Madero was declaring that if Diaz did not step down, his forces would march on Mexico City.
A Protestant pastor, the same issue of the Casper noted, apparently didn't really understand the nature of the Sacrament of Confession.
Last edition:
I've been saying for awhile, and statements like this really demonstrate it:
It looks like President Trump has a better understanding of what the Bible teaches than the Pope.
Robert Jeffress, senior pastor of the 14,000-member First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas on Fox News.
That comment was stupid. But then, he's called Catholicism a cult.
The Catholic Church is an Apostolic Church. It was founded by Christ. John Smyth, an Englishman, founded the Baptists in 1609.
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is a Catholic doctrine. There is no salvation outside the Church. None the less, the Church holds that those who did not come to Christ innocently, or those who did not come to the Church innocently, can be saved, which operates again through the Church. You can't be held responsible for what you innocently didn't know.
But what about here?
We're in the death throws of the reformation. Things Smyth could get away with believing in 1609 there's no excuse to believe now, other than invincible ignorance.
Being a pastor of a 14,000 member church puts a pretty heavy burden on you and your soul for remaining ignorant.
Smyth is also a Fox News contributor, which really figures.
As an irony here, although one he will not be capable, right now, of appreciating, Smyth has gone after Mormons, Jews, and Muslims as well. In normal times, he would not have a national television audience. He would have a local Dallas one as Texas is part of the former Confederacy and the Baptist rose in the wake of the Southern defeat in 1865, replacing the Episcopal Church in the South as the dominant religion culturally. Nationally, however, picking on Jews, Muslims, Catholics and Mormons would get you booted off of television.
Religious aspects of this aside, this brings up a political one I've warned about here repeatedly.
Catholics voting for MAGA candidates are voting for a group that not only doesn't regard the Church highly, they don't believe it's a Christian religion at all. People like Lyin' Chuck Gray, Reid Rasner and Megan Degenfelder, who are Catholics who run as MAGA are making a political bargain that will cause them, as it seems to have already for Lyin' Chuck to decide between their faiths, and their political fortunes. Degenfelder has signs up all over which say "Endorsed by President Trump".
They should say "Endorsed by Blasphemous Donald Trump".
And this isn't merely esoteric. We're in the same position now that Catholic Germans were in the 1932 German election (and the Catholics in fact went for Hitler much less than German protestants did). There's really going to be no good "um, well, the other guy . . . " excuse here. The far right Evangelical edge of the Trump coalition isn't even pretending not to hate Catholics much anymore.
And what about Mormons?
Mormons include a heavy MAGA contingent, although the only really devout Mormons I know here locally right now are heavy duty Never Trumpers, and openly so. But then you have guys like Deseret Mike Lee who come pretty close to viewing Trump positively in some sort of creepy religious terms. Deep in the Jello Belt it's always been the case that there was a sort of ignorant conservatism in some quarters, and in the last 16 years, in spite of guys like Mitt Romney, it's really come out.
Trump and Islam is simply laughable as a joke. In the last election Trump drew a fair amount of Islamic support because Muslims were so mad about Joe Biden's support of Israel. Well, they got what the should have expected. The only person Trump loves more than Putin (and of course Trump) is Benjamin Netanyahu and as a result we've supported genocide in Gaza, a war in Lebanon and we helped Israel attack Iran and we can't get out of it. I suspect that most Muslims are voting for the Democrats next go around, just like most Hispanics will be (and in both instances, this really gives the Democrats a chance to evolve away from their sea of blood positions).
And this sort of thing should even be a revelation for Jews of all stripes, although I think they're more awake to what MAGA is than most. The strong Trump support for Netanyahu comes in part because Netanyahu is good at playing Trump, much like Putin is. But it also comes from people like Hegseth or Huckabee, who have a radical Protestant view of Israel and want to bring about the Second Coming of Christ basically by force, which they see current events as an opportunity in which to do so. Put another way, do you really want to get in the car with somebody who wants to drive you to a giant gun fight?
