25th Amendment Watch, 25th Edition and CliffsNotes of the Zeitgeist 161st Edition. The Time is Running Out Edition.

In looking for a photo to caption this, I found this fascinating World War Two (apparently) vintage Heuer advertisement featuring Swiss soldiers all synchronizing their watches.  Heuer is a Swiss company but was not part of the "Dirty Dozen" that sort of ignored Swiss neutrality laws in order to export watches to the British Army.  Fascinating advertisement.  Posted under the Fair Use exception.

October 4, 2026

Running out of time.

We're starting a new edition of this for several reasons.

To start off with, King Donald has been in rare form the last few days.  Whether these qualify as 25th Amendment events or not is another matter. They probably don't.  But they do show the titanic weirdness of the man.

The first was a long rambling post about trying to enact Permanent Daylight Savings Time.

Personally, I hate Daylight Savings Time and I always have.  It was a stupid idea when it came into being, and it still is.  I'd like to see it go.  But King Donald and some Republicans, and probably some Democrats as well, would like for it to be adopted year around.

This is dumb, and yes that's spelled with a "b".

The reason it's dumb is that the sun rises and sets when it does with no regard to the opinions and musings of man.  In real terms, there's a real high noon, and a real midnight. The clock should be based on that.

The stupidity of Daylight Savings Time somehow accepts the concept that by moving the arms of the clock, it somehow changes that.  What Daylight Savings Time is, in real terms, is Go To Work An Hour Earlier.  Apparently we're dim enough, however, to accept that if we pretend to move the arms of the clock, we're still going to work at 8:00 a.m. in the summer, rather than 7:00 a.m.

We're not.

Anyhow, Donalds wants the bill to pass.   If it does, at least it looks like the 119th Congress did something.  Here's his long screed:

As can be seen, Trump is personally blaming this on Tom Cotton, which isn't fair.  What this means is there aren't enough votes in the Senate to take it up and pass it, even if a majority in the Senate are in favor of it.

Cotton's reasons:

Cotton has been a pretty consistent back of Trump's all along, so this is really ironic.  He's getting stabbed in the back by the guy he supported, which isn't surprising.  Everything Trump touches gets destroyed. 

Cotton's reasons here are solid.  Everything he's stated here is correct.  I can personally recall the 1974 experiment with this.

Sunday, January 6, 1974. Messing with the time.

In a bizarre response to the ongoing oil crisis, the U.S. began a trial of year around daylight savings time.

I recall it well, as when I walked to grade school in the morning, it was pretty dark.  We still walked, however.

What I noted there has been noted by supporters of King Donald's proposal.  Kids don't walk to school as much as the culture's addiction to laziness and automotive transportation actually increased since 1974.

Anyhow, what are the reasons for this absurdity?

Golfing and tennis.  Oh, and "farmers want it".

On that last item, farmers don't care one whit about this.  They're going to work when they are going to work.  DST doesn't change that at all.

Indeed, I've always heard the justification for DST being the one that Trump is giving.  You can go out and play sports when you get home from work as you'll have more daylight.

M'eh.

The reason, anyhow, this appears here is that Trump posted, and therefore wrecked, Cotton's cell phone number. That's really mean.  Only a self centered asshole would do a thing like that.  Trump's been asked to justify it in a press interview and just repeats his reasons that he wants the vote.

Personally, and I have no way of really knowing this, I think he wants it as the Republican 119th Congress has done nothing and now we're headed into a general election with inflation ramping up, an  illegal war going on, and none of the list of usual suspects excuses working anymore.

Also for the same reason, Trump's been running around giving campaign rallies to the true believers.  I haven't tracked where he's been going, but I've read that it tends to be in places where there's a lot of MAGA.  Quietly some candidates in battleground states are trying to distance themselves from him.  Anyhow, at one such rally Trump, who didn't graduate from Wharton with honors and never appeared on the Dean's list, stated:

I am a person with very high intelligence—one of the highest IQs in the world.

Okay, this is at the really weird level.

Generally really intelligent people don't run around saying "I'm high IQ".  Trump says it all the time, which suggests that he's really insecure about his intelligence.

Frankly, at this point, if anyone believes he's super intelligent, they're probably either stupid or incredibly gullible.  MAGA by now is the bottom of the bell curve in intelligence and ignorance.

What's going on with the 25th?

It's rather clear at this point that my prediction that the 25th Amendment would be applied after the first 18 months of Trump's illegal occupation of the Oval Office were off the mark.  This probably should be regarded as a failed prediction.

Having said that, I saw somebody hinting at the possibility that their similar thought might not be.

I think it's a long shot right now, but there's still a chance, and a not insubstantial one, that a backroom plot, basically, remains in place.  The same basic parameters would be in operation, replacing Trump with J.D. Vance before the 2028 election.

My thought was that it would occur before the 2026 election in order that the GOP had a chance to save itself before that election. Clearly that was wrong.  But that in and of itself might be part of what's going on.  The various factions in the Trump backrooms that supported his campaign and which boost their pet theories on everything may very well have realized that the results would be unpopular.  Economic radicals behind the tariffs, for instance, likely were aware that they'd be hugely disruptive.  They may have given up the 2026 midterms from the onset.  They likely didn't appreciate that Trump would start a war with Iran, but most of the rest of the stuff Trump has done has backers within the administration.  All of those people also know that they're in the minority in terms of American culture so Trump is their best chance of making this stuff happen.

