They are! None of her books have been banned — as in made illegal to sell. 99.9% of the “banned book” b.s. is about a book being removed from a some local school library — because of parental objections, new acquisitions, age restrictions, etc. People *want* there to be censorship so they can demonstrate their transgression and courage in protesting a straw man problem. The fact that book store chains market “banned books” gives the game away. It’s all marketing. A century ago, one of the best things that could happen to your book was for it to be banned in Boston (they really banned books there) because it made the book cool and subversive everywhere else. This all a con.
Frankly, what Goldberg notes on The Handmaid's Tale is true of a lot of "banned books". They aren't banned, it's what Goldberg describes. Some of the "bans" are simply books being moved from one section of the library to another.
By the way, by odd coincidence, they've given Ghislaine Maxwell a therapy dog.
None of this will matter. People will say this doesn't prove that Trump was screwing a teenage girl, and it doesn't. It just says one was there and he knew about the girls.
But knowing about them is a lot.
This is more proof, as if any was needed, that we live in an oligarchy. A big chuck of the population has basically accepted that the rich and powerful can have teenage sex slaves. . . it's okay. . .they're rich. They basically occupy the same position that kings once did, complete with underaged concubines if they wish. Ironically, our former colonial overlords, have decided that its not okay, not even for a prince.
I was going to use the work "revolution", but didn't as I don't want it suggested that I mean an armed revolution. I'm not. Indeed, I'm not keen on violence in general, and as I intend to refer to the American Revolution in this essay, I'll note that had I lived in the 1770s, I'd have been genuinely horrified by events. I highly doubt that I would have joined the "Patriots" and likewise I wouldn't have joined the Loyalist either. I'd have been in the 1/3d that sat the war out with out choosing sides, but distressed by the overall nature of it.
Interestingly, just yesterday I heard a Catholic Answers interview of Dr. Andrew Willard Jones on his book The Church Against the State. The interview had a fascinating discussion on sovereignty and subsidiarity, and included a discussion on systems of organizing society, including oligarchy.
Oligarchy is now where we are at.
I've been thinking about it, and Dr. Jones has really hit on something. The nature of Americanism, if you will, is in fact not its documentary artifacts and (damaged) institutions, it is, rather, in what it was. At the time of the American Revolution the country had an agrarian/distributist culture and that explained, and explains, everything about it.
The Revolution itself was fought against a society that had concentrated oligarchical wealth. To more than a little degree, colonist to British North America had emigrated to escape that.
We've been losing that for some time. Well over a century, in fact, and indeed dating back into the 19th Century. It started accelerating in the mid 20th Century and now, even though most do not realize it, we are a full blown oligarchy.
Speaking generally, we may say that whatever legal enactments are held to be for the interest of various constitutions, all these preserve them. And the great preserving principle is the one which has been repeatedly mentioned- to have a care that the loyal citizen should be stronger than the disloyal. Neither should we forget the mean, which at the present day is lost sight of in perverted forms of government; for many practices which appear to be democratical are the ruin of democracies, and many which appear to be oligarchical are the ruin of oligarchies. Those who think that all virtue is to be found in their own party principles push matters to extremes; they do not consider that disproportion destroys a state. A nose which varies from the ideal of straightness to a hook or snub may still be of good shape and agreeable to the eye; but if the excess be very great, all symmetry is lost, and the nose at last ceases to be a nose at all on account of some excess in one direction or defect in the other; and this is true of every other part of the human body. The same law of proportion equally holds in states. Oligarchy or democracy, although a departure from the most perfect form, may yet be a good enough government, but if any one attempts to push the principles of either to an extreme, he will begin by spoiling the government and end by having none at all. Wherefore the legislator and the statesman ought to know what democratical measures save and what destroy a democracy, and what oligarchical measures save or destroy an oligarchy. For neither the one nor the other can exist or continue to exist unless both rich and poor are included in it. If equality of property is introduced, the state must of necessity take another form; for when by laws carried to excess one or other element in the state is ruined, the constitution is ruined.
Aristotle, Politics.
Corporations were largely illegal in early American history. They existed, but were highly restricted. The opposite is the case now, with corporations' "personhood" being so protected by the law that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that corporate political spending is a form of free speech and corporations can spend unlimited money on independent political broadcasts in candidate elections. This has created a situation in which corporations have gobbled up local retail in the US and converted middle class shopkeeping families into serfs. It's also made individual heads of corporations obscenely, and I used that word decidedly, wealthy.
