October 4, 2025 (Saturday)

Today was unseasonably warm and I spent the day on the water. It was a much needed and most welcome respite, but now I’m too tired to start writing.
I’ll be back at it tomorrow.

Here’s a picture I took today from my kayak. There is nothing like the low light of an October afternoon in Maine.

Thanks.

October 5, 2025 (Sunday)

On Friday the Minnesota Star Tribune reported a conversation on the messaging app Signal between one of Stephen Miller’s top deputies, Anthony Salisbury, and a senior advisor to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Patrick Weaver. Stephen Miller is the deputy White House chief of staff and is widely identified as the figure directing the administration’s attacks on immigrants and diversity initiatives.

Salisbury was in Minnesota to attend a funeral. His Signal chat was clearly visible to bystanders, one of whom provided images of it to the Minnesota Star Tribune. The two men were discussing a plan to deploy the 82nd Airborne Division of the U.S. Army to Portland, Oregon. Since World War II, the elite 82nd has specialized in parachute assaults into hostile areas.

But President Donald J. Trump had apparently not signed off on the plan. Weaver told Salisbury that Defense Secretary Hegseth wanted Trump to give him a clear order to send troops into Portland. “Between you and I, I think Pete just wants the top cover from the boss if anything goes sideways with the troops there,” Weaver wrote.

As Adam Gabbatt of The Guardian reported, Weaver said Hegseth preferred to send in the national guard owing to potential backlash over using the famous 82nd. “82nd is like our top tier for abroad,” Weaver wrote. “So it will cause a lot of headlines. Probably why he wants potus to tell him to do it.”

This conversation raises the question of how involved Trump is in the decisions his administration is making about the use of the military. On September 29, Hugo Lowell of The Guardian reported that Miller has taken the lead in the administration’s strikes on boats in the Caribbean, vessels the administration claims are Venezuelan drug boats although it has offered no evidence either to lawmakers or to the public for that claim.

A White House spokesperson said in a statement that Trump directed the strikes and that he oversees all foreign policy. The statement said: “The entire administration is working together to execute the president’s directive with clear success.” But that raises echoes of the conversation on March 15, 2025, also on Signal, in which Hegseth and Vice President J.D. Vance included editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic in a discussion about whether to strike the Houthis in Yemen. Miller ended the March discussion simply by invoking Trump: “As I heard it,” he wrote, “the president was clear: green light….” And the attack was on.

As Dan Froomkin spelled out last week in Press Watch, Trump has been focused on the misguided idea that Portland, Oregon, is a war zone ever since he apparently watched a September 4 Fox News Channel special report that passed off footage from the violence of 2020 as happening now. About twenty people protest every night outside an ICE facility, but while the protesters are insulting (they have been “ICE fishing” with donuts on fishing poles), the protests have been peaceful, with very few arrests.

On September 25, Trump asserted that “nobody’s ever seen anything like it every night and this has gone on for years. They just burned the place down…. These are professional agitators. These are bad people and they paid a lot of money by rich people….” He claimed Portland was plagued by “anarchists” and “crazy people” who were trying to “burn down buildings, including federal buildings.”

Two days later, on Saturday, September 27, Trump’s social media account posted: “At the request of Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists. I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

Oregon governor Tina Kotek told Trump his impression of Portland was wrong. On Sunday morning, Trump told NBC White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor: “I spoke to the governor, she was very nice. But I said, ‘Well wait a minute, am I watching things on television that are different from what’s happening? My people tell me different.’ They are literally attacking and there are fires all over the place…it looks like terrible.”

The same day, Hegseth federalized 200 National Guard personnel from Oregon to “protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other U.S. Government personnel who are performing Federal functions.”

Oregon attorney general Dan Rayfield and the city attorney of Portland immediately sued to stop the mobilization, saying it is unlawful, infringes on Oregon’s state sovereignty and police powers, and would violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids federal troops from being used for law enforcement. On October 1, Trump’s social media account posted that in Portland, “conditions continue to deteriorate into lawless mayhem…. We will never allow MOBS to take over our streets, burn our Cities, or destroy America. The National Guard is now in place, and has been dedicated to restoring LAW AND ORDER, and ending the Chaos, Death, and Destruction!”

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut, a Trump appointee, heard arguments in the case. As Alicia Victoria Lozano of NBC News reported, deputy assistant attorney general Eric Hamilton said that the administration had called out troops to defend against “cruel radicals who have laid siege” to the ICE facility in Portland and who, this past summer, threw rocks at law enforcement officers. Lawyers for Portland pointed out that local police had handled the situation and that the order for deployment had come several months later.

Senior deputy city attorney Caroline Turco told the judge: “We ultimately have a perception-versus-reality problem. The perception is that it is World War II out here. The reality is that this is a beautiful city with a sophisticated resource that can handle the situation.”

Judge Immergut said she would rule by Saturday, but before she ruled, Hegseth activated the 200 National Guard troops. Shortly after, Immergut handed down her decision blocking the deployment. She declared “the President’s determination” that law enforcement could not execute the laws of the United States “was simply untethered to the facts.”

“his is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law,” Immergut wrote. The administration has “made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power—to the detriment of this nation.” Miller called her decision “egal insurrection.” He posted: “This is an organized terrorist attack on the federal government and its officers, and the deployment of troops is an absolute necessity to defend our personnel, our laws, our government, public order and the Republic itself.”

Troy Brynelson and Alex Zielinsky of Oregon Public Broadcasting reported that after Immergut’s ruling, federal officers showed force. They pushed protesters “hundreds of yards down city streets and fired tear gas, flash-bang grenades and pepper balls without any clear signs of provocation.” Brynelson and Zielinsky noted that the troops “were flanked by videographers, toting professional equipment and wearing high-visibility vests. They filmed from behind the lines of officers, capturing the show of force. At least two drones swept over the scenes.”

At 7:56 on Saturday morning, Homeland Security Secretary Noem posted a video that appeared to show the federal raid on a Chicago apartment building on September 30. The video used that raid to show a fantasy military-style invasion that misrepresented the actual event in which federal agents arrived with a Black Hawk helicopter and large vehicles and dragged the unarmed residents out of their beds. Agents took all but one of the residents outside in zip ties before trashing the apartments. Their targets included U.S. citizens and children, some of whom were separated from their parents and all of whom were terrified.

Over the video, Noem commented: “Chicago, we’re here for you.”

Later on Saturday morning, Border Patrol agents wounded a woman on Chicago’s Southwest Side. DHS immediately claimed agents had fired “defensive shots” after being “rammed by 10 cars,” but no reporter has been able to confirm that story. Later, Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker posted that Hegseth had called him. “This morning, the Trump Administration’s Department of War gave me an ultimatum: call up your troops, or we will. It is absolutely outrageous and un-American to demand a Governor send military troops within our own borders and against our will,” he wrote.

Pritzker added that the administration planned to federalize 300 members of the Illinois National Guard. “They will pull hardworking Americans out of their regular jobs and away from their families all to participate in a manufactured performance—not a serious effort protect public safety. For Donald Trump, this has never been about safety. This is about control.” On Saturday afternoon, a spokesperson for the White House said Trump has “authorized” the deployment of 300 Illinois National Guard members. Later, Pritzker said he had been informed that members of the Texas National Guard would be deployed to Illinois.

On Saturday afternoon, Miller posted: “The issue before us now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.”

Blocked from deploying Oregon National Guard troops in Portland, the administration on Sunday deployed 300 California National Guard troops to Portland instead. California governor Gavin Newsom broke the news, adding: “This is a breathtaking abuse of the law and power. The Trump Administration is unapologetically attacking the rule of law itself and putting into action their dangerous words—ignoring court orders and treating judges, even those appointed by the President himself, as political opponents.”

Governor Kotek confirmed that troops had arrived. “This action appears…intentional to circumvent yesterday’s ruling by a federal judge,” she said. “The facts haven’t changed. There is no need for military intervention in Oregon. There is no insurrection in Portland. No threat to national security. Oregon is our home, not a military target. Oregonians exercising their freedom of speech against unlawful actions by the Trump Administration should do so peacefully.”

Both California and Oregon asked Judge Immergut to stop the Trump administration from taking this end-run around her initial ruling. Tonight, Judge Immergut held an emergency hearing on the administration’s deployment of National Guard troops from California to Oregon. She forbade the deployment of any federalized National Guard troops from any state to Oregon for 14 days.

After staying out of the public eye since his performance last Tuesday in front of the nation’s top military leaders and the press conference later that day, Trump spoke to sailors in Norfolk, Virginia, today. The president arrived an hour late and delivered a meandering, political address much like the one he gave on Tuesday.

Prolly not the best idea to give an alleged dementia patient absolute power.

October 6, 2025 (Monday)

If White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller is at the head of the administration’s deployment of federal agents against undocumented immigrants, it appears that Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director Russell Vought is running the administration’s approach to the government shutdown.

As Beth Reinhard explained in the Washington Post in June 2024, Vought is a hard-right Christian nationalist who drafted the plans for a second Trump term. Vought was the director of the Office of Management and Budget from July 2020 to January 2021 during the first Trump administration. In January 2021 he founded the Center for Renewing America, a pro-Trump think tank.

In 2022, Vought argued that the United States is in a “post constitutional moment” that “pays only lip service to the old Constitution.” He attributes that crisis to “the Left,” which he says “quietly adopted a strategy of institutional change,” by which he appears to mean the growth of the federal government to protect the rights of all Americans. He attributes that change to the presidency of President Woodrow Wilson beginning in 1913. Vought advocates what he calls “radical constitutionalism” to destroy the power of the modern administrative state and instead elevate the president to supreme authority.

When Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in 2023, Vought advised its far-right members, calling for draconian cuts to government agencies, student loans, and housing, health care, and food assistance. He called for $2 trillion in cuts to Medicaid over ten years, more than $600 billion in cuts to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), more than $400 billion in cuts to food assistance, and so on.

Vought was a key player in the construction of Project 2025, the plan to gut the nonpartisan federal government and replace it with a dominant president and a team of loyalists who will impose religious rule on the United States. He wrote the section of Project 2025 that covers the presidency, calling for “aggressive use of the vast powers of the executive branch” to “bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will” and identifying the OMB as the means of enforcing the president’s agenda.

In August 2024, two men associated with the British nonprofit Centre for Climate Reporting secretly video recorded Vought assuring the men, who he thought might donate to the cause, that he and his Center for Renewing America were secretly writing a blueprint of executive orders, memos, and regulations that Donald J. Trump could enact immediately upon taking office a second time. Although Trump was saying he knew nothing about Project 2025, Vought assured the men that Trump was only disavowing Project 2025 for political reasons. In reality, Vought said, Trump is “very supportive of what we do.”

Since Trump took office, Vought’s predictions have come true. The administration has illegally slashed through programs Congress set up and for which it appropriated funds, and now is using the government shutdown to threaten more cuts to programs and to personnel. As soon as the government shutdown began on October 1, 2025, Vought announced that he would use the shutdown to continue his illegal cuts, vowing to cancel $26 billion in infrastructure and climate projects in states led by Democrats, and to fire—not just furlough, as a shutdown requires—federal employees.

But the program Vought is advancing is hugely unpopular. Republicans have called for cuts to the government for decades using rhetoric that suggested such cuts would only affect racial minorities and women. Those who voted for such cuts assumed they would not be affected by any of the proposed cuts. Now they are discovering otherwise.

There were signs of this dramatic disconnect between Republican rhetoric and reality in the 2024 campaign season: when voters in 2024 learned about Project 2025, only 4% of them wanted to see it enacted. At the time, Trump insisted he had nothing to do with the program. Now, though, he is boasting that he is meeting with Vought to decide which “Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut, and whether or not those cuts will be temporary or permanent.” “I can’t believe the Radical Left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity,” Trump posted on social media.

But it is increasingly clear that the cuts Vought and the MAGA Republicans are making to government programs are hitting a wide swath of Americans. Those cuts are no longer rhetorical, and members of the administration appear to be aware they are unpopular with a large part of their own base.

At a press briefing today, CNN’s Kaitlan Collins pointed out that while Trump had said Democrats would bear the blame for layoffs during the shutdown, in fact shutdowns only create furloughs. If the administration was choosing to lay people off instead of furloughing them, she asked White House press secretary Caroline Leavitt, didn’t this mean the president was responsible for the layoffs? Leavitt responded: “This conversation about layoffs would not be happening right now if the Democrats did not vote to shut the government down.”

But the Democrats did not vote to shut the government down. They refused to vote in favor of a continuing resolution to fund the government—which was necessary because the Republicans have not managed to pass any appropriations bills—until Republicans reverse a drastic cut they have made to healthcare. Democrats want Republicans to agree to extend the premium tax credits for healthcare insurance that they permitted to lapse when they wrote the law they call the “One Big, Beautiful Bill Act.”

Both Trump and House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) have been open about their determination to roll back the ACA, also known as Obamacare, a policy advanced in Project 2025. In October 2024, Johnson told a crowd there would be “massive” changes to healthcare if voters reelected Trump. “We want to take a blowtorch to the regulatory state. These agencies have been weaponized against the people. It’s crushing the free market; it’s like a boot on the neck of job creators and entrepreneurs and risk takers. And so health care is one of the sectors, and we need this across the board,” he said.

Now, though, those hypothetical cuts are real, and without the extension of the premium tax credit, the cost of many Americans’ healthcare premiums will skyrocket. As NPR’s Selena Simmons-Duffin pointed out on Saturday, about 24 million Americans who don’t have health insurance through their jobs or through Medicaid buy health insurance in the Affordable Care Act marketplace. According to the nonpartisan health research organization KFF, without the extension of the tax credits, premiums will go up an average of 114% for consumers. Spiking premiums will mean the healthiest people decide to go without health insurance, sending prices up for everyone else.

Enrollment starts November 1, putting pressure on Congress to provide a fix before then. In a partisan twist, more than three in four people enrolled in ACA plans live in states Trump won in 2024. A KFF poll published October 3 shows that extending the premium tax credits is popular. Seventy-eight percent of Americans say they want Congress to extend the tax credits. That number includes 59% of Republicans and 57% of MAGA supporters.

On Sunday, Trump lashed out at the Fox News Channel for interviewing Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and letting him point out that Republicans had shut down the government rather than extend the premium tax credits. “Why is FoxNews…putting on Democrat Senator Mark Kelly to talk about, totally unabated or challenged, Healthcare?” Trump posted on social media. “The FAKE SPIN is so bad for Republicans that it is hard to believe that we WIN.”

On the White House South Lawn yesterday, a reporter asked Trump if he was open to extending the premium tax credit for purchasing healthcare insurance under the Affordable Care Act.
Trump answered: “We want to fix it so it works. It’s not working. Obamacare has been a disaster for the people. So we want to have it fixed so it works.”

Today Speaker Johnson tried to get out from under popular anger over the shutdown and spiking health insurance premiums. He said: “Let me look right into the camera and tell you very clearly: Republicans are the ones concerned about healthcare. Republicans are the party working around the clock everyday to fix healthcare. This is not talking points for us: we’ve done it.”

In fact, Johnson has sent the House home until October 14, and what he appears to mean by “working around the clock to fix healthcare” is that Republicans have made cuts to Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in their budget reconciliation bill of July, claiming the cuts will address “waste, fraud, and abuse.” The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates those cuts will increase the number of people without health insurance by 10 million by 2034.

Yesterday, Meryl Kornfield and Lisa Rein of the Washington Post reported that another of Vought’s priorities is also on the table: the Trump administration is overhauling Social Security to eliminate age as a factor in evaluating disability claims, which are separate from retirement benefits. Right-wing thinkers say that since people are living longer and fewer work in manual jobs that hurt their bodies, many could adapt to desk work rather than claiming disability benefits.

In a statement, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) told the Washington Post journalists: “This is Phase One of the Republican campaign to force Americans to work into old age to access their earned Social Security benefits, and represents the largest cut to disability insurance in American history. Americans with disabilities have worked and paid into Social Security just like everybody else, and they do not deserve the indignity of more bureaucratic water torture to get what they paid for.”

The pushback against the administration’s politicization of the civil service—another hallmark of Project 2025—continued today when 282 former Department of Justice career officials wrote a letter warning that Trump and his appointees are destroying the Department of Justice. MSNBC’s Ken Dilanian reported that the former prosecutors, FBI agents, intelligence analysts, civil rights attorneys, and immigration judges called out the administration’s violation of court orders, destruction of anti-corruption units, endangering national security, and using law enforcement to persecute those Trump sees as enemies, saying, “We believe it’s our duty to sound the alarm.”

Today the New York City Bar Association drew its own line against the administration, warning that whatever legal advice officials are using to justify their attacks on Venezuelan boats will not protect them in court. The bar association called the strikes “illegal summary execution” that are “prohibited by both U.S. and international law,” or “murders.” It called for Trump to stop such attacks and for “Congress to remind the President that he lacks authority to continue to misuse our military forces for similar unlawful attacks on foreign vessels and their civilian crews and that continuation of such attacks is unlawful.”

He vought to get TFOT. Maybe soomeone could inject him with a truth drug?

Thank you. I was otherwise occupied peeling carrots, cutting up snap peas and scrubbing potatoes.

LOL

what a bunch

of alarmists

October 7, 2025 (Tuesday)

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) today floated the idea that workers furloughed during a government shutdown are not guaranteed back pay when the shutdown is resolved. Marc Caputo of Axios broke the story of the new OMB memo this morning. Caputo pointed out that in 2019, during the last government shutdown, President Donald Trump signed a law designed to make it clear that furloughed workers would get paid. Caputo notes that the OMB’s new reading of the law is “a major departure from the administration’s own guidance issued…last month.”

Two people familiar with the administration’s plans told Jacob Bogage of the Washington Post that officials are hoping the memo will give the Republicans more leverage against Democrats in negotiations over the shutdown.

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo points out that OMB director Russell Vought had threatened mass firings if Democrats refused to go along with the Republicans’ continuing resolution to fund the government, but the machinery for such firings does not appear to be in place. Marshall notes that the government is, in fact, having to rehire many of the employees it fired early in the year. Now Vought is threatening not to pay furloughed workers, but the 2019 law—a law Trump signed—is clear.

Polls show that most Americans blame Republicans for the shutdown and that 78% of Americans want to see the premium tax credits—the issue of healthcare costs on which the Democrats are making a stand—extended. That the administration is concerned about the healthcare issue showed in Trump’s statement to reporters yesterday that “we have a negotiation going on right now with the Democrats that could lead to very good things…with regard to health care.” Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said “Trump’s claim isn’t true—but if he’s finally ready to work with Democrats, we’ll be at the table.”

Of the threat to withhold back pay for furloughed employees, a senior White House official told Caputo: “OMB is in charge.”

The power being wielded by unelected officials in the Trump administration echoes the conditions of the U.S. government a century ago. In 1920, Republicans won a landslide victory. They put the handsome, back-slapping Warren G. Harding in the White House in what was widely interpreted as the country’s desire to leave the years of World War I behind them and to stop having to listen to President Woodrow Wilson’s preaching at them (one journalist called Wilson a “frozen flame of righteous intelligence”). Old-school Republicans who rejected the party’s early-twentieth-century progressivism won control of Congress.

But the victory offered no clear direction for the country. Party leaders had put Harding at the head of the ticket because he was from Ohio, whose loss in 1916 had cost the Republicans the presidency. Harding celebrated his anti-intellectualism and the fact that, even after a world war, he knew nothing about Europe. He told one of his secretaries he couldn’t make heads or tails of fights over taxes, and he was such a terrible speaker that one man commented that his speeches “leave the impression of an army of pompous phrases moving over the landscape in search of an idea; sometimes those meandering words would actually capture a straggling thought and bear it triumphantly, a prisoner in their midst, until it died of servitude and overwork.”

Harding could not manage his corrupt appointees, who became known as the “Ohio Gang,” and spent much of his time drinking and playing poker upstairs at the White House. In the absence of a strong president, the power of the government could have flowed to Congress. But congressional Republicans had spent twenty years obstructing the progressive presidents who had been in the White House since 1901: first Republicans Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, and then Democrat Woodrow Wilson. The Republicans in Congress had become skilled at obstruction, but once in power, they split into factions and quarreled among themselves.

Into the vacuum stepped administration officers, notably Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover and Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. With them at the helm, the government implemented pro-business policies that would turn the government over to businessmen. Eight years later, the conflagration of the Great Crash and the ensuing Great Depression illustrated just how misguided the abdication of elected lawmakers from their duties had been.

In the second Trump administration, the president does not seem especially interested in governance. He seems to want to use the government to persecute those he considers his enemies and to protect and enrich himself.

Attorney General Pam Bondi encapsulated that approach to the government when she appeared today before the Senate Judiciary Committee. She refused to answer questions, instead attacking Democratic senators. Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) pointed out that Bondi refused to answer whether she consulted with career ethics lawyers before approving the gift of a $400 million airplane for Trump from Qatar, who asked that Trump’s name be flagged in the Epstein files, whether “border czar” Tom Homan kept the $50,000 bribe he took for promising to steer contracts toward the men who offered the money, whether career prosecutors found insufficient evidence to charge former FBI director James Comey with lying to Congress, how military strikes on boats in the Caribbean are legal, and so on.

Many observers noticed something else, though: Bondi refused to answer a specific question about Trump and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) asked: “There has been public reporting that Jeffrey Epstein showed people photos of President Trump with half-naked young women. Do you know if the FBI found those photographs in their search of Jeffrey Epstein’s safe or premises or otherwise. Have you seen any such thing?”

Bondi, who says she has seen the files, would not answer “no.” Instead, she accused Whitehouse of “trying to slander President Trump.”

If Trump were not going to use the power of the government for the good of the American people, Republicans in Congress could have picked up the power that he let fall. But they have chosen not to exercise their Constitutional duties, instead going along with what White House officials want. With their abdication, power appears to have flowed to unelected officials, first to billionaire Elon Musk and now to OMB director Russell Vought, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
As the senior White House official told Caputo: “OMB is in charge.”

But those officials were not elected and are operating according to deeply unpopular ideologies.

Miller has been pushing the idea that those opposed to the administration are engaged in “insurrection” against the United States, and reporters are increasingly questioning Trump about whether he would invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act. That law permits a president to override the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act that forbids the government from using federal troops against U.S. citizens to enforce the law. Trump’s advisors prevented him from invoking the Insurrection Act in his first term, but he seems open to the idea again, falsely suggesting that Democratic cities are, as he described Portland, Oregon, “War ravaged.”

Today in an interview with CNN, Miller went further, claiming that the president has “plenary authority,” that is, complete, unchecked power, to use the military to put down an insurrection. Miller stopped talking, oddly, in midsentence after making that claim, leaving this exception to the rule of law his final phrase. The claim that exceptions to the rule of law reveal where true power rests in a society is central to the philosophy of Carl Schmitt, a German political scientist who joined the Nazis.

Today, six former surgeons general, appointed by every Democratic and Republican president since George H.W. Bush, took to the pages of the Washington Post to condemn Kennedy’s actions at the head of the Department of Health and Human Services. Jerome Adams, Richard Carmona, Joycelyn Elders, Vivek Murthy, Antonia Novello, and David Satcher wrote that their oaths to care for patients and to protect the health of all Americans compelled them to say that Kennedy’s actions “are endangering the health of the nation.” The consequences of his mismanagement and promoting misinformation, they say, will be “measured in lives lost, disease outbreaks and an erosion of public trust that will take years to rebuild.”