But, if I'm correct, at some point Trump has to go and take the stench out with him.  There will come a day, and it's probably in November, when Trump will be personally blamed for what's occurred.  The Republicans are going to lose both houses of Congress in a month.  A Fall Guy will be necessary, and Trump has made himself that person.  He's even asked for people to imagine him on the ballot.

A lot of people will.

After November 3 being a Trumpite in most places will have lost its value.  A lot of the Republican politicians who have supported him all along will grow silent, or more silent than they already are.  Harriet Hageman will likely not be heard to mention his name.  John Barrasso won't either.  Poor Chuck Gray, who has campaigned more than anyone else in Wyoming on being a deep lover of all things Trump, will be lost, but even he will rally to claim that "true conservative values"  need to be defended.

Anyhow, the point is Republicans are already dog trotting away from Trump. Trump is, at the same time, stabbing some of them in the back.  Chip Roy got it, and now Cotton is getting it.  After the vote in November, there will be very little reason to be a Trump backer in the GOP, save for being in a district of diehard MAGAs, which is a declining population.

The National Conservatives and Christian Nationalist still need Trump, however.  Nobody else is going to help them get in their worldview.  They can sort of home that Vance will, but Vance is too savvy to adopt anything fully that's going to wipe out his hopes of being President.

And hence the gamble.

Right now, it may well be the case that NatCons and Christian Nationalist are seeing how far they can have Trump carry on as a sort of dictator until it's too late, and Vance's chances in 2028 are destroyed.  That may have already occured.  Letting that occur might be one reason that Marco Rubio hasn't acted.  But my guess is that they're riding along and just don't quite know where that point is.

It might be coming very soon.  If Trump makes an effort to steal the 2026 midterms, and he will, that might present the opportunity.  If it isn't taken then, it has to be taken some time in 2027.  2028 will probably be too late.

October 10, 2026

This man is a titanic narcissist and deeply mentally ill.

Trump called Letitia James a "dog".

James has been a controversial Attorney General for the State of New York.  She went after Trump some time ago unsuccessfully.  I don't know what brought her back to mind for Trump, but she's been in the news recently over the Cornell rape story.  I'll have an item on that shortly, but in a comment he noted he feels "badly" for the seven men accused.

Eh?

It's hard to ignore that Trump is rapy wealthy men's best friend.

October 12, 2026

And you know what they're doing? They go straight down, you know, you can make those drill bits talk. You can make 'em sing, you can make them go, they go down. New York's over here, Pennsylvania-- they go down and they take a sharp left. And they suck our oil out. Can you believe it? Lines of different states, and you'll see one has Cadillacs, because they like Cadillacs better than they like Mercedes, but one has an Escalade, and one has a 50 year old Chevy. And you're talking about 3 ft. It's a line that goes right up. One has some beautiful drilling plants, and one has no drilling plants, it's got no money, it's got poverty.

Donald Trump.

This is a statement, I believe, on horizontal drilling.  It's posted as an example of his rambling speech.  This was just delivered over the weekend.

Cont:

Regarding the supposed agreement to cease hitting energy targets:

Reporter: You said Russia and Ukraine agreed to a ceasefire but both sides say they have not. 

Trump: They agree. You know why? Because I said you agree. That’s why. They agreed because I said they agreed.

Well, they didn't agree.  Apparently King Donald's word doesn't mean that much.

October 19, 2026

That stone is so beautiful ... see the cushions? Those beautiful yellow cushions? Don't they feel nice? I have them specially made ... you have the new heliport and ballroom.

Donald Trump addressing a women's health event.

cont:

Oh, sure, that's normal . . . 

October 21, 2026

I'm studying his body. I've never studied the body of a man before. It's not my thing. Nothing wrong with it, of course. But it's never been my thing. But I looked at his ass. I said, 'His ass, shit, it's like a pile of muscle.' Then I looked at his legs and I said, 'Man, his feet are big.'

I don't do this with men very often. I started examining his body because I didn't know he was a great athlete. And I looked and I watched up and down. I looked at his ass...And then I looked at his hands...He's got these like claws.

Donald Trump on Jon Husted on, apparently, two seperate occasions.

This is weird.

I don't know what to make of this.  People who comment on Twitter are having a field day with it.  I've never even heard of Jon Husted so I assumed that he was a football player or something.  I guess he was a college football player.

Anyhow, this is not a normal way that a man talks about the appearance of another man.  It's not completely beyond the pale for Trump, who earlier commented on the late Arnold Palmer's, well anyhow.

One of the signs of dementia is an inability to filter comments.  I've personally seen that with somebody who could not filter comments about people being overweight.  Some people become hypersexual.  This all relates to the frontal and temporal parts of the brain that the disease destroys.

Something is obviously going on with Trump generally.  He's taken up wondering badly on his way to his helicopter.  He's obsessed with architectural matters.  He can't always control his temper.  And now, all of a sudden, he's making comments on men's bodies.

I've never heard a man speak about another man this way.  It verges on homoerotic.  It's very weird.

We'll conclude this episode of this here.

Related threads:

Daylight Savings Time, Dangers, and Crabbiness.

Labels: 2020s, 2026, Agriculture, children, Daylight Savings Time, Economics, Growing up in the 1970s, Harriet Hageman, nature, Wyoming

Last edition:

CliffsNotes of the Zeitgeist 160th Edition. On being a worthless sycophant

Labels: 2020s, 2026, 2026 Election, Cynthia Lummis, Donald Trump, Republican Party, The Second Trump Administration, Wyoming, Zeitgeist

25th Amendment Watch, 24th Edition. He's crying for help, or completely insane.

