Troops At Polling Places

With all the rhetoric coming out Trump about the elections... people are worried about what he will pull out of his hat!

CNN News writes in Will the Trump administration send federal officers or troops to the polls? Here’s what we know

Here is what top officials within the administration or the military have said about the potential of sending troops or federal officers to polling locations:

Mullin says ICE officers could be at polling places in specific circumstances. The law says they can’t be

Concerns about immigration authorities being dispatched to polling places partly stem from Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin’s decision earlier this year to deploy Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to airports during a government shutdown. While immigration authorities have long had a presence and enforced immigration laws at airports, the large-scale deployment of ICE officers to assist with security and lines was a new development.

It also spurred concern about whether polling places could be next, especially given the administration’s broader crusade against what it claims — without evidence — is widespread voter fraud by immigrants in the country illegally.

“These are all tools of how the president is trying to think about a much larger plan, which is, if you cannot hold onto power through democratic elections, then adjust democratic elections,” Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, told CNN in March.

Asked by reporters last week whether ICE officers could be sent to polling locations in November, Mullin left open the possibility that they could be under specific circumstances.

Doesn't this answer give you a warm fuzzy feeling?

In a letter responding to Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat who asked military leaders to commit to not sending troops to the polls, Caine wrote the military has “no plans” to send federal military personnel or federalized National Guard troops to voting locations.

“Likewise, the Joint Force has no plans to use such personnel to seize ballots, voting machines, or other election-related material,” wrote Caine, who is the nation’s highest-ranking military officer.

Notice the wording... “no plans” but that doesn't rule out sending 

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law wrote;

Preventing Voter Intimidation by Federal Agents at the Polls
Any deployment that intimidates voters or interferes with elections would be illegal. Should one occur, officials and civil society are prepared to challenge illegal acts so that voting can proceed uninterrupted.

In May, when President Trump was asked whether he would send National Guard troops or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to polling locations during the midterm elections, he responded that he would “do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections; we have to have honest elections.” Several of his officials and allies have made similar comments in recent weeks and months. While no public information suggests that the federal government currently plans to deploy armed law enforcement agents to the polls in November, these statements appear designed to sow fear among voters.

Despite the implied threat, the law is clear: Sending armed federal agents, including those from ICE, to election sites is illegal. Federal law and many states’ laws prohibit not only armed federal agents at polling sites, but also interference in elections or voter intimidation by any officials or private citizens. More important, using these tactics would be a flagrant attempt to hold on to power through force and intimidation and an affront to free and fair elections. Yet, given the Trump administration’s pattern of flouting rules and engaging in plainly illegal and unethical conduct, including attempting to overturn a valid election, we must take this threat seriously.

The law reads...

Whoever, being an officer of the Army or Navy, or other person in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, orders, brings, keeps, or has under his authority or control any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held, unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; and be disqualified from holding any office of honor, profit, or trust under the United States.

As the old saying goes... "May you live in interesting times!"

Life On A Sandbar

The cottage condo next to mine just sold for $529,000! It was on the market all year, but it seems that  $1 million-plus “cottages” are really flying off the shelves.

There are two separate trends that have caught my eye. The first was a $2.9 million new “cottage” (more on the price later). I didn’t even have to look for it—it was a monster! Built entirely of glass, it sits between two traditional story-and-a-half cottages featuring cedar shingles and white trim (anywhere else, it would simply be considered a “home”). The third floor is entirely glass—I mean, floor-to-ceiling glass walls! It’s very striking; you can see people sitting around inside, probably entertaining guests over cocktails.

From what I heard, they tore down the old cedar-shingle house and built that monster in its place. The neighbors are none too pleased, as the three-story building blocks their view of Cape Cod Bay. The town never needed height limits before, but now people are coming in and building these massive structures.

Another monster was built on a sand cliff in the Cape Cod National Seashore (CCNS). Now, both the town and the CCNS have strict building restrictions. The new owner tore down the old cottage and wanted to build a $5 million home overlooking the bay and Provincetown—a beautiful location! The town and the CCNS said no, as it violated the building restrictions tied to the property. I believe the CCNS argument was that it was built too close to the edge of a 100-foot cliff and would inevitably tumble into the sea.

