Whenever government officials decide to commit government spending for a particular project or activity, members of the public should insist that the government officials provide details that explain and justify that government spending. Why? Because (1) government officials are accountable to the public, (2) no government has unlimited funds, unlimited personnel, or unlimited time, and (3) government is expected to provide or support a variety of public services (e.g., roads and bridges, police and fire protection, water treatment, public schools) that require the exercise of sound fiscal planning to ensure (a) adequate funding without losses to fraud, waste, or abuse, and (b) no undue burdens on taxpayers. 

When promoting or justifying government spending for a particular project or activity, state and local government officials often say the cost of the project or activity is “an investment.” Although the word “investment” may sound like a reasonable justification, it is uninformative. Why? Because it fails to actually explain or justify the use of government spending for a given proposed project or activity. Calling government spending “an investment” without elaboration or explanation is at best uninformative, at worst evasive. 

Government officials are trustees of public funds and have (1) no right to be careless or cavalier about spending public funds, and (2) no right to fail to explain to the public their reasons for decisions involving the use of public funds. Government officials have an affirmative obligation to explain to the public the reasons why the commitment of government spending for a particular project or activity is justified — not just provide a glib, uninformative label that fails to provide any meaningful explanation or justification. Government officials do not fulfill their obligation to the public by calling government spending “an investment” without providing any meaningful explanation or justification. 

If a business makes poor choices with its investment decisions, it loses money, risks losing customers, and faces the possibility of going out of business. In contrast, taxpayers — not government officials or government bureaucracies — foot the bill for any bad or poor choices made regarding the expenditure of public funds. In the private sector, customers generally have the option of seeking alternatives to doing business with a badly or poorly run business. In the public sector, taxpayers and other members of the public have limited options because paying taxes and complying with government-imposed laws, regulations, and mandates are not optional. 

What follows are suggestions about the kinds of questions about government spending that members of the public should ask and insist that government officials answer by providing relevant and specific responses. Some suggested questions could include the following: 

What are the specific goals and objectives of government spending? How are those specific goals and objectives weighed and evaluated with respect to other goals and objectives competing for government spending? Has the government weighed the costs and benefits of proposed government spending against possible alternative allocations of government spending?

What assumptions are made to justify the government spending? Are those assumptions relevant and reasonable? 

Are there any risks or uncertainties associated with government spending? If so, what are they, and how serious are they? Has the government considered ways to avoid, reduce, or mitigate those risks or uncertainties? 

What is the projected time frame for realizing expected results or benefits from the government spending? Is the projected time frame realistic and reasonable? 

Are the projected benefits and gains expected from the government spending realistic and achievable? If so, are they worth the cost? Are they achievable in a cost effective manner? 

What are the opportunity costs of the proposed government spending? Are those opportunity costs worth the projected benefits and gains expected from the proposed government spending? Do those opportunity costs detract from the fiscal needs of other, necessary public services? 

What are the total costs of the particular government spending, including transaction costs? How are the costs distributed among things such as capital costs for buildings, equipment costs, operating and maintenance costs, staffing and other personnel costs, and costs to deliver services or benefits to intended recipients? Is the allocation of various costs practical and reasonable? 

Are the transaction costs of the government spending reasonable? Is the administrative “overhead” reasonable or excessive? Are the total life-cycle costs of government spending reasonable or excessive? 

Have the costs, risks and benefits of similar government spending in the past been evaluated? If not, why not? 

Has the government learned any lessons from its successes and failures with respect to past government spending? If not, why not? 

Has the government made any efforts to detect or avoid any financial losses or operating deficiencies due to fraud, waste or abuse? If not, why not? 

Will any “lessons learned” about successes or failures associated with similar government spending in the past be incorporated in the planning and implementation for current and future government spending? If not, why not? 

When claims are made that additional or supplemental funding is needed for a previously funded project or activity, there is need to ask: (1) is the claimed inadequacy of budgeted funding due to changing circumstances or unforseen adverse events? (2) is increased funding needed to compensate for increased operating costs and expenses that should have been anticipated and budgeted for in the initial planning? (3) is increased funding needed to correct or compensate for failures or inefficiencies with respect to the use of originally budgeted funding?

