NEW BOOK INTRODUCTION

The Lie We Lived

America was built on a promise. It was an audacious experiment, an idea so radical that it shook the foundations of the old world: that power could rest not in kings, aristocrats, or priests but in the hands of ordinary people. That government would be accountable to the governed. That law would apply equally to all. That truth and reason would guide our politics and that liberty, once secured, would endure.

We were raised to believe that democracy was not just an idea but an unbreakable reality. No matter how dark the days or how strong the opposition, the system would self-correct, the truth would win, and justice would prevail. We thought America had safeguards, laws, institutions, and elections that would make tyranny impossible. We assured ourselves that a demagogue could never take control here, that the people would always reject dictatorship, that the mistakes of history belonged to other nations, to other peoples, to a distant and less enlightened past.

It was all a lie.

Not a deliberate lie, perhaps, but a myth we told ourselves to avoid facing the fragility of our system. Because the truth is this: democracy was never permanent. It was never self-sustaining. It was an ongoing struggle that required constant vigilance, education, and a shared moral code. And America, lulled into arrogance and complacency, let all three slip away.

We let ignorance become a political force, no longer something to be corrected but something to be embraced and weaponized. We let wealth buy power so that laws became tools of the few rather than protections for the many. We let religious extremists creep into government, stripping away the barrier between church and state, replacing reason with dogma, and turning faith into a justification for oppression.

Worst of all, we ignored the warnings. We saw the signs: leaders who praised dictators, dismissed truth as inconvenient, encouraged violence, attacked the press, and dismantled the guardrails of democracy one by one, and we did nothing. We told ourselves the system would hold. We told ourselves the courts would stop them. We told ourselves that "it could never happen here."

But it has.

America is no longer a democracy. That is not a statement of fear but a statement of fact. The transition is complete. What we are witnessing now is not the destruction of democracy; it is what comes after. It is the entrenchment of a new order: an oligarchy ruled by billionaires, a theocracy dictated by religious fundamentalists, and an autocracy controlled by a man who views himself as above the law.

There is no cavalry coming, no institutional failsafe, no automatic correction. There is no next election that will fix this, and there is no Supreme Court ruling that will undo what has been done. The game has been rigged, the rules are rewritten, and those who hold power will not give it up willingly.

So, what do we do?

This book is not a warning. Warnings are for those who still have time to act. This is a reckoning, a reflection on what has already happened and what it means for those of us who now live under the reality of American fascism. Some will accept it, some will fight it, and some will flee.

But the lie is dead. The illusion has shattered.

The question now is not whether America can be saved. It is whether America, as we knew it, still exists at all.

William James Spriggs

 

BEYOND FASCISM, A NEW SOCIETY

A Democratic Alternative

A troubling trend is emerging in both the United States and Europe. As fascistic movements gain momentum, there is a growing temptation among many to focus on preserving the fragmented remnants of our democracy rather than addressing the underlying issues that have allowed such movements to thrive. This defensive approach, while understandable, risks overlooking a fundamental truth: it may have been the inherent weaknesses within non-socialist democracy that brought us to this precarious point.

The rise of authoritarian ideologies did not happen in a vacuum. It is the result of a long process of social and economic decay, one that has deepened the class divide, entrenched systemic racism, and eroded the notion of the public good. The capitalist model prioritizes profit over people and has led to a hollowed-out public sphere, where community welfare and social equity have been neglected in favor of individual gain and corporate dominance.

Yet, the revolution that might challenge this system still feels distant, more an idealistic aspiration than a practical reality. Even so, the current task is straightforward: we must address the class disparity, confront racism head-on, and restore the value of the public good. We cannot afford to merely survive under the status quo, patching together a fractured democratic framework while ignoring its inherent flaws.

The only genuine democratic alternative is pursuing an equal opportunity, worker-sponsored socialist society. Such a society would prioritize collective well-being over individual accumulation, placing decision-making power into workers' hands rather than concentrating it among the economic elite. It would be a democracy not just in name but in practice. Equality and fairness are the foundations of governance in this society, and the public good is once again a central tenet of our collective identity.

