In her new letter, Warren observes that failure on the SEC’s part to investigate the FT allegations would undermine “the confidence investors around the world place on the integrity of our markets.” Granted, Hegseth’s broker was not able, the FT reported, to complete the offending insider trade. But securities law, Warren points out, doesn’t just ban securities fraud; it also bans attempted securities fraud. The relevant language is “whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute” (italics mine) the fraud in question.
If the FT story is true (and I think probably it is), why would Hegseth do anything so very stupid? If I’m right that the FT’s three sources were all at BlackRock, it shouldn’t be hard for a determined investigator to locate them. Also, if Hegseth’s request was flagged internally at BlackRock, that probably means there’s a paper trail just waiting for some government official to subpoena. Even if Hegseth defied Garcia and tossed all communications with his broker into a bonfire, he’d still be screwed. This is not a difficult investigation. So, I ask again: How could Hegseth be so stupid?
Monday Reads: Still No News Fit to Print
Posted: April 20, 2026 Filed under: Afternoon Reads, Foreign Affairs, U.S. Politics | Tags: Cadet Bonespur's Iran War, Dementia Donald Trump, Drunk Kash Patel, Insider Trading Pete Hegseth, Iran War, Trump Toadies 4 Comments
“Trump’s imaginary negotiations with Iran are going well…. for some.” John Buss, @repeat 1968
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
Today’s headlines about the series of ongoing crises created by Orange Caligula and his Cabinet of Imbeciles continue. It’s hard to miss the chaos surrounding the Iran War. This headline from The Bulwark says it all. “Trump’s Not Paying Attention to His Own War. But then again, do we want him to be?” There’s a good explanation for that, too.
As the Iran crisis spirals back out of control, it’s a big day for the president of the United States: His official schedule suggests he will have “Executive Time” all morning until 1:30 p.m., followed by a ninety-minute policy meeting and a closed-press session to sign executive orders. Heavy is the head.
Of course, these leaves Pete Hegseth pretty much on his own. That’s not a good thing either. This is from The New Republic today. “Does the SEC Care Whether Hegseth Is Killing Iranians To Get Rich? Senator Elizabeth Warren has requested an insider-trading probe of the defense secretary.” Timothy Noah has the lede.
Last month, I considered whether Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth used what he knew about the imminence of the Iran war to expand his stock portfolio with a little blood money (“Is Pete Hegseth Killing Iranians To Get Rich?”). That was the thrust of a shocking Financial Times report, based on three anonymous sources, that said Hegseth’s Morgan Stanley broker approached BlackRock in February about making a “multimillion-dollar investment in the asset manager’s Defense Industrials Active ETF.” An ETF, or exchange-traded fund, is a financial instrument comprised of multiple stocks and/or bonds that are bundled together and sold as a single stock.
According to the FT, Hegseth’s broker’s request was flagged internally at BlackRock, presumably because it so obviously threatened to trigger an insider-trading investigation. (I’m guessing the FT’s three sources all worked at BlackRock.) Ultimately, BlackRock denied the request on the technicality that its Defense Industrials Active ETF was not yet available to Morgan Stanley clients. Whether Hegseth found some other way to profit from the Iran war remains an open question. (A Pentagon spokesperson called the FT report “entirely false and fabricated” and denied that Hegseth or any Hegseth representative approached BlackRock.)
This is a matter that demands immediate investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and this morning Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, sent SEC chair Paul Atkins a letter requesting him to do just that.
It says a lot about our current scandal-rich environment that the FT story hasn’t dominated the news these past three weeks. But congressional Democrats certainly didn’t forget it. The day after the story broke, the House Committee on Government and Oversight Reform’s ranking member, Representative Robert Garcia of California, and the ranking member of its Subcommittee on Military and Foreign Affairs, Representative Suhas Subramanyam of Virginia, sent Hegseth a letter instructing him to preserve “all documents, records, and communications” on his financial transactions back to November 1, 2024. Regrettably, no investigation by their committee is likely, because its chair, James Comer of Kentucky, is perhaps the most shamelessly partisan hack in the entire Republican House majority. As I write, Comer is trying to justify Pam Bondi’s evading a committee subpoena in its Jeffrey Epstein investigation despite the fact he previously voted to hold the Clintons in contempt for defying committee subpoenas in the same investigation.
Two days after the FT story broke, Warren and three other Democratic members of the Senate Armed Services Committee pointed out, in a letter to Hegseth, that even in peacetime Hegseth would be prohibited by federal law “from owning any stock in Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Huntington Ingalls, Boeing, RTX Corporation, and L3Harris Technologies.” Stakes in all of these companies were bundled into the ETF his broker reportedly tried to buy. It would be illegal for Hegseth to buy a Defense Industrials Active ETF because—duh—these are defense companies, and Hegseth is the Secretary of Defense.
He just is naturally stupid as well as drunk stupid. I think we all should now that now. NPR’s Liz Landers has this headline today. “Trump tells PBS News that ‘lots of bombs start going off’ if Iran ceasefire expires.”
President Donald Trump told PBS News on Monday morning that if the ceasefire with Iran expires Tuesday, “then lots of bombs start going off.”
The statement came during a phone call with White House correspondent Liz Landers focused on the Iran war, as a U.S. delegation is preparing for more peace talks.
Here are highlights from the call.
PBS News: What happens if the ceasefire expires tomorrow evening?
Trump: Then lots of bombs start going off.
Is Iran still participating in the talks that will be happening in Islamabad? Will they still be there?
I don’t know. I mean, they’re supposed to be there. We agreed to be there, although they say we didn’t. But no, it was set up. And we’ll see whether or not it’s there. If they’re not there, that’s fine too.
What do you want from the negotiating team in Islamabad?
No nuclear weapons. Very simple. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. Very simple.
[Jared] Kushner has a lot of business and financial interests in the Middle East region, from Saudi Arabia and other countries. Is it appropriate for him to be negotiating there, do you think?
Well, he was there before, long time before, and he’s purely negotiating for the fact that they’re not going to have a nuclear weapon. Whether you have business or not, everybody knows that’s the right thing. He’s a very good negotiator …
So you see no …
No, I mean, we’re not negotiating anything other than the fact that they will not have a nuclear weapon. And that’s pretty basic when you get right down to it. So you know, that’s it. I sent an A-team. I sent my A-Team, he’s done an excellent job. He doesn’t participate with Saudi now, as you know. He’s taken… He doesn’t do that. He has a business but he doesn’t participate now.
Today’s Trump Toady meltdown goes to Kash Patel. This report at Politico is by Cheyanne M. Daniels. “Kash Patel files defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic. Patel is seeking $250 million in damages for an article that alleges he has a drinking problem.” The photos that accompany these articles are pretty damning so I can’t figure out what he thinks he’s doing with lawsuit other than follow his leader’s examples of frivolous losing lawsuits. “Kash Patel files defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic. Patel is seeking $250 million in damages for an article that alleges he has a drinking problem.”
Kash Patel has filed a defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic, accusing the magazine and its reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick of defamation over an article that alleged the FBI director has a drinking problem.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Monday, refers to an article published April 17 that claims Patel has a habit of “excessive drinking and unexplained absences,” among other recurring behavioral patterns.
The suit argues that Fitzpatrick’s reporting is part of an ongoing pattern from The Atlantic to “damage Director Patel’s reputation and force him from office.”
The Atlantic on Monday defended its reporting.
“We stand by our reporting on Kash Patel, and we will vigorously defend The Atlantic and our journalists against this meritless lawsuit,” The Atlantic said.
The article, citing about two dozen anonymous sources, details Patel’s alleged “conspicuous inebriation and unexplained absences;” claims the director is often “away or unreachable, delaying time-sensitive decisions needed to advance investigations;” and that Patel is “deeply concerned that his job is in jeopardy.”
POLITICO has not independently corroborated The Atlantic’s reporting.
Patel’s lawsuit states that the unnamed sources had “obvious axes to grind,” and highlights that the White House, Department of Justice and Patel himself all denied the allegations in the article. It also alleges that a pre-publication letter sent to The Atlantic went “ignored.”
This headline in The Nation by Jeet Heer gave me the giggles. “We Could Do Worse Than Kash Patel Being a Drunken Buffoon. If the FBI director’s alleged intoxication prevents him from carrying out Trump’s agenda, that might not be such a bad thing.
Normally, SWAT teams rely on specialized “breaching equipment” to break down the doors in an emergency where criminals are hunkered down in a heavily fortified bunker. But last year, FBI agents reportedly almost used breaching equipment not to capture a dangerous lawbreaker but to try to wake up their boss, Kash Patel.
On Friday, Sarah Fitzpatrick, writing in The Atlantic, reported that the FBI director has frequently been so incapacitated by heavy drinking that he has been unable to do his job. According to Fitzpatrick, “On multiple occasions in the past year, members of his security detail had difficulty waking Patel because he was seemingly intoxicated…. A request for ‘breaching equipment’…was made last year because Patel had been unreachable behind locked doors.”
