FALLING APART: A new type of human comes over the walls!

FRIDAY, MAY 23, 2025

Machi sells genocide: We're a little bit under the weather today. It may be a touch of the 24-hour labyrinthitis!

Or it could be a form of dislocation as we see a new type of human—furious, murderous, incoherent—swarming over the walls. It could just be the exhaustion which results from the futile attempt to keep up.

A furious tribe is coming over the walls. It happened when the Achaeans finally managed to sack sacred Troy. Here are some of the ways it's happening this very day:

The astonishing Kristi Noem: "Suck it," this new form of human said. A full-blown secession is underway when marauders drop their attempts at disguise and behave in such stunning ways.

The remarkable Karoline Leavitt: Yesterday, Yamiche Alcindor asked an extremely salient question. Where does the president get all this misinformation, she asked the other-worldly Karoline Leavitt.

Alcindor was inquiring about the misinformation the sitting president spewed during Wednesday's Oval Office ambush. Where does the president get all this misinformation, Alcindor quite sensibly asked

Back and forth went the interlocutors went as Leavitt kept failing to answer. The remarkable fact about Leavitt is this— she may actually be such a self-hypnotized true believer that she actually didn't understand that she was refusing to answer the question which Alcindor just kept asking

For the report by Mediaite, click here. Yamiche kept restating her question. The youngster kept failing to answer:

ALCINDOR (5/22/25): The president showed a video that he said showed more than a thousand burial sites of white South Africans that he said were murdered. We know that that was not true, and that the video wasn’t true. So I wonder, why did the president choose to show that–

LEAVITT: What’s not true, Yamiche?

ALCINDOR: It’s not true that the video was showing a burial site. It is unsubstantiated that that’s the case–

LEAVITT: No, it is true that that video showed the crosses that represent–

ALCINDOR: It’s an actual burial site, is what the president claimed.

LEAVITT: The video showed images of crosses in South Africa about White farmers who have been killed and politically persecuted because of the color of their skin–

ALCINDOR: The president claimed that it was showing burial sites.

LEAVITT: –and those crosses are representing their lives. Those crosses are representing their lives and the fact that they are now dead, and their government did nothing about it. Are you disputing that?

ALCINDOR: I’m disputing the fact that the video showed what the president claimed it showed, because it did not show that; but even more, what I’m asking you is who at the White House–

LEAVITT: It did show that. It showed white crosses representing people who have perished because of racial persecution.

ALCINDOR: Who at the White House verifies the videos that the president shows, and what protocols are in place when there’s unsubstantiated information being put out for the world and world leaders to show?

LEAVITT: What’s unsubstantiated about the video? The video shows crosses that represent the dead bodies of people who were racially persecuted by their government. In fact, the Associated Press of all places has a picture of that very monument; and the caption from the Associated Press is, "Each cross marks a white farmer who has been killed in a farm murder.”

ALCINDOR: The president said that it was a burial site.

LEAVITT: –so it is substantiated, not just by that video and the physical evidence that everybody saw on display in the Oval Office, but also by another outlet in this room, the Associated Press. So you should take it up with them if you believe the claim is unsubstantiated, and that’s a ridiculous line of questioning.

For the record: In her last two statements, Leavitt referred, all too typically, to an AP photograph which had nothing to do with what President Trump had said. 

The photograph to which she referred is not "a picture of that very monument." That was one last bungle by Leavitt. More generally, our question would be this:

Is Leavitt such a zombified true believer that her repeated failure to answer Alcindor's question is truly the best she can do? Beyond that, we call attention to one of her trademark behaviors—to her sneering dismissal of Alcindor's "ridiculous line of questioning" at the end of her own relentless failure to respond.

Karoline Leavitt "speaks fluent Trump." She is a new kind of human. 

D-list comedian speaks: We don't know Joe Machi. It's entirely possible that he's the nicest guy in the world.

Beyond that, he's one of the many D-list comedians employed by CEO Suzanne Scott to advance the corporate propaganda of the Fox News Channel. They do so through their appearances on the primetime Gutfeld! show. 

Machi's a regular on the show, where he appeared last night. Last night, the four-member panel included one other D-list comedian, along with a chef named Gruel and a former Trump official.

Yesterday, we told you something about President Trump's astonishing behavior in the Oval Office this week. 

No, Virgina! No serious person thinks a genocide is taking place in South Africa—a genocide aimed at white farmers. Still, that was what our sitting president said and said and said.

As we noted yesterday afternoon, the Fox News Channel walked away from what Trump said on its principal news show, Special Report. After posting with Jacqui Heinrich told Bret Baier, we skillfully told you this:

How bad was yesterday's performance by President Trump? So bad that even the Fox News Channel's news division, thanks to Heinrich, seems to be warning viewers about what the president said.

(The channel's highly Potemkin purveyors of opinion and "analysis" will almost surely adopt a different stance.)

Last night, on the Gutfeld! show, one branch of the propaganda brigade took its turn with this topic.

Predictably, President Trump's array of misstatements went undiscussed. Instead, the messengers focused on how great it was when Trump called NBC's Peter Alexander an "idiot" and a "jerk" as part of an angry tirade during the session with President Ramaphosa.

The astonishing Kayleigh McEnany is a graduate of Harvard Law School. Last night, she played it dumb—it's her principal instinct and her most useful skill—when it was her time to speak. 

Chef Gruel lacked the tiniest hint of a clue. Astoundingly, the goggle-eyed Machi closed the segment saying this:

GUTFELD (5/22/25): All right Joe. How do you feel about all this?

MACHI: It has to be frustrating being Peter Alexander. I feel a little bad for him, because like. here [Trump's] calling this white guy—uh, this South African leader in charge of genocide, but then he starts complaining about Peter Alexander. 

To him, that's got to feel a little weird. They're like, "Here's the genocide guy, but I want to talk about this reporter. He's an idiot, you know? You just kill a lot of people, but he's—he's dumb."

But my whole issue with this whole thing is like, a lot of people on the left will say that the Florida so-called "Don't say gay" bill is genocide because they don't let elementary school teachers talk about their sex lives. 

Well, I want to ask those people, "How many stadiums full of people calling for white people to be murdered do you need?" Because I only need one stadium and I'm canceling my vacation to South Africa.

GUTFELD: So—so true! All right, up next, a Democrat's lavish lifestyle exposed!

That was the closest anyone came to discussing the sitting president's claim that a genocide is under way in South Africa—a genocide against white people!

Stating the obvious, a lot of what Machi said was rather hard to follow. Along the way, he journeyed all the way back to the "Don't Say Gay" bill, saying that "a lot of people on the left" regard it as genocide.

Much of his ramble was hard to follow, but Machi did seem to say, or perhaps to suggest, that President Ramaphosa "kills a lot of people" as part of his nation's ongoing genocide. He pictured Trump referring to Ramaphosa as "the genocide guy"—as the person "in charge of genocide."

He seemed to say that there are stadiums full of people in South Africa calling for white people to be murdered. "So true," his pre- or post-human host said. 

This is what we told you would happen in our clairvoyant report. For the record, Suzanne Scott puts these pretenders on the air for the specific reason that they'll go ahead and do what Machi did.

"So true," Greg Gutfeld said! This is a new type of human being—and these angry, pre- or post-human beings are swarming over the society's crumbling walls. For the record, our own Blue America's relentless lunacies finally created the societal conditions which have allowed them to succeed with this assault.

Full disclosure! Mediaite refuses to cover the Gutfeld! program. That ridiculous policy can best be scored as pre- or post-human too.

Go ahead—click here, then watch the full Gutfeld! segment. When Suzanne Scott pries the lid off the can each evening, this is what comes crawling out.

David Brooks won't discuss this assault on the society's walls. In fairness, neither will Rachel Maddow or pretty much anyone else. 

Life is still amazingly good for those who remain in the finer set. People like these can still get by on their $25 million per year.

They don't want to fight with the poisons of Fox. Dearest darlings, use your heads: 

It simply isn't done!

The torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans! That's what President Kennedy said.

"Suck it," one of them thoughtfully said. "So true," Gutfeld replied.

THURSDAY: Fox News walks away from Trump's "propaganda!"

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2025

That's how bad his ambush was: We didn't see the presentation by Jacqui Heinrich on last night's Special Report.

Heinrich is the Fox news Channel's senior White House correspondent.  This afternoon, Mediate has posted the bulk of the presentation she made to Bret Baier last night.

