SATURDAY: Trump's summit had been a perfect 10!

SATURDAY, AUGUST 16, 2025

Then K.T. McFarland showed up: K. T. McFarland doesn't vote the way we do—but also, she's no dope.

Nor is she a household name. The leading authority on the topic offers a bit of her background:

K. T. McFarland

Kathleen Troia McFarland (born July 22, 1951) is an American political commentator, civil servant, author, and former political candidate.

McFarland began her political career in the 1970s as a night-shift typist and assistant press liaison for National Security Council staff. In the 1980s, during the Reagan administration, she worked in the Department of Defense as a speechwriter and served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs.

[...]

Kathleen Troia was born on July 22, 1951, in Madison, Wisconsin, where she grew up as the oldest of four siblings...She graduated from Madison West High School in 1969.

Troia studied at the Elliott School of International Affairs of the George Washington University in Washington, D.C. In 1970, she worked part-time at the Nixon White House for Henry Kissinger's National Security Council staff...Intrigued by U.S. foreign policy and Nixon's 1972 China visit, Troia majored in Chinese studies, graduating from George Washington in 1973.

After working in the Ford administration, Troia studied on scholarship at Oxford University, where she earned a combined master's degree in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics.

Troia attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. While there, she studied nuclear weapons, China, and the Soviet Union for three years, but did not complete her Ph.D.

Time spent at GW, Oxford and M.I.T. help suggest the possibility that McFarland is no dope. According to the leading authority, things did come apart, to a substantial extent, when she ran for the Senate:

In 2006, McFarland ran in the Republican primary in the United States Senate election in New York for a seat held by Democrat Hillary Clinton. She was a late entrant who was recruited once the candidacy of the leading Republican, Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro, imploded.

...She ran into trouble with a March 2006 comment that appeared to allege that the Clinton campaign had been flying helicopters low over her Southampton, New York, house and spying on her, or that Clinton forces had rented an apartment across from her $18 million duplex on Park Avenue; she later said she had been joking, but the episodes upset her. The race between McFarland and her opponent, former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer, was ugly.

McFarland's candidacy was plagued by allegations that she overstated her credentials. Specifically, The New York Times reported that McFarland's claim that she had written part of Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" speech was false, that her contention that she had been the highest-ranking woman of her time at the Reagan Pentagon was false, and that her claim that she had been the first female professional staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee was false. Also, the Spencer campaign objected to her assertion that she had held a civilian rank equivalent to that of a three-star general.

McFarland's inconsistent record of voting in prior New York state elections also became an issue, with her having failed to vote in six of the past 14 elections. McFarland also unlawfully maintained voting addresses in two different places at the same time, sometimes voting in one municipality and sometimes voting in another. She emphasized that she had never voted twice in one election, promising to cancel one of her voter registrations. By late June, her campaign was nearly out of money, and she loaned $100,000 to the campaign. On August 22, McFarland suspended her campaign after her daughter was caught shoplifting in Southampton.

Yikes! That said, it has been a major part of American politics over the past thirty-three years:

The wheels have come off the Republican cart any time opposition to the endlessly demonized Hillary Clinton has been involved.

Back in December 2005, Judge Jeanine's campaign against Clinton had imploded. The candidacy of McFarland may have been even worse. 

She went on to lose the race for the GOP nomination, and with it the chance to run against Clinton. That said, the years at Oxford and M.I.T. remain—and so it was when she appeared, this very morning, on the Fox & Friends Weekend program.

Let's go ahead and say their names! The friends this morning were these:

Fox & Friends Weekend
Charlie Hurt: co-host, Fox & Friends Weekend
Rachel Campos-Duffy: co-host, Fox & friends Weekend
Johnny Joey Jones: Fox News contributor

As required by Fox News Channel law, the friends had been gushing about President Trump's masterstrokes in Alaska.

The program started at 6 a.m.; as required by corporate law, the friends were soon gushing hard. At 6:12, they played tape of the aforementioned Hillary Clinton 

She loves this war, Campos-Duffy said. She said that Clinton had "set a trap" for President Trump with her recent statement about nominating him for a Nobel prize if he manages to end the war in the way she described.

In short, things were proceeding as planned as the morning started. After Campos-Duffy spent some time trashing Barack Obama ("He's so uncool"), extremely clueless remarks about the logic of congressional districting followed at 6:14.

The day was proceeding as planned. And then, dear God! At 6:25, McFarland, a foreign policy specialist, was brought on to discuss the miracles which had occurred in Alaska.

McFarland did time at Oxford and M.I.T.—and no, she isn't a dope. On this occasion, dear God

She quickly seemed to say that things hadn't gone all that well!

Plainly, she said that in her opening statement, in which she said that the summit of the midnight sun had turned out to be "not that great."

The summit was "not what I hoped for," the Oxford grad now said!

Eventually, McFarland scrambled to make things right in certain predictable ways. First, though, she provided the kind of respite which occurs, on extremely rare occasions, on group propaganda programs like the channel's Fox & Friends Weekend.

As we post, we can't yet link you to videotape of what McFarland said. We can't yet provide a transcript of her complete remarks.

That said, for one brief shining moment, an unplanned event occurred. A guest had come on this "cable news" show and had wandered away from pure script.

Let us quickly add this:

When a brutal war like this war in underway, there is no single unassailable way to seek its resolution. One person might think that Ukraine should fight on against the Russian bear. Someone else may think that the overall game has been lost—that Ukraine should start feeding the beast.

There's no scientific formula which lets us compute the perfect way to proceed from here. But on messaging programs like Fox & Friends Weekend—on messaging programs like Fox News @ Night—politely scripted corporate stooges come on the air and say the things their owners want them to say.

Question to self:

Have we ever seen anything stupider than the segment which ended last evening's Fox News @ Night? We expect to show you what was said at the start of the week.

The village Stoopnagles were out in force during that final segment. As if the official Stoopnagles weren't pathetic enough, Trace Gallagher then read a set of text messages from a set of scripted viewers.

The stupidification of the American nation is underway at such times. Also numbered among the offenders are the Blue American stars who have agreed that what happens on Fox must stay on Fox—that this corporate conduct must never be reported, critiqued or discussed.

Alaska was a perfect 10, President Trump had said. Campos-Duffy quoted his statement  several times—and then, up jumped McFarland! 

Making a aet of reasonable observations, she instantly wandered off course. 

Regarding what will flow from yesterday's event, we think today of Sandburg's Lincoln. We refer to Sandburg's description of what would happen, out in Coles County, Illinois, where Lincoln's beloved stepmother lived.

We refer to his account of what would happen as the months went by after her boy—"he was all of a son to her"—had stroked her face a last time, and had then gone away, off to the White House, from which he would never return:

The sunshine of the prairie summer and fall months would come sifting down with healing and strength; between harvest and corn-plowing there would be rains beating and blizzards howling; and then there would be silence after snowstorms with white drifts piled against the fences, barns, and trees.

What will happen in Ukraine after yesterday's perfect 10? You won't likely hear it said on Fox & Friends Weekend, but quite possibly this:

The drone attacks will still rain down on the hospitals and the kindergartens. We'll be two weeks away from being two weeks away from being told what might take place, or possibly not, during Vladimir's next phone call.

Or then again, maybe not.

Sandburg's fuller passage: Sandburg was a poet biographer. As Lincoln said that last goodbye, Sandburg's fuller picture was this:

The next day Lincoln drove eight miles out to the old farm along the road over which he had hauled wood with an ox team. He came to the old log house he had cut logs for and helped smooth the chinks; from its little square windows he had seen late winter and early birds.

Sally Bush and he put their arms around each other and listened to each other’s heartbeats. They held hands and talked; they talked without holding hands. Each looked into eyes thrust back in deep sockets. She was all of a mother to him.

He was her boy more than any born to her. He gave her a photograph of her boy, a hungry picture of him standing and wanting, wanting. He stroked her face a last time, kissed good-by, and went away.

She knew his heart would go roaming back often, that even when he rode in an open carriage in New York or Washington with soldiers, flags or cheering thousands along the streets, he might just as like be thinking of her in the old log farmhouse out in Coles County, Illinois.

The sunshine of the prairie summer and fall months would come sifting down with healing and strength; between harvest and corn-plowing there would be rains beating and blizzards howling; and then there would be silence after snowstorms with white drifts piled against the fences, barns, and trees.

Her astonishing stepson would never come back. With respect to that final meeting, that's the way the poet imagined and told it.

With that in mind at this terrible time, Professor Brown said it long ago:

Our civilization has to be "renewed by...the undemocratic but sovereign power of the imagination, by the undemocratic power which makes poets the unacknowledged legislators of all mankind, the power which makes all things new."

We have to feel our way out of this mess. We can't just rattle script.