Fitzpatrick’s article, which is based on interviews with numerous government officials who were granted anonymity, paints a detailed and troubling portrait of a senior public official prone to “conspicuous inebriation and unexplained absences.” Fitzpatrick notes,
Several officials told me that Patel’s drinking has been a recurring source of concern across the government. They said that he is known to drink to the point of obvious intoxication, in many cases at the private club Ned’s in Washington, D.C., while in the presence of White House and other administration staff. He is also known to drink to excess at the Poodle Room, in Las Vegas, where he frequently spends parts of his weekends. Early in his tenure, meetings and briefings had to be rescheduled for later in the day as a result of his alcohol-fueled nights, six current and former officials and others familiar with Patel’s schedule told me.
Both the White House and Patel have disputed the entirety of Fitzpatrick’s reporting, and on Monday morning, Patel filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic over her piece. But even before the Atlantic story, there was already ample public evidence that Patel is wildly unfit for the job. He has repeatedly damaged high-profile cases, such as the Charlie Kirk murder investigation, by making premature and false statements in an attempt to hog the media spotlight. He has also been accused of using a FBI jet for private business, including meetings with his girlfriend.
There is no question that Patel is a buffoon. The only factual uncertainty is whether he is an often-soused buffoon or a largely sober one.
“As we await further escalation of Trump’s forever war, one of the members of his Liquor Cabinet hits the news circuit to defend his beseeched honorable service to our nation.” John Buss, @repeat1968
I leave this post on a hopeful note. This is from the New York Times‘ Nate Cohen. “Why a Democratic Senate, Once Unthinkable, Is a Real Possibility. Helped by a favorable national environment and strong candidate recruitment, Democrats are tied or ahead in four Republican-held seats, polls show.” It’s all in the numbers
At the start of the 2026 election cycle, the Senate looked far out of reach for the Democrats. The House always seemed competitive, but retaking the Senate would require flipping at least four Republican-held seats — including at least two seats in states that President Trump won by double digits in 2024. In today’s polarized era, Democrats would need everything to break their way.
So far, everything is breaking the Democrats’ way. With Mr. Trump’s approval rating falling and inflation rising, along with the uncertainty of a war in the Middle East, it’s not hard to imagine a Democratic tsunami in November. A blue wave is not guaranteed, of course, and Democrats would not be assured to flip two reliably Republican states even if it were. But a feasible path for the party to win the Senate is coming into focus.
In recent polls, Democrats appear tied or ahead in four Republican-controlled seats — the number they would need to take the Senate. These include Maine and North Carolina, where the likely Democratic nominees hold clear leads, as well as Ohio and Alaska, where Democrats have recruited strong candidates in states Mr. Trump won by double digits in 2024. There are also signs that Republicans could be in danger in two more states where Mr. Trump won by double digits: Iowa and Texas.
Over the last few weeks, the betting markets have shifted to make the Senate a tossup, though some analysts haven’t gone quite so far. Whether the Senate is a tossup or not, it’s clearly competitive — and that’s something that might have been hard to imagine a year ago.
In the Trump era, Democratic Senate candidates haven’t had much success at winning in red states. They failed to flip vigorously contested seats in Texas, Tennessee and Montana in 2018 and 2020. And most Democratic red-state incumbents — including those in Florida, Indiana, North Dakota and Missouri — lost re-election. Today, every Democrat in the Senate represents a state that voted for Joe Biden in 2020.
Looking even further back, no party has managed to flip two states that leaned so much toward the other party since 2008. Only one such seat (Illinois in 2010) was flipped in a regularly scheduled election; two more flipped in memorable special elections (Massachusetts 2010 and Alabama 2017). Most of these victories took extraordinary circumstances, like a criminal conviction, a child molestation allegation or a bank seizure.
This time, Democrats aren’t benefiting from anything as unusual as a criminal conviction.
Instead, they’re counting on a favorable national political environment, strong candidates and the possibility that several of these states may not be quite as Republican-leaning as they seem.
Read more on all of these items on the links. My top suggestion is the Heer article on Hegseth. It would be nice to get an actual hearing on that during the midterms, especially combined with high gas prices.
What’s on your Reading, Action, and Blogging list today?
I’m adding this and basically speechless. WTF does this mean? Bibi is running our country now?
Screenshot
Finally Friday Reads: Clusterfucks r US
Posted: April 10, 2026 Filed under: #FARTUS, #MAGAnomics, #We are so Fucked, Afternoon Reads, Foreign Affairs, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics | Tags: Cadet Bonespur's Iran War, Inflation is back, Jeffrey Epstein scandal, Pete Hegseth weirdo sexual assaulter 3 Comments
“The bottom line of everything this administration does.” John Buss, @repeat1969
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
Once again, there’s no news fit to report, but I’m going to take a stab at it. The headlines run the gamut. There are headlines that make you want to laugh, like “Melania Trump says she was not associated with Jeffrey Epstein.” Headlines that make you want to cry, like “Consumer prices rose 3.3% in March, as energy prices spiked due to Iran conflict.” Headlines to make you angry, like “Pete Hegseth’s holy war: the militant Christian theology animating the US attack on Iran.” There are also headlines that make you feel quite unsurprised, like “Calls to Impeach Trump Collide With Reluctant Democratic Leadership.” Once again, it’s a week that leaves us all worse off.
S
o, let’s start with Melania Dearest, who insists she had no ties to Jeffrey Epstein, even though she was not under oath to tell the truth, you have to wonder if a Congressional Committee will ask for a repeat performance.. William Kristol, writing at The Bulwark, suggests she threw hubby under the bus. “What Melania Didn’t Say.”
Standing behind a podium bearing the presidential seal, speaking at the White House Cross Hall where so many presidents have addressed weighty matters of state, and where her husband last week spoke to the nation about Iran, the first lady read a six-minute statement about her and Jeffrey Epstein.
Melania’s focus was on . . . Melania. She began, “The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today.” Her purpose, she said, was to defend “my reputation,” to clear “my good name.” (Emphasis mine.)
And so she asserted that “I have never been friends with Epstein” and that “I . . . was never on Epstein’s plane.” She also claimed that “My email reply to [Epstein’s imprisoned accomplice Ghislaine] Maxwell cannot be categorized as anything more than casual correspondence.1 My polite reply to her email doesn’t amount to anything more than a trivial note.”
Left unsaid, but not unimplied, was that none of these claims could be made about her husband. He was a pal of Epstein’s. He was on Epstein’s plane. His relationship with Epstein, as exemplified for example in his contribution to Epstein’s birthday book, was more than “casual” or “trivial.”
Melania also chose to express concern for Epstein’s victims, something her husband has conspicuously not done.
And she went on to say that
Now is the time for Congress to act. Epstein was not alone. Several prominent male executives resigned from their powerful positions after this matter became widely politicized. Of course, this doesn’t amount to guilt, but we still must work openly and transparently to uncover the truth.
So the Epstein investigation is not, as her husband has asserted, a “hoax.” Nor is it yet time, as her husband has said, to move on. The truth hasn’t yet been uncovered, and we need to uncover it. And if doing so leads more “prominent male executives” to resign, so be it. One wonders: Could Melania have one prominent male chief executive in mind?
Melania chose not to include in her statement any assertion of her husband’s innocence of complicity in the Epstein affair.
Melania is perhaps not a deep thinker, but she’s no fool. Since immigrating to the United States three decades ago, Melania Knauss has done well for herself. She’s shown that she has a shrewd sense of how to operate in her adopted country. She’s risen to the top, while mostly avoiding being directly engulfed in all the scandals that have raged around her.
There is surely a lot of evidence suggesting she knew him well. But, with the Iran War being waged like a lethal version of mud wrestling, let’s see if the due diligence will be done by the press. This topic really skates on Slut Slamming, but it’s hard to cover earnestly. Emptywheel has an interesting story on the mostly out-of-view First Lady. “Melania’s Immigration Witness, Paolo Zampolli, Asked to Get His Baby Mama Deported.” I wonder if she’s worthy of any Congressional questions.
The biggest denial may be this one:
I met my husband by chance at the [sic] New York City party in 1998. This initial encounter with my husband is documented in a detailed [sic] in my book, Melania.
The entire stunt seemed like a response to Michael Wolff. After all, when Melania listed the people who’ve had to retract claims — James Carville, The Daily Beast, and Harper Collins, in conjunction with a biography of the Andrew formerly known as Prince — she did not mention Wolff (or Hunter Biden), whom she has been threatening to sue for some time, with whom she has been stuck in litigation for months.
She has threatened Wolff in the past, who has made claims about how she met Trump, whether Epstein had fucked Melania before Donald did, and whether Donald and Melania first fucked on his plane. But thus far that litigation remains pending, and she didn’t mention him (or Hunter Biden, whom she also threatened to sue) in this appearance.
Wolff has many recordings about what Epstein told Wolff, whether Epstein’s claims were true or not.
But I’m more interested in another detail.
Melania cites her own book for the definitive account of how she met Donald (she has done this in past lawsuits).
Why would she do that? She has a witness to some of this: Paolo Zampolli, the agent who imported her on the same Einstein visa scam as Epstein used for his victims.
Zampolli not only remains in the Trump circle, but he flew to Hungary to do errands for Russia with JD Vance this week.
…
Epstein survivors had plenty to say about the performance. This is from The Guardian. Shrai Popat has the story. “Survivors of Epstein’s abuse accuse Melania Trump of ‘shifting burden’ onto victims, Outrage from survivors follows first lady’s statement calling on Congress to hold public hearings with victims of Epstein’s abuse.”
