Skip to content

What about Connecticut!

Saturday, January 11, 2025

A Canadian MP has graciously offered to take several states off of Donald Trump’s hands, pointing out that it would relieve the Orange Felon of states that vote rationally. Well, she said states that vote Democratic, but it’s pretty much the same thing.

She offered to take California, Oregon, and Washington, and then upped the offer to include Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire. It would be a good deal for those states, as she points out:

Because this is what you deal with. We’ve got a deal for you. This is what you get. Free health care. Universal free health care. No more one-year-olds who suddenly fall off the Medicaid list and their parents are in the news. news, because they’re trying to do a GoFundMe so they can get their daughter to a doctor. Universal, free healthcare.

Guess what? Those gun laws that your Congress is too afraid to pass because of the national gun lobby? We already got our strict gun laws. That’s why we have the safest streets around the world, or at least in the United States. By the way, the most recent stats, 5.9 out of every 100,000 people is killed in a fatal gun incident, versus 0.88 per 100,000 in Canada. That’s because we have strict gun laws. California, citizens, Oregon, Washington, safer streets, here we already have good gun laws.

And women have a right to an abortion under our universal healthcare system. But you know, we don’t have to stop there. Donald, think about it. You could get rid of all these states that always vote Democrat.

Okay, all well and good. But there’s a major problem with her offer.

WHAT ABOUT CONNECTICUT?

For that matter, what about the other states in Southern New England? Take us too!

Filed in Rants | | Comments (0)

A model for the future

Wednesday, January 8, 2025

For reasons I won’t go into, I recently had to deal with a number of books that have been in a bookshelf in our spare bedroom for years. Among them was a three volume history of Connecticut. I decided to read it, or re-read it, as I honestly can’t remember whether I read it when I got it. I’m in the first volume now, which covers the 17th century founding of the colony.

It turns out that at least for a period of time early Connecticut was even worse than early Massachusetts in applying the Puritan way of thinking to its society. It got me thinking that it could serve as a model for the type of state the “Christian Nationalists” would like to create today. Like the present day folks who call themselves Christians, the Puritans didn’t have much use for Christ’s actual teaching, you know, like “love your neighbor like yourself” and things of that sort.

A few of the highlights:

…With this justification for power, the saints aspired to tighter control than that exercised in any European state, and attempted to maintain their stringent standards long after Massachusetts had found some amelioration necessary. The governing group had the responsibility of restraining human depravity through regulation.”

Regulations detailed the terms of the covenant in all phases, including the enforcement of the moral dictates of the Church, and served to guide conduct. Enforcement to implement civil regulation and bind conduct was based on a close supervision of the population, in which church officials shared responsibility with civil magistrates. The tithingmen, for example, who, it has been said, kept all but
themselves attentive to the sermon on Sunday, were men of authority throughout the entire week. Each was supposed to watch several families, usually ten, during the week. Supervision ranged from an enforcement of learning the catechism to keeping “all persons from swimming in the water.” They could inspect the ordinaries, direct the keeper to sell no more liquor to anyone fancied to be drinking too heavily, and report the names of “idle tiplers and gamers.” They had a “spetial eye out” for all bachelors, who were also carefully watched by constables, deacons, elders, and heads of families. The tithingmen
helped collect ministerial rates, warned people out of town, watched to see that no young people walked abroad on the eve of the Sabbath. They reported all those “who lye at home,” as well as the “sons of Belial strutting about, setting on fences.”

The supervision of these small affairs was enforced by citation before court, admonition, fines, whipping, branding, confinement in stocks, or imprisonment. Oftentimes the imposition of a penalty was left to the discretion of the court, at other times the punishment was explicit. In addition there were fourteen capital crimes: idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, “direct” murder, murder by such “guile” as poisoning, murder by false testimony, bestiality, sodomy, adultery, rape of a bethrothed or married woman, kidnaping, conspiracy and rebellion, unjustified cursing and striking of parents, and disobedient persistence in sin by children over sixteen.

The (self-proclaimed) saints, referred to in the opening sentence, were the hypocrites who controlled the church and government. You know, your Mike Johnsons.

Now, I’m not saying the Trumpers want to do all these things, but it serves as a model. I’m sure they won’t be interested in going after bachelors, especially the Charlie Kirks of the world, but controlling women is certainly a top priority.

