If hot air could blow the madman down, AmeriKans would have blown him far and wide by now. But unfortunately, no matter how big or how numerous the “No King” rallies may become, the jerk is in the White House and no rally will eject him.

In communication with those participating in the No King rallies, they lament that all their constructive work, writing congresspersons, phone elected representatives, picketing and demonstrating at elected representative offices is to no avail. The jerk continues in office, with support ranging from 25-48%. If you read about the rallies, the implication or messages seem to say the jerk’s support is lower than the low number but certain areas of the USA still support him heartedly and passionately.

Still the hot air should not be stopped. Demonstrations must continue but more pointedly. Tell the AmeriKan people what is really happening:

• health care is being taken away from more and more AmeriKans,
• the government has been shut down,
• government employees are not getting paid,
• retroactive pay for the govt unemployed is being eliminated,
• Journalists are blocked from the White House,
• free press is being strangled,
• political commentators are being gagged, as are late show hosts,
• T****’s political enemies are being indicted: Comey, James, and Bolton,
• State dept leaders have brain problems…RFK Jr. brain worm….fact checked,

The list is endless and it isn’t exaggeration or falsehoods. Fact verification confirms T**** is eroding AmeriKan democracy. Like Nazi Germany in the 1930’s, the population realized the truth too late. AmeriKans seem to be on the same path of hear no evil, see no evil, until…….

So is this guy, Charlie Kirk?

Charlie Kirk was a right-wing political activist, media personality, and entrepreneur who co-founded the conservative organization Turning Point USA (TPUSA) in 2012 at the age of 18. Born in Arlington Heights, Illinois, he briefly attended Harper College before dropping out to focus on political activism.

He became a prominent figure in the conservative movement, known for his on-campus activism, talk radio program “The Charlie Kirk Show,” and as a vocal supporter of Donald Trump. He was a key figure in the “culture wars,” often engaging in debates and espousing conservative viewpoints on issues such as gun rights, immigration, and diversity initiatives. He was assassinated on September 10, 2025, while speaking at a college event.

____________

Here are some quotes attributed to Charlie Kirk…
[Source: QUORA DIGEST]

First, it was Stephen Colbert, with CBS paying T**** $16 million in a lawsuit.

Now, it’s ABC’s turn, Jimmy Kimmel Live, cancelled.

Free speech, no longer exists in the AmeriKa. And even though T**** has set the record for being the MOST UNPOPULAR president of all time. No matter, the poor AmeriKans do not seem to be able to do anything about the man. And now, there verbal criticisms will be shut down. 

This is a another milestone in the political demise of the USA.

AmeriKa: How Did It Get There?
Where the president is a proponent of political violence
Dan Rather and Team Steady

As journalists, we have long been taught that writing a comprehensive news story requires answering the five Ws. Who, what, when, and where are the easy ones. It’s that last one, the why, that is almost always the most difficult to answer.

In some cases, motivation for an act, especially a murder, may never be known. How does one get to the point of purposely killing another person?

In cases of political violence, some in the USA just want to retaliate — violence meeting violence, the biblical eye for an eye. Others, those who care to learn from abhorrent behavior so society can be made better, ask questions and seek knowledge.

Political violence is growing in the USA
One way to help us with our hopes for understanding is to turn to those, including academics, who study political violence. The headline from their current research: As a country, we have a big problem, and it’s getting worse.

During the first six months of the year, there were 150 politically motivated attacks, almost twice as many as the same period last year.

On New Year’s Day, 14 people were killed when a radicalized Muslim-American drove a truck into a crowd in New Orleans. In April, the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion was firebombed with Governor Josh Shapiro’s family inside, because of Shapiro’s stance on the war in Gaza. The following month, two Israeli embassy workers were killed in a hate crime. In June, a Christian nationalist assassinated one Democratic lawmaker in Minnesota and injured a second. In August, a Covid vaccine conspiracy theorist killed a police officer and shot dozens of rounds at the CDC headquarters in Atlanta. And last week, the killing of Charlie Kirk.