Sure enough! There she was, rather plainly accusing President Trump of promulgating "propaganda" through his [false / unfounded / baseless] claims about that "genocide" in South Africa.

Headline included, here's the start of Mediaite's report:

Fox’s Jacqui Heinrich Calls Out Trump White Genocide Video as ‘Political Propaganda’

Fox News Senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich called out President Donald Trump’s “White Genocide” video presentation as “political propaganda” in a report from the North Lawn of the White House.

President Trump and Elon Musk have been pushing the absurd claim that White South African “Afrikaners” are victims of “genocide” as a way to justify accepting them as refugees while turning away other groups.

During a chaotic bilateral meeting in the Oval Office between Trump and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa on Wednesday, Trump forced Ramaphosa to watch a White Genocide propaganda video and then bitterly argued with him about it.

That's the way the report began. As you can see in the accompanying videotape, here's the basic nugget of what Heinrich told Bret Baier:

HEINRICH (5/21/25): President Trump has...embraced claims of White genocide and [yesterday's] meeting turned tense.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa aimed to reset relations after President Trump cut off all foreign assistance to his country, expelled his ambassador and imposed sweeping tariffs. But Trump wanted answers to claims of genocide against White farmers.

RAMAPHOSA (videotape): I would say if there was Afrikaner farmer genocide, I can bet you these three [white South African] gentlemen would not be here.

TRUMP (videotape): We have thousands of stories talking about it. And we have documentaries, we have news stories. Is Natalie here? Is somebody here to turn that [video] on?

HEINRICH: Trump forcing Ramaphosa to sit through a video purporting to substantiate the disputed genocide claims. A source with knowledge of the video’s origins tells Fox it is political propaganda created by one of Ramaphosa’s opponents, Julius Malema.

TRUMP (videotape): These are burial sites right here. Burial sites, over a thousand, of white farmers.

HEINRICH: According to the Washington Post, the crosses shown are not graves, but part of a protest years ago against violence to White landowners, which South African leaders say is exaggerated.

So said Heinrich, seeming to walk away from the president's presentation.

How bad was yesterday's performance by President Trump? So bad that even the Fox News Channel's news division, thanks to Heinrich, seems to be warning viewers about what the president said.

(The channel's highly Potemkin purveyors of opinion and "analysis" will almost surely adopt a different stance.)

With respect to President Trump, this sort of thing has gone on and on and on. It's gone on and on for many years. Major news orgs have displayed an unfortunate tendency to suggest that there's nothing to look at as these behaviors roll on.

Does President Trump believe the various things he says? Does he simply say the things he says in order to drive his political agendas?

Whatever the answer to that may be, even the Fox News Channel is walking away from his latest inflammatory claim. Over at CNN, in a truly amazing display, a different approach was voiced last night.

There is a balm in Gilead, or at least so we've been told. Is there a genocide in South Africa? Does the current sitting president really believe there is?

Over at CNN: Last night, over at CNN, Scott Jennings started like this:

ABBY PHILLIP (5/21/25): This [claim of genocide] is straight out of the conspiracy land of the far right, and it is not based in fact. And it’s amazing that this has actually become the foreign policy of the United States based on just straight up—

I mean, we have the numbers. It is completely unsubstantiated. I mean, Scott—

JENNINGS: You’re saying it’s not true that some White farmers have been murdered?

PHILLIP: No, it’s not true that there is a genocide against White farmers.

JENNINGS: Okay, whatever you call it, have White farmers been murdered?

PHILLIP: Actually, how many white—

JENNINGS: Has violence been committed against White farmers?

PHILLIP: How many White farmers— Hold on a second. How many White farmers have been murdered in South Africa?

JENNINGS: I don’t know, several...

(To watch the tape of this exchange, click here.)

Just that quickly, Jennings moved from a claim of genocide to the fact that "several" white farmers have been murdered. (According to Wikipedia, there were more than 27,272 homicides in South Africa in 2022, the most recent year the site listed.)

Jennings seemed to move from a claim of "genocide" to a claim of "several murders!" Last week, Homeland Security's Tricia McLaughlin started with the thrilling claim that a female federal agent had been "body-slammed" by two members of Congress. A few days later, she moved on to the less thrilling claim that someone had been "shoved!"

"Whatever you call it," Jennings said. That was McLaughlin's dismount too! It's a type of sophistry straight out of Pilate, one that leads a failing society straight toward the edge of the earth.

A silent secession is involved in such acts of sophistry. It involves a secret decision that the other tribe no longer needs to be spoken to. 

The other tribe no longer matters, no longer counts, only barely exists. Does a hint of Rwanda lurk in such slippery behavior?

FALLING APART: There the president went again!

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2025

David Brooks won't tell you: Yesterday, right there in the Oval Office, there they went again.

We refer to the gods of international ambush. They seem to control the soul of a badly disordered person. 

David Brooks won't tell you about it. Neither will anyone else.

Once again, the ambush came. In this morning's New York Times, the front-page report starts like this, principal headline included:

TRUMP BROADSIDE EMBROILS LEADER OF SOUTH AFRICA

In an astonishing confrontation in the Oval Office on Wednesday, President Trump lectured President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa with false claims about a genocide against white Afrikaner farmers, even dimming the lights to show what he said was video evidence of their persecution.

Yesterday's Oval Office event was "astonishing," the Times reports. Also, and just as it ever was, this latest astonishing event was driven by the sitting president's "false claims."

That's the way the Times reports it. Here's the corresponding news report from the Washington Post, principle headline included:

Trump confronts South African president, pushing claims of genocide

President Donald Trump pressed South African President Cyril Ramaphosa to protect White Afrikaner farmers from violent attacks in an extraordinary Oval Office confrontation Wednesday in which it fell to others to remind Trump of the nation’s long-standing epidemic of violence against both White and Black people.

Trump amplified false claims that White Afrikaners have been victims of a genocide, even showing video of crosses and earthen mounds that he said represented more than 1,000 grave sites of murdered farmers. The mounds were in fact part of a protest against the violence, not actual graves.

Tp the reporters at the Washington Post, the confrontation was "extraordinary." Like the Times, the Post is reporting that the sitting president's performance was built around "false claims."

At the Wall Street Journal, older journalistic conventions seemed to prevail. The president's claims were challenged in a more conventional way. Here's how it went over there:

South African Leader Pushes Back on Trump’s ‘Genocide’ Claims in Tense Meeting

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa came to Washington seeking what he called a reset in relations with the U.S. 

But his meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office on Wednesday devolved into a tense exchange over perceived threats to white farmers in South Africa.

Trump has made unsubstantiated claims that white South Africans were the victims of a possible genocide. During a lengthy back-and-forth in front of television cameras, he suggested Ramaphosa’s government wasn’t doing enough to protect them.

[...]

Although South Africa is one of the world’s most violent countries, Black people there are murdered at higher rates than whites. There is no evidence that murders of white farmers in the country amount to a genocide.

By paragraph 3, the Journal's reporters were saying that the president's principal claim was "unsubstantiated." By paragraph 6, they reported that "there is no evidence" in support of that principal claim.

So it went, across a range of major news orgs. As we type, this is the headline atop the report from the Associated Press:

Trump confronts South African leader with baseless claims of the systematic killing of white farmers

This is the headline from Reuters:

Trump confronts South Africa's Ramaphosa with false claims of white genocide

Baseless, false, unfounded, no evidence? So the reporting has gone.

Needless to say, it gets worse. The stumblebum nature of the president's conduct becomes more remarkable when a reader ventures inside these news reports. 

The New York Times joined the Washington Post and the BBC in reporting that Trump had mischaracterized a long line of white crosses "that he said represented more than 1,000 grave sites of murdered farmers." (See the Washington Post, above.) 

Whoops! That claim was false, all three news orgs said. According to Mediaite, the president also bungled by saying this:

Trump Holds Up Photo To Show South African ‘Genocide’–But It’s from Another Country

President Donald Trump held up a photo purporting to prove that a “genocide” is happening in South Africa, but the image is actually from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

[...]

At one point, Trump held up a printout of a blog post from the far-right site American Thinker that was several months old. The post features a screenshot of a YouTube video of Red Cross workers responding to a mass rape and murder in the Goma, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

South Africa, Congo—what's the difference? The BBC joined Mediaite in reporting this factual bungle. 

