’s dollar worth fell from $1.54 trillion to $777 billion, a near 50% drop.

Tesla’s misfortune is a schadenfreude moment for those who abhor Musk for his political trespasses. Political aversion is certainly a factor in Tesla’s misfortunes and declining sales, but materially not the main one. Other factors that are more significant are issues with the brand products and stiff EV competition from China. But political distractions catch the eye, and protesters have been turning up at the Tesla dealers in the US. Trump called them the lunatic left and to boost his buddy’s products he even stage managed a sales pitch for Tesla vehicles at the White House driveway. And this is after executively rescinding all of Biden’s initiatives to boost the production and use of Electric Vehicles. What better way to make America great again?

Fighting Oligarchy

Political commentaries in the West are preoccupied with speculations over how, when and where all of Trump’s orders and initiatives will impact people’s lives and their politics in America. One comforting constant is the presidential term limit that will stop Trump’s presidency in January 2029, although Trump will never stop musing about a third term in office. Just like annexing Canada, purchasing Greenland and expropriating Gaza. Mercifully, he has not made any claim to immortality.

The elusive variable is the response of the people. So far, Trump has been able to maintain his hold over his base and he is pulling a tight leash on the Republicans in Congress to toe the line given their narrow margins in both the House and the Senate. The base is indicating support to all his madman initiatives even though Trump has fallen back to his usual negative approval rating (more people disapprove than approve of him) in popular opinion polls. What is not clear is when the public will turn on the president if he actually imposes tariffs on consumer goods, keeps firing government employees, and keeps eroding social welfare.

Trump won the election promising to bring down the prices and cost of living instantly, but everything he is doing now is driving up the costs and people will start registering their dissatisfaction. Unlike in Britain there is no tradition to cheer the monarch and damn the government. Sooner or later, Americans will have nothing to cheer their king for, but everything to damn him, because this ersatz king is also their government.

There are scattered protests in many parts of America, with people showing up at local town hall meetings organized by Republican congressmen. But the protest against the deportation of Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil is likely to gather traction and is already drawing a spectrum of supporters including progressive Jewish and other American citizens. A Jewish organization called Jewish Voice for Peace has organized a sit in protest in support of Khalil in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York. Other high rise buildings may be targeted.

More resoundingly, Senator Bernie Sanders has launched a national tour for “Fighting Oligarchy” and drew a crowd of ten thousand people at his first stop in Michigan. The tour will be a teaser to the Democratic Party leadership that is currently stuck in its tracks like a hare caught in Trump’s headlights. The Party is going by the calendar and waiting for its turn at the next mid-term elections in 2026, and the full election year in 2028 to elect the next president. The old campaign heavyweight James Carville has publicly advised the party to “play dead” until Trump’s systemic chaos turns the people against the Administration. Not everyone is prepared to be so patient.

New York Congress woman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) is not prepared to “completely roll over and give up on protecting the Constitution.” She wants immediate and consistent opposition to Trump and not to play the waiting game according to the electoral calendar. Trump for one does not wait for anything and breaks every rule to advance his indeterminate agenda. Among the Democrats, AOC has the most extensive social media base, and many Democrats are encouraging her to take the next step and announce her candidacy for New York’s Senate seat. She is a shrewd politician and is well positioned to open another front against Trump, paralleling the national tour that Bernie Sanders has launched.