Donald Trump, of course, is sort of beyond all of this. Trump isn't any sort of serious Christian and we don't really know if he has any religious beliefs at all. Most of his life has been spent chasing cash through real estate development and his hobbies have been golf and chasing tail. Christians are just a convenient vehicle for him. If the Sultan of Oman offered him a bigger better airplane tomorrow if he'd convert to Islam, and remind him that Muslims can have more than one wife, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if he signed on. His personal conduct actually squares better with Islam than Christianity, which is after all a religion focused on the poor and duty.
In the end, all of this is going to fall apart.
Christians who aligned with Trump, just like Muslims and Mormons who did, are going to have to pay the cost. It'll be different for each. For Muslims, well their fellows are playing through blood right now. Jews will pay by the backlash that's already started.
For Christians, it'll be different, depending upon where their allegiance lay. For the ignorant members of the American Civil Religion, and for the hardcore Evangelical right, this will be the beginning of an end of an era that started in April 1865, when the South fell and the Evangelical far right stepped into its own. For the Protestant world in general, this will accelerate the death of the Reformation.
For the Catholic and Orthodox Christians who supported Trump, how could you be so blind?
Nonetheless, this will be a good thing for the Catholic and Orthodox. A delusion that started in 1960 that you could be fully American and fully Catholic, or Orthodox, has ended. National Conservatism will end with it.
And that will be a good thing.
Last edition:
Maronite Catholic Jacelyne Khoueiry and six other Lebanese Christian women defended a building in Martyrs' Square in Beirut from an attack by 300 Palestine Liberation Organization fighter.
Khouneiry would go on to command a female Christian unit of 1,500 members before laying down her arms in 1986. She'd go on to found charitable and prolife organizations and participated in a 2012 synod on the Middle East and the 2014 Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. She was appointed to the Pontifical Council for the Laity.
Last edition:
Gary Cooper was born in Helena, Montana. His English born father was a lawyer, rancher, and would become a Montana Supreme Court justice.
Cooper was well educated, and his early education was in the United Kingdom. He was a member of the Church of England growing up but converted to Catholicism, having been introduced to it by his daughter and then estranged wife, two years prior to his death. He died in 1961.
Allis-Chalmers was incorporated.
German troops defeated Chinese cavalry in a battle at Kalgan (now Zhangjiakou) in the Hebei Province of China.
Last edition:
Lex Anteinternet: CliffsNotes of the Zeitgeist, 128th Edition. Attem...: The 127th edition of this was teed up to go before last night's White House Correspondence Dinner, or this would be that edition. Havin...
Churches of the West: Stop! Don't change that Church!: A theme, if not always an obvious one, of this blog is architecture. And nothing does more violence to traditional, serviceable, and b...
Here's part of it:
Stop! Don't change that Church!
A theme, if not always an obvious one, of this blog is architecture.And nothing does more violence to traditional, serviceable, and beautiful architecture, than "updating" it for any reason.Just don't.A case in point.The photograph above, unfortunately not entirely in focus and in black and white, dates from November 1958. It depicts St. Anthony's of Padua Church in Casper Wyoming on the occasion of my parents wedding.Now, St. Anthony's remains a beautiful church today, but if we had a picture of the interior (which I don't from this angle) and if we had this picture in sharper focus (which it isn't) and in color (which it is not), we'd notice some changes right away.And they aren't good ones.The altarpiece and the altar are all still there. The cross painted on the wall behind the altarpiece is also still there. But many other things have changed.Most obvious, the beautiful marble altar rail in this photograph, a gift of the Schulte family when the church was built, is gone. I was told that a part of it can be found now in a local restaurant, which I hope is not true. If it is true, I've never seen it, so it must be some place I don't go to. It's not clear here, but the gate for the altar rail was marble with heavy brass hinges. A true work of art in every