This sort of misstatement is standard fare for this afflicted person—for the person David Brooks (and many others) refuse to be honest about. That said, the larger question here concerns the poisonous claim that a "genocide" is underway in South Africa—a genocide aimed at white farmers.

That was the principal claim in yesterday's poisonous ambush. "False, false, unsubstantiated, no evidence," these major news orgs say.

For the record, South Africa does have a major crime and homicide problem. To see Wikipedia's attempt at reporting "intentional homicide" rates for the world's nations, you can just click here.

South Africa's homicide rate ranks in that listing as fifth highest in the world. But "white people" are only 7 percent of that nation's population, and there is no apparent evidence that white farmers are being singled out for some sort of genocidal campaign. 

Is some such genocide occurring? What follows is drawn from a recent laborious fact-check by Politifact.com:

Trump’s Afrikaner refugee policy based on unfounded claims about land, white farmer ‘genocide’

[...]

We asked the State Department for evidence of a genocide of white farmers in South Africa, and a spokesperson said the department had nothing to announce regarding a genocide determination.

[...]

Experts rejected the “genocide” characterization of Afrikaners.

“There is no indication of a state-sponsored campaign or intent to eliminate a specific racial group,” [Anthony] Kaziboni said. “The primary motive remains robbery, sometimes coupled with extreme violence, consistent with broader patterns of violent crime in South Africa.”

The term genocide evokes the horrors of the Holocaust, which killed 6 million Jews, and the 1994 Rwandan genocide, where 800,000 Tutsis were systematically killed, Kaziboni said.

“Against this backdrop and the UN’s legal definition, labelling farm killings as genocide is both inaccurate and misleading,” Kaziboni said. “This does not diminish the severity of the violence or the need for enhanced rural safety, but it highlights the importance of responding with evidence, nuance, and context.”

It's a deeply inflammatory charge. Yesterday—what else is new?—it was tossed off in a spectacularly careless way.

That said, the truth about yesterday's ambush does get much, much worse. C-Span has posted a 17-minute chunk of videotape from yesterday's event beneath this anodyne headline:

President Trump and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa on Genocide

The videotape quickly features the gruesome screening of film the president staged in the Oval. At this site, we've long recommended against Blue America's use of its various verbal bombs, but the president's film screening was quickly dominated by otherwise pointless imagery which is all too plainly drawn from the world's overtly racist storehouse.

Those parts of the president's ambush film take us on an ugly trip below the level of moral squalor. Added to that was the president's fury when NBC's Peter Amexander dared to ask a couple of fairly obvious questions about a pair of fairly obvious topics. 

In his latest angry meltdown, the president staged a long angry attack on Alexander, calling him, among other things, an idiot and a jerk.

Is something wrong with President Trump? As we noted yesterday, an irony is lodged within that fairly obvious question:

By current wide agreement, the mainstream press corps took a dive in the last few years regarding the apparent cognitive decline of President Biden. But even as our journalists lash themselves for this alleged failure, they're now taking a dive regarding the rather obvious possibility that something of equal consequence may be wrong with President Trump.

They're averting their gaze from President Trump, as they did with President Biden.

For the record, what might be wrong with President Trump? Once again, here's what his niece, the trained clinical psychologist, said in her best-selling book:

None of the Trump siblings emerged unscathed from my grandfather’s sociopathy and my grandmother’s illnesses, both physical and psychological, but my uncle Donald and my father, Freddy, suffered more than the rest. In order to get a complete picture of Donald, his psychopathologies, and the meaning of his dysfunctional behavior, we need a thorough family history.

In the last three years, I’ve watched as countless pundits, armchair psychologists, and journalists have kept missing the mark, using phrases such as “malignant narcissism” and “narcissistic personality disorder” in an attempt to make sense of Donald’s often bizarre and self-defeating behavior. I have no problem calling Donald a narcissist—he meets all nine criteria as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)—but the label gets us only so far.

[...]

Does Donald have other symptoms we aren’t aware of? Are there other disorders that might have as much or more explanatory power? Maybe. A case could be made that he also meets the criteria for antisocial personality disorder, which in its most severe form is generally considered sociopathy but can also refer to chronic criminality, arrogance, and disregard for the rights of others...

The fact is, Donald’s pathologies are so complex and his behaviors so often inexplicable that coming up with an accurate and comprehensive diagnosis would require a full battery of psychological and neuropsychological tests that he’ll never sit for.

The fact that she said it doesn't mean that it's right. But what does this president have to do to rouse our stars—our extremely silent lambs—from their relentless refusal to report what they all are thinking?

Yesterday's Oval Office ambush was ugly all the way down. Is something wrong with President Trump? Is it possible that he could be diagnosed as "meet[ing] the criteria for antisocial personality disorder, which in its most severe form is generally considered sociopathy?"

Is it possible that he could be so diagnosed—that he could be so afflicted? And what does it actually mean if some such assessment is judged to be accurate?

We're entering difficult conceptual territory there. That said, that question has been out there for a long time, and the finer people at our finer new orgs are never going to go there.

They all believe that something is wrong, but none of them are willing to say so. The same thing they did with respect to President Biden's apparent cognitive decline they're now doing with respect to President Trump's apparent or possible "pathologies."

(Life is still good for the finer people. They don't want to fight with the Fox News Channel, and they don't want to fight with the various people surrounding President Trump.)

Yesterday's event was remarkably ugly, with an obvious racial component. It was also stunningly stupid and rude, but then, what else is new?

This was ugly stuff. Elsewhere, an angry tribe will support everything President Trump said and did. A silent secession has already occurred, and a secret and undeclared civil war is already well underway.

If something is wrong with President Trump, that represents a tragic loss of human potential. That said, yesterday's event speaks for itself, as have many events before it.

They didn't confront the question with Biden; they won't confront the lingering question with Trump. This is who and what we are, and nothing is going to change this.

David Brooks will never speak. In fairness, neither will anyone else. As things continue to fall apart, this is who and what we are, and this is all we have.

Tomorrow: Former "wrestler" speaks

WEDNESDAY: The lonesome arrest of Rep. McIver!

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2025

For basic chronology, start here: We return to the basic chronology of what happened in Newark, New Jersey on Friday, May 9.

It happened at the Delaney Hall detention center, a facility run by ICE. The events in question have produced an assault charge against Rep. LaMonica McIver (-NJ)—but also a rather large ball of confusion, even twelve days later.

Even as the event was unfolding, it triggered the standard lunatic conduct from inside MAGAWorld. The next morning, the claims by Homeland Security's Tricia McLaughlin got even crazier. For the basic background concerning these largely abandoned claims, see yesterday afternoon's report.

McLaughlin was making hysterical claims; over at the Fox News Channel, the children began reciting. That said, what actually happened in Newark that day? What was the basic chronology?

As fa as we know, a few basic parts of that chronology remain unclear at this time. As we noted yesterday, yesterday's report in the New York Times was a study in chronological incoherence. 

Amazingly, the Times didn't even report the account of the day's events which has emerged from Rep. McIver and her two congressional colleagues. We'll offer links below.

As we noted yesterday, the three House members appeared on several cable news shows from May 9 through May 11. Just to establish the basic state of play, this seems to be the basic chronology, at least as they have described it:

Basic chronology, May 9

With respect to the basic chronology, here's what the three reps have said:

The arrival and the sitting around: According to the congressional reps, they arrived at the facility seeking an unannounced inspection. They've described as their statutory right. It's obvious why an unannounced inspection might be preferable in many situations.

According to the House members, they were ushered into the Delaney Hall facility. For whatever reason, they say they were then left to sit in a room for an hour and a half without being allowed to conduct an inspection. 

The turmoil involving the mayor: After they'd sat around inside the building for roughly ninety minutes, the three House members began to wonder if they were being stonewalled.  In a way we can't describe, they then ended up outside the building. That's where the turmoil occurred, including the arrest of Mayor Baraka for alleged trespassing.

That trespassing charge against Mayor Baraka is now being dropped. It was also there that Rep. McIver engaged in the conduct which has now been termed a criminal act of assault. We haven't seen an account of the way the three congressional reps ended up back outside the building. 

At long last, the tour: After the mayor had been frog-marched away, the three House members were then escorted back inside the building and were finally given their tour. As far as we know, everyone seems to agree with this basic part of the chronology. If it's accurate, that means that Rep. McIver was allowed back inside and given a tour after she had criminally assaulted two (2) federal officers.