Trump leads the incitement of violence
Over the past five years, we have seen a plot to assassinate a Supreme Court justice and one to kidnap the speaker of the House. There were two assassination attempts on then-candidate Donald Trump and a deadly attack on the Capitol incited by then-president Trump.

Sean Westwood of the Polarization Research Lab characterized what is happening in America as “pouring poison into the public well.” Those in power are the ones pouring.

A political leader’s reaction to political violence is a test of character. It is a test that Donald Trump has failed. He exploits others’ violent acts to further his own vengeful agenda. At a time when our leadership should be seeking unity, Trump is using Kirk’s killing as a call to arms for his supporters. “We have radical left lunatics out there and we just have to beat the hell out of them,” the president said at the White House last week.

Four conditions for escalation of political violence
He is calling for retribution as conditions for escalating political violence in America are becoming more conducive to it. According to Barbara Walter, a professor of internal affairs at UC San Diego, all four needed conditions are currently present in the United States:

• a rapidly declining democracy
• a society divided by race and/or religion
• political leaders who encourage violence, and
• easy access to guns.

Era of violent populism
“We are now in a watershed moment for what I call the era of violent populism in America,” said Robert Pape, a political science professor at the University of Chicago who studies political violence. He believes “big social change” is the main driver of the anger that causes political violence, pointing to resentment over society’s diminishing white majority.

Immigration led to racism led to deportation
“It started about 10 years ago, with the real tipping-point generation and corresponds with the rise of Donald Trump, why his issue of immigration is meteoric, why it’s morphed from immigration meaning stop people crossing the border to now deporting mass numbers of people,” Pape said on CBS News’ “Face the Nation.”

The Internet is the accelerant
Add to all of this the internet. Pape says it isn’t a cause of political violence but an accelerant. Online radicalization is a common characteristic among the disgruntled young white men who have been perpetrators of much of the recent political violence.

Social media is gas
The lack of controls and the virality of social media content adds to the speed with which rage bait infiltrates people’s feeds. In the two hours between the shooting of Kirk and the announcement of his death, video of the attack was viewed 11 million times on X alone.

Before the suspect was even caught, the online justification machine kicked into high gear. The alleged perpetrator was labeled and characterized with little information or evidence, all to fit a narrative. We still know very little about him, but that hasn’t stopped Trump and the MAGAsphere from suggesting a radical left-wing cabal is responsible and must be stopped. Together they are demonizing half the country — the half that did not vote for Trump.

Trump incites the violence
The call for retaliation is not surprising. Trump benefits politically from promoting violence. It is red meat for his base. He uses it to gain media attention and fundraising dollars.

Governor Shapiro called out Trump’s reaction to the Kirk killing, writing, “We are at an inflection point in America. Violence transcends party lines — and the way to address it and have true peaceful debate is for leaders to speak and act with moral clarity. That needs to start with the President.”

Since there is plenty of anger, some of it justified, on both sides, it is a good time to remember that violence begets violence. And that violence is currently being fueled by, among others, the current occupant of the White House.

This is a tough truth in a tough time. All the more reason for the rest of us to stay calm, listen to our better selves, and do the best we can to prevent the country from spiraling ever deeper into political violence.

Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor pulls back the curtain on MAGA Supreme Court hackery
Jennifer Rubin
Sep 12, 2025

The six MAGA justices on the Supreme Court have obliterated the notion that they are impartial jurists bound by precedent. This week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor did a magnificent job stripping away the veneer of legitimacy they have tried to sustain. In dissenting from a widely criticized emergency docket decision running roughshod over the 4^th Amendment and effectively greenlight racial profiling, Sotomayor let it rip.