sense.The heavy brass lanterns hanging from the ceiling are also gone.What appears to be a marble ambo is gone as well, replaced by a very nice wooden (walnut?) one.The statute of St. Patrick moved across town to St. Patrick's, which sort of makes sense. The funds to build St. Patrick's came from St. Anthony's donors, many of whom were Irish, to that we'd ultimately send the statute of the Patron Saint of Ireland over there, which we did only fairly recently, does square with the general them there.. The statute of St. Anthony has been moved to a different spot, but it looks good where it is.I'm not certain what sort of floor covering we're looking at here, probably carpet, and of course we have new carpet. But what would strike anyone looking at this photo about what is next to the carpet, the pews, is that the pews are now cantered to face towards the center of the alter.Okay, what's up with all of that, and was it an improvement?Well, I suppose that's in the eye of the beholder, as all such things are, but in my view, the answer is a very distinct "no".It's funny how these things work. I can remember all of the features depicted here, including the altar rail, even though I was very young when at least that feature came out. But, at the time, I don't think I thought much about it, if I thought about it all. I don't remember the Mass being in Latin at all, although when I was very, very young, it must have been. Anyhow, while these things didn't bother me at the time, or the one change that I recall from when I was a bit older, the cantering of the pews, didn't bother me much, now they do.That may be because I now have a greater appreciation for history and tradition than I did when I was just a boy, although I had a sense of that at the time.The cocked angle of the pews, remnants of a decision made by a Priest in the 1970s or perhaps early 80s, has been something I've never liked, even if I understand the intent behind it. Not visible in this photograph, a row of pews that were in the middle of the church were taken out to facilitate twice as many Communion servers. It's awkward and always has been and should not have been done. Indeed, as this was the only Catholic Church in town with it was built, it was probably jam packed nearly every Mass and they seemed to manage to get by just fine. For that matter, I've been in plenty of packed Catholic churches where everyone came up to the front of the church and it always worked just fine as well. Having said that, changing the angle of the pews didn't do a great disservice to the church even if it didn't really help it any.Another matter, however, is the altar rail.Now altar rails turn out to be a surprisingly hot button item to people not familiar with them.All Latin Rite Catholic Churches and Anglican Churches had altar rails. Chances are very high that other churches close in form to the Catholic Church also had them, I just don't know. Their purposes was to provide a place for communicants to kneel when receiving communion. Prior to Vatican II (1962 to 1965) all Latin Catholic in modern times received communion on the tongue. Communicants would kneel at the altar rail and receive communion.You'd think that finding a public domain photograph of communicants receiving communion at an altar rail would b easy, but it isn't. This almost illustrates it in a better fashion, however. British solders lined up, as if there is an altar rail, and receiving communion in teh field in North Africa. Off hand, I suspect that this is an Anglican service.Now, before we get too far down this road it should be noted that people can get really up in arms about this in all sorts of ways and some traditionalist will insist that communion can only properly be received kneeling and on the tongue. This doesn't seem to be true and certainly wasn't universally the case. Indeed, originally, the very first Christians, received communion in the hand and you can find very early writings that effect. However, traditionalist will hotly dispute what those writings and the other evidence actually means. Given as I'm not getting into that debate, I'm not going there and that isn't the point of this entry.What is the point is that altar rails were an integral part of the design of churches for an extremely long time. Take anything out of a well designed building and you risk subtracting from its design. That's exactly what I think occurred here.Which isn't to say that I feel that St. Anthony's is a bad looking Church now, far from it. It's still a beautiful church. But it was more beautiful before the marble altar rail was taken out.