The owner took them to court and won! A few years later, sure enough, the house was right on the edge of the cliff, poised to slide into the sea. They wanted to put in erosion controls, but the town and the CCNS said no, arguing that the controls would disrupt the natural movement of sand along the coast and cause problems in other areas. So, what did they do? They did what many wealthy people do: They sued and won!

Then, the owners sold it for over $5 million! In less than a year, the new owners found their $5,000,000 little cottage literally on the brink of the cliff. So now they are suing—no, get this—the bank for giving them the $5,000,000 loan, claiming the lender must have been crazy to approve it!

The second trend is the result of a “K-shaped” economy. Million-dollar-plus cottages are selling like hotcakes, but properties like my neighbor’s don’t sell easily. Millionaires are snapping up the monster cottages, while smaller cottages like mine—with only 600 square feet—are considered dogs. They are completely pricing out middle-income buyers.

One immediate result of my neighbor’s sale is that the tax assessors are going to look at it as the new baseline, meaning the assessed value of my cottage just went up. Higher taxes for me!

---

This isn’t new. My brother lived in Maine and was a real estate agent. What we saw there were family farms being sold off just to pay the taxes. People had no choice with their land; the farms simply weren’t making enough money to cover the skyrocketing taxes. You can’t blame them for selling either—when someone waves a couple of million dollars in your face, you take the money and run!

Maine was looking into ways to save family farms, one of which was freezing taxes at the last sale price. Late last month, I wrote about the changing character of Provincetown going the way of “Fire Island” in New York.

What we are finding is that the character of these towns is changing, too. A night out on the town is skyrocketing; instead of spending $30 or $40, it is now $50 or $60. As a result, upscale stores and restaurants are driving out local establishments.

When I first went to P’town in the ’50s and ’60s, it was what my father called a bohemian town. Walking down Commercial Street, you could find artists willing to paint your portrait. By the 2000s, they were nowhere to be found. There used to be street vendors and Ellie, who would “sing for a buck,” along with mimes. But it all ended with Ellie.

I know a photographer for the local newspapers who had to leave because he couldn’t find housing. In Truro, there was a long, drawn-out court fight over low-income and seasonal housing—yet these are often the very same people who complain about a lack of staffing!

The character of the coast is changing. When I was growing up in the fifties, my mother’s aunt had a cottage on a New Hampshire lake that we visited every August. Growing up in the ’50s and ’60s, I knew plenty of neighbors who had summer cottages. The middle class could afford cottages back then on the Cape or the Connecticut shore, but now the middle class has been priced out. Even renting a cottage is out of reach; an average Cape Cod cottage rental costs about $3,400 per week during the peak summer season! And you better believe that in four or five years, I might just look at renting out or selling my cottage and taking the money and running.

The good news is that the next-door cottage sold for half a million dollars. The bad news is that my taxes are going up! All up and down the coast, people are taking the money and running.

---

When I was proofreading with the AI and afterwards I ask it about improvements and thoughts, it replied:

I think the trend you’re describing is absolutely real, but I’d characterize it a little differently than simply “coastal property is skyrocketing.”

What’s happening on Cape Cod is more interesting: coastal property is becoming a luxury asset rather than ordinary housing.

The numbers support the basic observation. The median single-family sale price on Cape Cod was about $790,000 in 2025, compared with $765,000 in 2024. And in June 2026, the median reached $825,000. 

But the really important statistic for your essay is this: 36% of Cape Cod's housing units are classified as seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. The state also estimates that about 5,800 year-round homes were converted to seasonal use between 2009 and 2019. 

That's exactly the phenomenon you're describing anecdotally.

And there's an important twist

Your observation about the $1 million-plus houses is particularly interesting because the market isn't simply saying “everything is expensive.”

The latest Cape Cod market data show strong demand for homes under $1 million, while $1 million-plus properties actually take longer to sell on average. In Q1 2026, homes below $1 million had a median 34.4 days on market, versus 77 days for homes at $1 million and above. 

Mixed!

