Check the link below to catch an interview, that ran live on Facebook, about my writing process:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1308229634180778
Check the link below to catch an interview, that ran live on Facebook, about my writing process:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1308229634180778

Welcome back to MondaysWithMembers! Today we are highlighting the career of Amb. Charles Ray. Ray served as US general consul in Vietnam and later as ambassador to Zimbabwe and Cambodia, later he served as the diplomat in residence at the University of Houston. Swipe through to see some photos of his amazing career!
📸 In 2010, presenting blankets to residents of an orphanage just outside Harare. The blankets were created by my RSO’s father and donated to the Embassy.
📸 Visiting the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Archives in connection with an agreement with the Chinese to account for Americans missing in the Korean War and World War II, when I served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for POW/Missing Personnel Affairs (2006-2009)
📸 Climbing the hill at the ruins of Great Zimbabwe in 2011
📸 Meeting with the dean and faculty of the Chinhoyi University of Technology, Zimbabwe, in 2011.
Writing is, on the one hand, a solitary pursuit. You spend much of your time hunched over a keyboard, your weary eyes glued to the monitor, struggling to find just the right word or phrase to express what’s tumbling around in your mind, juggling character, scene, and plot in a desperate effort to craft a story that, despite being what is often dismissively called ‘pulp fiction’, will make a meaningful change in at least one person’s life. That’s right, even many pulp fiction writers see themselves as creating something of lasting value, which, I’m convinced, is why we become writers in the first place.
On the other hand, though, if you’re a published writer, you can’t help but be aware that you are not truly alone. The other critical element in a writer’s life is an audience. The readers who give of their time and money to partake of the results of his or her solitary quest. The last thing you want to do is alienate readers.
Thanks to technology, however, the juxtaposition of these two spheres creates an almost unsolvable dilemma for writers. Email, voice mail, social media; all the many ways we stay in touch, often with people we’ve never seen in the flesh, have effectively erased the boundaries to the point that privacy is fast becoming extinct unless you go completely ‘off the grid,’ which would then make it next to impossible for you to get your work in front of a potential audience.
Here’s the conundrum I find myself confronting. As my books reach more people, I’ve noticed that some want to establish contact, which is all too easy to do when you’re as public as I am, unfortunately. I receive emails to the account on my writer’s website from about two to three people a week. Now, that might not sound like much, and about a quarter of them are harmless—at least as far as intruding on my writing time is concerned. I’ll get the occasional query about my latest book, or a note from a reader who was upset at something in one of my books—now and then, even an email with kudos, which is always nice to get. About seventy-five percent of them are emails from people who want to start e-conversations. These are the problems.
Here’s an example. I got an email asking about one of my books, but without specifying the title, so I wrote back to point that out. That was responded to with a request for a link to the book or a question on what motivated me to write it. When I politely try to point out that I’m too busy with my writing schedule, teaching three online graduate courses, managing a think tank research program, and carving out time for exercise and family to engage in ongoing email conversations (at this point I’m getting a ten to fifteen minute lag between my email and a response), so I will not be responding. I try not to sound too abrupt—still not wanting to offend a potential book buyer—but it doesn’t work. So, I’m left with just one way to reestablish personal boundaries: I delete emails received from this particular sender, and after about five or six more, they stop—until I receive the next one.
Each time this happens, and it’s happening with increasing frequency, I fear that I’ve turned off at least one potential book buyer. But what else can I do? If I take the time to engage in ongoing email chats with people who don’t seem to have anything better to do than sit at their keyboard and write long emails to total strangers, I’ll have no time left to write. This is something these folks don’t seem to understand. Nor do they seem to understand or care that they’re intruding on my personal time. Whether this is deliberate rudeness or unintended, the effect is the same. I feel my personal space violated. I refuse, however, to be rude in return, and not just because of my desire to sell books. I was taught to respect the privacy of others.
So, here’s my plea to everyone. Email, the internet, SMS, and all of the tech tools that make it so easy for us to reach out and touch someone should not be misused. When we ignore boundaries, we can find ourselves being shut out, the exact opposite of what we might be seeking. Remembering to exercise moderation is the key.
There, I’ve said my piece, and I hope I’ve managed to do it without unduly offending anyone. If I have, my apologies, but don’t expect me to take the time to put that in an individual email.

Check the link below to hear how my ‘Caleb Johnson’ series came to be:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1474071967125117

The main characters in Western stories are ranchers, cowboys, lawmen, or outlaws. While these make for good storytelling, this reliance on such traditional characters overlooks the fact that it took a lot of different occupations to tame the frontier. Well, now there’s a new character in town. Eustis Tucker, a lawyer, shows the contributions that these unsung heroes made to bring law and order to the wild and woolly west.

In book one, The Hanging Jury, Eustis Tucker, a recent law school graduate, has arrived in Beeville, Texas to hang his shingle. The Bee County judge, a friend of Eustis’s law school professor, assigns him to defend a young Mexican who has been accused of murder, who can’t afford to hire a lawyer. Eustis has his work cut out for him. He’s never done a criminal trial, least of all a murder trial in a town where juries love to see the accused hang. Worse, he has to face off against a prosecutor who will do anything to win a case, including withholding exculpatory evidence.
Get your copy of this book, available for now in e-book format at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FLMMY6MC/. Be one of the first to see how Eustis navigates the byzantine corridors of a western courtroom in the fractious, violence-ridden Lone Star State.
Originally publishes on Substack at: https://charlie45.substack.com/p/dismantling-a-democracy-block-by