More than a dozen survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse have accused Melania Trump of “shifting the burden” onto them after she called on Congress to hold public hearings with victims of Epstein’s abuse.
“Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have already shown extraordinary courage by coming forward, filing reports, and giving testimony,” said a group of 13 people and the brother and sister of the late Virginia Giuffre, who was one of the most vocal Epstein accusers, in a statement. “Asking more of them now is a deflection of responsibility not justice.”
Their response came after the first lady delivered a surprise statement in which she said denied that she ever had a relationship with Epstein and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. She also said that she was not a victim of Epstein, had no knowledge of his crimes, and said that the late convicted sex offender did not introduce her to her husband, Donald Trump.
“The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today,” she said, adding that “numerous fake images and statements about Epstein and me have been calculating [sic] on social media for years now”.
It remains unclear what specific accusations prompted her remarks. Her senior adviser, Marc Beckman, told Reuters that she “spoke out now because enough is enough. The lies must stop”.
During her statement, the first lady also urged Congress to hold public hearings and take sworn testimony from survivors of Epstein’s crimes.
In their statement on Thursday evening, the group of Epstein survivors said the first lady “is now shifting the burden onto survivors under politicized conditions that protect those with power: the Department of Justice, law enforcement, prosecutors, and the Trump administration, which has still not fully complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act”.
“It also diverts attention from Pam Bondi, who must answer for withheld files and the exposure of survivors’ identities,” they said. “Those failures continue to put lives at risk while shielding enablers.”
“Survivors have done their part,” the statement concluded. “Now it’s time for those in power to do theirs.”
It appears that the majority of the country is suffering under the impact of the Iran War. CNBC’s Jeff Cox has this headline. “Consumer sentiment hits record low, inflation fears rise amid Iran war.”
Consumer confidence plunged to a record low in April as fears mounted over rising energy prices and the broader impact of the Iran war, according to a University of Michigan survey Friday.
The university’s headline index of consumer sentiment tumbled to 47.6, down 10.7% from the March survey to its lowest on record. Current conditions and expectations indexes also saw double-digit monthly declines.
The drop in sentiment coincided with a sharp spike in inflation expectations, with respondents seeing prices up 4.8% in a year from now, a full percentage point rise from the March reading to its highest since August 2025. The one-year outlook in April 2025 was 6.5% following President Donald Trump’s “liberation day” tariff announcement.
Survey comments “show that many consumers blame the Iran conflict for unfavorable changes to the economy,” said the survey’s director, Joanne Hsu.
However, Hsu also noted that most of the interviews were completed before the April 7 ceasefire. The survey, then, primarily reflects conditions from March.
“Economic expectations will likely improve after consumers gain confidence that the supply disruptions stemming from the Iran conflict have ended and gas prices have moderated,” she said.
There’s no good news coming out of the Iran War. This is Heath Cox Richard’s take on her Substack today.
The ceasefire President Donald J. Trump announced Tuesday night fell apart almost immediately. Israel complained that it hadn’t been consulted, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted Israel did not accept an end to its bombardment of southern Lebanon as a way to dislodge Iran-backed Hezbollah militants. Steven Scheer of Reuters noted today that Israel has been under a state of emergency that halted the work of the judicial system, but with the end of the war, Netanyahu’s trial for corruption is scheduled to begin again on Saturday.
Iran has been permitting certain ships to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, but responded to Israel’s continued bombing by closing the strait again.
Vice President J.D. Vance said there was a “legitimate misunderstanding” about whether the ceasefire included Lebanon. “We never made that promise,” he said. But in fact, Pakistani prime minister Shehbaz Sharif, who posted the terms of the ceasefire on Tuesday, noted that the agreement did include a ceasefire in Lebanon. He tagged Vance in the post.
As more information about the achievement of the ceasefire became known, it reflected poorly on Trump. Humza Jilani, Abigail Hauslohner, and Demetri Sevastopulo of the Financial Times reported yesterday that while Trump claimed Iran was begging for a deal to end hostilities, it was actually the Trump administration that was pushing Pakistan to broker a deal with Iran. Tyler Pager and Katie Rogers of the New York Times reported that the White House was helping to craft Sharif’s social media statements, suggesting Trump “was actively looking for a way out of the crisis” as his own imposed deadline drew closer on Tuesday evening.
Although Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claims the U.S. has had a “historic and overwhelming victory” that achieved “every single objective,” David S. Cloud of the Wall Street Journal wrote yesterday that Iran saw the ceasefire as a “triumph” because it had survived a 38-day barrage from the United States and Israel and because it had gained control over the Strait of Hormuz, inflicting deep damage on the U.S. economy. Iran claimed the U.S. had suffered “an undeniable, historic, and crushing defeat.” Iran’s new leadership is even more anti-Western than the previous leadership, killed in the early days of the U.S.-Israeli strikes.
Yesterday the president posted his own interpretation of the terms of the agreement, but they were aspirational and asked for Iran to agree to terms that were less advantageous for the U.S. than the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that President Barack Obama negotiated in 2015 and Trump tore up in 2018.
The actual terms of the ceasefire agreement were murky. On Wednesday, Iran released its version of the points of the agreement; the White House said those points weren’t the basis for the ceasefire.
Also yesterday, Trump suggested the U.S. was considering joining the Iranians in demanding tolls for ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. “We’re thinking of doing it as a joint venture. It’s a way of securing it,” he told journalist Jonathan Karl. But today Trump posted: “There are reports that Iran is charging fees to tankers going through the Hormuz Strait—They better not be and, if they are, they better stop now!” Hours later, he added: “Iran is doing a very poor job, dishonorable some would say, of allowing Oil to go through the Strait of Hormuz. That is not the agreement we have!”
I’d like to think I have the vocabulary to describe how I feel about all these idiotic, powerplay antics, but I really don’t. We are clearly dealing with people who don’t have a clue and don’t care to understand our democratic republic. This article from The Guardian blew me away. “Pete Hegseth’s holy war: the militant Christian theology animating the US attack on Iran.” This article deserves a full read from us. We should never forget Hegseth’s weird diatribe.
Nine months and six days before a Tomahawk missile tore through the gaily decorated classrooms of the Shajareh Tayyebeh elementary school in Minab, Iran, ripping apart the bodies of schoolchildren, teachers, and parents, US defense secretary Pete Hegseth’s personal pastor delivered a sermon at the Pentagon.
“There’s a temptation to think that you’re actually in control and responsible for final outcomes, especially for those who issue the commands and do the aiming and the shooting,” preached Brooks Potteiger, Hegseth’s closest spiritual adviser, at the first of what have become monthly Christian worship services at the Department of Defense. “But you are not ultimately in charge of the world.”
Citing a verse from Matthew 10, Potteiger told the gathered leaders of the US military: “If our Lord is sovereign even over the sparrow’s fallings, you can be assured that he is sovereign over everything else that falls in this world, including Tomahawk and Minuteman missiles …
“Jesus has the final say over all of it.”
The available evidence and a preliminary investigation by the US military all suggest that the US was responsible for the 28 February school bombing that killed more than 175 people, most of them children, but neither Donald Trump nor Hegseth has taken any responsibility, nor have they expressed any remorse.
Instead, Hegseth has persisted in framing the war in Iran, which reached a temporary ceasefire on Tuesday after six weeks of fighting, as divinely sanctioned, repeatedly invoking “God’s almighty providence” and expressing surety that God is on the side of the US military. Amid boasts about the US’s superior firepower and theatrical disdain for “stupid rules of engagement”, the defense secretary has promised to give “no quarter” to the “barbaric savages” of the Iranian regime and called on the American people to pray for victory “in the name of Jesus Christ”.
Hegseth’s distinct combination of piety and bloodlust was most prominently on display at the 25 March worship service at the Pentagon, the first since the war in Iran began, when he prayed for “overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy”. The prayer was so shocking that it appears to have provoked a direct rebuke from Pope Leo, who preached on Palm Sunday that God ignores the prayers of those whose “hands are full of blood” from making war.
Hegseth will hardly mind harsh words from the head of the Catholic church, however. The 45-year-old US army veteran and former Fox News host is a member of an obscure, deeply Calvinist wing of evangelical Christianity – John Calvin broke from the Catholic church during the 16th-century Protestant Reformation – that rejects the pope’s authority and is rooted in a belief in predestination.
“They believe that nothing happens that isn’t in God’s will,” said Julie Ingersoll, a professor of religious studies at the University of North Florida, who researches this branch of Reformed Christianity. “They believe that God directs everything that happens.”
Even a bomb falling on an elementary school full of children?
I really just want to cry.
Have a good and peaceful weekend. Try not to give up hope.
What’s on your Reading, Action, and Blogging list today?