Wealth on the level demonstrated by Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Donald Trump simply should not exist. It's bad for average people and its corrupting of their souls. That corruption can be seen in their unhinged desire for self aggrandizement and acquisition. Elon Must acquires young white women of a certain type for concubinage Donald Trump, whose money is rooted in the occupation of land, has collected bedmates over the years, "marrying" some of them and in his declining mental state, seeks to demonstrated his value through grotesque molestation of public property.
Those are individual examples of course, but the government we currently have, while supported by the Puritan class, disturbingly features men of vast wealth, getting wealthier, with a government that operates to fork over more money to those who already have it. The MAGA masses, which stand to grow poorer, and in the case of the agricultural sector are very much already suffering that fate, deservedly after supporting Trump, continue to believe that the demented fool knows what he's doing.
I don't know the source of this, but this illustration perfectly depicts how MAGA populists treat Donald Trump.
This system is rotten to the core and it needs to be broken. Broken down, broken up, and ended.
The hopes of either the Democrats or the Republicans waking up and addressing it seem slim. The GOP is so besotted with it's wealthy leaders that the Speaker of the House, who claims to be a devout Christian, is attempting to keep the release of the names of wealthy hebephiles secret. Only wealth and power can explain that. The Democrats, which since 1912 have claimed to be the part of the working man, flounder when trying to handle the economic plight of the middle class. Both parties agree on only one thing, that being you must never consider a third party.
It is really time for a third part in this country.
In reality, of course, there are some, but only one is worth considering in any fashion, that being the American Solidarity Party. Perhaps it could pick up the gauntlet here and smack it across the face of the oligarchy. Or perhaps local parties might do it. In my state, I think that if enough conservative Republicans (real conservatives, not the Cassie Cravens, John Bear, Dave Simpson, Bob Ide, Chuck Gray servants of the Orange Golden Calf Republicans) it could be done locally. The U.S. has a history, although its barely acknowledged, of local parties, including ones whose members often successfully run on the tick of two parties. New York's Zohran Mamdani and David Dinkins, for example were both Democrats and members of the Democratic Socialist Party. Democrats from Minnesota are actually members of the Democratic Farm Labor Party, which is an amalgamation of two parties. There's no reason a Wyoming Party couldn't form and field its own candidates, some of whom could also run as Republicans.
Such a party, nationally or locally, needs to be bold and take on the oligarchy. There's no time to waste on this, as the oligarchy gets stronger every day. And such candidates will meet howls of derision. Locally Californian Chuck Gray, who ironically has looked like the Green Peace Secretary of State on some issues, will howl about how they're all Communist Monarchist Islamic Stamp Collectors. And some will reason to howl, such as the wealthy landlord in the state's legislature.
The reason for that is simple. Such a party would need to apply, and apply intelligently, the principals of subsidiarity, solidarity and the land ethic. It would further need to be scientific, agrarianistic, and distributist.
The first thing, nationally or locally, that such a party should do is bad the corporate ownership of retail outlets. Ban it. That would immediately shift retail back to the middle class, but also to the family unit. A family might be able to own two grocery or appliance stores, for example, but probably not more than that.
The remote and corporate ownership of rural land needs to come to an immediate end as well. No absentee landlords. People owning agricultural land should be only those people making a living from it.
That model, in fact, should apply overall to the ownership of land. Renting land out, for any reason, ought to be severely restricted. The maintenance of a land renting system, including residential rent, creates landlords, who too often turn into Lords.
On land, the land ethic ought to be applied on a legal and regulatory basis. The American concept of absolute ownership of land is a fraud on human dignity. Ownership of land is just, but not the absolute ownership. You can't do anything you want on your property, nor should you be able to, including the entry by those engaged in natural activities, such as hunting, fishing, or simply hiking, simply because you are an agriculturalist.
While it might be counterintuitive in regard to subsidiarity, it's really the case, in this context, that the mineral resources underneath the surface of the Earth should belong to the public at large, either at the state, or national, level. People make no contribution whatsoever to the mineral wealth being there. They plant nothing and they do not stock the land, like farmers do with livestock. It's presence or absence is simply by happenstance and allowing some to become wealthy and some in the same category not simply by luck is not fair. It
Manufacturing and distribution, which has been address, is trickier, but at the end of the day, a certain amount of employee ownership of corporations in this category largely solves the problem. People working for Big Industry ought to own a slice of it.
And at some level, a system which allows for the accumulation of obscene destructive levels of wealth is wrong. Much of what we've addressed would solve this. You won't be getting rich in retail if you can only have a few stores, for example. And you won't be a rich landlord from rent if most things just can't be rented. But the presence of the massively wealthy, particularly in an electronic age, continues to be vexing. Some of this can be addressed by taxation. The USCCB has stated that "the tax system should be continually evaluated in terms of its impact on the poor.” and it should be. The wealthy should pay a much more progressive tax rate.
These are, of course, all economic, or rather politico-economic matters. None of this addresses the great or stalking horse social issues of the day. We'll address those, as we often have, elsewhere. But the fact of the matter is, right now, the rich and powerful use these issues to distract. Smirky Mike Johnson may claim to be a devout Christian, but he's prevented the release of names of men who raped teenage girls. Donald Trump may publicly state that he's worried about going to Hell, but he remains a rich serial polygamist. J.D. Vance may claim to be a devout Catholic, but he spends a lot of time lying through his teeth.
And, frankly, fix the economic issues, and a lot of these issues fix themselves.
Louis Armstrong and His Hot Five (Lous, his then wife Lil Hardin Armstrong on piano, Edward "Kid" Ory on trombone, Johnny Dodds on clarinet and Johnny St. Cyr on guitar and banjo) recorded their first songs for Okeh Records.
The British submarine HMS M1 was hit by the SS Vidar and sank in the English Channel with the loss of all 69 hands.
This includes the excellent essay The Idiocy of Urban Life, which I've occasionally cited here under its original The New Republic name, The Cows Revenge.
The Indochinese Communist Party voluntarily dissolved itself "in order to destroy all misunderstanding, domestic and foreign, which can hinder the liberation of our country."
Flag of the Indochinese Communist Party
The party was the regions second Communist Party and had become a regional party, operating in French Indochina, by order of the Comintern. It's dissolution recognized the rise of regional nationalistic forces opposed to French rule, not all of which were Communist. Communism itself, of course, as a regional movement, did not disappear.
In Yugoslavia an election was held. Only Communist candidates appeared on the ballot.
Trump's dementia is clearly accelerating, as his weird speech to assembled senior military officers demonstrated.
In response to the speeches assertion that cities like Chicago should be used as training grounds, Gov. JB Pritzker called for Trump to be removed from office under the 25th Amendment.
I've been saying that for months.
The Atlantic noted:
The president talked at length, and his comments should have confirmed to even the most sympathetic observer that he is, as the kids say, not okay. Several of Hegseth’s people said in advance of the senior-officer conclave that its goal was to energize America’s top military leaders and get them to focus on Hegseth’s vision for a new Department of War. But the generals and admirals should be forgiven if they walked out of the auditorium and wondered: What on earth is wrong with the commander in chief?
Trump seemed quieter and more confused than usual; he is not accustomed to audiences who do not clap and react to obvious applause lines. “I’ve never walked into a room so silent before,” he said at the outset. (Hegseth had the same awkward problem earlier, waiting for laughs and applause that never came.) The president announced his participation only days ago, and he certainly seemed unprepared.
I've also been stating that he's not okay.
It's now becoming undeniable even where it had been ignored. Donald Trump is not okay.
October 2, 2025
A growing momentum on Trump's insanity.
This is huge.
In this clip, an off mike Speaker of the House Mike Johnson basically admits that Trump is "unwell", and only defends it by saying that some Democrats are as well.
He doesn't defined Trump's insanity, and he claims not to have seen the speech to the Military.
There's growing momentum now for the 25th Amendment to be invoked. It's openly being called for, and here one of Trump's closest allies doesn't try to defend his sanity at all.
MADELEINE DEAN: The president is unhinged. He is unwell.
MIKE JOHNSON: A lot of folks on your side are too
DEAN: Oh my god, please. That performance in front of the generals?
MIKE JOHNSON: I didn't see it
DEAN: It's so dangerous! Our allies are looking elsewhere. Our enemies are laughing. You have a president who is unwell.
Things like this have a way of happening suddenly. Since Trump's very publized speech to the senior officers, there has been a lot of public commentary on his being "unwell" and now senior politicians are saying so openly. Some are Democrats who aren't afraid of saying it, even though they've been reluctant to up until now, such as Madelene Dean.
Dean: “Is it racist? You put a sombrero on a Black man who’s the leader of the House. You don’t see that as racist? We need you desperately to lead,”
Johnson: “I’m working on it. And personally, it’s not my style. I love you and I respect you, OK?”
Dean: “That’s why I’m talking to you".