Now, some might say that regulating a lot of this stuff would violate the constitution, but I’m sure the Supreme Court would disagree, since this only goes to show that this is the way the founders thought things should be, even though the guys who actually wrote the constitution (no girls allowed in Independence Hall) were mostly deists who actually believed in individual liberty but we can ignore all that if it suits our purposes.

It goes without saying that, probably like in those days of yore, the only folks that will get put in the stocks are those the rulers don’t like. If you’re a Trumper they’ll look the other way.

All of this brought to you by a “saint” who had committed most of the capital crimes outlined above and has never set foot in a church in his life, but that’s a minor matter as the Supreme Court would likely explain.

Filed in History | | Comments (0)

Trump’s picks: Only the Best!

Sunday, January 5, 2025

Back when she called herself a Democrat, and was running for President, a couple of folks I know actually supported Tulsi Gabbard’s candidacy. One was a person close to me genetically but rather far off politically, but the other was a person whose politics had been perfectly reasonable. I could never understand either one’s rationale, because even then she seemed to be a bit of a nutjob.

Now she is about to be the person in charge of national intelligence, and make no mistake, she will be approved, though Susan Collins (and maybe others!) will be concerned.

I thought I’d pass this along to anyone who happens to read this, as it surprised even me. It seems that Tulsi is a member of a cult whose Charles Manson like leader, among other things, requires his followers to eat his toenails, and no I’m not making that up

Defectors tell stories of children discouraged by Butler from attending secular schools; of followers forbidden to speak publicly about the group; of returning travellers quarantined for days, lest they transmit a contagious disease to Butler; of devotees lying prostrate whenever he entered the room, or adding bits of his nail clippings to their food, or eating spoonfuls of sand that he had walked upon.

More at the link.

Now, she can’t be blamed for her original involvement in the cult, as apparently her parents joined and she was indoctrinated young. But she’s still a member.

Yet further proof that as little as 10 years ago you couldn’t have made this stuff up and convinced anyone that it was a real possibility.

Filed in Dysfunction, The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)

Predictions for the coming year

Tuesday, December 31, 2024

I’ve done this before. Sometimes my predictions have come true, and sometimes I’ve been spectacularly wrong, such as when I predicted in 2020 that Republicans would consign Trump to the same memory hole into which they dumped George W. Here’s hoping I’m spectacularly wrong again.

First, some predictions about very recent events. Trump has asked the Supreme Court to delay the legislated demise of TikTok:

Although Congress passed legislation giving President Joe Biden the authority to ban TikTok on Jan. 19 before leaving office, Trump has told the high court to delay the law until he takes office a day later. The law requires the president to ban TikTok if its parent company does not break ties with the Chinese Government. Trump has suggested he would find a way around the law after crediting the TikTok platform with helping him win the 2024 election.

The Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument prior to the inauguration. The “expert”, quoted at the linked article, a woman who formerly worked for Trump, says the court will rule against Trump. My guess is that she said the same thing before the immunity ruling. So, let’s be clear. There is no way that the court should rule for Trump. Congress passed a law and the law says what it says. Trump is not even president yet. He has no standing to bring the claim, and in any event, even if he did, he has no colorable legal argument to make. Nonetheless, I predict the court will rule in his favor, opening up an opportunity for him to take big bribes from TikTok for refusing to follow the dictates of the law. I express no opinion about whether Congress was colossally stupid when it passed the law in the first place.

Speaking of the court, should any of them retire, look to see Aileen Cannon getting a promotion.

Also speaking of the court, yesterday the Fedearl Appeals Court upheld the lower verdict in the Jeanne Carroll case. Again, this is a case that hardly merited an appeal, in which the arguments made by his attorneys were laughable on their face. Can’t find the link to another article I read, but they argued, among other things, that evidence from other victims of his sexual assaults, should not have been permitted, especially one who testified that the assault took place on a plane, the argument being that only land based assaults should be admissible. Again, the decision of the Appeals Court is entirely consistent with settled law. Look for the Supreme Court to overturn it by coming up with some bizarre rationale which, like all the other pro-Trump rulings, will carry the unwritten caveat that it only applies to Republican presidents, and possibly only to Donald Trump.