The suggested questions should not be considered exhaustive. Readers may think of other relevant questions about government spending that they would like answered. Regardless of what questions about government spending that members of the public might consider pertinent, they should not simply accept at face value any unexplained or unelaborated claim that government spending is “an investment.”

Author

Emilio Jaksetic

The one area the Government and the legacy media intentionally ignore is the significant roles played by Foreign Intelligence Agencies, particularly British Intelligence, in the Russia Hoax Conspiracy. The newly released 100 pages of declassified documents by Director of National Intelligence Gabbard and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) report implicated President Obama and Obama-era officials in an election interference scheme. What is conspicuously absent from their reports is the roles Foreign Intelligence Agencies, particularly British Intelligence, played in the Russia Hoax Conspiracy.

Let’s begin by looking at the origins of the Russia Gate Conspiracy and the roles played by those within the Foreign Intelligence Agencies’ “Five Eyes Intelligence Network,” specifically British Intelligence, who started this whole cabal by constructing the “BIG LIE,” a deliberate and misleading narrative, and THE MYTH THAT TRUMP AND HIS CAMPAIGN TEAM HAD SECRET TIES TO THE RUSSIANS, a false accusation that has had profound and far-reaching consequences.

ORIGINS OF FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

The origins of the myth began in 2015, when the Five Eyes Intelligence Network, a cooperative intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, specifically British Intelligence, was monitoring Russian Communications through Signals Intelligence and Cryptography (SIGINT) of conversations between Russian Officials discussing then-presidential candidate Trump.

The allegations that Trump had secret ties to Moscow originated from SIGINT intercepts of Russian Officials by British Intelligence, which became the basis for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) intelligence probes and investigations into the Trump campaign, claiming that Trump had secret ties to Moscow.

Anonymous sources within the National Security agencies leaked false narratives to the media that some of the information in the Steele dossier about Trump was corroborated, claiming the information came from intercepts of Russian officials. The facts from Special Counsel (SC) John Durham’s investigation determined that the information for the the Steele dossier came from associates within the Clinton and DNC orbits, not the Russians, as part of their Machiavellian plan of making the Russians the responsible party to hide their criminality in framing Trump and his team for crimes they didn’t commit. 

John Seaman

If you can arrest a former president named Donald Trump, you can arrest a former president named Barack Obama.” — Peachy Keenan on “X”.

Don’t you think it’s time for The New York Times to stop using the cliché “baseless” when referring to allegations — now, actually, official accusations— of the seditious conspiracy to run President Trump out of office after the 2016 election? Of all the fake “journalistic” blurts emanating from this bastion of degenerate sell-outs, “baseless” is the fakest, as if the word printed in a headline were so magically potent, the sheer assertion of it can make all your problems just — poof! — go away.

It’s the thought process of wicked children who fail to develop a sense of true or false, right or wrong, who grow into adults specially licensed, by some new perversion of the social contract, to get away with anything. And those wicked children have become America’s managerial class, the elite who are supposed to do your thinking for you op-ed style, the credentialed experts, such as Tony Fauci, “economist” Paul Krugman, DEI avatar and NPR honcho Katherine Maher, Harvard law prof Lawrence Tribe. . . the list is interminable, but you get the picture.

This class is also the owner / operator of America’s political Deep State, which by 2016 had grown into a colossal racketeering operation, money-laundering gazillions of taxpayer dollars into NGOs dedicated to the country’s cultural and political destruction while it processed campaign donations into fantastic fortunes for people officially earning less than $200-K a year. The racket also managed to pay for the support of multitudes allergic to working for a living, as long as they were available for riots and ballot-harvesting drives.

It was working at such a high pitch by the end of Barack Obama’s two terms, with the most stupendously privileged creature in the Boomer bestiary ready to take her “turn” in the Oval Office — after amassing a $300-million-plus fortune serving as US senator (salary, $174-K / year) and Secretary of State (salary $199,700 / year, then) — that you must imagine the mighty freak-out at the prospect of one Donald John Trump, outsider vulgarian extraordinaire, promising to step in and drain the whole massive, putrid, necrotic, parasitical nepo-infested quagmire of predatory grifters, leaving them gasping for their lives on the stinking Potomac mudbanks like so many grunions dying on the beach at Redondo.