She explained:

A Federal District Court found that these raids were part of a pattern of conduct by the Government that likely violated the Fourth Amendment. Based on the evidence before it, the court held that the Government was stopping individuals based solely on four factors: (1) their apparent race or ethnicity; (2) whether they spoke Spanish or English with an accent; (3) the type of location at which they were found (such as a car wash or bus stop); and (4) the type of job they appeared to work. Concluding that stops based on these four factors alone, even when taken together, could not satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonable suspicion, the District Court temporarily enjoined the Government from continuing its pattern of unlawful mass arrests while it considered whether longer-term relief was appropriate.

Instead of allowing the litigation to proceed, the Supreme Court leapt into the fray and—without briefing, argument, or explanation—summarily stayed the order. “That decision is yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket,” Sotomayor wrote.

“We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job.”

She had no majority “opinion” to critique since the majority could not be bothered to write one. She did, however, shred Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s lame concurrence. Citing 45-yr. old precedent, she reminded us, “Critically, a set of facts cannot constitute reasonable suspicion if it ‘describe[s] a very large category of presumably innocent’ people.”

Even by the government’s reckoning (albeit without factual support) the order would allow stops and detention of millions of people simply because they “look” Hispanic, speak Spanish, or, for example, work in construction. Sotomayor also excoriated a ruling blessing ICE abductions: “the Government has provided no evidence showing that its seizures were based on credible intelligence about a particular employer at a particular location.”

In debunking the government’s complaint that it would be hampered in enforcing immigration law, Sotomayor cited its own actions and rhetoric, thereby illustrating its brazen contempt for courts and determination to resort to ever-increasing levels of violence:

Since the issuance of the TRO, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem has called the District Judge an “‘idiot’” and vowed that “‘none of [the Government’s] operations are going to change.’” The CBP Chief Patrol Agent in the Central District has stated that his division will “turn and burn” and “go even harder now,” and has posted videos on social media touting his agents’ continued efforts “[c]hasing, cuffing, [and] deporting” people at car washes assertion that it will suffer irreparable harm.

Sotomayor blasted Kavanaugh’s ridiculous assertion that these raids involve only brief stops or questioning. (Does he follow any non-Fox News?) She pointed to voluminous evidence that ICE is violently “seizing people using firearms” and then warehousing them. Moreover, “United States citizens are also being seized, taken from their jobs, and prevented from working to support themselves and their families.” In other words, she exposed Kavanaugh for inventing facts to support his untenable conclusion.

Finally, Sotomayor took a righteous swing at the justices who misuse the emergency docket. “In the last eight months, this Court’s appetite to circumvent the ordinary appellate process and weigh in on important issues has grown exponentially,” she wrote. “Yet, some situations simply cry out for an explanation, such as when the Government’s conduct flagrantly violates the law, or when lower courts and litigants need guidance about the issues on which they should focus.” It is no wonder district courts are baffled. “For each of those complex issues,” she wrote, “it will be anyone’s guess whether the majority thought there were evidentiary deficiencies, legal errors, or a combination of both.”

We owe a debt of gratitude to Sotomayor for this and many other stinging dissents as well as her expert questioning at oral arguments. Her candor from the bench is not just refreshing; it is essential in educating the public that the six MAGA justices are not engaged in judging; their opinions are not the product of intellectually honest legal reasoning. (Indeed, they frequently provide no reasoning.) As such, their rulings have lost legitimacy, which depends on intellectual and ethical integrity.

That conclusion, so aptly bolstered by Sotomayor’s dissent, can fuel a robust movement to reform the Supreme Court in significant ways. Americans must demand that it once again resembles an impartial court reflecting the highest ethical standards. Our democracy will depend on it.

Throughout, we will honor her commitment to remain undaunted, unbowed, and unwilling (in her words) to “sit idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost.” She remains an essential voice in debunking the MAGA justices’ blatant hackery dressed up as jurisprudence.

This story is borders on being gossip but the author, Jessica Reed Kraus of the Substack-House Inhabit claims it is factual and stands ready for any libel suit.
_________

The Long-Buried Secret of Bill Clinton’s Affair with Ghislaine Maxwell and the Epstein Cover-Up
Jessica Reed Kraus

In my office for an interview, facing a glinting stretch of the Pacific Ocean as muted blue backdrop.