This Week in Politics – Heather Cox Richardson – Explainer

Discussion about Trump’s speech to the top brass in the military.

Tau.Neutrino said:

This Week in Politics – Heather Cox Richardson – Explainer

Discussion about Trump’s speech to the top brass in the military.

Trump and Hegseth wasted the Generals time telling them he wants a white christian military.

That doesn’t make logical sense in any way.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

This Week in Politics – Heather Cox Richardson – Explainer

Discussion about Trump’s speech to the top brass in the military.

Trump and Hegseth wasted the Generals time telling them he wants a white christian military.

That doesn’t make logical sense in any way.

sure it does, in 1099 they even took control of Jerusalem and massacred Jews and Muslims together, it was great

October 8, 2025 (Wednesday)

Yesterday, journalists observed members of the Texas National Guard at a U.S. Army Reserve Center in Elwood, Illinois, about 55 miles (89 kilometers) southwest of Chicago. This morning, the Defense Department announced the federal activation of about 200 soldiers from the Texas National Guard and about 300 from the Illinois National Guard, saying they would be protecting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and other federal agents “who are performing federal functions, including the enforcement of federal law, and to protect federal property.”

The statement said the National Guard soldiers “are under federal command and control in a Title 10 status.” The section of the legal code to which the announcement pointed was the one permitting the president to call into federal service members of the National Guard whenever the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion by a foreign nation, there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or the president cannot execute the laws of the United States with the power of regular law enforcement.

It is this power under Title 10 that White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller yesterday claimed was “plenary,” or absolute. The idea that exceptions to the rule of law reveal who is really in charge of the government was central to the political philosophy of German political theorist Carl Schmitt, who joined the Nazis and whose work is increasingly popular among the radical right in the U.S. these days. Since taking office in January, Trump has declared at least eight national emergencies that the administration has used to justify the use of emergency powers.

As J.V. Last of The Bulwark laid out clearly last night, there is no crisis in Chicago that makes it necessary for the administration to send in National Guard troops. Last points out that any instability in Chicago has been caused by the administration’s surge of federal agents into the city, where they shot and killed Chicago resident Silverio Villegas González; raided and ransacked an apartment building, leaving residents—including U.S. citizens and children—bound outside for hours; shot an unarmed woman, Marimar Martinez; and aimed a weapon at a resident who was simply recording what the agent was doing, In each case, the government initially insisted the federal agents either were under attack or were rounding up “the worst of the worst,” but subsequent information has showed the federal agents were the aggressors in each situation.

Federal agents have held journalists, who are now suing ICE and the Department of Homeland Security for the use of “extreme force” against them, and pummeled them with tear gas and pepper spray. As Last notes, local police chief Thomas Mills has testified that the “use of chemical agents by federal agents at the ICE facility in Broadview has often been arbitrary and indiscriminate. At times it is used when the crowd is as small as ten people.”

Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker warned that the administration is deliberately trying to “cause chaos, create fear and confusion, make it seem like peaceful protesters are a mob by firing gas pellets and tear gas canisters at them. Why? To create the pretext for invoking the Insurrection Act so that he can send military troops to our city.”

As Joseph Nunn of the Brennan Center explained earlier this year, the Insurrection Act brings together a number of laws Congress passed between 1792 and 1871. They make up sections 251 through 255 in Title 10 of the United States Code. Together, they suspend the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits the U.S. military from taking part in civilian law enforcement.

The Insurrection Act permits the president to deploy troops to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” in a state that “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”

Courtney Kube, Katherine Doyle, Carol E. Lee, and Garrett Haake of NBC News report today that White House officials, led by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, have been having increasingly serious discussions about having Trump invoke the act.

This morning, President Donald J. Trump’s social media account posted: “Chicago Mayor should be in jail for failing to protect Ice Officers! Governor Pritzker also!”

But Pritzker is standing up to the administration.

“I will not back down,” he posted. “Trump is now calling for the arrest of elected representatives checking his power. What else is left on the path to full-blown authoritarianism?”

“His masked agents already are grabbing people off the street. Separating children from their parents. Creating fear. Taking people for ‘how they look.’ Making people feel they need to carry citizenship papers. Invading our state with military troops. Sending in war helicopters in the middle of the night. Arresting elected officials asking questions. We must all stand up and speak out.”

In an interview with MSNBC senior political correspondent Jacob Soboroff, Pritzker noted that Trump, who is a convicted felon, has a lot of nerve calling for Pritzker’s arrest. “his guy’s unhinged. He’s insecure, he’s a wannabe dictator.” Pritzker said directly to Trump: “If you come for my people, you come through me. So come and get me…. We’ve done nothing wrong here and…it’s Donald Trump that is breaching the Constitution, breaking the law.”

Illinois has sued to stop the administration from sending federalized National Guard troops from any state to Illinois, “because it is unconstitutional,” Pritzker said. “t’s important to recognize that the Trump administration doesn’t seem to respect any laws in the United States. They just do what they want to do, and they’ll keep doing it unless someone stops them. Here in Illinois, we’re stopping it. We’re doing everything that we can to push back.”

The administration is engaging in “a show of force,” Pritzker said, because it “wants to militarize major cities across the United States, especially blue cities in blue states, because he wants us to get used to the idea of military on the streets” before the 2026 elections. “I believe that he’s going to post people outside of ballot boxes and polling places. And if he needs to in order to control those elections, he’ll assume control of the ballot boxes” and let the administration count the results. Pritzker said we will have free and fair elections in 2026, “if we all stand up and speak out.”

Today the White House tried harder than ever to push the idea that the country is consumed by violence from the “Radical Left.” This afternoon a press release from the White House claimed that “or years, an Antifa-led hellfire has turned Portland into a wasteland of firebombs, beatings, and brazen attacks on federal officers and property—yet the Fake News remains in shameful denial about the Radical Left’s reign of terror.” In fact, before Trump ordered troops into the city, federal agents described the small protests at the ICE facility as “low energy,” consisting of people standing in front of vehicles, raising a middle finger, and playing loud music.

To push the administration’s narrative, Trump held an “Antifa Roundtable” at the White House this afternoon. There, far-right influencers tried to make the case that “antifa” is real and has harassed them, although as The Guardian noted, many of those influencers feed their media channels by confronting protesters and filming the responses they’ve provoked. The press release claimed that “terrorists” have “laid siege” to the ICE office in Portland, Oregon, and at the meeting, Trump claimed that “paid anarchists” want to “destroy our country.” Bizarrely, he claimed that “I don’t know what could be worse than Portland. You don’t even have stores anymore. They don’t even put glass up. They put plywood on their windows.”

Antifa is a term used by the far right to define anyone who does not support MAGA: it means “antifascist.” During the meeting, influencer Jack Posobiec—a proponent of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory—warned that “Antifa” went back all the way to Germany’s Weimar Republic. As Holly Baxter of The Independent pointed out, “it is absolutely true that there were anti-fascist protesters in the Weimar Republic. If you’ll remember, those were the people taking issue with the early versions of the Nazis.”

Thank you.

Thanks.

October 9, 2025 (Thursday)

Today Trump appointee Lindsey Halligan did what President Donald J. Trump placed her at the position of U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia to do: deliver an indictment of New York attorney general Letitia James for alleged mortgage fraud. The previous U.S. attorney there, Erik Seibert, refused to take either the James case or a case against former FBI director James Comey for allegedly lying to Congress to a grand jury for an indictment, believing there was not enough evidence to convict.

Seibert resigned in the face of Trump’s fury at his decision, and Trump replaced him with Halligan, a former aide and Trump’s personal lawyer. It is not clear that Halligan holds her position legally, but she has now delivered the indictments Trump demanded.

Trump bears a grudge against Comey for his pursuit of an investigation into the relationship between members of Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russian operatives—a relationship two subsequent investigations proved. He bears a grudge against James for successfully suing the Trump Organization for fraud.

The Department of Justice is supposed to be nonpartisan, and it certainly is not supposed to be an arm of presidential lawfare. Nonetheless, Trump has been perverting it to protect his loyalists and persecute his perceived enemies. On September 20, Trump posted on social media a message apparently intended privately for Attorney General Pam Bondi—such a communication is a violation of the Presidential Records Act, by the way—demanding prosecution of Comey, James, and Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA). “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!,” he wrote.

Just five days later, Halligan delivered an indictment of Comey. The former FBI director appeared at his arraignment in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, yesterday. He pleaded not guilty and asked for a jury trial. Comey’s lawyers told the judge they will be challenging the charges as vindictive and selective prosecution. They will also be challenging Halligan’s appointment as U.S. attorney as “unlawful.”

Now Trump has secured an indictment of Attorney General James. She responded in a statement, saying: “This is nothing more than a continuation of the president’s desperate weaponization of our justice system. He is forcing federal law enforcement agencies to do his bidding, all because I did my job as the New York State Attorney General.

“These charges are baseless, and the president’s own public statements make clear that his only goal is political retribution at any cost. The president’s actions are a grave violation of our Constitutional order and have drawn sharp criticism from members of both parties.

“His decision to fire a United States Attorney who refused to bring charges against me—and replace them with someone who is blindly loyal not to the law, but to the president—is antithetical to the bedrock principles of our country. This is the time for leaders on both sides of the aisle to speak out against this blatant perversion of our system of justice.

“I stand strongly behind my office’s litigation against the Trump Organization. We conducted a two-year investigation based on the facts and evidence—not politics. Judges have upheld the trial court’s finding that Donald Trump, his company, and his two sons are liable for fraud.

“I am a proud woman of faith, and I know that faith and fear cannot share the same space. And so today I am not fearful, I am fearless, and as my faith teaches me, no weapon formed against me shall prosper. We will fight these baseless charges aggressively, and my office will continue to fiercely protect New Yorkers and their rights. And I will continue to do my job.”

The Trump administration’s attempt to consolidate power by claiming a vast conspiracy is trying to undermine the government appears to be too much for increasing numbers of Americans. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released yesterday showed that Trump’s approval rating fell after the president’s speech to the nation’s top military officials. In his rambling remarks, Trump claimed the U.S. faces “a war from within” and suggested the military should use cities as “training grounds.”

The poll said that 58% of American adults think the president should deploy troops only to areas with external threats, while 25% disagree. Eighty-three percent of adults think the military should remain politically neutral. That number includes 93% of Democrats and 78% of Republicans. Only 10% of the adults polled disagreed that the military should remain politically neutral. That number included 5% of Democrats and 18% of Republicans.

Federal judges are standing firm against the administration’s overreach. Today U.S. District Judge April M. Perry stopped the federal deployment of 200 National Guard troops from Texas and another 300 from Illinois in and around Chicago, Illinois, for two weeks. “I have found no credible evidence that there is a danger of rebellion in the state of Illinois,” Perry said.

She pointed to the refusals by grand juries—including one Tuesday night—to indict protesters accused of assaulting law enforcement, and said they cast doubt on the Department of Homeland Security’s “credibility and assessment of what is happening on the streets of Chicago.”

Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker posted: “Donald Trump is not a king—and his administration is not above the law. Today, the court confirmed what we all know: there is no credible evidence of a rebellion in the state of Illinois. And no place for the National Guard in the streets of American cities like Chicago.”

Earlier in the day, U.S. District Judge Sara L. Ellis granted a two-week temporary restraining order prohibiting federal agents from “ispersing, arresting, threatening to arrest, threatening or using physical force against any person whom they know or reasonably should know is a Journalist, unless Defendants have probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime.” Federal agents in Chicago have been targeting journalists.

Both Governor Pritzker and California governor Gavin Newsom have asked Republican governors to take a stand against the administration’s attacks on state sovereignty, even as Texas governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, has permitted soldiers from the Texas National Guard to be deployed in Illinois. Pritzker and Newsom have threatened to leave the National Governors Association, a bipartisan organization founded in 1908 to enable governors to work together outside of partisanship, if it did not speak up about the unlawful deployment of federal troops in their states.

Today, in an interview with J. David Goodman of the New York Times, current chair of the National Governors Association Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma said the association could not weigh in because it is “an educational organization under I.R.S. code.”

But Stitt went on to criticize the federal deployment of troops in Illinois, making him the first Republican governor to question that deployment. Stitt noted that once such a precedent is established, future presidents could use it against Republican states. He said: “Oklahomans would lose their mind if Pritzker in Illinois sent troops down to Oklahoma during the Biden administration.”

Thanks.

October 10, 2025 (Friday)

All of President Donald J. Trump’s lobbying for the Nobel Peace Prize came to naught today as the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded this year’s prize to María Corina Machado of Venezuela. Machado has led a movement to challenge Venezuela’s authoritarian leader, President Nicolás Maduro. The committee cited “her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.”

When she learned of the award, Ms. Machado responded “This is an achievement of a whole society. I am just, you know, one person. I certainly do not deserve this.”

White House communications director Steven Cheung responded: “The Nobel Committee proved they place politics over peace.”

Russian president Vladimir Putin said the committee’s “credibility has largely been lost,” prompting Trump to thank him on social media.

That Trump and his loyalists are standing with the autocrat Putin rather than democracy is clearer every day.

Federal agents in Chicago have been targeting journalists, and yesterday, U.S. District Judge Sara L. Ellis granted a two-week temporary restraining order prohibiting federal agents in Chicago from “ispersing, arresting, threatening to arrest, threatening or using physical force against any person whom they know or reasonably should know is a Journalist, unless Defendants have probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime.”

Today, masked border patrol agents pinned WGN-TV producer Debbie Brockman to the ground and arrested her after she recorded agents detaining a Latino man. The agents said she had been detained for “obstruction.” Later, Homeland Security assistant secretary for public affairs Tricia McLaughlin accused Brockman of throwing “objects” at a Border Patrol vehicle and said she was arrested “for assault on a federal law enforcement officer.”

According to WGN, Brockman was later released without charges against her. But the agents accomplished their goal of terrorizing a journalist as a warning to others.

Yesterday a second Republican governor, Phil Scott of Vermont, opposed the administration’s deployment of federalized National Guard troops to Chicago and to Portland, Oregon. “I don’t think our guard should be used against our own people. I don’t think the military should be used against our own people. In fact, it’s unconstitutional,” Scott said. “Unless, of course, there’s an insurrection, much like we saw January 6 a few years ago.”

ICE agents denied Illinois senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, both Democrats, access to the Broadview, Illinois, ICE facility today, although Congress members have the right to conduct oversight. Durbin noted that this was their fourth attempt to access ICE facilities. “I’ve never had this kind of stonewalling by any presidential administration. Something’s going on in there that they don’t want us to see. I don’t know what it is, but all Americans should be asking the same question: ‘What is it? Can you justify it under the Constitution?’”

Nandita Bose, Jana Winter, Jeff Mason, Tim Reid, and Ted Hesson of Reuters reported on Thursday that White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller is playing a central role in the administration’s crackdown on opponents. The administration is threatening to target funding behind what the administration calls “domestic terror networks,” those it claims embrace “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity.”

House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) got into the act of attacking the administration’s opponents today, claiming that the Democratic senators holding out for the extension of the premium tax credits so that healthcare premiums don’t skyrocket—a position supported by 78% of Americans—are taking that position only because they’re afraid of anti-Trumpers. Johnson called the October 18 No Kings rally a “hate America rally” of “he antifa crowd, the pro-Hamas crowd, and the Marxists…. It is an outrageous gathering for outrageous purposes,” he said.

Majority whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) joined in, calling those who are taking a stand against Trump’s destruction of the nation’s constitutional checks and balances “the terrorist wing” of the Democratic Party, saying it “is set to hold…a hate America rally in next week.” Legal scholar David Noll noted that it’s “interesting that if you say the onstitution creates a separation of powers systems in which there are no kings, they think you hate merica.”

Josh Dawsey reported in the Wall Street Journal today that administrative officials joke about ruling Congress with an “iron fist” and that Trump ally Steve Bannon has compared Congress to Russia’s largely ceremonial Duma.

Today House speaker Johnson announced he would cancel another week’s session, making four weeks he has kept House members from their jobs. Johnson first sent the members home on September 19. Staying out of session means not working on the budget that is overdue or hammering out the necessary appropriations bills. It means not working on figuring out a way to extend the healthcare premium tax credits that Democrats are demanding.

It also means not swearing in Representative Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ), who won election on September 23 and who will provide the 218th vote on a discharge petition to trigger a vote on a measure requiring the release of the files the government has on the investigation of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The administration is trying to ram its will through Congress. Republicans have tried to pin the blame for the shutdown on Democrats, sending automatic out-of-office email replies that blame Democrats for the shutdown, for example, in violation of the Hatch Act that prohibits using government resources for partisan purposes. As the shutdown drags on and most Americans blame Republicans, their efforts to shift the blame are ratcheting up. Now the administration has posted a video at airport Transportation Security Administration (TSA) lines featuring Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem saying that operations are impacted because “Democrats in Congress refuse to fund the federal government.”

Immigration lawyer Aaron Reichlin-Melnick commented: “Can you think of a single movie in which there is a video from the government denouncing its political opponents playing on a loop in public spaces in which that government was the good guy?”

Natalie Allison and Riley Beggin of the Washington Post reported yesterday that members of the administration have not engaged with Democrats at all to negotiate an end to the shutdown. Tonight the Washington Post’s Hannah Natanson, Meryl Kornfield, and Jacob Bogage reported that the administration has begun another round of firings to put more pressure on the Democrats, although legal analysts say such layoffs are illegal. Trump told reporters they were laying off “people that the Democrats want.”

Labor unions sued preemptively to prevent the layoffs after Office of Management and Budget director Russell Vought threatened he would use a shutdown to slash more of the government.
Among the duties of Congress Trump has taken into his own hands are tariff duties, authority for which the Constitution gives solely to Congress. Nonetheless, Trump is continuing to monkey with tariff rates. This morning he posted on social media that “ome very strange things are happening in China!” China is the world’s largest producer of the rare earth minerals necessary for a wide range of manufacturing, including robotics, electric vehicles, and electronics. Yesterday, Chinese officials restricted exports of the minerals. In his post, Trump threatened to retaliate against China and suggested that there was no reason to go through with an upcoming meeting with China’s president Xi Jinping.
Trump’s threat sent stock prices tumbling.

After the stock market closed for the day, Trump posted on social media again, saying he would impose tariffs of 100% on products from China beginning on November 1. This levy is on top of current tariffs. Stocks fell further in after-market trading.

Neophyte said:

October 10, 2025 (Friday)

All of President Donald J. Trump’s lobbying for the Nobel Peace Prize came to naught today as the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded this year’s prize to María Corina Machado of Venezuela. Machado has led a movement to challenge Venezuela’s authoritarian leader, President Nicolás Maduro. The committee cited “her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.”

When she learned of the award, Ms. Machado responded “This is an achievement of a whole society. I am just, you know, one person. I certainly do not deserve this.”

White House communications director Steven Cheung responded: “The Nobel Committee proved they place politics over peace.”

Russian president Vladimir Putin said the committee’s “credibility has largely been lost,” prompting Trump to thank him on social media.

That Trump and his loyalists are standing with the autocrat Putin rather than democracy is clearer every day.

did they mention that a prize for María Corina Machado was a prize for kkk anyway

October 11, 2025 (Saturday)

Spent the day with family and friends as we said goodbye to yet another summer.

I’ll be back at it tomorrow.

Neophyte said:

October 11, 2025 (Saturday)

Spent the day with family and friends as we said goodbye to yet another summer.

I’ll be back at it tomorrow.

A very deserving day off. Good on you, HCR.

October 12, 2025 (Sunday)

On October 9, President Donald J. Trump’s office issued an official proclamation declaring Monday, October 13, “Columbus Day.” The proclamation says that the day is one on which “our Nation honors the legendary Christopher Columbus—the original American hero, a giant of Western civilization, and one of the most gallant and visionary men to ever walk the face of the earth. This Columbus Day, we honor his life with reverence and gratitude, and we pledge to reclaim his extraordinary legacy of faith, courage, perseverance, and virtue from the left-wing arsonists who have sought to destroy his name and dishonor his memory.”

The proclamation goes on to present a white Christian nationalist version of American history, with much more emphasis on Christianity than Trump’s previous, similar proclamations. It claims that Columbus was guided by a “noble mission: to discover a new trade route to Asia, bring glory to Spain, and spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ to distant lands.” “Upon his arrival,” it says, “he planted a majestic cross in a mighty act of devotion, dedicating the land to God and setting in motion America’s proud birthright of faith.”

“Guided by steadfast prayer and unwavering fortitude and resolve,” it goes on, “Columbus’s journey carried thousands of years of wisdom, philosophy, reason, and culture across the Atlantic into the Americas—paving the way for the ultimate triumph of Western civilization less than three centuries later on July 4, 1776.”

Then the proclamation turns to MAGA’s complaints about modern revisions of this triumphalist history, saying: “Outrageously, in recent years, Christopher Columbus has been a prime target of a vicious and merciless campaign to erase our history, slander our heroes, and attack our heritage.” Our nation, the proclamation says, “will now abide by a simple truth: Christopher Columbus was a true American hero, and every citizen is eternally indebted to his relentless determination.”

This proclamation completely misunderstands the fifteenth-century world of expanding European maritime routes that entirely reworked world trade—including trade in human beings—and the role of Italian mariner Christopher Columbus, who worked for Spain’s monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella, in that expansion.

It also misses what historians call the “Columbian Exchange”: the transfer of plants and animals between the Americas and the “Old World”—Europe, Asia, and Africa—after Columbus’s first landfall in the Bahamas in 1492. That exchange went both ways and transformed the globe, but its effect on the Americas was devastating. When Columbus and his sailors “discovered” the “New World,” they brought with them both ideologies and germs that would decimate the peoples living there.

Estimates of the number of Native people living in North America and South America in 1490 vary widely, but there were at least as many as 50 million, and possibly as many as 100 million. In the next 200 years, displacement, enslavement, war, and especially disease would kill about 90% of those native peoples. Most historians see the destruction of America’s Indigenous peoples as the brutal triumph of European white men over those they perceived to be inferior.

Historians are not denigrating historical actors or the nation when they uncover sordid parts of our past. Historians study how and why societies change. As we dig into the past, we see patterns that never entirely foreshadow the present but that give us ideas about how people in the past have dealt with circumstances that look similar to circumstances today. If we are going to get an accurate picture of how a society works, historians must examine it honestly, seeing the bad as well as the good. With luck, seeing those patterns will help us make better decisions about our own lives, our communities, and our nation in the present.

History is different from commemoration. History is about what happened in the past, while commemoration is about the present. We put up statues and celebrate holidays to honor figures from the past who embody some quality we admire.

The Columbus Day holiday began in the 1920s, when a resurgent Ku Klux Klan tried to create a lily-white country by attacking not just Black Americans, but also immigrants, Jews, and Catholics. This was an easy sell in the Twenties, since government leaders during the First World War had emphasized Americanism and demanded that immigrants reject all ties to their countries of origin. From there it was a short step for native-born white American Protestants to see anyone different from themselves as a threat to the nation.

The Klan attacked the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization. Klan members spread the rumor that one became a leader of the Knights of Columbus by vowing to exterminate Protestants and to torture and kill anyone upon orders of Catholic leaders.