Those are the three parts of the chronology which seem to be in place. We'll also mention the three basic locales which seem to be part of this story:

Also, the three locales

Three different locales play a part in this story. These are the three locales:

1) Inside the facility—inside the building itself
2) Outside the building itself, but still inside the security fence
3) Outside the security fence—back on public property

Those were the three locales.

Who was where, and at what juncture? When did Mayor Baraka arrive? How did the scuffle get started? In what way did the three reps end up back outside?

Only the Shadow seems to know! For reasons only the Times can explain, yesterday's news report pretty much wasn't telling.

For extra credit only: Watch the House members describe these events!  We offer three opportunities:

On May 9, Rep. Menendez appeared on Deadline: White House. To see what he said, click here.

On May 10, Reps. McIver and Menendez appeared on The Weekend: Primetime. To see what they said, click this.

On May 11, all three members were interviewed on CNN's State of the Union. For the transcript, just click here. For videotape, click this.

This is known as "information gathering." It isn't stupendously hard.

FALLING APART: Stumblebums of the world, unite!

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2025 

What's wrong with President Trump? At this site, we wish that Senator Hassan (D-NH) had let the witness continue.

In our view, Senator Hassan broke in too soon. That said, for better or worse, here's how the exchange began:

HASSAN (5/20/25): Secretary Noem, the White House deputy chief of staff recently said that the Trump administration is actively looking at suspending habeas corpus. Last week you were asked about this, and I want to clarify your position, because it's obviously really important to get this right.

So Secretary Noem, what is habeas corpus?

NOEM: Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country—

At that point, Hassan broke in. We wish she'd let Noem continue.

Where in the world was Noem's response going to go after that? In our view, it would have been more instructive to let her finish her presentation.

That said, at the point where Hassan interrupted, Noem seemed to be wildly off track. Below, you see our best attempt to record, overtalking be damned, where the exchange went from there.

Instant disclosure! In large part, this is the way the world starts to look when things have fallen apart:

NOEM (as shown above): Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their right to—

HASSAN: No, let me stop you, ma'am==

NOEM: —and suspend their right to—

HASSAN: Habeas corpus— Excuse me. That's incorrect.

NOEM: President Lincoln used it—

HASSAN: Ah—excuse me...

At that point, Senator Hassan offered a fairly lengthy disquisition in which she answered her own original question. Eventually, Noem offered this:

"I support habeas corpus. I also recognize that the president of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not."

"It has never been done without approval from Congress," Senator Hassan then said. She was thinking back to the day when this country still had a Congress!

(To watch the tape of this sad event, you can just click here.)

Personally, we wish Hassan had let Noem answer the original question without interruption. At the point where Hassan broke in, the secretary's presentation seemed to be crazily wrong. It would have been instructive to see where Noem's fuller answer would have gone. 

Today, Noem's answer is being mocked all over Blue America. We think it would have been better if she'd been allowed to finish her statement, which, as it started out, seemed to be crazily wrong.

That said, we smarter people have a tendency to break in on the stumblebums. And uh-oh:

As of today, we've rather plainly reached the point where the stumblebums have decided that the time has come to fight back.

Some are genuine stumblebums; others are merely pretending. We'd assume that Secretary Rubio was representing the latter camp when he went on in the ridiculous manner shown below at a different Senate hearing.

Senator Van Hollen (D-MD) kept asking Rubio about the detention of Rumeyza Ozturk, the graduate student at Tufts who was snatched off the street and shipped to Louisiana for the offense of having co-authored an opinion column in a student newspaper. 

Van Hollen kept asking about Ozturk. In a type of silent secession, Rubio kept refusing to answer:

RUBIO (5/20/25): If you tell me that you’re coming to the United States to lead campus crusades, to take over libraries and burn down buildings and commit acts of violence, we’re not going to let that happen.

VAN HOLLEN: Is that what Ms. Ozturk did? Is that what she did?

RUBIO: We’re not going to allow that—

VAN HOLLEN: Come on, Mr. Secretary, you’re just blowing smoke here now.

RUBIO: —and every single one of these [UNINTELLIGIBLE]— The bottom line is, if you’re coming here to stir up trouble on our campuses, we will deny you a visa. And if you have a visa, we’ll revoke it.

VAN HOLLEN: Does the First Amendment not apply in the United States?

RUBIO: And we’re going to do more! There are more coming. We’re going to continue to revoke the visas of people who are here as guests and are disrupting our higher education facilities. People are paying money—these kids pay money to go to school, and they have to walk through a bunch of lunatics who are here on—

VAN HOLLEN: Writing an op-ed for the student newspapers is disrupting the foreign policy of the United States? 

RUBIO: I want to do more. I hope we can find more of these people.

VAN HOLLEN: That’s pathetic, Mr. Secretary!

RUBIO: In fact, the other day—the other day, some guys led a riot. I forgot what university it was. And I asked, "Please, can you find the arrest records of all the people that were arrested at that riot, at that campus?" Because if any of them have a visa, we’re going to revoke them.

Van Hollen was right; Rubio's relentless evasion truly was pathetic. But that's the way the world starts to look when things have fallen apart.

(To watch the videotape, click here.)

Van Hollen kept asking about the seizure of Ozturk. Rubio simply chose to rant about a different set of possible circumstances.

In a type of silent secession, he was refusing to submit to questioning from an agent of the former ruling tribe. That too is the way the world looks when things have fallen apart.

We would assume that Rubio was merely pretending to be a stumblebum during that non-exchange. To see how horrible a secession of that type can look, you should just take a look at the tape.

Hoe else can it look when things fall apart?  It's as we noted in yesterday's report:

Over the weekend, the sitting president of the United States crazily returned to the ancient story in which Bill and Hillary Clinton were involved in a long string of murders.

On its face, that post was a manifestation of madness. So was what the gentleman told a joint session of Congress in this year's version of the State of the Union Address.

It's been a while since we posted the text. Here's the crazy presentation the president made in March, when the whole world was watching:

PRESIDENT TRUMP (3/4/25): We’re also identifying shocking levels of incompetence and probable fraud in the Social Security program for our seniors and that our seniors and people that we love rely on.  Believe it or not, government databases list 4.7 million Social Security members from people aged 100 to 109 years old.

It lists 3.6 million people from ages 110 to 119.  I don’t know any of them.  I know some people that are rather elderly, but not quite that elderly.  

(LAUGHTER) 

3.47 million people from ages 120 to 129.  3.9 million people from ages 130 to 139.

3.5 million people from ages 140 to 149. And money is being paid to many of them, and we’re searching right now. 

In fact, Pam [Bondi], good luck.  Good luck.  You’re going to find it.

But a lot of money is paid out to people because it just keeps getting paid and paid, and nobody does—and it really hurts Social Security and hurts our country.

1.3 million people from ages 150 to 159.  And over 130,000 people, according to the Social Security databases, are age over 160 years old.  

We have a healthier country than I thought, Bobby [Kennedy Jr.]. 

(LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)

Including, to finish, 1,039 people between the ages of 220 and 229; one person between the age of 240 and 249; and one person is listed at 360 years of age—

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Joe Biden!  

(LAUGHTER)

THE PRESIDENT: —more than 100 years older than our country. 

Did the president really believe what he seemed to be saying, or was he just pretending that night? How about the various stumblebums who sat in the chamber and laughed?

On its face, what he said that night was a manifestation of madness. Arguably, his post about the Clintons' large number of murders was even crazier still.

Question: 

Ten weeks later, have you ever seen a major news org pursue what the president said back in March? Have you seen a serious inquiry from any journalist or any news org as to why he said what he said?

Similarly, have you seen a major news org ask why he offered last weekend's post about the Clintons' many murders? Such conduct seems to be a form of madness. Have you seen anyone ask what such bizarre conduct might mean?

The silence of those major orgs could also be seen as madness. The silence those orgs agree to maintain is one more way the world can look when things have fallen apart.

We offer this to raise a question— a question which is still going unasked. We referred to the question yesterday. That question would be this:

Is something wrong with President Trump? What explains the apparent madness of this powerful person?

By now, that's a fairly obvious question. When our news orgs keep refusing to ask it, that suggests that things have already fallen apart.

Yesterday, we offered this comparison:

As a general matter, our major news orgs failed to ask if something was wrong with President Biden. They're now adopting the same stance with respect to President Trump! 

For today, we want to establish one point:

Almost surely, whatever is wrong with President Trump differs from what was apparently wrong with President Biden.