Finally Friday Reads: Breaking Crazy
Posted: March 27, 2026 Filed under: #FARTUS, #MAGAnomics, #We are so Fucked, Afternoon Reads, American Fascists, Civil Rights, corruption, democracy is threatened, FARTUS, Foreign Affairs | Tags: @johnbuss.bsky.social John Buss, Cadet Bonespur's Iran War, Orange Caligula's cabinet crazy, US Misleadership 3 Comments
“One thing really stands out about trump’s latest Cabinet Love Fest, which can only be interpreted one way, he actually said something factual!” John Buss. @repeat1968
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
You don’t need to be a mental health expert to realize that something is very wrong with Orange Caligula’s brain. As usual, I didn’t watch or listen to his displays of dementia, narcissism, and stupidity because it’s its own form of torture. But I did see some cuts and takes on various social media outlets. I think it’s important to see just exactly how far his deterioration has gone and how that’s impacting policies that are extremely damaging for our country and the world.
The Guardian’s Andrew Feinberg reports the debacle this way. “‘Could only happen to Trump’: President hijacks Cabinet meeting to cry about lawsuits over his radical DC plans. President launches into extended stemwinder of grievances ranging from lawsuits over the Kennedy Center to the Justice Department’s failure to bring sham charges against Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.”
President Donald Trump spent roughly 15 minutes of a cabinet meeting on Thursday complaining about a historic preservation group’s efforts to block him from shutting down the Kennedy Center for a purported preservation and grousing about the Justice Department being unable to prosecute the chairman of the Federal Reserve over their renovation.
The president was in the middle of a long soliloquy about fixing up the Washington, DC-based arts center — which was built in honor of assassinated President John F. Kennedy — when he began to claim the controversial renovation would be “under budget, ahead of schedule” and unfavorably compared the project to the long-running rehab of the nearly century-old Federal Reserve headquarters.
He quickly pivoted to airing a related grievance about the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a congressionally chartered nonprofit that has filed multiple lawsuits against his administration to block the construction of his planned White House ballroom after he ordered the historic East Wing reduced to rubble last fall.
“Everything I do, I get sued. Under budget, ahead of schedule, I get sued over a ballroom that’s going to be the most beautiful ballroom in the country … we get sued by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. They don’t know what they’re doing,” he said.
He also complained that he’d separately been facing litigation over the Kennedy Center project and suggested the lawsuit was only attributable to the center’s board — made up of loyalists he appointed after taking office and sacking the previous leadership — adding his name to the name of the organization.
“Then I just found out we got sued by that group and another group … I guess on the fixing up of again, I’ll use the old name Kennedy Center — it’s going to be beautiful when you add the name Trump,” he said.
“But we got sued, and all I’m doing is fixing it up. We’re fixing broken marble. We’re putting on a roof because it leaks like a sieve. We’re fixing steel that’s broken. Same building, same exact building we’re fixing. It’s going to be beautiful. It’s going to be so beautiful and safe … but think of it. I get sued because I’m fixing up the Trump Kennedy Center. We’re going to make it gorgeous and safe. We’re fixing new windows, do this, but just all fix up. I got sued by preservationists.”
“This could only happen to Trump,” he added.
The president eventually pivoted back to attacking the Federal Reserve renovation and the central bank’s chairman, Jerome Powell, with whom he has spent years feuding over Powell’s failure to keep interest rates low to help Republicans’ electoral prospects.
This PBS News headline shows the lies Trump’s spreading on the Iran War. “WATCH: Trump says in Cabinet meeting he doesn’t ‘know if we’re willing’ to make a deal with Iran.”
President Donald Trump insisted Thursday that Iran is “begging” to make a deal.
Watch in our video player above.
The president, speaking at the start of a Thursday Cabinet meeting, said he wanted to “set the record straight” that he isn’t the one pushing for a deal.
WATCH: Iran rejects Trump’s ceasefire terms and issues own demands as war continues
“They’re begging to make a deal, not me,” Trump said.
Iranian officials have denied that they’re negotiating with the U.S. as the war continues in its fourth week. Trump insisted they are.
“Anybody would know they’re talking,” he said. “They’re not fools, they’re very smart actually in a certain way. And they’re great negotiators. I say they’re lousy fighters but they’re great negotiators.”
What kind of crazy does it take to negotiate with this kind of language? Lousy fighters? Read more about the meeting at the link. People Magazine reports an incident that sounds like the sounds like the strawberry incident in The Caine Mutiny. “Trump Rambles About Sharpie Pens for 5 Straight Minutes During High-Level Cabinet Meeting amid Iran War. The president said he was sharing “a business story” near the end of his lengthy tangent.”
Donald Trump embarked on an unrelated and rambling story about Sharpie pens during a Cabinet meeting this week.
On Thursday, March 26, the 79-year-old president met with members of his Cabinet, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. During the meeting, they discussed topics ranging from the war in Iran to his decision to vote by mail in a recent Florida special election in his home district of Palm Beach.
At one point, Trump broke into a story about his use of Sharpie-brand pens while discussing renovations that are ongoing at the Federal Reserve. He blasted the project as being unnecessarily expensive, saying that he could have done it for much less and that “it would be better” than the current project.
After blaming “incompetent people” in the government for “a lot of problems” currently affecting the United States, he picked up a Sharpie on the table and started his story.
“See this pen right here? This pen is an interesting example. It’s the same thing. So, this pen is very inexpensive, but it writes well. I like it. But I can’t have the pen the way it was. You know what it is; I don’t want to give too much publicity, but they do treat me well. Sharpie,” he said.
Trump said that when he came to the White House they had “$1,000 pens” [of a different brand] and that he’d often give them away to as many as 30 or 40 people while signing autographs.
“They were $1,000 a piece. Beautiful pen. Ballpoint. Thousand. It was gold, silver, gorgeous. But I’m handing them out to kids that don’t even know what they … ‘What’s this, mommy?’ These kids, they’re getting a pen for $1,000. They have no idea what it is,” he said, adding that he felt “guilty” that he wasn’t saving the government money.
On top of being expensive, the pens “had another problem,” he said. “They didn’t write well. So I take it out, and I sign and there’s no ink. And I’ve got all you people [the assembled press] looking, and you’re saying, ‘There must be something wrong with Trump.’ And I’m signing and there’s no ink the pen and it costs $1,000.”
Irritated by what he implied was government waste, he said that he reached out to Sharpie and said he’d “like to use your pen, but I can’t have a gray thing with a big ‘S’ on it.’ “
Meanwhile, what does it say when you’re base want’s you impeached?
Lisa Needham, writing for Public Notice, asks this great question. “What do you do when you can’t trust the government? The haze of contradictions and confusion is a feature, not a bug.”
We’re a month into President Donald Trump’s increasingly disastrous Iran war, and we have no idea what’s really going on.
In part, that’s because Trump is now nothing but a creature of pure id surrounded by enablers, running the country like an enormous out-of-control toddler. But it’s also because the administration is not at all interested in providing the American people with objective, reliable information.
That erasure of truth leaves us unmoored.
Trump’s increasing instability was always going to lead to chaotic, contradictory statements about the war, blurting out whatever ideas have taken hold in the nest of spiders inside his head.
These constant reversals about what he plans to do next aren’t always random or delusional, but the sheer volume of Trumpian proclamations that seem divorced from reality does a terrific job of obscuring when something is deliberate.
That was the case at least until earlier this week, when Trump decided to use the Iran war to engage in a little light market manipulation. Well, some pretty hefty market manipulation, actually.
Heather Cox Richardson has some even more damning evidence at her SubStack.
In an interview with Reuters on Monday, Singapore’s minister for foreign affairs, Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan, put in bald language the change in the world order instigated by President Donald J. Trump.
“For 80 years,” Balakrishnan explained, “the US was the underwriter for a system of globalisation based on UN Charter principles, multilateralism, territorial integrity, sovereign equality.” That system “heralded an unprecedented and unique period of global prosperity and peace. Of course there were exceptions. And of course, the Cold War was still in effect for at least half of the last 80 years. But generally, for those of us who were non-communists, who ran open economies, who provided first world infrastructure, together with a hardworking disciplined people, we had unprecedented opportunities.
“The story of Singapore, with a per capita GDP of 500 US dollars in 1965. Now, [it is] somewhere between 80,000 to 90,000 US dollars. It would not have happened if it had not been for this unprecedented period, basically Pax Americana and then turbocharged by the reform and opening of China for decades. It has been unprecedented. It has been great for many of us. In fact, I will say, for all of us, if you look back 80 years.
“But now, whether you like it or not, objectively, this period has ended…. Basically, the underwriter of this world order has now become a revisionist power, and some people would even say a disruptor. But the larger point is that the erosion of norms, processes, and institutions that underpinned a remarkable period of peace and prosperity; that foundation has gone.”
In its place, as scholar of authoritarianism Timothy Snyder said to me in a YouTube conversation yesterday, Trump is aligning himself with international oligarchs like Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, Saudi Arabia’s Mohammad bin Salman (MBS), and China’s Xi Jinping. Because of his position as the president of the United States of America, this means he is aligning the United States of America with this oligarchical axis as well, abandoning the country’s democratic principles and traditional allies.
Our foreign policy was never pristine. All you have to do is look at the CIA during the post World War 2 years to see adventurism in South America, Africa, and Southeastern Asia to see that. However, we did assert some global leadership that created some stability, peace, and trade agreements. Now, all bets are off with us under Trump.
The craziness just continues and the disruption to what once was a mostly functioning democratic republic is obvious. How about this bit of narcissim? This is from today’s New York Times. “Trump’s Signature Is Set to Be Added to America’s Currency. President Trump is poised to be the first sitting president to have his signature appear on the U.S. dollar.”