To combat the growing animosity toward Catholics and racial minorities, the Knights of Columbus began to highlight the roles those groups had played in American history. In the early 1920s they published three books in a “Knights of Columbus Racial Contributions” series, including The Gift of Black Folk by pioneering Black sociologist W.E.B. Du Bois.

They also turned to an old American holiday. Since the late 1860s, Italian Americans in New York City had celebrated a “Columbus Day” to honor the heritage they shared with the famous Italian explorer. In the 1930s the Knights of Columbus joined with media mogul Generoso Pope, an important Italian American politician in New York City, to rally behind the idea of a national Columbus Day. In 1934, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, aware of the need to solidify his new Democratic coalition by welcoming all Democratic voters, proclaimed Columbus Day, October 12, a federal holiday. In 1971 the day became unfixed from a date; it is now the second Monday in October.

The Knights intended for Columbus Day to honor the important contributions of immigrants—and Catholics—to American society. But in the 1960s a growing focus on the lives and experiences of Indigenous Americans forced a reckoning with the choice of Columbus as a standard bearer. Currently, seventeen states and the District of Columbia use the official holiday to celebrate Indigenous history. Some Oklahoma tribal members simply use the day to honor their tribe.

As society changes, the values we want to commemorate shift. In the 1920s, Columbus mattered to Americans who opposed the Ku Klux Klan because celebrating an Italian defended a multicultural society. Now, though, he represents the devastation of America’s Indigenous people at the hands of European colonists who brought to North America and South America germs and a fever for gold and God. It is not “left-wing arson” to want to commemorate a different set of values than the country held in the 1920s.

What is arson, though, is the attempt to skew history to serve a modern-day political narrative. Rejecting an honest account of the past makes it impossible to see accurate patterns. The lessons we learn about how society changes will be false, and the decisions we make based on those false patterns will not be grounded in reality.

And a society grounded in fiction, rather than reality, cannot function.

this is exactly the sort of thing i was getting at yesterday. White America are god’s chosen people to conquer and settle the newly discovered promised land, and set up god’s new kingdom on earth there.

party_pants said:

this is exactly the sort of thing i was getting at yesterday. White America are god’s chosen people to conquer and settle the newly discovered promised land, and set up god’s new kingdom on earth there.

Jesus, guns and babies that look like that.

Tau.Neutrino said:

party_pants said:

this is exactly the sort of thing i was getting at yesterday. White America are god’s chosen people to conquer and settle the newly discovered promised land, and set up god’s new kingdom on earth there.

Jesus, guns and babies that look like that.

Jesus, guns and designer babies.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

party_pants said:

this is exactly the sort of thing i was getting at yesterday. White America are god’s chosen people to conquer and settle the newly discovered promised land, and set up god’s new kingdom on earth there.

Jesus, guns and babies that look like that.

Jesus, guns and designer babies.

Jesus, guns and DBabies

October 13, 2025 (Monday)

Last Tuesday, President Donald J. Trump showed to Canadian officials a plan for a triumphal arch that would sit on the banks of the Potomac River opposite the Lincoln Memorial in a traffic rotary at the Virginia end of the Arlington Memorial Bridge below Arlington National Cemetery. The idea, apparently, is to build the arch to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the United States in July 2026.

On Thursday, the White House press pool reported, the plan was laid out on President Donald J. Trump’s desk in the Oval Office. The massive stone arch appears to be the same height as or taller than the Lincoln Memorial. Early in the morning on Saturday, October 11, Trump posted on social media an artist’s rendering of what such an arch might look like, complete with what appears to be a gold winged victory statue at the top of the arch.

Triumphal arches are free-standing structures consisting of one or more arches crowned with a flat top for engravings or statues. They hark back to ancient Rome, where leaders built them to commemorate military victories or significant public events. Those arches inspired others, like the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, France.

Observers immediately noted that the photographed plan showed the Lincoln Memorial facing the wrong way, and compared the Trump Arch both to the Arc de Triomphe and to another arch modeled on it: the German Arch of Triumph proposed by Adolph Hitler to commemorate Germany’s victory in World War II.

That triumphal arch was never built.

Architect Eric Jenkins told Daniel Jonas Roche of The Architect’s Newspaper that the proposed arch would disrupt the symbolic connection between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. The two are connected not only by the Arlington Memorial Bridge, but also by the Civil War. During that war, the nation began to bury its hallowed dead on the grounds of the former home of General Robert E. Lee, who led the troops of the Confederacy. Lee’s Arlington House sits directly behind the memorial to Lincoln, who led the United States to stop the Confederates from dismantling the nation.

The proposed construction of a triumphal arch contrasts with the expected sale and probable demolition of the Wilbur J. Cohen Federal Building on Independence Avenue in Washington, D.C. Completed in 1940, the Wilbur J. Cohen Federal Building was built to house the Social Security Board, the precursor to the Social Security Administration.

In August 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. That law established a federal system of old-age benefits; unemployment insurance; aid to homeless, dependent, and neglected children; funds to promote maternal and child welfare; and public health services. It was a sweeping reworking of the relationship between the government and its citizens, using the power of taxation to pool funds to provide a basic social safety net.

The vision of government behind the Social Security Act was very different from that of the Republicans who had run it in the 1920s. While men like President Herbert Hoover had embraced the idea of a “rugged individualism” in which men provided for their families on their own, those behind the Social Security Act recognized that the vision of a hardworking man supporting his wife and children was more myth than reality. They replaced that vision with one in which the government recognized that all Americans were equally valuable.

Their reworking of American government came from the conditions of the United States after the rise of modern industry. Americans had always depended on community, but the harsh conditions of industrialization in the late nineteenth century had made it clear that the government must protect the people in that community. City governments like New York City’s Tammany Hall began to provide a basic system of social welfare, making sure that they had jobs, food, and shelter and that women and children had a support network if a husband or father died.

Then, in the 1930s, the overwhelming unemployment, hunger, and suffering during the Great Depression showed that state governments alone could not adjust the conditions of the modern world to create a safe, supportive community for ordinary people. FDR’s secretary of labor, Frances Perkins, came to believe that, as she said: “The people are what matter to government, and a government should aim to give all the people under its jurisdiction the best possible life.”

And so Perkins pushed for the Social Security Act, the law that became the centerpiece and the symbol of the new relationship between the government and American citizens.

Once FDR signed the law, the next step was to create a building for its administrators. To decorate a building that would be the centerpiece of the government’s new philosophy, administrators announced a competition for the creation of murals to decorate the main corridor of the new building.

Among those who threw their hats into the ring was Lithuanian-born American artist Ben Shahn, one of the most sought-after artists in the United States, a social realist painter who designed murals to illustrate “the meaning of Social Security.” Shahn wrote: “I feel that the whole Social Security idea is one of the real fruits of democracy.” He set out to show that idea in his art.

Shahn depicted the evils of a world of economic insecurity, showing “endless waiting, men standing and waiting, men sitting and waiting, the man and boy going wearily into the long empty perspective of a railroad track.” He showed the “little girl of the mills” and “breaker boys working in a mine. The crippled boy issuing from the mine symbolizes the perils of child labor…a homeless boy is seen sleeping in the street; another child leans from a tenement window.” He showed “the insecurity of dependents—the aged and infirm woman, the helpless mother with her small child.”

Then he illustrated the alleviation of that insecurity through government action. He showed “the building of homes… tremendous public works, furnishing employment and benefitting all of society… youths of a slum area engaged in healthy sport in handball courts…the Harvest—threshing and fruit-gathering, obvious symbols of security, suggesting also security as it applies to the farm family.”

Shahn finished the pieces in 1942, and said: “I think the Social Security mural is the best work I’ve ever done…. I felt I had everything under control—or almost under control—the big masses of color to make it decorative and the little details to make it interesting.”

Shahn’s work stood alongside that of Philip Guston, who depicted the well-being of the family under the Social Security Act; Seymour Fogel, whose portrait of security included children learning and a table piled with food; and sisters Ethel and Jenne Magafan, who were warned their mural in the boardroom should not distract the members, so they painted mountains in snow. Gray Brechin, the founder of the Living New Deal, a nonprofit that tracks the fate of New Deal art, told Timothy Noah of The New Republic that the Cohen building is “a kind of Sistine Chapel of the New Deal.”

But by the time Shahn and the other artists had completed their work, Noah explains, plans for the building had changed. The Social Security Administration never occupied it. First, the War Production Board, which managed the conversion of U.S. companies to wartime production, commandeered the building, and then in 1954 the Voice of America (VOA) moved in.

Like most federal buildings, the Cohen building is owned by the General Services Administration (GSA), to which the agencies in the building pay rent. With a total budget of $300 million, the VOA’s rent could not keep the building up, and in 2020, under the first Trump administration, the GSA told the VOA that it would have to vacate the building by 2028. During the Biden administration, Noah reports, the GSA proposed renovating the building to make it “a flagship in the federal government portfolio,” but before the report was widely circulated, Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) inserted into a water resources bill a provision to sell the building.

Now, although the market for commercial buildings is depressed, the Trump administration is proceeding with the sale.

Since taking office in January 2025, officials in the second Trump administration have made war on the vision of government embodied by the Social Security Act, promoting in its place a return to the rugged individualism that is even less true today than it was a century ago.

Now the administration is getting rid of the building built to house the Social Security Administration, along with the murals that champion the government’s role in protecting the equality and security of ordinary people, while Trump contemplates building a triumphal arch, carving MAGA ideology into the nation’s capital in stone.

Ta.

October 14, 2025 (Tuesday)

The government shutdown, which started on October 1, is entering its third week. As Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) explained this morning, the Senate is in session, and it keeps voting on two bills to reopen the government. Majority leader John Thune (R-SD) keeps having the Senate vote on the measure passed by Republicans in the House. That measure funds the government until November 21. It has failed repeatedly to get past the 60 votes necessary to avoid a filibuster. The Democrats have offered an alternative measure, which extends the healthcare premium tax credit—without which health insurance costs on the Affordable Care Act market will skyrocket—and restores nearly $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid. That measure, too, has repeatedly failed to pass.

Murphy notes that normally the two sides would negotiate. But, he says, President Donald J. Trump is telling Republican senators to “BOYCOTT NEGOTIATING,” and they are “following orders.”

The House of Representatives is even more dysfunctional. House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) pushed the continuing resolution through the chamber on September 19, the Friday before leaving town for a week. Then Johnson canceled the House sessions on Monday and Tuesday, September 29 and 30, both to jam the Senate into having to accept the House measure and to avoid swearing in Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ), who was elected on September 23. Grijalva will provide the 218th signature on a discharge petition to force a vote on the release of the files collected during the federal investigation into the crimes of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Trump and his officials promised to release those files, but have tried to avoid doing so since news broke that Trump, who was a close friend of Epstein, is named in them.

Emily Brooks of The Hill notes that jamming the Senate as Johnson tried to do was a tactic employed by the far-right Freedom Caucus, and they are cheering him on. But Democratic senators refused to vote in favor of the House measure, standing firm on extending the premium tax credits before their loss decimates the healthcare markets. Now, although Democrats are in Washington, D.C., ready to negotiate, Johnson says he will not call House members back to work until the Senate passes the House measure.

Brooks notes that not all Republicans are keen on the optics of staying out of session during a shutdown. Mike Lillis of The Hill reported on Sunday that the cancellation of all House votes since late September has some Republicans warning that the tactic will backfire. In addition to the question of healthcare premiums, there is the issue of military pay stalled by the shutdown, and the fact that, by law, Congress was supposed to deliver its 2026 budget by September 30.

Over the weekend, the administration tried to ratchet up the pressure on Democratic senators to cave when it announced it would fire about 4,200 federal employees. Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo notes that the threat seemed at least in part to be designed to follow through on a threat Office of Management and Budget director Russell Vought had made to pressure Democrats before the shutdown. When those layoffs didn’t happen, the administration then suggested it would not pay furloughed workers after the shutdown ends. After backlash, they walked that threat back. The new announcement seemed in part an attempt to prove they would do something.

On Friday night, hundreds of workers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) received notices they were being fired, only to receive a follow-up letter less than a day later saying they were not fired after all. As Tom Bartlett of The Atlantic put it: “No explanation, no apology.”

Marshall points out that other cuts seem to have come from agencies Trump especially dislikes, including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which Trump has hated since its then-director Chris Krebs said the 2020 presidential election was not hacked. The administration also gutted the office responsible for special education in the U.S. Department of Education serving about 7.4 million students with special needs.

Today, Trump tried to pressure Democrats by telling reporters the slashing of government programs will hurt only Democrats. “We’re not closing up Republican programs because we think they work,” he said. “So the Democrats are getting killed, but they’re not telling the people about that…. So we are closing up Democrat programs that we think that we disagree with, and they’re never going to open again.”

The administration continues to try to demonstrate its power. Today it announced its fifth known attack on a boat “just off the coast of Venezuela” in international waters. Once again, Trump asserted that the boat was trafficking narcotics. The U.S. has now killed 27 people in this and similar attacks, making the argument that drug smugglers are enemy combatants. This is problematic not just because the administration has never produced any evidence that those killed have been smuggling drugs but also because lawyers say these killings are illegal. Charlie Savage of the New York Times points out that the administration has not produced any legal analysis that defends its position.

Conservative lawyer George Conway posted: “That’s twenty-seven flat-out murders. That’s twenty-seven lives taken without even a semblance of a legal justification under domestic or international law.”

The administration’s attempt to portray itself as powerful is running not just into the law but into popular perception. The administration insists it needs extraordinary powers to fight back against South American gang members illegally in the U.S. The attack on the boats serves the idea that drug cartels are invading the U.S. to kill Americans, a theme the administration hits when it insists that those it is rounding up in the U.S. are “the worst of the worst.”

But as Jacob Soboroff and Kay Guerrero of MSNBC reported today, the Department of Homeland Security announced on October 3 that more than 1,000 undocumented immigrants had been arrested in and around Chicago since September, when their operation began. It said those arrested included “the worst of the worst pedophiles, child abusers, kidnappers, gang members, and armed robbers.” But it has produced little evidence for that claim, and federal data shows that more than 70% of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees as of last month had no criminal convictions.

So the administration is upping its claims. Today the Fox News Channel reported on a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) allegation that “narcoterrorists in Mexico are reportedly working in coordination with domestic extremist groups to place bounties worth thousands of dollars on the heads of federal immigration officers in Chicago.” DHS called it “an organized campaign of terror against agents just trying to do their jobs.”

The administration is attempting to paint immigrants as violent criminals and those opposed to their raids as terrorists. They are producing slick videos to make that point. But protesters have deprived them of photo opportunities by dressing in animal costumes. ICE agents staring down a giant frog and Mr. Potato Head don’t look very dominant.

Cracks are showing elsewhere in the administration’s picture of strength. Defense secretary Pete Hegseth demanded that media outlets agree they would not publish any material about the Defense Department—even if it were unclassified—unless it was explicitly authorized by department officials. He set a deadline of 5:00 tonight for them to sign an agreement or hand over their press badges.

Every major press outlet, including the Fox News Channel, refused, saying such a demand is an assault on the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Airports around the country are refusing to air the video Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem recorded to be shown at Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoints, which blames Democrats for the shutdown. Some have noted it violates the Hatch Act that prohibits the use of government assets for partisan purposes.

As the administration faces resistance, Republican lawmakers seem worried about the upcoming No Kings rally scheduled for Saturday, October 18. Joe Perticone of The Bulwark notes that Republican lawmakers are scrambling to get in front of a potentially large protest event with a prebuttal. House majority whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) has alleged that those protesting are “the terrorist wing” of the Democratic Party, “playing to the most radical, small, and violent base in the country…. They just do not love this country.”

While Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) retorted that the No Kings event is about loving America, not hating it. “It’s a rally of millions of people all over this country who believe in our Constitution, who believe in American freedom and are not going to let you and Donald Trump turn this country into an authoritarian society.”

Today, Jason Beeferman and Emily Ngo of Politico reported on 2,900 pages of messages exchanged on the messaging app Telegram between leaders of the hardline pro-Trump factions of Young Republican groups in New York, Kansas, Arizona, and Vermont. In the edgy messages, the leaders used racist themes and epithets freely and cheered slavery, rape, gas chambers, and torturing their opponents. They expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler.

One of them wrote to the others, “If we ever had a leak of this chat we would be cooked .”

One of them wrote to the others, “If we ever had a leak of this chat we would be cooked .”

Neophyte said:

October 14, 2025 (Tuesday)

The government shutdown, which started on October 1, is entering its third week. As Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) explained this morning, the Senate is in session, and it keeps voting on two bills to reopen the government. Majority leader John Thune (R-SD) keeps having the Senate vote on the measure passed by Republicans in the House. That measure funds the government until November 21. It has failed repeatedly to get past the 60 votes necessary to avoid a filibuster. The Democrats have offered an alternative measure, which extends the healthcare premium tax credit—without which health insurance costs on the Affordable Care Act market will skyrocket—and restores nearly $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid. That measure, too, has repeatedly failed to pass.

Murphy notes that normally the two sides would negotiate. But, he says, President Donald J. Trump is telling Republican senators to “BOYCOTT NEGOTIATING,” and they are “following orders.”

The House of Representatives is even more dysfunctional. House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) pushed the continuing resolution through the chamber on September 19, the Friday before leaving town for a week. Then Johnson canceled the House sessions on Monday and Tuesday, September 29 and 30, both to jam the Senate into having to accept the House measure and to avoid swearing in Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ), who was elected on September 23. Grijalva will provide the 218th signature on a discharge petition to force a vote on the release of the files collected during the federal investigation into the crimes of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Trump and his officials promised to release those files, but have tried to avoid doing so since news broke that Trump, who was a close friend of Epstein, is named in them.

Emily Brooks of The Hill notes that jamming the Senate as Johnson tried to do was a tactic employed by the far-right Freedom Caucus, and they are cheering him on. But Democratic senators refused to vote in favor of the House measure, standing firm on extending the premium tax credits before their loss decimates the healthcare markets. Now, although Democrats are in Washington, D.C., ready to negotiate, Johnson says he will not call House members back to work until the Senate passes the House measure.

Brooks notes that not all Republicans are keen on the optics of staying out of session during a shutdown. Mike Lillis of The Hill reported on Sunday that the cancellation of all House votes since late September has some Republicans warning that the tactic will backfire. In addition to the question of healthcare premiums, there is the issue of military pay stalled by the shutdown, and the fact that, by law, Congress was supposed to deliver its 2026 budget by September 30.

Over the weekend, the administration tried to ratchet up the pressure on Democratic senators to cave when it announced it would fire about 4,200 federal employees. Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo notes that the threat seemed at least in part to be designed to follow through on a threat Office of Management and Budget director Russell Vought had made to pressure Democrats before the shutdown. When those layoffs didn’t happen, the administration then suggested it would not pay furloughed workers after the shutdown ends. After backlash, they walked that threat back. The new announcement seemed in part an attempt to prove they would do something.

On Friday night, hundreds of workers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) received notices they were being fired, only to receive a follow-up letter less than a day later saying they were not fired after all. As Tom Bartlett of The Atlantic put it: “No explanation, no apology.”

Marshall points out that other cuts seem to have come from agencies Trump especially dislikes, including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which Trump has hated since its then-director Chris Krebs said the 2020 presidential election was not hacked. The administration also gutted the office responsible for special education in the U.S. Department of Education serving about 7.4 million students with special needs.

Today, Trump tried to pressure Democrats by telling reporters the slashing of government programs will hurt only Democrats. “We’re not closing up Republican programs because we think they work,” he said. “So the Democrats are getting killed, but they’re not telling the people about that…. So we are closing up Democrat programs that we think that we disagree with, and they’re never going to open again.”

The administration continues to try to demonstrate its power. Today it announced its fifth known attack on a boat “just off the coast of Venezuela” in international waters. Once again, Trump asserted that the boat was trafficking narcotics. The U.S. has now killed 27 people in this and similar attacks, making the argument that drug smugglers are enemy combatants. This is problematic not just because the administration has never produced any evidence that those killed have been smuggling drugs but also because lawyers say these killings are illegal. Charlie Savage of the New York Times points out that the administration has not produced any legal analysis that defends its position.

Conservative lawyer George Conway posted: “That’s twenty-seven flat-out murders. That’s twenty-seven lives taken without even a semblance of a legal justification under domestic or international law.”

The administration’s attempt to portray itself as powerful is running not just into the law but into popular perception. The administration insists it needs extraordinary powers to fight back against South American gang members illegally in the U.S. The attack on the boats serves the idea that drug cartels are invading the U.S. to kill Americans, a theme the administration hits when it insists that those it is rounding up in the U.S. are “the worst of the worst.”

But as Jacob Soboroff and Kay Guerrero of MSNBC reported today, the Department of Homeland Security announced on October 3 that more than 1,000 undocumented immigrants had been arrested in and around Chicago since September, when their operation began. It said those arrested included “the worst of the worst pedophiles, child abusers, kidnappers, gang members, and armed robbers.” But it has produced little evidence for that claim, and federal data shows that more than 70% of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees as of last month had no criminal convictions.

So the administration is upping its claims. Today the Fox News Channel reported on a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) allegation that “narcoterrorists in Mexico are reportedly working in coordination with domestic extremist groups to place bounties worth thousands of dollars on the heads of federal immigration officers in Chicago.” DHS called it “an organized campaign of terror against agents just trying to do their jobs.”

The administration is attempting to paint immigrants as violent criminals and those opposed to their raids as terrorists. They are producing slick videos to make that point. But protesters have deprived them of photo opportunities by dressing in animal costumes. ICE agents staring down a giant frog and Mr. Potato Head don’t look very dominant.

Cracks are showing elsewhere in the administration’s picture of strength. Defense secretary Pete Hegseth demanded that media outlets agree they would not publish any material about the Defense Department—even if it were unclassified—unless it was explicitly authorized by department officials. He set a deadline of 5:00 tonight for them to sign an agreement or hand over their press badges.

Every major press outlet, including the Fox News Channel, refused, saying such a demand is an assault on the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Airports around the country are refusing to air the video Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem recorded to be shown at Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoints, which blames Democrats for the shutdown. Some have noted it violates the Hatch Act that prohibits the use of government assets for partisan purposes.

As the administration faces resistance, Republican lawmakers seem worried about the upcoming No Kings rally scheduled for Saturday, October 18. Joe Perticone of The Bulwark notes that Republican lawmakers are scrambling to get in front of a potentially large protest event with a prebuttal. House majority whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) has alleged that those protesting are “the terrorist wing” of the Democratic Party, “playing to the most radical, small, and violent base in the country…. They just do not love this country.”

While Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) retorted that the No Kings event is about loving America, not hating it. “It’s a rally of millions of people all over this country who believe in our Constitution, who believe in American freedom and are not going to let you and Donald Trump turn this country into an authoritarian society.”

Today, Jason Beeferman and Emily Ngo of Politico reported on 2,900 pages of messages exchanged on the messaging app Telegram between leaders of the hardline pro-Trump factions of Young Republican groups in New York, Kansas, Arizona, and Vermont. In the edgy messages, the leaders used racist themes and epithets freely and cheered slavery, rape, gas chambers, and torturing their opponents. They expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler.

One of them wrote to the others, “If we ever had a leak of this chat we would be cooked .”

Utterly, utterly corrupted system.