On to other subjects. If there is a single person Trump has nominated to any position that is actually qualified for the post, I haven’t heard about it. For the most part he has chosen people who are opposed to the statutory mission of the department they have been nominated to head, or, in the case of Tulsi Gabbard, are tools of the forces from whom her department is supposed to protect us. Many Republican senators have expressed reservations about many of these appointments. Each and every one of them will be voted into office. If any Republican opposes any of them it’s likely to be Lisa Murkowski. Susan Collins will be concerned, but will do as she has been told. Even McConnell will vote for RFK, Jr., even though he knows Kennedy will try to undermine the polio vaccine, something McConnell, who had polio himself, has said should not be done. RFK, Jr., will lie about his intentions. Everyone will know he is lying, but they will all pretend to believe him. In that he will be no different than all the other nominees. Each will lie about his or her intentions and every Republican voting for them will know they are lying.

When they lie, the mainstream media will sanewash it, like they sanewash everything Republican. There may be some reporting to the effect that the candidate has said something diametrically different in the past, but the fact that they are clearly lying will not be reported. Speaking of sanewashing, as Trump slides deeper and deeper into dementia, the media will find a way to simply not see it. That sort of stuff only matters if the person in question is a Democrat, in which case it is important to imply that a person who is not displaying any of the symptoms is slipping into dementia.

It hardly seems worth pointing out that the vast majority of the people who voted for him will be harmed by his policies. I’d like to believe the Democrats will get their act together and learn how to blame the Republicans for what Republicans do, but I’m certainly not predicting that. The Republicans will blame the Democrats for the harm Republicans cause, and the brainwashed majority in this country will believe them.

On the somewhat bright side, there’s maybe a 50-50 chance that we’ll have fair elections in 2026, though the Republicans will surely be test driving methods to assure that only they win elections.

Happy New Year.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism | | Comments (0)

All they are saying, is give fascism a chance

Thursday, December 19, 2024

I don’t write many blog posts anymore, but I can honestly say that I’ve written a number of them in which I’ve bemoaned the failure of the Democrats to message in a way that reaches people and provokes a favorable reaction.

We now face an incoming administration that by any measure must be labeled as fascist. Many of us on the ground realize that, but it would appear that many, make that most, of the folks we’ve sent to Washington as Democrats just don’t get it.

Two cases in point. The Democrats refused to make AOC ranking member on the House Oversight Committee, instead appointing an old geezer. Yes, he has more experience, but what he lacks is an understanding of how to articulate the Democratic position or to make sure the Democratic message is spread on social media. AOC understands how to use those things, and she would undoubtedly be better at getting opposition talking points out to a far wider audience than the old guy who got the appointment. The job of the Democratic members of Congress over the course of the coming years is to both oppose the fascist state and articulate the danger it poses in a way that reaches and convinces the greatest number of people.

There’s also a number of Democrats talking about working with the Republicans over the next two years. You have to wonder where these people have been for the past 20 years. Republicans relentlessly opposed everything the Democrats tried to do, and it worked, largely because (see above) besides being united they controlled the narrative. Democrats will get nowhere by working with the Republicans. They should oppose, oppose, oppose, and while doing so call the Republicans out for what they are: facists dedicated to making the rich richer.

It is beyond certain that when the economy tanks as a result of Republican policies, the Republicans will blame the Democrats. Once again, the Democrats will not be ready with a response. It’s more important than ever right now. There’s a small chance that we’ll have real elections two years from now, and that election may represent our only chance of avoiding the fascist state President-elect Musk Trump is looking to establish.

Another thought. A number of bloggers, and even Adam Kinzinger, are referring to Musk as “President Musk”. The Democrats should do that constantly. Nothing gets to Trump more than being laughed at, and the end result would probably be removing Musk from the picture. Moreover, the Democrats should constantly find ways to make fun of Trump.

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)

Who ever said a (Democratic) president could pardon someone?

Saturday, December 7, 2024

There’s a lot of talk out there about Biden preemptively pardoning people like Jack Smith, Liz Cheney and Fauci, people who have committed no crimes but would still be on the hit list of the Department of Injustice once Trump gets in.