REVOLUTION: A revolution is underway!

FRIDAY, AUGUST 15, 2025

What do we Blues do now? "I alone can fix it," today's sitting president said. Five years later, the gentleman's statement became the title of one of those well-received books:

I Alone Can Fix It (book)

I Alone Can Fix It: Donald J. Trump's Catastrophic Final Year is a nonfiction book written by Washington Post reporters Carol D. Leonnig and Philip Rucker. It was published by Penguin Press in 2021 and was a New York Times bestseller. 

I Alone Can Fix It is a follow-up to the two authors' 2020 book A Very Stable Genius and covers Donald Trump's last year in office during his first term as president of the United States. As David Smith of The Guardian newspaper pointed out, "both titles are direct Trump quotations loaded with irony." 

The authors interviewed 140 people for their material, including a two-and-a-half-hour interview with Trump himself. The book has generally received positive reviews by book critics.

As suggested in that passage, the gentleman has also described himself as "a very stable genius." He seems to believe that he has "aced" several challenging cognitive tests—cognitive tests few other people could possibly hope to pass.

He seems to believe that he astounded the medical experts who oversaw his performance on these tests. We don't mean this as an insult, but we're going to guess that nothing even dimly like that ever actually happened.

Today, he flew north to Alaska to end a vicious war. During Campaign 2024, he oddly said, on numerous occasions, that he was going to stop that war before he even took office.

Even now, seven months later, will he be able to end that war? We'll be surprised if the answer is yes, but predicting the future is hard.

That said, when did the president say, "I alone can fix it?' He made the statement in July 2016, as he accepted the Republican Party's nomination for president. 

Just before he made the statement, he was speaking about Hillary Clinton's "terrible, terrible crimes"—specifically, that handful of emails. Click here all who dare:

In fact, her single greatest accomplishment may be committing such an egregious crime and getting away with it—especially when others who have done far less, have paid so dearly. When that same Secretary of State rakes in millions and millions of dollars trading access and favors to special interests and foreign powers, I know the time for action has come.

I have joined the political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people that cannot defend themselves. Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it. I have seen firsthand how the system is rigged against our citizens, just like it was rigged against Bernie Sanders—he never had a chance.

But his supporters will join our movement, because we will fix his biggest single issue: trade deals that strip us of our jobs and strip us of our wealth as a country. Millions of Democrats will join our movement because we are going to fix the system so it works justly for each and every American. In this cause, I am proud to have at my side the next Vice President of the United States: Governor Mike Pence of Indiana. And a great guy.

Today, he no longer speaks to Vice President Pence. Also, he hasn't yet "fixed the system," at least not in the way he presumably meant. 

That said, he did get elected again last year, in large part thanks to astonishing Blue American bungling. 

In our view, revolution is now in the air surrounding his current undertakings. As with any revolution, opinions about the current revolution differ. 

Over here in Blue America, where do we go with this matter from here? Millions of people want the changes he is producing. Aside from producing another well-received book, what do we do about that?

How should we Blues respond to this challenge? With apologies for having lost the bulk of the day, we'll leave it right there, just for now.

BREAKING: As a public official heads north to Alaska...

 FRIDAY, AUGUST 15, 2025

..."every third Friday" is here: Last week, the timing of our medical mission underwent a change.

We've advanced from "an every fourth Tuesday" regime to a new "every third Friday" approach. And, as happenstance would inevitably have it, the first of those medical Fridays is here.

Barring a subway derailment, we will be posting this afternoon. As President Trump follows Fabian (and Capucine) North to Alaska, a great deal is going on.

Revolution is in the air. Can we Blues save sacred Troy? In our view, the answer's not clear.


THURSDAY: Questions about the extent of crime...

THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 2025

...in Washington, D.C. persist: How bad is crime in Washington, D.C.?

Such questions aren't always easy to answer. Beyond that, it can be easy to get caught up in the promulgation of partisan storylines regarding such significant questions.

That's especially true on a gruesome shoutfest show like CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip, which airs each night at 10.

The show seems to have been designed as a version of the old Crossfire on steroids. Partisan guests interrupt and overtalk each other all through the hour, with Phillip regrettably cast in the role of the long-suffering but overwhelmed host.

Phillip is much too smart, and much too sane, to be wasted in this way. We'll guess that CNN hoped a shoutfest program of this type might help boost its sagging ratings.

At any rate, there they were on NewsNight last evening, pretending to discuss the topic of violent crime in D.C. With that, we offer a trigger alert:

What follows will involve Republican strategist Scott Jennings, who has turned himself into an insufferable figure, apparently in service to CNN's search for conflict, or perhaps in service to his reported desire to run for the Senate in Kentucky.

Whichever! As described in this report at Mediaite, Jennings had just finished  insulting Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky as they pretended to discuss the important topic. Fighting back against the sneers of Jennings, and herself a partisan, Roginsky was soon saying this:

ROGINSKY (8/13/25) : ...Because somebody named Big Balls got beat up, allegedly, [President Trump] wants to deploy the National Guard to a place that has had a 30-year low in violence. And we all know that he’s doing this because it’s a power grab. 

He could have done this when this District was actually in danger on January 6th. But he didn’t. And I think that’s what’s so offensive. He talks about backing the blue. He talks about law enforcement. He didn’t give a damn, Scott. And you agreed, back on January 6. He didn’t give a damn about those police officers and about the safety of people in Washington, D.C. 

Today, because he wants a power grab, he’s doing this despite the fact that every statistic shows that Washington, D. C. has not been safer in the last 30 years.

Rebounding from Jennings' snark, Roginsky stated the company line. That said, is it true? Does every statistic show that Washington is safer today than it's ever been in the last 30 years?

We'd have to say that the answer seems to be no. These are official homicide numbers from the D.C. police:

20-Year Homicide Trend
2011: 108
2012: 88
2013: 104
2014: 105

[...]

2021: 226
2022: 203
2023: 274
2024: 187

Those numbers may seem hard to square with Roginsky's sweeping assertion. 

A person could claim that we're still in the backwash from the Covid years. Also, last year's 187 homicides is, in fact, a long way down from the previous year's 274.

That said, that earlier period looks like a dream compared to the number from last year. Of course, if you use a different data set to journey back into the crime-ridden 1990s, last year's number starts looking a whole lot better.

Roginsky may have overstated a bit in search of a partisan win. That awful show on CNN is designed to produce such conflict.

Meanwhile, do we know that overall "violent crime" in D.C. is really at a thirty-year low, as the data seem to indicate? On Tuesday, Mediaite's Isaac Schorr quoted the chairman of the D.C. police union saying this:

...Police Union Alleges ‘Preposterous’ Crime Stats Are Being Cooked

[...]

As it turns out, there’s a good reason for the apparent discrepancy between the experience of almost everyone who’s spent any time in D.C. over the last half-decade and the ["safest in thirty years"] data being cited by Trump’s critics...According to [a local NBC News] affiliate, union officials allege that “there is a larger trend of manipulating crime statistics.”

“When our members respond to the scene of a felony offense where there is a victim reporting that a felony occurred, inevitably there will be a lieutenant or a captain that will show up on that scene and direct those members to take a report for a lesser offense,” explained Gregg Pemberton, the local Fraternal Order of Police chairman. “So, instead of taking a report for a shooting or a stabbing or a carjacking, they will order that officer to take a report for a theft or an injured person to the hospital or a felony assault, which is not the same type of classification.”

Is Pemberton describing a real situation—a real situation which takes place on a widespread basis? We don't have any way of knowing, but such manipulations do occur out there in the real world. 

(Final line from the feature film Witness: "You be careful out there among them English, John Book.")

It's hard to turn a homicide into a lesser offense. It's also assumed that almost every homicide gets reported to the police.

For those reasons, homicide statistics are often regarded as the most reliable indicators  of violent crime trends within a jurisdiction. With respect to the number of homicides in D.C., there seems to have been a brighter day roughly one decade ago.

Question! Are we here to win partisan fights on cable shoutfests? Or are we here to look for ways to understand and improve the world?

(Children die in D.C. shootings. Do those children deserve our respect?)

On "cable news," the answer is often depressingly clear. CNN should pull the plug on its horrible show. The channel could thereby free the talented Phillip while showing Jennings the door.

A final point:

Regarding the  brawls that CNN generates on NewsNight, we think of Professor Brabender's great and justly famous description of human affairs:

Where I come from, we only talk so long. After that, we start to hit.

REVOLUTION: He said it when Candidate Trump was shot!

THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 2025

In May, he said it again: Was Donald J. Trump, the American president, divinely appointed to his current post? 

People have believed that their monarchs were divinely appointed all through the annals of time—but was our president divinely appointed? As Blue America averted its gaze, a Tennessee pastor seemed to say that on May 21 of this year.