:(

Neophyte said:

SCIENCE said:

Michael V said:

dv said:

“Shocking” big air quotes

IDGI. What did Boeing do now?

sorry about our comrades’ indiscretions, we presume this is the fuller context but anyway

we draw yousr attention to this part

“If we ever had a leak of this chat we would be cooked fr fr,” he wrote.

our concern is less that they have this chat, and more that we are now observing a situation where if they ever had a leak of this chat, they would not be cookedfrfr at all, and instead they would be celebrated and glorified and swept into even more power

One of them wrote to the others, “If we ever had a leak of this chat we would be cooked .”

totally which makes it hilarious that they aren’t cooked, wonder what that tells yous

October 15, 2025 (Wednesday)

Today the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais, which together challenge a federal court decision outlawing a racial gerrymander in the state of Louisiana. At stake is Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which declares: “No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”

About a third of the people who live in Louisiana are Black, and when Republicans in the Louisiana state legislature redrew the state’s congressional districts after the 2020 census, they gerrymandered through “packing” and “cracking.” They packed as many Black voters as they could into one district and then cracked the rest across five others. This meant that out of the state’s six districts, only one is majority Black. Because voting patterns map onto racial patterns in Louisiana, this means that Black voters cannot elect representatives of their choice. As Madiba K. Dennie of Talking Points Memo notes, Louisiana has never had a Black senator, and no congressional district other than the majority-Black district has elected a Black representative. The state hasn’t had a Black governor since Reconstruction.

So Black voters sued over the new map, and federal courts agreed that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. They told the legislature to draw new maps that created a second majority-Black district. To stop that change, a group of people who described themselves as “non–African American voters” sued, saying that drawing a map to create a majority-Black district is itself an illegal racial gerrymander.

In the past, the Supreme Court has upheld the principle that if a state has used race to determine districts, it must show that it has a compelling reason to do so. In 2017 it said: “This Court has long assumed that one compelling interest is compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.” In the past, the court saw that interest as served by guaranteeing the creation of majority-minority districts to guarantee that Black, Brown, and Asian-American voters can elect the lawmakers they prefer.

In today’s hearings, the right-wing majority indicated it opposes the use of race in redistricting, suggesting the previous understanding of this issue is unconstitutional. Overturning the decision of the lower court would finish the gutting of the Voting Rights Act the Roberts Court began with the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision.

This shift shows the willingness of the right-wing majority on the court to gather the power of the U.S. government into its own hands.

The actual name of what we know as the Voting Rights Act is “AN ACT To enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other purposes.” Congress passed it after more than 80 years in which state legislatures refused to acknowledge the Fifteenth Amendment, which reads:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

When it passed the Voting Rights Act, Congress did what the Fifteenth Amendment required it to do to protect the right of racial minorities to vote. As political scientist Jonathan Ladd notes, now, though, the Supreme Court is on the cusp of saying that it, rather than Congress, can determine how to enforce the right of citizens to vote.

That the Supreme Court appears to be taking aim at a constitutional amendment added to the Constitution during Reconstruction is a little too on-the-nose. When the federal government stopped enforcing the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, former Confederates took control of their states and instituted a one-party region that lasted until the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Today, Nate Cohn of the New York Times explained that striking down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act could eliminate more than a dozen districts in the South currently held by Democrats. Republicans could win virtually uncontested control of the South and so could control the House of Representatives even if they lost the popular vote by a significant margin. Cohn writes that Democrats would need to win the popular vote by between five to six points in order to win the House if the court strikes down Section 2.

But, since gerrymandering depresses turnout of the losing party’s voters, Republicans would appear to hold the country even more firmly, making the United States as a whole reflect the American South from about 1874 to 1965.

Such a one-party state would give the leader of that party whatever power party officials permitted. We are already seeing what that could look like.

Julian E. Barnes and Tyler Pager of the New York Times reported today that the Trump administration is stepping up its effort to remove Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro from power. This effort has been spearheaded by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director John Ratcliffe. Last month the administration told Congress that it considered Venezuelan drug cartels “nonstate armed groups” whose actions “constitute an armed attack on the United States,” meaning that the U.S. is at war. This declaration covered for the strikes on Venezuelan boats, which the administration claims were importing drugs to the U.S., although it has offered no proof of that assertion.

Sources in the administration told the journalists that a presidential finding authorizes the CIA to conduct operations in the Caribbean and to take covert action against Maduro and his government. A presidential finding, also called a memorandum of notification, is a classified directive issued by the president to authorize the CIA to conduct a covert operation the president claims is necessary for national security. Findings are supposed to be transmitted to key congressional committees to keep Congress informed of the actions of the U.S. government, but lawmakers cannot make the information in them public.

That “multiple U.S. officials” were willing to discuss the presidential finding with the New York Times journalists suggests the administration wanted to leak this information—perhaps, as legal analyst Asha Rangappa suggests, to make it sound like there is legal cover for what they are already doing or, as legal analyst Allison Gill suggests, to do an end run around Congress.

Trump promised during the 2024 campaign that he was “not going to start a war,” and promised “to stop the wars.” He has campaigned heavily to win a Nobel Peace Prize, nonsensically claiming to have stopped at least seven or eight wars. But the wars in Ukraine and Gaza have gotten hotter during his administration, and Barnes and Pager note that the U.S. military is also building up its resources in the region near Venezuela. The Pentagon has deployed 10,000 troops to the area, stationing most of them on bases in Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Navy has sent eight warships and a submarine.

This buildup comes as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has demanded that media outlets report only information authorized by department officials or lose their press credentials. All but a single far-right opinion network refused, leaving the department’s actions unscrutinized by the excellent journalists who had been covering the Pentagon. The Pentagon Press Association today said its members were “still committed to reporting on the U.S. military. But make no mistake,” it said, “today, Oct. 15, 2025 is a dark day for press freedom that raises concerns about a weakening U.S. commitment to transparency in governance, to public accountability at the Pentagon and to free speech for all.”

Natasha Bertrand and Zachary Cohen of CNN reported today that at least one of the U.S. strikes in the Caribbean—the one on September 19—targeted a boat that had left Colombia and was manned by Colombian nationals. The journalists note that “he deliberate targeting of Colombians…suggests that the U.S. military’s campaign against suspected narcotics trafficking groups in the Caribbean is wider than previously believed.”

Last week, the deputy director of the CIA, Michael Ellis, made himself the CIA’s general counsel.

Yesterday Trump compared the strikes on “drug boats” with public executions Hamas supporters have carried out in Gaza in the wake of the ceasefire deal there. “They killed a number of gang members,” Trump said. “And that didn’t bother me much, to be honest with you. That’s ok, it’s a couple of very bad gangs. You know it’s no different than other countries—like Venezuela sent their gangs into us and we took care of those gangs.”

Today Trump announced that he has the power to pay furloughed troops by taking any unused funds Congress appropriated for fiscal year 2026 and using that money to pay the troops.

As budget and tax specialist Bobby Kogan notes, this is wildly illegal: only Congress can appropriate money and determine how it is spent, a constitutional requirement reinforced by the Antideficiency Act clarifying that it is illegal for the government to spend money that was not appropriated for that purpose. The military is funded on an annual basis, so when funding ran out on September 30, so did money to pay the troops.

Kogan explains that Trump is turning to the account for research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDTE), which was funded for two years and still has money. But, as Kogan points out, that shift creates another problem: as soon as the money is taken to pay the troops, it becomes unusable because that money ceased to be available on September 30.

Kogan notes Trump’s order should also be unnecessary: Congress would pass a measure to pay the troops easily if only House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) would call the House into session. Democrats have been begging Johnson to bring such a measure to the floor.

Trump says that because he is commander in chief, he has the right to this power.

Neophyte said:

October 15, 2025 (Wednesday)

Today the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais, which together challenge a federal court decision outlawing a racial gerrymander in the state of Louisiana. At stake is Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which declares: “No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”

About a third of the people who live in Louisiana are Black, and when Republicans in the Louisiana state legislature redrew the state’s congressional districts after the 2020 census, they gerrymandered through “packing” and “cracking.” They packed as many Black voters as they could into one district and then cracked the rest across five others. This meant that out of the state’s six districts, only one is majority Black. Because voting patterns map onto racial patterns in Louisiana, this means that Black voters cannot elect representatives of their choice. As Madiba K. Dennie of Talking Points Memo notes, Louisiana has never had a Black senator, and no congressional district other than the majority-Black district has elected a Black representative. The state hasn’t had a Black governor since Reconstruction.

So Black voters sued over the new map, and federal courts agreed that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. They told the legislature to draw new maps that created a second majority-Black district. To stop that change, a group of people who described themselves as “non–African American voters” sued, saying that drawing a map to create a majority-Black district is itself an illegal racial gerrymander.

In the past, the Supreme Court has upheld the principle that if a state has used race to determine districts, it must show that it has a compelling reason to do so. In 2017 it said: “This Court has long assumed that one compelling interest is compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.” In the past, the court saw that interest as served by guaranteeing the creation of majority-minority districts to guarantee that Black, Brown, and Asian-American voters can elect the lawmakers they prefer.

In today’s hearings, the right-wing majority indicated it opposes the use of race in redistricting, suggesting the previous understanding of this issue is unconstitutional. Overturning the decision of the lower court would finish the gutting of the Voting Rights Act the Roberts Court began with the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision.

This shift shows the willingness of the right-wing majority on the court to gather the power of the U.S. government into its own hands.

The actual name of what we know as the Voting Rights Act is “AN ACT To enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other purposes.” Congress passed it after more than 80 years in which state legislatures refused to acknowledge the Fifteenth Amendment, which reads:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

When it passed the Voting Rights Act, Congress did what the Fifteenth Amendment required it to do to protect the right of racial minorities to vote. As political scientist Jonathan Ladd notes, now, though, the Supreme Court is on the cusp of saying that it, rather than Congress, can determine how to enforce the right of citizens to vote.

That the Supreme Court appears to be taking aim at a constitutional amendment added to the Constitution during Reconstruction is a little too on-the-nose. When the federal government stopped enforcing the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, former Confederates took control of their states and instituted a one-party region that lasted until the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Today, Nate Cohn of the New York Times explained that striking down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act could eliminate more than a dozen districts in the South currently held by Democrats. Republicans could win virtually uncontested control of the South and so could control the House of Representatives even if they lost the popular vote by a significant margin. Cohn writes that Democrats would need to win the popular vote by between five to six points in order to win the House if the court strikes down Section 2.

But, since gerrymandering depresses turnout of the losing party’s voters, Republicans would appear to hold the country even more firmly, making the United States as a whole reflect the American South from about 1874 to 1965.

Such a one-party state would give the leader of that party whatever power party officials permitted. We are already seeing what that could look like.

Julian E. Barnes and Tyler Pager of the New York Times reported today that the Trump administration is stepping up its effort to remove Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro from power. This effort has been spearheaded by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director John Ratcliffe. Last month the administration told Congress that it considered Venezuelan drug cartels “nonstate armed groups” whose actions “constitute an armed attack on the United States,” meaning that the U.S. is at war. This declaration covered for the strikes on Venezuelan boats, which the administration claims were importing drugs to the U.S., although it has offered no proof of that assertion.

Sources in the administration told the journalists that a presidential finding authorizes the CIA to conduct operations in the Caribbean and to take covert action against Maduro and his government. A presidential finding, also called a memorandum of notification, is a classified directive issued by the president to authorize the CIA to conduct a covert operation the president claims is necessary for national security. Findings are supposed to be transmitted to key congressional committees to keep Congress informed of the actions of the U.S. government, but lawmakers cannot make the information in them public.

That “multiple U.S. officials” were willing to discuss the presidential finding with the New York Times journalists suggests the administration wanted to leak this information—perhaps, as legal analyst Asha Rangappa suggests, to make it sound like there is legal cover for what they are already doing or, as legal analyst Allison Gill suggests, to do an end run around Congress.

Trump promised during the 2024 campaign that he was “not going to start a war,” and promised “to stop the wars.” He has campaigned heavily to win a Nobel Peace Prize, nonsensically claiming to have stopped at least seven or eight wars. But the wars in Ukraine and Gaza have gotten hotter during his administration, and Barnes and Pager note that the U.S. military is also building up its resources in the region near Venezuela. The Pentagon has deployed 10,000 troops to the area, stationing most of them on bases in Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Navy has sent eight warships and a submarine.

This buildup comes as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has demanded that media outlets report only information authorized by department officials or lose their press credentials. All but a single far-right opinion network refused, leaving the department’s actions unscrutinized by the excellent journalists who had been covering the Pentagon. The Pentagon Press Association today said its members were “still committed to reporting on the U.S. military. But make no mistake,” it said, “today, Oct. 15, 2025 is a dark day for press freedom that raises concerns about a weakening U.S. commitment to transparency in governance, to public accountability at the Pentagon and to free speech for all.”

Natasha Bertrand and Zachary Cohen of CNN reported today that at least one of the U.S. strikes in the Caribbean—the one on September 19—targeted a boat that had left Colombia and was manned by Colombian nationals. The journalists note that “he deliberate targeting of Colombians…suggests that the U.S. military’s campaign against suspected narcotics trafficking groups in the Caribbean is wider than previously believed.”

Last week, the deputy director of the CIA, Michael Ellis, made himself the CIA’s general counsel.

Yesterday Trump compared the strikes on “drug boats” with public executions Hamas supporters have carried out in Gaza in the wake of the ceasefire deal there. “They killed a number of gang members,” Trump said. “And that didn’t bother me much, to be honest with you. That’s ok, it’s a couple of very bad gangs. You know it’s no different than other countries—like Venezuela sent their gangs into us and we took care of those gangs.”

Today Trump announced that he has the power to pay furloughed troops by taking any unused funds Congress appropriated for fiscal year 2026 and using that money to pay the troops.

As budget and tax specialist Bobby Kogan notes, this is wildly illegal: only Congress can appropriate money and determine how it is spent, a constitutional requirement reinforced by the Antideficiency Act clarifying that it is illegal for the government to spend money that was not appropriated for that purpose. The military is funded on an annual basis, so when funding ran out on September 30, so did money to pay the troops.

Kogan explains that Trump is turning to the account for research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDTE), which was funded for two years and still has money. But, as Kogan points out, that shift creates another problem: as soon as the money is taken to pay the troops, it becomes unusable because that money ceased to be available on September 30.

Kogan notes Trump’s order should also be unnecessary: Congress would pass a measure to pay the troops easily if only House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) would call the House into session. Democrats have been begging Johnson to bring such a measure to the floor.

Trump says that because he is commander in chief, he has the right to this power.

Like He-Man but fatter and old and no giant cat

Thanks.

Seems the USA is probably unfixably broken.

Michael V said:

Thanks.

Seems the USA is probably unfixably broken.

well that’s a bit unfair and not true Pangaea fell apart once too

Michael V said:

Thanks.

Seems the USA is probably unfixably broken.

That crossed my mind too. Whoever has to try to drag the USA back out of the mess is going to have one hell of a job.

buffy said:

Michael V said:

Thanks.

Seems the USA is probably unfixably broken.

That crossed my mind too. Whoever has to try to drag the USA back out of the mess is going to have one hell of a job.

probably CHINA they’ll save the world

SCIENCE said:

Michael V said:

Thanks.

Seems the USA is probably unfixably broken.

well that’s a bit unfair and not true Pangaea fell apart once too

All a bit Humpty-Dumpty.

Michael V said:

SCIENCE said:

Michael V said:

Thanks.

Seems the USA is probably unfixably broken.

well that’s a bit unfair and not true Pangaea fell apart once too

All a bit Humpty-Dumpty.

if they hadn’t got rid of all the kings horses and all the kings men, then they probably wouldn’t be in this situation to start with…

furious said:

Michael V said:

SCIENCE said:

well that’s a bit unfair and not true Pangaea fell apart once too

All a bit Humpty-Dumpty.

if they hadn’t got rid of all the kings horses and all the kings men, then they probably wouldn’t be in this situation to start with…

Ha!

:)

Michael V said:

Thanks.

Seems the USA is probably unfixably broken.

I don’t think there is any going back to “normal”.

party_pants said:

Michael V said:

Thanks.

Seems the USA is probably unfixably broken.

I don’t think there is any going back to “normal”.

it’s situation normal

SCIENCE said:

party_pants said:

Michael V said:

Thanks.

Seems the USA is probably unfixably broken.

I don’t think there is any going back to “normal”.

it’s situation normal

It’s great again

Divine Angel said:

SCIENCE said:

party_pants said:

I don’t think there is any going back to “normal”.

it’s situation normal

It’s great again

I think they are already in decline, and accelerating :p

SCIENCE said:

party_pants said:

Michael V said:

Thanks.

Seems the USA is probably unfixably broken.

I don’t think there is any going back to “normal”.

it’s situation normal

SNAFU

October 16, 2025 (Thursday)

Yesterday the Trump administration announced it would pay furloughed troops by using funds Congress appropriated for research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDTE) for fiscal year 2026. Today White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump had “found a creative solution to keep the troops paid. And rather than congratulate the president for doing that, this unprecedented action to get our troops paid, the Democrats want to sue him for it. They’re saying that it’s illegal.”

Democrats are saying it’s illegal because it is illegal. The Antideficiency Act, a law that has evolved over time since 1870, prohibits the government from spending money that Congress has not appropriated for that purpose, or agreeing to contracts that spend money Congress has not appropriated for that purpose.

This summer, Democratic senators charged Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem with triggering the Antideficiency Act by overspending her department’s budget, but Trump’s claim that he can move government money around as he wishes is an even greater threat to the country than Noem’s overspending.

There is more at stake here than a broken law.

Trump’s assumption of power over the government’s purse is a profound attack on the principles on which the Founders justified independence from King George III in 1776. The Founders stood firm on the principle articulated all the way back to the Magna Carta in 1215 that the government could not spend money without consulting those putting up that money by paying taxes.

That principle was at the heart of the American Revolution. The 1773 Tea Act that sparked Sons of Liberty in Boston, Massachusetts, to throw chests of tea into Boston Harbor did not raise the price of tea in the colonies; the law lowered those prices. To pay for the cost of what colonists knew as the French and Indian War, Parliament in 1767 had taxed glass, lead, oil, paint, paper, and tea, but boycotts and protests had forced Parliament to repeal all the taxes except the one on tea. It kept that tax to maintain the principle that it could tax the colonies despite the fact they were unrepresented in that body.

Then, in 1773, Parliament gave a monopoly on colonial tea sales to the foundering British East India Tea Company. That monopoly would have the effect of lowering the price of tea. Lower prices should persuade colonists to buy the tea despite the tax, thus cementing the principle that Parliament could tax the colonies without their consent. But colonists protested the maneuver. In December 1773, the Sons of Liberty held what became known as the Boston Tea Party, ruining newly arrived chests of tea by throwing them into the harbor, thus paving the route to the American Revolution.

When leaders from the former colonies wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787, they made sure the people retained control over the nation’s finances in order to guarantee that a demagogue could not use tax money to concentrate power in his own hands. They gave the power to write the laws to the legislative branch—the House of Representatives and the Senate—alone, giving the president power only to agree to or veto those measures. Once the laws were enacted, the president’s role was to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

To make sure that the power of the purse remained in the hands of the people, the Framers wrote into the Constitution that “ll Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”

Trump’s declaration that he will ignore the laws Congress passed and take it upon himself to spend money as he wishes undermines not just the Antideficiency Act but also the fundamental principle that the American people must have control over their own finances. That Leavitt suggests giving up that principle to pay the troops, which lawmakers agree is imperative but cannot write into law because Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) will not recall the House of Representatives, echoes the Tea Act that would have thrown away the principle of having a say in government for cheaper tea.

Since Trump took office, his administration has undermined the principle that Congress controls funding. It had withheld funds Congress appropriated, a practice that violates the 1974 Impoundment Act and the Constitution. The cost of such impoundment became evident on Sunday, when catastrophic flooding hit the village of Kipnuk, Alaska, a disaster Andrew Freedman of CNN notes was exacerbated by the lack of weather data after cuts left a critical shortage in weather balloon coverage in the area.

Earlier this year the administration cancelled a $20 million Biden-era Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant awarded to the community to prevent flooding. Maxine Joselow and Lisa Friedman of the New York Times noted that when EPA administrator Lee Zeldin cut grants this year, he boasted that he was eliminating “wasteful and Environmental Justice grants.”

Now that the government is shut down, Trump has told reporters that his administration is using the shutdown to take funds Congress appropriated away from Democratic districts. Tony Romm and Lazaro Gamio of the New York Times estimate that the administration has cancelled more than $27.24 billion in funds for Democratic districts and states while cutting $738.7 million from Republican districts and states. Speaker Johnson told reporters he thought such withholding was both lawful and constitutional but did not explain his reasoning.

Today Annie Grayer and Adam Cancryn of CNN reported that not just Democratic representatives but also Republicans are out of the loop of presidential funding cuts, finding out about cuts to their districts through press releases. Even Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said “we are really not consulted.”

Speaker Johnson told CNN that he hasn’t received details about the administration’s offer of $20 billion in public money and another $20 billion in private-sector financing to Argentina to prop up the government of Trump’s right-wing ally Javier Milei before upcoming elections there.

Trump is also taking control of the previously nonpartisan Department of Justice (DOJ). Yesterday, in the Oval Office, Trump stood in front of three top officials from the DOJ and called for investigations into former deputy attorney general in the Biden administration Lisa Monaco; former FBI official Andrew Weissman, who led the team investigating the ties between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russian operatives; former special counsel Jack Smith, who investigated and indicted Trump for the events of January 6 and for retaining classified documents; and Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), who led the House impeachment team in Trump’s first impeachment trial.
Glenn Thrush of the New York Times noted the DOJ officials “smiled, nodded and shuffled in place as he spoke.”

Today a federal grand jury in Maryland indicted John Bolton, who served as national security advisor in Trump’s first term, alleging that he shared classified information in the form of a diary with two of his relatives. That material later informed his book The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir, which covered his time in the first Trump administration and so infuriated Trump that he tried to stop its publication.

The grand jury charged Bolton with eight counts of communicating secret information with those not entitled to receive it, and ten counts of having unauthorized possession of documents containing secret information. These charges are similar to those Jack Smith brought against Trump himself, although Trump’s election to a second term stopped that prosecution.

The indictment references Bolton’s criticism of the Trump administration’s handling of secret information, in particular Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s use of the Signal messaging app to plan a military strike on the Houthis in Yemen, especially after a journalist had been added to the call, and Hegseth’s additional Signal chat about the strike with family and friends.

A court will determine the merits of the case against Bolton, but there is no doubt it is intended to send a signal to others in government that Trump will persecute those whom he perceives as disloyal.

Today, Steady State, a group made up of more than 340 former U.S. intelligence officers from the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the State Department, and other intelligence agencies, released a report assessing the state of American democracy. Applying the tools of their craft to the U.S., they assess that the nation is “on a trajectory toward competitive authoritarianism: a system in which elections, courts, and other democratic institutions persist in form but are systematically manipulated to entrench executive control.”

The report, titled Accelerating Authoritarian Dynamics: Assessment of Democratic Decline, finds that American democracy is weakening as the Executive Branch is consolidating power and “actively weaponizing state institutions to punish perceived opponents and shield allies,” and that Congress is refusing to check the president, “creating openings for authoritarian exploitation.”