Or just another story coming about some asshole cabinet member. This one from the head of the “Department of War.” It’s also from the New York Times. “Hegseth Strikes Two Black and Two Female Officers From Promotion List, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s highly unusual decision to remove officers from a one-star promotion list has spurred allegations of racial and gender bias.”
They’re rewriting the script on every value this country has held.
Well, I’m off to the long, wretched task of reworking my mortgage just so I can fix somethings on my house. As a person who has been a banker on all kinds of levels from the FED to a communithy bank I can tell you that I have never seen such a mess. I’m certain I have all this AI shit to thank for it. The documentation requirements are just unbelievable.
I hope your weekend goes well and that you can manage to stay above the news and the national fray.
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Sweet Goddesses, I miss performaning this song in the Quarter. I need to go back to gigging. Anything’s better than teaching Economics in this damn environment.
Mostly Monday Reads: High Anxiety
Posted: November 4, 2024 Filed under: 2024 DNC, Afternoon Reads, just because | Tags: 2024, Election Day November 5, VOTE 8 Comments
“I seen it on Fox News so it must be true.” John Buss, @repeat1968
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
It’s finally here, and I’m so ready, but I would feel safer if I knew the outcome. I’m pretty sure the women of America have got this. I also know anyone who values their freedom, and the girls and women in their lives are doing their best, too. This headline caught my attention. It’s from The Daily Beast. “Teary-Eyed John Oliver Begs Reluctant Voters to Back Kamala Harris. The late-night host sent an emotional message to viewers in a passionate monologue days before the election.” My Discord Kamala volunteer channel has been beeping constantly with requests to call just a few more folks in the Swing States. I think everyone is trying to help in their own way because we all remember how awful DonOld and his cult can be. Sean L. McCarthy writes about John Oliver’s teary plea. I think it’s likely he’s higher up on the Project 2025/DonOld’s revenge list than I am.
Fighting back tears, John Oliver choked up Sunday night while urging undecided and reluctant voters to turn out Tuesday to elect Kamala Harris as president.
“What am I going to be feeling on Wednesday? And is there anything I’m going to wish I’d said right now?” Oliver said at the start of his impassioned 10-minute closing monologue on Last Week Tonight.
Oliver said he supports Harris’ proposals to expand Medicare for long-term elder care, as well as expanding reproductive freedoms and boosting incomes for poor Americans. He also acknowledged that several episodes in this 11th season of his late night HBO show already have warned of the danger of a second Trump term and the policies spelled out in Project 2025. “All of that is why a bunch of our stories this year have ended with me telling you to vote against Donald Trump,” Oliver said. “But to be clear, I am voting for Kamala Harris. And I think you should, too.”
Oliver directed his Sunday night plea to those voters “rightly furious” about the Biden administration’s “indefensible” policy toward the war in Gaza. “Look, I get why this is so difficult, and I know there are some who won’t vote for Harris under any circumstances because of this issue,” he said, adding: “I wish Harris had done more to reach out to you, beyond sending Bill Clinton to basically scold you this week. That didn’t seem remotely helpful to me, and honestly, felt a bit like bullying.”
But he also pointed to Muslim and Arab voices “who have also wrestled hard with this question and arrived at the conclusion that despite their pain, to vote for Harris.” Such as Georgia State Rep. Ruwa Romman, one of the Palestinians who had hoped to speak at this summer’s DNC but was rebuked. Oliver played a TikTok from Romman where she explained her reasons for sticking with Harris and the Democrats. “It’s honestly worth watching the whole thing,” Oliver said.
I know what it feels like to think you should’ve done something more when you had a chance. I don’t like being in that place.
Some signs show things moving in the right direction, even though the big pollsters call this race a toss-up. It’s why we can’t afford to sit this one out. This NPR report has me breathing easier. “Meet the conservative women who are keeping their votes for Kamala Harris a secret. It played on Morning Edition today with Sarah MacCammon. It’s a 4 minute listen if you go to the link.
In political ads and campaign speeches, supporters of Vice President Harris have a message for Republican women: Your vote is private, and no one will know if you secretly vote for Harris.
“No one gets to know how you’re going to vote,” Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin said last week during a campaign stop in Michigan. “No one gets to check it. It’s not available online. Right? Your vote is your choice. You don’t have to tell anyone.” Slotkin, who’s running for Senate, was campaigning with former Republican Rep. Liz Cheney, who’s also crossed the aisle to endorse Harris.
Their message is aimed at conservative-leaning women like T, whom we’re calling by her first initial. T, who is in her 60s and lives in Wisconsin, asked for anonymity to discuss how living in a politically divided household is affecting her marriage of more than 40 years.
“He’s frustrated with me that I won’t listen to him plead his case. I can’t and I won’t,” she explained.
T says she mailed her absentee ballot from another family member’s home to avoid a confrontation with her husband over her support for Harris.
“It’s not that he would ever stop me or anything, it’s just I just can’t deal with that animosity,” she said with an audible sigh.
There was some sad news today. Quincy Jones has gone home to the elders at the age of 91. His influence on my life as a musician cannot be overstated. He was the “it” man. An interview with the great man in 2018 on DonOld and his family is something I pass along because you’ll see how strongly he was disgusted by the man. This is from Newsweek. “What Quincy Jones Said About Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump.”
In the interview, Jones mentioned knowing Ivanka’s father and didn’t hold back his opinions about him, expressing a strong distaste for Trump and referring to him in disparaging terms. Jones described him as “crazy” and criticized him as being “limited mentally,” calling him “narcissistic.”
“I used to hang out with him. He’s a crazy motherf***er. Limited mentally – a megalomaniac, narcissistic. I can’t stand him,” Jones said.
During the no-holds-barred interview, Jones expressed frustration about Trump’s political career and business practices, implying that he lacked leadership skills and didn’t know how to bring people together.
“A symphony conductor knows more about how to lead than most businesspeople – more than Trump does. He doesn’t know s***. Someone who knows about real leadership wouldn’t have as many people against him as he does. He’s a f***ing idiot,” Jones said.
Referring to Trump’s supporters, again Jones didn’t hold back, saying: “It’s Trump and uneducated rednecks. Trump is just telling them what they want to hear.”
Trump didn’t respond publicly to the claims. The following year, in March 2019, Jones donated $2,800 to Kamala Harris‘ primary campaign.
Jones had six daughters and publicly stated he was proud of every one of them. I’ve always voted in honor of my grandmothers, who could not vote until they were well into middle age. Tomorrow, I will vote for my daughters and granddaughters and every woman in the country who needs autonomy to make decisions about her life. I will vote for me, my sister, and all the other adult women who deserve their own moral authority. None of us are chattel, nor should we be under the law or the decision of a bunch of weird old men on the Supreme Court. And with that, I will shame Nikki Haley, who wrote this in the WSJ. “Trump Isn’t Perfect, but He’s the Better Choice. If you like his policies but are put off by his tone or his excesses, consider the cost of the past four years.” That is all you will see here. You have to deliberately confuscate the US economy, jobs, and business growth of the last few years for that conclusion.
After SNL on NBC gave Harris some fun time on the show Saturday night, the Orange Dotard demanded equal time. Fortunately, I didn’t see it because there would be no way I would be watching either of these shows. This is from, of all places, The Hollywood Reporter. “NBC Gives Donald Trump Campaign Time During NASCAR Race, ‘Sunday Night Football’ in Response to Kamala Harris’ ‘SNL’ Appearance. Trump appeared in spots that aired during Sunday’s coverage of both sporting events on NBC, speaking directly to the camera.”
On Sunday, NBC broadcast a NASCAR playoff race, but some viewers noticed toward the end of the broadcast (technically right after the race ended but while coverage was still ongoing) that Trump appeared in an unusual ad, speaking directly to camera while wearing a Red “Make America Great Again” baseball cap, and claiming that electing Harris would cause a “depression” and that viewers should “go and vote.”
A source familiar with the matter says that the spot during the NASCAR race was connected to NBC giving the Trump campaign equal time.
During NBC’s Sunday Night Football coverage, Trump was given 60 additional seconds of campaign time. While the game was already over, the spot — which was the same one that aired during the NASCAR coverage — aired during the post-game coverage (and shortly after a paid campaign ad).
It is not clear whether it was the Trump camp or NBC that suggested the NASCAR and SNF placements.
It is also not clear if any other campaigns have requested equal time. If they do, however, NBC will likely need to find time for them, given the FCC rules. SNL creator Lorne Michaels previously cited the rules in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter as a reason why the show hadn’t had Trump or Harris on during this cycle.
Harris appeared on SNL in a “cold open” sketch alongside Maya Rudolph, who portrays the vice president for the late night comedy show. The sketch saw Rudolph’s Harris seeking a pep talk from the real Harris, with the pair ending the bit by saying “Keep Kamala and carry on-ala.”
However the sketch drew a rebuke from FCC commissioner Brendan Carr, who is seen as a potential FCC chair if President Trump is re-elected. Carr wrote that the sketch was “a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC’s Equal Time rule,” because it came just two days before election day, within the seven-day window the FCC gives campaigns to request equal time.