The question is can the two be separated? Can her later life make up for her earlier comments?

In her early years she was anti-trans, Gloria Steinem publish some heavy works against us, her comments about Renee Richards were very negative.. she was a fan of Janice Raymond, but that changed over time.

Looking Back on Gloria Steinem’s Turn Toward Transgender Rights
The late feminist icon spent her later years using her voice for transgender rights.
them

By Mathew Rodriguez , Quispe López

September 3, 2026

 

 

 Trailblazing feminist icon Gloria Steinem died at her New York City home on Wednesday, per a statement on her social media. As many of her obituaries will attest, Steinem publicly challenged gender stereotypes in the earliest days of her journalism and activism careers, dating back to the 1960s.

Though her legacy of feminist activism also included a hefty amount of advocacy on behalf of transgender people, that was not always the case. Steinem’s earliest known writing on trans people, from a February 1977 issue of Ms., the magazine which she co-founded a few years earlier, waded into the debate on transgender athletes — which, yes, was happening half a century ago. The article, “If the Shoe Doesn’t Fit, Change the Foot,” concerns Renée Richards, a tennis player who had transitioned in the 1970s. In the article, Steinem wrote that “we ought to be very, very suspicious of the social reasons for transsexuality as well as its big, star-spangled, commercial exploitation.”

Year, Steinem voiced support for some of the core tenets of Janice Raymond’s infamous 1979 book, The Transsexual Empire, which is considered a defining work of trans-exclusionary radical feminism. In a 2012 interview for Vassar College, Steinem referenced the book, saying, “Doctors were really profiting off this surgery and especially hormonal treatments. Hormonal treatments, in general, whether for fertility or for gender purposes, nobody knows whether they’re dangerous or not. And that’s a worry. I just think our choices need to be informed.”

One of the marks of a really great person is that they stop and reassess their core beliefs  

 Gloria Steinem, feminist trailblazer who championed LGBTQ+ equality, dies at 92
The legendary journalist fought Anita Bryant’s antigay crusade, defended lesbians in the pages of The Advocate and later confronted her own complicated history with transgender people. 

The Advocate

Christopher Wiggins 

Sep 03, 2026

Gloria Steinem, the journalist and organizer who became one of the most recognizable figures in American feminism and a longtime supporter of LGBTQ+ equality, has died. She was 92.

[...]

Steinem’s support for gay and lesbian people was visible early in the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement. Time reported in 1977 that gay activists persuaded her to travel to Miami as they fought Anita Bryant’s campaign to repeal Dade County’s ordinance prohibiting discrimination against gay people. Speaking later that year at an American Association of University Women convention, Steinem said lesbians were “the most vulnerable group of women” and argued that the word lesbian had to become “as honorable as any other.”

Steinem was among the prominent supporters of the Human Rights Campaign Fund in its early years.

 But she was back then anti-trans. But in an Advocate article from 2013 she writes,

 Such stories led me to write a 1977 essay reminding us that, in addition to supporting informed choices like those of Jan Morris, Renee Richards, and others in the news at the time, we also needed to change society to fit individuals. It asked the question: If the shoe doesn't fit, must we change the foot?

Years passed the Internet arrived, and words circulated out of time and context. Last year one young transgender student on campus assumed that old essay's use of the word "mutilate" for surgeries performed because of societal pressure meant I was against sexual reassignment surgery altogether. He didn't consider that it had been written two generations before he was born, and also in the context of global protests against routine surgical assaults, called female genital mutilation by some survivors.

So now I want to be unequivocal in my words: I believe that transgender people, including those who have transitioned, are living out real, authentic lives. Those lives should be celebrated, not questioned. Their health care decisions should be theirs and theirs alone to make. And what I wrote decades ago does not reflect what we know today as we move away from only the binary boxes of "masculine" or "feminine" and begin to live along the full human continuum of identity and expression.

 Lambda Legal wrote...