Barack Obama, apparently, Darth Vadar-ized himself and was handed a light-saber (Hillary’s Steele dossier) by John Brennan, Grand Duke of Planet Intel. . . and the rest should have been history — but instead festered in the US body politic for more than ten years like an inflamed tuberculoma and is now bursting out of the Beltway’s peritoneal cavity in a spectacular spray of ordure, sticking to everyone and everything like a thousand tails pinned on the everlasting Democratic donkey. Alas, Babylon-on-the-Potomac. . . .

Also: “baseless,” my a[**]. . . . The basis for all this mischief is in the process of having proof supplied by the one figure, DNI Gabbard, in a position to retrieve the evidence, in writing, from the various heavily ring-fenced agencies over which she is the ultimate overseer, which has not been done before, especially back in the crucial weeks of late 2020 when John Ratcliffe was in that position. The reason Tulsi succeeded this time where Ratcliffe did not is probably due to newly available A-I systems which make collation of cross-searches much easier through the countless servers of the many intel agencies. And so, now it pours forth day by day.

That’s where things stand and the dust has not even begun to settle, with former President Obama seemingly hoisted on the petard of his own making back in December of 2016. Whether or not all the declassified info can be crafted into prosecutable cases is not yet determined, but you might imagine it will come together soon enough, if at all possible. It may not add up to treason per se, but there are plenty of other serious charges generally proceeding from deprivation of rights under color of law (18 U.S.C. § 242), to seditious conspiracy, i.e., overthrow of the president (18 U.S.C. § 2384) to stuff a number of former officials into orange jumpsuits behind bars.

I doubt, though that we have reckoned the worst damage done by the perpetrators of RussiaGate and the serial crimes it entailed, which is how it drove half the population of our country plumb batsh[**] crazy. Once RussiaGate was put over, any absurdity was force-fed to the increasingly delusional opposition to Donald Trump largely aggregated under the “Democratic Party” banner. You were suffered to believe such patent nonsense as men can become women, that riots with arson were mostly peaceful protests, that the US/Mexico border could not be controlled without vast new legislation, and that a demonstrably corrupt and obviously senile Joe Biden was an able, functioning chief executive.

The Covid-19 op was the coup de grâce for the Left’s mental health — while it was also a silver bullet to get rid of Mr. Trump in the 2020 election. There is even reason to believe that the mRNA vaccines, with their spike protein payloads, delivered physical brain injury by way of induced vascular disorder. Millions who took them may never recover their senses — but so far that is just hypothesis.

If cases are brought against those who acted in the long-running coup, and are proven in court via an honest and upright process, we’ll find out whether half the country can recover enough rationality to accept the outcome. The signs for now are discouraging, as they seem to veer deeper into delusion, nominating outright jihadi communists for important offices and continuing their lawfare campaign to disable all and any actions by Mr. Trump’s executive branch.

The ultimate goal, for those interested in continuing the project of this American republic, will be to see if it’s possible to restore a workable consensus about a common culture and the common good on principles that are anything but baseless: equal protection under the law, fair play, the rights of property, and respect for verifiable truth.

William Howard Kunstler

The emotional problems of these leftists run deeper than politics. Their choice of totalitarian collectivism in politics betrays a combination of intellectual superficiality, ignorance and an immature desire to be part of the p

In the world of elites who are (in truth) nothing to envy. Granted, those are emotional problems. But the leftists’ sense of martyrdom and victimhood allies them with the woke narrative that oppression is a virtue. They feel a need that’s so ferocious to be known as victims because, in their warped sense of life, martyrdom is the only proof of virtue and achievement.

I can’t prove it, but I’d bet money that Colbert relishes his opportunity for victimhood in his present situation. The more he lashes out at Trump, the more approval he receives from others in his circle, and the more worthwhile he feels. Among other things, this faulty thinking (Freud labeled it “defense mechanism”) prevents Mr. Colbert from having to feel anguish over the fact that President Trump had nothing to do with his show’s cancellation. Mr. Colbert’s declining number of viewers did.

This is the kind of thing libertarians, conservatives, small government people have been warning about for a long time: that the intelligence community has so much power that, put into the wrong hands, incredible injustice could occur,” Paul said.

“And I think that’s what happened here. I’m proud of Tulsi Gabbard for bringing it forward.”