We covered this quite a while back, but the 25th Amendment requires the vice president, together with a "majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide", to issue a written declaration that the president is unable to discharge his duties. So who all has to buy in on that? The majority of the cabinet, but just a simple majority.
Who all is in the cabinet?
Secretary of StateMarco Rubio
Secretary of the TreasuryScott Bessent
Secretary of DefensePete Hegseth
Attorney GeneralPam Bondi
Secretary of the InteriorDoug Burgum
Secretary of AgricultureBrooke Rollins
Secretary of CommerceHoward Lutnick
Secretary of LaborLori Chavez-DeRemer
Secretary of Health and Human ServicesRobert F. Kennedy Jr.
Secretary of Housing and Urban DevelopmentScott Turner
Secretary of TransportationSean Duffy
Secretary of EnergyChris Wright
Secretary of EducationLinda McMahon
Secretary of Veterans AffairsDoug Collins
Secretary of Homeland SecurityKristi Noem
Administrator of the Environmental Protection AgencyLee Zeldin
Director of the Office of Management and BudgetRussell Vought
Director of National IntelligenceTulsi Gabbard
Director of the Central Intelligence AgencyJohn Ratcliffe
United States Trade RepresentativeJamieson Greer
Administrator of the Small Business AdministrationKelly Loeffler
Chief of StaffSusie Wiles
Okay, let's make some reasonable assumptions.
Getting J.D. Vance on board only really requires that a majority of the cabinet go along. I suspect Vance would be pretty willing to stab Trump in the back if it elevates him to the Oval Office, and as I've said here all along, the NatCons have been planning on this development since day one.
So who might go along? Keep in mind that there are a whopping 22 cabinet officers (an absurd amount). In order to invoke the 25th Amendment, 12 would need to be willing to vote that Trump is bonkers.
Let's put them in "probable" (red), no way (blue) and unknown categories (orange) and see where that takes us, keeping in mind that unknown, is unknown to me. Others might have a pretty good idea of how everyone is likely to go.
1. Secretary of StateMarco Rubio. Rubio would definitely remove Trump and is undoubtedly willing to save his own career rather than be hitched to a mentally declining unpopular President.
2. Secretary of the TreasuryScott Bessent. Bessent might seem like a surprise here, but he's been clearly uncomfortable saying the stupidest stuff and would likely like to be relieved of that burden.
1. Secretary of DefensePete Hegseth. Hegseth is hitched to Trump's wagon, and knows it. The only way he might consider otherwise is an open threat/promise that if he goes along, he keeps his job (the NatCons probably like him), but if he doesn't, when this gets worse, he'll be sent packing before his work is done.
3. Attorney GeneralPam Bondi. This probably seems like a surprise too, but recently Trump's been forcing Bondi into clearly unethical and stupid positions. She's pretty smart, and would likely vote to save herself.
4. Secretary of the InteriorDoug Burgum. Burgum's role in the administration is a self serving marriage of convenience. He'd hitch his wagon to any Republican President.
2. Secretary of AgricultureBrooke Rollins. I don't know much about Rollins and probably should put her in orange, but she served Texas Governor Perry, which speaks for itself.
3. Secretary of CommerceHoward Lutnick. Lutnick has come across as a complete Trump toady and likely knows that if Trump falls, he's going to be sent packing.
1. Secretary of LaborLori Chavez-DeRemer. Chavez-DeRemer has really flown under the wire, but she seems pretty sharp. She's Hispanic, and her father was a Teamster. I suspect that she'd lean towards removal as she's drawn little attention and would continue to draw little attention in a new administration.
4. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesRobert F. Kennedy Jr.. This one speaks for itself.
2. Secretary of Housing and Urban DevelopmentScott Turner. Turner's an unknown. His political career has been tied to Trump, but whether he's so loyal that he'll go down with Trump is another question.
3. Secretary of TransportationSean DuffyNo idea whatsoever, but I suspect he would not go along.
5. Secretary of EnergyChris WrightWright's weltanschauung in his department is too aligned with Trump for him to go along.
6. Secretary of EducationLinda McMahonSpeaks for itself.
5. Secretary of Veterans AffairsDoug CollinsCollins served as an active duty and reserve chaplain. He's very conservative, but I suspect that military officers have his ear.
6. Secretary of Homeland SecurityKristi Noem. Noem is from the far right, but she's savvy and she's not going to go down with the Trump ship.
7. Administrator of the Environmental Protection AgencyLee Zeldin. Zeldin is a Trump ally. He won't vote to remove Trump.