 “Yesterday we lost a giant. For more than half a century, Gloria Steinem insisted that none of us is free until all of us are free, and she understood long before her peers that the fight for women’s rights and the fight for LGBTQ+ rights are one and the same. She stood with our community when it was neither safe nor popular to do so, naming plainly that feminists and LGBTQ+ people share the same struggle and the same opponents. She helped beat back Anita Bryant’s campaign to strip gay people of protection from discrimination, and insisted the word ‘lesbian’ be spoken with as much honor as any other. 

Yes, a leopard can change their spots.

 

We have lost two true allies... Dolly Parton and Gloria Steinem, they both made the world a better place.

Data Centers!

You all have heard the buzz about data centers. So what do data centers do?

Well, there is AI.

Then we have all the stuff you store on the cloud.

But we also have... Trump's new voter lists! Huh? What are those? Well, you know how Trump wants all the states to send him a list of their voters.

Editorial: Federal information has become suspect

September 4, 2026

By American Press Staff

President Donald Trump’s March 31 executive order on mail-in voting directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to create state by state lists of eligible voters for federal elections. DHS would use federal databases to get the names, but those databases have been considered to be controversial.

The Associated Press has reported that an immigrant rights group sued the Trump administration Wednesday to block DHS from using federal databases that it alleged are being used to target naturalized citizens who are eligible to vote.

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights filed the lawsuit in U.S.  District Court in Washington. It alleges that DHS and the U.S. Justice Department are interfering with fair elections by using inaccurate federal databases in an attempt to buttress allegations of voter fraud.

Everyone but Trump & Company knows that there is no widespread voter fraud and that he is using that excuse to build a massive database on the citizens... just like China, North Korea, and Russia.  So now Trump is before the Supreme Court begging them to let him do it.

The lawsuit alleges that the administration might be comparing voter rolls with undisclosed government databases. Those systems can include outdated information and be riddled with errors, it said, and could produce inaccurate results that disproportionately affect naturalized voters.

“Comparing government databases to try and arrive at a list of noncitizen registrants has been shown to result in erroneous data,” the lawsuit said.

“Congress has never authorized such activities and in fact has prohibited invasion of voter privacy through government data matches in this way.”

I don't know about you... but this doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

The Fulcrum reports that,

Trump’s Plan to Gather Data on Every Voter Will Cripple Democracy

By Austin Sarat

Jan 17, 2026

On January 8, Texas turned over to the Justice Department a treasure trove of information about every voter in the Lone Star state. Names, addresses, voters’ party registrations, whether they had ever cast a preliminary ballot, and more, all of it to be provided in response to the Trump administration’s unprecedented demand for data on voters everywhere.

For a state that has long prided itself on its fierce independence and resistance to federal overreach, one might have expected it to put up a fight. But here, as in many other areas, partisan loyalty displaced state pride.

[...]

As an article in Texas Monthly explains, “The Justice Department last fall began asking all 50 states for their voter rolls — massive lists containing significant identifying information on every registered voter in each state — and other election-related data.” It claimed that “the effort is central to its mission of enforcing election law requiring states to regularly maintain voter lists by searching for and removing ineligible voters.”}

The United States Constitution: Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. 

Not Trump! But Congress and the states.

The Fulcrum goes on to report...

The unredacted lists include “sensitive personal information, such as driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers.” Stateline’s Jonathan Shorman points out that “The administration’s lawsuits mostly target Democratic states, where election officials refused initial requests for voter data and allege the demand is unlawful….”

Why do they need all that information on us... so when they merge the databases you can link the fields.

Now Trump is going back to court to try and get his way.

Supreme Court Faces New Decision on Trump’s Mail-in Ballot USPS Changes

Newsweek

By Alex Backus

Sep 03, 2026

The Trump administration again asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to allow new restrictions on mail-in voting to take effect, just one day before the first mail ballots are set to go out for November’s midterm elections.

The emergency request comes as legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive order continue in lower courts.

The Supreme Court previously allowed the administration’s plan to move forward while litigation continues, but the justices have not yet ruled on whether the policy is legal.

Trump & Company are running scared and he could do anything... declare a national emergency! Say there is massive illegal voting by non-citizens. He can make up a thousand excuses.