Labels: 25th Amendment Watch List, Cowards, Donald Trump, J. D. Vance, John Barrasso, megalomania, Mental Health, Mike Johnson, New Mexico, The Madness of King Donald, Xi Jinping

The 2026 Election, 25th Edition. The casting the vote edition. More Labels.

 

2028 Election, Part I. The Preview of Coming Attractions Editions.

December 19, 2025

 And the 2028 Presidential Season has begun.  Erika Kirk of Turning Point USA has endorsed J. D. Vance.

And yes, it's way, way, early.

But perhaps its not surprising.  Trump's mentally departing the stage and chance are good that he'll be out of office in the next few months, Vance is probably looking towards his future right now.  His best chances for that position, of course, would be if Trump is escorted out of the building babbling about being the greatest and sent to a gilded retirement home.

But if that doesn't occur, the knives will be coming out before 2028.  Marco Rubio will not have sat through four years of soul corrupting dementia not to take a run at the White House.  No doubt others are in the wings.

One who may be in the wings, if I'm wrong on his being too demented to carry on in any fashion, is Donald Trump. Everyone keeps noting that he's constitutionally barred but he has no regard for the law in the first place and his threads to run need to be taken seriously.

On Vance, he's a true NatCon, although a recent convert to the philosophy, and his being backed by Turning Point means something, assuming that Turning Point doesn't fly apart or become highly diminished (which I think it will).  It's hard to know exactly what's going on, but it might be suspected that it's probable that Kirk's coming out now has the backing of other significant NatCon figures, who know that they need to put their man in power now (Trump really isn't their man, but their tool).  A figure like Rubio would turn the clock back.

And so the race is on.

December 22, 2025

It wasn't until listening to the weekend shows that I learned that Marco Rubio has endorsed Vance as well.

That's really interesting, and frankly surprising.

Cont:

And now the rumors are circulating, probably correctly, that Ted Cruz will be running.

Moreover. . . .

The NatCon nerve center and author of Project 2025 starts to come unglued as the Trump Administration does:

Top Heritage Officials Flee to Mike Pence’s Nonprofit as Think Tank Fractures

The conservative movement continues to splinter about how to deal with its most controversial voices

I've always thought Roberts' organization would maneuver to put Vance in power in 2026 and shove aside the Pine Tree flag folks, who don't have the intellectual capacity to run a government.  The risk has always been that they'd hold the hand they were dealt too long.

They may have.

And Pence, who didn't look like a good candidate before, is starting to with some folks.

September 23, 2026

Christie with President Zelensky

Chris Christie has made what is effectively an announcement that he's running for the Presidency in 2028.

Christie is a solid and real conservative and is not only seeking to obtain the Oval Office, but to stage a counter insurgency against the populist MAGAs.  This is a good time to do so, as the MAGA's are abandoning ship pretty rapidly as the bloom is off the Trump Stenchweed for everyone except the most diehard loyalist, many of whom are in the ignorant category.  The MAGA's are floundering around like fish in the deck with the two presumed 2028 candidates for the Trump thrown, Marco Rubio and J. D. Vance having real trouble dealing with a legacy they both want to take and to avoid.

Christie was a Trump supporter after his first run for office in 2016 and was part of the Trump transition team.  He got COVID 19 at a White House event, which shows how late he remained on Trump's team, sort of. It would seem that his loyalty was always somewhat cynical, as he never played that much of a role and his views don't dovetail with Trump's. Christie definitively broke with Trump on election night 2020 when he adamantly maintained that the election was not stolen and he's pulled away from him ever since.  He's a frequent guest on the This Week panel where he's been a very vocal opponent of Trump's, while still being a conservative.

Christie's announcement brought out tons of criticism, some of it from people like me who have always opposed Trump.  I understand that, but I feel it's unwarranted as Christie never compromised his own views and stood for them when the time came.  His support for Trump was likely self serving, as is J. D. Vance's and Marco Rubio's.  He's a real Republican, a real conservative, and in my view is a very good candidate.  It's early, of course, but in this environment, positioning himself early, before the November 2026 election, would appear to be a good strategy. 

I will note that the immediate opposition to Christie in some quarters is interesting.  As noted, I get those who are disgruntled as he supported Trump in the first administration.  But a lot of people just keep saying "he's fat". 

Yeah, he is. So was Taft. So was Cleveland.  So is Trump.

It's weird to think being fat would be a reason not to vote for a person, while being a serial polygamist isn't.

We should mention the Democrats as well.

No Democrat has announced or even gone as far as Christie with an announcement of intent to announce.  That's likely a wise strategy as announcing in advance of the November election will give absolutely desperate Republicans something to focus on.  An interesting development has happened, however, in that Gavin Newsom has been clearly testing the waters but came out saying he would not run if Kamala Harris does.  Presenting a united front against the GOP is a good strategy, to be sure, but in 2028 the Democrats will not face Trump and the need to be united early may not really be there.  Moreover, Harris is a terrible candidate.  Harris would fit the mold, however, of Democrats re-running failed candidates.

September 25, 2026

Prior Pritzker logo.

JB Pritzker, who Trump likes to insult for being fat, even though Trump is fat, has effectively thrown his hat in the ring as well as of yesterday.

Pritzker is 80 lbs lighter than he was this time last  year.  

An interesting thing here is that we now have two ex Governor's from east of the Mississippi and north of the Mason Dixon line running for the GOP ticket.  It's over two years until the 2028 election, but it's still noteworthy as this could very much reflect a shift in the GOP.  Donald Trump is a New Yorker, of course, but he's basically from the State of Television.  The last Republican President who was a true East Coaster was George H. W. Bush of Maine.