“We judge that the primary driver of the U.S.’s increasing authoritarianism is the increased frequency of Executive Branch overreach,” the report says, noting that “President Donald J. Trump has leveraged emergency powers, executive orders, federalized military forces, and bureaucratic politicization to consolidate control and weaken checks and balances.”

But the Trump administration is increasingly unpopular. Trump loyalists are working overtime to portray those who oppose the administration as anti-American criminals and terrorists. Today White House press secretary Leavitt told the Fox News Channel that “he Democrat Party’s main constituency are made up of Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals,” and administration loyalists have spent the week claiming that the No Kings rally scheduled for Saturday, October 18, is a “hate America rally.”

Joe Perticone of The Bulwark noted that Indivisible, the organization sponsoring the No Kings protests, “has an extensive track record that shows a longstanding emphasis on safety and nonviolence.” Perticone spoke to Ezra Levin, co–executive director of Indivisible, who said: “Go to a No Kings rally. What do you see? You see moms and grandmas and kids and dogs and funny signs and dancing and happy displays of opposition to the regime that are foundationally nonviolent. And on the other end, you’ve got a regime that’s led by a guy who cheered the January 6th insurrection.”

Levin noted that authoritarian regimes fear mass organizing and peaceful protest because they reveal a regime’s unpopularity and show that it is losing its grip on power.
Much as tossing chests of tea into Boston Harbor did about 250 years ago.

Thank you. I meant to do this yesterday and spent time identifying stuff on iNaturalist instead.

October 17, 2025 (Friday)

On the morning of October 18, 1775, a small fleet of Royal Navy vessels opened fire on the seaport town that is now known as Portland, Maine. Under the direction of Captain Henry Mowat, the ships fired incendiary shot into the trading port’s wooden buildings, which caught fire. A landing party followed to complete the destruction of 400 buildings in the town. By the time the sun went down, almost all of the town was smouldering ruins.

The burning of the town then known as Falmouth, Massachusetts—not the same town as today’s Falmouth, Maine, or Falmouth, Massachusetts, on Cape Cod—was retaliation for raids local mariners had made against British ships along the coast of New England. Since 1765, with the arrival of news of the Stamp Act to raise revenue to pay for the French and Indian War, residents of Falmouth had joined other colonists in protesting British policies.

In spring 1775, the colonies agreed to boycott British goods in order to pressure Parliament into addressing their grievances. In March a shipload of sails, rope, and rigging arrived in Falmouth for a loyalist shipbuilder. Patriots demanded the ship carrying the supplies leave port, but they agreed to let it undergo repairs before heading back across the Atlantic Ocean. While shipbuilders worked on the vessel, the British man-of-war Canceaux arrived from Boston under the command of Captain Henry Mowat. Under the Canceaux’s protection, the loyalist unloaded the ship’s cargo.

While the Canceaux lay at anchor, news arrived of the Battles of Lexington and Concord, where British regulars had opened fire on the colony’s militiamen. When they heard of the battles, militia from Brunswick, about 25 miles (40 kilometers) north of Falmouth, decided to capture the Canceaux. Led by tavern owner Samuel Thompson, they traveled to Falmouth in small boats in May and captured Mowat while he was on shore. The sailors on the Canceaux threatened to shell the town if the militia didn’t release Mowat. Eventually, the militiamen released him but refused to turn Thompson over for punishment, and locals forced the Canceaux to leave the harbor.

In June, when news of the Brunswick militia’s escapade reached militiamen in Machias, near the Canadian border, they decided to capture the Margaretta, a British armed schooner that was protecting two merchant ships carrying supplies to the troops hunkered down in Boston after the Battles of Lexington and Concord.

Heartened by these successes, during the summer of 1775, American privateers raided British ships. Coming after the Battles of Lexington and Concord, their harassment helped to convince the king’s Cabinet that they must use military and naval force to put down the rebellion in the colonies.

On October 6, 1775, Vice-Admiral Samuel Graves, who commanded the British North Atlantic fleet, decided he would regain control of the coastal townspeople by terrorizing them. He ordered Captain Mowat to retaliate against the colonists, directing him to take four ships and “lay waste burn and destroy such Seaport Towns as are accessible to his Majesty’s Ships.” “My Design is to chastize Marblehead, Salem, Newbury Port, Cape Anne Harbour, Portsmouth, Ipswich, Saco, Falmouth in Casco Bay, and particularly Mechias where the Margueritta was taken,” Graves wrote. “You are to go to all or to as many of the above named Places as you can, and make the most vigorous Efforts to burn the Towns, and destroy the Shipping in the Harbours.”

Mowat decided against attacking the towns near Boston, recognizing that they were close enough together to mount a spirited defense. Instead, he headed for Falmouth, dropping anchor there on October 16. The next day, Mowat accused the townspeople of “the most unpardonable Rebellion” and informed them that he had “orders to execute a just Punishment on the Town of Falmouth.” He warned them “to remove without delay the Human Species out of the said town” and gave them two hours to clear out.

The townspeople were shocked. An eyewitness recalled that a committee of three men asked Mowat what was going on, and he answered “that his Orders were to set fire on all the Sea Port Towns between Boston and Halifax & that he expected New York was then Burnt to Ashes.” The committee negotiated to put off the attack for the night, but they would not agree to Mowat’s promise to spare the town if they would relinquish all their weapons and hand over “Four Gentlemen of the Town as Hostages.”

Throughout the night, the townspeople hurried to save their possessions and move out of danger.

The next morning was clear and calm, and at 9:40 the Canceaux and the other ships opened fire. “In a few minutes the whole town was involved in smoak and combustion,” an eyewitness recalled. “The crackling of the flames, the falling of the houses, the bursting of the shells, the heavy thunder of the cannon, threw the elements into frightful noise and commotion, and occasioned the very foundations of surrounding nature to quake and tremble.” When a lack of wind kept the fires contained, Mowat sent sailors ashore to spread them.

Although Admiral Graves was pleased with Mowat’s assault on Falmouth, the attack backfired spectacularly.

Rather than terrorizing the colonists into submission, the burning of Falmouth steeled their resolve. From his position at the head of the brand new Continental Army in Cambridge, Massachusetts, George Washington wrote to revolutionary leader John Hancock that the burning of Falmouth was “an Outrage exceeding in Barbarity & Cruelty every hostile Act practised among civilized Nations.”

Washington noted that Mowat had warned that he would make similar attacks on port towns all along the coastline, prompting the Continental Congress on November 25 to authorize American ships to capture British armed vessels, transports, and supply ships. Meanwhile, the people in the coastal towns fortified their defenses and prepared to fire back at any attacking British ships.

Colonists saw the burning of Falmouth as proof that their government had turned against them, and began to suggest they must declare independence. About a month after Falmouth burned, William Whipple, a prominent resident of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, wrote to a friend that the destruction and threat to visit such ruin on other towns caused “everyone to risque his all in Support of his Liberties & privileges…the unheard of cruelties of the enemy have so effectually unified us that I believe there are not four persons now in Portsmouth who do not the Tyranny of Great Britain.”

October 18, 2025 (Saturday)

Today, millions of Americans and their allies turned out across the United States and around the globe to demonstrate their commitment to American democracy and their opposition to a president and an administration apparently bent on replacing that democracy with a dictatorship.

Administration loyalists tried to claim the No Kings protests would be “hate America” rallies of “the pro-Hamas wing and Antifa people.” Texas governor Greg Abbott deployed the Texas National Guard ahead of the No Kings Day protests, warning that “iolence and destruction will never be tolerated in Texas.”

In fact, protesters turned out waving American flags and wearing frog and unicorn and banana costumes and carrying homemade signs that demanded the release of the Epstein files and defended Lady Liberty. They laughed and danced and took selfies and sang. City police departments, including those of New York City, San Diego, and Washington, D.C., said they had made no protest-related arrests.

In Oakland, California, Mother Jones senior editor Michael Mechanic interviewed a man named Justin, asking him if, as a Black man, he had particular concerns about the actions of the Trump administration.

Justin answered: “You know…a lot of times I have a hopeless feeling, but…being out here today just reminds me about the beauty of America and American protests. And, you know, the fact that they tried to…stomp on this, step on this, you know, say it’s non-American, because that’s what I’ve been reading a lot about. No, this is the point of America right here: to be able to have this opportunity to protest…. does not look like Antifa, Hamas, none of this stuff that they’re talking about…. ou know, this is the beauty of America.”

The No Kings demonstrations ran the gamut from hundreds of thousands of protesters in large, blue cities, to smaller crowds in small towns in Republican-dominated states. Together, they demonstrate that the administration’s claims to popularity are a lie. Such a high turnout means businesses and institutions that thought they must cater to the administration to appeal to a majority of Americans will be forced to recalculate.

And the protests showed that Americans care fervently about democracy.

Today, millions of Americans and their allies turned out across the United States and around the globe to demonstrate their commitment to American democracy and their opposition to a president and an administration apparently bent on replacing democracy with a dictatorship.

Thanks Neophyte. I love that sign.

I am reading HCR’s Facebook page, where people are commenting from all over the place. Seems to have been a big turnout everywhere. This picture caught my attention on one of the posts, from Coupeville, WA..

And quite a pertinent comment:

“One of my protest buddies remarked that the beauty of having protests all over, is 1) the travel barrier to attendance is lowered, and 2) passersby get to see their neighbors on the corners and sidewalks and plazas – and they realize they are not alone.”

October 19, 2025 (Sunday)

All last week, Republican leaders tried to portray the No Kings protests scheduled for Saturday, October 18, as “Hate America” rallies. G. Elliott Morris of Strength in Numbers partnered with Atlanta-based science newsroom The Xylom to estimate that as many as 8.2 million people turned out yesterday to oppose the Trump administration. The mood at the protests was joyful and peaceful, with protesters holding signs that championed American principles of democracy, free speech, equality, and the rule of law. As the Grand Junction, Colorado, Daily Sentinel put it in a front-page headline: “‘This is America’ ‘No Kings’ protests against Trump bring a street party vibe to cities nationwide.”

Then last night, after the protests, the president’s social media account posted an AI-generated video showing Trump in a fighter jet with “KING TRUMP” painted on the side. The president sits in the airplane in front of something round that could be seen as a halo. He is wearing a gold crown; weirdly, the oxygen mask is over his mouth and chin, rather than mouth and nose.

Once in the air, the plane drops excrement on American cities, including what seems to be New York City. The excrement drenches protesters, one of whom is 23-year-old liberal political commentator and influencer Harry Sisson. Journalist Aaron Rupar of Public Notice, who shares media clips that reflect politics, commented: “Trump posts AI video showing him literally dumping sh*t on America.” Historian Larry Glickman noted that media outlets make much of alleged Democratic disdain for ordinary Americans, but have had little to say about the disdain for Americans embodied by Trump’s video.

Several administration videos and images have responded to Americans saying “No Kings” by taking the position “Yes, We Want Kings,” an open embrace of the end of democracy. But they are more than simple trolling. Led by Trump, MAGA Republicans have abandoned the idea of politics, which is the process of engaging in debate and negotiation to attract support and win power. What is left when a system loses the give and take of politics is force.

The idea that leaders must attract voters with reasoned arguments to win power and must concede power when their opponents win has been the central premise of American government since 1800. In that year, after a charged election in which each side accused the other of trying to destroy the country, Federalist John Adams turned the reins of government over to the leader of the opposition, Thomas Jefferson. That peaceful transfer of power not only protected the people, it protected leaders who had lost the support of voters, giving them a way to leave office safely and either retire or regroup to make another run at power.

The peaceful transfer of power symbolized the nation’s political system and became the hallmark of the United States of America. It lasted until January 6, 2021, when sitting president Trump refused to accept the voters’ election of Democrat Joe Biden, the leader of the opposition.

Now back in power, Trump and his loyalists are continuing to undermine the idea of politics, policies, and debate, trying instead to delegitimize the Democratic opposition altogether. Yesterday, during the protests, President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D Vance, and the official White House social media account posted a video of Trump placing a royal crown on his head, draping a royal robe around his shoulders, and unsheathing and brandishing a sword (an image that raises questions about why Trump wanted one of General Dwight D. Eisenhower’s swords so badly that he had the museum director who refused to hand it over fired). In the video, Democratic leaders including former House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and what appears to be Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) first kneel and then bow to Trump.

Administration imagery doesn’t simply insult opposition leaders; it undermines the idea of politics by suggesting that Democrats are un-American. Last night the White House continued its racist crusade against Democratic leaders by posted an AI-generated image of Trump and Vance wearing jewel-encrusted crowns positioned above an image of House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wearing Mexican sombreros. The caption reads: “We’re built different.”

The administration’s hostility to loyal opposition is translating into direct assaults on our government. House speaker Mike Johnson is refusing to seat a member of the opposition. Voters chose representative-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) on September 23 to fill a vacant House seat, but Johnson has come up with one reason after another not to seat her. Until she is sworn in, she has no access to government resources and cannot represent her constituents. She also cannot be the 218th signature on a discharge petition that would force a vote on whether to demand the release of the Epstein files, the final signature needed.

Grijalva recorded a video reinforcing the political system, saying: “We need to get to work, get on the floor, and negotiate so we can reopen the government.”

But Republican congressional leaders are refusing even to talk with Democrats to reopen the government, let alone to negotiate with them. They are trying to force Democrats simply to do as they say, despite the fact that 78% of Americans, including 59% of Republicans, support the Democrats’ demand for an extension of the tax credit that lowers the cost of healthcare premiums on the Affordable Care Act markets. Lindsay Wise, Anna Wilde Mathews, and Katy Stech Ferek of the Wall Street Journal reported today that more than three quarters of those who are insured through the ACA markets live in states that voted for Trump.

A video of Trump in a bomber attacking American cities carries an implied threat that the disdain of throwing excrement doesn’t erase. This morning, Trump reinforced that threat when he reminded Fox News Channel host Maria Bartiromo: “Don’t forget I can use the Insurrection Act. Fifty percent of the presidents almost have used that. And that’s unquestioned power. I choose not to, I’d rather do this, but I’m met constantly by fake politicians, politicians that think that, that you know they it’s not like a part of the radical left movement to have safety. These cities have to be safe.”

That “safety” apparently involves detaining U.S. citizens without due process. On Thursday, Nicole Foy of ProPublica reported that more than 170 U.S. citizens have been detained by immigration agents. She reports they “have been dragged, tackled, beaten, tased and shot by immigration agents. They’ve had their necks kneeled on. They’ve been held outside in the rain while in their underwear. At least three citizens were pregnant when agents detained them. One of those women had already had the door of her home blown off while Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem watched.”

On Friday, the Trump administration pushed its attempt to use the military in Democratic-led cities, asking the Supreme Court to let it deploy troops in Chicago immediately. Chris Geidner of Law Dork notes that four judges, two appointed by Democrats and two appointed by Republicans, have rejected the administration’s arguments for why they must send in troops. Now the Department of Justice has appealed to the Supreme Court, asking for a decision on the so-called shadow docket, which would provide a fast response, but one without any hearings or explanation.

The administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court warned that there was “pressing risk of violence” in Chicago—a premise the judges rejected—and said preventing Trump from going into the city “improperly impinges on the President’s authority.”

How much difference will the No Kings Day protests, even as big as they were, make in the face of the administration’s attempt to get rid of our democratic political system and replace it with authoritarianism? What good is an inflatable frog against federal agents?

Scholar of social movements Lisa Corrigan noted that large, fun marches full of art and music expand connections and make people more willing to take risks against growing state power. They build larger communities by creating new images that bring together recognizable images from the past in new ways, helping more people see themselves in such an opposition. The community and good feelings those gatherings develop help carry opposition through hard moments. Corrigan notes, too, that yesterday “every single rally (including in the small towns) was bigger than the surrounding police force available. That kind of image event is VERY IMPORTANT if you’re…demonstrating social coherence AGAINST a fascist government and its makeshift gestapo.”

Such rallies “bring together multigenerational groups and the playfulness can help create enthusiasm for big tent politics against the monoculture of fascism,” Corrigan writes. “The frogs (and unicorns and dinosaurs) will be defining ideographs of this period of struggle.”

Thanks.

The part sticking with me is the bit where they’re refusing to discuss the end of the shutdown with the Dems

Divine Angel said:

The part sticking with me is the bit where they’re refusing to discuss the end of the shutdown with the Dems

It’s a way of reducing the Public Service.

People need income. They will just move on. Three months and a very significant proportion of the public service will no longer work for the Government.

Very harsh, but unaffected by any court action.

October 20, 2025 (Monday)

Over the weekend, as millions of Americans attended “No Kings” protests, President Donald J. Trump’s social media accounts responded by posting images not just of Trump as a king—defecating on Americans, even—but also of Vice President J.D. Vance in a royal crown, suggesting that American democracy has been supplanted by tyranny that will last past Trump into the future.

In the United States, no man is a monarch: the law is supposed to be king. In January 1776, newly arrived immigrant Thomas Paine published Common Sense, explaining to his new countrymen why they should declare independence from the King of England. He called for a new government based not in heritage or tradition, but in the law. “n America the law is king,” Paine wrote. “For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”

But under Trump, the law is under attack.

Last night, on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Scott Pelley, Aaron Weisz, Aliza Chasan, and Ian Flickinger presented the story of Erez Reuveni, a former lawyer for the Department of Justice (DOJ) who alleges that the Trump administration is destroying the rule of law in America.

Reuveni was part of the first administration of President Donald J. Trump, where he defended Trump’s travel ban order, prohibiting travelers from Muslim majority countries from coming to the United States. He was so effective, the journalists note, he quickly took on a prominent role in Trump’s second term.

On March 14, the same day he was promoted to become the acting deputy director of the DOJ’s immigration section, Reuveni and others in his section met with Emil Bove, who had once been Trump’s criminal defense attorney and was then the third-highest official at the DOJ. Bove told the lawyers that Trump would invoke the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport more than 100 Venezuelan migrants the administration claimed were terrorists. They would not receive due process.

According to Reuveni, “Bove emphasized, those planes need to take off, no matter what. Then after a pause, he also told all in attendance, and if some court should issue an order preventing that, we may have to consider telling that court, ‘f*** you.’”

“I felt like a bomb had gone off,” Reuveni told “60 Minutes.” “Here is the number three official using expletives to tell career attorneys that we might just have to consider disregarding federal court orders.”

The next day, some of the prisoners sued, and U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg called a hearing. Boasberg asked Drew Ensign, representing the DOJ, whether the planes would be leaving that weekend. Ensign said he didn’t know, even though, according to Reuveni, Ensign was at the same meeting with Bove he was. Reuveni called that moment in court “stunning.”
“It is the highest, most egregious violation of a lawyer’s code of ethics to mislead a court with intent,” Reuveni told “60 Minutes.”

Boasberg ordered the planes not to leave and ordered the government to return any planes in the air. But instead, more than five hours after Boasberg’s order, the planes carrying the migrants arrived at the notorious terrorist prison CECOT in El Salvador.

“And then it really hit me. It’s like, we really did tell the court, screw you. We really did just tell the courts, we don’t care about your order. You can’t tell us what to do,” Reuveni told “60 Minutes.” “That was just a real gut punch.”

Then it turned out that Maryland man Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an undocumented immigrant from El Salvador whose deportation to El Salvador a U.S. court had prohibited, had been rendered to CECOT. Reuveni told CNN that one of his superiors called him and ordered him to say that Abrego Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang and a terrorist. Reuveni said he couldn’t say such a thing because it was a lie.

“What’s to stop them if they decide they don’t like you anymore, to say you’re a criminal, you’re a member of MS-13, you’re a terrorist,” Reuveni told “60 Minutes.” “What’s to stop them from sending in some DOJ attorney at the direction of DOJ leadership to delay, to filibuster, and if necessary, to lie? And now that’s you gone and your liberties changed.”

When Reuveni refused to sign a brief calling Abrego Garcia a terrorist, the administration fired him.

John Hudson, Jeremy Roebuck, and Samantha Schmidt of the Washington Post reported yesterday that the day before Reuveni was promoted and Bove called a meeting with him and other DOJ lawyers to tell them “the planes need to take off, no matter what,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio had a phone conversation with Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele. The Trump administration wanted to send hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to CECOT, but Bukele had a price.

Bukele wanted nine leaders of the MS-13 gang returned to El Salvador with the other prisoners. The individuals he wanted had threatened to expose the relationship between Bukele and MS-13. Bukele’s government has allegedly cut deals with MS-13 leaders to reduce the number of “public murders” to make it look as if homicide rates are falling, a development that boosts Bukele’s popularity.

The Washington Post journalists report that Rubio promised to return the MS-13 leaders. But some of those leaders were informants who were under the protection of the U.S. government. For years, U.S. law enforcement had worked first to capture high-ranking members of the deadly MS-13 gang and then to secure their cooperation with the promise of protection by the U.S. government. Rubio told Bukele the U.S. would renege on those agreements and turn the informants over to the government whose corruption they were exposing.

“The deal is a deep betrayal of U.S. law enforcement, whose agents risked their lives to apprehend the gang members,” said Douglas Farah, a contractor who had investigated and helped U.S. officials to dismantle MS-13. “Who would ever trust the word of U.S. law enforcement or prosecutors again?”

The “60 Minutes” story noted that the nonpartisan law journal Just Security has discovered more than 35 cases in which judges have said the government is lying to them. One judge warned that “trust that had been earned over generations has been lost in weeks.”

Republicans in the U.S. Senate confirmed Bove as a U.S. appeals court judge in July, although Republican senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska joined all Democrats in voting no. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said of Bove: “He has a strong legal background and has served his country honorably. I believe he will be diligent, capable and a fair jurist.”

At the same time the administration undermines the rule of law that the Founders expected would rule the nation, it is illustrating the destruction of the people’s government with a symbolism that is hard to miss.

Although the U.S. government has been shut down now for 20 days, leaving vital public servants without pay, work on Trump’s 90,000-square-foot ballroom has continued. In July, when he announced the project, Trump said: “It won’t interfere with the current building. It won’t be. It’ll be near it but not touching it—and pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of. It’s my favorite. It’s my favorite place. I love it.”

Trump’s promise notwithstanding, demolition crews have begun to tear down the East Wing of the White House, the “People’s House.” Jonathan Edward and Dan Diamond of the Washington Post noted that today a backhoe began ripping through the structure. The National Capital Planning Commission, which approves construction of federal buildings, has not signed off on the destruction, but in September, Will Weissert of the Associated Press reported that the Trump-appointed head of the commission, Will Scharf, who is also the White House staff secretary, said the board has no jurisdiction over demolition or site preparation. “What we deal with is essentially construction, vertical build,” Sharf said during the only public meeting about the ballroom.

But White House officials do not appear to want to advertise their destruction of part of the historic building. Natalie Andrews and Alex Leary of the Wall Street Journal reported that officials at the Treasury Department, which has a front-row seat to the demolition, have told employees not to share photos of the grounds. According to Trump, funding for his ballroom has been provided by dozens of companies, including Apple, Amazon, Lockheed Martin, and Coinbase. As of September, the White House had not yet submitted building plans to the National Capital Planning Commission.

The first president to live in the White House after its construction was a contemporary of Thomas Paine, John Adams. When he moved into the house in 1800, Adams wrote to his wife, Abigail: “I Pray Heaven To Bestow The Best Of Blessings On This House And All that shall hereafter Inhabit it. May none but Honest and Wise Men ever rule under This Roof.”

The yanks have kings, they just buy the power and status

Why else would you set up positions of power everywhere that you can be elected to directly.
Rule by money right instead of birth right

Throw money at it and charm the voters with moronic platitudes and you’re in.
You can then abuse that power just like kings and queens did

Have a non interfering government whose idea is not to do anything vaguely resembling socialism to help your population
They can interfere though and take away basic rights based on religious nonsense
Create underclasses with less privilege, offer them what should be basic needs if they join the military
Use them and then chuck them away when the return.

People really don’t understand how USA society really is about being capitalist pig dogs

Cymek said:

The yanks have kings, they just buy the power and status

Why else would you set up positions of power everywhere that you can be elected to directly.
Rule by money right instead of birth right

Throw money at it and charm the voters with moronic platitudes and you’re in.
You can then abuse that power just like kings and queens did

Have a non interfering government whose idea is not to do anything vaguely resembling socialism to help your population
They can interfere though and take away basic rights based on religious nonsense
Create underclasses with less privilege, offer them what should be basic needs if they join the military
Use them and then chuck them away when the return.

People really don’t understand how USA society really is about being capitalist pig dogs

Good synopsis Cymek.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

The yanks have kings, they just buy the power and status

Why else would you set up positions of power everywhere that you can be elected to directly.
Rule by money right instead of birth right

Throw money at it and charm the voters with moronic platitudes and you’re in.
You can then abuse that power just like kings and queens did

Have a non interfering government whose idea is not to do anything vaguely resembling socialism to help your population
They can interfere though and take away basic rights based on religious nonsense
Create underclasses with less privilege, offer them what should be basic needs if they join the military
Use them and then chuck them away when the return.

People really don’t understand how USA society really is about being capitalist pig dogs

Good synopsis Cymek.

I do think they do some fantastic things, produce all sorts of brilliant music, arts, tv, etc
Its more that they aren’t a nation we should hold up as an example of how it should be done.
They are economically and militarily powerful but that cost is high in terms of lack of social progression
That shouldn’t be the standard of success by which the world thinks is the pinnacle of achievement.
They are likely no worse than any other power that’s come and gone just the one we are familiar with.
I suppose I find it very strange that we still think in terms of nation states and you come first and everyone else is exploitable.
Wealth accumulation brings so many problems as people will sell out their morals and core belieggs

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

The yanks have kings, they just buy the power and status

Why else would you set up positions of power everywhere that you can be elected to directly.
Rule by money right instead of birth right

Throw money at it and charm the voters with moronic platitudes and you’re in.
You can then abuse that power just like kings and queens did

Have a non interfering government whose idea is not to do anything vaguely resembling socialism to help your population
They can interfere though and take away basic rights based on religious nonsense
Create underclasses with less privilege, offer them what should be basic needs if they join the military
Use them and then chuck them away when the return.

People really don’t understand how USA society really is about being capitalist pig dogs

Good synopsis Cymek.

I do think they do some fantastic things, produce all sorts of brilliant music, arts, tv, etc
Its more that they aren’t a nation we should hold up as an example of how it should be done.
They are economically and militarily powerful but that cost is high in terms of lack of social progression
That shouldn’t be the standard of success by which the world thinks is the pinnacle of achievement.
They are likely no worse than any other power that’s come and gone just the one we are familiar with.
I suppose I find it very strange that we still think in terms of nation states and you come first and everyone else is exploitable.
Wealth accumulation brings so many problems as people will sell out their morals and core belieggs

Brian Eno did a good take on the rich

Brian Eno perfectly explains selfishness of the super rich

October 21, 2025 (Tuesday)

On this, the twenty-first day of the government shutdown, President Donald J. Trump invited all but one Republican senator to lunch today at what he calls the “Rose Garden Club,” a patio where the White House Rose Garden used to be. The missing senator was Rand Paul (R-KY), whose determination to cut the national debt has led him to vote consistently against measures that will increase it, including the Republican continuing resolution to fund the government.

Trump boasted that the shutdown was enabling the administration to cut funding for what he continues to say are Democratic priorities, although the executive branch has no legal power to stop appropriations for congressionally approved projects, and Republican voters will also be hurt by the administration’s attempts to cut public programs and infrastructure projects. Trump called out director of the Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought, calling him “Darth Vader” as he slashes through funding and fires government workers.

Jay O’Brien of ABC News reported this afternoon that a number of states are warning that they will not be able to continue to provide Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits after November 1 unless the shutdown ends. SNAP serves about 42 million Americans and was already under pressure because the Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill of July—the one they call the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act—cut about $186 billion out of the program over ten years. Now, Texas, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and New York have warned they cannot fund the program if the shutdown continues.

Meanwhile, House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is refusing to call the House into session, keeping its members out of Washington, D.C., and thus continuing to jam the Senate into passing the House continuing resolution. As Mychael Schnell of MSNBC noted, keeping the House out of session also keeps members away from the congressional press corps, where the divisions in the Republican conference could go public.

Johnson also insists that keeping the House out of session is preventing him from swearing in representative-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ), who was chosen by voters on September 23, although speakers have sworn in representatives during pro forma sessions in the past. Grijalva has said she will be the 218th signature on a discharge petition that would force a vote on whether to demand the release of the Epstein files, the final signature needed.

Today the state of Arizona and Grijalva sued the House of Representatives over Johnson’s refusal to swear Grijalva in, thus depriving her Arizona constituents of representation. Arizona Attorney General Kristin Mayes wrote: “This case is about whether someone duly elected to the House—who indisputably meets the constitutional qualifications of the office—may be denied her rightful office simply because the Speaker has decided to keep the House out of ‘regular session.’” Mayes has asked the court to authorize someone else to swear Grijalva into office.

Kate Riga and Emine Yücel of Talking Points Memo note that the lawsuit addresses Johnson’s excuse for delaying Grijalva’s swearing-in by saying that then–House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) delayed the swearing-in of Representative Julia Letlow (R-VA) until about a month after her election. In fact, Pelosi contacted Letlow to see when she would like to be sworn in. “Ms. Grijalva would be delighted if Speaker Johnson would contact her to commit to a mutually agreeable time, as Speaker Pelosi did for Dr. Letlow,” the lawsuit notes.

Johnson called the lawsuit “absurd” and said it was “a publicity stunt.”

Meanwhile, Michael Stratford of Politico reported today that the United States has signed an “economic stabilization agreement” with Argentina’s central bank, offering extraordinary assistance to Argentina as its economy under Trump ally Javier Milei plummets. The agreement commits the U.S. to swapping $20 billion in currency to prop up the Argentine peso, in addition to at least two previous direct purchases of pesos.

Treasury secretary Scott Bessent has also said the government is arranging for private lenders or sovereign wealth funds to put another $20 billion into the Argentine economy. But, as Alexander Saeedy and Santiago Pérez of the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday, banks want security from the United States that they will get their money back if the Argentine economy continues to sink.

On Sunday, Trump suggested to reporters that the U.S. might also buy Argentine beef, saying such a purchase would help bring down prices in the U.S. But with Argentina having undercut U.S. soybean farmers in the Chinese market, U.S. cattle farmers met this suggestion with anger. As Lori Ann LaRocco of CNBC reported today, they say that their own herds are dwindling because of drought and the parasitic screwworm and that the government isn’t doing enough to address those problems.

Bessent claims that Argentina is a “systematically important ally” of the U.S., but as economist Paul Krugman noted in his newsletter last week, that importance is not economic. Unlike Mexico, which borders the U.S. and which accounted for 10% of U.S. exports when the U.S. stepped in to help stabilize its economy in 1994, Argentina is not geographically close and accounts for less than 0.5% of U.S. exports.

Argentina’s systematic importance to the administration is, as Krugman notes, both that the administration wants a Trump-like politician to succeed and apparently that some of Bessent’s hedge-fund billionaire associates invested heavily in Argentine bonds in a bet on Milei. Bailing out the government even for a short while will let them get their money out.

In contrast to the administration’s approach to Argentina, with its right-wing government, Trump announced on Sunday that the U.S. would raise tariffs on Colombia and end funding to the country, although Jeff Mason, Andy Sullivan, and David Ljunggren of Reuters note that funding in the past primarily came from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which the Trump administration has already shut down. Trump claimed that leftist Colombian president Gustavo Petro is “an illegal drug dealer,” calling him “low rated and very unpopular.” He added that Petro “better close up” drug operations “or the United States will close them up for him, and it won’t be done nicely.” Trump complained that Petro has shown “a fresh mouth toward America.”

For his part, Petro posted on social media that “U.S. government officials have committed murder and violated our sovereignty in territorial waters.” He was referring to a September 16 strike by U.S. forces on a boat in the Caribbean that killed at least one Colombian national. “The United States has invaded our national territory, fired a missile to kill a humble fisherman, and destroyed his family, his children,” Petro wrote. Yesterday, Colombia recalled its ambassador to the U.S.

Catie Edmondson of the New York Times reports that despite the shutdown, the administration has found $172 million to buy two Gulfstream private jets for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other Homeland Security officials. The initial request of the department was for $50 million for a single new plane. The Department of Homeland Security called the new purchase “a matter of safety.”

Devlin Barrett and Tyler Pager of the New York Times reported today that Trump is demanding that the Department of Justice hand over about $230 million to compensate him for investigating the ties between his 2016 campaign and Russian operatives and for violating his privacy by searching Mar-a-Lago for classified documents in 2022. Trump filed the claims in 2023 and 2024. Now his own appointees will decide whether the American taxpayers should pay the compensation Trump wants.

When Kaitlan Collins asked Trump about the demand tonight, Trump answered that media outlets had paid him settlements because “what they did was wrong. And, you know, when somebody does what’s wrong—now, with the country, it’s interesting, because I’m the one that makes a decision, right? And, you know, that decision would have to go across my desk, and it’s awfully strange to make a decision where I’m paying myself. In other words, did you ever have one of those cases where you have to decide how much you’re paying yourself in damages? But I was damaged very greatly, and any money that I would get, I would give to charity.”

The demolition of the East Wing of the White House continued today.

This afternoon, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) took the floor of the Senate to hold it through the night “to protest Trump’s grave threats to democracy.” He said: “We cannot pretend this is normal.”

Thanks…I was halfway through formatting that!

:)

buffy said:

Thanks…I was halfway through formatting that!

:)

I don’t quite consider myself the HCR monitor just yet :-)

Neophyte said:

buffy said:

Thanks…I was halfway through formatting that!

:)

I don’t quite consider myself the HCR monitor just yet :-)

It doesn’t matter who copies it across to here. We don’t usually manage to do it at the same time though.

fhakes sist

Oops.

October 22, 2025 (Wednesday)

“It’s not his house. It’s your house. And he’s destroying it.”

Yesterday, former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton cut to the heart of President Donald J. Trump’s destruction of the East Wing of the White House.

Indeed, that might have been the whole point. After saying in July that the ballroom he planned to build would not touch the East Wing, the president tore into the building on Monday, the first workday after about seven million people turned out for the No Kings protests to demonstrate their opposition to his administration.

There are currently no approved plans to rebuild, no permits, no signs of weatherproofing for a construction project begun just before winter, no indication that the history or the paintings or the artifacts in the East Wing were preserved. There is only the destruction of the People’s House.

Today, Luke Broadwater of the New York Times reported that Trump will demolish the entire East Wing. According to a senior administration official, the demolition should be finished by this weekend.

Today the U.S. military struck another vessel the administration claims was smuggling drugs into the U.S., killing two people on board. This is the eighth strike that has been made public; the U.S. strikes have killed at least 34 people. According to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, this strike was operating in the eastern Pacific, widening the zone the administration is patrolling for those it claims are enemy combatants, a legal claim that experts widely reject.

Eleanor Watson of CBS News noted that on Sunday, Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) told Margaret Brennan of “Face the Nation” that when administration officials briefed Congress about the strikes, they “had a very hard time explaining to us the rationale, the legal rationale for doing this and the constitutionality of doing it.” The officials informed Congress that they have “a secret list of over 20 narco organizations, drug trafficking cartels,” but they did not share the list with lawmakers.

National security scholar Tom Nichols commented on today’s strike: “The president is establishing the principle that he can order the murder of anyone he deems a threat. And Congress is letting it happen.”

Today the Pentagon announced a new press corps to cover Hegseth and the Defense Department after the traditional pool turned in their press badges rather than agree to publish only material approved by Defense Department officials. Among those who walked out were Hegseth’s former colleagues at the Fox News Channel. The new press corps—all of whom accepted the Pentagon’s censorship—consists of right-wing outlets, including LindellTV, run by “MyPillow” chief executive officer and key election denier Mike Lindell, and podcaster Tim Pool, who was funded by Russia before the 2024 election.

Yesterday, Devlin Barrett and Tyler Pager of the New York Times reported that Trump is demanding the Department of Justice hand over about $230 million to compensate him for investigating the ties between his 2016 campaign and Russian operatives and for violating his privacy by searching Mar-a-Lago for classified documents in 2022. Trump filed the claims in 2023 and 2024. His own appointees will decide whether to approve the claims.

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo wrote today: “ow do you top ordering your appointees to cut you a check for $230 million taxpayer dollars…. What thing can be more unimaginable and beyond belief than the president just saying, Cut me a check for a quarter billion dollars? What can be weirder than his bulldozing a big chunk of the White House?”

“The real story here is that Trump has been operating as king or dictator for going on a year,” Marshall wrote. “There’s no accountability for anything. No limits, no penalties. So the demands keep spiraling.”

Speaking with Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), Chris Hayes of “All In with Chris Hayes” admitted that the destruction of the East Wing hit him hard. “There was really something visceral about those images that landed,” he told the senator. “I wonder if you or other colleagues or other people you’re talking to have had that same reaction.”

Murphy answered: “here’s a lot of history that has taken place in the East Wing, and it was just destroyed without any conversation in the American public, without any consent of Congress. It was absolutely illegal…. hat visual is powerful because you are essentially watching the destruction of the rule of law happen as those walls come down. It is just a symbol about how cavalier he is, about every single day acting in new and illegal ways.

“That’s the story with the killings in the Caribbean, as well. The president just doesn’t believe that any law applies to him, that he can destroy federal property, that he can steal from American citizens, that he can kill with impunity, that he can throw anyone in jail.

“We are not living in a functional democracy any longer. It’s not too late to save it, but it is just important to acknowledge that we aren’t on the precipice of losing our democracy. We are losing it every single day. We are not a functional nation with a rule of law any longer, and those toppled walls in the East Wing are a pretty stark reminder of that.”

Marshall, though, noted that Trump’s behavior “opens up opportunities the political opposition can and must exploit.” The president is “increasingly reckless, acting like someone who is free from any consequences or the need for support from anyone beyond his admirers.” But “he reality is that Trump is deeply unpopular.”

Some evidence for that unpopularity today came in the form of Treasury Department sanctions against Russia’s two largest oil companies, which suggest the administration feels it can no longer entirely ignore Republican senators. As Hans Nichols and Stef W. Kight of Axios recalled yesterday, bipartisan majorities in the Senate have been demanding sanctions since July, when Trump put them off by saying he would impose sanctions in 50 days if Russia’s president Vladimir Putin didn’t end his war in Ukraine. Then, in August, Trump invited Putin to Alaska, and Senate Republicans backed off to give the president room to negotiate.

Last week, Senate majority leader John Thune (R-SD) signaled he was ready to move forward, and lawmakers and aides told the press the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would pass three bills to increase pressure on Russia. One would label Russia a state sponsor of terrorism, one would impose economic penalties on China for its support of Russia, and the third would transfer Russian assets frozen in the U.S. to Ukraine.

Today the administration announced its own, much more limited, sanctions.

On Monday the White House was forced to withdraw Trump’s nomination for Paul Ingrassia to head the Office of Special Counsel, a watchdog agency. Republican senators said they would not confirm him after the publication of texts in which Ingrassia said he has “a Nazi streak in me.” Ingrassia still works for the administration but will not move to the head of the Office of Special Counsel.

Former Trump fixer Michael Cohen wrote on Meidas+, “The Senate—this 119th Congress, which has spent nine months acting like an annex of the West Wing—finally pushed back. This is the same chamber that greenlit Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at Health and Human Services and Pete Hegseth at Defense, both appointments that made career staffers consider early retirement.”

But, he continued, “some line was finally crossed. Maybe it was the word ‘Nazi.’ Maybe it was the timing,” coming as it did just days after the exposure of another group of young Republicans texting Nazi talk. “Maybe Thune—a man who’s built his career on calculated restraint—decided he wasn’t going to be remembered as the Senate leader who confirmed the guy with the Nazi jokes,” Cohen wrote. “Whatever the reason, the…rubber stamp hesitated.”

Neophyte said:

But, he continued, “some line was finally crossed. Maybe it was the word ‘Nazi.’ Maybe it was the timing,” coming as it did just days after the exposure of another group of young Republicans texting Nazi talk. “Maybe Thune—a man who’s built his career on calculated restraint—decided he wasn’t going to be remembered as the Senate leader who confirmed the guy with the Nazi jokes,” Cohen wrote. “Whatever the reason, the…rubber stamp hesitated.”

don’t worry there’s still time and there’s still the next guy

Trump knows he is above the law; the Supreme court has said as much – that he can’t be prosecuted for acts committed as President.

“ There are currently no approved plans to rebuild, no permits, no signs of weatherproofing for a construction project begun just before winter, no indication that the history or the paintings or the artifacts in the East Wing were preserved. There is only the destruction of the People’s House.”

We only have his say-so that he’s building a ballroom. What’s he really building?

Divine Angel said:

“ There are currently no approved plans to rebuild, no permits, no signs of weatherproofing for a construction project begun just before winter, no indication that the history or the paintings or the artifacts in the East Wing were preserved. There is only the destruction of the People’s House.”

We only have his say-so that he’s building a ballroom. What’s he really building?

buckingham palace 2

October 23, 2025 (Thursday)

Julia Ainsley and Didi Martinez of NBC News reported today that Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s rush to get new recruits onto the street has meant they have pushed into their training program more than 200 people who have disqualifying criminal backgrounds, fail drug testing, or don’t meet the academic or physical requirements.

The budget reconciliation measure the Republicans passed in July—the one they call the “One Big, Beautiful Bill Act”—included more than $170 billion over four years for immigration and border security. The law tripled ICE’s annual budget, giving it “more than the annual expenditures on police by state and local governments in all 50 states and the District of Columbia combined,” according to Margy O’Herron of the Brennan Center, a nonpartisan pro-democracy law and policy institute.

Part of that money was to hire about 10,000 deportation officers. As O’Herron notes, a 2017 report by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that to hire 10,000 officers would require vetting 500,000 applicants. Currently, law enforcement agencies have been having trouble finding enough applicants. O’Herron notes that ICE can bypass the usual requirements for federal employees, but in the past, when the government tried to hire 5,000 Customs and Border Patrol officers quickly, the result was dramatically higher corruption rates, including for bribery by trafficking and smuggling operations.

In August, ICE began to offer a $50,000 signing bonus and got rid of its age limits. To fill the ranks, Ainsley and Martinez note, ICE has already shortened its training program from 13 weeks to 6. They report that nearly half of those dismissed from ICE over the past three months could not pass an open-book exam. Others could not run 1.5 miles in less than 14 minutes, 25 seconds, or do 15 push-ups and 32 sit-ups.

Sociologist Ian Carillo called attention to a 2020 article by political scientists Adam Scharpf and Christian Glässel looking into why secret police agents are often “surprisingly mediocre in skill and intellect.” By examining the 4,287 officers who served in autocratic Argentina from 1975 to 1983, they discovered that the ranks of secret police are filled by those who perform poorly in merit-based systems. Facing firing for their poor performance, they turn to more burdensome secret police work.

Today Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker established the “Illinois Accountability Commission” to compile evidence against federal agents who have harassed, intimidated, brutalized, and detained American citizens and legal residents in Illinois. “None of this is about crime or safety,” Pritzker said. “If it were, there would be coordination with local law enforcement and judicial warrants…. Under normal circumstances,” he said, “federal agency supervisors and inspectors general would enforce proper legal procedures and protocols and hold accountable those who violate them.”

But Trump has fired 17 inspectors general and installed cronies at the Department of Justice, while MAGA congress members refuse to hold hearings or conduct oversight. Administration officials are acting as if they are “immune from investigation or accountability,” Pritzker said “They are not.”

The commission will create an official public record of “very instance of abuse, or law-breaking, or…violations of rights.” While “states have limited abilities against federal immunity,” Pritzker said, “we must remind everyone that…here will come a time where people of good faith are empowered to uphold the law. When the time comes, Illinois will have the testimony and the records needed to pursue justice to its fullest extent.”

Dictators also enforce loyalty by protecting those who have been found guilty of crimes in the nation’s nonpartisan justice system. Last week Trump commuted the sentence of former representative George Santos (R-NY), ending his seven-year sentence for fraud with just three months served and removing his obligation to pay $373,749.97 to the victims of his crimes. Trump has pardoned or commuted the sentences of more than 1,600 people, far more than most presidents do in four years.

Those convicted of crimes related to the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol received most of the president’s clemency, but former assistant U.S. attorney Jeffrey Toobin notes in an essay for the New York Times that Trump has been free with pardons or commutations for criminal supporters. Toobin notes Trump’s social media post after commuting Santos’s sentence: “Santos had the Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!”

Today, Trump announced a pardon for Changpeng Zhao, the founder of the Binance cryptocurrency exchange, who pleaded guilty in 2023 to money laundering, paid a $50 million fine, and served nearly four months in prison. His company paid a $4.3 billion penalty. Gram Slattery and Chris Prentice of Reuters note that in May, Binance accepted the stablecoin USD1, put out by the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial crypto venture, as payment for an investment in Binance made by an investment firm from Abu Dhabi. The deal enables World Liberty Financial to keep any profits from the $2 billion investment, likely worth tens of millions of dollars a year, and it significantly boosted the venture.

Trump’s full and unconditional pardon enables Zhao to return to the business. On social media, Zhao posted that he was “deeply grateful for today’s pardon and to President Trump for upholding America’s commitment to fairness, innovation, and justice.” He added: “Will do everything we can to help make America the Capital of Crypto.”

This afternoon, CNN’s Kaitlan Collins asked Trump about the pardon and whether it had anything to do with Zhao’s involvement in the Trump family’s cryptocurrency venture.

“Which one? Who is that?…. The recent one? Yes, the? I believe we’re talking about the same person because I do pardon a lot of people. I don’t know, he was recommended by a lot of people. A lot of people say that—are you talking about the crypto person?—A lot of people say that he wasn’t guilty of anything. He served four months in jail, and they say that he was not guilty of anything, that what he did, well, you don’t know much about crypto. You know nothing about, you know nothing about nothing. You’re fake news. But let me just tell you that he was somebody that, as I was told, I don’t know him, I don’t believe I’ve ever met him. But I’ve been told a lot of support. He had a lot of support, and they said that what he did is not even a crime. It wasn’t a crime, that he was persecuted by the Biden administration, uh, and so, I gave him a pardon at the request of a lot of very good people.”

The White House today released a list of those donating to Trump’s ballroom that he intends will replace the now-demolished East Wing of the White House. The list includes the Altria Group Inc., Amazon, Apple, Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., Caterpillar Inc., Coinbase, Comcast Corporation, J. Pepe and Emilia Fanjul, Hard Rock International, Google, HP Inc., Lockheed Martin, Meta Platforms, Micron Technology, Microsoft, NextEra Energy Inc., Palantir Technologies Inc., Ripple, Reynolds American, T-Mobile, Tether America, Union Pacific Railroad, Adelson Family Foundation, Stefan E. Brodie, Betty Wold Johnson Foundation, Charles and Marissa Cascarilla, Edward and Shari Glazer, Harold Hamm, Benjamin Leon Jr., The Lutnick Family, The Laura & Isaac Perlmutter Foundation, Stephen A. Schwarzman, Konstantin Sokolov, Kelly Loeffler and Jeff Sprecher, Paolo Tiramani, Cameron Winklevoss, and Tyler Winklevoss.

Economist Robert Reich notes that the list includes “Google, whose CEO thanked Trump for ‘resolution’ of an antitrust case Palantir, which has lucrative contracts with ICE Blackstone’s Stephen Schwarzman, who would profit from Trump’s regulatory rollbacks for private equity.” Reich commented: “Pay-to-play.”

By definition, those who could not make it in a merit-based system and who are dependent on the good will of an authoritarian leader have neither the skill nor the priorities to deliver good government for the country.

Today economist Paul Krugman noted that the administration’s $20 billion gambit to save Trump ally Javier Milei’s government in Argentina, with another $20 billion in the works, is a visceral wake-up call for parts of rural America in a way that cuts to social welfare programs have not been, despite the fact that rural areas depend on those programs more than urban areas do. Now Trump is talking about importing beef from Argentina. Farmers were already upset that Trump’s tariff war ended Chinese imports of U.S. soybeans; now ranchers are outraged at Trump’s focus on Argentina rather than on Americans.

Trump responded by insulting them: “The Cattle Ranchers, who I love, don’t understand that the only reason they are doing so well, for the first time in decades, is because I put Tariffs on cattle coming into the United States, including a 50% Tariff on Brazil. If it weren’t for me, they would be doing just as they’ve done for the past 20 years—Terrible! It would be nice if they would understand that….”

But someone in the White House must have paid attention to yesterday’s news that a survey from the Public Religion Research Institute (PPRI), a nonpartisan independent research organization, found that 56% of Americans agree that “President Trump is a dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys American democracy,” while only 41% see him as “a strong leader who should be given the power he needs to restore America’s greatness.”

Today, after threats to send what he called a “surge”—a military term—of agents to San Francisco, Trump announced he had changed his mind. Trump attributed his change of course to “friends of mine who live in the area.”

On November 4, 2025, California voters will go to the polls to vote on Proposition 50, which would redraw the state’s congressional map to create more Democratic-dominated districts until 2030 in response to Texas’s new Republican-skewed maps.

ICE agents storming the streets of San Francisco two weeks before the vote would likely have added votes in favor of Prop 50.

Thanks.

Sorry but how fkn dumb are you not to pass an open book exam.

Divine Angel said:

Sorry but how fkn dumb are you not to pass an open book exam.

pretty sure they make them correspondingly more challenging as in a better assessor would raise the quality of task from rote recall to more problem solving

October 24, 2025 (Friday)

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has canceled House business again next week, meaning that over the last 17 weeks, the House of Representatives will have worked on Capitol Hill for just 20 days. It also means that the House will not be back at work before November 1, when at least twenty-five states have said they will not be able to provide the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits more than 42 million Americans rely on to put food on the table.

Jennifer Ludden of NPR notes that about one of every eight Americans gets an average of $187 a month in food assistance. Most of those who use SNAP are children, older Americans, veterans, people with disabilities, and working people, chief executive officer Joel Berg of Hunger Free America told Ludden. “If the SNAP program shuts down, we will have the most mass hunger suffering we’ve had in America since the Great Depression.”

Republicans are trying to convince Americans that the Democrats are responsible for the pain of the shutdown. At the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service website, a banner reads: “Due to the Radical Left Democrat shutdown, this government website will not be updated during the funding lapse. President Trump has made it clear he wants to keep the government open and support those who feed, fuel, and clothe the American people.”

In addition to being an open violation of the Hatch Act, a law that prohibits the use of government resources for partisan purposes, this statement badly misrepresents what’s going on in Washington, D.C. President Donald J. Trump is refusing even to talk with Democrats, let alone negotiate to reopen the government, and Republican lawmakers are following his lead. He and MAGA Republicans are trying to muscle Senate Democrats into passing the continuing resolution the House passed on September 19 before they left town.

For their part, the Democrats are refusing to agree to fund the government until the Republicans work with them to extend the premium tax credits that support access to the Affordable Care Act marketplace for healthcare insurance. In their “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” of July, Republicans extended tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations but permitted the premium tax credits to expire. Democrats have also asked for Congress to put back into Medicaid the $1 trillion the Republicans took out of it in their One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

According to the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit healthcare research foundation, the loss of the premium tax credits will cause nearly 5 million people to lose their health insurance in 2026. The cost of premiums will force healthy Americans out of the pool as they decide to drop their coverage, sending premium prices skyrocketing for millions more. The Commonwealth Fund also projects that the loss of the premium tax credits will cost almost 340,000 jobs, including about 154,000 in healthcare-related industries and 185,000 in other sectors. Those losses will cause a $2.5 billion decline in local and state tax revenues.

Trump is trying to make the impasse between the parties about the shutdown, but that obscures the actual fight at hand. What is at stake is the theory behind the Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act: the destruction of the modern American government that was put in place in the 1930s by Democrats under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and expanded from then until 1981 under both Democratic and Republican presidents. Today’s fight is about the cuts made by billionaire Elon Musk as head of the “Department of Government Efficiency,” and cuts made after Musk left the administration by Office of Management and Budget director Russell Vought.

Republicans have embraced the destruction of the modern government, slashing SNAP benefits, Medicaid, cancer research, the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), and so on. The Democrats are defending the government that has been in place since the 1930s, focused on leveling the playing field between the very wealthy and ordinary Americans.

Trump is determined to resurrect the pre–New Deal system in the United States and refuses to entertain any notion that his vision will not work. That refusal to be crossed showed over the past twenty-four hours when he exploded over a Canadian advertisement aired last night that quoted an April 25, 1987, speech in which Republican president Ronald Reagan criticized tariffs as “trade barriers” that “hurt every American worker and consumer.”

“High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars,’’ Reagan said in both the speech and the advertisement. “The result is more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, and less and less competition. So, soon, because of the prices made artificially high by tariffs that subsidize inefficiency and poor management, people stop buying. Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse, businesses and industries shut down, and millions of people lose their jobs.”

During the 2024 campaign, Trump insisted that tariffs like those imposed in the late nineteenth century would nurture the economy and fund the government alone, permitting tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. He rejected economists’ assessment that tariffs are paid by consumers and that they would slow economic growth.

Last night, apparently furious at the implied criticism of his tariffs with the words of a Republican icon, as well as the fact that Canadians bypassed him by appealing directly to the American people, Trump announced on social media that “TARIFFS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY, AND ECONOMY, OF THE U.S.A.” He continued: “ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED.” Today he continued to post pro-tariff messages, saying, for example: “THE UNITED STATES IS WEALTHY, POWERFUL, AND NATIONALLY SECURE AGAIN, ALL BECAUSE OF TARIFFS!” and “THE STOCK MARKET IS STRONGER THAN EVER BEFORE BECAUSE OF TARIFFS!”

In fact, the government’s inflation report, released today, shows that inflation has climbed to 3%, and the White House says it will likely not release October inflation report because of the government shutdown. At the same time, the administration’s cuts to the government have not created the savings promised: yesterday the U.S. debt passed $38 trillion. This was the fastest accumulation of a trillion dollars of debt outside of the Covid-19 pandemic, with the U.S. hitting $37 trillion in August and $38 trillion just two months later.

Distrust of Trump’s economic vision is showing in polls. As G. Elliot Morris noted today in Strength in Numbers, an Economist/YouGov poll shows that 53% of Americans think the economy is getting worse. The latest Gallup poll shows that Americans now think Democrats, rather than Republicans, are the better party to keep the country prosperous, by a margin of 47% to 43%. This is a shift of 18 points in just over two years.

Trump appears to want the world to conform to his ideology in foreign affairs as well as in the domestic sphere, claiming the ultimate power over life and death without regard to the rule of law. When a reporter asked him yesterday why he didn’t ask Congress for a declaration of war against those South American drug cartels he claims are at war with the United States, Trump answered: “Well, I don’t think we’re gonna necessarily ask for a declaration of war, I think we’re just gonna kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. OK? We’re going to kill them. You know? They’re going to be, like dead. OK?”

Today Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the military has struck yet another boat in the Caribbean, for a total of ten so far. Six people on the boat died in the strike.

Trump talks about the administration’s strikes on boats in the region as an attempt to stop the importation of drugs into the U.S., but observers suggest the administration is really attempting to encourage Venezuelans to rise up against Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro. Hegseth announced today he was sending the aircraft carrier USS Gerald Ford and its strike group of five destroyers to the waters off South America. The group will join the growing military buildup in the region. Alayna Treene, Kylie Atwood, and Katie Bo Lillis of CNN reported today that the Trump administration is considering targeting drug routes and cocaine facilities in Venezuela itself.

Today the administration also imposed sanctions on leftist President Gustavo Petro of Colombia, as well as his family and a member of his government, claiming they are participants in the global drug trade.

And yet, for all the administration’s insistence that it can shape the world as it wants, it seems worried about the American people. Yesterday Trump dismissed the No Kings protests of last Saturday, saying the “crowds were not big at all” and claiming the signs were “all made professionally in a printing shop. Looks like on Madison Avenue someplace.” He said: “Some guy is paying for all that stuff…. These people are going crazy, they’re going crazy ‘cause they’re getting paid. ‘Cause there’s no reason for them to be going crazy, but you watch some of them, and they’re professional agitators, and we are finding out who’s paying them. Yeah. We have a lot of information about who they are. You’re gonna be very surprised when you find out.”

And, today the Department of Justice announced it will monitor polling sites in six jurisdictions in the upcoming November 4 elections. The observers will go to California and New Jersey, two Democratic-dominated states that will be holding elections with national consequences.

Thanks Neophyte.

>> Due to the Radical Left Democrat shutdown .. <<

Americans wouldn’t know the radical left if it walked up and bit them on the arse.

party_pants said:

>> Due to the Radical Left Democrat shutdown .. <<

Americans wouldn’t know the radical left if it walked up and bit them on the arse.

The phrase I use for that is, “most Americans think that anything less than burning hippies for heat is extreme communism.”

October 25, 2025 (Saturday)

Yesterday the Trump administration said it would not use any of the approximately $6 billion the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) holds in reserve to fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The government shutdown means that states have run out of funds to distribute to the more than 42 million Americans who rely on SNAP to put food on the table.

Roll Call’s Olivia M. Bridges notes that this position contradicts the shutdown plan the USDA released in late September. Then, it said: “Congressional intent is evident that SNAP’s operations should continue since the program has been provided with multi-year contingency funds that can be used for State Administrative Expenses to ensure that the State can also continue operations during a Federal Government shutdown. These multi-year contingency funds are also available to fund participant benefits in the event that a lapse occurs in the middle of the fiscal year.”

Yesterday’s USDA memo also says that any states that tap their own resources to provide food benefits will not be reimbursed.

Today, in yet another violation of the Hatch Act that prohibits the use of government resources for partisan ends, the USDA Food and Nutrition Service website reads: “Senate Democrats have now voted 12 times to not fund the food stamp program, also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Bottom line, the well has run dry. At this time, there will be no benefits issued November 01. We are approaching an inflection point for Senate Democrats. They can continue to hold out for healthcare for illegal aliens and gender mutilation procedures or reopen the government so mothers, babies, and the most vulnerable among us can receive critical nutrition assistance.”

It appears the administration is using those Americans who depend on food assistance as pawns to put more pressure on Democrats to cave to Trump’s will. Today, Annie Karni of the New York Times reported that Trump has joked, “I’m the speaker and the president,” and Trump ally Steven Bannon calls Congress “the state Duma,” a reference to Russia’s rubber-stamp assembly.

With Republicans refusing to negotiate with Democrats in the normal way, with House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) keeping the House out of session, and with Trump leaving for Asia for a week, Republicans are clearly making the calculation that Democrats who refused to give up their demand for the extension of the premium tax credit to stop dramatic hikes in the cost of healthcare premiums will cave when America falls into a hunger crisis.

What are we doing here, folks?

The nation’s nutrition program was once the symbol of government brokering between different interests to benefit everyone. When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in 1933, one of the first crises he had to meet was the collapse of agricultural prices, which had been falling since the end of World War I and fell off a cliff after the stock market crash of October 1929. Farmers reacted to falling prices by increasing production, driving prices even lower.

In summer 1933, the government tried to raise prices by creating artificial scarcity. They paid farmers to plow their crops under and bought and slaughtered six million piglets, turning the carcasses into salt pork, lard, industrial grease, and fertilizer. The outcry over the slaughter of the pigs was immediate, and the escape of some intrepid animals into the streets of Omaha, Nebraska, and Chicago, Illinois, increased the protest at both the slaughter and the waste of food when Americans were going hungry.

So in fall 1933 the administration set up the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation, designed to raise commodity prices by buying surplus production and distributing that surplus through local charities. In a story about the history of nutrition assistance programs, journalist Matthew Algeo noted that in January 1934, the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation bought 234,600 hogs. This time, their meat went to hungry Americans.

But that fall, when officials from the FSRC announced they were planning to open a “goods exchange” or “commissary” outside Nashville, Tennessee, to distribute food directly to those who needed it, grocers protested that the government was infringing on private business and directly competing with them.

The next year, the agency became the Federal Surplus Commodities Corporation and began to distribute surplus food to schools to be used in school lunch programs. Needy students would not otherwise be able to afford food, so providing it for them did not compete with grocers. In 1937, Congress placed that agency within the Department of Agriculture.
To get food into the hands of Americans more generally, officials at the Department of Agriculture came up with the idea of “food stamps.” As Algeo explains, eligible recipients bought orange-colored stamps that could be redeemed for any food except alcohol, drugs, or food consumed on the premises. With the orange stamps, a buyer received blue stamps worth half the value of the orange stamps purchased. The blue stamps could be redeemed only for foods the government said were surplus: butter, flour, beans, and citrus fruits, for example.

Any grocery store could redeem the stamps, and grocers could then exchange all the stamps—orange and blue—for face value at any bank. The Treasury would pay back the banks.

It was a complicated system, but when the government launched it in May 1939 in Rochester, New York, it was a roaring success. By early December, Algeo notes, the government had sold more than a million dollars’ worth of orange stamps. That meant another half-million dollars’ worth of the blue stamps had been distributed, thus pumping a half a million dollars directly into the 1,200 grocery stores in Rochester, and from there into the local economy.

The program spread quickly. In the four years it existed, nearly 20 million Americans received benefits from it at a cost to the government of $262 million. With the economic boom caused by World War II, the government ended the program in 1943.

In 1959, Congress authorized the secretary of agriculture to restart a food stamp program, but it was not until 1961, after seeing the poverty in West Virginia during his campaign, that President John F. Kennedy announced a new program. Since then, the program has gone through several iterations, most notably when the Food Stamp Act of 1977 eliminated the requirement that beneficiaries purchase stamps, a requirement that had kept many of the nation’s neediest families from participating.

In 1990 the USDA began to replace stamps with Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards, and in 2008, Congress renamed the program the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. In July 2025 the Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act cut about $186 billion from SNAP programs, and then in September 2025 the USDA announced it would no longer produce reports on food insecurity in the U.S., calling them “redundant, costly, politicized, and extraneous studies” that “do nothing more than fear monger.”

While a great deal has changed in nutrition support programs in the past sixty years, what has not changed is the importance of food assistance programs to retailers, and thus to local economies. In 2020, Ed Bolen and Elizabeth Wolkomir of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that about 8% of the food U.S. families buy is funded by SNAP. In fiscal year 2019, that amounted to about $56 billion. Beneficiaries spent SNAP dollars at about 248,000 retailers. While about 80% of that money went to superstores or supermarkets—in 2025, Walmart alone captured about 25% of that money—the rest of it went to small businesses. Bolen and Wolkomir note that about 80% of stores that accept SNAP are small enterprises. SNAP benefits are an important part of revenue for those smaller businesses, especially in poorer areas, where they generate significant additional economic activity.

Not only will the loss of SNAP create more hunger in the richest country on earth, it will also rip a hole in local economies just as people’s health insurance premiums skyrocket.

And yet, at the same time the Department of Agriculture says it cannot spend its $6 billion in reserves to address the $8 billion needed for SNAP in November, the administration easily found $20 billion to prop up right-wing Trump ally Javier Milei in Argentina.

What are we doing here?

So how is it that in the richest country on ever in history, with some of the best arable land in the world, that there are 42 million people who are about to go hungry?

party_pants said:

So how is it that in the richest country on ever in history, with some of the best arable land in the world, that there are 42 million people who are about to go hungry?

Prosperity theology doesn’t help.

party_pants said:

So how is it that in the richest country on ever in history, with some of the best arable land in the world, that there are 42 million people who are about to go hungry?

I know there are “food deserts” where access to a grocery store/supermarket is severely limited. So Walmart rules their choice. People are trying to use local farmers markets more.

kii said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

So how is it that in the richest country on ever in history, with some of the best arable land in the world, that there are 42 million people who are about to go hungry?

Prosperity theology doesn’t help.

I know there are “food deserts” where access to a grocery store/supermarket is severely limited. So Walmart rules their choice. People are trying to use local farmers markets more.

isn’t Russia happily nudging USSA to the fossil fuelled global warming revolution so that Siberia can thaw and whoever holds that land wins

October 26, 2025 (Sunday)

Economist Paul Krugman probably didn’t have the Erie Canal in mind today when he wrote about the rise of renewable energy, but he could have. The themes are similar.

In his newsletter, Krugman noted that renewables have grown explosively in the past decade, spurred by what he calls a virtuous circle of falling costs and increasing production. That circle is the result of subsidies that made renewable energy a going concern in the face of fossil fuels. Today, he points out, reports like that of Vice President Dick Cheney’s 2001 energy policy task force warning that renewable energy would play a trivial role in the nation’s energy future would be funny if the Trump administration weren’t echoing them.

In fact, as Krugman notes, solar and wind are unstoppable. They produced 15% of the world’s electricity in 2024 and account for 63% of the growth in electricity production since 2019. Green energy will continue to grow even if U.S. policy tries to wrench us back to burning coal, “with important geopolitical implications,” Krugman writes. “China is racing ahead.”

Krugman notes that it was originally Alexander Hamilton who called for government investment in new technologies to enable the economy of the infant United States of America to grow and compete with other nations. But Hamilton was not the only one thinking along those lines.

In the early years of the American republic, trade was carried on largely by water, which was much easier to navigate than the nation’s few rough roads. In 1783, even before the end of the Revolutionary War, George Washington was contemplating how to open “the vast inland navigation of these United States” to trade. In 1785, after the war had ended, Washington became the head of a company created to develop a canal along the Potomac River that would link the eastern seaboard with the Ohio Valley, bypassing the waterfalls and currents that made navigation treacherous. But under the Articles of Confederation then in place, the country’s states were sovereign, and there was no system for managing the waterways that traversed them.

In 1785, representatives from Maryland and Virginia agreed on a plan for navigation on the Potomac and other local waterways, as well as for commerce regulations and debt collection. Virginia delegates then invited representatives from all the states to another meeting on commercial issues to take place in Annapolis, Maryland, on September 11, 1786. That second meeting called for a constitutional convention to discuss possible improvements to the Articles of Confederation.

Delegates met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the summer of 1787. They produced the United States Constitution.

With a new, stronger government in place, lawmakers and business leaders turned back to the idea of investing in infrastructure to facilitate economic development. Lawmakers in New York worried that settlers in the western part of the state would move their produce north to Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River into Canada, breaking the region off from the United States. The vast lands around the Great Lakes would naturally follow.

New York legislators asked Congress to appropriate money to build a canal across the state from the Hudson River to Lake Erie (avoiding Lake Ontario to keep traders away from Montreal). But while Congress did pass creating a fund to construct roads and canals across the nation, President James Madison vetoed it, despite his previous support for internal improvements. His opposition helped to spur support within New York for the state to fund the project on its own.

And so in 1817, after legislators under Governor De Witt Clinton funded the project, workers broke ground on what would become the Erie Canal.

To build the canal, untrained engineers figured out how to cut through forest, swamps, and wilderness to carve a 363-mile path through the heart of New York state. Workers dug a 40-foot-wide, 4-foot-deep canal and built 83 locks to move barges and vessels through a rise of 568 feet from the Hudson River to Lake Erie. The project became the nation’s first engineering school, and those trained in it went on to other development projects.

Detractors warned that in Clinton’s “big ditch would be buried the treasure of the State, to be watered by the tears of posterity.” But after it was completed in 1825, the project paid for itself within a few years. Before the canal, shipping a ton of goods from Buffalo to New York City cost more than 19 cents a mile; once a trader could send goods by the canal, the price dropped to less than 3 cents a mile. By 1860 the cost had dropped to less than a penny.

The canal speeded up human travel, too: what had been a two-week trip from Albany to Buffalo in a crowded stagecoach became a five-day boat journey in relative comfort. As trade and travel increased, new towns sprang up along the canal: Syracuse, Rochester, Lockport.

The Erie Canal cemented the ties of the Great Lakes region to the United States. As goods moved east toward New York City and the Atlantic Ocean, people moved west along the canal and then across the Great Lakes. They spread the customs of New England and New York into Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota, bringing explosive growth that would, by the 1850s, clash with southerners moving north.

But in fall 1825, that cataclysm was a generation away, and New Yorkers marked the completion of the canal with celebrations, cannon fire, and a ceremony with Governor Clinton pouring a keg of water from Lake Erie into the Atlantic.

The festivities began on October 26, 1825, exactly 200 years before economist Krugman wrote about the importance of government support for renewable energy, demonstrating that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

:)

October 27, 2025 (Monday)

There is a lot going on tonight, but the world is going to have to turn without me: it’s been a long run without a break and I need to sleep.

The last time I posted a picture of Buddy’s was in May, I think, when he was setting traps. This week he took this shot as he pulled the last of his gear up in preparation for winter.

This has been both the shortest and the longest summer ever.

I’ll be back at it tomorrow.

October 28, 2025 (Tuesday)

In the election of 1920, Americans handed a landslide victory to the Republicans and their presidential candidate Warren G. Harding, giving them control of both Congress and the White House. After the moralizing of the Progressive Era and the horrors of World War I and the Spanish flu epidemic that followed it, Americans looked forward to an era of “normalcy.”

Once in charge, Republicans rejected the Progressive Era notion that the government should regulate business and protect workers and consumers. Instead they turned the government over to businessmen, believing they alone truly knew what was best for the country.

Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon—one of the richest men in America—cut taxes on the wealthy to spur investment in industry. He also gave rebates and tax abatements: between 1921 and 1929 he returned $3.5 billion to wealthy men.

At the same time, Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover, who had made a fortune as a mining engineer and consultant, expanded his department to fifteen thousand employees with a budget of more than 37 million dollars, working as a liaison between businessmen and the government and helping businesses to avoid antitrust lawsuits. He urged European countries to buy American.