To my right, a dead plant in a wilted state silently judging the stack of tabloid magazines plastered with Jeffrey Epstein’s face. Across from me, a reporter from the country’s most influential newspaper reading aloud past statements of mine, repeated out of context, crafted for a curated readership that often reflects its writer’s shifting moods and temperamental mindset.

“She sounds like she changes her mind often,” I wanted to explain.

But fluid perspectives seemed a foreign concept to my midday guest. And the more I expanded, the less he appeared to grasp what it is I do. Or at least, what it is I seek to do.

Mostly, the legacy newsman was interested in one claim in particular: Did I actually believe Bill Clinton had a sexual relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell?

If so, did I understand the implications of printing such a claim? His question came cushioned by a hypothetical scenario meant to intimidate, but humored me instead: Bill Clinton could take me to court over such a salacious rumor. Did that concern me at all?

No.

Did I believe this rumor?

Yes.

Why?

As someone who works in the business of gossip — which he kindly pointed out I do — it was a rumor with teeth; something I’d heard from all corners of my reach, believed to be true, and therefore worthy of printed theory. Imagining myself facing libel court waged by Bill Clinton, with discovery probing the backlog of his sex life, I found myself silently amused by such an absurd prospect.

Besides, I didn’t birth the rumor. Three years ago I did a deep dive on it.

ll roads lead back to Douglas Band, Bill Clinton’s longtime confidant and founding partner of the multinational advisory firm Teneo, entrenched in “Clintonworld,” serving as Clinton’s body man during his presidency and later as one of the key architects of his post-presidential empire. His contribution to one explosive Vanity Fair article changed everything.

In Confessions of a Clintonworld Exile, a year after Epstein’s death, Band broke the code of silence, exposing a web of secrets simmering beneath the surface of American political life. Central to his revelations: Bill Clinton’s rumored love affair with Ghislaine Maxwell, then modestly known as the daughter of a disgraced media mogul and Jeffrey Epstein’s closest associate.

Band was blunt in print: “I tried for years to keep Epstein at a distance, but Clinton just couldn’t stay away.”

He also revealed Epstein was essentially a cover — an alibi for Clinton’s real reason for spending time in Epstein’s circle: Ghislaine Maxwell. According to unnamed sources, Clinton and Maxwell’s relationship was intimate for years. “Bill and Ghislaine were getting it on,” a close witness said. With Epstein as a convenient alibi, they could ferry Clinton around the world so he could be with Maxwell.

Their relationship extended beyond Caribbean retreats to New York City, where Clinton was repeatedly spotted visiting Maxwell’s $11 million townhouse on East 65th Street. The closeness between him, a former president, and her, a charming but increasingly elusive British socialite, drew occasional notice in New York social circles. Clinton and Maxwell were spotted dining together at the Madison Avenue Italian mainstay Nello, according to a 2002 New York magazine article, which described Maxwell as a “man-eater.” When Clinton went stag to a New York education charity gala in late 2001 —Hillary declined to attend — Maxwell was reportedly at his side.

Chelsea Clinton also grew very close to Ghislaine during this period. Maxwell’s vast network, her assets on generous loan, and her commitment to helping shape the early Clinton Foundation made her invaluable to the family. Because of what she provided for them, Band insisted Maxwell at a certain point was “more valuable” to the Clintons than Epstein: “You couldn’t hang out with her without being with him.”

Internally, a mounting feud between Doug Band and Chelsea Clinton contributed to the impending fallout.

Initially, Band wasn’t threatened by Chelsea’s new role. Separated by seven years, they “related to each other almost like half siblings.” When Chelsea was in her 20s, Band helped get her concert tickets and restaurant reservations. In 2010, Chelsea sent Band an effusive Christmas card. “I love you and am thankful beyond words for all you have done and do for my father,” she wrote.