September 29, 2028

Robert Reich reports that Rahm Emanuel is thinking of running on the Democratic ticket.

The Rahm Bomb

And Reich is worried.

He should be. 

I don't know that much about Emanuel, but I do know that the Democratic Party can blaze a way to defeat like no other.  Given a chance to simply walk into the White House, and right now it's looking like they have one, they'll mess it up by picking a candidate that's unelectable.

Let's be perfectly frank about 2024.  Donald Trump won in no small part as the Democrats picked two completely lousy candidates.

Joe Biden was obviously suffering from mental decline and allowed to run until it simply couldn't be ignored.  Then they went to the next worse option, Harris.

I warned at the time that Harris was a bad choice, at which time I urged that they pick Tammy Duckworth.

Why can't Democrats get a clue? 

Why isn't anyone suggesting that Tammy Duckworth replace Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket?

Nope, Kamala Harris with her high pitched whiny voice and completely unworkable personality.  

Uff.

There's plenty of rumors afoot that Harris is going to run again, which his repeating the mistake the Democrats made with Hillary Clinton.  People didn't like Clinton, at all.  The Democrats kept acting like her failures weren't her failures.

There's a serious risk that the Democrats do that again, and figure, sure she lost to Joe Biden in the primary, and sure she lost to a demented septuagenarian in the Presidential election, but, by golly, that means nothing.

Which of course has nothing to do with Emanuel. . . or maybe it does.

Emanuel is from the Clinton and Biden administrations.  It's really clear that a lot of people are really trying to put distance between the past and the present and are disgusted with politicians in general who symbolize the past.  About the only Democrat of old who could win now would be Barack Obama, and he can't run (although if the GOP finds some illegal way to run Trump. . . ).  The Democrats need to move forward.

They also need to ditch the Baby Boomers like the stenchy worn out gym shorts they've become.  There ought to be an age limit on anyone running in 2028.  I'd put the cap at being born in 1965, which is the upper year for Generation Jones.  If the Boomers haven't gotten things right by now, they're not going to.

On this, the Democrats also need to get Bernie Sanders to shut up.  Nothing says Gerontocracy like having a million year old man running around as the voice of "progressivism"  

Duckworth, fwiw, would be a good candidate.  Amy Klobuchar would as well.

Basically, if you were born before 1965, or had a position in a prior administration, stay out.

Pritzker, I'd note, makes that cutoff.

So does Republican Chris Christie.

October 5, 2026

Rahm Emmanuel was on Meet the Press this weekend. He's clearly running, and frankly he sounded perfectly reasonable.  I was impressed.

Additional labels:

2028 Election, Part I. The Preview of Coming Attractions Editions. Additional labels.

Day One of the Next Administration.

The November election won't stop Trump from issuing dictatorial executive orders, and he's not going to sign any bills the upcoming Democratic House and Senate pass, no matter what they are, so we're going to have to put up with an increasingly erratic and weird Executive Branch over the next two years.

It may, frankly, get much, much more worse.  There's literally nothing I'd put past Trump whatsoever.

Assuming we all make it to January 20, 2029, it's going to be a priority for the incoming administration to act quickly.  Republicans, having taken a drubbing in 2026 and 2028, will be back on the conservative bandwagon and howling about anything a Democratic administration does.

So, looking forward, what should it do on day 1?

The very first thing it should do is an omnibus executive order wiping out every standing executive order and declaring any issued by Trump a nullity. This should be done partially on the legal premise that Trump was not a legitimate President and all actions he took, including executive actions and appointments to Federal office are null, void, and of no effect.

Any executive orders that were worth doing can be preserved in a following order, or the same order.

Yes this means that over 5,000 Federal employees that were Trump appointees would lose their offices immediately, including sitting judges.

And it means that every single military officer commissioned during Trump's interregnum would lose their commissions.  They can be recommissioned in a following order, but it would have to be a conditional order so that if they were deemed disloyal or associated with the criminal war in Iran, they would be removed.

On day one, the incoming President should order that any officer complicit in the illegal war against Iran be court-martialed appropriately, including every current member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

All the Joint Chiefs should be removed.  The senior positions should be filled with Reserve and National Guard officers.

Every member of the Space Force should be transferred into the Air Force.  Eliminating the Space Force would take an act of Congress, but that doesn't mean it's absurd presence really has to be tolerated.  Former Space Force personnel would report to their stations with Air Force insignia within six hours of the order, as they otherwise came on duty.

Taking a page out of the conservative agenda (I am conservative), women should be removed from combat MOS's.  Basic training should be strictly segregated by gender.  All Air Force basic training should be transferred to the Army.

On Day 1 Lt. Gen. William H. "Butch" Graham Jr., head of the Army Corps of Engineers, should be summoned to appear as soon as the inauguration is over.  He should be given an order to cause the demolition and removal of the Ball Room with in 24 hours of receiving the order.  The same shall apply to the Triumphal Arch.  Within an additional 48 hours, the subterranean bunker complex shall be filled with cement.

The helipad should be broken up and restored to grass.  A dedicated Marine Corps helicopter and dedicated Air Force aircraft for Presidential use shall be halted and those aircraft, all of them, returned to conventional service use within their respective branches.  Likewise the Rose Garden paver shall be removed.  All the gilded crap shall be tossed out within four hours of the inauguration and the interior of the impacted areas restored within twelve hours.  The gilded equestrian statutes shall have the gold removed within 48 hours.  The rhino lining in the reflecting pool shall be removed with in 48 hours.