Indeed, the problem with making alterations to these well designed structures is that any time that this is done it risks giving into a temporary view in favor of a more traditional element that was integral in the design of the structure while doing damage to its appearance. All Catholic churches up until the id 1960s were designed to have altar rails. Taking them out may have served what was, and perhaps is, the view of the day in regards to worship, but it also means that a major feature of the interior of the building, to which careful consideration had been given, was now missing.And it turns out that, contrary to widely held belief, they did not have to be removed.Most people believe that the altar rails were taken out as it was somehow required post Vatican II. It wasn't. Rather, for whatever reason changes in the Mass now allowed them to be. They didn't have to be. Theoretically it was apparently up to individual Pastors on whether they thought an altar rail should be removed, but given as in Wyoming they are nearly all missing, it might have been the case that the decision to remove them was made at the Diocesan level. The motivating thought here was that the altar rail served to act as a sort of barrier to connection between the people and the Offering of the Mass, and those who supported altar rail removal often felt fairly strongly about that (as we'll see below). This was, I think, part of an overall change in the Mass at that time, when it went from Latin to the local vernacular, as the Celebrant had faced Ad Oreintum while offering the Mass. That is, the Priest faced his altar, as a rule, with his back to the Congregation.Now all of this gets into some fairly complicated symbolic matters. There's some truth to the view held by those who argued for the new position and removing the altar rails, in at he "we're all one together sense". There a counter point, however, that maybe the Ad Oreintum orientation actually served that better, as the Priest was facing the same direction for significant portions of the Mass that the parishioners were. That is, by way of a poor example, if somebody faced you in a large group they're more likely to have some elevated authority over you than if somebody has their back to you, in which case they can be argued to be working with you. Interestingly in recent years there's been a slow return in some areas to the Ad Oreintum orientation, particularly following Cardinal Sarah's suggestion that this was a better form. The Cardinal occupies a high position at the Vatican and therefore his views cannot be easily discounted. As has been noted in regards to this there's actually never been an official position on which orientation is better, and in some ancient and modern churches the Ad Orientum position is actually impossible.In any event, what that did was in part to remove an item that was closely connected to the church and hence the parish and the parishioners. In this case, the altar rail itself had been a gift from a family early in the parish's history. In Catholic parishes the pastor is usually there for about seven years and bishops can be in office for long or short periods. However, as the parishioners are often there for decades, that means the traditional in which they participated was removed by individuals who were there on a more temporary basis. It was certainly "legal", if you will, but it might not have been well advised.The same is true of most, but not all, of the interior changes to the church. A person can debate the aesthetics of the heavy brass lighting, but the church was built with it in mind and the features that once decorated where it attached to the building remain there to this day. The removal of one confessional, the relocation, in an awkward fashion, of a place for "music ministers" to stand that resulted, and all of that, were done in a heartfelt fashion, but often to the ascetic detriment of the church which was not built with remodels in mind.This touches, moreover, on the larger topic of church architecture itself, which as been addressed in another one of our rare commentary threads here. These older churches are better looking as the architecture and design that came in during the 1970s was not as good as earlier architecture, and according to some focused more on the congregation than on the Divine. This blog was at one time going to avoid all such churches in general, but as time has gone on its put up posts of quite a few. Many of these churches are just not good looking. By the same token, many alterations to older churches are not good looking either.As I noted when I started off, a lot of this stuff did not bother me when I was a child and experiencing it, but it does now. Indeed, the removal of the altar rail in this church frankly makes me mad when I think of it. I wish it could go back in. It won't, of course, but the whole thing upsets me. I'm not alone, I think, on this sort of thinking and I think it reflects a generational befuddlement with the generations immediately preceding us which seems to have had, in many instances, low respect for tradition in general. In civil society, in terms of structures, this is probably why we now see all sorts of effort to restore the appearance of old buildings whose owners in the 50s, 60s, and 70s didn't give a second thought about making them ugly through renovation. A prime example of that is the Wyoming National Bank building in Casper Wyoming which was made to look hideous by the additional of a weird steel grating in the 1950s to its exterior which was supposed to make it look modern. It mostly served to house pigeons and was removed in the 2000s when the building was redone and converted to apartments.Now, not every one feels this way, I should note. Particularly in regards to churches. When I posted this