But, as Vanity Fair noted, in every family, rivalries and jealousies tend to fester. Clintonworld sources revealed how Chelsea grew to resent Band. “Chelsea hated Doug because he was like a son to her father,” a Clinton friend said. Band took offense that Chelsea treated him at times like hired help.

Over the next several months, their conflict unfolded with Bill Clinton caught in the middle. Chelsea heard from foundation officials that Band was “hustling” donors to become Teneo clients behind Bill’s back. In turn, Band heard that she had accused him of planting a Page Six item about troubles in her marriage, which he denied. Meanwhile, Band told foundation staff that Chelsea was vastly underqualified to take on a leadership role.

Band, however, made it clear that Chelsea’s ongoing ties to Epstein were a central source of tension in his relationship with Bill. He saw it as a doomed course. Even in social context.

Warning signs had been apparent for years. The infamous 2002 trip to Africa aboard Epstein’s private Boeing 727 — the so-called “Lolita Express” — marked a turning point. Band recalled Epstein “bragging the entire trip, like he invented the derivatives market,” an absurd display of ego that masked a far more dangerous intent. Though Band said he “had no idea about Epstein’s sex crimes back then,” he admitted getting enough bad vibes to advise Clinton to end the relationship.

Clinton ignored the warnings, continuing to socialize with Epstein and taking more than two dozen trips on Epstein’s jet. Flight logs show a 2003 visit by Clinton to Epstein’s private Caribbean island, Little St. James — a trip Band refused to join.

In 2006, Epstein donated $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Band lamented, “Clinton continued to socialize with Epstein and take his money.”

His remarks stunned the Clintons.

“Bill must have done something very, very bad — worse than his usual self-dealing and pathological deceit — for Band, a surrogate son, to lash out like this,” the New York Post noted.

VF added: “Those critics include the Clintons themselves, who offered a caustic assessment of Band when asked for comment. ‘No staffer has ever used their role to serve their interests as much as Doug Band,’ a Clinton family spokesperson told me. ‘For many years he was a valuable member of President Clinton’s team and supportive of Clinton Foundation programs. Until he wasn’t. He put the foundation at risk by leveraging a world-class philanthropy for his own financial gain. It’s as disappointing a story as it is a sad one and ultimately why Doug Band and the Clintons parted ways.’”

Chelsea Clinton, meanwhile, maintained a long friendship with Maxwell even after Epstein’s crimes became public. She invited Maxwell to her 2010 wedding at the Brooke Astor estate in Rhinebeck, New York, which Band deemed “a grab at high-society lifestyle.”

Maxwell had failed to appear at a scheduled deposition, claiming she had to return to England to care for her dying mother. However, at the time of that trip, the elder Mrs. Maxwell was not gravely ill.

Around the same time the deposition was scheduled, Maxwell was spotted in New York. She surfaced in a photo as a guest in the background at Chelsea Clinton’s wedding accompanied by Ted Waitt.

“I knew in telling everyone to stop including Ghislaine that Chelsea and her father would be very angry,” he said. “It made it harder for them to justify being close to her.”

Despite repeated denials from Clinton spokespeople, Band insisted these ties were real and consequential. Maxwell remained a constant presence at Clinton social events and Epstein-fueled trips.

Band lamented, “Clinton continued to socialize with Epstein and take his money.” Flight logs and eyewitness reports painted a picture of sustained closeness.

(It’s also worth noting that top Clinton advisor Mark Middleton, the man behind the liaison that connected Epstein to Clinton, died by suicide at the age of 59 on May 7, 2022, the Perry County Sheriff’s Office in Arkansas confirmed. Another rabbit hole to dig into another time.)

Adding another crucial layer to the coverup which might explain why the affair remained mostly untraceable via Google search: the private emails stolen from John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair, and published by WikiLeaks. These emails contain several references to Google and its parent company Alphabet’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt.

The emails reveal a relationship with Schmidt dating back to at least 2008 and show that Google loaned its jet to members of Clinton’s campaign staff on several occasions. According to a February 2015 email to Podesta from Tina Flournoy, Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, Google planned to lend its company jet for a trip to Africa. Podesta wrote, “FYI. They are donating the Google plane for the Africa trip.”

Post Epstein, Clinton remained frequently on flight with Maxwell. “Bill was always into Ghislaine,” is what everyone has always told me. Several sources relived stories of Bill at events they were part of, as friend to Ghislaine. One source remembers Bill being a “great time” at parties hosted at Maxwell’s townhouse in New York. The source described a scene: him taking tequila shots surrounded by fawning women, and Maxwell watching him like a hawk from an opposite corner of the room.

A source I spoke to recounted Maxwell frequently flying to retrieve Bill during the Ted Waitt years. Familiar with the Waitt family when he was dating Ghislaine, they claimed she once flew Clinton to a particular destination for an operation “of some kind.” However, details were shaky as the source was the same age as one of Waitt’s teenage daughters— too young to care why the former president was on board, interpreting route to a family vacation.

Clinton, Maxwell, and Waitt remained close after Maxwell moved on from Epstein. Bill and Ted wrote each other letters Ghislaine sometimes kept on display. The Clintons remain close to the Waitt family today.

Shortly after Maxwell was sentenced, they continued to vacation with the Waitt family, even flying overseas to celebrate Ted Waitt’s 60th birthday.

Knowing how it all unfolded, the fact that Clinton is now named a “prime suspect” in the files investigation feels straight out of a Shakespearean script. The Clintons used Maxwell for everything she could offer when it suited them, and the moment she became a liability, they dropped her. They distanced themselves, severing all ties to avoid her sins tainting their power, profit, and reputation.

As the story is shifting, the Epstein ordeal is dissolving any sense of ease for certain parties — the Clintons included — who have, until now, escaped scrutiny by association.

Ghislaine’s turn against Clinton, as ex lover, reads as retaliation, repurposed as leverage to secure a presidential pardon.

In her only prison interview, she dropped subtle hints, using praise as insinuation. Cues media collectively overlooked.

Sentiments I Picked Up on And Shared Line by Line in Bold Font:

“Bill Clinton was a very special friend to me.”
“We were close over a long period of time.”
“I was close to both of the Clintons.”
“I helped set up their foundations.”
“He was one of the most interesting people I’ve ever met.”
“I HOSTED PARTIES FOR THEM.”

When Ghislaine added that her falling out with Bill was due to her support for Trump, again, everyone failed to recognize the foreshadowing.

Even in skirted reference, the chemistry between them was instantly obvious to anyone reading between the lines. His name as frequent guest on the flight logs laid it out. There was no way Clinton was traveling regularly in the company of Epstein and Maxwell without engaging on an intimate level with a woman like her. Sources said she played this circle of men — Prince Andrew, Epstein, and Clinton — strategically. While Epstein and she had fallen out of a romantic relationship, he was still prone to jealousy over her flirtations with powerhouse players like Clinton, and she played it to her advantage.

Anyone versed in Maxwell’s tastes would deduce that Clinton was an obvious conquest from the onset — as is overwhelmingly apparent in the photos documenting their introduction, where she looks like she wants to devour him. He was everything she was drawn to: immensely charismatic, articulate, intelligent, cultured, powerful, not to mention rich and hyper sexual, and said to appreciate the affection of older women because his ego preferred his intellect flattered.

Nick Tartaglione mentioned in one conversation Epstein noting Clinton’s penchant for older women. He said they made fun of him for seducing gray-haired ladies whenever they appeared.

Based on trial insight, one might assume that Bill Clinton met his sexual match in Ghislaine Maxwell.

As of now, Bill Clinton is scheduled to testify before the committee on October 14, 2025, under subpoena.

What we learn from here on out is bound to undress decades of lies and protective coverups the Clintons had come to count on, when Maxwell as ex flame and dutiful aid to their endeavors was where it served them best: silent, behind bars.