All Federal lands subject to mineral exploration including petroleum exploration shall be withdrawn from the same, something well within the President's authority.  Biden's order on electric vehicles shall be restored and expanded.

Federal lands removed from withdrawal by Trump shall immediately restored to their prior status.

Deputy Postmaster General Doug Tulino should be summoned (the current Postmaster General's appointment is illegitimate) and ordered to restore the 671 sorting machines that were dismantled in the first Trump administration back into service within one week.  If they are not available, and they likely are not, he will be ordered to cause their replacement within one month.

Federal offices which have been relocated, such as the Interior's, shall be ordered back to their original quarters within one week of the inauguration. As the order to move them was invalid, all costs associated with the moves to and from other locations shall be ordered to be recovered by the U.S. Attorney's Civil Division by those causing the moves to occur, including Donald Trump.

All use of government property during the interregnum of an improper and personal nature, such as Trump's use of government aircraft, shall likewise be subject to a suit for recovery.

The complete Epstein files shall be released along with an order that anyone implicated in them shall be sought for prosecution, no matter who it is.

All existing "emergencies" which have been declared in place by prior Presidents shall be declared over and any authority extended under them eliminated.  Any order allowing the imposition of tariffs by the President shall be declared over.

All combat operations in place by the United States anywhere would be ordered over within an hour of the inauguration.  Restoring the status quo ante in the Persian Gulf is now almost impossible, so how to proceed on this would be tricky in the extreme.  The best course may be to immediately ask for an international convention on the topic.

Military aid, and frankly any aid, to Israel would be terminated.  The country has been there since 1947 and can make it on its own.  Israel has a right to exist, but it's situation does not involve a vital interest of the United States.

Likewise, pulling out militarily in the Middle East should be ordered to be commenced.  It would take some time, but it should be done.

All military missions to Venezuela would be withdrawn within twelve hours of the inauguration and the legitimate elected head of state recognized as the proper one.

All extrajudicial killings by the U.S. military in the Pacific and Caribbean would be ordered halted and anyone participating in them, right down to the E1 level, ordered to be prosecuted.

All "pardons" issued by Trump would be declared null, void, and of no effect, with anyone released from jail ordered to be returned. An illegitimate President cannot issue a pardon.

The production of penneys would be ordered resumed.

Currency bearing Donald Trump's signature would be ordered to be recovered through the banking system for destruction.

Trump's name would be stricken from anything it attached to during his "second term".

There's be a lot more to do, but that's what ought to happen on the very first day.

Trump's simply a very bad person, declining into senility. Who is backing him? More labels

CliffsNotes of the Zeitgeist, 122nd Edition. Trouble with the Trump 'wimmins", Hypocrisy in the Trump Administration. The disappearing and reappearing J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio.

News reports this morning hold that Trump is considering canning Pam Bondi for her poor handling, if that's what she's doing, of the Epstein matter, which just won't go away.

The weird thing is that if you hang out with kiddy diddlers, brag about checking out teenage models at a pageant in the buff, talk about grabbing, well you know, people start to think you might be a kiddy diddler.

Weird, eh?

Anyhow, Trumps thinking of canning Bondi, and putting Lee Zeldin in her place. Zeldin is another Trump lawyer.  He's currently the head of the EPA.

If Bondi departs, she'll be the second major Trump admin sycophant to be canned, Noem being the first, so both cannings will have been of women.  A big difference, however, will be that Bondi is downright dangerous.  If Trump turns on Bondi, she'll turn on him.  Trump's advisors know that, but may be too afraid to tell him, and he's likely to dense to grasp that.

Noem, who turned out to be loathsome as the head of Homeland Security, won't be turning on Trump. . . yet. She's wait for him to be out of office, then she will.  But she's been back in the news due to her husband showing up in photos cross dressing and wearing big fake boobs.

Frankly, Noem, and her husband are to be pitied for this, not condemned.  But it does raise the interesting topic of hypocrisy in the Trump Administration.  The administration is thick with Christian Nationalism and "conservative values", but Noem was widely rumored to he engaged in an extramarital affair with another Trump official, even carting him around on expensive junkets. and now it turns out that her husband had what I'd regard as a sexually centered mental illness, one which he apparently didn't adequately attempt to conceal, and perhaps didn't attempt to conceal at all.  Trump himself is a serial polygamist and there are at least credible indicators that he may have fished in the shallow end of the pond, if not worse.  Bondi didn't acknowledged abused women after ranting at Congress.  Miller sounds like Himmler most of the time he speaks but is Jewish.

Perhaps we shouldn't be all that surprised.  The Nazis were sort of the same way.  There were affairs and of course one legendary homosexual scandal. 

Sin makes you stupid, as Jimmy Akin warns us.

Since the war with Iran started J. D. Vance has been hard to find  He's not out cheerleading the war like the nervous sounding Bessant or the administration like the "I took my family to Epstein Island but all I got was this T-shirt and I know absolutely nothing" Lutnick.  Vance is widely believed to have leaked his opposition to the war right as it started.

Another nearly silent, but not quite silent, Administration figure is Marco Rubio, who may be the one administration figure who doesn't do the "Oh Donald, may I kiss your ass" routing at cabinet meetings.  He hasn't been able to completely avoid the topic, but he's been pretty quiet  Indeed, Rubio tends to be remarkably quiet and when he shows up he tends to look really uncomfortable.   There's reason to believe that Rubio is the main backer on the administration's near invasion of Cuba and now that Trump is looking like a military dumbass, there's a real chance that Trump's ardor for military adventure may be over  For that matter, while the current military has been very damaged by Trump, there are likely still enough real officers in the military to protest against start  ing a second war when the current one isn't finished, and it's going to be at least a year, if not years, before that occurs.  Marco may have lost his campaign slogan for 2028 of Viva Cuba Libre "I did that".  