The latest Supreme Court filing came hours after a federal court hearing in Boston, where a Justice Department attorney was unable to tell a judge whether the system needed to carry out the new requirements was operational.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani repeatedly pressed Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik for details about whether the Postal Service could implement the plan outlined in Trump’s executive order, which was issued last spring.

Then we have the big lie;

Asking for that information suggests that something else may be motivating the administration’s massive data mining effort. In the run-up to the 2026 elections, it may help it to precisely target Democratic voters and accuse them of election fraud or Democratic states for accusations of election irregularities.

But the plan doesn’t stop there. The Justice Department intends to share the data it gets with the Department of Homeland Security.

DHS will use it as part of its aggressive citizenship verification efforts. In addition, the department argues that “This collaboration with the DOJ will lawfully and critically enable DHS to prevent illegal aliens from corrupting our republic’s democratic process and further ensure the integrity of our elections nationwide.”

“Elections,” it insists, “exist for the American people to choose their leaders, not illegal aliens.”}

All those virtual illegal aliens voting! 

The unredacted lists include “sensitive personal information, such as driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers.” Stateline’s Jonathan Shorman points out that “The administration’s lawsuits mostly target Democratic states, where election officials refused initial requests for voter data and allege the demand is unlawful….”

Can you imagine merging data bases with like Flock's ALPRs? (See below the hash line)

That is where the real danger lies.. merging of databases!

Imagine... You are a trans person running a non-profit that helps trans people sue for their legal rights. Well the Baptist News said that Trump's administration have frequently invoked high-profile acts of violence—such as the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk—to claim that "extreme transgender ideologies" are driving a rise in left-wing domestic extremism.

That is the worry... the massive database will be used to track down trans people! All our information will allow the government to find us. They did it in Kansas, they used databases to track us down and revoke our driver licenses! They could also use it for more sinister and nefarious reasons.

So Trump is pushing data centers, exempting them from environmental laws public and hide them form public scrutiny. Why?

---

Then we have Flock's training film...

Flock Taught Cops How to Surveil No Kings Protesters

Jason Koebler

404

Sep 3, 2026

Flock taught cops how they could surveil the No Kings protests and “small parades” using a mix of Flock’s technology and law enforcement’s own databases in a webinar last year. As Flock publicly downplays the power of its automated license plate camera network and highlights its use to solve violent crime, the company’s seemingly endless trove of webinars, training sessions, and blog posts show it offers far more invasive capabilities.

In the webinar, Flock’s director of market management Caity Peak explains how real time crime centers — which are police surveillance centers that utilize Flock cameras and other surveillance cameras — can be used for emergency response, but can also be used to surveil “established events” like 4th of July fireworks displays, parades, bike races, Mardi Gras, and protests. The webinar shows just how routine the idea of always-on surveillance has become, and how casually it is used during extremely innocuous events. 

Peak explains that police can use FlockOS, a software platform that combines Flock’s automatic license plate readers (ALPR), drones, gunshot detectors, 911 data, and other surveillance cameras (including ones Flock does not own) into a “single pane of glass” or single piece of software to look at various types of surveillance in one place during both emergencies and relatively mundane events in a city or town. 

Interlocking databases!

404 Media and the Electronic Frontier Foundation previously showed that police have specifically used Flock cameras to monitor the No Kings protests and other First Amendment-protected activity. 404 Media found California cops used Flock to monitor an “immigration protest.” The EFF found that the following law enforcement agencies ran Flock searches related to No Kings protests and rallies:

[...]

This webinar shows this type of surveillance is not anomalous, and is specifically taught by Flock. The webinar also shows that Flock’s latest public stance — that its ALPR cameras are noninvasive technology, that they take only static images at a single place and time, and that they are primarily used to solve the worst crimes — is wildly misleading. Flock has time and time again pitched itself to police as a sort of operating system to solve crime and do real-time surveillance and predictive policing. ALPRs are just one part of this broader surveillance apparatus that Flock has created, markets to police, and teaches them how to use. These real time crime centers are proving increasingly popular with police; Flock now says on its website that more than 4,800 cities around the country are running FlockOS software. 

---

My take on ALPRs and all the other monitoring systems.