same photograph on Facebook, a friend of mine with a few years on me posted this reply (I hadn't commented on the altar rails in my original post):So happy that the railings have come down and the hats came off! The church is still so beautiful.I agree that the church remains beautiful, and I agree that the women wearing head coverings is a tradition that I don't miss, but I don't feel that way about the altar rail at all.I suspect my friends comment goes to a "spirit of Vatican II" feeling that she's old enough to have experienced and which I not only am not, but which I don't really share enthusiasm for. It's important to note that Vatican II and "the spirit of Vatican II" are not the same thing. "The spirit" thing was a zeitgeist of the times which took a decidedly more liberal and less traditional view of things, no doubt an "open the windows and doors and let some fresh air in". Some of that was likely needed but as is often the case with people who are in a "let in the fresh air" movement the realization that cold winds high winds can come in through the same windows and doors and do damage is rarely appreciated.And its all too easy when traditions which are simply traditions are tossed to begin to toss out with them things that are more than tradition. I'm not saying that occurred here with altar rails but I will be frankly that the 1970s saw a lot of innovations, some of them very local poorly thought out that were, in some cases, quite problematic. The generation that thought removing the altar rails was a good idea proved willing to entertain a lot of things in this area that turned out to be big problems for everyone else.Part of that is because traditions are anchors in a way; moorings to the the past. People of a "fresh air" bent will claim that a person shouldn't be bound by the past. That's true, but tradition is also in some cases the vote, or the expression of experience, of the dead and should not be lightly discounted. Not only does casting out traditions tend to sever anchors, but all too often the severing simply puts people adrift in seas that they're not well prepared to handle. At its worst, the severing of traditions is a rejection of the long and carefully thought out in favor of the temporarily current and the poorly thought out.Which is why, for many people of the post Vatican II generation the "Spirit of Vatican II" generation, when moored in their own changes, can seem now old fashioned. Ironically younger generations have been busy for some time "reforming the reform", which means in the mainstream keeping the reforms that proved worthwhile and reversing those that did not. Tradition has, in some instances, come back in the opened door after having been swept out it, but with a younger generation.All of which is well off point on what this thread started out being about. And I'm not going to start a "restore the altar rail" movement, locally or on the internet. But I feel it was a shame that it was taken out, and to the extent that alterations that should not have taken place for ascetic reasons in regards to older structures can be repaired, they ought to be.
Okay, why am I reviving that post?
It's because I want the alter rail back.
Contrary to widespread popular belief, there were never any Vatican II directive that alter rails be removed. It was a "spirit of Vatican II" type of thing.
Alter rails weren't in the very first churches, as they were houses. They evolved over a period of time. They came to demarcate three distinct worship spaces, the nave, the sanctuary and the altar. Vatican II emphasized the laity coming into the celebration of the Mass and from there Church officials determined that the rails separated the Priest from the people, as did the ad orientum worship of the Mass.
I'll try to be gentle in my criticism here, but I'd suggest that the directive of laity participation wsa somewhat misunderstood in the US in general. Indeed, Fr. Joseph Krupp maintains that much of Vatican II was as translation of the official documents was not a priority for the Church, as most Catholics do not use English as their primary language.
Be that as it may, the Church of the 1970s in the US really went to town with such changes. Parishioners, who had grown up in an era when they largely did not question their Priests, simply endured it. The clergy thought it was doing something that would really make everyone come closer together, but for the most part, their parishioners simply silently endured it, and the flood of other changes that came in at the same time.
Many of the changes were good one, most particularly the new form of the Mass in the vernacular. But changes simply went to far. Architectural changes were really a bad thing in structures that were built before Vatican II. And frankly, the Baby Boom generation aside, most people actually like some formal distinctions in society, something pretty clear when you see the post Baby Boom generations at Mass.
The alter rail at St. Anthony's was made of marble, with brass hinges, and beautiful. Even now, the church looks like it is missing something.
This is less the case with the other two Catholic churches in Casper, Our Lady of Fatima and St. Patrick's. St. Patrick's is the newest of the three, having been built in the 1960s. It's an expansive church and the absence of an alter rail does not seem to hinder its appearance. Our Lady of Fatima was built as an Air Base chapel during World War Two and no doubt was built without an alter rail originally. Having said that, perhaps because of reconstruction, which has happened more than once, it looks like it should have one.
St. Anthony's has been substantially restored in recent years. Not 100%, but substantially. Restoring the alter rail would go a long ways towards restoring the full original beauty of the church.