Rubio and Vance are somewhat unique in the Trump orbit as they're both real Catholics.  Press Secretary Leavitt is apparently as well, although it sure doesn't show as she's a full time liar.  

Rubio, when he speaks, tends to be pretending to be angry while saying Trump didn't say what he said, but what I'm going to say, even though Trump didn't say that camp.  

Vance has come out with a book on his conversation to Catholicism which is a big off ramp from the Trump Administration and its Paul Whites and Franklin Grahams.  It's a pretty clear signal that he's separating himself from the Evangelical far right fanatics and is beginning the process of separating himself from Trump.  The book is likely to draw criticism but it's a really smart move, as he's essentially getting up from the Paul White Bee Dance table and walking over to the adults and sitting down with the sane and sober.  He's going for the National Review/First Things crowd, not the NASCAR Country Pop gang.  By the time 2028 rolls around, the folks who were admiring Franklin Graham's letters to Trump will have forgotten all about them, for the most, part, with some being on to new wives and affairs but assured that as they were once saved, they'll aways be.

Rubio likely knows this is what Vance is doing and he's going to have to do something himself  What isn't clear  The value of being a failed President's Secretary of State hasn't really been there since Kissinger managed to find it had one.  Trump is looking worse as a President, indeed worse as a mammal, every day.  My guess is that if Trump isn't removed via the 25th Amendment, he'll find he forgot to let the cat out prior to November and will leave the administration.

When he leaves he can do what Bondi will do, if fired, and what Vance can't do, while Vice President, that being writing a tell all book.  Bondi's will be a bombshell, which is why Trump should not fire her if he's smart.  Bondi's "I Know Where all the Bodies are Buried and Who All the Teenage Concubines Were" tell all will be something else.  Rubio's "I Tried To Stop Trump From Being A Dumbass" book will be less salacious, but interesting  Vance won't have a chance to write something like that before 2028.

Last edition:

CliffsNotes of the Zeitgeist, 121st Edition and Wars and Rumors of War, 2026. Part 3. The War against Iran Edition and other Military Topics.

The Agrarian's Lament: What have you done for me lately? Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 5.

The Agrarian's Lament: What have you done for me lately? Addressing polit...: An agricultural country which consumes its own food is a finer thing than an industrial country, which at best can only consume its own smok...

What have you done for me lately? Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 5.

An agricultural country which consumes its own food is a finer thing than an industrial country, which at best can only consume its own smoke.

Chesterton.

A long time ago I started a post on one of our companion blogs about agriculturalist and the Republican Party.  I can't find it now, maybe I published it, or maybe I didn't.

As I"m in both worlds, the urban and the agricultural, I get exposed to the political views of both camps.  The Trump administration has made this a really interesting, and horrifying, experience.  By and large professionals detest Donald Trump and regard him as a charleton  Farmers and ranchers are, however, amongst his most loyal base, even though there's no real reason for them to be such.  Indeed, with the damage that Trump is doing to agriculture this will be a real test of whether farmers and ranchers simply reflexively vote Republican or stop doing son and wake up.

The Democratic Party, not the GOP, saved family farmers and ranchers in this country when the forces of the unabated Homestead ACt and the Great Depression were going to destroy them.  They've seemingly resented being saved from those forces, however, as an impingement on their freedoms, and they've bristled at every government act since that time.  Farmers and ranchers would rather sink in a cesspool of their own making than be told how to properly build one, basically.

We here, of course, aren't a pure agricultural blog.  This is an Agrarian blog, and that's different.  We are, quite frankly, much more radical.

"The land belongs to those who work it." 

Zapata.

Agrarianism is an ethical perspective that privileges an agriculturally oriented political economy. At its most concise, agrarianism is “the idea that agriculture and those whose occupation involves agriculture are especially important and valuable elements of society

Bradley M. Jones, American Agrarianism.

Still, we can't help but notice that American agriculturalist, more than any other class of businessmen, have voted to screw themselves by voting for Donald Trump. They voted for tariff wars that leave their products marooned here in the US while foreign competitors take advantage of that fact.  They've voted for a guy who thinks global warming is a fib (which many of them do as well) in spite of the plain evidence before their eyes, and the fact that this will destroy the livelihoods of the younger ones.  They've voted to force economic conditions that will force them off the lands and their lands into the hands of the wealthy.

Indeed, on that last item, they've voted for people who share nothing in common with them whatsoever and would just as soon see them out of business, or simply don't care what happens to them.

They've voted, frankly, stupidly.

Well, nothing cures stupidly more than a giant dope slap from life, and they're getting one right now.  The question is whether they'll vote in 2026 and 2028 to be bent over, or start to ask some questions.

We're going to post those questions here.

1.  What connection does the candidate have with agriculture?

They might not have any and still be a good candidate, but if they're running around in a plaid shirt pretending to be a 19th Century man of the soil, they should be dropped.

They should also be dropped if they're like Scott Bessent, who pretends to be a soybean farmer when he's actually a major league investor.  Indeed, big money is the enemy of agriculture and always has been.  

I'd also note that refugees from agriculture should be suspect.  The law is full of them, people who were sent off to law school by their farmer and rancher parents who believed, and in their heart of hearts still believe, that lawyers, doctors and dentist, indeed everyone in town, don't really work.  All of these refugees live sad lives, but some of them spend time in their sad lives on political crusades that are sort of a cry out to their parents "please love me".