I suppose none of these folks know that economists worldwide have indicated that it’s Trump’s stated economic policies that would immediately throw the US and the world into a recession. This is an Op-Ed in the Business Standard from a few weeks ago. “US elections: 23 Nobel laureates can’t be wrong about Donald Trump. Economists, from Columbia University professor Joseph Stiglitz to Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Daron Acemoglu, released a letter endorsing Kamala Harris for US president.”4
Economists mostly shun politics in favour of policy. We prefer to be aloof soothsayers giving voice to data and research rather than our own beliefs. A luminary in the profession once told me that “the only political party economists support is whichever is willing to be smart,” before adding, “and a smart economist would never join a political party.” And yet, in a stunning turn — at least for us in the profession — 23 Nobel Prize-winning economists, from Columbia University professor Joseph Stiglitz to Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Daron Acemoglu, released a letter endorsing Kamala Harris for US president.
“Simply put, Harris’s policies will result in a stronger economic performance, with economic growth that is more robust, more sustainable, and more equitable,” the Nobel laureates wrote in the letter. Donald Trump’s policies, they added, would “lead to higher prices, larger deficits, and greater inequality.” As for Ms Harris, they wrote that she “has emphasised policies that strengthen the middle class, enhance competition, and promote entrepreneurship.Individuals can struggle to sort out the nuance of their own economic experience over the past eight years in weighing Ms Harris versus Mr Trump, but professional economists of all stripes have little to be torn about.It’s not a toss-up:Mr Trump’s policy agenda gives much for economists to condemn. Any one of these policies on their own would be enough to disqualify a candidate, but that Mr Trump has proposed them all is a clear enough indicator of just how much the economy would be at risk if he were reelected.
The latest Biden/Harris economy accolades have come from the U.K.’s The Economist.
The American economy
The envy of the world
Special reports –
The American economy has left other rich countries in the dust. Expect that to continue, argue Simon Rabinovitch and Henry Curr
Special report: The American economy has left other rich countries in the dust
Economic output: American productivity still leads the world
For richer and poorer: Is higher inequality the price America pays for faster growth?
Energy: The shale revolution helped make America’s economy great
The dollar: China’s yuan is nowhere close to displacing the greenback
Now, compare that to what Trump said yesterday. “It’s gonna be so much fun. It’ll be nasty… at the beginning in particular… You’re gonna see things that you’re not gonna believe.” Does that sound like Happy Days are here again? This is from Maddow Blog at MSNBC. “Trump warns voters that his second term would get ‘nasty’ at times. According to Donald Trump and his allies, his second term would be “nasty,” “bloody,” and filled with “hardships” for much of the population.” Steven Benen reports on this gloom and doom rally.
When Donald Trump uses the word “nasty,” he tends to target those who have the audacity to criticize him or stand in his way. In 2016, for example, the Republican referred to Hillary Clinton as a “nasty woman.” Eight years later, the former president whined about Michelle Obama’s campaign appearances, complaining that the former first lady became “nasty.”
Last year, during a town hall event on CNN, Trump described moderator Kaitlan Collins as a “nasty person.” About a year later, he accused New York Attorney General Letitia James of having a “nasty” mouth. (If you’re noticing the gender similarity here, it’s not your imagination.)
But once in a while, the GOP candidate uses the word in a very different kind of context. NBC News reported:
After a meandering and at times hostile speech [Sunday] morning in Pennsylvania, Trump delivered a more subdued and on-prompter speech to a Georgia crowd at his third and final rally today. As he depicted a second-term Trump administration, he said: “We stand on the verge of the four greatest years in American history. … It’ll be nasty a little bit at times, and maybe at the beginning in particular.”
The report added, “He didn’t elaborate on what would be ‘nasty.’”
At face value, this isn’t the kind of rhetoric American voters generally hear from presidential candidates. On the contrary, White House hopefuls tend to tell the public that if they’re elected, the country will be vastly safer, stronger, more prosperous, and more secure.
But Trump wants voters to prepare for something qualitatively different: a country where conditions will get “nasty.”
This comes roughly two months after the Republican nominee also told an audience that he and his team intend to pursue a mass deportation policy, and the process of removing immigrants already in the United States “will be a bloody story.”
It also comes a week after conspiratorial billionaire Elon Musk, a prominent Trump surrogate and megadonor, said during a virtual town hall event that Americans will need to endure “temporary hardship” if Trump wins a second term. As the world’s wealthiest man explained, much of the public will feel a real pinch as GOP officials work on “tackling the nation’s debt,” but those who suffer should take comfort in the hopes that the country will eventually enjoy “long-term prosperity.”
How is any person voting for this? WTF is wrong with these people. That’s a Drink the Koolaide message if I ever saw one!
You might know that I spent most of my young years in Iowa. It was not the same then as it later turned into when Pat Robertson rolled through an Iowa Primary and awakened the Beasts within. The Des Moines Register has always been an award-winning paper. It was the paper of choice back then. The October Surprise might have come from the paper’s well-respected pollster who gets the pulse of the Iowa electorate fight with admirable accuracy. Her name is Ann Selzer. This one must’ve hit a nerve because now the Orange Koolaide Vendor is attacking her. Her poll results caught a surprise shift! This is from The Daily Beast. “Pollster Behind Shock Iowa Poll Hits Back at Trump’s Attacks. The former president called J. Ann Selzer one of his “enemies” after results showed him falling behind Harris in the state.” Dan Ladden-Hall has the analysis.
Revered Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer on Monday responded to the attacks Donald Trump made against her after her bombshell poll showed him trailing in the state.
The Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll conducted by Selzer and published Saturday showed Kamala Harris leading Trump by three points—47 percent to 44 percent—in Iowa, a state he won comfortably in 2016 and 2020. Although the result differed from that of other Iowa polls, the figures were potentially concerning for Trump given Selzer’s track record of accurately forecasting results in the Hawkeye State.
Trump was sufficiently concerned by the poll to post about it on Truth Social, claiming that all polls “except for one heavily skewed toward the Democrats by a Trump hater” showed him in the lead. “I’m 10 points up in Iowa,” he said during a campaign stop in Pennsylvania on Sunday. “One of my enemies just puts out a poll—I’m three down.”
“They just announced a fake poll,” he went on. “Hey, think of it—right before the election—that I’m three points down. I’m not down in Iowa.” Trump’s campaign separately released a memo calling Selzer’s poll “a clear outlier” and pointed to Emerson College polling released the same day that gave Trump a 10-point lead over Harris.
During an appearance Monday on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Selzer acknowledged that the result of her poll was a “shock.”
“I’ve been shocked since Tuesday morning last week,” Selzer said. “So I’ve had the time for this to sink in because no one, including me, would’ve thought that Iowa could go for Kamala Harris.”
Co-host Willie Geist specifically asked Selzer about Trump’s criticisms, inviting her to respond to the claim that her poll is just an outlier.
“I give credit to my method for my track record,” Selzer said. “I call my method ‘polling forward.’ So I want to be in a place where my data can show me what’s likely to happen with the future electorate. So I just try to get out of the way of my data saying this is what’s going to happen.”
“A lot of other polls, and I’ll count Emerson among them, are including in the way that they manipulate the data after it comes in, things that have happened in the past,” she continued. “So they’re taking into account exit polls, they’re taking into account what turnout was in past elections. I don’t make any assumptions like that. So it’s in my way of thinking, it’s a cleaner way to forecast a future electorate, which nobody knows what that’s going to be. But we do know that our electorates change in terms of how many people are showing up and what the composition is.”
Notice the role women are playing in this election season? The Bulwark’s Jonathan V. Last recognizes it. “The Valkyries of Democracy. In praise of three extraordinary women. Trigger warning: Emo JVL is here. I’ve got a lot of feelings and I’m going to share all of them with you. Sorry. But that’s where I’m at.” There certainly are a lot of men who are getting all wet-eyed and emotional during this election.
By the time you read this Sarah will have concluded moderating a conversation between Kamala Harris and Liz Cheney. If you missed it, you can watch it here. And in a few minutes, I’m going to sit down with Sarah and have her unload on what this moment was like. It’ll be on the site the minute she’s able to get on camera.
Before that, though, I want to say a personal word about these three extraordinary women.
On Liz Cheney: I was wrong. I can’t say this often enough. When Cheney broke with Donald Trump after January 6, I was dismissive. I didn’t understand why it took her so long, or how she could have stayed on-side during COVID and the 2020 campaign.
But as she methodically blew up her own career in order to defend our democracy, I realized I’d underestimated her. This was a woman of real conviction, who was willing to put it all on the line.
Liz Cheney has been a workhorse. She’s been willing to do as much as anyone, and more than most, in the service of elevating country over party.
On Kamala Harris: I am not in the Yass Queen camp. My view is that Kamala is a standard-issue, ambitious politician and that she might be a good president, or a bad president, or a middling president. There’s no real way to know ahead of time. I do not have any illusions about her being a savior.
But I also do not believe that any sane person would want to be the Democratic presidential nominee in the Year of Our Lord 2024.
The stakes are too high; the pressure too great.
I believe that for all her political ambition, Kamala Harris is carrying this burden for us. She’s not Barack Obama, basking in the warmth of a cultural moment en route to becoming a cultural icon. She’s more like Frodo Baggins, walking toward Mordor while carrying a millstone around her neck, in an attempt to save all of Middle Earth from a dark fate.