As we noted yesterday, the New York Times reported the highly unusual event at which that statement was made. Headline included, the news report started like this:

Pete Hegseth Leads Christian Prayer Service in the Pentagon

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth led a Christian prayer service in the Pentagon’s auditorium on Wednesday morning, during working hours, in which President Trump was praised as a divinely appointed leader.

The event, billed as the “Secretary of Defense Christian Prayer & Worship Service,” was standing room only and ran for about 30 minutes, with Brooks Potteiger, the pastor of Mr. Hegseth’s church in Tennessee, as the main speaker.

[...]

In his sermon, the pastor said, “We pray for our leaders who you have sovereignly appointed—for President Trump, thank you for the way that you have used him to bring stability and moral clarity to our land. And we pray that you would continue to protect him, bless him, give him great wisdom.”

That's what the pastor said during his Pentagon sermon. Because this widely-ignored phenomenon seems so important, we'll post again what Secretary Hegseth also said:

“This is precisely where I need to be, and I think exactly where we need to be as a nation, at this moment,” Mr. Hegseth, standing at a lectern bearing the seal of the Defense Department, said in his opening remarks: “in prayer, on bended knee recognizing the providence of our lord and savior Jesus Christ.” He added, “Knowing that there’s an author in heaven overseeing all of this, who’s underwritten all of it, for us, on the cross, gives me the strength to proceed.”

The defense secretary said that attendance at the prayer service was voluntary, but encouraged the uniformed military personnel and civilian employees there to tell their co-workers about it.

“King Jesus, we come humbly before you, seeking your face, seeking your grace, in humble obedience to your law and to your word,” Mr. Hegseth prayed after asking attendees to bow their heads. “We come as sinners saved only by that grace, seeking your providence in our lives and in our nation. Lord God, we ask for the wisdom to see what is right and in each and every day, in each and every circumstance, the courage to do what is right in obedience to your will. It is in the name of our lord and savior, Jesus Christ, that we pray. And all God’s people say amen.”

Within prevailing norms of American governance, this was a very unusual moment. To its credit, the New York Times reported the event, but zero discussion followed as President Trump has extended his second-term dominion over the known American world.

Human sensibilities vastly differ, as do individuals' views of the cosmos and of the human world. In the end, there's no way to establish, with scientific certainty, how a human society can best be ordered.

That said, was President Trump really divinely appointed to his current post? On that basis, should we try to build our society around (what we perceive to be) the wishes of our lord and savior, King Jesus?

For better or worse, it was a very unusual moment when Secretary Hegseth offered his own sermon that day, right there in the Pentagon. We were surprised, but also not surprised, by what Hegseth said.

We were surprised because his sermon that day broke with such a long American tradition. We weren't surprised because we had seen, and we had then transcribed and reported, what Hegseth did last summer, when he was serving as co-host of the Fox News Channel "cable news" program, Fox & Friends Weekend.

We refer to what Hegseth did and said on Sunday morning, July 14, 2024. The day before, Candidate Trump had barely escaped an assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania. 

The next morning, on a major "cable news" program, Hegseth joined two other hosts from the Fox & Friends empire in saying that it was their lord and master, Jesus Christ, who had saved Candidate Trump.

We transcribed and reported their statements in several reports that next week. As you can see by clicking here, we returned to the topic in March.

As you can see in that March report, Rachel Campos-Duffy and Lawrence Jones joined Hegseth in stating the view we've described. Jones launched the discussion that morning, saying this:

JONES (7/14/24): There is no Donald Trump today without Jesus Christ this morning. I mean, we could be having a very different conversation this morning—

CAMPOS-DUFFY: That's right.

JONES: —going over the obituary of the 45th president this morning. And if it wasn't for the grace of God, things could have been different. So I give honor and glory to our lord and savior, Jesus Christ, for protecting the former president.

That's where the discussion began. For his part, Hegseth said the failure of the attack had been "providential," and he also said this:

HEGSETH: We're right, first and foremost, to thank Jesus Christ, the lord almighty, that Donald Trump is safe

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Yeah.

HEGSETH: —and those prayers went out, and to reflect on the historic nature of this. 

As we've noted again and again, there's nothing "wrong" with holding some such view of the cosmos. That said, it was very unusual to see explicitly doctrinal views stated with such conviction as part of an American news broadcast. 

Back in May, Hegseth and his Tennessee pastor brought the expression of such views right into the Pentagon. When the New York Times reported this unusual event, Blue America burbled and snored.

Did King Jesus save Candidate Trump that day? Was President Trump divinely appointed to his current post?

Everything is always possible, in this matter as with everything else. That said, and for better or worse, long-standing American norms were being cast aside as these doctrinal views were asserted on a major "cable news" broadcast, then in a Pentagon prayer session presided over hy the Secretary of Defense. 

For better or worse, long-standing norms were cast aside as the Tennessee pastor spoke. And then, last Thursday, an interview with Hegseth's other pastor—the Idaho pastor—was broadcast by CNN.

The Idaho pastor is the more influential of the two. For better or worse, many of his basic views fly in the face of long-standing mainstream American norms. As we noted yesterday, when he stated those views to CNN, Hegseth posted  a link to the full interview, and he appended this comment:

All of Christ for All of Life.

On its face, and to state the obvious, there's nothing "wrong" with some such religious view. Dr. King repeatedly stated his dedication to what he called "the love ethic of Jesus."

That said, it's much as Dylan said long ago—and he even had the color right! The song was "Tangled Up In Blue." The lyric in question was this:

Tangled Up In Blue

[...]

I lived with them on Montague Street
In a basement down the stairs
There was music in the cafés at night
And revolution in the air

In this, the president's second term, revolution is in the air.

Some of the revolutionary zeal—though clearly not all—is coming from fervent religious belief. The slackers who slumber and snore in Blue America have had little to say about this particular turn of the screw. 

We Blues! We've long been convinced that we're the tribe which is super smart. Can anyone still hold that doctrinal belief at this point?

We Blues are in a world of hurt. As the revolution comes over the walls, we still seem to have little idea where the fervor came from.

Som of the fervor is tied to religious belief. Some of the fervor isn't.

Still coming: The Idaho pastor. Also, Vance converts


WEDNESDAY: DHS spokesperson "faceplants" again!

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2025

Also, Washington's homicide rate: It's official:

"As Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Tricia McLaughlin oversees the Department of Homeland Security’s public outreach."

In short, McLaughlin is the principal spokesperson for Secretary Noem

Early in the current reign, she gained a place in The Bungled Press Statement Hall of Fame with her claim that a Democratic member of Congress had "body-slammed" an ICE agent at a Newark detention facility.

Based on videotapes of the incident, it didn't look like anyone got body-slammed that day. But that's what the spokesperson said, and her dramatic claim created a lot of tribal excitement.

Actually, McLaughlin didn't gain her spot on Mount Rushmore for that statement alone. She went up on the mountain when she explained, a few days later, what she'd apparently meant:

“Body-slammed, body-rammed, punched, shoved, pushed—whatever you want to call it." 

Yes, that's what the spokesperson now said! That was her way of walking back her original thrilling assertion!

She had said "body-slammed," but it may have "shoved." It was all a matter of whatever you want to call it! 

(Meanwhile, did anyone really get shoved that day? We're not sure that anyone did!)

Everybody makes mistakes, as we've frequently noted. On Monday morning's Kudlow show, McLaughlin bungled again.

At Mediaite, Michale Luciano recorded what she said. Here's how his report started:

[McLaughlin] Faceplants on Crime Stats, Falsely Claims These Cities Are Seeing ‘Record’ Homicides

Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin managed to be drastically wrong during an appearance on Fox Business.

On Monday morning, President Donald Trump announced the deployment of 800 National Guard members to Washington, D.C., where he also deployed federal law enforcement officers and took control of the Metropolitan Police Department. The president said the moves are necessary to combat crime in the nation’s capital, and that this could serve as a model for federal action in other major cities.

McLaughlin appeared on Tuesday’s Kudlow, where the host asked about replicating the administration’s approach to D.C. in other cities.

What did she say that was "drastically wrong? Concerning  the possibility of President Trump eliminating crime in other big cities, this was the way McLaughlin responded to Kudlow's innocent question:

Well, of course, you look at Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, and New York. They’re also facing record numbers of homicides and violent crimes. 

I think it’s natural for us to look at. Could Washington D.C., if we really clean this up, if we can get rid of this plague of crime and violent activities that’s happening in our nation’s capital, could that be a blueprint and model in other communities around the country? 

It’s something I think President Trump won’t shy away from, but we’ll have to stay tuned.

That's what McLaughlin said. 