President Biden seems to have suffered a substantial cognitive decline. Whatever is wrong with President Trump—whatever may explain his peculiar behavior— we'll guess that it's something different.

That said, something seems to be wrong with President Trump—but so what? Our big news orgs are avoiding the topic, as they did in the case of President Biden.

Meanwhile, the sitting president's apparent madness is leading a revolt from below. The stumblebums are on the march. Some of them are genuine stumblebums, some are merely pretending. 

A type of silent secession is underway. Rubio's refusal to answer—his version of that silent secession—could hardly have been more clear.

The current president's behavior seems to be characterized by strong elements of madness. Of course, it's always possible that he's just faking. Arguably, that would be a type of madness too.

Something seems to be wrong with the president. That post about the Clintons was madness. So too when our major news orgs agree to avert their gaze.

For the record, nothing is going to change this. These are the ways the world starts to look when a society loses its secret sauce—when things have fallen apart.

Tomorrow: "Wrestler" locks Comey up

TUESDAY: Mayor Baraka freed from chains!

TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2025

Rep. McIver charged: As it turns out, it looks like Mayor Baraka may not have "trespassed" at all.

We refer to the events which transpired at Newark's Delaney Hall Detention Center back on Friday, May 9. All in all, no clear account of what took place has yet emerged. 

As you may recall, here' how the events were described by the spokesperson for Homeland Security on that very day:

Members of Congress Break into Delaney Hall Detention Center

Delaney Hall Currently Holds Murderers, Rapists, Suspected Terrorists, and Gang Members

NEWARK, NJ –Today, as a bus of detainees was entering the security gate of Delaney Hall Detention Center, a group of protestors, including two members of the U.S. House of Representatives, stormed the gate and broke into the detention facility. Representatives Robert Menendez, Jr. and Bonnie Watson Coleman and multiple protestors are holed up in a guard shack, the first security check point. 

“Members of Congress storming into a detention facility goes beyond a bizarre political stunt and puts the safety of our law enforcement agents and detainees at risk. Members of Congress are not above the law and cannot illegally break into detention facilities. Had these members requested a tour, we would have facilitated a tour of the facility. This is an evolving situation,” said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. 

For the record, that's the way a press release looks when things are falling apart.

Did two [sic] members of Congress actually "storm the gate and break into the detention facility?" At some point, were the pair really "holed up in a guard shack, the first security check point?" 

By now, all such claims are gone, long gone. Except on the Fox News Channel, so is the remarkable statement McLaughlin made to CNN on Saturday morning, May 10:

DHS spokesperson threatens arrests of House Democrats who were at N.J. ICE facility

[...]

“We actually have body camera footage of some of these members of Congress assaulting our ICE enforcement officers, including body-slamming a female ICE officer,” McLaughlin said.

Some of the members of Congress had even been captured on tape "body-slamming a female ICE officer! Given the chance to sleep on her claims, that's what McLaughlin now said.

This very morning, news reader Madeline Rivera was still citing that non-existent "body slam" on Fox & Friends. Rivera was attempting or pretending to describe the conduct of Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ), who has now been charged with assault.

"DHS says video shows her shoving and body slamming an officer. You can see her there in the red." So said Rivera, who doesn't normally say things like that. 

On the video which was playing, you could indeed see Rep. McIver wearing red. But you could see no one being "body slammed," and that implausible claim seems to have disappeared from all other parts of the world.

That said, it has now been announced that Mayor Baraka will not be charged with trespassing. That suggests the possibility that he never trespassed at all.

Rep. McIver has been charged with assault, apparently for allegedly "shoving" an officer. Videotape remains quite sketchy—but what actually happened that day?

What actually happened? You can't find out from the report which appeared in today's New York Times. The basic chronology is thoroughly jumbled. For example, riddle us this:

Rep. McIver Charged With Assault Over Clash Outside Newark ICE Center

[...]

Ms. McIver and the two other lawmakers—Representatives Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez—have pushed back against the Trump administration’s contention that the legislators stormed into the detention center. The federal government’s narrative has also been contradicted by video footage and by witnesses who were at the scene.

The lawmakers visited the detention center on May 9 to conduct an oversight visit. They said that they were allowed inside to tour the 1,000-bed facility, which opened this month amid resistance from local officials who are opposed to President Trump’s deportation efforts.

Ms. McIver and the other lawmakers, as well as the mayor’s supporters, formed a physical circle around Mr. Baraka, video shows, leading to jostling and a confusing scrum that the Trump administration has sought to cast as a violent mob attack on federal officers. Federal officials arrested Mr. Baraka and charged him with trespassing, a misdemeanor; Mr. Baraka had said he was being selectively prosecuted.

Say what? Let's run through that again:

The three lawmakers said that they were allowed inside to tour the 1,000-bed facility. Ms. McIver and the other lawmakers, as well as the mayor’s supporters, formed a physical circle around Mr. Baraka.

Is that a news report, or is it perhaps a dream sequence? It almost seems that several paragraphs are missing from that chronology.

First, the lawmakers are allowed inside the facility—then they're forming a circle around the mayor? Where was this second bit of conduct occurring? How did the three lawmakers come into contact with the mayor? Why were they forming that circle?

In that passage, the Times describes an indecipherable chain of events. This is the sort of thing that happens when a society is falling apart.

Briefly, let's review:

Initially, McLaughlin said the three lawmakers stormed the gates and broke into the facility. Oddly, none of the three have been charged for any such offense.

That may be because no such behavior ever occurred. Except on the Fox News Channel, that "body slam" has also disappeared.

(Were they ever "holed up in a guard shack?" We'd be willing to take a guess.)

That said, on May 9, 10 and 11, the three members appeared on a series of cable news shows to describe what did occur. On May 9, Rep. Menendez appeared on Deadline: White House. You can see the videotape of his appearance by clicking here.

As you'll see, Rep. Menendez told Nicole Wallace that, at the start of the day's events, the three congressional reps had been allowed inside the facility. They had then been left sitting in a room, alone, for something like an hour and a half. 

According to Menendez, they began to feel that they were being stonewalled. According to Menendez, it was only after that initial chunk of time that the other events occurred.

Two days later, on CNN's State of the Union, this exchange occurred:

BASH (5/11/25): Congresswoman Watson Coleman, just to be clear, the tour came after that confrontation?

REP. WATSON COLEMAN: The tour came after the confrontation, even though we were there almost two hours before the confrontation took place. But ICE kept giving us the run-around and kept saying that they needed to talk to someone else.

According to the members' account. they got the run-around for almost two hours, then the confrontation occurred. After the confrontation—even after the body slam!—they were then invited back into the building and, a bit like Gilligan himself, were finally given a tour.

What actually happened on that day? If you watch Fox & Friends, that body slam on a female officer is still part of the tribal fun. If you read the New York Times, you still have no idea.

As for Mclaughlin, her initial statements seem to have come from the land of Crackpot and Crazy. but also from La-La Land. These are the sorts of reports the public receives when things are rapidly falling apart and journalists are refusing to notice.

President Trump has been revisiting the Clintons' many murders. McLaughlin is speaking the language of body slams.

It's hard to decipher the New York Times, but very few readers will notice. As a matter of pure anthropology, we humans aren't built for this type of work, and we never were.

FALLING APART: They didn't ask about President Biden!

TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2025

So too with President Trump: Friend, is the United States on the verge of becoming "a pitiful, helpless giant?"

On April 30, 1970, President Nixon said we were no such thing. In this morning's New York Times, Kyle Chan doesn't seem real sure.

Chan is "a postdoctoral researcher at Princeton who focuses on technology and industrial policy in China." In his guest essay in the Times, he offers this gloomy assessment:

In the Future, China Will Be Dominant. The U.S. Will Be Irrelevant.

For years, theorists have posited the onset of a “Chinese century”: a world in which China finally harnesses its vast economic and technological potential to surpass the United States and reorient global power around a pole that runs through Beijing.

That century may already have dawned, and when historians look back they may very well pinpoint the early months of President Trump’s second term as the watershed moment when China pulled away and left the United States behind.

[...]

[China] leads global production in multiple industries—steel, aluminum, shipbuilding, batteries, solar power, electric vehicles, wind turbines, drones, 5G equipment, consumer electronics, active pharmaceutical ingredients and bullet trains. It is projected to account for 45 percent—nearly half—of global manufacturing by 2030. Beijing is also laser-focused on winning the future: In March it announced a $138 billion national venture capital fund that will make long-term investments in cutting-edge technologies such as quantum computing and robotics, and increased its budget for public research and development.