7. Director of the Office of Management and BudgetRussell Vought. Vought is a far right NatCon and pretty smart, which puts him in the cynical camp. Trump's only a vehicle for the NatCons, and he'll be willing to change lines if it means it keeps the NatCons in control under a NatCon Vance. Indeed, his participation would nearly guaranty that it would.
8. Director of National IntelligenceTulsi Gabbard. Gabbard has a demonstrated independent streak and has been in both political parties. She'll act to advance and save herself.
4. Director of the Central Intelligence AgencyJohn Ratcliffe. Quite unknown, but I suspect would lean towards removal.
5. United States Trade RepresentativeJamieson Greer. Unknown, but would likely lean towards removal.
6. Administrator of the Small Business AdministrationKelly Loeffler. Unknown, but would likely lean towards removal.
7. Chief of StaffSusie WilesProbably loyal to Trump.
So, if my math and ponderings are correct, which they may very well not be, things are probably nearly tied, in knowns, right now. I figure there are 8 out of the needed 12 who would remove Trump, if four more signed on.
Of the unknowns, there are seven. Of the diehard Trump loyalist, seven. I figure five of the unknowns, one more than needed, would likely go for removal, but that's a pretty thin margin. Some on the fence would likely want a greater margin.
You can bet these conversations are going on right now, however. They are openly going on now in Congress.
October 5, 2025
Don is using the budget shutdown to cozy up to Project 2025, making his removal less likely as the NatCons will get what the want from the document under the cover of the budget shutdown. Russell Vought, for example, can now be moved to the no removal column.
It was a crafty move on somebody's part.
October 15, 2025
I'd love to go to Argentina. I'd like to be like Biden. I'd like to go to the beach. My legs are not quite as thin as his. My legs are slightly heavier…My body is a little bit larger than his. I'm not sure it would be appreciated on the beach.
Donald Trump.
October 20, 2025
The destruction of the facade of the East Wing of the White House began today in anticipation of the construction of a ballroom that will never get built.
Construction of the gaudy structure will advance until the 25th Amendment or advanced old age remove Trump from office, at which point the East Wing will have to be repaired on the taxpayers dime. Worst case scenario is that Trump somehow managed to babble through a full term, which would be a disaster for the nation, after which the structure will be taken down and a new East Wing built.
October 21, 2025
So I just wanna say, thank you all. Uh, simply, behind me, so, is a knockout panel. This panel, the next time you come here, will be opened up and gone. No – uh, no problem with any of the surrounding areas. These, this room will be fixed. This will be like a cocktail – the whole floor will be cocktails or pre-briefings or whatever it may be, lots of different things. So the entire floor. So you come in, the entire floor sets up. We didn’t have to do any of that. Usually, you have to do that. You need different rooms to go along with a ballroom.
Donald Trump.
October 22, 2025
Trump now claims the justice department owes him $230M dollars.
He's clearly insane.
October 24, 2025
October 24, 2025
cont:
Oh yeah. . .that's clearly the reaction a totally stable secure genius would have . . .
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
And with that petulant temper tantrum, we'll close out this edition.
October 30, 2025
The United States, with a demented child in the Oval Office, is going to resume the testing of nuclear weapons.
Trump is clearly, to use the legal standard, "a danger to himself or others".
Trump was clearly clueless and walked right when the Japanese Prime Minister stopped to review the honor guard, leaving her to have to catch up. People guided Trump around like a demented elderly person. . . which of course he is.
And the saluting.
Ronald Reagan started saluting at U.S troops. It's moronic. It was then, and it still is. Trump's a civilian, he shouldn't be saluting anyone.
November 4, 2025
Donald Trump pardoned Changpeng Zhao without knowing who he was.
This from the guy who complains about autopens.
November 5, 2025
You go to a grocery store, you have to give ID. You go to a gas station, you give ID. But for voting they want no voter ID. It's only for one reason: because they cheat.
I don't have to show an ID at the grocery store or the gas station. And I don't believe Trump ever goes to the grocery store or the gas station.
Cont:
1300% lower than last year. We love the creamed corn. I don’t know who came up with that. Bob Corn, or maybe Jack Cream. Hey look, a woman from Saudi Arabia!
Trump on creamed corn.
I don't know if they care about that in Saudi Arabia, but here it means a lot. We got the princess here from Saudi Arabia. She's got a lot of cash.
Trump on the cost of a Thanksgiving meal.
November 7, 2025
Our energy costs are way down. Our groceries are way down. Everything is way down. And the press does not report it… Thanksgiving meals 25% down. So I don't want to hear about the affordability.