Are the cities she named actually "facing record numbers of homicides?" Luciano now called her claim spectacularly wrong, supplying this instant fact-check:

Regarding Los Angeles, in the first half of the year, the city experienced its lowest homicide total since the 1960s. Also, the rate of violent crime in general dropped in the city...

Boston, meanwhile, in 2024 logged its lowest homicide total since 1957 and saw a substantial drop in violent crime.

Chicago saw a 33% decline in homicides in the first half of this year compared to 2024. The Windy City is also experiencing a “historic” drop in other violent crime.

And in June, New York reported having “the lowest number of shootings and homicides in recorded history over the first five months of the year.”

McLaughlin's statement, which actually was drastically wrong, went unquestioned by Kudlow.

No, Virginia, those other cities aren't reporting record homicide rates. (Neither is Washington, D.C.) That said, this might provide an opportunity to see what the homicide rate is actually like in Washington as compared to some other cities.

In fact, D.C. does have a high homicide rate! According to one major data set, here are a few of the numbers:

Homicides per 100,000 residents, 2024:
Washington, D.C.: 27.3
Chicago: 21.7
Los Angeles: 7.1
New York City: 4.7
Boston: 3.7

Demographically, no two cities are exactly alike. But McLaughlin's claim about those last three cities was, in fact, spectacularly wrong. 

It's also true that Washington's homicide rate is quite high—four to eight times as high as the rates in those three well-known cities, each of which she herself chose to bring up.

Washington's homicide rate is high. So are a few of the error rates across the Fox News universe.

Also this: When a person dies, "what has gone is not nothing." Yevtushenko said that.

REVOLUTION: Divinely appointed, the one pastor said!

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2025

"Revolution in the air:" When it happened, back in May, it got very little play.

The New York Times did a news report, but little discussion followed. The news report involved Pete Hegseth, a former co-host of Fox & Friends Weekend who was now working from a platform almost as  high.

An unusual event had occurred, the Times report said. Was a possible source of revolutionary fervor possibly lurking here?

Pete Hegseth Leads Christian Prayer Service in the Pentagon

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth led a Christian prayer service in the Pentagon’s auditorium on Wednesday morning, during working hours, in which President Trump was praised as a divinely appointed leader.

The event, billed as the “Secretary of Defense Christian Prayer & Worship Service,” was standing room only and ran for about 30 minutes, with Brooks Potteiger, the pastor of Mr. Hegseth’s church in Tennessee, as the main speaker.

Mr. Hegseth said he intended that the prayer service become a monthly event. 

It is unclear whether the Defense Department has hosted similar religious events outside of the Pentagon’s chapel, which was added after the 9/11 attack, but the service is part of an increasing infusion of overt Christian evangelization in official government events during Mr. Trump’s second term.

For us, the report was surprising, but also not surprising. We were surprised that the report, which never appeared in print editions, produced so little discussion.

What was more surprising here—the fact that this (Christian) prayer service had occurred in the Pentagon at all, or the fact that President Trump had been "praised as a divinely appointed leader?"

Also, who had characterized the president that way? Later in the news report, reporter John Ismay seemed to finger Hegseth's Tennessee pastor:

Mr. Potteiger’s church, the Pilgrim Hill Reformed Fellowship in Goodlettsville, Tenn., is a member of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches—the governing documents of which say that church leadership roles are reserved for men, that homosexuality is “unbiblical” and that women should not participate in combat. Mr. Hegseth said in a podcast appearance before his nomination to lead the Pentagon that women have no place in military combat units, but appeared to soften that stance during his confirmation hearing in January.

In his sermon, the pastor said, “We pray for our leaders who you have sovereignly appointed—for President Trump, thank you for the way that you have used him to bring stability and moral clarity to our land. And we pray that you would continue to protect him, bless him, give him great wisdom.”

He added: “We pray that you would surround him with faithful counselors who fear your name and love your precepts.”

Apparently, Ismay had Pastor Potteiger in mind. That said, in the quoted statement, Potteiger seemed to say that other leaders had also been "sovereignly appointed," possibly including Hegseth himself.  

The pastor also seemed to say that President Trump had been gifted with moral clarity and great wisdom as part of this sovereign appointment.

The idea that leaders have been divinely appointed has a long history in the western world. For the record, we know of no reason to think that Potteiger isn't a good and decent person—a good and decent person with some very ancient ideas about the best way to organize human society.

We ourselves don't share those ideas. In the course of Ismay's report, it sounded like Hegseth does.

In Chapter 9 of Moby-Dick, Melville recounts Father Mapple's famous sermon about Jonah and the whale. In his New York Times report, Ismay quoted some of Secretary Hegseth's remarks during that day's prayer session:

“This is precisely where I need to be, and I think exactly where we need to be as a nation, at this moment,” Mr. Hegseth, standing at a lectern bearing the seal of the Defense Department, said in his opening remarks: “in prayer, on bended knee recognizing the providence of our lord and savior Jesus Christ.” He added, “Knowing that there’s an author in heaven overseeing all of this, who’s underwritten all of it, for us, on the cross, gives me the strength to proceed.”

The defense secretary said that attendance at the prayer service was voluntary, but encouraged the uniformed military personnel and civilian employees there to tell their co-workers about it.

“King Jesus, we come humbly before you, seeking your face, seeking your grace, in humble obedience to your law and to your word,” Mr. Hegseth prayed after asking attendees to bow their heads. “We come as sinners saved only by that grace, seeking your providence in our lives and in our nation. Lord God, we ask for the wisdom to see what is right and in each and every day, in each and every circumstance, the courage to do what is right in obedience to your will. It is in the name of our lord and savior, Jesus Christ, that we pray. And all God’s people say amen.”

The assembled worshipers, including at least one general, repeated “Amen.”

There's nothing "wrong" with being a person of religious faith and belief. Billions of people around the globe take part in some such faith and belief.

Also, there's nothing "wrong" with being a person of doctrinal faith and belief. That said:

Within existing American norms, it is unusual to see a public official like Hegseth creating some such doctrinal prayer service as a monthly event.

This unusual event produced little discussion at the time it occurred. Ismay's report came and went. People who read the Times in print never saw his report at all.

We thought the report was very surprising, as was the attendant silence. That said, given how way leads on to way, we ourselves never got around to citing that news report.

Last Thursday, CNN aired a report about Secretary Hegseth's other pastor—his pastor in Idaho. CNN's interview with that pastor has also generated little discussion, although Mediaite posted this report:

Hegseth Promotes His Pastor’s CNN Spot–and His Call for ‘Christian Domination’

President Donald Trump’s Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth openly touted his alignment with self-described Christian nationalist Doug Wilson, sharing a new interview that the pastor did with CNN.

[...]

“My views on a number of things have become steadily more mainstream and have done that without me moving at all,” Wilson told the network.

Those views, he told CNN, include a belief in patriarchal society and in repealing the 19th Amendment, which grants women the right to vote. He believes in criminalizing homosexuality and, ultimately, replacing secular democracy with a government ruled by “Christ the King.”

For the transcript of CNN's  report, you can just click here.

Last Saturday, in our own report, we cited the CNN interview with Wilson, the Idaho pastor. As Mediaite noted, Hegseth himself posted a link to CNN's interview, appending this reaction:

All of Christ for All of Life.

There's nothing automatically "wrong" with being a devoted Christian of some particular type. In his initial book, Stride Toward Freedom, Dr. King wrote, again and again, about his commitment to what he called "the love ethic of Jesus."

That said, certain types of religious belief can create a type of fervor. To our  eye and to our ear, revolution is currently in the air as those of us in Blue America continue to slumber and snore.

Some of the current revolutionary zeal may come from a type of religious belief. Some of  the current revolutionary zeal seems to have different origins.

The Revolution of the Saints, Michael Walzer saidA Study in the Origins of Radical Politics.

Walzer's book was in the air during our undergraduate days. If memory serves, we may have had mutual friends, or then again possibly not.

That was a different revolution.  Even as we Blues slumber and snore, is a new revolution confronting us Blues today?

Tomorrow: Pastor Wilson

For extra credit only: We'll let the poet say it:

I lived with them on Montague Street
In a basement down the stairs
There was music in the cafés at night
And revolution in the air

For the full backdrop, click here.


TUESDAY: Why won't Trump release the files?

TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2025

Your nation's moral squalor: Why won't Trump release the files?

We can't tell you that. The most obvious possible reason is actually pretty obvious. The most obvious possible reason goes like this:

There must be something in the files which would be very bad for President Trump.

That, of course, may not be the reason. Also, there may be nothing in the files which is horribly bad for Trump.

It may be that we'll never see the actual files. It may also be that we'll never know why they weren't released. Meanwhile, the administration has engaged in unexplained conduct with respect to Ghislaine Maxwell—conduct which suggests the possibility that a deal has been struck which will keep her from making horrible claims about Trump.