[..]

Yet Mr. Trump remains fixated on tariffs. He doesn’t even seem to grasp the scale of the threat posed by China...

And so on from there.

Are we various American tribes on our way to "pitiful, helpless giant" status? Presumably, that's one of the possibilities. 

Presumably, better possibilities also exist. 

Meanwhile, it's as we noted yesterday. The man in charge was busy last weekend producing such undisguised madness as this:

Trump Posts Wild Video Full of Murder Conspiracy Theories...

President Donald Trump on Saturday shared a video pushing a long-debunked conspiracy theories about Bill and Hillary Clinton—as well as other Democrats—being the murderous forces behind multiple deaths.

The video, posted to his Truth Social account without comment, listed several individuals and implied they died under suspicious circumstances connected to the Clintons.

It is titled “THE VIDEO HILLARY CLINTON DOES NOT WANT YOU TO SEE.”

The madness of this presentation is thoroughly hard to miss. Today, we'll offer even more detail from the Mediaite report:

Trump’s Trump War Room account on X also shared the video...

Those featured in the clip included John F. Kennedy Jr., Vince Foster, and Seth Rich, among others.

The clip began with JFK Jr., who died in a 1999 plane crash. The NTSB ruled that the deadly crash pilot error. Trump’s video notes that Hillary Clinton won her New York Senate seat after his death.

Next up was Mary Mahoney, a White House intern who was murdered in a 1997 robbery. Her killer confessed and was not connected to the Clintons.

The clip then moved on to longtime Clinton ally Foster, who died by suicide in 1993. Multiple investigations confirmed his death was indeed by his own hand.

The video went on to cast doubt on the deaths of James McDougal, Walter Schieb, and Shawn Lucas.

Trump’s video presented the deaths in a sequence while implying a coordinated cover-up. All cases were investigated and attributed to natural causes, suicide, accidents, or unrelated crimes.

The video Trump shared has circulated for years in fringe circles despite being discredited. The same clip was shared on an Instagram page with 3,700 followers just a few weeks before Trump boosted it again Saturday.

The so-called “Clinton body count” conspiracy theory has been debunked over and over, but has permeated online for years.

This madness dates at least to 1994—to Rush Limbaugh's attempt to convince Red America that Hillary Clinton had been involved in the death of Vince Foster, which Limbaugh fashioned as an apparent murder. 

Before long, the amazingly pious Reverend Falwell was involved in this gruesome misconduct. We recall the evening in the late 1990s when Geraldo Rivera, then a Clinton defender, absolved Reverend Falwell of guilt for this conduct on Rivera's nightly CNBC program.

These claims have been debunked a million times, but the lunacy has lived on. The promulgation of these claims has long qualified as the definition of obvious crackpot behavior.

As of now, this insane behavior comes from this nation's sitting president—and the major players in the mainstream press corps have agreed, as they've done so many times, that they should avert their gaze.

In fairness, let's be fair! As we noted yesterday, the president's behavior was so crazy in this instance that the Washington Post even took notice. To peruse the Post's report about this madness, you can just click here. You will be taken to a report which appears beneath this headline:

Trump peddles false conspiracy theories tying Clintons to several deaths

Several deaths? We're counting at least seven! But so the madness goes as the world continues to turn, perhaps in the direction of an all-new Chinese century.

To its credit, the Post reported this instance of the ongoing madness. That said, across Blue America's major news orgs, this latest example of madness has occasioned no discussion. Our lords and ladies have agreed, once again, that Homey don't play it that way.

Why in the world would a sitting president engage in such ludicrous conduct? Two obvious possibilities come to mind, neither of which is encouraging:

Two major possibilities:

Possibility One: In a moment of overnight madness, President Trump actually believed the truth, or the possible truth, of the lunacy he was reposting.

Possibility Two: President Trump knew that the claims in question were madness. He simply chose to repost this madness as a distraction, or as a source of excitement—as a way of exciting a certain segment of his base.

Does the sitting president believe the various crazy things he says? We have no way of knowing. 

In this case, if he was merely trying to excite a certain type of voter, it's clear that his effort succeeded. Here's how things went on Monday morning, during Karoline Leavitt's latest imitation of a White House news briefing:

‘New Media’ Reporter Goes on Long Rant About ‘Clinton Body Count’, Confronts Karoline Leavitt on Epstein Files

After White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s opening announcements in Monday morning’s briefing, she opened the floor to questions and first called upon Liam Cosgrove of Zero Hedge. Cosgrove began his second question with a tangent about the “Clinton body count” theory—a conspiracy theory that suggests dozens of deaths over the last few decades were actually the handiwork of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. Believers in the theory claim the Clintons have been eliminating political opponents for years. Cosgrove brought up the theory after President Donald Trump posted a video about it.

[...]

Leavitt deferred to the Justice Department before moving on to other questions.

The imitation of a press secretary called on an imitation of a journalist. In that passage, you're reading a description of one of the ways things have been falling apart.

(Also, the Epstein files! Let's not leave them out!)

Quite rapidly, adherence to rational conduct is falling apart at the dawn of this new Chinese century. The madness starts with the sitting president, then spreads quickly from there.

How did it ever get this far? In the past, we've cited the so-called "democratization media"—the development of technologies which make "every man [sic] a king" in the realm of mass promulgation of claims, assessments and views.

We've also mentioned the corporate journalistic practice described as "segregation by viewpoint"—the destructive practice in which major news orgs exist to promulgate only one set of tribal claims and views.

In thrall to these developments, the madness spreads quickly and well. With respect to this latest event, one obvious question remains:

Is something wrong with President Trump? No really—is something wrong with a major figure who would engage in such ludicrous conduct?

Why does this powerful person engage in such obvious madness? Here in Blue America, our major news orgs—our journalistic stars—have agreed that this blindingly obvious question must never be asked.

Was something wrong with President Biden? It's being said, perhaps with reason, that our major orgs walked away from that important question when they should have asked.

Is something wrong with President Trump? It's the world's most obvious question, and they're taking a dive there too.

Things are falling apart as we speak! Our major stars, who aren't all that sharp, are averting their gaze again.

Tomorrow: Tub of lard sounds off

MONDAY: Is Dr. Durrani allowed to say that?

MONDAY, MAY 19, 2025 

What Dr. Durrani said: For the record, Dr. Aqsa Durrani is a board member of Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières). The leading authority on the group offers this overview:

Médecins Sans Frontières

Médecins Sans Frontières, known in some English-speaking settings as Doctors Without Borders, is a charity that provides humanitarian medical care. It is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) of French origin known for its projects in conflict zones and in countries affected by endemic diseases...In 2019, the charity was active in 70 countries with over 35,000 personnel; mostly local doctors, nurses and other medical professionals, logistical experts, water and sanitation engineers, and administrators. Private donors provide about 90% of the organisation's funding, while corporate donations provide the rest, giving MSF an annual budget of approximately US$1.63 billion.

MSF was founded in 1971, in the aftermath of the Biafran famine of the Nigerian Civil War, by a small group of French doctors and journalists who sought to expand accessibility to medical care across national boundaries and irrespective of race, religion, creed or political affiliation....

All the way back to Biafra! And so on, at length, from there.

Dr. Durrani is "a physician and epidemiologist specializing in public health emergency response and health in fragile settings." As noted, she's a member of the MSF board. 

(She graduated from NYU in 2006. After that, she earned her M.D. at the University of Illinois. She holds a master's degree in Public Health from the University of Pennsylvania.)

Dr. Durrani appeared on Morning Joe last Wednesday morning. "She just returned to the U.S. from an assignment in Gaza, working at a field hospital," Mika Brzezinski said.

"Thank you so much for coming on the show," Mika said. "Can you tell us what you saw in that hospital?"

You can watch the entire segment (ten minutes) simply by clicking this. Within the context of American news, Dr. Durrani's testimony was unusual but also quite striking.

At roughly the five-minute mark, the unusual statements begin. Dr. Durrani describes conduct she regards as "criminal"—conduct in which he accuses one major entity of using "aid as a bargaining chip" and "starvation as a weapon of war."

We weren't there to see what she saw in Gaza. In the main, we were struck by how rare it is to see someone on a major news program describing the kinds of experiences Dr. Durrani has recently had. 