Here are two things I truly believe: (1) Kamala Harris has wanted to be president for a long time; and (2) Kamala Harris never wanted to run for president with the fate of democracy on the line.
When Howard Stern interviewed Harris, he asked her about the pressure and she answered that she literally loses sleep over it. That she goes to bed every night wondering, “Is there anything else I could have done?”
I cannot imagine that burden. And I am grateful—in my heart—to her for bearing it.
Finally, there’s Sarah Longwell.
I cannot properly convey the depth of my affection and admiration for her. I would run through walls for Sarah. I’d take a bullet for her.
When the Harris campaign called and asked Sarah to come to Pennsylvania today and sit down with Harris and Cheney, I kvelled.
Knowing that other people see the same things in Sarah that we see? Absolutely bursting with pride.
But it’s not just pride.
It’s relief. Look: None of us wants to be living in this moment.
But history chose us. It is our burden and the burden is, itself, a form of privilege.
And there is no group of people I would rather fight through this moment with than those three women: Liz, Kamala, and Sarah.
As Coach D’Amato once said, the inches we need are all around us. And when I look at these women, I see people who will go that inch with us. Who have been willing to sacrifice for that inch. Who are going to fight for every inch.
And I’m ride or die with them. I hope you will be, too.r
So, my birthday is today. I just turned 69, and there’s a party at the bar on the corner, so we can have some fun, make silly references to my age, and ignore things for a bit. Tomorrow, I will walk down the street to the Rec Center and greet my Poll Workers! I will vote. I’m counting on women and a few good men to do the right thing.
This may not be over quickly, but we must keep Calmala and Carry-on-ala. This is from The Hill‘s Alexander Bolten. “GOP primed to back Trump if he contests election.” All the court cases to date have been big losers. You can always follow them on Democracy Docket. This fight described below in Bolten’s piece may finally end the Republican Party once and for all.
The Republican Party is now more primed to back former President Trump if he contests the results of the 2024 election than it was four years ago, when his efforts to overturn President Biden’s victory fell flat in courts and Congress.
Trump’s unwavering claims about the nation’s election system being “rigged” have steadily gained more acceptance among rank-and-file Republican
svoters over the past four years, and his biggest Republican critics in Congress have either retired, will retire soon or have lost sway.Additionally, Trump allies around the country have worked to gain more influence over state and local election boards, which will be in charge of tallying votes and certifying the results.
Republicans are feeling increasingly optimistic Trump will win the election, but they are girding for an intense battle if Vice President Harris is declared the winner.
“The strength of the cult of Trump amongst voters is strong so members are reflecting what their constituents want them to do,” said a Republican strategist and former Senate leadership aide.
“The other angle is there are a lot of concerns about how elections are being conducted and the power of social media and our partisan news,” the strategist said. “Republicans watch a lot of Twitter and Fox News, and they see voting irregularities,” they continued, pointing out a recent Detroit News report that a Chinese citizen attending the University of Michigan voted illegally by absentee ballot, and election officials weren’t able to retrieve it.
Four years ago, Trump’s claims that Biden and his allies “stole” the election struck many Republicans in Washington as outlandish, though most of them extended the 45th president the courtesy of letting him pursue his claims in court, where they failed.
So we are all in this together. Just keep telling people to go vote and make sure you vote. You can always ask for a provisional ballot as is your right if anything goes wrong. It’s important we do this!
Finally Friday Reads: Pobre Diabla
Posted: November 1, 2024 Filed under: 2024 presidential Campaign, abortion rights, Abusive Relationships, American Fascists, just because, Right Wing Angst | Tags: #DonOld, 2024 Elections, @repeat1968. John Buss, Halloween Horror Movies, Liz Cheney, Texas abortion laws 4 Comments
“Voting can stop it.” John Buss @repeat1968
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
It was a dark and drizzly night, not one to make the rounds to all the Halloween parties in the hood. So, I settled into watching a friend from around Flagstaff, Arizona, stream a set of Horror Movies on Discord to a bunch of us who play a Zombie survival game together. It was like a pajama party with the girls, except my girls are all furry, and everyone else was scattered all over the country. I retwisted my ankle last night which was still hurting from a Tuesday mishap and feeling really old. The live Oaks of New Orleans’ Avenues drop acorns that rapidly become a coffee ground-like mess everywhere. That was the trick. I was glad that I stocked up on treats and wine earlier because I just missed the fog and the mist rolling in over the city. A very apt setting for Interview with a Vampire. I was hurting, traumatized by the DonOld Garbage Truck Cosplay spewing from the News Channels, and thought settling down to some movies would be a good break.
I saw a new version of Children of the Corn and was treated to several movies, including two of the “The Hills Have Eyes” franchises. It was hard to believe that the original version by Wes Crave had come out when I was at university. The fact the newest version of Children was centered in Nebraska was not lost on me. The original of that one came out when I was finishing my Masters. Back then, I’d take out the Beta tapes of the old Vincent Price horror movies that I recorded off the few cable channels back then.
The more I watched the Hill films, the more I could see Trump supporters in all the cannibal zombies in the Hills. Seriously, right down to their caps, their messy English, and the way they treated the two women in that National Guard Unit, I could swear I was watching a MAGA ambush. The creepy preacher in Children of the Corn and his implied “sin” against the little girl Eden was like the perfect metaphor for all those white Christian nationalist men whose arrest mug shots for crimes against children keep popping up on my X feed.
I had watched the news earlier and the meltdown that MAGA husbands are having at the idea their wives might get in the voting booth and vote their conscience instead of the will of their Patriarchal captor. One dude on Fox likened it to committing adultery, at which point the women on the panel laughed, and then he looked straight at the camera and told his chattel Emma that it would be finished if he found she’d done that. I thought she should get a lawyer to get her share, then Run Emma, RUN!! That and go have some fun with some young men that know what they’re doing! Just don’t bring them home or marry them.
This is from Vanity Fair. The analysis is provided by Bess Levin. “Fox News Host Says He’d Divorce His Wife for Voting for Kamala Harris. “If I found out Emma was going into the voting booth and pulling the lever for Harris, that’s the same thing as having an affair.” If you’d like, I can reference the part from the Hill movie where the mutant grabs a woman National Guard soldier, starts grabbing and raping her, and says, “You make nice babies!” Who among us can’t see DonOld in his prime doing that same thing?
How much respect do Donald Trump’s male supporters have for women? So much that at least one of them has said he’d end his marriage if his wife exercised her constitutional right to vote for Kamala Harris.
On an episode of The Five this week, Fox News host Jesse Watters told fellow panelists that if he learned his wife, Emma, cast her ballot for the vice president, after letting him think she was voting for Trump, he would consider it a betrayal on par with having an extramarital affair and it would be “over.”
“If I found out Emma was going into the voting booth and pulling the lever for Harris, that’s the same thing as having an affair,” Watters said. “That, to me, violates the sanctity of our marriage. What else is she keeping from me? What else has she been lying about?” Asked by cohost Jeanine Pirro, “Why would she lie to you? Have you threatened her?” Watters responded, “Why would she do that and then vote Harris? Why would she say she was voting…. And I caught her and then she said, ‘I lied to you for the last four years—’”
“So you admit you intimidate people,” Pirro interjected. “It’s over, Emma!” Watters said. “That would be D-Day!”
Watters and co. were discussing an ad put out in support of the Harris campaign that reminds women, “You can vote any way you want, and no one will ever know.” Which is apparently a necessary point to make to women who are married to extremely fragile Trump-supporting men.
I know that once they think they’ve got you, they show their true colors, but seriously, who could stand to live like that? Salon has this great article up with an even more wonderful headline. “”It is so disastrous”: MAGA men are freaking out that wives may be secretly voting for Kamala Harris, “That’s the same thing as having an affair,” Fox News host argues as women fuel early vote in key states.” The entire concept of Control Freak is not hyped enough for these guys. Charles R Davis takes them on.
When you’re a star, Donald Trump has said more than once, women will let you do whatever you want to them. As president, that meant putting three right-wing justices on the Supreme Court and stripping half the country of a constitutional right, enabling people like him — their self-proclaimed “protector” — to have the final word on what any woman does with her body.
“I’m going to do it whether the women like it or not,” the former president asserted at a campaign stop on Wednesday. “I am going to protect them.”
Women, it turns out, do not care for this — a large majority of them, at least. While millions will still vote for the Republican candidate, perhaps hating immigrants more than they love reproductive rights, the only certainty at this point is that many millions more will vote for Vice President Kamala Harris. In the latest ABC News/Ipsos national poll, the Democrat enjoyed a 14% advantage with women over Trump; among women with a college degree, that number rose to 23%; among women voters under 40, it rocketed to 34%.
According to the Brookings Institution, Harris’ strength among women angered by the 2022 Dobbs decision could explain why Democrats, for the first time in forever, are polling better with older voters than Republicans. The think tank’s Michael Hais and Morley Winograd noted that, per the ABC News/Ipsos survey, there has been a 10-point swing to Harris among voters over the age of 65 compared to 2020.