That sweetheart deal looks very strange. That explains why news of the deal is widely avoided on Fox. Today, we once again show you what's being done to direct attention away from those ruminations, which tend to look bad for Trump.

We don't know what is in the files. We do know these two things:

Two things we know:
1) On Deadline: White House, Nicolle Wallace will never stop obsessing about the Epstein matter to the substantial exclusion of other topics, just as she did in the past several years with respect to the legal cases involving Candidate Trump. 

2) Elsewhere, the moral squalor churned by the Trump administration is never going to end. It will largely go unmentioned by major news orgs, except for the news orgs which insist on supporting the squalor.

What squalor are we talking about? Citizens, here we go again! Today, the story starts with this report by Mediaite's Charlie Nash

James Comer Says Congress Must Find Out What Happened on Epstein Island Because Bill Clinton Is ‘A Prime Suspect’

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) described former President Bill Clinton as “a prime suspect” in the Jeffrey Epstein case on Monday, telling Newsmax, “Everybody in America wants to know what went on in Epstein Island and we’ve all heard reports that Bill Clinton was a frequent visitor there.”

And so on from there. 

That's the way the report begins. For the record, Comer's fuller statement went like this:

 “Everybody in America wants to know what went on in Epstein Island and we’ve all heard reports that Bill Clinton was a frequent visitor there, so he’s a prime suspect to be deposed by the House Oversight Committee. So hopefully we’ll win that court battle with that subpoena and see President Clinton in October.”

The squalor never ends! It started with President Trump floating this notion during at least two high-profile press events in late July. This past Sunday, Vice President Vance pushed the claim again  on the Fox Business / Fox News Channel show, Sunday Morning Futures.

Yesterday, it was Comer's turn to push the unfounded suggestion, this time on Newsmax. In this way, Red American voters are being offered a pleasing alternative story about this potentially poisonous topic.

As we've noted many times, there is zero evidence to suggest that Bill Clinton (or Donald Trump) ever went to Jeffrey Epstein's island. Trump and Vance, and now James Comer, are serving their voters a pleasing alternate notion about Clinton—in this instance, on the basis of "reports" which Comer says "we've all heard."

People like Comer have "heard" such reports because people like Trump and Vance keep pimping such claims around! That said, someone else keeps pimping them out:

We refer to news sites like Mediaite, and to extremely peculiar journalists like the aforementioned Nash.

There they've gone again! This is at least the fourth time Mediaite has published these unfounded claims by Trump and Vance and Comer without describing the lack of evidence in support of the poisonous claims.

Back on July 28, the New York Times reported one of Trump's insinuations about Clinton. When it did, the Times instantly explained the lack of evidence behind the president's claim, exactly as a competent news org would have done.

(For that New York Times report, you can just click this. For our own presentation about that report, you can just click here.)

There is zero evidence to suggest that Bill Clinton ever went to Jeffrey Epstein's island. Voluminous flight records from Epstein's jet, released as part of an earlier court case, included no record or Clinton (or Trump) ever flying there.

Having said that, so what? People like Trump and Vance and Comer keep spreading this unfounded claim around. People like Nash, and sites like Mediaite, keep typing up the poisonous claim, without  ever providing the background information.

There is no cure for human, we correctly noted in that earlier report. People like Comer will keep playing this way, and puzzling sites like Mediaite will just keep typing their statements up.

A final point:

It's hard to prove that you didn't do something. It isn't hard to draw back the curtain on the way the president and his soldiers continue to play this game.

The message is being spread all around. "Journalists" help them do it.

REVOLUTION: Is something wrong with President Trump?

TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2025

Leader of the pack: Just for the record, there actually is  "too much [street] crime" in Washington, D.C. 

It's a slightly strange formulation; no one ever says what the appropriate level of such crime would be. And of course, when a 12-year-old kid is involved in a carjacking, that 12-year-old child has had his or her childhood stolen away in some manner as well.

That said, Washington's homicide rate vastly exceeds that of New York City. (We're speaking now of the actual New York City, not of the dystopian hellhole the messenger children on the Fox News Channel talk about day and night.)

There's too much (street) crime in D.C., some of it truly horrible (street) crime. Yesterday, President Trump announced that he plans to address this problem. 

To our ear, revolution is in the air as Blue America faces an array of assaults from angry Red American tribes. That said, it's entirely possible that there are ways to improve the situation in D.C., and in other American cities. 

But is President Trump the man to lead this fight? Here's the post he offered on Truth Social shortly before yesterday morning's presser:

Truth Details

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

Washington, D.C. will be LIBERATED today! Crime, Savagery, Filth, and Scum will DISAPPEAR. I will, MAKE OUR CAPITAL GREAT AGAIN! The days of ruthlessly killing, or hurting, innocent people, are OVER! I quickly fixed the Border (ZERO ILLEGALS in last 3 months!), D.C. is next!!! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DJT

That post appeared at 8:11; the presser started a few hours later. If we take the earlier statement literally, the filth and the scum should already have disappeared, along with Washington's crime.

The crime was going to DISAPPEAR! So spoke President Copperfield, marching toward revolution.

Zeal is present in all revolutions. Some type of fervent revolutionary zeal seems to be present in that proclamation. 

But is it zeal that we're looking at, or is it some near neighbor to some form of madness? Over the weekend, this same president had strangely offered this:

Truth Details

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

On Monday a Press Conference will be held at the White House which will, essentially, stop violent crime in Washington, D.C. It has become one of the most dangerous cities anywhere in the World. It will soon be one of the safest!!! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DJT

Really? Monday's press conference was going to "stop violent crime in Washington, D.C.," even if only "essentially?"

Crime reduction would be a godsend, but what should a citizen think about the strange grandiosity of that presidential statement? Also, what should a citizen think about this subsequent post?

Truth Details

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

We’re having a News Conference tomorrow in the White House. I’m going to make our Capital safer and more beautiful than it ever was before. The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY. We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital. The Criminals, you don’t have to move out. We’re going to put you in jail where you belong. It’s all going to happen very fast, just like the Border. We went from millions pouring in, to ZERO in the last few months. This will be easier—Be prepared! There will be no “MR. NICE GUY.” We want our Capital BACK. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

The homeless would be gone IMMEDIATELY. They were going to be sent or taken to some undisclosed location, to some place FAR away.

What should a citizen think about such unusual ideation? We'll offer some thoughts about that below, but let it be said that this type ideation was also present, for all to see, at yesterday's press event.

Thanks to the invaluable Rev, the entire event has been transcribed. Here are some of the things the president said as the nation averted its gaze:

Trump Details Crime Crackdown For D.C. 

PRESIDENT TRUMP (8/11/25): Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged out maniacs and homeless people. And we're not going to let it happen anymore, we're not going to take it just like we did on our southern border. 

[...]

And we're getting rid of the slums, too. We have slums here, we're getting rid of them. I know it's not politically correct. You'll say, "Oh, so terrible." No, we're getting rid of the slums where they live. 

[...]

It's going to be something that will be pretty amazing to you as you watch it. And I think most of you say it's a beautiful thing to do it right. We're going to be removing homeless encampments from all over our parks, our beautiful, beautiful parks, which now a lot of people can't walk on. They're very dirty, got a lot of problems, but we've already started that. We're moving the encampments away, trying to take care of people. 

Some of those people, we don't know how they even got there. Some of those people are from different countries, different parts of the world. Nobody knows who they are, they have no idea, but they're there. We're getting rid of the people from underpasses and public spaces from all over the city. There are many places that they can go and we're going to help them as much as you can help. But they'll not be allowed to turn our capital into a wasteland for the world to see.

There are plenty of places where the homeless can go. We don't even know how they got here! 

Having said that, also this: 

The president will also be getting rid of the slums! How is he planning to accomplish that task? No account of the planning was offered.

Could something be wrong with President Trump? We've asked that question again and again. It seems like an obvious question. 

As for yesterday's press event, we think New York magazine's Ed Kilgore largely sketched an accurate portrait, in real time, of what was occurring there:

Trump is really enjoying himself

Watching the president’s interminable press conference announcing his takeover of D.C. law enforcement, it’s very clear how much this strange old man is enjoying himself.

As his attorney general and Defense secretary, both deeply experienced sycophants, tried to maintain straight faces, Trump put on a virtuoso performance of “the weave,” fusing together a vast number of sentence fragments on wildly unrelated topics. An entirely imaginary crime emergency is the ostensible reason for this event, but the president happily moved across a vast landscape of his brilliant accomplishments and the perfidy of his enemies (including California governor Gavin “Newscum”) with particular emphasis on his upcoming meeting in Alaska with best frenemy Vladimir Putin.