Biden should do it, without question. The only question is whether the pardons will survive the current judiciary. There’s no question that such pardons should be the last word. They always have been. However, it’s also highly likely that the Trump appointees in the lower courts, and the bought and paid for Supreme Court will find previously unseen hairs to split.

I mean, how can you pardon someone unless you specifically specify the crime of which they are or may be charged or of which they have been found guilty. Sure, it’s impossible for Biden to specify the criminal charges that are likely to be brought against people who have committed no crimes, but that’s just further proof that the pardons don’t pass constitutional muster. It means he wasn’t fully aware of exactly what crimes these folks had not committed. There’s surely a judge in Southern Texas who could explain why this constitutional conundrum renders the pardons void, as could Aileen Cannon, and even though neither of them would have had personal jurisdiction over these folks in the olden pre-2024 days, it will be completely different now. The government gets to judge shop all it wants, provided, of course, that it’s a Republican controlled government.

The guy prosecuting Hunter didn’t even want to let it go, though the presiding judge felt differently. It’s hard to see what crimes they’ll cook up to charge against these people, but they’ll come up with something and while the “Supreme” Court might uphold the pardons in the end, they may still be stuck with huge legal bills and emotional turmoil in the process. We may even find ourselves getting an opinion from the court as to why criminal charges against Joe Biden for something he did while president are not subject to the immunity ruling because we forgot to mention it only applied to Republicans.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

Not so sure there’s a bright side

Tuesday, November 26, 2024

Like a lot of other people, from what I’ve heard, I’ve essentially refused to absorb much of the news since the election. I decided last week that as of this past Monday I would phase back in to reading my blogs and other sources of information, though I will not be perusing the New York Times anytime soon.

It is hard to look on the bright side this time around. Prior to the first Trump installation, you could assume there would be boundaries that would rein him in, and there were to a certain extent, as he made the mistake of bringing some competent people on board, who tended to keep him from transgressing too much.

My own opinion is that he will now know no limits. He has now surrounded himself with people who will suck up to him by encouraging his excesses. Like any fascist he will demand that the legislature submit to all his demands, and in my opinion that’s exactly what the Republican House and Senate will do.

A sort of litmus test is going on as I write. He is naming people to his cabinet but not following the transition law, which mandates FBI background checks. He is also, it appears, intending to circumvent the Senate approval process for his appointees if he finds it inconvenient.

I thought I’d pass this post at emptywheel along, as I have a great deal of respect for her, and though I’m having trouble doing so, I can still approve of someone looking on the bright side.

She argues that Trump’s pick for Senate Majority leader, the loathsome Rick Scott, got only 13 votes, losing to John Thune. She also points out that Lisa Murkowski has vowed not to vote for any nominee who has not undergone a background check, and a few others have indicated a preference for background checks, though they haven’t gone so far as Murkowski and said they’d withhold their votes.

She sums up:

There are far too many Democrats dismissing the possibility that there can be meaningful opposition to Trump from Congress. The Senate, especially, held up some of Trump’s plans the first go-around, even before he sicced an armed mob on them. And if nothing else, these people love their own prerogatives, and so will — at least selectively — defend those (as the bid to insist on FBI background checks would be a means to do).

More importantly, we don’t have the luxury of assuming Republicans will routinely capitulate to Trump: It is the job of the Democratic party, at this point, to give them cause to do so. Yes, Mitch McConnell failed in 2021 when he had an opportunity to disqualify Trump. He will have further opportunities to amend his own failure, and it’s simply not an option not to fight to get him to do so. Not least, because the mere act of doing so effectively may have an effect in 2026, if elections are really held.

I hope she’s right, but I don’t think that’s the way things will work out. I think there may be taken Republican opposition of the Susan Collins variety, where individual Senators or Congresspersons might express “reservations” about what Trump is doing, but that will be for show and will likely become rarer as time passes.

I should add here that when I use the term “Trump” I am not necessarily referring solely to the very stable genius that bears that name. His mental powers are rapidly dwindling, and like any senile person he is easily manipulated. The people around him, who are now solely of the Stephen Miller variety, will be calling the shots from the rear. Project 2025 is a blueprint for fascism and its authors are now in charge.

