Is Trump (and MAGA) Fascist?

Many people on the left today claim that Trump is a fascist. But is he?

A fascist dictator is one whose government has a centralized authority, suppresses democracy, uses violence against opponents, and glorifies nationalism and empire building.

Benito Mussolini coined the term, so it is instructive to look at his regime to see what he endorsed and believed. Adolf Hitler took fascism to its most extreme form, combining authoritarian control with racial ideology, anti-Semitism, and genocidal policies.

So back to the question. Is Trump a fascist?

The short answer is no. But allow me to provide a more thorough retort.

Trump is a fascist in the same way that Whoopie Goldberg is Miss America.

Does Trump have a centralized authority? No. The three branches of government are all up and running just fine. A fascist dictator would immediately dissolve these and centralize power in himself. Has Trump done this? Nope.

Does Trump suppress democracy? No. He is actually the one trying to ensure that our voting systems are immune to fraud and cheating. It's the Democrats who are opposing things like voter ID's, and paper ballots. A fascist dictator would abolish voting. Has Trump moved that way? Nope.

Does Trump use violence against opponents? No. But his opponents sure use violence against him (us). And don't mention J6. Trump never endorsed what they January 6 protestors did. He never encouraged it. Ever. In fact he condemned it. His point was always that the response to the perpetrators of the so-called Capitol Insurrection (Riot) was out of balance and too harsh for what was done. The people who committed that crime, which boiled down to breaking and entering, some vandalism, and simple assault, spent 4 years in federal prison.

Does Trump glorify nationalism? well, sort of... Yes. In a way. Not "nationalism" really. It's patriotism. He is VERY patriotic (as am I). But everyone who lives in this country should be proud of their country. It is our home. We should be united. That's why we are literally named the UNITED States. But being proud of one's country does not make on a fascist. Not at all.

Is Trump militaristic? No. The Trump doctrine is "peace through strength". Also, usage of economic pressures, and negotiation, instead of bullets and bombs. Bullets and bombs are the last option when all other tactics fail. So no. Trump is not trying to conquer any land and build an empire. As a matter of fact using this method he has solved SEVEN conflicts world wide. If anything he trends toward isolationism. Not militarism or colonialism. Thanks to his relentless pursuit of peace, he should get the Nobel Peace Prize. Remember Obama got one. And how many wars did he stop? Exactly zero.

Is Trump racist? No. He has done NOTHING that would indicate he favors "white" race over all others. He has demonstrated his fairness throughout his life, and has only been called racist by his political opponents who use that term to try to cancel him. It rings hollow. If he was a racist, even his friends and allies would have to admit that he was. But even many of his detractors (those that aren't liars) admit he is no racist. 

Does Trump endorse genocide? Of course not! Its silly to even say that. Here's some more analysis.