I know that sounds radical, but it's true.

2. What will they do to keep agricultural lands in family hands, and out of absentee landlord hands?

And the answer better not be a "well I'm concerned about that". The answer needs to be real.

From an agrarian prospective, no solution that isn't a massive trend reversing one makes for a satisfactory answer to this question. Ranches being bought up by the extremely wealthy are destroying the ability of regular people to even dare to hope to be in agriculture.  This can be reversed, and it should be, but simply being "concerned" won't do it.

3.  What is your view on public lands?

If the answer involves transferring them out of public hand, it indicates a love of money that's ultimately always destructive to agriculture in the end.

Indeed, in agricultural camps there remains an unabated lust for the public lands even though transferring them into private hands, whether directly or as a brief stop over in state hands, would utterly destroy nearly ever farm and ranch in local and family ownership . The change in value of the operations would be unsustainable, and things would be sold rapidly.

Public lands need to stay in public hands.

4. How do you make your money?

People think nothing of asking farmers "how many acres do you have" or ranchers "how many cattle do you have", both of which is the same as asking "how much money do you have".  

Knowing how politicians make their money is a critical thing to know.  No farmer or rancher, for example, has anything in common with how the Trump family makes money, and there's no reason to suppose that they view land as anything other than to be forced into developers hands and sold.

5. What is your position on global warming?

If its any variety of "global warming is a fib", they don't deserve a vote.

6.  What is your position on a land ethnic?

If they don't know what that means, they don't deserve a vote.

7.  What's on your dinner table, and who prepares it?

That may sound really odd, and we don't mean for it to be a judgment on what people eat. . . sort of.  But all agriculturalist are producing food for the table. . . for the most part, if we ignore crops like cotton, or other agricultural derived textiles, of which there are a bunch, and if we ignore products like ethanol.

Anyhow, I'll be frank.  If a guy is touring cattle country and gives an uneasy chuckle and says, "well, I don't eat much meat anymore" do you suppose he really cares about ranching?  If you do, you need your head checked.

You probably really need it checked if the candidate doesn't every grill their own steak but has some sort of professional prepare their dinner every night.  That would mean that they really have very little chance of grasping 

8.  What's your understanding of local agriculture?

That's a pretty broad question, but I'm defining agriculture very broadly here.  Indeed, what I mean is the candidates understanding of the local use of nature, to include farming and ranching, but to also include hunting, fishing and commercial fishing.

Indeed, on the latter, only the commercial fishing industry seems to have politicians that really truly care what happens to them. How that happened isn't clear, but it does seem to be the case.

Otherwise, what most politicians seem to think is that farmers wear plaid flannel shirts.  I see lots of them wondering around in photographs looking at corrals, or oil platforms, but I never see one actually do any work. . . of pretty much any kind.  That is, I don't expect to see Chuck Gray flaking a calf, for example.

Last and prior editions:

Claiming the mantle of Christ in politics. Don't support liars and don't lie. Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 4.

Claiming the mantle of Christ in politics. Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 3.

Questions hunters, fishermen, and public lands users need to ask political candidates. Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 2.

Labels: 2026 Election, 2028 Election, Commentary, Democratic Party, Politics, Questions for politicians, Republican Party, Trailing threadLabels: 2026 Election, 2028 Election, Camping, Climate Change, fishing, hunting, Politics, Public Lands, Questions for politicians, Right Wing Politics and Politicians, The Land Ethic, This is why we can't have nice things

Addressing politicians in desperate times. A series.

Labels: 2026 Election, 2028 Election, Commentary, Democratic Party, Politics, Questions for politicians, Republican Party, Trailing thread

Going Feral: Questions hunters, fishermen, and public lands users need to ask political candidates. Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 2.

Going Feral: Questions hunters, fishermen, and public lands use...: Something similar was mentioned on a companion blog to this one just the other day, that being that it was never the intent to make this a p...

Questions hunters, fishermen, and public lands users need to ask political candidates. Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 2.

Something similar was mentioned on a companion blog to this one just the other day, that being that it was never the intent to make this a political topic blog.

But these are not ordinary times in Wyoming, or anywhere else.

Most real outdoorsmen, and by that I mean the sort of outdoorsmen who have the world out look that those who post here do, not guys with excess cash who are petty princes like Eric Trump, would rather be hunting or fishing, or reading about hunting and fishing, than thinking about politics.  But just like duck hunter (seriously) Leon Trotsky once stated; “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you,” and that applies to politics as well as war.

Trotsky.  Bad man, but he was a hunter and fisherman.

You might not be interested in politics, but politics is very interested in you.

And frankly, given the assault on everything hunters, fishermen, and the users of public lands hold dear, you don't really have the luxury, and that is what it is, of ignoring politics.

Nor do you have the luxury of ignoring your politicians.

Donald Trump was embarrassing his first term in office, but in his second unrestrained term in office, he and the Republican Party have been a disaster for outdoorsmen, nature, and the environment.  Last year there was a diehard effort by Deseret Mike Lee to basically sell off massive parts of the public domain. That effort was supported by all three of  Wyoming's Congressional delegation in spite of massive public opposition to it.  This year a Freedom Caucus member, Rep. Wasserburger, is trying the same thing in the state with state lands.  None of this should be any surprise as Freedom Caucuser Bob Ide, who campaigned on less government, more freedom, but who is a big landlord depending on the government to protect his property rights, sponsored an effort to grab the public lands the legislative session before that.