-U.S. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, on the smoking gun evidence of Obama’s treason.

*******

Will they really do it?

Does anyone have the backbone to arrest Obama? Trump absolutely does. He has been through more insanity than ANY political figure in all of American history. That includes Lincoln. Because they didn’t get him, Leftists now must face a President Trump with absolutely NOTHING to lose. That’s precisely why millions of us voted for him. And he is delivering. Now, does anyone else other than Trump have the backbone to arrest Obama, Hillary Clinton and so many others? I have no idea. I am concerned. We the people must do all we can to let Trump know we support him on this. Hopefully that will give the Pam Bondis the backbone they need. It’s truly our last chance. Because if we let these people like Obama go, and they return to power at some point (which they will) — everything is over. They will spare nothing, and nobody. We are in more of a moment of truth than any of us can truly grasp.

*******

Now it gets interesting. As I predicted, the media and state-run capitalism and far left academic-media Establishment have responded as if Trump isn’t a real President and his supporters (even if a majority) do not count. Yet the reality remains that there still IS an American government. And just a year ago, when Biden was President, you were treated as an insurrectionist and “enemy of democracy” for daring even to criticize the demented puppet sitting in the White House and his wildly unconstitutional edicts.

You can’t have it both ways, Leftists. But we know you think you can. Arrogance and hubris do not begin to describe your psychopathology and uninhibited, rotten-to-the-core lack of character. You believe that money can buy you a totalitarian dictatorship and immunize you from your own claimed standards even when you’re out of power. We will soon find out if you are right.

*******

From Ken Blackwell :

“BREAKING: President Trump just said what millions of us have known for years: “The leader of the gang was Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. He’s GUILTY. This is TREASON!”

And he’s absolutely right.

Obama is not some bystander. He is not a clueless figurehead who got dragged along for the ride. He is the one who lit the match, gave the orders, and built the machine that tried to destroy Donald Trump and rig the system against the will of the American people.

He ran the most corrupt administration in modern history and walked out like a celebrity instead of a criminal. That ends now.

The Russia hoax? That was Obama’s operation.

The spying on Trump’s campaign? Obama knew and signed off.

The fake dossier, the FISA fraud, the lies to Congress, the media leaks? All of it ran through his people.

He didn’t just watch it happen. He helped plan it.

This wasn’t politics. This was a coup attempt.

They tried to erase an election. They tried to destroy a sitting president. They tried to silence every voice that dared to support him. And they did it from within the government. That is treason.

And yet Barack Obama has faced zero consequences. Not one subpoena. Not one hearing. Not one serious investigation.

Meanwhile, Trump supporters get dragged into court for memes, hit with gag orders, indicted over nonsense, and bankrupted for questioning the system.

Rudy Giuliani gets slapped with a $140 million judgment for calling a rigged election what it was. But the man who corrupted the FBI, CIA, DOJ, and IRS for political gain? He’s on Netflix. He’s throwing birthday parties with celebrities. He’s still running the show from behind the curtain.

The double standard is not just obvious. It is sickening.

The Department of Justice works overtime to crush Trump and anyone who stands with him, but they cover for Obama like their lives depend on it. Maybe they do.

This country cannot survive much longer if we keep letting the real criminals walk free while the truth-tellers get punished. We either have equal justice, or we have no justice at all.

Trump is right. Obama must be investigated. Now.

No more excuses. No more silence. No more pretending the real threat to this country isn’t coming from inside the house.

Barack Hussein Obama led the operation against Trump. He abused his power. He betrayed the Constitution. He tried to overturn an election. That is treason.

The American people see it. Trump sees it. And history will not forget it.

Investigate Obama.

Expose the whole rotten operation.

And bring justice down—hard.