You get the sense he would love to turn his final term in office into one long press conference, making a hash of every precedent, mocking any effort to hold him accountable to the law or any sort of objective reality, and relying on loyal retainers to keep the wheels from falling off...

We don't agree with every word. In our view, the "crime emergency" in question isn't best  described as "imaginary," to cite one example.

That said, the president did wander the countryside in his lengthy remarks, "fusing together a vast number of sentence fragments on wildly unrelated topics." Inevitably, he fell back on the childish way he refers to Governor Newsome. 

On two occasions, he said he'd be meeting Putin "in Russia." Kilgore didn't bother with that—and everyone does make such mistakes.

That said, we're going to get rid of the slums! Also, the crime, the filth and the scum should already have DISAPPEARED.

In theory, a revolution can be led by someone who's off his rocker. At the dawn of the west, in the verses of the Iliad, Agamemnon, lord of men, king and commander of the Achaean forces, is constantly melting down, suffering emotional breakdowns.

At such times, the puzzled troops are kept on task thanks to the interventions of two highly stable "loyal retainers"—Odysseus, the wily tactician, and noble Nestor, the seasoned charioteer.

Agamemnon's instability is mitigated by those experienced lieutenants. As the fury of revolution bubbles up in this second Trump term, the president is now surrounded by some highly competent lieutenants—people who have been planning for some such mission as this all through their adult lives.

Also, there are the angry, hotheaded foot soldiers prepared to serve the cause. You can see them day and night, reading the tribal script prepared for them by their bosses at the Fox News Channel.

Tomorrow, we hope to return to the question of Pete Hegseth's pastors—more generally, to the role of religionism in this revolutionary moment.

Is this really a revolution? Like the citizens of Camus' Oran, we Blues tend to be ignoring the obvious, but that's the way it looks to us at this particular site.

For the record, we Americans have applauded revolutions all over the world. That included the revolution which General Washington led.

Is a revolution needed now? On that, opinions will differ—but we think it must be said again, even if by a non-specialist:

The leader of this revolution seems to perhaps exhibit signs of grandiosity, fixed ideas and delusional thinking. "Only I can solve it," he has routinely said.

Also this:

When he was only 12 years old, he was already being mocked as "The Great I-Am" by his older brother. With respect to unruly teens, he was sent off to military school at the age of 13, because he wouldn't stop assaulting the younger kids at the local private school in Queens where his very wealthy fathers sat on the board of directors. 

Was some sort of unfortunate problem already surfacing then? We have no earthly idea.

A revolution can be led by someone who's a bit "off."  Revolution may even require the zeal of some such leadership figure.

It seems to us that downsides also exist when someone whose thought processes seem to be strange is sitting in the Oval Office as the world's most powerful person. Also, when the entire apparatus of Blue America has agreed that his possible "mental disorders" must, by law, not be discussed.

"Only I can solve it," he has said. He has also described himself as "a very stable genius,."

We'd guess that he really believes such things. Along the way, he can't seem to stop making ridiculous statements like this:

Truth Details

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

“Congresswoman” Jasmine Crockett is a Low (Very!!!) I.Q. Individual, much in the mold of the AOC Plus Three Gang of Country Destroying Morons - Only slightly dumber. Each of these  political hacks should be forced to take a Cognitive Exam, much like the one I recently took while getting my “physical” at our GREAT Washington, D.C., Military Hospital (WR!). As the doctors said, “President Trump ACED it, something that is rarely seen!” These Radical Left Lunatics would all fail this test in a spectacular show of stupidity and incompetence. TAKE THE TEST!!!

We aren't referring to his opinion about (the current version of) Rep. Crockett. We're referring to the president's persistent claim that he has ACED some cognitive test which no one else could pass.

Chairman Mao swam the Yangtze, "setting the stage for the launch of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution." President Trump truly seems to believe that he ACED an impossible test. 

(We're prepared to guess that he truly believes that the doctors in question said that.)

The most powerful man in the world seems to be possibly gripped by types of delusional thinking. Any such state of affairs is, of course, a deeply unfortunate human tragedy—a loss of human potential.

That said, foot soldiers are eager to fight on behalf of this modern lord of men. All across Blue America, our own lieutenants seem to agree that his actual state of mind simply cannot be discussed.

Tomorrow: Revolution! The views of the two pastors


MONDAY: Pritzker made a joke of the Illinois map!

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 2025

He's left with one (shaky) claim: Will Jeffrey Epstein be a type of finishing touch? Will Epstein be the magical topic which lets the Democrats return to power in the House after next year's midterm elections?

Everything is possible! But just when that possibility seemed to be warming Blue America's hearts, along came revolutionary Red America with its redistricting play.

The state of Texas will redistrict, adding five seats to the Republican Party's total! It may not work out that way, of course, but how did we ever get into this mess?

As a tiny hint of a possible answer, let's start with some of what Governer Pritzker (D-Ill.) said on yesterday's Meet the Press.

Full disclosure! Illinois' House districts were clownishly gerrymandered after the 2020 census. The gerrymander produced one of the most ridiculous congressional maps ever devised by one of our fifty great states.

To her credit, Kristen Welker was aware of that fact, and she was willing to bring it up. In yesterday's first exchange on that matter, Welker played tape of Texas Governor Abbott, then let Pritzker respond:

GOVERNOR ABBOTT (videotape): [Democratic governors] have already gerrymandered their states in ways in which they don't have hardly any Republican members of Congress. Look at the map of Illinois. It's drawn in such way they can't even squeeze out another Republican. It's a joke.

WELKER: What's your response to Governor Abbott?

GOVERNOR PRITZKER: Well, Governor Abbott is the joke. He's the one who is attempting mid-decade here, at a time when frankly all of us are concerned about the future of democracy, he's literally helping whittle it away and licking the boots of his leader, Donald Trump. 

Here in Illinois, we followed the law. We provided a map and passed a map that follows the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution and the laws of the state of Illinois. He's attempting to thwart federal law and take away five seats that are in the hands of Black, Brown, minority Congress people and the people that they represent. 

He's taking those votes away. He's violating the Constitution. And all of us need to stand up and speak out and make sure that it's understood across the country that what they're trying to do in Texas is illegal.

That was the second time that Pritzker said that the Texas effort would violate the Voting Rights Act. 

More on that below. Welker continued as shown:

WELKER: ...But I do want to look at the map of Illinois. Let's take a look at this. Despite President Trump winning 44% of the statewide vote in 2024, Republicans hold only three of Illinois' 17 districts. These districts seem to be designed to maximize Democratic advantage. What do you say to those who argue that it's hypocritical for you to criticize Texas for partisanship, when your state also drew maps to boost your party's standing?

PRITZKER: Well, remember that what Texas is trying to do is, again, violate the Voting Rights Act. We didn't. We held public hearings, legislative hearings. People attended them. They spoke out. There was a map that was put out. There were actually changes made to the map. And a map was passed, and it was done at the end of the census, the decennial census. So that's how it's done in this country. 

You talked about how rare it is to do what he’s doing. Yes, it is. What’s even rarer is to do it at the behest of the president of the United States, who's clearly attempting to and says that he deserves to have five more seats. He's wrong, and he's attempting to change the game because, again, he passed this big ugly bill that's hyper-unpopular in Texas, among people in Texas and across the country. And he knows he's going to lose the Congress in 2026. That's why he's going to his allies and hoping that they can save him. And we've all got to stand up against this. 

This is—it’s cheating. Donald Trump is a cheater. He cheats on his wives. He cheats at golf. And now he's trying to cheat the American people out of their votes.

Donald Trump cheats at golf. He also cheats on his wives! 

In our view, that's pitiful stuff. At least he didn't mention Stormy Daniels, allegedly on one occasion back in 2006! 

Also, though, he cited the Voting Rights Act, now cited for the third time. Without adjusting to his claim, Welker kept pounding away on her original theme:

WELKER (continuing directly): Well, look. Sticking on your state's map, every major group that grades the fairness of congressional maps gives your state an “F.” Common Cause, a nonpartisan government watchdog, even says your map, and I'm going to quote, "represents a nearly perfect model for everything that can go wrong with redistricting." 

And I guess the question is, you talk about preserving democracy. How do you preserve democracy if you're using the same tactics that you've criticized Texas Republicans for?

PRITZKER: But as I say, what they're talking about is a distraction. The reality is that the violation of people's voting rights is what Texas is attempting to do. That's what's wrong with their efforts right now....

Welker needed to hear it again—and yes, that was the Voting Rights Act to which Pritzker alluded again. 

Texas is going to violate the VRA. The state of Illinois didn't. He had now made that claim four times. At that point, Welker moved on.