To confront the rising tide of authoritarianism, we must be bold in reimagining democracy. We must not settle for the mere preservation of democracy’s fragmented pieces but strive to rebuild it on more solid, equitable ground. In the face of this challenge, the choice becomes stark: will we resist by merely clinging to what remains, or will we dare to imagine and build a genuinely democratic future, one rooted in equality, justice, and collective empowerment?

William James Spriggs

AMERICA'S MORAL BANKRUPTCY

The Moral Bankruptcy of America

It has become almost cliché to speak of the United States of America's moral bankruptcy. Lying, dishonesty, stealing, and fabricating reality have become the order of the day. Tragically, at least half of the population engages in this behavior, and it is fast becoming the official position of the government itself to lie, cheat, and be dishonest. Morality has flown out the window in this new paradigm, leaving America without a moral compass.

One reason for this moral decline is the lack of empathy. One must have empathy to possess a moral compass, a moral code, and a sense of morality. Yet today, narcissism has replaced empathy as the guiding force of the American conscience. It’s everyone for himself, and the new social doctrine is to take from others if you can. Narcissism is not only tolerated but glorified. Alarmingly, we even elect leaders on this basis alone. Narcissism, by its very definition, is the absence of empathy.

When empathy is introduced, morality can return. Empathy requires feeling for and understanding others. Only with empathy can we follow a moral code that refrains from lying or cheating and recognizes fact over fiction. A moral society does not glorify selfishness but instead values compassion and honesty.

The erosion of morality in America is not merely a personal failing; it’s a societal one. Institutions, politics, and public life reflect the pervasive narcissism, leading to a culture where the truth no longer matters. The consequences of this collective moral failure are profound. Trust erodes, relationships break down, and democracy itself is threatened when leaders manipulate the truth, and individuals become complicit in the spread of dishonesty.

Rebuilding America’s moral foundation requires a fundamental shift toward empathy. We must revalue truthfulness, fairness, and duty to others. As long as narcissism continues to dominate our collective psyche, morality will remain elusive, and our nation will continue to suffer. We must choose empathy to reclaim our moral identity.

William James Spriggs

TRUMP LOSES SO FAR

STATUS OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST TRUMP

Recent judicial actions have resulted in injunctions against several policies that President Donald Trump's administration has implemented. These cases involve statutory interpretations and administrative procedures, though some also raise constitutional questions. Below is an analysis of notable cases and the likelihood of the Supreme Court granting certiorari:​

1. Fast-Tracking Deportations to Third Countries

• Case Overview: U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued a nationwide temporary restraining order blocking the administration from expediting deportations of migrants to third countries without allowing them to claim persecution or torture. The policy, enacted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on February 18, aimed to accelerate deportations of migrants previously released from detention. The judge emphasized protections under the Convention Against Torture. ​Reuters
• Supreme Court Review Likelihood: This case involves significant questions about executive authority and compliance with international treaties. Given the broader implications for immigration policy and the potential conflict among lower courts, the Supreme Court may be inclined to review the case to clarify these issues.​

2. Dismantling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

• Case Overview: U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from dismantling the CFPB, an agency established to protect consumers from financial fraud. The ruling mandates the continuation of critical consumer services and the rehiring of staff, including a student-loan borrower adviser. ​
• Supreme Court Review Likelihood: The case raises questions about the separation of powers and the extent of executive authority to alter or dismantle independent agencies created by Congress. Given the constitutional implications and the potential impact on the administrative state, the Supreme Court may find it appropriate to grant certiorari.​

3. Deportations Under the Alien Enemies Act

• Case Overview: A federal appeals court upheld a block on the administration's order to deport Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime law. The case, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of detained Venezuelan noncitizens, emphasizes the protection of due process rights. ​
• Supreme Court Review Likelihood: This case involves the interpretation of a rarely invoked historical statute and its application in contemporary immigration enforcement. The constitutional questions regarding due process and the executive's wartime powers may prompt the Supreme Court to review the case to resolve these complex legal issues.​

4. Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship

• Case Overview: Multiple federal judges have issued preliminary injunctions blocking President Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. These rulings assert that the order violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. ​
• Supreme Court Review Likelihood: Given the direct constitutional challenge and the fundamental questions about the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, it is highly likely that the Supreme Court would grant certiorari to provide a definitive ruling on this significant issue.​

While constitutional issues increase the likelihood of the Supreme Court granting certiorari, the Court also considers cases involving significant questions of federal law, statutory interpretation, and conflicts among lower courts. The recent injunctions against Trump administration policies present a mix of constitutional and statutory issues, suggesting that the Supreme Court may choose to review these cases to provide clarity and uniformity in the law.