*******

More from Ken Blackwell :

“If this man never faces justice, then the rule of law in America is dead.
Not wounded. Not limping. Dead.
Because when the system protects the powerful while punishing the rest of us, it’s not a system anymore. It’s a racket.
We’ve watched Americans thrown in jail for far less. Parents labeled extremists. Veterans locked up. Whistleblowers silenced. January 6 protesters sentenced like terrorists.
But Barack Obama?
He used federal agencies to spy on political opponents.
He presided over a cover-up in Benghazi while Americans died.
He backed a lie that dragged this country through four years of chaos and division—the Trump-Russia hoax—and let his inner circle weaponize intelligence to try to overturn an election.
And he walks free.
Smiling for cameras. Signing book deals. Running the Democrat Party from the shadows.
Enough.
This isn’t about partisanship. It’s about survival. A republic cannot stand if justice is applied based on status, party, or media protection. If people stop believing the law is fair, they stop following it. That’s not speculation. That’s history.
Every time the system lets someone like Obama escape scrutiny, it sends a message to every American: the law is only for the little people.
And that message is poison.
We either fix it now, or we lose everything this country is supposed to stand for.
Justice must be equal. Or it means nothing.
If we still believe in this country, we have to prove it.
Start at the top.
Start with Obama.
Do it for the rule of law.
Do it for the country.
Do it before it’s too late.”

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Charleston SC). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on X at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, @DrHurd on TruthSocial. Dr. Hurd is also now a Newsmax Insider!

Michal Cotler-Wunsh @CotlerWunsh: There is NO genocide in Gaza.

There is war – waged by genocidal terrorists for whom human tragedy is the strategy; who use own people as human shields/sacrifices; who use int’l ‘humanitarian aid’ & civilian infrastructure to construct hundreds of km of underground hell.

A war that would be over on October 8 if the 251 human beings stolen & held in standing violation of law & morality – 4 of them since 2014 – were returned; & if Hamas war criminals were held to account & prevented from openly declared intent to perpetrate genocidal October 7 atrocities again & again.

But @nytimes will platform those that claim there is, partaking in systematic demonization, de-legitimisation, & application of double/invented standards to 🇮🇱’the Jew’ among nations.

Then again…they also publish blood libellous ‘facts’ from genocidal Hamas terror proxy of a criminal Islamic regime in Iran, including allegations that Israel struck a hospital killing hundreds 11 days after October 7 massacre…only to publish ‘retraction’ when it turns out it was an errant rocket launched by PIJ, another genocidal terror proxy of same murderous regime. #NeverAgainIsNow.
Quote:
Aizenberg@Aizenberg55
· May 20
🧵A strong consensus has formed: there is no genocide in Gaza. Over 50 leading international law, genocide & military experts have rejected the claim. A false narrative pushed by a minority of loud voices falls apart under factual and legal scrutiny. Detail & sources below: 1/

Senate Republicans are not happy with House conservatives they view as hijacking the congressional agenda to make the disclosure of Jeffrey Epstein-related files their burning focus.

GOP senators say the matter should be left to President Trump and the Department of Justice and want House lawmakers to pay more attention to finding a way to avoid a government shutdown at the end of September.

Instead, House Republicans on the Rules Committee have brought their chamber to a partial standstill by refusing to vote down Democratic amendments to force the publication of Epstein-related files.

“You can’t do anything because of Epstein,” one senio

GOP senator fumed. “Wow, what a way to shut it down. … How does it happen?

“We’re supposed to be focusing on governing the country. Let’s not get caught up in the tabloid exposé stuff. Let’s keep the government open. Let’s pass appropriations bills. Let’s do the boring stuff of governing and let other people get all ginned up about who’s sleeping with who,” the lawmaker said.

The House is about to leave town for a five-week recess despite having passed only two of the regular appropriations bills for fiscal 2026.

Senate Republicans are second-guessing Johnson’s effort to quell the controversy by sending his members away from Washington early to begin the August recess.

“I think that’s a silly reason to go home,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who has called on the Trump administration to “just release the damn files.”

Tillis suggested Johnson is deluding himself if he thinks that the problem will simply go away by sending lawmakers away from Washington for an extended recess.

 PM by Kudsman

Member Services Advocacy Training and Events Newsroom About Calendar Store District Vacancies Contact Log In Supreme Court decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor could be a game changer for public education On Board Online • July 21, 2025

By Pilar Sokol Director of Legal Services

Just before the end of this year’s session, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision which many have referred to as a game changer for public education.

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the high court issued a preliminary injunction in favor of parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, who are in the process of challenging their school district’s refusal to excuse their children from classroom instruction that involves the use of certain books in grades K-5. Some of the books tell stories about same-sex relationships, including same sex marriages, and some involve the topic of gender identity.