Their policies seemed to work brilliantly. Between 1925 and 1926, more than twenty-two thousand new manufacturing companies formed. Industrial production took off. Business profits rose, and if wages didn’t rise much, they didn’t fall, either.

And oh, the changes the new economy brought! By 1929, more than two thirds of American homes had electricity, which brought first electric lights, then refrigerators, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, toasters, and radios. Consumers rushed to buy them, along with ready-made clothing, beauty products, and cars, all of which the new advertising industry, which grew out of the government propaganda campaigns of World War I, promised would bring them glamor, sophistication, romance, and power.

In the Roaring Twenties, it seemed that government and business had finally figured out how to combine government promotion with the efficiency of an industrial economy to benefit everyone. Business was booming, standards of living were rising, and Americans were finding the time to read, learn, invent, and improve. In 1928, Republicans tapped Hoover for president. He promised that continuing the policies of the last eight years would bring the U.S. “in sight of the day when poverty will be banished from this nation.” He won with a whopping 58.2% of the vote.

With Hoover in the White House, Americans wanted in on the inevitable growth of the economy. They invested in industries producing steel, coal, and consumer goods, and in utilities and transportation. Stock prices rose. And rose, and rose. By 1929 the rush to buy stocks had become a rush to speculate in the stock market. Prices that in spring 1928 had seemed too high to be real were laughably low by fall. Radio had been at 94½ in March 1928; by September 1929 it was 101 but had split so often that the holdings from 1928 were actually worth 505. And so it went, down the stock lists.

Those with less money to burn could get into the market by buying on margin, putting down 10 or 20 percent of the cost of a stock and borrowing the rest from a broker with the promise that the loans would be paid off by the anticipated increase in the stock’s value.

Those excited by the scene dismissed those who warned that stock prices were a bubble as ignorant, anti-American naysayers. “Be a bull on America!” boosters urged. “Never sell the United States short!”

October 24, a Thursday, was the beginning of the end. Heavy trading in the morning slowed the ticker tape that recorded trades. Brokers fearful of being caught sold more and more heavily. When the tape finally caught up after 7:00 that night, it showed that an astonishing 12,894,650 shares had changed hands. By afternoon, bankers managed to shore up the market, which regained the ground it had lost in the morning. But those dreadful early hours had wiped out hundreds of thousands of small investors.

The market seemed to recover on Friday and Saturday. But then, on Monday, October 28, prices slid far in heavy trading. And then, on October 29, 1929, it all came crashing down.

When the opening gong in the great hall of the New York Stock Exchange sounded at ten o’clock, men began to unload their stocks. The ticker tape ran two and a half hours behind, but that night it showed that an extraordinary 16,410,030 shares had traded hands, and the market had lost $14 billion.

Black Tuesday began a slide that seemingly would not end. Within two years, manufacturing output dropped to levels lower than those of 1913. The production of pig iron fell to what it had been in the 1890s. Foreign trade fell from $10 billion to $3 billion. The price of wheat fell from $1.05 a bushel to 39 cents; corn dropped from 81 cents a bushel to 33 cents or lower; cotton fell from 17 to 6 cents a pound. Prices dropped so low that selling crops meant taking a loss, so struggling farmers simply let them rot in the fields.

By 1932, over a million people in New York City were unemployed. By 1933 the number of unemployed across the nation rose to 13 million people—one out of every four American workers. Unable to afford rent or pay mortgages, people lived in shelters made of packing boxes.

Republican leaders blamed poor Americans for the Great Depression, saying they drained the economy because they refused to work hard enough. “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate,” Treasury Secretary Mellon told Hoover. “It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.”

But the problem was not poor workers. The rising standards of living that had gotten so much attention in the new magazines of the 1920s mainly benefited white, middle-class, urban Americans. Farm prices crashed after WWI, leaving rural Americans falling behind, while workers’ wages did not rise along with production. The new economy of the 1920s benefited too few Americans to be sustainable.

Hoover tried to reverse the economic slide by cutting taxes and reassuring Americans that “the fundamental business of the country…is on a sound and prosperous basis.” But he rejected public works programs to provide jobs, saying that such projects were a “soak the rich” scheme that would “enslave” taxpayers, and called instead for private charity.

By 1932, Americans were ready to try a new approach. They turned to New York Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who promised to use the federal government to provide jobs and a safety net to enable Americans to weather hard times. He promised the American people a “New Deal”: a government that would work for everyone, not just for the wealthy and well connected.

Under Roosevelt, Democrats protected workers’ rights, provided government jobs, regulated business and banking, and began to chip away at racial segregation. New Deal agencies employed more than 8.5 million people, built more than 650,000 miles of highways, built or repaired more than 120,000 bridges, and put up more than 125,000 buildings.
They regulated banking and the stock market and gave workers the right to bargain collectively. They established minimum wages and maximum hours for work. They provided a basic social safety net and regulated food and drug safety. And when World War II broke out, the new system enabled the United States to defend democracy successfully against fascists both at home—where by 1939 they had grown strong enough to turn out almost 20,000 people to a rally at Madison Square Garden—and abroad.

October 29, 2025 (Wednesday)

Today is the twenty-ninth day of the government shutdown, and the House of Representatives is still on break as House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) continues to try to force the Senate to pass the House measure to fund the government without negotiating over the Democrats’ demand for the extension of the premium tax credit without which healthcare premiums will skyrocket.

Yesterday air traffic controllers received their first “zero” paycheck. For weeks, flights have been delayed across the country as air traffic controllers call in sick. Also across the country, states are bracing for food insecurity among the 42 million Americans who depend on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits when those payments don’t go out on time on November 1. The administration maintains it cannot distribute the $6 billion the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) holds in reserve to cover for November 1.

Meredith Lee Hill of Politico reported on Monday that even some Senate Republicans want to fund SNAP in a stand-alone bill, but yesterday House speaker Johnson dismissed Democrats’ attempts to pass stand-alone measures to fund federal workers and SNAP, calling them a waste of time. Also yesterday, governors and attorneys general from 25 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia sued the USDA and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, the Office of Management and Budget along with its director Russell Vought, and the United States itself over the government’s refusal to use the USDA’s reserves to fund SNAP.

The lawsuit argues that Congress has mandated SNAP payments and has made appropriations for them, including the $6 billion the USDA holds in reserve. Another USDA fund has more than $23 billion in it. The USDA took money from it earlier in the shutdown to fund another nutrition program, the Women, Infants & Children (WIC) program. The lawsuit notes that the USDA itself initially said it could use reserve funds; the decision saying it cannot is recent.

The lawsuit notes that the “USDA’s claim that the SNAP contingency funds cannot be used to fund SNAP benefits during an appropriation lapse is contrary to the plain text of the congressional appropriations law, which states that the reserves are for use ‘in such amounts and at such times as may become necessary to carry out program operations’ under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.”

Today, ignoring Johnson’s insistence that he would not recall the House to debate stand-alone funding for SNAP and WIC, Democrats led by Senator Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico introduced a measure to fund both.

The loss of SNAP benefits will hit not only the 42 million Americans who depend on them but also the stores that accept Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards. At the same time, the cost of healthcare insurance premiums is soaring because of the expiration of the premium tax credits. Medical debt is central to throwing families into bankruptcy. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which under President Joe Biden tried to remove medical debt from credit reports, yesterday published a rule to make sure states cannot stop companies from including such debt on credit reports. The acting director of the CFPB is Russell Vought.

So, just as the government stops addressing food insecurity and as healthcare costs skyrocket, the administration permits credit-reporting agencies to put medical debt back onto people’s credit scores even if state laws say they can’t.

This is happening as higher costs, economic uncertainty, and increased use of AI mean hiring is slow and jobs are disappearing across the economy. Lindsay Ellis, Owen Tucker-Smith, and Allison Pohle of the Wall Street Journal reported last night on layoffs at Amazon, UPS, Target, Rivian, Molson Coors, Booz Allen Hamilton, and General Motors that together mean the loss of tens of thousands of white-collar jobs.

The Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill of July, the law they call the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” cut more than $1 trillion from Medicaid and made dramatic changes to SNAP, including cuts of $187 billion from SNAP over ten years. Crucially, the Republicans designed those cuts to go into effect after the 2026 midterm elections.
But their refusal to extend the premium tax credits and end the government shutdown has given Americans an early taste of what those changes will mean.

Despite the growing crisis in the U.S., President Donald J. Trump broke precedent to leave the country during the shutdown. His erratic behavior on that trip has drawn attention. On October 27, Greta Bjornson of People noted that Trump seemed to be referring to a dementia screening when he boasted on Air Force One that he got a perfect score on an “IQ test” that required him to identify “a tiger, an elephant, a giraffe.” Physicians have been giving Trump the test since at least 2018. In Japan, during a welcome ceremony on October 28, Trump appeared to wander, leaving Japanese prime minister Sanae Takaichi behind.

While Trump is out of the country, the White House has made dramatic changes to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Sasha Rogelberg of Fortune reported last week that law enforcement agents from ICE are still getting their paychecks, including overtime, thanks to the injection of an extra $75 billion into ICE’s budget from July’s budget reconciliation bill. Nonetheless, ICE is claiming the shutdown means it no longer has any legal obligation to permit congressional oversight visits to its detention facilities.

On October 24, Hamed Aleaziz and Tyler Pager of the New York Times reported that the White House was frustrated that deportations are not moving quickly enough to meet what deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller has said is the target of a million deportations in Trump’s first year.

On October 27, Anna Giaritelli of the Washington Examiner broke the story that the White House was reassigning ICE field officers and replacing them with officers from Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). Greg Wehner and Bill Melugin of Fox News reported that the shift will affect at least eight cities, including Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Denver, Portland, Philadelphia, El Paso, and New Orleans. They reported that the changes reflect a split within the Department of Homeland Security. In one camp, so-called border czar Tom Homan and ICE director Todd Lyons have focused on arresting undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes or who have final deportation orders. The other includes Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, special government employee Corey Lewandowski, who advises Noem, and Greg Bovino, a Border Patrol sector chief who has been overseeing the agency’s operations in Los Angeles and Chicago. That faction, Wehner and Melugin say, wants to arrest all undocumented immigrants to boost their deportation numbers.

One senior official told Wehner and Melugin: “ICE is arresting criminal aliens. They are hitting Home Depots and car washes.” A border patrol agent, though, told the journalists: “What did everyone think mass deportations meant? Only the worst? Tom Homan has said it himself—anyone in the U.S. illegally is on the table.”

Bovino has been the official face of CBP’s violence. On October 6, journalists and protesters in the Chicago area sued the Trump administration for a “pattern of extreme brutality” designed to “silence the press and civilians.” On October 9, 2025, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) to restrict federal officers’ use of flash-bang grenades, tear gas, pepper-spray and other “less-lethal” weapons and tactics against journalists, peaceful protesters, and religious leaders in and around Chicago. On October 16, after videos emerged of agents throwing tear gas canisters into crowds and charging protesters, Ellis required officers to wear body cameras.

Last Thursday, a video showed Bovino throwing what seemed to be a tear gas canister at protesters without warning, and plaintiffs called Ellis’s attention to it, arguing that his actions violated the TRO. Immigration officers claimed a “mob” of “hostile and violent” rioters had thrown a rock at Bovino and hit him in the head, although none of the videos from the protest show such an event. On Friday, Ellis ordered Bovino to appear in court on October 28, yesterday. Michelle Gallardo, Mark Rivera, and Cate Cauguiran of ABC Eyewitness news in Chicago shared the Department of Homeland Security’s boast that Bovino would “correct Judge Ellis of her deep misconceptions” about what it calls “Operation Midway Blitz.”

In fact, according to WTTW Chicago politics reporter Heather Cherone, Ellis took time to read her initial TRO to Bovino and reminded him that agents must give warnings before throwing tear gas. She called out an incident in Little Village when an agent pointed a pepper gun and then a real gun at a combat veteran lawfully standing on the side of the road and allegedly said: “Bang, bang,” and “You’re dead, liberal.” She also called out an incident in Old Irving Park on the North Side of Chicago in which federal agents threw tear gas near a children’s Halloween costume parade. “Those kids were tear gassed on their way to celebrate Halloween in their local school parking lot,” Ellis said. “heir sense of safety was shattered.” “Kids dressed in Halloween costumes walking to a parade do not pose an immediate threat. They just don’t. And you can’t use riot control weapons against them,” she said.

When Bovino told Ellis he does not wear a body camera and has not been trained in their use, she ordered him to get one by Friday and undergo training, reminding him that the camera would enable him to back up claims like the rock-throwing incident.

Bovino promised to abide by the TRO. Ellis ordered him to submit to the court all the reports and all the body camera footage of use of force incidents in and around Chicago by Friday. She also ordered Bovino to come to her court every day at 6:00 p.m. to keep her informed of agents’ actions.

Meanwhile, there are also changes underway at the Pentagon. Yesterday Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced three strikes on four boats in the eastern Pacific Ocean that killed another 14 people. This brings the total of those dead to at least 57. Hegseth says one person survived the recent strikes.

Phil Stewart of Reuters reported yesterday that officials in the Defense Department have asked subordinates to sign non-disclosure agreements concerning the administration’s expanding operations in Latin America. This is, as Stewart puts it, “highly unusual,” especially as lawmakers are complaining the administration is not disclosing information about the strikes that would support its claim that those killed were trafficking drugs. Military officers are already required to keep national security issues out of public view.

Administration officials briefed Republican lawmakers today about the U.S. military strikes but excluded Democrats. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the administration had shut Democrats out of a briefing on the military strikes. “Shutting Democrats out of a briefing on U.S. military strikes and withholding the legal justification for those strikes from half the Senate is indefensible and dangerous,” he said. “Decisions about the use of American military force are not campaign strategy sessions, and they are not the private property of one political party. For any administration to treat them that way erodes our national security and flies in the face of Congress’ constitutional obligation to oversee matters of war and peace.”

Every time I think the US can’t get more fucked, they get more fucked. Air traffic controllers getting $0 pay. 40 million without food cos they rely on SNAP. And more fuckedness.

Divine Angel said:

Every time I think the US can’t get more fucked, they get more fucked. Air traffic controllers getting $0 pay. 40 million without food cos they rely on SNAP. And more fuckedness.

Shitler is deliberately provoking mass riots and fights so he can declare martial law and suspend all upcoming elections. And it’ll stay that way pretty much forever.
It’ll likely work as well despite the efforts of so many people to not do such things, as millions of people will be getting very hungry very soon and do pretty much anything they need to, to get food.

Spiny Norman said:

Divine Angel said:

Every time I think the US can’t get more fucked, they get more fucked. Air traffic controllers getting $0 pay. 40 million without food cos they rely on SNAP. And more fuckedness.

Shitler is deliberately provoking mass riots and fights so he can declare martial law and suspend all upcoming elections. And it’ll stay that way pretty much forever.
It’ll likely work as well despite the efforts of so many people to not do such things, as millions of people will be getting very hungry very soon and do pretty much anything they need to, to get food.

Sounds about right.

Divine Angel said:

Every time I think the US can’t get more fucked, they get more fucked. Air traffic controllers getting $0 pay. 40 million without food cos they rely on SNAP. And more fuckedness.

That is the word for it.

Michael V said:

Spiny Norman said:

Divine Angel said:

Every time I think the US can’t get more fucked, they get more fucked. Air traffic controllers getting $0 pay. 40 million without food cos they rely on SNAP. And more fuckedness.

Shitler is deliberately provoking mass riots and fights so he can declare martial law and suspend all upcoming elections. And it’ll stay that way pretty much forever.
It’ll likely work as well despite the efforts of so many people to not do such things, as millions of people will be getting very hungry very soon and do pretty much anything they need to, to get food.

Sounds about right.

It is the means to get what he wants.

Thanks.

Gosh I’m glad I live in Australia.

Michael V said:

Thanks.

Gosh I’m glad I live in Australia.

As are we all no doubt.

October 30, 2025 (Thursday)

House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) continues to try to pin the upcoming catastrophic lapse in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding on the Democrats. But with the U.S. Department of Agriculture sitting on $6 billion in funds Congress appropriated for just such an event, the Treasury finding $20 billion to prop up Trump ally Javier Milei in Argentina, Johnson refusing to bring the House into regular session to negotiate an end to the government shutdown, and President Donald J. Trump demanding $230 million in damages from the American taxpayer, bulldozing the East Wing of the White House to build a gold-plated ballroom that will dwarf the existing White House, and traveling to Asia, where South Korean leadership courted him by giving him a gold crown and serving him brownies topped with edible gold, blaming any funding shortfall on Democrats is a hard sell.

According to a Washington Post–ABC survey, more Americans blame Trump and congressional Republicans for the shutdown than blame Democrats by a margin of 45 to 33, and Trump’s approval rating continues to move downward, with the presidential approval average reported by Fifty Plus One at 41.3% approval and 55.1% disapproval, a –14 split. G. Elliott Morris of Strength in Numbers noted on October 24 that polls show Americans now trust Democrats more than Republicans to handle the economy well.

Trump ran in 2024 with a promise to bring down inflation, which was then close to the Federal Reserve’s target of 2.0%; now core inflation is at 3%, having gone up every month since April. Halloween candy—on people’s minds today—is at 9.8% inflation and costs 44% more than it did in 2019. Federal Reserve Board chair Jerome Powell sure sounded like he was describing stagflation—a condition when the economy stagnates despite inflation—when he said yesterday: “In the near term, risks to inflation are tilted to the upside, and risks to employment to the downside, a challenging situation.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said today that while the stock market has done well this year, a better economy is going to “start flowing through to working Americans next year.”

Meanwhile, on Tuesday, in a rambling and disjointed speech in Japan, Trump told U.S. military personnel that he is federalizing National Guard troops and sending them into Democratic-led cities “because we’re going to have safe cities.” In the same speech, Trump repeatedly attacked former president Joe Biden and insisted yet again that the 2020 presidential election was rigged. (It was not.)

When asked by a reporter later to clarify his remarks, Trump referred back to the Insurrection Act, saying that if he invoked it, “I’d be allowed to do whatever I want. But we haven’t chosen to do that because we’re…doing very well without it. But I’d be allowed to do that, you understand that. And the courts wouldn’t get involved. Nobody would get involved. And I could send the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. I can send anybody I wanted.”

In fact, a president can invoke the accurately named Insurrection Act only in times of insurrection or rebellion. Neither of those conditions exists.

But the administration is working hard to create the impression that they do. Drew Harwell and Joyce Sohyun Lee of the Washington Post reported yesterday that the videos the Department of Homeland Security has been publishing to demonstrate the administration’s triumph over crime in U.S. cities as its agents work “day and night to arrest, detain and deport vicious criminals” have been doctored. They do not represent current actions, but rather are a hash of video from different states and different times.

When the reporters asked the White House about the misleading footage, spokesperson Abigail Jackson told them that “the Trump administration will continue to highlight the many successes of the president’s agenda through engaging content and banger memes on social media.”
There are signs the administration is not just trying to give the impression that Americans are rioting, but is trying to push them to do so.

Aaron Glantz of The Guardian reported yesterday that on October 8, Major General Ronald Burkett, who directs the Pentagon’s National Guard bureau, ordered the National Guard in all the states, U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia to form “quick reaction forces” trained in “riot control.” Most states are required to train 500 National Guard personnel, for a total nationwide of 23,500. The forces are supposed to be in place by January 1, 2026.

In his order, Burkett relied on an executive order Trump signed on August 25, calling on the secretary of defense to “immediately begin ensuring that each State’s Army National Guard and Air National Guard are resourced, trained, organized, and available to assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement in quelling civil disturbances and ensuring the public safety and order,” and “ensure the availability of a standing National Guard quick reaction force that shall be resourced, trained, and available for rapid nationwide deployment.”

In August the administration planned for two groups of 300 troops to be stationed in Alabama and Arizona as a “Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force.” Now that number is 23,500, and the troops will be in every state and territory.

The establishment of a domestic quick reaction force to quell civil disturbances at a time when there are no civil disturbances that can’t be handled easily by existing law enforcement suggests the administration is expecting those conditions to change.

That expectation might have something to do with Monday’s story from Anna Giaritelli of the Washington Examiner that the White House is reassigning ICE field officers and replacing them with officers from Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). Greg Wehner and Bill Melugin of Fox News reported that the shift will affect at least eight cities, including Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Denver, Portland, Philadelphia, El Paso, and New Orleans.

White House officials, presumably led by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, who has said the administration intends to carry out “a minimum” of 3,000 arrests a day, are frustrated by the current pace of about 900 a day. So those officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, special government employee and Noem advisor Corey Lewandowski, and Greg Bovino, a Border Patrol sector chief who has been overseeing the agency’s operations in Los Angeles and Chicago, have decided to ramp up those deportations by replacing ICE officials with far more aggressive CBP leaders.

Tripling arrests will likely bring pushback.

Michael Scherer, Missy Ryan, and Ashley Parker of The Atlantic reported today that political appointees Stephen Miller, Kristi Noem, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have moved onto military bases.

The designs of the anti-immigrant leaders in the administration dovetail with Trump’s political designs. Trump has talked a lot about serving a third term in the presidency, most recently talking about it to reporters on Air Force One earlier this week. The Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution prohibits a third term, but Trump ally Stephen Bannon told The Economist last week that “Trump is going to be president in ‘28 and people just ought to get accommodated with that.” Bannon claimed, “There’s many different alternatives” to get around the Twenty-Second Amendment. Trump keeps “Trump 2028” campaign hats on bookshelves outside the Oval Office.

Janessa Goldbeck, the chief executive officer of the nonprofit Vet Voice Foundation, told Guardian reporter Glantz that Burkett’s recent order shows “an attempt by the president to normalize a national, militarized police force.” Such a force has not just military but also electoral power: it could be used in Democratic-led states to suppress voting. In a worst-case scenario, Goldbeck said, “the president could declare a state of emergency and say that elections are rigged and use allegations of voter fraud to seize the ballots of secure voting centers.”

Today, Buckingham Palace announced that King Charles has “initiated a formal process to remove the style, titles and honours of Prince Andrew” over his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and participation in activities surrounding Epstein. Andrew will be stripped even of his title of “prince” and will be forced to leave the home he has shared for more than 20 years with his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, at Royal Lodge, a 30-room mansion located in Windsor Great Park. The palace said: “These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.”

Today Jim Acosta reported that survivors of Epstein’s sex trafficking enterprise have written a letter to Speaker Johnson demanding that Representative-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) be sworn into office. Voters elected Grijalva on September 23, but Johnson has steadfastly refused to swear her in. Grijalva has said she will provide the last signature necessary on a discharge petition to force a vote on the public release of the Epstein files, an outcome that threatens to expose how and why Trump was named in those files.

The survivors write that Johnson’s “continued refusal to seat her is an unacceptable breach of democratic norms and a disservice to the American people. Even more concerning to us as survivors, this delay appears to be a deliberate attempt to block her participation in the discharge petition that would force a vote to unseal the Epstein/Maxwell files. The American public has a right to transparency and accountability, and we, as survivors, deserve justice. Any attempt to obstruct a vote on this matter—by manipulating House procedure or denying elected members their seats—is a direct affront to that right and adds insult to our trauma.”

Thanks for posting.