Will Texas be violating the Voting Rights Act if it persists with its plan, as it will surely do? Concerning that question, we'll briefly offer this:

At issue is an interpretation of the VRA in which Louisiana is typically cited as a convenient test case. The question goes like this:

Louisiana's electorate is one-third black—and it has six Houe districts. Under terms of the Voting Rights Act, does that mean that the state must create two congressional districts which are majority black, or would one such district be enough?

We know! No one ever expresses it quite that baldly. In a way, that's the heart of the problem.

Alas! The way this question is currently discussed within the courts involves the muddiest, fuzziest word salads of language we've ever seen on such a high level. (Except, of course, for the major works of Kierkegaard and Kant.)

Along the way, it has become widely accepted in Blue circles—if a state is one third black, then one third of its congressional districts should be majority black. Let us say two things about that:

If the new Texas map reduces the number of "majority-minority" House districts, and if that map is then challenged in the courts, it will likely make it to the Supreme Court—and uh-oh:

Whatever you or anyone else might think about that "one third" framework, we find it hard to believe that the current Supreme Court will uphold that interpretation of the relevant passages in the Voting Rights Act.

On the other hand, maybe they will! That involves a type of reasoning which has been going badly for Blue America, though we still don't quite seem to have come to terms with that fact.

For ourselves, we think the "one third" theory is a very shaky expression of Americanism. It's also an expression which falls in line with many of the Blue American policies and ruminations which have increasingly come to be trashed as unwisely "woke."

Are "whites" and "blacks" two separate peoples, each entitled to its mandated number of House seats? On the merits, that seems like a shaky idea to us. On the politics, it's the kind of thinking for which Blue America has increasingly been getting punished in the court of public opinion.

Governor Pritzker made a joke of the Illinois map. Today, he hides behind his self-described racial greatness. We Blues keep getting beat on topics like this, and we often seem unable to see the reasons for our losses.

How did those of us in Blue America ever lose to someone like President Trump? Is it possible that our own lack of wisdom and insight may keep dragging us down?

There's much more to be said about that "one third" rule of thumb. The language with which it has been expressed  has been extremely fuzzy. Down there in the lower courts, but also in our own Blue preserves, no one seems to want to say what is being said! 

(With this puzzle, we think of the late Kevin Drum. We sure do wish he was here.)

REVOLUTION: Revolution justifies moral squalor!

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 2025

Also, the madness will emerge: We've now established a basic fact about JD Vance:

With revolution now underway, there's nothing he won't say and do. 

Yesterday, he established that point on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo. That Fox Business / Fox News Channel show is becoming the place for the revolutionaries to go to say whatever they want the peasantry to hear.

Bartiromo serves as a willing enabler; yesterday, Vance was untrammeled. For starters, he said he expects "a lot of indictments" in the wake of Tulsi Gabbard's discovery of President Obama's now-famous act of treason. 

“I absolutely want to see indictments, Maria," Vance said at one point. "...I don’t know how anybody can look at that and say that there wasn’t aggressive violations of the law."

Bartiromo didn't ask him to get specific; the messaging was thereby delivered. But for our money, the moral squalor was fully revealed when the vice president extended his lord and master's ugly, unfounded talking point about the Epstein matter:

VANCE (8/10/25): I have to say, Maria, I laugh at the Democrats who are now all of a sudden so interested in the Epstein files. For four years, Joe Biden and the Democrats did absolutely nothing about this story. We know that Jeffrey Epstein had a lot of connections with left-wing politicians and left-wing billionaires. And now President Trump has demanded full transparency from this, and yet somehow the Democrats are attacking him and not the Biden administration, which did nothing for four years.

MARIA: Was it the right move for [Rep. James] Comer to send subpoenas to the Clintons?

VANCE: It absolutely was...Democrat billionaires and Democrat political leaders went to Epstein island all the time. Who knows what they did, but it's totally reasonable to ask these questions.

...And of course, we know that Clintonor allegedly, he went to the island 26 times, 28 times? Totally appropriate for Comer to ask what was going on at that island.

It would be totally reasonable for some competent authority to review and report on the Epstein files. That said, here's what this revolutionary figure did:

First, he said that President Trump "has demanded full transparency," failing to note that President Trump could release the bulk of the materials in question right now, if he so chose.

Bartiromo didn't mention that point. Then, the real squalor occurred:

Belatedly inserting "allegedly," the revolutionary repeated the wholly unfounded claim his lord and master has thrown out two separate times. 

Citoyens, there is no evidence—none at all—that Bill Clinton ever went to the island even once. But President Trump ginned up a pleasing claim about the (wholly invented) number of times Clinton went there, saying "supposedly" at one point.

Hapless journalists ran as fast as they could to repeat and broadcast the baseless claim. On Deadline: White House, Nicolle Wallace played the tape of the president making the invented claim without offering a word of comment.

Yesterday, there was a revolutionary figure, asserting the invented claim on this "cable news" program! Belatedly, he threw the word "allegedly" in, swapping out Trump's "supposedly.". 

As with the Haitian immigrants eating the pets, so too here. All in all, our assessment would be this:

JD Vance will say and do anything in these revolutionary times.

What happened to Vance in the years of his childhood and youth? In the years when he was forced to grow up with the abusive treatment performed by the most dysfunctional family ever described in this nation?

We advise you to pity the child, but to tell the truth about the adult—in this case, about the adult who my have resulted from the mistreatment of the child.

We're linking you here to reports in Mediaite because finer news orgs, like the New York Times, tend to avoid reporting on moral squalor of this unmistakable type. (Or on the horrible family history which may help explain its existence.)

The finer orgs avert their gaze. But here you see the type of moral squalor which will emerge in times of revolution—and although they won't say so at the finer orgs, we're currently living in a time of revolutionary fervor.

General Washington's famous conquest triggered an age of revolution. The French revolution followed soon after, with Marie Antionette jeered in the streets, then executed by public beheading.

Eventually the Russian revolution occurred. Back in the 1960s, revolution was in the air across the sea in Chairman Mao's China. Today, an angry revolt from below is taking place right here in this land.

At times of revolutionary fervor, various kinds of moral squalor will be there for all to see. Also, the madness will emerge. 

At the New York Times, they're constantly trying to disappear the current madness. But over the weekend, the sitting president nuttily posted this:

Trump Vows He’s Going to ‘Stop Violent Crime’ In DC With a Single Press Conference

President Donald Trump announced a press conference to occur Monday that he promises will “essentially, stop violent crime” in Washington, D.C.

In a Saturday Truth Social post, the president blasted D.C. as one of the most “dangerous” cities in the world while announcing his press conference.

“On Monday a Press Conference will be held at the White House which will, essentially, stop violent crime in Washington, D.C. It has become one of the most dangerous cities anywhere in the World. It will soon be one of the safest!!! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DJT,” Trump wrote. 

The presser is scheduled for 10 a.m. today. In a burst of craziness-adjacent fervor, the sitting president said the press conference "will stop violent crime in D.C.!"

No, that doesn't seem to make sense. In fairness, the presser will only do that "essentially."

The Crazy seemed to lurking right here in that post. Then he added this:

Trump Tells Homeless They’re Being Booted From DC ‘IMMEDIATELY’ As Part of His Crime Crackdown...

President Donald Trump took to Truth Social on Sunday to once again tease a White House press conference that he’s promised will “stop violent crime.”

On Sunday, the president said his press conference on crime in Washington, D.C., will occur at the White House, and he unveiled some vague plans, including shipping the homeless out of D.C.

“We’re having a News Conference tomorrow in the White House. I’m going to make our Capital safer and more beautiful than it ever was before. The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY. We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital,” he wrote.

“The Criminals, you don’t have to move out. We’re going to put you in jail where you belong. It’s all going to happen very fast, just like the Border. We went from millions pouring in, to ZERO in the last few months. This will be easier—Be prepared! There will be no ‘MR. NICE GUY.’ We want our Capital BACK. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” the president wrote.

He's going to stop violent crime in D.C.! Also, he's IMMEDIATELY going to ship that city's homeless population FAR away. It's going to happen VERY FAST.

Is something wrong with the sitting president? (He was once widely described as a very genial host.) We've asked the question again and again, noting that some such state of affairs would of course be a human tragedy, as such things always are. 

Within the press corps' finer precincts, that question, by common agreement, imply cannot be asked. In order to maintain the illusion, crazy-adjacent Truth Social posts are only discussed at Mediaite. If you read the New York Times, these bouts of The Crazy don't happen.

Does Blue America understand the situation it faces? Do those of us in Blue America understand the various ways we ourselves have brought this angry moral squalor down upon our heads?

We'd say the answers are no and no. We'd also say that revolutionary fervor is in the air—that a revolution is underway, and we don't know where it goes next.

As is always the case at such times, JD Vance is rich in moral squalor—and the madness is there, again and again, for everyone to see.