These cases are all law school examination-type questions that the Supreme Court should answer by agreeing with the lower court (s). Sadly, it probably will not.

William James Spriggs

STOP BEATING THE DEAD HORSE

Democrats: Stop Beating Dead Horses and Get Back on Task

Democrats have a bad habit of wasting precious time, and they’re doing it again.

Right now, instead of hammering home the message that the courts are pushing back against authoritarian overreach, they’re spending endless hours grilling incompetent Trump-era holdovers for a security breach that, frankly, is old news. Yes, these officials are fools. Yes, they’re political hacks. Yes, they were unqualified from the start. But everyone already knows that. Rehashing their incompetence doesn’t move the needle; it’s just noise.

The time for exposing Trump’s unfit appointees has passed. The time for action is now.

The Real Fight Is in the Courts, and Democrats Are Winning

What Democrats should be doing is standing on the rooftops shouting about the real battle, the one that’s going their way. Right now, the courts are doing what Congress hasn’t been able to: stopping this administration from executing its most dangerous and unconstitutional schemes.

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia just upheld a lower court’s injunction. Whether the lower courts impose and uphold a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or a Preliminary Injunction, it doesn’t matter; the courts are blocking Trump’s agenda. That’s a win. And it’s time Democrats acted like it.

Why isn’t every Democratic leader in front of a microphone praising the judicial branch and reinforcing public faith in the rule of law? Why aren't they setting the stage for a major rally outside the Supreme Court, where the ultimate showdown will likely occur?

This is where the action is. This is where the future of American democracy is being decided.

Call Out Musk for What He Is: A Threat to Social Security

And while we're at it, why is Elon Musk getting a free pass on Social Security?

Musk and his ilk, billionaire anarcho-capitalists, would love nothing more than to privatize or eliminate Social Security altogether. Why? It represents everything they hate: a program that helps the vulnerable work efficiently and proves that the government can be a force for good.

Millions of Americans depend on Social Security. They earned it. And yet, Democrats are failing to defend it with the urgency it deserves. Where are the town halls, the rallies, and the TV ads showing retirees standing up against Musk’s libertarian fantasy?

This is a rallying cry just waiting to happen.

People on Social Security should be marching in the streets.
And Democrats should be leading that march.

Message Matters and Democrats Keep Missing It

It’s not enough to be correct. You have to be focused. You have to be loud. And you have to talk about what matters to voters right now.

The GOP is unified in pushing a dangerous, fascist agenda. But the Democrats are busy re-litigating the obvious while the battle is shifting to the courts and our streets.

So here’s the message Democrats need to deliver clearly and repeatedly:

1. The courts are pushing back, and we’re winning.
2. The next big fight is at the Supreme Court.
3. Elon Musk and the billionaire class are coming for Social Security.
4. We, the people, must mobilize to stop them.

It’s time to put down the dead horse and pick up the megaphone. The future depends on it.

William James Spriggs

THE BOY CHILD IS KILLING US

The Boy Child Is Killing Us

Look closely. That’s not innovation, you see; it's destruction wrapped in narcissism. It’s not progress. It’s sabotage cloaked in arrogance. Elon Musk, billionaire child-king, dances like a boy with a new toy. Only this toy is a chainsaw, and he’s swinging it wildly, cutting down programs that save lives, wrecking livelihoods, and hacking away at the social fabric we depend on.

This is not a leader. This is not a visionary. This is a man-child drunk on power and detached from consequence. And we are letting him kill us.

Musk is a living indictment of everything wrong with unchecked wealth and unregulated tech empires. He takes your tax dollars, billions in government contracts for rockets, electric cars, and satellites, and then turns around and undermines the very government that feeds him. He fires thousands without notice, strips away protections, dismantles public platforms like X (formerly Twitter), and promotes chaos as if it were genius.