“Some observers think this shift is driven by the ‘revenge of Boomer feminists’ among the women of that famous generation, all of whom are now over 65 but who cut their political teeth in the battle for equality when they were much younger,” Hais and Winograd wrote. Younger voters may be angry over losing a right they had never lived without, but older people have seen hard-fought progress rolled back. They are also the most reliable group of voters — and they tend to vote early.
In battleground states, that appears to be exactly what’s happening. According to an analysis of early-voting tallies by Politico, women account for 55% of all ballots cast thus far in states such as Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
That, in turn, is causing some MAGA commentators to break from their usual posture of feigned confidence to outright panic.
“Early vote has been disproportionately female,” Charlie Kirk, head of Turning Point USA and helping to lead the Trump campaign’s get-out-the-vote effort, posted on social media. “If men stay at home, Kamala is president. It’s that simple.” (Kirk, seeking to motivate these voters, offered Orwellian misogyny: “If you want a vision of the future if you don’t vote, imagine Kamala’s voice cackling, forever.”)
I feel seen for once, hopefully, not by the Children of the Garbage Bags and AR-15s. DonOld really has gone over the edge. During his rally in New Mexico, he made a loosely veiled threat at former Congresswoman Liz Cheney. This is from the Bulwark, as written by Bill Kristol. Don’t Horror shows make allies out of the strangest folks? That’s what happens when your very life is on the line.
Donald Trump’s two strongest personality traits each had a moment on the campaign trail yesterday.
At a rally in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the buffoon: “I’m here for one very simple reason. I like you very much, and it’s good for my credentials with the Hispanic and Latino community.”
And later, on stage with Tucker Carlson in Glendale, Arizona, the menace. Here he was on former GOP Rep. Liz Cheney: “She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face.”
U.S. News has this headline. “Trump Says Liz Cheney Might Not Be Such a ‘War Hawk’ if She Had Rifles Shooting at Her. Donald Trump is calling former Rep. Liz Cheney, who’s one of his most prominent Republican critics, a “war hawk” and he’s suggesting she might not be as willing to send troops to fight if she had guns shooting at her.”
Donald Trump is suggesting that former Rep. Liz Cheney, one of his most prominent Republican critics, should have rifles “shooting at her” to see how she feels about sending troops to fight. It was his latest suggestion that his rivals should be targeted with violence.
Cheney responded by branding the GOP presidential nominee a “cruel, unstable man who wants to be a tyrant.”
The Republican presidential candidate has been using increasingly threatening rhetoric against his adversaries and talked of “enemies from within” undermining the country. Some of his former senior aides and Vice President Kamala Harris have labeled him a fascist in response.
At an event late Thursday in Arizona with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Trump was asked whether it was strange to see Cheney campaign against him. The former Wyoming congresswoman has vocally opposed Trump since the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and endorsed Democrat Kamala Harris, joining the vice president at recent stops as they try to win over Republicans disaffected with Trump.
Trump called Cheney “a deranged person” and added, “But the reason she couldn’t stand me is that she always wanted to go to war with people. If it were up to her we’d be in 50 different countries.”
The former president continued: “She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with the rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. OK, let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face.
The results of Donald Trump’s first reign of Terror are killing women. The Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have the blood of innocents on their hands. ProPublica has once again followed the trail of deaths left in Texas by the hypocrites who scream they are “pro-life.” “A Pregnant Teenager Died After Trying to Get Care in Three Visits to Texas Emergency Rooms. It took three ER visits and 20 hours before a hospital admitted Nevaeh Crain, 18, as her condition worsened. Doctors insisted on two ultrasounds to confirm “fetal demise.” She’s one of at least two Texas women who died under the state’s abortion ban.”
Candace Fails screamed for someone in the Texas hospital to help her pregnant daughter. “Do something,” she pleaded, on the morning of Oct. 29, 2023.
Nevaeh Crain was crying in pain, too weak to walk, blood staining her thighs. Feverish and vomiting the day of her baby shower, the 18-year-old had gone to two different emergency rooms within 12 hours, returning home each time worse than before.
The first hospital diagnosed her with strep throat without investigating her sharp abdominal cramps. At the second, she screened positive for sepsis, a life-threatening and fast-moving reaction to an infection, medical records show. But doctors said her six-month fetus had a heartbeat and that Crain was fine to leave.
Now on Crain’s third hospital visit, an obstetrician insisted on two ultrasounds to “confirm fetal demise,” a nurse wrote, before moving her to intensive care.
By then, more than two hours after her arrival, Crain’s blood pressure had plummeted and a nurse had noted that her lips were “blue and dusky.” Her organs began failing.
Hours later, she was dead.
Fails, who would have seen her daughter turn 20 this Friday, still cannot understand why Crain’s emergency was not treated like an emergency.
But that is what many pregnant women are now facing in states with strict abortion bans, doctors and lawyers have told ProPublica.
“Pregnant women have become essentially untouchables,” said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law and policy professor emerita at George Washington University.
Texas’s abortion ban threatens prison time for interventions that end a fetal heartbeat, whether the pregnancy is wanted or not. It includes exceptions for life-threatening conditions, but still, doctors told ProPublica that confusion and fear about the potential legal repercussions are changing the way their colleagues treat pregnant patients with complications.
In states with abortion bans, such patients are sometimes bounced between hospitals like “hot potatoes,” with health care providers reluctant to participate in treatment that could attract a prosecutor, doctors told ProPublica. In some cases, medical teams are wasting precious time debating legalities and creating documentation, preparing for the possibility that they’ll need to explain their actions to a jury and judge.
Dr. Jodi Abbott, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University School of Medicine, said patients are left wondering: “Am I being sent home because I really am OK? Or am I being sent home because they’re afraid that the solution to what’s going on with my pregnancy would be ending the pregnancy, and they’re not allowed to do that?”
There is a federal law to prevent emergency room doctors from withholding lifesaving care.
Passed nearly four decades ago, it requires emergency rooms to stabilize patients in medical crises. The Biden administration argues this mandate applies even in cases where an abortion might be necessary.
No state has done more to fight this interpretation than Texas, which has warned doctors that its abortion ban supersedes the administration’s guidance on federal law, and that they can face up to 99 years in prison for violating it.
ProPublica condensed more than 800 pages of Crain’s medical records into a four-page timeline in consultation with two maternal-fetal medicine specialists; reporters reviewed it with nine doctors, including researchers at prestigious universities, OB-GYNs who regularly handle miscarriages, and experts in emergency medicine and maternal health.
Puerto Rican Americans continue to speak out about the horrible racist slurs spoken by #DonOld about their Island home and their presence on the mainland. Does he understand that Puerto Ricans are Americans and that they live everywhere in this country? This is from The Daily Beast. “J.Lo Claps Back at Trump Rally Puerto Rico Jab: ‘We Are Americans’, “Our pain matters,” the singer said at a Las Vegas event for Kamala Harris.” This is reported by Claire Lampen.
As promised, Jennifer Lopez took the stage at Kamala Harris’s rally in Las Vegas on Thursday night, responding to racist statements about Puerto Rico made at one of Donald Trump’s recent events.
“I am an American woman. I am the daughter of Guadalupe Lupe Rodríguez and David Lopez, a proud daughter and son of Puerto Rico. I am Puerto Rican,” Lopez said, restating the final point in Spanish. “And yes, I was born here. And we are Americans.”
In his much-maligned comedy routine at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally on Sunday, right-wing comedian Tony Hinchcliffe referred to Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage.” His comments, Lopez said, should offend “anyone of decent character.”
“It’s about us, all of us, no matter what we look like, who we love, who we worship, or where we’re from,” Lopez said. “[Harris’s] opponent, on the other hand, doesn’t see it that way. He has consistently worked to divide us. At Madison Square Garden, he reminded us who he really is and how he really feels.”
Trump‘s rally featured a parade of extremist speakers, though it was Hinchcliffe’s act that really dominated headlines. In it, he claimed Latinos “love making babies,” a riff whose anti-immigrant punchline fell flat, and threw in some racist stereotypes about Black people as well.
Although the Trump campaign has since attempted to distance itself from Hinchcliffe’s set—Trump trotting out a classic “I don’t know her” defense—it garnered criticism from all sides, even from his own party.
Trump’s enablers cannot stop him from his hate-filled speeches and comments.
“It wasn’t just Puerto Ricans who were offended that day,” Lopez added. “It was every Latino in this country, it was humanity.”
J.Lo went on to say that, “with an understanding of our past, and a faith in our future,” she‘s proud to vote for Harris. “You can’t even spell American without Rican,” she said. “This is our country, too, and we must exercise our right to vote.”
Towards the end of her speech, Lopez appeared to fight back tears. “I promised myself I wouldn’t get emotional,” she told the audience. “But you know what? We should be emotional. We should be upset. We should be scared and outraged, we should. Our pain matters. We matter. You matter. Your voice and your vote matters.”
“This election is about your life,” J.Lo continued. “It‘s about you, and me, and my kids, and your kids. Don‘t make it easy; make them pay attention to you. That’s your power. Your vote is your power.”
“Your vote is your power” is the line I want everyone to remember today. Another one is a quote from the late Senator Paul Wellstone from Minnesota. Five Days until we get the opportunity to never hear that man or his zombie cultists again.
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
dakinikat
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Recent Comments