What's the source of this revolutionary fervor? We'll examine that question all week. Tomorrow, we'll try to return to Pete Hegseth's pastor(s), with miles to go before we get to sleep.

We're posting at 8:49 a.m. The press conference to end all violent crime is currently scheduled for 10.

Tomorrow: Religionism speaks

SATURDAY: We're going to start with the Numbers from Nowhere!

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 2025

But also, Pete Hegseth's pastor: Stephen Moore has been around forever, ridiculed as perhaps a bit of an ersatz economist. 

It's been said that he isn't a real economist—that he can instead be hired to play one on TV. 

To his credit, he doesn't normally traffic in insults. That said, the problem began with his role at a high-minded organization which chose an unfortunate name:

Stephen Moore (writer)

Stephen Moore (born February 16, 1960) is an American economist, writer, and conservative television commentator. He co-founded and served as president of the Club for Growth from 1999 to 2004. Moore is a former member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board. He worked at The Heritage Foundation from 1983 to 1987 and again since 2014. Moore advised Herman Cain's 2012 presidential campaign and Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.

Moore advocates tax cuts and other supply-side policies...

And so on, at length, from there. 

The problem emerged with his role at The Club for Growth, the org which Moore co-founded. Due to Moore's choice of a name for the organization, it was persistently confused with The Hair Club for Men, producing an endless array of problems.

With that unfortunate choice of a name, Moore's ineptitude became obvious. For that very reason, there he was last Thursday, in the Oval with Trump, unveiling his Numbers from Nowhere. 

We'll let the AP set the scene (no paywall):

Trump defends the US economy with charts after job reports showed warning signs

President Donald Trump unexpectedly summoned reporters to the Oval Office on Thursday to present them with charts that he says show the U.S. economy is solid following a jobs report last week that raised red flags and led to the Republican firing the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Joining Trump to talk about the economy was Stephen Moore, a senior visiting fellow in economics at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and the co-author of the 2018 book “ Trumponomics.”

Flipping through a series of charts on an easel, Moore sought to elevate Trump’s performance as president and diminish the economic track record of former President Joe Biden. Trump stood next to Moore and interjected with approvals.

The moment in the Oval Office spoke to the president’s hopes to reset the narrative of the U.S. economy. While the stock market has been solid, job growth has turned sluggish and inflationary pressures have risen in the wake of Trump imposing a vast set of new tariffs, which are taxes on imports.

Also, BLS numbers had said that job growth was poor! First, you fire the head of the BLS. Then you send for Moore!

Moore presented a series of charts showing that job growth, and everything else, is really amazingly good. But where did these new numbers come from? Along the way, Stephen Moore explained:

MOORE (8/7/25): What has happened month by month with median household income—this is based on unpublished Census Bureau data. It will be released sometime in the next six months, but we get an advanced look at it. 

And so on from there. As to where Moore's amazing new numbers came from, we're told they came from the Census Bureau. If we're willing to wait six months, we're told that will be confirmed!

On the one hand, this was an utterly comical performance—a clown show of cosmic proportions. 

On the other hand, this gonzo presentation comes straight out of The Autocracy Handbook, with the strongman letting his favorite inform us about the actual shape of reality.

The show was engineered by a would-be strongman; it was performed by a clown. If you're willing to wait six months, someone will have constructed a bridge all the way to The Numbers from Nowhere!

This clown show took place right there in the Oval, with Trump "interjecting approvals." The very next day, on Morning Joe, Scott Bessent was asked to answer a broadly related question:

Where do tariff payments come from?  

Given his current role under President Trump, Bessent has a somewhat puzzling background. The leading authority explains:

Scott Bessent

Scott Kenneth Homer Bessent (born August 21, 1962) is an American government official and former hedge fund manager serving since 2025 as the 79th United States secretary of the treasury. He was formerly a partner at Soros Fund Management (SFM) and founded Key Square Group, a global macro investment firm.

Bessent graduated from Yale College in 1984. In 1991, he was hired by Soros Fund Management, eventually becoming the head of its London office.

[...]

In 2000, Bessent hosted a fundraiser for Al Gore at his home in East Hampton, New York. That year, he also donated $1,000 to John McCain. In 2007, he donated $2,300 to Barack Obama and in 2013, he donated $25,000 to Hillary Clinton's campaign. At that time, he was described as a Democrat who supported liberal causes.

After Trump was elected president in 2016, Bessent donated $1 million to Trump's 2017 presidential inaugural committee. In 2023 and 2024, he donated more than $1 million to Trump's 2024 presidential campaign.

Go figure! He started out with Soros and Gore (and Hillary Clinton), suddenly switched to Trump.

Today, he's Secretary of the Treasury. Friday morning, on Morning Joe, Gene Robinson asked him this:

ROBINSON (8/8/25): Mr. Secretary, there's one question I've got to ask you because there has been some confusion. 

So we've got a tariff of, what, 50 percent on Brazil now. And so if someone here, an importer, wants to buy Brazilian products today or tomorrow and import them, they're going to pay 50 percent to the Treasury.

And so, who writes that check? 

Who writes the check to the Treasury when a tariff has been charged? President Trump has spent the past several years claiming and suggesting that some foreign entity submits that payment, thereby swelling federal coffers with free money from a foreign land.

That isn't the way it actually works, but Trump and everyone close to Trump keeps pimping that phony impression. Now, Bessent would finally get the chance to explain!

Finally, Bessent could straighten things out! This is what he said:

BESSENT (continuing directly): Well, a couple of things. First, we could have substitutions. So there's very little that only comes from Brazil. It could come from Argentina...

No one has to write the check! Whatever it is that we're talking about, it could be imported from somewhere else!

That was this billionaire's first attempt at refusing to answer the question. We humans are built for such acts of deception—but Robinson asked him again:

ROBINSON: But assuming it does come from Brazil, say—or it comes from any country with a tariff. Who writes the check to the Treasury?

Breaking every rule in the book, Robinson asked the question again! The question couldn't have been more clear—but with this, Bessent's full reply, the analysts came out of their chairs:

BESSENT (continuing directly): Well, the check is written to the person who receives it at the dock in the U.S.

Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue. But yes, that's what he said!

The check is written to the person who receives the imported product? Was Bessent trying to extend the deception—trying to further the mistaken impression that the money which ends up in the Treasury actually comes the foreign supplier?

Bessent isn't a clumsy speaker. Was he still trying, even here, to keep misimpression alive?

Heroically, Robinson proceeded to ask his question yet again—for the third time! Bessent was finally forced to report what actually happens. But first with Stephen Moore's monkeyshines, then with Bessent's attempts at flight, we continue to see the gauze of misimpression and misinformation being spread across the land.

Where is all this coming from? We'll also direct you to the CNN interview with Pete Hegseth's pastor which aired Thursday night. This report at Mediaite touches on the basics:

Hegseth Promotes His Pastor’s CNN Spot–and His Call for ‘Christian Domination’

President Donald Trump’s Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth openly touted his alignment with self-described Christian nationalist Doug Wilson, sharing a new interview that the pastor did with CNN.

[...]

“My views on a number of things have become steadily more mainstream and have done that without me moving at all,” Wilson told the network.

Those views, he told CNN, include a belief in patriarchal society and in repealing the 19th Amendment, which grants women the right to vote. He believes in criminalizing homosexuality and, ultimately, replacing secular democracy with a government ruled by “Christ the King.”

[...]

Wilson denied he was “misogynist” or a “White nationalist” and in the interview defended his embrace of the label Christian nationalist: “I’m not a White nationalist. I’m not a fascist. I’m not a racist. I’m not a misogynist, and those are the names that usually get thrown at me. And then when someone says, well, that’s Christian nationalism, I can–well, I can work with that.”

For the CNN transcript, click here. As Mediaite's David Gilmour noted, Hegseth posted a link to the complete interview, appending this brief affirmation:

All of Christ for All of Life.

That was Hegseth's comment. Now for some full disclosure:

Some people hold views which we'd call "religionist." That said, people are allowed to hold such beliefs. People are free to believe that society would function better structured in the sort of way Wilson described in that interview.

That said, mainstream journalism has seemed to be reluctant to report the fact that Hegseth shares that general world view. Reports about his pastor have been few and far between. CNN should be complimented for producing this report.

Many battalions are fighting the war which is currently being waged against our hapless Blue America. The silly people you see on Fox News Channel programs are hired to move this cause forward.

Some of those people seem to display a certain hostility to the people thought of as women. They perform that anger night after night in remarkable ways.

Wilson doesn't think women should vote. Fox stars think women are just too f*cking fat but are also too old and too ugly.

As Fox stars behave in such repulsive ways, our Blue stars avert their gaze.

Next week: The various battalions on the field in the undeclared war