The injunction requires the school board to restart a prior policy of giving parents advance notice of when the books would be used in the classroom and allowing parents to excuse their children from that instruction.

The court sent the case back to a lower court for further proceedings consistent with the high court’s majority opinion. Still, the opinion foreshadows the Mahmoud majority’s disposition regarding resolution of the merits of the case. Thus, it is important to understand what the case is and is not about, and why the high court’s majority (five justices and one concurrence) determined a preliminary injunction was warranted in this case.

The district began incorporating the LGBTQ+ texts into the English language arts curriculum after determining the current books were not representative of many in their school community because they did not include LGBTQ+ characters. While books were included in grades PK-12, the Mahmoud decision involves only the storybooks assigned for use in grades K-5 (students ages 5-11).

The district expected teachers to include the storybooks in classroom instruction in the same way as other books. The district issued a guidance giving teachers suggested responses to potential questions from students and parents.

In response to parental push back regarding the introduction of the books, the district initially agreed to give parents advanced notice when any of the books in question would be used in classroom instruction and allow opt-outs. Due to a high number of opt-out requests, the district discontinued both the advanced notice and opt-out arrangement.

According to district staff and the school board, the number of opt-out requests made the process unmanageable. The court commented in the majority decision that school districts “cannot escape free exercise [of religion] obligations by crafting a curriculum so cumbersome that a substantial number of parents elect to opt out.”

The parents argued that they have a religious duty to train their children according to their faith regarding what it means to be male or female and matters involving marriage, human sexuality and other related themes. They asserted that the district’s actions violated their right to the free exercise of their religion, and the high court majority agreed.

To grant a preliminary injunction, a court must make certain determinations, including the likelihood of the litigant’s success on the merits of the underlying claim. In that context, the court determined that the district’s actions “substantial[ly] interfere[d]” with the parents’ free exercise rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They also presented a “very real threat” of undermining the parents’ ability to instill in their children their religious beliefs, and this further imposed an unconstitutional burden on the exercise of those beliefs.

In the majority’s view, the district’s actions substantially interfered with the parents’ exercise of religious rights for a variety of reasons based on the combination of the introduction of the books, the district’s instructions to teachers and the discontinuance of the notice and opt-out option.

The court found the books were normative. That is, they presented “certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary [ones] as things to be rejected.” Teachers were encouraged to reinforce the values and beliefs to be celebrated, and children encouraged to adopt those specific views.

The district’s actions also posed an “objective danger” to undermining the parents’ teachings based on their children’s susceptibility to their teachers’ 

As to the imposition of an unconstitutional burden, the district’s actions, in part, conditioned the parents’ access to public education on their acceptance of a burden on religious exercise. Although the district had an interest in maintaining a safe school environment for all to learn in, their actions were not narrowly tailored to advance that interest.

So where do school districts go from here? As a starting point, school officials should examine whether their current policies or practices resemble any of the circumstances in Montgomery County. While creating an automatic, universal opt-out policy is an option, be sure to discuss practical implications with district administrators and the concept of a sincere religious belief with your school attorney. Your policy should be well-suited to local needs and realities, including demographics. Possibly with the assistance of your school attorney, identify any policies and practices that might be impacted by Mahmoud and may be in need of possible revision.

To learn more about the case itself, open questions and possible answers including its impact on curriculum, and future potential challenges such as the expansion of opt-outs into other areas, attend NYSSBA’s Summer Law Conference in person in Albany on July 31, or virtually on Aug. 5 and 6. In the meantime, feel free to contact NYSSBA’s Legal Department with questions you might have at legal@nyssba.org.

Go back | Show other stories Contact Us New York State School Boards Association 24 Century Hill Drive, Suite 200 Latham, New York 12110-2125 518.783.0200 phone 518.783.0211 fax Contact Us

US President Donald Trump accused former President Barack Obama of “treason” in the Oval Office yesterday, July 22, 2025, during a meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Trump, without providing specific evidence, claimed Obama led an effort to falsely tie him to Russia and undermine his 2016 presidential campaign. He further stated, “They have him stone cold. And it was President Obama. Barack Hussein Obama, he’s guilty. It’s not a question. This was treason”. 