Through the use of chyrons, Morning Joe linked her appearance to a news report in the New York Times, a report which started like this:

In Private, Some Israeli Officers Admit That Gaza Is on the Brink of Starvation

Some Israeli military officials have privately concluded that Palestinians in Gaza face widespread starvation unless aid deliveries are restored within weeks, according to three Israeli defense officials familiar with conditions in the enclave.

For months, Israel has maintained that its blockade on food and fuel to Gaza did not pose a major threat to civilian life in the territory, even as the United Nations and other aid agencies have said a famine was looming.

But Israeli military officers who monitor humanitarian conditions in Gaza have warned their commanders in recent days that unless the blockade is lifted quickly, many areas of the enclave will likely run out of enough food to meet minimum daily nutritional needs, according to the defense officials. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to share sensitive details.

Because it takes time to scale up humanitarian deliveries, the officers said that immediate steps were needed to ensure that the system to supply aid could be reinstated fast enough to prevent starvation.

And so on from there. In print editions, the report appeared on the Times' front page that day.

What's actually happening in Gaza? Within the context of American news, an obvious question comes to mind:

Is Dr. Durrani allowed to say the things she said? 

Apparently, the answer is yes. Having said that, we'll also ask this:

How often do you even see such topics get discussed?

We've seen no follow-up discussion. Under somewhat familiar rules of the game, Dr. Durrani's testimony basically came and went. 

FALLING APART: Return of the Clintons' many murders!

MONDAY, MAY 19, 2025

Obama should go on trial! Last Friday, President Trump returned from his trip on the world's most embarrassing aircraft.

Despite the transportation shortfall, the administration was hailing the Middle East trip as a large success. In Yesterday's print editions, the New York Times offered this overview:

For Trump, Adulation and No Risk of Protests Made the Gulf a Dream Trip

[...]

If President Trump has been dogged at home by backlash over his tariff policies, protests over his immigration crackdown and questions over his ethics, a week in the Arabian Peninsula produced nothing but wins for the president.

“The last four days have been really amazing,” Mr. Trump said on Thursday, as he was leaving a palace in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, where he had just been feted. He added, looking rueful, “Probably going back to Washington, D.C., tomorrow.”

[...]

Mr. Trump was able to announce what he said was more than $2 trillion in economic investments between the United States and the three nations he visited: Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, each longtime purchasers of American military equipment.

Mr. Trump said that the investments from those three nations could reach as high as $4 trillion—roughly the size of all their sovereign wealth funds combined. While much of that total comes in the form of long-term pledges that may or may not materialize and counts some deals that were already underway, leaders of the gulf nations were all too happy to supply Mr. Trump with the eye-popping figures.

Say what? The president was taking credit for "deals that were already underway?" 

In this report, the Washington Post went into detail about what it called the "fuzzy math." (Headline: "Trump is taking credit for Middle East deals that predate his presidency.") 

According to the Washington Post, the president was taking credit for deals which were made in the Biden years! But even the Times, in its news report, seemed to say, in its own voice, that the trip to the Middle East had produced "nothing but wins for the president." 

Even stuck on a puddle-jumper, the president was returning as a classic conquering hero. But at that point, sure enough:

Things began falling apart.

It was Yeats who first noticed this world-wide tendency—a tendency which experts link to the way we humans are wired. 

It was Yeats who said that things fall apart. Way back at the dawn of time, the poet reported this:

The Second Coming

Turning and turning in the widening gyre   
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   
The ceremony of innocence is drowned...

"Surely some revelation is at hand," the poet said moments later. But in our world, Blue America's finer people refuse to report the ceremonies in which an obvious type of anarchy is being loosed on the world.

According to some medical specialists, the president's wiring is especially suspect. On the other hand, so what? Employees on the Fox News Channel can be counted on to repeat whatever the president says.

The New York Times and the Washington Post agree to look avert their gaze from these manifestations. But as the conquering hero returned, things began falling apart, in the familiar old way, all over again.

In ways the finer people refuse to discuss, ancient furies were bubbling up within the monarch again. Because our major news organs have agreed not to report "the dark encroachment of that old catastrophe"—have agreed to pretend there's nothing to look at—we'll link you to a set of reports from the people at Mediaite.

The president was a conquering hero, but a certain intensity quickly returned. In some ways, this intensity can almost seem to be understandable—but good God! By Sunday, he was offering this:

Trump Shares Post Suggesting Obama Should Face a Military Tribunal

President Donald Trump shared a post on his Truth Social account on Sunday that suggested former President Barack Obama should face a “public” military tribunal.

Trump amplified a post, originally from the user @SpiritualStreetfighter that featured an image of Trump alongside then-President Barack Obama in the Oval Office following the 2016 election.

The image was captioned: “ALL ROADS LEAD TO OBAMA… RETRUTH IF YOU WANT PUBLIC MILITARY TRIBUNALS.”

According to the sitting president, Barack Obama should face a tribunal. The nature of the gentleman's offense went completely unmentioned in this peculiar post.

So the conquering hero posted as of Sunday morning. The previous day, even more incredibly, the president had posted this:

Trump Posts Wild Video Full of Murder Conspiracy Theories—With Absolutely No Explanation

President Donald Trump on Saturday shared a video pushing a long-debunked conspiracy theories about Bill and Hillary Clinton—as well as other Democrats—being the murderous forces behind multiple deaths.

The video, posted to his Truth Social account without comment, listed several individuals and implied they died under suspicious circumstances connected to the Clintons.

It is titled “THE VIDEO HILLARY CLINTON DOES NOT WANT YOU TO SEE.”

[...]

The video Trump shared has circulated for years in fringe circles despite being discredited. The same clip was shared on an Instagram page with 3,700 followers just a few weeks before Trump boosted it again Saturday.

The so-called “Clinton body count” conspiracy theory has been debunked over and over, but has permeated online for years.

Good God! This squalor dates all the way back to the mid-1990s—to the days when the very pious Reverend Falwell was selling his Clinton Chronicles tape.

The insanity in this post was so vast that the Washington Post even reported it, under this headline: "Trump peddles false conspiracy theories tying Clintons to several deaths." To peruse the Post's report about this madness, you can just click here.

In that post, President Trump was actually trying to bring the death of Vince Foster back! Five (5) investigations had all concluded that Foster's death—in July 1993!—had in fact been a suicide. 

But now, some 32 years later, President Trump was bringing it back. Also, he was trying to tie the villainous Clintons to a long string of other deaths.

The Clintons have murdered a long list of people. President Obama should be frog-marched away. 

That said, the fury wasn't restricted to former presidents. Mediaite also puzzled over what this bit of fury could mean:

Trump Threatens ABC Over Coverage of Qatar Jet: I’m Warning These ‘Sleazebags’

President Donald Trump is threatening ABC News over its coverage of the $400 million plane gifted to the Defense Department by the royal family of Qatar.

[...]

Trump claims the network has falsely reported that the plane has been given to him personally.

“The wonderful country of Qatar, after agreeing to invest more than 1.4 Trillion Dollars in the United States of America, deserves much better than Misleading (Fake!) News,” Trump wrote. “Everyone, including their lawyers, has been told that ABC must not say that Qatar is giving ME a FREE Boeing 747 Airplane, because they are not. Instead, and as Fake News ABC fully knows and understands, this highly respected country is donating the plane to the United States Air Force/ Defense Department, AND NOT TO ME. By so doing, they are saving our country, and the American Taxpayer, hundreds of millions of dollars. ABC Fake News is one of the WORST.”

Trump did not specifically point to any coverage that has stated the plane was being given to him personally. ABC’s Jon Karl and Katherine Faulders originally broke the story on May 11. Its language in that report reflected that the plane was being gifted to the Defense Department.

And so on from there. 

Is all this fury a version of the "passionate intensity" about which Yeats spoke? In fact, we're barely scratching the surface of the meltdowns experienced by the conquering hero upon his triumphant return. 

This brings back a very old question back:

Might something be wrong with this man?

Is something wrong with President Trump? If so, that would be a human tragedy—a tragic loss of human potential, as is always true in matters of this possible type. Nor is the president the only person in the current panorama of whom that question might sensibly be asked.

That said, could something be wrong with President Trump? It now seems that something was wrong with President Biden. How about with President Trump?

The New York Times and the Washington Post refuse to consider that possibility. The stars of Blue America's cable news programs also refuse to go there in a serious way. 

In the silence these players maintain, are they part of the way things are falling apart—in the way "the center" is transparently failing to hold?

The best lack all conviction, Yeats said. Could this be what he meant?

We'll spend the week attempting to describe the various ways the center is failing to hold.

This falling apart does involve President Trump, but it also involves a wide range of others. That includes office holders, journalists and academics from within the ranks of Blue America. In our view, it suggests an obvious possibility:

The possibility that we the humans, in the end, simply weren't built for this work.

When President Trump returned from his trip, the madness started again. This apparent madness has been relentlessly normalized by a wide array of us Blues.

The madness is at the Fox News Channel. It may even infest the president's oldest son.

Are we Blues a part of this too? This is simply the way our species is wired, major top experts insist.

Tomorrow: Comey rides again

This just in: Late last night, the president added this:

Trump Demands ‘Major Investigation’ Into Springsteen, Beyoncé, Oprah for Backing Kamala Harris: ‘CORRUPT & UNLAWFUL!’

President Donald Trump has called for a “major investigation” into Bruce Springsteen night after the rock legend delivered a scathing critique of the president during his UK tour.

In a Truth Social post late Sunday night, Trump accused Springsteen of having been paid by former Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris for a campaign performance and endorsement – without offering any evidence.

Trump also floated similar claims about Beyoncé, Oprah Winfrey, and U2 frontman Bono, all of whom publicly supported Harris or the Democrats during the 2024 election.

And so on from there. For better or worse, he wants Oprah poked and prodded too! 

For the record, we Blues have been part of this societal disintegration too. We'll try to get to all these points as the week proceeds. For now, we'll only offer this:

Spirit of The Great [secular] Awakening, please don't fail us now!

 

SATURDAY: Springsteen and Comey keep making things worse!

SATURDAY, MAY 17, 2025

But mainly, those tapes of President Biden: Long ago and far away—it was July 11, 2022—Michelle Goldberg wrote a column expressing the view found right there in her headline:

Joe Biden Is Too Old to Be President Again

President Biden was too old to run for a second term!

Repeat: It was July 2022. President Biden had been in office for only eighteen months, but here's the way Goldberg described him:

As a recent New York Times/Siena College poll found, 64 percent of Democrats want a different presidential nominee in 2024. Those Democrats cite Biden’s age more than any other factor, though job performance is close behind. Their concern isn’t surprising. Biden has always been given to gaffes and malapropisms, but there is a painful suspense in watching him speak now, like seeing someone wobble on a tightrope. (Some of his misspeaking can be explained by the stutter he overcame as a child, but not all.) His staff often seems to be keeping him out of view; as The Times reported, he’s participated “in fewer than half as many news conferences or interviews as recent predecessors.”

For the record:

In that Times/Siena poll, only three percent of Democrats who wanted a different candidate were said to have cited Biden's "mental acuity" as the reason for their view.

(33 percent of such Democrats were said to have cited his age. 32 percent were said to have cited his job performance.)

At that point, only three percent of dissatisfied Dems cited "mental acuity." That said, Goldberg's description seemed to suggest that she was already seeing some such problem on the relatively rare occasions when President Biden appeared in public.

In February 2023, Goldberg revisited this topic. This time, she displayed a remarkably upbeat tone—but once again, she said he shouldn't run:

Biden’s a Great President. He Should Not Run Again.

When President Biden gives his State of the Union address on Tuesday, he will have a lot to boast about.

He’s presided over record job creation and the lowest unemployment rate in over 50 years. Whereas Donald Trump’s infrastructure weeks were a running joke, Biden signed the largest infusion of federal funds into infrastructure in more than a decade. His Inflation Reduction Act made a historic investment in clean energy; the head of the International Energy Agency called it the most important climate action since the 2015 Paris climate accord. (And incidentally, inflation is finally coming down.)...

Biden can also take a victory lap for Trump’s declining influence. ...[T]he loss of Trumpist candidates like Arizona’s Kari Lake and Georgia’s Herschel Walker in 2022 convinced many Republicans they need to move on from their onetime hero.

Borrowing from Twain, rumors of Trump's "declining influence" turned out to be greatly exaggerated. So too with the way inflation seemed to be falling in line.

Also, President Biden was "slightly ahead [of Trump] in a hypothetical matchup," Goldberg added. But regarding the question of mental acuity, she was now saying this:

It’s hard to ignore the toll of Biden’s years, no matter how hard elected Democrats try. In some ways, the more sympathetic you are to Biden, the harder it can be to watch him stumble over his words, a tendency that can’t be entirely explained by his stutter. [Anti-Trump pollster Sarah] Longwell said Democrats in her focus group talked about holding their breath every time he speaks...

Biden was "slightly ahead [of Trump]," she accurately said. But by now, there were reports of horrified Democrats holding their breath whenever the president spoke.

We can't recall what we thought about this matter at that point in time. In August of 2023, we were shocked by the first speech President Biden gave at the site of the Hawaii fires.

From that point on, we found it hard to believe that he could stage a normal presidential campaign. In our view, Candidate Trump also seemed to be un-electable. We saw that as Blue America's principal hope.

That flickering hope crashed and burned at the June 2024 debate. At that event, Candidate Trump's performance was stunningly bad. It was hard to miss the fact that President Biden's performance was worse. 

Within a month, Biden was out and Harris was in. It was very late in the game, and the rest is electoral history.

This morning, Goldberg visits this topic again. Also, audiotapes are airing today. You can listen to them here. 

Those audiotapes are potent stuff. The highlighted parts of Goldberg's new column strike us as painfully accurate:

How Did So Many Elected Democrats Miss Biden’s Infirmity?

[...]

For many people, Republicans especially, the Democratic Party’s ongoing insistence that Biden was basically fine looks like a fraud committed against the electorate. In “Original Sin,” Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson’s explosive new book about Biden’s deterioration, they call the widespread refusal to admit how bad he had become a “cover-up.”

There was certainly some covering up going on, especially among Biden’s insular inner circle. But more than lying to the public about Biden’s increasing infirmity, I think too many Democrats were lying to themselves...

For the record, "frauds against the electorate" are committed on cable news programs on a daily basis. However, this possible fraud and cover-up is one that's easy to define and discuss. It may prove hard to wish away.

Is a knockout in our long tribal fight possibly lingering here? As those audiotapes get played—as Fox News Channel messengers deliver their channel's messaging—it seems to us that we denizens of Blue America may have lost a long stupid war in a way which may prove hard to reverse.

At the start of this morning's Fox & Friends Weekend, we saw a trio of friends playing those Biden audiotapes. It would be hard to disagree with the assessments they were offering.

Could this be a knock-out blow for us in Blue America? Norman O. Brown said it long ago as part of a Phi Beta Kappa address. We have no idea what he meant—except to the extent that we almost possibly might:

BROWN (5/31/60): I sometimes think I see that societies originate in the discovery of some secret, some mystery; and end in exhaustion when there is no longer any secret, when the mystery has been divulged, that is to say profaned...

And so there comes a time—I believe we are in such a time—when civilization has to be renewed by the discovery of some new mysteries, 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.

The power which makes all things new is magic. What our time needs is mystery: what our time needs is magic. Who would not say that only a miracle can save us?

Magic, don't fail us now!

Way back then, Professor Brown seemed to think that our civilization, such as it was, was somehow in the process of "ending in exhaustion." He said we needed to discover some secret, some new mystery, which would let us renew our societal quest.

That was then, and this is now—but that strikes us as a metaphor for the remarkably stupid tribal war in which we've been engaged for at least the past three decades. It seems to us that we Blues have utterly failed to create a new spark of life—a magical mystery which would let us move forward, as a people, in some new, renewed way.

The Springsteens and the Comeys just keep making things worse. There's simply no way to stop them! But on the whole, we anti-Trumpers aren't the brilliantly insightful people we've always claimed to be, and we never really were. 

Also, we seem to be completely unable to understand this fact about ourselves.

We Blues! It seems to us that things have changed. We may offer more detail about this gloomy perspective as we move down the road.

Frauds against the electorate are committed every day, but this apparent act of fraud hits quite close to home.  It's easy to hear on those audiotapes, and it's easy to explain. It may prove to be quite hard to cover up.

The current president may still wreck the economy in the coming year (or not). With recent norms all cast to the winds, we can't help thinking that even that wouldn't, in the end, be enough.

The lunacies come thick and fast, but the sitting president does have a story. It's hard to know where his conduct could take us, but our own tribe has little to say.