When put right to it, the Freedom Caucus hates government ownership of anything, and by extension, just flat out isn't really very concerned about the collective good on anything at all.  They're an alien carpetbagging force in the country, but the sort of dimwitted views they have on nature and land are being expressed all across the country.  Hunters, fishermen, farmers, ranchers, campers, hikers and other users of the land who had reflexively voted for one party or another based on some belief on what those parties held can absolutely no longer afford to do that.

Part of this is because politicians just flat out lie.  People who naively thought that Donald Trump was a supporter of the Second Amendment, and therefore supported "gun rights" are finding out right now that he never believed any of that. Why would he?  He's an old, fat, wealthy, New Yorker.  It's not like you saw him at the range, now is it?

But chances are, you haven't seen California Chuck Gray there either, have you?

So, some questions that you, dear feral reader, really need to ask your politicians.

1.  Do you have a hunting or fishing license right now, and if you do, can you pull it out of your wallet so we can see it?

It used to be standard in Wyoming and Colorado, and I bet other Western states, to see a politician dragged out in front of a camera for an advertising campaign wearing brand new hunting clothing and carrying a shotgun (interestingly, never a rifle).  It was a little fraud that we all participated in. We knew that the politicians would probably wet his pants if he had to fire the gun, but we took that as a symbol of support.

Don't.

Find out if they really share your values. Do they hunt, or fish? What's the proof?

And if they answer yes, find out what that means.  Does it mean the politician goes sage grouse hunting every year or does it mean that he waddles on to a pheasant farm once a year to shoot some POW pheasants?  Worse yet, does it mean that he went on a catered "hunt" in Texas with fat cats.  

How often does he go, where does he go, does he use public land to hunt?

Same thing with fishing.

If he doesn't do either, and regularly, don't vote for him easily.  Chances are he cares as much about hunting as Elon Musk does about marital fidelity.

2.  Do you use public land for anything, and if so, what?

Nearly every feral person worth his salt uses public land.  Does your Pol?  And I mean for anything. Hunting, fishing, camping, running cattle, photography, running nude through the daisies.  Anything.

And ask for proof.

If that proof is a photograph of a cleanly shaved pol with brand new clothing, it's proof he doesn't use it, or that she doesn't use it.

And if the answer is the typical "I love Yellowstone National Park", be very careful  National Parks are great, but a lot of them aren't really very wild until you get off the beaten path.  Going on an auto tour of Yellowstone and seeing all the geysers is great, but that's not proof of much.  And quite a few of the "I support public lands" political class limits that support to parks. Everything is fair game for development in their view.

3.  Do you shoot?

I don't expect every outdoor users to be a shooter, although in the West, if you are a user of wildlands and don't have a gun, you are a complete and utter fool.  Having said that, I'll be frank that I have known fishermen who had one gun, probably a revolver, that they carried in some places.  They probably went years between shooting it.  I don't regard owning a gun as a precursor to all feral uses of land, particularly by people who don't hunt, but who do fish, or camp, or hike (but if you do any of these things, please get a handgun and learn how to use it).  

A lot of people in the West vote for pols based solely on "I support the Second Amendment type statements".  Lots of people allowed themselves to be duped into voting for Donald Trump that way, although we never believed his claims to be a Second Amendment supporter.  We're sorry that we were so right.  Anyhow, ask them if they have a gun and if they shoot.

No matter what they really believe, they're going to say yes.

I'll note I've seen this question asked just once, and when I did the female candidate, a native Wyomingite with a rural background, went on to qualify that she was just familiar with .22s.  Okay, that's an honest answer. 

She was, I'd note, a Democrat.

You do need to follow up on the question.

Right now, if you asked this question of Chuck Gray or John Barrasso, they'd both undoubtedly say yes.  I don't know if either of them owns a firearm, but my guess is that if they do they own it in the way of people who have bought or been given a handgun that's gone in a drawer, and that's where it stays.  Ask for proof.  What do they own, where do they shoot, how often, and are there photos.  And not photos from a gun show, like Reid Rasner posted the other day.

Take them to the range and have them shoot a box of .375 H&H.  If they run to the SUV crying, they're out.

If they can't back this stuff up, I'd assume they really don't care about the Second Amendment. There are people who don't shoot at all who do care about the Second Amendment, but they're are rare as people who are interested in stock cars but don't follow NASCAR (this would describe me).  Not too many.

4.  Do they believe in man made climate change?

This gets to the land ethic. Educated people, and most politicians, are educated who say no really don't give a rats ass about the planet or they're engaging in diehard self delusion. They're comfortable with everything being destroyed as long as they're dead before it happens or they just can't face the hard task of addressing, correcting, and reversing it.  They're not worth voting for.

Aldo Leopold.

5. Do they have a land ethic?

I've known a lot of people who have a very strong land ethic. Absolutely none of them didn't make use of wilderness in some ways.

That's a big clue.

Anyhow, more than anything else, do they have a land ethic?  That is;

A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.

Aldo Leopold.

Do they support that?

A huge pile of Western politicians really don't.  Some, however, who would surprise you do.  This is a hard question to really explore, because an existential question isn't necessarily easy to question on.  In a collegiate debate, you'd just state the proposition and ask if they agreed, or didn't and follow up with examples.  That may be the best way to do it.

Nobody should vote for a politician who doesn't support the Land Ethic.

Last edition:

Addressing politicians in desperate times. A series.

Labels: 2026 Election, 2028 Election, Commentary, Democratic Party, Politics, Questions for politicians, Republican Party, Trailing thread