This accusation is reportedly linked to a recent report by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who claims it undermines a 2017 assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to favor Trump. Gabbard has declassified documents that she alleges reveal a “treasonous conspiracy” by former Obama administration officials, claims that have been dismissed as false and politically motivated by Democrats. Previous investigations, including a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, have concluded that Russia did attempt to interfere in the 2016 election to favor Trump. 

Obama’s office responded with a rare statement, calling Trump’s claims “outrageous,” “bizarre,” and a “weak attempt at distraction”. Spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush noted that while Obama’s office usually doesn’t respond to “constant nonsense and misinformation,” these claims warranted a response due to their extreme nature. Rodenbush also stated that the documents released by Gabbard do not invalidate the conclusion that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election, although they didn’t successfully manipulate votes. 

Regarding the possibility of an arrest, while election interference has been established as an offense for former presidents, legal experts have expressed skepticism about the potential for Obama’s arrest based on these allegations. However, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has stated she has submitted a criminal referral to the Department of Justice regarding charges against Barack Obama. 

It’s important to note the legal definition of “treason” in the US Constitution, which involves levying war against the US or aiding its enemies. Treason is punishable by death. While election interference has led to convictions in other cases, Trump’s accusations against Obama remain unsubstantiated by evidence and have been called baseless by Obama’s office. 

“Ahh, retirement—no more commute, no more responsibilities. I can’t wait!” The holy grail of retirement is the reward for a lifetime of accomplishment and faithful employment. But for some people it doesn’t quite live up to all it’s supposed to be.

Over the years, I’ve counseled many retired people. One of the trends I have observed, especially with couples who moved here from a busy urban area, is some degree of dissatisfaction expressed by one or both parties. It seems hard to understand at first. The dream of retirement has been fulfilled. Relaxation and freedom are finally in their grasp. So why doesn’t it seem to be enough?

I’m reminded of a classic behavioral experiment (every mental health professional learns this one in school) conducted with lab rats and their food. In the first part of the study, the animals’ food is buried under the ground. They quickly learn to dig for their dinner, working hard to reach that reward. After a period of time, phase two begins: The food is now placed on the surface, in full sight. But, interestingly enough, the little animals ignore the easy-to-reach meal, and continue to dig, as if the ritual of working for the food was unalterably linked to the reward. Aha!

Though we humans are more complicated than those tiny creatures, we also develop powerful habits. And going to work, along with the associated mental and social engagement, is no less a habit than any other behavior we repeat year after year.

The good news is this: As reasoning creatures, we can change our habits. For example, a newly retired person might automatically think, “I have to hurry up,” until she realizes she’s doing nothing more than taking a leisurely trip to the grocery store. At this point it makes psychological sense for her to stop and to say to herself: “What’s the hurry? What’s keeping me from taking my time? I’ll get there when I get there!” She has to modify her knee-jerk thoughts and get onto a new mental track.

And then there’s one of my favorites: The issue of guilt. Consider the retired person who feels guilty that he isn’t trudging to work. He feels vaguely anxious, like he “should be doing more.” Old habits die hard, and he hasn’t yet given himself the time to understand that he doesn’t HAVE to “dig for his food” anymore. But the anxiety and mental engagement associated with his job have become wrongly linked with the reward of his retirement. The more he sees the stress-free existence he has, the unhappier and guiltier he feels. He has to disconnect these two feelings so he can enjoy the new life he worked so hard to create.

Many people who retire at the beach do so with their spouses and partners. They have to realize that they’re two different individuals, especially when it comes to handling a major life change. Each will have his or her own process for going through the transition. Some will do so immediately, and for others it can take a while. Unnecessary problems develop when one partner fails to look objectively at what the other is going through. My suggestion is to give everything at least a year to play itself out, without jumping to conclusions such as, “This was the wrong decision.” If the original decision to relocate was carefully considered, then it probably just needs time to sink in.

Retirement isn’t for everyone. Many want to be productive to the end of their lives. This is perfectly fine. Just make sure that you’re being productive for your own pleasure, and not because you guiltily “feel like you should.”

Retirement shouldn’t feel like you’re “playing hooky.” It’s a long-awaited opportunity to guiltlessly do less — or more — of whatever you want to do. So, tie up loose ends and try different things. After all, you earned it.