Look we are not going to put the genie back in the bottle. Yes it does help solves crimes. So what I see are laws governing who cane see the photos without a warrant and for how long can they access the data. Who can link databases. At the very lease if say within 14 day only the speed cop can use the data. Anyone else needs warrant. We need to put leashes on the data.

The camera data must be the property of the municipality and not the camera company. It needs to be something like being bound by strict public records and privacy acts—meaning it cannot be harvested indefinitely, traded across state lines to federal or state agencies without oversight, or used to build a permanent commercial ledger.

Even with state laws that have all these protections data still gets traded so there needs to auditing with stiff bite. Fines should hurt their bottom line otherwise it will just be a business expense... We figured the $1000 fine in to the price of buying the data. And go after management and the Board of Directors! 

---

I started out with data centers, but data centers are being built to hold all this surveillance. Just think about the APLRs cameras... just think all the data storage they need to hold from all those cameras! 

Um... AI, to a judge? Really?

Our fearless leader of HHS submitted an AI generated report to a judge... and the judge is not a happy camper.

Judge Condemns RFK Jr’s HHS for Using Fake Studies

Newsweek

By Alice Gibbs

Sep 03, 2026

A federal judge has sharply criticized the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., after finding that studies cited in a key teen pregnancy prevention funding notice appeared either not to exist or did not support the claims for which they were cited, describing the issue as a hallmark of AI-generated citations.

In a preliminary injunction ruling issued August 19, District Judge Christopher R. Cooper blocked parts of the Trump administration's overhaul of the federal Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program.

Cooper wrote: “On the topic of body literacy, the notices (remarkably) reference public health studies that appear either not to exist or not to support the propositions for which they are cited—a hallmark of AI-generated citations.”

He went on to point to expert testimony submitted in the case that found five of seven articles cited in the notices could not be located as described, with two appearing to be entirely fabricated and three seemingly misattributed to the wrong journals.

"And according to the early-stage factual record, there seem to be no pregnancy prevention curricula and programs that 'center [on] body literacy' and other newly-imposed TPP requirements," he said.

[...]

Cooper found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing the policy was arbitrary and capricious. He wrote: “While abstinence-only education may well be appropriate for some age groups or communities, the agency has offered no explanation or evidence to support its across-the-board mandate that only abstinence strategies be pursued.”

You really don't want to get a judge mad at you with fudge reports.

I Write To Express Outrage!

I am writing this to express outrage at the governor... he is a bigot!

Undocumented Immigrant With CT ‘Drive Only’ License Charged In Fatal Ohio Crash

"Quite simply, your policies are killing my constituents," a U.S. Senator from Ohio wrote to CT Gov. Ned Lamont.

Michelle Tuccitto Sullo,

Patch

Sep 3, 2026

“I write to express outrage over this preventable loss of innocent life,” Moreno said, in the letter to Lamont. “If it were not for policy you championed, which allows illegal aliens to receive a ‘drive-only’ license, this young man may have reached his destination.”

“While one death alone is an inexcusable tragedy, Connecticut has granted over 60,000 such licenses to illegal aliens, putting countless Americans at risk on the roads. This insanity has to stop,” Moreno added.

Moreno wrote in the letter, “Quite simply, your policies are killing my constituents.”

A tragedy is a tragedy. But a tragedy does not automatically prove the policy you oppose caused it, nor does one person's alleged wrongdoing justify portraying 60,000 people as a threat.

This is my outrage... One out of 60,000! So, Governor, because of one person who committed this crime, you want to paint all immigrants with one brushstroke?

So, Governor, you are outraged?

You know what that shows me? It shows me that you are a xenophobe and that you are trying to stir up anger and hatred against immigrants. You are turning this woman's death into a political weapon.

That is what I find outrageous.

Me, Me, Me!

All the presidents will be there except for one. The current leader.

Former Presidents Unite to Shame Trump Over 9/11 Diva Fit

Donald Trump is snubbing a ceremony to mark the 25th anniversary of the historic terror attacks.

The Daily Beast

Ewan Palmer

Sep. 2 2026

All four living former U.S. presidents have confirmed their attendance at a ceremony in New York next week to commemorate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which Donald Trump has decided to skip for a typically petty reason.

Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, who was president at the time of the 9/11 attacks, will all attend the event at the World Trade Center site marking the 25th anniversary of the attacks, The New York Times reported.

Trump was initially also set to appear at the event at Ground Zero. However, the Times previously reported that the 80-year-old president bailed after being told he would not be allowed to deliver one of his rambling speeches at what is supposed to be a somber occasion to remember the nearly 3,000 people who were killed that day.

Instead, Trump will mark the 25th anniversary of the attacks at the Pentagon, which was also targeted by a plane hijacked by al Qaeda terrorists.

Okay, place your bets... how long will he talk at the Pentagon... and how many times will he say "Me?"

We can't have a drinking game because everyone will get smashed.

Trump has furiously rejected the suggestion that he bailed on the 9/11 event in New York City after being told that he could not give a speech. In a vile Truth Social post, Trump attacked New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, who was one of four bylines on the original report about his upcoming absence, and claimed that she had “made up a story.”

The New York Daily News writes in an editorial

Shame on Donald Trump for skipping the Ground Zero ceremony in NYC marking 25 years since the terror attacks of 9/11/2001.

The so-called champion of law enforcement has decided to spit on the graves of the firefighters and cops who charged toward the burning buildings in Lower Manhattan to save those they could, along with the memories of thousands more. Add that insult to the disrespect he has callously shown the brave Capitol police officers in Washington who tried to hold back an angry mob he’d whipped up on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump is reportedly missing so important a day because, like other politicians before him, he wasn’t going to be given an opportunity to speak. The annual event is nonpartisan, so Trump was treated the same as other political leaders before him, including last year, when he joined in silence with Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and JD Vance.

But that apparently wasn’t good enough for Trump. If it’s not about him, he really isn’t interested.

The 3,000 who died. The thousands more who perished from 9/11 illness. The moms, dads, wives, husbands, daughters and sons whose lives were upended. The people who lived to tell the story. The New Yorkers who rebuilt the city.

None of them matter, not to a president who has taken self-interest to new heights.

He is pissing off millions more people and I don't mean just NYC residents but millions more when they don't see him there and then learned he gave a rambling speech at the Pentagon.

The editorial ends with:

Shame on Trump for skipping the 9/11 ceremony in his hometown. It’s time for those who haven’t yet to pay closer attention to his self-serving and dangerous game.

Please, Please Don't Do It!

If they do it... hate wins!

All around the world right-wing authoritarian parties are winning. They win by persecuting a minority and generating hate.

Germans vote in eastern state as far-right AfD eyes power

Saxony-Anhalt elections could see AfD become the first far-right party to take power at a state level since WWII.

By Al Jazeera Staff, DPA and Reuters

Published On 6 Sep 2026

6 Sep 2026

Voting is under way in the eastern German state of Saxony-Anhalt that could see the Alternative for Germany (AfD) become the first far-right party to take power at a state level since World War II.

Recent surveys place AfD at 40 percent, ahead of the centre-right Christian Democrats (CDU) at 23 percent.

AfD has led comfortably in the pre-election opinion polls for months and has a chance at winning an absolute majority if several smaller parties fail to clear the 5 percent threshold to enter the parliament.

I asked Gemini what platforms the party is running on... does any of this sound familiar?

The Alternative for Germany (AfD) has built its electoral momentum and state-level political gains around a strongly nationalist, anti-establishment, and populist platform.

Here are the core pillars the AfD has consistently used to run its campaigns:

## 1. Strict Anti-Immigration and Border Control

* **Mass Deportations:** Advocating for the large-scale deportation of asylum seekers, undocumented migrants, and even foreign nationals who have committed crimes.

* **Border Security:** Demanding permanent, strict controls at Germany's borders to halt irregular migration entirely.

* **Cultural Preservation:** Framing high immigration as a direct threat to German cultural identity, public safety, and social cohesion.

## 2. Euroscepticism and Anti-EU Policies

* **Reforming or Leaving the EU:** Advocating for a significant reduction of the European Union's powers, or in some factions, a "Dexit" (Germany leaving the EU).