The apocryphal tale of the frog in boiling water, though biologically inaccurate, endures as a cautionary metaphor. It warns against complacency in the face of creeping danger. In the context of contemporary American politics, the story has an unsettling relevancy. As the Trump administration’s tenure has unfolded, actions that might once have sparked national outrage have been met instead with a collective shrug, or at best, fragmented protest. The threat from this administration is not so much the scale of one transgression—although the current mass deportation operations by ICE are large-scale and, in some cases, horrific—but the cumulative effect of small, persistent erosions of democratic norms.
Shredding the Constitution
From day one, the administration has been chipping away at the Constitution, beginning with the January 20, 2025, Executive Order 14160, which aimed to end birthright citizenship status for children born to parents who are undocumented immigrants, or who are in the U.S. temporarily, such as those on student or tourist visas. This action is an attempt to amend the Constitution by executive order. It ignores the Fourteenth Amendment, which states in Section 1, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. . . .” The right to birthright citizenship has been considered settled law since it was ratified over 150 years ago. There have been legal challenges to this executive order, and the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the legality and constitutionality of the president’s move.
Nowhere is the threat to the Constitution more vivid, though, than the administration’s approach to immigration and the treatment of undocumented individuals. On June 27, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a streamlined process for fining ‘illegal aliens’, eliminating the 30-day notice of intent to fine before a fine is issued, and shortening the process for those who contest the penalties. In July, The Heritage Foundation published an article stating that undocumented immigrants are not entitled to due process as enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. This is yet another creative interpretation of the Constitution, and an effort to amend it through executive action rather than the constitutional amendment process.
The Constitution, in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, clearly enshrines due process, a safeguard meant to ensure that no person is deprived of liberty or exiled without fair procedures. To suspend this right for any group sets a dangerous precedent, suggesting that constitutional protections are conditional, not inalienable.
The rationale that has been offered is often a manufactured emergency; the claim that a surge in border crossings required extraordinary measures. But the suspension of due process for undocumented immigrants opens the door to abuses that could, if unchallenged, be extended to other groups. This threatens to normalize the idea that fundamental rights can be abridged at the whim of the executive branch.
Defying the Judiciary
Separation of powers is a keystone of American democracy. The judiciary serves, or is intended to serve, as a check on executive authority. During this administration, there have been numerous instances where court orders have been ignored or circumvented. In March, for example, the administration ignored a district court judge’s explicit order to turn two deportation flights around and return to the United States.
There has been a disturbing pattern of the administration appealing or evading judicial controls, rather than respecting them as binding. This signals a disregard for the notion that the executive branch is subject to the rule of law, undermining one of the cornerstones of democracy. Erosion of judicial authority corrodes public trust and sets a precedent that can empower future leaders to be even less respectful of legal constraints.
Threats against Political Rivals
Another sign of democratic decay is the weaponization of the judicial system against political rivals. Trump has, for example, called for a DOJ probe of former President Barack Obama, alleging falsely that the Obama administration manipulated intelligence related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. He also, without evidence, called for the prosecution of his 2024 rival, Kamala Harris, and several celebrities, such as Oprah Winfrey and Beyonce, claiming that the former vice president paid celebrities to endorse her during the presidential campaign.
The suggestion that a leader might use state power to prosecute and imprison opponents is a tactic more often associated with tinpot dictatorships than with one of the world’s oldest democracies. Such actions by a president have a chilling effect. It delegitimizes the opposition, signals to supporters that dissent is treasonous, and fosters an atmosphere of fear. Left unchecked, these threats become reality, transforming political life into a zero-sum game of ‘winner-takes-all, loser goes to jail.’ The stakes are not just policies, but personal freedom.
Attacks on the Media and Educational Institutions
Without a free and critical press, no democracy can long survive. Nor can independent thought be fostered without independent educational institutions. Throughout both terms, Trump has labeled the media ‘the enemy of the people,’ a phrase with dangerous historical echoes. Journalists have been threatened, ridiculed, and excluded from press briefings. The administration has sought to curtail funding for education programs and research, and, in a move that is all too much like an autocratic kleptocracy, demanded that universities pay huge sums to have their funding restored. For example, the administration is pushing UCLA to pay $1 billion as part of a settlement agreement to resolve alleged civil rights violations and force it to adopt significant changes in how it operates.
The sustained assault on media and educational institutions undermines the public sphere, eroding trust not just in the specific media outlets or universities, but in the idea of objective truth itself. When citizens no longer believe in the legitimacy of facts, the ground is laid for manipulation, propaganda, and, ultimately, the collapse of informed self-government.
Flirting with Dictatorship
Most alarming is the frequent suggestions, whether as a ‘joke’ or not, that Trump might seek a third term, in flagrant violation of the Twenty-Second Amendment. Even though he said in an August 3, 2025, interview with CNBC that he would ‘probably’ not run, such musings, coupled with his 2021 reluctance to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, signal an unsettling willingness to so openly toy with the boundaries of constitutional government. This emboldens those who follow him to do the same. His role in choosing his successor, and the way he is dealing with it, is depressingly similar to dictators in other countries.
Incremental destruction
There have been protests against specific actions, such as ICE raids, tariffs, and attacks on journalists, but too often, the overarching trend has gone unnoticed.
Democracy is not destroyed in a single dramatic action, but in a slow accretion of precedent. Each time an outrage is normalized, the temperature rises a degree. If these actions are not met with sustained resistance by courts, by Congress, or by the public, the danger is that future leaders will inherit a system already weakened and more vulnerable to outright authoritarianism.
The story of the ‘frog in boiling water’ might be apocryphal, but it is a call to vigilance against apathy and disengagement. The American experiment depends on citizens being alert to the incremental erosion of liberties. The question now is whether enough people will notice the water growing warmer before it’s too late.