This is not eccentricity. This is cruelty. And people are suffering for it.

Musk's whims have consequences. Gutting moderation on social media unleashes hate speech and harassment. Slashing workers without severance wrecks families. Disabling vital infrastructure with no warning puts lives at risk. This is not hypothetical; it is happening now.

And all the while, he smirks. He mocks. He plays.

He does it for control. For spectacle. For the sick thrill of watching things fall apart at his command. And we, the people, sit paralyzed, somehow convinced this is brilliance when in fact it’s depravity.

How did we lose our compass so completely that we confuse cruelty for creativity? When did we start mistaking adolescent recklessness for leadership?

This is a child, a boy with too much money, power, and no adult supervision. He is not building the future. He is looting it.

Enough. The American people should be marching in the streets, not just against Musk, but against the entire system that rewards boys like him for acting like gods. We must demand accountability, for the contracts, the tax avoidance, the labor abuse, the digital disinformation, and the cold-blooded dismantling of institutions that serve the public good.

Take the toys away.

We are the grown-ups. This is our world. And we will no longer allow it to be wrecked by self-anointed emperors in hoodies and clown shoes.

We demand a world where ethics matter, workers are protected, and public money is used for public good, not private vanity.

Let this be the line. Let this be the moment. No more toys. No more chainsaws.

No more silence.

William James Spriggs

IS THERE ANY HOPE?

Will the Supreme Court Stand for the Rule of Law?

In this critical hour of American history, the concept of hope hangs by a thread. For those of us who believe in the power of the Constitution and the principles upon which this nation was founded, that hope is rooted in one foundational idea: the rule of law. Without it, democracy crumbles into autocracy, and the protections of individual rights become hollow promises.

And while many of us fear that hope is all but lost, we see flickers of resistance embodied in the dedication and professionalism of judges at the trial and appellate levels. The federal judiciary below the Supreme Court is still, for now, a line of defense holding back the tide of authoritarianism.

One recent example deserves attention: Judge Patricia Millett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In a case involving the Trump administration’s questionable deportation of lawful U.S. residents to Venezuela, Judge Millett demonstrated what it means to serve justice with both wisdom and courage. Her rigorous questioning of the government’s legal justifications revealed, in subtle but unmistakable terms, that she saw through the pretense. Her probing inquiry suggested that the administration had acted unlawfully. She offered a masterclass on how the judiciary can still uphold the rule of law in the face of executive overreach.

Cases like these underscore the essential role of the lower federal courts. These judges, appointed for life, still show independence and fidelity to the Constitution. They are not afraid to call out the unlawful behavior of those in power. But what happens when their rulings reach the Supreme Court?

That is where our collective anxiety lies.

The Supreme Court now sits as the final gatekeeper of American democracy. If the Court permits the executive branch to defy court orders or evade the Constitution through legalistic contortions and political maneuvering, we must ask what remains. A ruling means nothing if it is not followed. The Trump movement has made it clear that it will obey only the rulings it likes. This is not conjecture. It is a stated political position.

A government that can pick and choose which laws to obey is no longer a government of laws. It is an autocracy in disguise. If a final, binding judgment from the highest court in the land can be ignored without consequence, the American experiment will have failed. What is left is not a constitutional republic but a nation ruled by willpower, not law.

We are teetering on a precipice. Oligarchy, theocracy, anarchy, and plutocracy wait in the wings, eager to rush into the vacuum created by the collapse of judicial authority. The lower courts may resist, but their power is not ultimate. That resides with the nine justices of the Supreme Court.

Should they hold the line, or should they continue to affirm the Constitution's supremacy over any individual, party, or administration, hope endures. Democracy, though battered, may yet prevail.

But if the Court bends to the will of executive power, either through cowardice, corruption, or ideological capture, then hope dies. And with it, the American ideal.

We must all be clear-eyed: the rule of law is our last defense. If it falls, we do not return to it quickly. It will take generations to restore what has been lost if it can be restored at all.

So we wait, watching, hoping for nine justices to show us whether this country still believes in law or whether we have entered the post-constitutional abyss.

William James Spriggs