Speaking of his senility, I do wonder how they will handle the inaugural address. Maybe they will decide there’s no need for one, because if they put him in front of a mic in that context he’s likely to ramble on about windmills and Hannibal Lecter. While the media tended to ignore his senility during the campaign, they’d (with the exception of Fox, Newsmax, et. al.) have to pay attention to it. In any event, I’m sure JD Vance is waiting for his opportunity to become the new Fuehrer.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Republicans | | Comments (0)

The Road to Fascism Straight Ahead

Friday, November 15, 2024

I’m still recovering. I don’t know if I ever will, nor do I think the country ever will. I’m terrified for my three grandchildren, who will likely live under a dictatorship.

As time went on, however, I began to see things more clearly. After Mitt Romney lost in 2012 I predicted that the next candidate they nominated would be a whackjob. While the Republican Party had, with the assistance of Fox, steadily propagandized a racist, homophobic base while harping on issues like abortion, the thinking among them then was that they could put those votes in the bank but still nominate people who were somewhat reasonable. People like John McCain and Mitt Romney. Their thinking was they could then appeal to people in the ever elusive middle But it was clear to me that the base was rapidly losing patience with people like that, and they would eventually demand a candidate that would cater to them in deed and not just in words. They got that person with Donald Trump, who cares nothing about issues but only cares about himself. Being a racist himself, he was perfectly happy to cater to them and give them what they wanted, so long as they gave him what he wanted: adulation and power. He would have been happy to advance a left wing agenda if that could have gotten him the power and adulation he craved, but those on the left are not as brainwashed as those on the right, so that was never a real possibility.

If memory serves, I first started blogging sometime in 2005, shortly after George W was reelected after, among other things, getting us into a war we had no need to be in, and slandering his war hero opponent when he himself had used his connections to dodge any chance he’d go to war. It was clear to me then that the Republican Party had no way of winning elections on the merits, so they had to appeal to fears and manufactured grievances. The party that had once had some members that put country over party was rapidly shedding such people. I could remember a day when while I differed with them on issues, I could at least respect people like Lowell Weicker, Howard Baker and the other Republican members of the House and Senate who made it clear to Nixon that he’d be impeached and convicted if he didn’t step aside.

Still, when I started doing this, I had no fear that the Republican Party would soon destroy the Republic and bring on fascism, nor did I ever think that the majority of voters in this country would vote in a fascist, particularly one who stood convicted of multiple criminal acts, was clearly suffering from dementia, and had never told the truth in his life.

I remember watching a video of David Brooks in 2016 insisting that Marco Rubio, a perceived “moderate” would certainly get the nomination rather than Trump. Given Brooks record of always being wrong, this was practically a prediction that Trump would win, but it is also emblematic of the Republican establishment’s own ignorance about the monster it had created. We on the left took no time in concluding that Trump had it locked.

Because Trump has no real principles, other than his need for adoration, he is fine with taking direction from those around him. As time has gone on, those around him have become ever more far right, as those who might be called “moderate” were cast aside as they failed to give him the approval he needed or, in some cases, recognized him for the fascist he is. His retinue is now completely fascist, as their Project 2025 blueprint makes clear.

Ever since the election I have avoided reading my blogs or, especially, the New York Times, which did so much to legitimize this monster. But I think I can safely predict some future developments.

There will never be another presidential election the outcome of which is not predetermined. Our elections will become much like those in Russia. They do have elections there, but everyone knows who’s going to win.

Especially if the Republicans take the House, Congress will become a rubber stamp for Trump. It is telling that Mitch McConnell, who I understand actually hates Trump, has insisted that the filibuster will survive. My guess is that he figures they can then propose all manner of terrible things to make the base happy and then blame the Democrats for their failure to pass them. Stuff like a national abortion ban, for instance. But if the filibuster stands in the way of Trump getting what he wants he will demand that it be ended and the Republicans in the Senate, including McConnell, will fall into line. Again, it’s not that Trump really cares about something like a national abortion ban, but if it’s something his people have gotten him to back then he will demand it because he has the mentality of a dictator and dictator’s get what they want.

The courts, already infested with vermin he appointed during his first term, will get even worse. Again, he had nothing to do with actually picking the judges he nominated in his first term. The Federalist Society did that for him, and he was simply invested in getting them confirmed because how dare anyone oppose him. This time around he may actually be involved with some of the appointments. My guess is he’ll reward Aileen Cannon with a Supreme Court appointment and give that joker down in Texas a promotion. But for the most part the far right wil tell him who to nominate, and he’ll go along. After all, actually vetting these people is a lot of work.