When it was taken out, something happened to it. But what? Is it stored somewhere on the grounds? If it was, I've never seen it. I've heard rumors that part of it is in a Casper restaurant.
And what about the alter rails from the other churches?
Much of what was in St. Anthony's before the post Vatican II changes was provided for by way of donations from parishioners. I've thought that the alter rail was, but I don't really know that. Donations are a funny thing in that sometimes they bind the recipient, and other times they do not. This probably did not.
Well, at any rate, taking the alter rail(s) out was a mistake. The alter rail, indeed the alter rails, should be put back in. Somebody has the St. Anthony's one, perhaps more than one somebody. They should give it back.
Put the alter rail back in.
If this is correct, it should be the last possible line in the sand for American Catholics. For those for whom it isn't, there's clearly no outrage that Trump could do that would matter to them.
April 13, 2026.
The number of Catholics in the world: Over 1,422,000,000, with the number growing.
The number of Catholics in the United States: Between 50,000,000 and 70,000,000, with the number growing.
The number of Orthodox in the world 260,000,000
The number of Orthodox Christians in the United States: 2,600,000.
The number of Protestants in the world: 600,000,000 to 1,000,000,000.
The number of Protestants in the United States 140,000,000 to 150,000,000, of which 10 to 15% are mainline protestants, and of which the largest denomination is the American Baptist Conference, which includes 13,000,000 to 15,000,000 members.
The Catholic Church, all rites (the Roman Rite is the largest by far) is the largest single church in the world and the largest single church in the United States, in spite of the United States being a protestant nation.
The second largest church in the world are the Orthodox, meaning that the Apostolic Churches, those which go all the way back to the Apostles, far exceed the number of Protestants.
While all churches have their problems, the Catholic church is growing everywhere. Protestant churches are dying.
And then we get this:
But some have. I know plenty.
Some are just shallow political thinkers, others not, and all are conservative. I'm conservative, but I've never supported Trump.
These people are opposed to abortion (so am I), and were horrified by transgenderism (so am I). That frankly is just about it. Some buy in to the other hardcore aspects of the far right as well, being opposed to immigration, for instance, which actually requires a more nuanced thought process than they are giving it. And the Democrats made it impossible for Catholics to really support them, becoming the party of death and weirdness.
None of which meant that anyone had to support a dim, narcissistic, serial polygamist.
For those of you who supported Trump on social issues, there were and are other parties. And how much do we know about Trump and any of the positions he supposedly supports. He own track record on moral issues is poor at least in so far as his treatment of women is concerned. And we're talking about adult women. This administration outright opposition to releasing the Epstein files certainly raises questions about it being willing to support child rapists, and there's enough smoke around Trump to at least raise questions about how far in the shallow end of the pool he may have been willing to go, although nothing's been proven. His family's financial dealings this term certainly raise questions of a moral nature. His launching of an illegal war and threatening mass civilian deaths is criminal.
We could go on. He's a horrible, demented, man. Christians who are supporting him need to rethink it immediately.
Catholics supporting him have helped bring us to this.
From here on out there's no excuse for a free pass by members of the Apostolic Faiths. None. And that includes the two members in the administration, Marco Rubio and J. D. Vance. Supporting Trump is supporting this mockery of the Faith and of all Christianity.
But for the voters too. In the midterms there are already candidates who note they are "endorsed by Donald Trump". One Catholic candidate here in the state hardcore embraces Trump and another runs, on all of her signs, "Endorsed by Donald Trump".
That needs to end right now.
The 25th Amendment needs to be applied, now. Catholics cozying up to Trump need to stop, now.
Cont:
Q: Did you post that picture of yourself depicted as Jesus?
Trump: I did post it and I thought it was me as a doctor. And had to do with red cross as a red cross worker
Donald Trump.
If that's what he's thought, it's because he's demented.
That being what he thought is rather difficult to believe. What's more believable is that he's worried American Catholics are now waking up, if they were not already awake, to what a terrible person he is.
April 16, 2026
We'll probably close this one out and start a new one, but this story is still playing out.