Category	Characteristic	Description / Examples
Core Ideology	Ultranationalism	Extreme devotion to one’s nation or ethnic group, often combined with xenophobia or racial superiority myths. Since Trump has been called racist (without merit) this is the main one. But he has no interest in "racial superiority". He is pro AMERICAN, no matter where you're from. His wife is, herself, an immigrant, by the way.
Government Structure	Authoritarian Rule	A single leader or party holds absolute power; opposition is suppressed or outlawed. Trump does not have absolute power. If he did the government would not have been shut down in October 2025.
Political System	One-Party State	No real political pluralism; dissent and alternative viewpoints are criminalized or silenced. Clearly not happening. Trump receives WIDESPREAD criticism from the media, segments of the populace, and the opposing party.
Individual vs. State	The State Above All	The individual exists to serve the nation or the leader; personal freedoms are secondary to national goals. Trump extols and encourages personal freedom, and fights to protect it.
Economy	Corporatism	The economy is privately owned but tightly controlled by the state to serve national interests; independent unions banned. Completely untrue of Trump.
Society & Culture	Militarism	Glorification of military strength, discipline, and obedience; frequent use of military symbols and pageantry. Trump loves our military and promotes 'peace through strength". He ends wars. He doesn't start them.
Political Tactics	Propaganda and Mass Mobilization	Constant use of rallies, slogans, and media to shape public opinion and cultivate cult-like loyalty. He definitely does NOT have control of the media which give him (at last count) 97% negative coverage. He likes a nice rally though. All politicians do.
Relationship to Truth	Anti-Intellectualism	Disdain for critical thought and experts; promotion of simplistic, emotional slogans over reasoned debate. Not so with Trump. He surrounds himself with experts in all the fields. If they demonstrate they are not experts, he fires them.
Enemies and Scapegoats	Identification of an “Other”	Blaming minorities, immigrants, or political opponents for society’s problems to unify the in-group. Trump does not blame minorities. He blames ILLEGALS (law-breakers), and criminals. The Democrats have now found themselves in the position of siding with criminals. His wife is an immigrant, and his Vice President's wife is an immigrant.
Leader Cult	Charismatic Leader Worship	The leader is portrayed as infallible, heroic, and the embodiment of the nation’s will. Of course he wants to be seen as strong. What country wants a weak leader? But infallible? That isn't Trump.
Law and Justice	Rule by Decree	Laws and courts exist to enforce the leader’s will; justice becomes political rather than impartial. The laws and courts exist to enforce the law and order. Trump's "will" is that we can live in safe and peaceful communities.
Civil Rights	Suppression of Dissent	Free press, speech, and assembly are restricted; critics face intimidation, arrest, or violence. Let's think about the media. They constantly bash and criticize Trump. He has every right to respond to his critics. He enjoys the same 1st amendment rights as we do. The press is mostly controlled by ideologically left-wing people. Across the board. No one on the left laments the bias of the media.
Religion and Morality	Mythic or Religious Symbolism	Use of traditional or religious imagery to legitimize power and appeal to emotion. Trump doesn't do this. He loves God, but he is not particularly well-versed in Christian doctrine.
Violence	Normalization of Political Violence	Use of paramilitary groups, secret police, or mobs to intimidate opponents and enforce loyalty. Democrats do this. Democrats use mobs all the time. They are constantly rioting in the streets. Did Republicans riot in the streets every day under Obama/Biden?
Media and Communication	State-Controlled Media	Press and broadcast outlets are censored or co-opted to amplify official narratives. This was actually done under Joe Biden's presidency. Not Trump.
Foreign Policy	Expansionism and Imperialism	Pursuit of territorial conquest or domination justified as national destiny. Trump has not done any of this. He was trolling Canada but did not conquest any territory. He certainly would not do it militarily.
Historical Examples	Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Francoist Spain	Regimes under Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco demonstrated the defining features listed above.

So as you can see, Trump is clearly NOT a fascist. In the same way Whoopie Goldberg is NOT Miss America.

Have a great day!

PS. We also just endured the stupid "No Kings" protest. So they think Trump is both a King, and a Fascist. Hmmm... Next they will say he is the Anti-Christ. Wait, what's this??

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/is-trump-the-antichrist-other-hard-questions-for-christians/105378092

Idiots all!!!

Obama: Charlie Kirk's views were "wrong"

Yesterday Obama came out and made some comments about Charlie Kirk's horrific assassination. They were not great. While he did address the fact that it was a horrible act, he went on to call "some" of Charlie Kirk's views "wrong".

Here's what he said.

“I didn’t know Charlie Kirk. I was generally aware of some of his ideas. I think those ideas were wrong, but that doesn’t negate the fact that what happened was a tragedy and that I mourn for him and his family,”

He said he disagreed with things that he implied Charlie Kirk believed and espoused. For instance...

“We can also, at the same time, say that I disagree with the idea that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a mistake. I can say that I disagree with the suggestion that my wife or Justice Jackson does not have adequate brain processing power. I can say that I disagree that Martin Luther King was awful.” 

This, of course, implies that Charlie Kirk was a racist. But he was talking specifically about Affirmative Action not black people in general. He was not speaking about ALL black people.

His contention is that a person should rise to high levels by their brain processing power not the color of their skin. Is that wrong? No.

As evidence of the wrong-ness of Affirmative Action, Shirley Jackson-Lee said, and I quote: 

"I rise today as a clear recipient of affirmative action, particularly in higher education. I may have been admitted on affirmative action, both in terms of being a woman and a woman of color, but I can declare that I did not graduate on affirmative action."

So she said she achieved because of Affirmative Action, not her merit. SHE said it. Not Charlie. Charlie's contention is that this is a bad way to go. All people in positions of leadership should be there because they are the best qualified for the job. Regardless of color, gender, or anything else.

Martin Luther King was not the saint people make him out to be. He had a secret life of sexual debauchery that is very unpopular to acknowledge around those who think he was the second coming of Christ. And Charlie believed that the Civil Rights Act of 1960 ultimately morphed into anti-white attitudes. So Charlie's contention was that there could have been a better law put in place.

Does this make him racist? No.

Of course Obama cherry picked the out of context quotes to disparage Charlie Kirk, ignoring the myriad mainstream, and highly sensible and spot-on points-of-view he had.

The question before us is, why did he do this?

Why did he not simply take the high ground? Simply condemn the killing, and praise Kirk's pro-free speech stance. That's it.

If you want to see the correct way for someone who disagreed with Charlie Kirk to eulogize him, look no further than old crazy Bernie Sanders. I disagree with almost every view he has, but he was right about this. Check it out...

"I want to say a few words regarding the terrible murder yesterday of Charlie Kirk — someone whom I strongly disagreed with on almost every issue but who was clearly a very smart and effective communicator and organizer — and someone unafraid to get out into the world and engage the public. My condolences go out to his wife and family. A free and democratic society, which is what America is supposed to be about, depends upon the basic premise that people can speak out, organize and take part in public life without fear — without worrying that they might be killed, injured or humiliated for expressing their political views. In fact, that is the essence of what freedom is about and what democracy is about. You have a point of view, that’s great. I have a point of view that is different than yours, that’s great. Let’s argue it out. We make our case to the American people at the local, state and federal level, and we hold free elections in which the people decide what they want. That’s called freedom and democracy. And I want as many people as possible to participate in that process without fear. 

Freedom and democracy is not about political violence. It is not about assassinating public officials. It is not about trying to intimidate people who speak out on an issue. Political violence, in fact, is political cowardice. It means that you cannot convince people of the correctness of your ideas, and you have to impose them through force. Every American, no matter what one’s political point of view may be, must condemn all forms of political violence and all forms of intimidation. We must welcome and respect dissenting points of view. That’s what our Constitution is about. That’s what our Bill of Rights is about. That, in fact, is what freedom is about. 

The murder of Charlie Kirk is part of a disturbing rise in political violence that threatens to hollow out public life and make people afraid of participating. From the January 6, 2021, attack on the United States Capitol, to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, to the attack on Paul Pelosi, to the attempted kidnapping of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, to the murder of Minnesota Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman and her husband, to the arson attack on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, to the shooting of UnitedHealth executive Brian Thompson and the shooting several years ago of Rep. Steve Scalise, this chilling rise in violence has targeted public figures across the political spectrum. 

Sadly, this is not a new phenomenon. We all remember the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Senator Robert F. Kennedy, John Lennon, Medgar Evers and the attempted assassinations of President Ronald Reagan and Alabama Governor George Wallace. 

This is a difficult and contentious moment in American history. Democracy in our country and throughout the world is under attack. And there are a lot of reasons for that, which need serious discussion. But, bottom line: If we honestly believe in democracy, if we believe in freedom, all of us must be loud and clear. Political violence, regardless of ideology, is not the answer and must be condemned."

Bernie, I agree with you, for once. Except we don't have a democracy. We have a Constitutional Republic. Democracy is majority rules. Constitutional Republic is rule of publicly ratified laws.

So what were some of Charlie Kirk's views? (I wonder is Obama agreed with these?)

pro-Traditional Marriage

pro-2nd Amendment

pro-Free Speech

pro-Traditional Values

pro-Israel

pro-Voter ID's

pro-Military

Pro-American Exceptionalism

anti-Abortion

anti-Trans Agenda

anti-Illegal Immigration

anti-Sharia Law

anti-Radical Islam

Respect for Authority

Promoted hard work, discipline, and mutual respect

I wonder which of these points of view Obama agrees with, or not.

======================================================

Barack Obama has once again decided to weigh in on America’s political climate, which, according to critics, is hardly what the country needs. Obama is often remembered by the left as a unifying figure, but in reality, he proved to be one of the most polarizing presidents in modern history. In 2008, he ran on the promise of unity—no red America, no blue America, just Americans. Yet once in office, he governed from the hard left. Rather than fostering cohesion, he attributed backlash to his policies to America’s history of racism, a move that only deepened divides.

Recently, Obama gave an interview in which he stated that America is at an “inflection point” with regard to political violence. This statement, however, comes with irony. After all, it was Obama who, critics argue, justified riots in Ferguson and failed to fully support police officers following the Dallas shootings. Rather than condemning violence outright, he framed it as a response to systemic injustice, signaling sympathy for those who lashed out violently.

In his comments on the Charlie Kirk shooting, Obama expressed sympathy for Kirk’s family and urged Americans to extend grace during mourning. Yet he quickly shifted focus away from the ideology of the shooter, instead using the moment to warn about free speech backlash and to condemn Donald Trump for empowering extremists. According to critics, this reflects Obama’s pattern: minimizing or excusing violence linked to the left, while framing right-wing speech and politics as the real threat.

Obama’s remarks also touched on issues of race, recalling criticisms of Charlie Kirk’s statements about affirmative action and brain processing power. By bringing this up in the context of Kirk’s death, critics claim Obama implied that Kirk was fundamentally racist, further undermining the sincerity of his supposed “grace.”

The broader issue, as critics frame it, is Obama’s hypocrisy. While insisting that political violence is wrong, he simultaneously advanced ideologies and narratives that, in their view, embolden violent actors. From Ferguson to Dallas, from his rhetoric on gay marriage opponents to his stance on police conduct, Obama regularly portrayed dissenters as bigots or enemies, all while maintaining that he was above extremism.

Saying “violence is bad” is easy; anyone can agree with that sentiment. But critics argue that unless leaders identify and condemn the ideological permission structures that fuel violence, such statements are empty. By ignoring the role of the left in fostering political hostility, while pinning the blame on figures like Trump, Obama, in their eyes, demonstrates selective outrage and reinforces polarization.

===============================================================

R.I.P. Charlie Kirk. You did not deserve to be murdered.

RIP Charlie Kirk

 

The tragedy involving Charlie Kirk is so disturbing. On 9/10/2025 he was murdered (assassinated) in public by a mentally-deranged idiot. The only thing that was a blessing in disguise was that he died instantly. The poor guy never knew what hit him. Here one second, gone the next. He was shot by a 30.06 in the neck.

Following this horrific event, many on the left began to mock him, saying he deserved it, and otherwise disrespecting the gravity of the tragedy. Showing blatant disregard for the man's family (parents, wife, and two small kids).

For the last 6 days I have thought of this tragedy over and over and over. It wakes me up at night. I'm so heartsick and I cannot believe some mixed up maniac assassinated him. The guy (who I won't name) reportedly said he regretted doing it. Really?? Why didn't he simply regret the very idea of doing it. Then NOT DO IT! I'm sick about all of this. Charlie was only 31 years old. The guy had 55 years (or maybe more) left to live. What would he have done over 5 more decades of life? Probably could have been president one day. Or maybe held a high cabinet post. The sky was the limit. Sadly he was cut down in his prime by a coward with a gun. So sad!

During the recent presidential campaign I watched many of his videos. He helped get me through. He made sense of the craziness. I did not agree with everything the man said, but he was right probably 95% of the time.

"Hate is not what Charlie spread, They just hated the things that Charlie said..." -Mike Walk