Quite likely the older Supreme Court justices will retire, either voluntarily or under pressure, so he can stack the court with young fascists that will be perfectly willing to decide that the constitution says whatever the Republican Party wants it to say. I would be totally unsurprised, for instance, if the Supreme Court were to declare that it made a big mistake back in the 1930’s, and the National Labor Relations Act is totally unconstitutional. And you can bet that states rights go down the toilet if Congress votes to make abortion illegal nationwide.

It’s quite likely that Trump will not serve out his term. I really think that JD will eventually invoke the 25th Amendment on the grounds that Trump is demented. But JD is now a committed fascist, so that won’t change anything. It could make it far worse, as JD is far more intelligent than Trump. On the other hand, he totally lacks charisma, which is a good thing. I wouldn’t call what Trump has charisma, but he emits something that hooks his followers, and I don’t think JD can emit something similar.

Ever since I have been writing this blog I’ve posted the closing scene from The Life of Brian on Good Friday, endorsing the view that one should always look on the bright side. I don’t see a bright side right now. I sincerely hope I’m wrong.

Afterword: I’ve categorized this under “Creeping Totalitarianism” but just to be clear, it isn’t creeping anymore.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism | | Comments (0)

A prediction

Tuesday, October 29, 2024

Looking on the bright side, this post assumes a Kamala win in November and a Democratic Senate.

Now, for the not so bright side.

A week or so ago a friend who is also a lawyer wrote to ask if I had any idea what the constitutional basis would be for the creation of a federal right to abortion, one of the planks upon which Kamala is running. He suggested the only basis he could come up with would be the commerce clause, which is a thin reed indeed upon which to rely.

I replied that the same question had occurred to me. Having overturned Roe v. Wade, the court has essentially declared that abortion is not a federal issue. I suppose you might try to rely on this section of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The argument would be that Congress has declared the right of an abortion to be among the privileges of citizenship.

None of these arguments will make any headway in the present Supreme Court and it’s a given that one or more red state attorney general would challenge the law. There was a time when some talking heads thought that John Roberts would, in order to protect his own reputation, be a sort of moderating influence on the court, but it has now become clear that he agrees with Macbeth:

“I am in blood Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er”

Roberts is now fully committed to the right wing agenda as are the rest of the six, so there’s really no chance any federal law protecting abortion rights would pass muster. It would be harder for the court to overturn a law that protects the right to travel to obtain an abortion, since some states have criminalized even that, but I’m sure they could come up with a pretext for doing even that, though it would require ignoring precedent, but that hasn’t been a problem for them. On the other hand, should the fascists win, the Court would have no problem upholding a federal ban on abortion.

UPDATE: I don’t know how much coverage the mainstream will give this story, but it is now clear that the Supreme Court will do what it can to assist in stealing the election. Perhaps Biden should consider putting the six of them in jail until January 6th. After all, he is immune from any criminal law, isn’t he?

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

Cautiously optimistic

Wednesday, October 9, 2024

Like a number of people I know, I’m cautiously optimistic about the upcoming election, but on the other hand I don’t really want to commit myself to that position because I’m afraid I might jinx it. Partly, I think, because my mind boggles at the thought that the result should even be open to question, considering that one candidate is a criminal, sexual predator, and insurrectionist who is currently and obviously afflicted with oncoming senility (if it hasn’t already fully arrived). The fact that the results are even open to question is enough to dampen anyone’s optimism.

But, looking on the bright side, one reason to maintain that cautious optimism is the fact that a certain very stable genius continues to be blatantly pessimistic, inasmuch as he finds it necessary to strike out at hosts of perceived enemies, each time doing so revealing more of his mental decline. The latest example is his absurd demand that 60 Minutes be investigated for… well, it’s pretty hard to understand the precise reason why he wants them investigated, but it’s safe to say that this is yet another outburst revealing his fear about the upcoming election.

So, yet another reason to be cautiously optimistic, but we must all bear in mind that election officials in many of the states and 6 Supreme Court justices stand ready to steal it.

Filed in Presidential Politics, The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)