Something that should be really obvious, but MAGA just won't accept, is that Donald Trump is insane. Of course, accepting that a leader who they loved is nuts would mean that some of what they're supporting is nuts. Nobody wants to acknowledge that, but it needs to occur now.
We're in really dangerous territory.
Trump Rage at Pope Darkens as Ex-Allies Warn of Worsening Mental State
As Trump’s own ex-supporters start sounding the alarm about his mental state, a former top Trump official explains why the president’s madness is now badly messing with ordinary Americans’ everyday lives.
That's from The New Republic, which those with the real Trump Derangement Syndrome, the one that keeps a supporter from acknowledging that he's gone insane no matter what he does, will disregard. But these warnings aren't in isolation by any means.
Here's one from the National Catholic Reporter:
Trump is detached from reality. The 25th Amendment exists for this moment
For the reporter to call for the 25th Amendment to be invoked is pretty extraordinary, but again those with the real TDS will just say, well, that's because he insulted the Pope. Indeed, American Catholics in the political far right are already busy dissing Pope Leo XIV as some sort of flaming left winger, which is patently absurd.
Well, here's one from Jewish bonafide somewhat left winger Robert Reich:
He is Seriously, Frighteningly, Utterly, and Completely Losing His Mind
We are in great danger
The man is going insane. We're in some sort of a race now to see if his cabinet can screw up its courage or finally do something so patently nuts that it can't be denied. What that is, at this point, is almost too horrific to imagine.
What seems clear, for those who bother to observe, is that the U.S. is going to invade Cuba, unless the military puts a stop to it. Nobody in the Administration seems ready to stop it. We're basically starving the country to death, for no reason, right now, other than its a vengeful project supported by Cuban Americans. The chances that we revive Trump's lust for Greenland at some point, and committing forces to satiate it aren't beyond possibility. Maybe one of those two acts causes somebody to say "no".
Or maybe it'll be the war against Iran. We seem to have wondered into a war that has no way out and the stress it's causing Trump is rapidly wiping out what mental faculties he had left. The thought that Iran may win, and it may, is terrifying for him. It's also destroying the political chances of J. D. Vance, which Vance likely knows, and which gives Vance, who opposed the war, the chance to be Brutus to Trump's Caesar. Still, Trump launching an act of absolute barbarity to try to force Iran to surrender, which would fail, isn't beyond possibility either.
Or maybe it'll be something benign. He says something he can't retract about something abhorrent, or walks out in the paved rose garden sans clothes, or forgets who the first lady is.
Or maybe we wake up one day having deployed nuclear weapons with MAGA wondering, for the most part, how we got there, and with some supporting it as they must or must wakeup.
We're in dangerous territory.
I'd predicted when we started this series that Trump's second term would last 18 months, from January 2025 to June 2026. We're rolling right up on that. What is clear at this point is that in November the Democratic Party is going to resume control of the House and the Senate. At that point Trump's ability to reign like a dictator will end. Knowing that, if he is still in office, he'll do everything possible to disrupt the 2026 election and steal it.. People like Chuck Gray will help him in that attempt, and are already helping him. It probably won't work. If he goes too far, it'll result in mass violence.
The fact that he'll try it, and that it will become increasingly obvious that he's doing to try it as we move towards November, will mean that there will be a fair chance that if Trump is still in office after November, he'll face impeachment and be removed in 2027. Because of that, there's also an increased chance that if my original timeline was off, the 25th Amendment will be invoked then. An impeachment of Trump, at this point might very well be followed by an impeachment of Vance, who will not want to face that.
Hitler didn't resign rather than take Germany into defeat. Comparing Trump to Hitler is something even his opponents hate to have done, but he has a very similar mindset in certain ways. Hitler was democratically elected and co opted the state as well, and believed manically in himself. Trump is like that. Stress and drugs eroded Hitler's mind, as well as the burden of evil. Trump came into office in his first time an obviously mentally unstable person and it's grown worse. He's never been a person who is personally admirable.
The longer this goes on, the worse it will become.
April 21, 2026
Last edition:
