We're making a fortune. So if the Republicans win, you win with us and you get $5,000. It will be called the Trump Dividend. Congratulations.
Donald Trump at the GOP Midterm Convention.
A person would have to be stupid on stilts to believe that promise, and a similar one has been extended before.
Seriously, what kind of a dumbass believes anything Trump promises at this point?
The fact that the GOP is having a "Midterm" convention is itself an example of outright desperation and hubris on the part of Trump. Trump loves Trump and you must love Trump, so he's reminding you of Trump Love so that you love him and vote for the GOP candidates to show your mindless cult like love.
The fact of the matter is that everything associated with Trump is going badly and his approval ranking is sinking like a rock. In Wyoming it's down to 54% and the impact of the tariffs on Canada haven't even hit yet, much. The war hasn't ended, inflation is about to ramp back up, and Trump's own weirdness is now too weird for anyone to ignore. The result is that Democrats, who were slated to take back the House, now appear likely to take back the Senate as well. Even in Wyoming there's some hint that the Senate may be in play and it's clear that a large number of people really aren't keen on Chuck Gray, who has been pretty quiet since the primary.
Indeed, I've seen a little lashing out at John Barrasso, who isn't running for anything. Now days we mostly see Dr. John looking at Donald Trump as if he, Barrasso, is suffering from a severe case of constipation. He may be, as he's kept his true views on everything, none of which we know, bottled up inside of himself for so long. Anyhow, if people are mad at Barrasso, who seems to have forgotten which state he's from, it doesn't bode well for Hageman and Gray, although they are both clearly the favorites.
This does bring us to some questions that should be asked in the next two months, however. Those being:
1. Do you support the undeclared war against Iran, and if yes, how do you justify no declaration of war existing?
2. On data centers, a big deal here in Wyoming, are you against them like seemingly the majority of Wyomingites are, or for them, like Donald Trump is?
3. What is your position on public lands?
4. For people who go outside, there are clearly environmental matters to be concerned about. Do you have any concerns, and if no, just don't tell us "it's a big fib", as that's just telling us that you'll lie for votes. What is your justification?
5. Epstein files. Why aren't they being released.
6. What is your real plan for balancing the budget and addressing the debt and show us that it works.
7. Do you support ending the trade war with Canada?
A note, prior endorsements on running candidates are below. I'm doing that in this edition so as to not clog up the first part of it too much.
September 11, 2026
Two events occured yesterday which should; 1) cause a sane nation to invoke the 25th Amendment and 2) cause every Republican running for office to have to answer where they stand or never be voted on again.
The first.
Trump sworn his acolytes in so that they will be able to be called up as Long Knives to attack the upcoming Republican defeat in November.
It's not the pledge to go out and vote. Frankly, most MAGA isn't paying any attention this anyway.
It's the pledge to cheat.
Things Trump says cannot any longer be dismissed. People who think that one liner means nothing are ignoring recent history. He intends to steal the election. If he pulls that off, if he's still living and semi coherent, he intends to serve a third term.
The second was a truly bizarre video based on the Paul Harvey "God made farmers" video of years ago with a "God gave us Trump" theme.
This latches on to the extreme Evangelical leg of the MAGA stool. It would make most Christians of any branch absolutely cringe, and to claim a Divine mission like this may be very well blasphemous.
The questions that should be asked, and of any Republican candidate?
1. Will you support the results of the November election no matter what they are. If there's any hedging at all, tell the person they don't have your support for anything whatsoever.
2. Do you believe that Trump has a Divine mission? Any answer than an unqualified no should disqualify the candidate.
I can guarantee you that almost any GOP candidate, particularly if they don't know your view going into the question, will waffle and not give a straight answer.
Prior endorsements and race list:
And so we're off and running for the General Election, which in Wyoming's case means the election is pretty much over for the statewide races. Sure, the contest officially carries on, but chances are that the Republican nominees will take everything.
Still, this year, there's a chance, here and there. . .
So, our early predictions.*
Governor:
Republican. Eric Barlow
Barlow is a rancher, veterinarian, and long time legislature.
He's won this race and the General Election in this case is a mere formality.
Democrat. Kenneth Casner
75 year old making his third pointless bid for the Governor's office. He won't win, everyone knows he won't win, and he shouldn't be running.
Casner's appearance says something, however, about the state of the Democratic Party in Wyoming, and it's the opposite of what's happening in much of the rest of the country. In much of the country Democratic voters are rising up and tossing out geezer candidates, but in Wyoming the Democratic ranks are so depleted the Democrats are falling back on them, which is not a good sign.
Casner would have done his party a favor if he hadn't run.
Constitution Party: Rebecca Bextel.
The Constitution Party is a gadfly far right political party which was once the home of people who now populate the Wyoming Freedom Caucus. Indeed, it's their proper home, which shows in the one candidate of theirs which we know to exist, Rebecca Bextel.
The central figure in CheckGate, Bextel is flat out delusional and is running as she feared that Brent Bien would lose and there would not be any candidates running for the true interpretation of the Double Secret Constitution known only to the Wyoming Freedom Caucus. Bextel appears to seriously believe that Barlow could only win if vast hoards of Democrats, which don't exist in Wyoming crossed over to vote for Barlow and that in the general election the great mass of MAGA/WFC true believers will carry the day.
With the WFC having received a titanic dope slap in the primary, a rational person in her position would drop out. But then, running as a Constitution Party candidate shows demonstrated irrationality.
Endorsement: Barlow by far.
Secretary of State
Republican: Robert Short.
Short is an excellent choice and will take the office.
Democrat: Bryan McCarthy.
McCarty actually has an impressive business background and has worked as an auditor. He should be given credit for running, although he probably should have run for State Auditor.
He's going to lose and it's not even going to be close.
Endorsement: Robert Short.
State Auditor
Republican Kristi Racines won an uncontested Republican primary race and no Democrats ran.
State Treasurer
Curt Meier won his bid to run again in the primary for the Republicans and no Democrats ran.
Senator
Republican: Harriet Hageman.
63 (soon to be 64) year old incumbent Congressman with a terrible record on public lands who came up due to the "hate Cheney" wave two years ago. If she wins, she'll be 70 at the end of her first term.
Democrat: James Byrd.
72 year old former legislator, geophysicist, and businessman. Really impressive overall, but he is in his 70s.
This race features two candidates who are pushing what we regard age limits. Hageman is a nightmare of a candidate however.
Byrd actually stands a chance in this race, but it's a real uphill battle.
Endorsement: We won't vote for Hageman, which leaves Byrd the only realistic choice, and by and large he's a good one, but we aren't doing an endorsement yet.
House of Representatives
Republican: Chuck Gray
Gray is a carpetbagger about whom Wyomingites know utterly nothing, other than he's an adoring sycophant of Donald Trump, he sent Wyoming's voter rolls to the Federal Government illegally, he has a nasty public personality, and he's a Californian who went to Wharton. About him personally, we know utterly nothing.
Having received only 25% of the primary vote, his election to the House can't be assured.
Democrat: Lisa Kinney
About the worst candidate the Democrats could have chosen for this position, 75 year old Kinney can't win the office and is a remnant of an earlier era in more ways than one. Her being the nominee is a sign of the absolutely pathetic state of the Wyoming Democratic Party.
Libertarian: Shaun Johnson
Like the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party has become so obscure their state's organization doesn't even list their candidates. This is the only one we know to exist.
Johnson is a lawyer presently in Thermopolis. I don't think he stands a chance, but I'll note that former Wyoming legislator Tim Stubson, who once ran for Congress, has endorsed him, which shows the depth to which a lot of Republicans despise Chuck Gray.
Write In: Kevin Christensen?
A building movement to mount a write in campaign for Christensen, who ran in the GOP primary, exists. He came up late in the primary election and got 21,632 to Chuck's 31,222. While that's about 9,000 more votes, both Balow and Gilat, both seen as early possibilities for defeating Chuck, received over 10,000 votes. Even gadfly Reid Rasner received a little over 10,000 votes.
If we had Alaska's system, Christensen, along with Friess and Balow, would be on the election in the Fall. If we had the system in which the top two vote getters were on the ballot, Gray and Friess would be. Given all of this, there's a really strong indicator that many of those who voted for a candidate other than Gray would vote for Christensen.
Overall, therefore, this race remains in a state of flux while its seen if enough momentum can build up to create a write in campaign for Christensen against a well funded Chuck.
Endorsement: Kevin Christensen. I'm early in doing this, and I note that some disaffected Republicans are saying they'll vote for Kinney. But Kinney is at best a lesser of two evils.
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Republican: Steve Harshman
Harsham is a long time Wyoming educator from Natrona County who was in the legislature for many years. He's an excellent choice for this office.and he will win it.
Democrat: Ana Cordova.
Cordova won the contested Democratic primary. She's a Wyoming native and extremely well educated. She only returned to the state recently, however, and really has no chance in this race.
An old friend of mine who is a rancher has been somewhat active in this year's election cycle. He is, of course, a far right Republican.
I say of course as just about every rancher and farmer in Wyoming over the age of 40, and quite a few over the age of 35, are diehard right wing full blown MAGA Republicans. Below the age of 40 things start to change a lot. Most are Republicans, but a lot aren't diehard. They're Republicans the same way everyone in Wyoming is a Republican, pretty much. Generally conservative.
But above 40, they're in lockstep with Donald Trump.
My friend, this cycle, had a big Chuck Gray up near the DOT fence. This wasn't too surprising as his grandson works for Gray.* **
Well, now, all of a sudden the noted friend is posting on the disaster of letting foreign beef into the country. So are a bunch of other ranchers I know.
The Republican Party has been pretty much screwing ranchers and farmers since 1929. It was the Democrats who save farmers and ranchers during the Great Depression. Most small and mid sized ranches would have been utterly destroyed but for the Taylor Grazing Act.
The Trump Administration, for its part, looks at farmers and ranchers the way the Democrats once looked at African Americans, people who could reliably be counted on to vote for the party no matter what. In recent election cycles African Americans proved they were no longer reliable. So far, people in Agriculture aren't showing any thought at all.
Indeed, they're showing cognitive disconnected.
This morning I've seen all sorts of complaints from ranchers about how they're getting killed in this economy, as noted.
And now Trump's bringing in below market cost foreign beef.
No shit. YOU VOTED FOR IT.
Inflation, particularly of fuel, caused by Donald Trump's pet illegal war. The same with fertilizer costs.
WAKE THE CRAP UP.
The GOP is not coming to save you. It's coming to screw you.
Indeed, trade talks just broke off with Canada.
Double digit inflation, caused by a massive rise in energy costs, is about to occur.
Footnotes:
Gray has more affection for Trump than Natalie Harp and Melanija Knavs combined.
The grandson is an interesting case in and of himself. He's undoubtedly the first member of his extended family to go to university. He's in law school right now. He's also a diehard MAGA, and indeed, maybe even beyond that. Now the question of how that happens is another matter.
The common myth, and it is a myth, about young people in conservative homes is that they go to college, where they lose all of their values, and their faith, emerging hardcore screaming liberals if not Bolsheviks. This is, it is believed, because they're indoctrinated in college by leftist professors.
It's largely bull and in the scientific disciplines definitely bull. Majors in geology, for example, aren't going to have time for liberal indoctrination.
For that matter, majors in English probably don't either.
So what's going on here.
Well, a person from a really conservative Protestant background may in fact find a lot of what they learn in college shocking. The Earth isn't 5,000 years old. Evolution isn't a fib. Conquering the West wasn't bringing enlightenment to an oppressed people and, in fact, some of those being conquered where already Christian. The US isn't bestowed by God with a new Israelite like mission, and for that matter, the modern state of Israel does some outright horrible things.
Faced with that onslaught, young people are in fact faced with the choice of accepting that Pastor Jim back at his own do it yourself Evangelical Church is flat out wrong on a lot of stuff, and Mom and Dad are ignorant, or concluding that everything they're being taught is a fib.
Most will conclude, to some degree, that Pastor Jim is wrong on a lot, and that Mom and Dad are ignorant on a lot of stuff.
Now, I'll note, this shouldn't impact member of the Apostolic faiths at all, but in the US some Apostolic Christians are heavily Protestantized and have bought in, through ignorance, to a lot of what the Evangelical far right believes.
Anyhow, a lot of this is about to collapse on an enormous scale, as we'll soon see.
**There was a good Republican candidate running against Gray, Christensen. He had worked for the BLM.
Well, we're getting instead a Californian who worked for his daddy's radio station.
On the 250ths Anniversary of American Independence it'd do us well to recall that while the Revolution may have been lead by landed patricians, it was fought by landed yeoman.
It's a great misfortune to the country, or perhaps a timely reminder, of exactly how far we've fallen in that regard. We have, in the form of Donald J. Trump, a President, albeit an illegitimate one, who is the very symbol of what Americans rebelled against 250 years ago. This monumental palace coach should serve to remind us.
Had Donald Trump been alive in 1776, he'd have been a Loyalist.
At the end of the war he'd have been packed up to Canada to annoy the French, who at least would largely have not understood him. Not, in his dementia, that we do either.
Washington on Blueskin.
George Washington owned his own mounts. John Adams broke one of his own mounts as late as his 80s. Taft kept a cow on the White House lawn.
Donald Trump flies back and forth to his golf resort in Florida on the American taxpayers dime.1 And now, at the expense of some $400,000,000 taxpayer dollars, he's unveiled the new one, and gushes about its "luxury":
This blog was never intended to be political, but in the age of Donald Trump, which will go down as the most corrupt political era in U.S. history, it just can't be avoided.
The Federal Government, funded by the American taxpayers in the form of taxes, and by individuals and foreign governments in the form of loans, has taken delivery of one Boeing "VC-25B Bridge", a military conversion of a Boeing 747-8 originally built as a Boeing Business Jet. The plane was delivered in 2012 to Qatar Amiri Flight and used by the House of Thani. In June 2023, it was delivered to Global Jet Isle of Man. The Qatari government gave it as a gift. . . if we assume governments really give gifts to other governments. Poor little King Donny just wasn't happy with the existing Air Force One and given that he's in his last term he couldn't wait for new ones under construction to be completed.
After he leaves office, which given his advanced age and rapidly declining mental status is likely to be before his term expires, the airplane, which has cost the United States at least $400,000,000 in "upgrades" to make it work in its role as a royal coach for his majesty, will be transferred to his presidential library foundation. Indeed, that will happen before his unfortunate illegitimate reign is over.
This is complete bullshit.
I've posted on this story, and this airplane, here before:
Air Force One has been in the news a lot recently, and it started before the Qatari proposal to give the United States, or Donald Trump (it isn't clear which) a luxury outfitted Boeing 747.
Technically "Air Force One" is a call sign, and merely denotes an airplane the Chief Executive is a passenger in. If a President rode in an Air Force Cessna, that would be Air Force One. But everyone knows that it refers to one of two Boeing VC-25s, militarized 747s, that are designated for the Presidents use.
RD-2
Interestingly, the first aircraft designated for Presidential use was a Navy airplane, an amphibious Douglas Dolphin RD-2 that was luxury outfitted for use by President Roosevelt. It was used from 1933 to 1939, and obviously not for transglobal flight. The President didn't really do extensive travel until World War Two.
Roosevelt's once used VC-54C.
In spite of concerns over commercial aviation being used to carry the President during the war, it was in fact used and it wasn 't until 1945 that a new designated Presidential aircraft was acquired, that being a Secret Service reconfigured a Douglas C-54 Skymaster (VC-54C) which was named the Sacred Cow. It contained a sleeping area, radiotelephone, and retractable battery-powered elevator to lift Roosevelt in his wheelchair. It's only use by Roosevelt was to fly the then dying President to Yalta. Truman used it thereafter, but it was replaced by military DC-6 (VC-118) thereafter.
Truman's VC-118.
President Eisenhower, who of course knew planes well, to Lockheed C-121 Constellations, Columbine II and Columbine III. The Constellation was a very popular airplane at the time, and Douglas MacArthur also had one, that one spending many years after its service at the Natrona County International Airport on an abandoned runway.
Columbine II was the first Presidential aircraft to receive the designation Air Force One.
At the end of Eisenhower's Presidency Boeing 707s came in, in part because the Soviets were using a jet to transport their Premier. 707s remained through the Nixon era, giving good service in this role.
747s, as VC-25s, entered specialized manufacture for use as Air Force One during Reagan's administration, although the first one would enter service after that. They've been used ever since.
These aren't normal 747s. They are packed with communications and electronic warfare equipment in order to have combat survivability.
Replacing the current two aircraft that are used as Air Force One is a topic that the Air Force started looking at quite a few years ago. The 747 variant which the VC-25 isn't made anymore. Production of 747s stopped in 2023 in favor of more modern aircraft. Still, the airframe remains useful in this role, and after the Air Force started to look into options, updating a 747-8 appeared to be the best option. Only Boeing was interested in the project anyway, and it will take a massive financial loss to do it.
The aircraft that are being retrofitted for this role was built, originally, as a commercial airliner. The projected is a massive one, and the delivery date will be in 2027.
What the new Air Force Ones will look like.
Enter Qatar.
Qatar has offered to give the US (I guess) a luxury Boeing 747-8 for use as Air Force One until the other 747-8s are complete. But here's the thing. Boeing has been working on the complicated task fo converting the two existing 747-8s for this use for several years. After all, it's basically a combat aircraft. All accepting the plane would do is give Boeing a third one to convert, which wouldn't be ready for years.
Trump is being childish about this, as he is about a lot of things. He doesn't seem to grasp the nature of the aircraft, and likely a lot of other people don't as well. In his case, this is inexcusable. It's a combat airplane.
Frankly, it's a Cold War combat airplane.
Which gets to this.
The 747 was a big massive airliner in an era in which it was the queen of the sky. That era is over and airlines have moved on to more modern aircraft. The world in which Ronald Reagan ordered 747s is gone as well. It's still useful to have an aircraft that can be used in a global thermonuclear war, which is what it is, but that's not going to happen and it makes no sense to use it to go on weekend golfing trips to Florida.
But that's what Trump tends to use it for.
That raises an entire series of other questions, many of which have little to do with aircraft, but some of which do. It's notable that other Presidents have used lighter aircraft for more mundane trips. In November 1999, President Bill Clinton flew from Ankara, Turkey, to Cengiz Topel Naval Air Station outside Izmit, Turkey, aboard a marked C-20C. In 2000, President Clinton flew to Pakistan aboard an unmarked Gulfstream III. In 2003, President George W. Bush flew in the co-pilot seat of a Sea Control Squadron Thirty-Five (VS-35) S-3B Viking from Naval Air Station North Island, California to the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, with that latter obviously being an exception. Barack Obama used a Gulfstream C-37 variant on a personal trip in 2009.
Trump can use something else than a 747 for what he uses Air Force One for in almost every single instance.
Indeed, the entire topic brings up a lot of things about the risks of having an airplane like this, a luxury airliner inside, which is really a combat aircraft. It makes it easy to forget what it really is, and it makes a President feel like an Emperor, which he is not.
So why am I doing it again?
Since May, 2025 Donald Trump has used the existing Air Force One to fly back and forth to his Florida golf home/resort, effectively using the airplane as a toy, repeatedly. He's also used it for what are basically campaign trips. He's launched an illegal war against Iran for which the Department of Defense now seeks $80,000,000,000 to cover, and which killed thirteen Americans and untold numbers of Iranians. That war encouraged Israel to not only participate in it, or perhaps the other way around, but also to engage in an invasion of Lebanon. He's spent something like $13,000,000 to Rhino Line the Washington D. C. reflecting pool, he's trying to build a massive ballroom that will ultimately cost the taxpayer one way or another, and he's trying to build a triumphal arch, making the United States the first country in the world to build an arch after getting solidly defeated in a war.
He's demented, and he acts like an emperor. This airplane is part of that delusion.
Truth be known, the entire Air Force One thing hasn't made sense for years. Having some sort of aircraft available for Presidential use for Presidential work makes some limited sense. But most of what Trump uses the aircraft for could be achieved through commercial aviation. Indeed, not one single trip Trump has taken could not have been accomplished that way.
And that's how this should be done. Back when transpiration was by rail, the President didn't own a train. When Trump goes over to the G7 to insult the Italian Prime Minister with his lunacy, that could be done by commercial air, and should be done that way. And I mean commercial air, not chartered air. The government could get him a ticket on a regularly scheduled flight.
And when he goes to Mar A Lago he can pay for his own ticket.
I know that the objections will be "oh my, it isn't safe". That is, frankly, for the most part complete BS. Trump could get a ticket on Ryan Air and be just as safe as anyone else.
And if its a little less safe, that's a good thing. One of the problems with the modern presidency is that the occupant of the White House is too insulated from the people he supposedly serves. At one time the President shook the hands of all who lined up on New Years Day. Not anymore.
If the President had to travel with the great unwashed masses maybe he'd be less of a lunatic. Or maybe he'd just realize that its a real job.
Anyway you look at it, Air Force One is a titanic waste of money. The Air Force has aircraft. If he needs to go, he can load up on a C5A with the equipment going wherever its going.
And this waste of money is going to a Trump library just before Trump leaves office.
WTF?
If the US had to spend money on it, it should keep it. This is appalling. That should be addressed as soon as possible. If there's a current way to address it, it just should be silently done. Trump can leave office and his library, which frankly is a pointless thing in the first place, can buy a Revell model kit of a Boeing 747. This absurd flying castle can carry on in its existing role and join the two that are being built, or preferably at least one of those two contracts cancelled seeing as the US has this thing.
At that point, the signature on the under panel that Trump affixed yesterday can be fittingly modified, recalling World War Two nose art. A realistic Trump nude torso doodle, a la Epstein, can be installed. A fitting monument.
It's a gift form Qatar, an authoritarian, semi-constitutional hereditary emirate monarchy ruled by the House of Thani. The Emir is the absolute authority.
Just the sort of government that King Donald can related to. Apparently they could relate to him, or more likely, thought they could obtain some advantage by appealing to his pathetic vanity.
The plane will be transferred to his Presidential library before he leaves office. What books would even appear in Donald Trump's library boggles the imagination. He does not appear to be a well read man, or even really read anything. Figures from his last administration related he had a hard time reading memos they gave him as he lost interest so rapidly. He does not appear to be a smart man.2
And, current American worship of wealth aside, we shouldn't expect him to be. What I've long suspected turns out to be true. The wealthy are often stupid.
This actually doesn't surprise me at all. The question is whether wealth makes you stupid, or encourages the breeding down of intelligence. Either can be maintained.
It was Chesterton who noted that "AMONG the Very Rich you will never find a really generous man, even by accident. They may give their money away, but they will never give themselves away; they are egoistic, secretive, dry as old bones. To be smart enough to get all that money you must be dull enough to want it." There's something to that. But beyond that, there's plenty of evolutionary evidence of the latter point. Wild cattle are quite a bit smarter than domestic ones. Wolves are smarter than dogs. Wild turkeys are very smart birds whereas domestic ones, apparently are dumb as a post.
Cave drawing of an Aurochs. Modern cows can be dicey, but aurochs wanted to kill you.
The question would be, of course, why this is true, and selective breeding by human beings largely explains it. We'd rather not have a mean cow that seeks to break free, raising a gang of mean cows, and lay siege to the village. Hunters and herdsmen like smart dogs, but bred to be fairly compliant. If you've ever owned a standard poodle, one of the oldest hunting breeds, you'll see how much of the wolf wasn't bread out of them, they think for themselves, we've worked a lot on dogs since then.
French Poodle in the early 1900s. The coat may look weird but they're a hunting dog, and a German bred one. Even now, the Puddle Dog has opinions on everything and isn't shy about giving you them. The only other modern hunting dog that rivals them that way is the Chesapeake Bay Retriever, another old breed..
It's a dangerous thing to say, and contrary to the thesis advanced by eugenicists, but there's pretty good evidence that people on average were getting smarter and smarter all along throughout human history, in very real terms, up until just recently. Evolution was forcing it. Some evolutionary biologist argue that the homo sapien sapien of our current era is demonstrably smarter than homo sapiens of, say, 100,000 years ago. . . or 50,000 years ago. . . or 10,000 years ago, or 5,000.3 And it makes some sense.
In a normal, i.e., not rich, environment a lot of things go into mate selection, oh heck let's say spouse selection other than what goes into attracting people, oh heck let's say men, to Only Fans. Love has always been an aspect of it, but its interesting to note how even when I was a teen, teenagers selected dates on character, which included intelligence, more than anything else. It's funny to think of now, but if a guy had a "pretty" girlfriend, he was just considered lucky, and a girl with brains and other positive characteristics would have a boyfriend who featured the same, irrespective of her looks. When the girl was good looking, it was just sort of like winning a bonus prize. Purely good looking girls, if that's all they had going for them, weren't really sought out.
This remained true, I'd note, throughout my entire single life. Maybe it's largely true now.
But with the wealthy, it's another matter.
Future Playboy model Anna Nicole Smith and her first husband, Billy Ray Smith. She was 17 and he was 16 when she married. He was cook. She changed her image enormously after they divorced and ended up married to an octogenarian after being a Playboy Centerfold and Guess Jeans model. Do we think that late union was a marriage for love on either side? She paid the price, of course, dying young. Her first husband is still alive, but never speaks much. He was apparently crushed by the death of their son, pictured here, when he was in his twenties. He never remarried.
Donald Trump, who gives no evidence of being an intelligent man, has been married three times, with each spouse having a certain sort of look save for one. Two have been Slavic beauties of a certain sort, which means they present a certain look that certain people regard as glamorous beauty.4. The second, Marla Maples, actually presents as pretty smart. That marriage lasted six years.5
The point here?
I'm not thinking that a lot of the super rich determine their mates the way regular people do. I don't think "is he/she a good helpmate?" or "do we have the same interests, faiths, worldview?", or to be really old school, "can this guy/gal help me around the farm?" has gone into it much. Rather, they often seem to be chosen on looser characteristics that might more resemble how oriental potentates chose concubines for the harem, i.e., looks.
When Arab raiders stole Irish women, after all, smart as those women tend to be, they weren't marketing them on "look at this ginger. . . she's really got the brains!"
Now, a person can take this too far, but we live in a rich society. The richest of us may in fact be stupider than the rest of us, or a lot of us. And we collectively, just like a placid cow in the field, may be starting to get dumber overall.
We live in a materially very wealthy culture. Even the average impoverished American is wealthier than many thought to be well off in former eras. And to add to that, the decay in morality, brought about by material wealth, which has allowed us to focus only on ourselves, has developed a self centered sexual culture that contributes to this.
Put another way, as one female observer seriously noted:
But its not making people happier. People know something is wrong.
Gallup informs us that most Americans believe in the "American Dream", whatever that is, but that a very high percentage believe its unobtainable.
The American Dream has been defined in various ways. I think it might be best defined in the film The Best Years Of Our Lives.
In that film there's a moment when discharged sergeant Fred Derry gives a loan to a discharged Navy vet who is a tenant farmer. He wants to buy his own farm. He knows he can do it.
That's the best description of the American Dream I've ever seen.
The real dream is to own your own. And at the time of the American Revolution, most did. That's what had brought them to the country.
I don't know what they teach the young now, but when I was growing up it was a lot of crap about how people came over for freedom, mostly freedom of religion.
Yeah, some did, sort of. The best example might be the Puritans on the Mayflower, who were seeking freedom to worship in their own way and to tell everyone else in the world how they were supposed to do it. If you were in a Puritan community you were worshipping with them or getting punished, severely.
Only about 1/3d of the Mayflower passengers were Puritans. The rest were likely members of the Church of England which itself was less than 100 years separated from the Catholic Church, and even less separated from the Prayer Book Rebellion.6 Point is, those passengers, who were all part of the group that put in as they were out of beer, didn't come for religious freedom.
They came for land.
Land is, and was, independent. People knew then, and they knew now, that land was independence, freedom, and a decent life worth living. If you could obtain, as Chesterton would later put it, "three acres and a cow", or more likely 40, and a mule, you had it made. You were not rich. You were not poor. You were your own family.
Land is what caused Englishmen to risk their lives in 1607 to come to a new continent, or Frenchmen to come to it in 1608, or Spanish to come to it in 1565. Here they could get it, at some cost, but a none the less obtainable one. In Europe, they could not. And if not all came as farmers, tradesmen who came, came because they could open their own shops, essentially operating on the same ideal. Those who couldn't muster up the cash for transit indentured themselves to do so which, in spite of latter day white apologist, was not slavery. It was a temporary means of getting started, in some ways like apprenticeships or joining the service operates for many today.
We cannot say that it was universally benign. That would be a lie. The land in fact already belonged to somebody else, the native inhabitants, whose claims were excused due to their rotational agricultural practices and low population density. But that doesn't change the basic fact. It was land, not "freedom" of any type that drew the immigrant.
By moving, they freed themselves from some landowning overlord and made themselves independent farmers. That dream lasted all the way up until the mid 20th Century in some fashion. While it remains alive today, the truth is that the reality it of it is as dead, yielded to the bloated interests of the rich. The largest landowner in the US today is billionaire sports and real estate mogul Stan Kroenke, who owns land in Wyoming. Mom and pop shops have yielded to the nightmare created by Sam Walton.
People who think the American dream is alive are largely fooling themselves.
Nonetheless, a dream is a dream, and revolutions are based on dreams.
The American Revolution was based on a landowning dream. It wasn't, frankly necessarily wholly admirable. The Intolerable Acts included, in a very real sense, the sense that the Crown was going to restrict the right of expanding countrymen's families to settle new lands, and they were right. The fear also was that the Crown would restrict economic activity in the Colonies for revenue purposes, and that was partially correct. Common Sense and the like aside, a real cause of the Revolution was the native sense that the free right to settle land, and engage in small free enterprise, was the only thing that separated American Colonist form the English and European masses.
They were right, if not necessarily morally right.
A large number, maybe most, revolutions since that time, and some before it, have been based on the same cause. The French Revolution was not, and it remains a global oddball. The Russian Revolution, failed as it was, is such an example, however, as was the Russian Revolution of 1905. The Chinese Revolution of 1911, and the Chinese Civil War, both failed examples, also were. The Mexican Revolution, also a failed revolution, very much was.
The Mexican Revolution provides, in fact, an excellent example. Through every phase, from 1911 onwards, the rich landed class fought back, and when defeat arrived, they stepped aside and regrouped. It kept the Revolution from really being successful. Indeed, of all the revolutions we have noted, only the American Revolution was really successful.
But the success it created is dead. Today,. we have the Donald Trumps and Elon Musks and other 1%ers that control the economy, and which some like Jonah Goldberg even feel we should celebrate (as to Musk).
Well, no.
Time for a second American revolution.
Not, we might note, one with guns. Indeed, that would inevitably be not only immoral, but outright moronic, lead by people festooned with Second Amendment tattoos while advocating outright fascism.
No, something more radical than that, a revolution at the ballot box.
It's time to end the moronic celebration of a "free market system" that isn't free in any sense. Corporate Capitalist are shoving pablum down the throats of the electorate while pocking the largess. Large sale corporatism needs to end.
And so too does a weird millennialism appropriations of public lands by people like Deseret Mike Lee and pathetic fellow travellers like John Barrasso and Harriet Hageman.
A revolution can be had at the ballot box. It won't happen all at once, but if started now the two party system can be ended, and the creation of wealth for the wealthy can be as well. Remote land ownership, something the colonist came here to escape, can be as well.
It won't happen as long as people don't think. But they need to think now. At some point they will, and if we don't take on the yoke of this burden now, when the plow ox bulks, it'll be bad. Footnotes
1. Donald Trump is such a WASP, with the adherence to the "P", that he's converted some property in Washington D.C. to become a golf course and is putting in courses on some military bases.
Put in shooting ranges or something. Not something that fat old white guys play.
2. The fact that Trump is a Wharton graduate is really a slam at the Ivy League. Yes, they have some great schools, but the system they operate in really has graduated some failures. Pete Hegseth provides such an example.
Wharton owes the country an apology, and I say that as somebody who has a relative that graduated from there. The fact that Trump graduated is applying. The fact that Chuck Gray is their product is as well.
3. Some theologians have speculated that there was a point with our species when God converted us from just a smart hominid into what we are in the Divine Plan, with an immortal soul. The speculation is that it was the moment language arrived, and there's some archeological and biological evidence that moment was in fact sudden and radical.
4. Frankly, Trump spouses 1 and 3 really aren't bombshells. Melania is more properly characterized as "handsome".
5. We can't really speculate on the smarts of 1 and particularly 3. Melania is hard to figure as she's never obtained a really good command of English. None the less, people who admire her, are frankly doing so willfully.
6. Recusant Catholics are estimated to be less than 5% of the English population at the time, which means that were likely to probably have actually been 10 to 15%. Today, more Catholics attend weekly services in the UK than the established church. Recently one Anglican convert in the UK described her transition as "going Full Fat Catholicism"
The number of Catholics in the world: Over 1,422,000,000, with the number growing.
The number of Catholics in the United States: Between 50,000,000 and 70,000,000, with the number growing.
The number of Orthodox in the world 260,000,000
The number of Orthodox Christians in the United States: 2,600,000.
The number of Protestants in the world: 600,000,000 to 1,000,000,000.
The number of Protestants in the United States 140,000,000 to 150,000,000, of which 10 to 15% are mainline protestants, and of which the largest denomination is the American Baptist Conference, which includes 13,000,000 to 15,000,000 members.
The Catholic Church, all rites (the Roman Rite is the largest by far) is the largest single church in the world and the largest single church in the United States, in spite of the United States being a protestant nation.
The second largest church in the world are the Orthodox, meaning that the Apostolic Churches, those which go all the way back to the Apostles, far exceed the number of Protestants.
While all churches have their problems, the Catholic church is growing everywhere. Protestant churches are dying.
And then we get this:
Trump posted those back to back yesterday. There's been all sorts of rumors circulating that the administration has been upset with the Church.
No doubt it isn't a fan of the Church. The Church has God as its King. Maga has Donald as its.
Throughout Trump's presidency, the first legitimate one and the illegitimate second one, I've warned that support of Trump would likely kill off far right Evangelism in the US. I've also warned that those far right Evangelicals who support Trumpwould turn on Catholicism, which they don't understand and often don't even think to be a Christian religion, when in fact it's the original Christian religion. And I've failed to grasp how any thinking Catholic could really support Trump with any depth.
But some have. I know plenty.
Some are just shallow political thinkers, others not, and all are conservative. I'm conservative, but I've never supported Trump.
These people are opposed to abortion (so am I), and were horrified by transgenderism (so am I). That frankly is just about it. Some buy in to the other hardcore aspects of the far right as well, being opposed to immigration, for instance, which actually requires a more nuanced thought process than they are giving it. And the Democrats made it impossible for Catholics to really support them, becoming the party of death and weirdness.
None of which meant that anyone had to support a dim, narcissistic, serial polygamist.
For those of you who supported Trump on social issues, there were and are other parties. And how much do we know about Trump and any of the positions he supposedly supports. He own track record on moral issues is poor at least in so far as his treatment of women is concerned. And we're talking about adult women. This administration outright opposition to releasing the Epstein files certainly raises questions about it being willing to support child rapists, and there's enough smoke around Trump to at least raise questions about how far in the shallow end of the pool he may have been willing to go, although nothing's been proven. His family's financial dealings this term certainly raise questions of a moral nature. His launching of an illegal war and threatening mass civilian deaths is criminal.
We could go on. He's a horrible, demented, man. Christians who are supporting him need to rethink it immediately.
Catholics supporting him have helped bring us to this.
From here on out there's no excuse for a free pass by members of the Apostolic Faiths. None. And that includes the two members in the administration, Marco Rubio and J. D. Vance. Supporting Trump is supporting this mockery of the Faith and of all Christianity.
But for the voters too. In the midterms there are already candidates who note they are "endorsed by Donald Trump". One Catholic candidate here in the state hardcore embraces Trump and another runs, on all of her signs, "Endorsed by Donald Trump".
That needs to end right now.
The 25th Amendment needs to be applied, now. Catholics cozying up to Trump need to stop, now.
.jpg)