* **National Sovereignty:** Prioritizing German national law and sovereignty over EU directives, particularly regarding fiscal policy and regulations.

## 3. Opposition to the "Green Transition" and Energy Policies

* **Rejecting Climate Targets:** Campaigning heavily against Germany's green energy mandates, carbon taxes, and the phase-out of fossil fuels and nuclear energy.

* **Lower Energy Costs:** Blaming current economic hardships on climate policies and promising to restore cheap fossil fuels and Russian energy sources to lower utility bills for citizens and businesses.

## 4. Anti-Establishment and Populist Rhetoric

* **Challenging the Political Elite:** Positioning themselves as the only true voice of the "ordinary people" against a detached, corrupt political establishment in Berlin.

* **Media and Institutional Distrust:** Frequently criticizing mainstream media and public broadcasting, accusing them of bias and censorship.

* **Foreign Policy Alignment:** Often adopting a more conciliatory stance toward Russia, criticizing NATO's role, and opposing military aid to Ukraine.

---

> **Note:** The AfD's platform has led to intense polarization in Germany. While supporters view the party as a necessary corrective to mainstream policies, mainstream democratic parties and the German domestic intelligence agency have increasingly classified regional branches of the AfD as suspected or proven right-wing extremist organizations.

Then I asked Gemini about their LGBTQ+ policies...

On LGBTQ+ issues, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) promotes an ultra-conservative, traditionalist platform that stands in stark opposition to contemporary progressive policies. Their stance is a key component of their broader cultural "anti-woke" campaign.

The core elements of the AfD's platform regarding LGBTQ+ issues include:

## 1. Defense of the "Traditional Family"

* **Nuclear Family Focus:** The AfD heavily champions the traditional model of a family—consisting strictly of a mother, a father, and children. They view this structure as foundational to German society and demographic preservation.

* **Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage:** Although the party’s co-leader, Alice Weidel, is an openly gay woman living with a female partner and children, the party’s official platform has historically advocated for rolling back or challenging same-sex marriage rights, prioritizing traditional marriage frameworks instead.

## 2. Rejection of "Gender-Identity Politics" and Transition Laws

* **Opposition to the Self-Determination Law (*Selbstbestimmungsgesetz*):** The AfD fiercely opposes legal reforms that make it easier for transgender and non-binary individuals to legally change their gender.

* **Banning Gender-Neutral Language ("Gendering"):** They campaign against the use of gender-inclusive language in public administration, schools, and media, framing it as an unnecessary and ideological distortion of the German language.

* **Medical and Public Restrictions:** The party advocates for halting public funding for gender-affirming medical procedures and opposes what they describe as the "promotion" of gender and sexual diversity in schools and public institutions.

## 3. The "Culture War" and Framing Immigration

* **Anti-Woke Rhetoric:** The AfD positions itself as a bulwark against what it terms "gender mania" and "wokeness," arguing that progressive cultural shifts undermine historic European values.

* **Instrumentalizing Queer Safety:** Interestingly, figures within the party (including Alice Weidel) have at times used anti-homophobia talking points to target Muslim and non-Western immigrants. They argue that high levels of migration from conservative Islamic countries pose a direct threat to the safety of secular and LGBTQ+ individuals in Germany, blending anti-immigration arguments with selective concerns over public security.

Overall, the AfD treats LGBTQ+ policy as a battleground against progressive social change, rallying their base around the preservation of traditional social norms.

And finally I asked it: "Does this sound like Trump?

That is a very common observation. Political scientists and analysts frequently categorize the AfD as part of the broader global wave of right-wing populism that includes Donald Trump’s MAGA movement, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, and similar movements worldwide.

Several core elements tie their playbooks together:

* **The "Anti-Establishment" Outsider Persona:** Both frame themselves as fighting a corrupt, out-of-touch political and media elite on behalf of the "forgotten everyday people."

* **Nationalism as a Core Brand:** Slogans like "America First" and the AfD's equivalent focus on national sovereignty share a deep skepticism of globalism, international bodies (like the EU or UN), and multilateral agreements.

* **The Culture War and Anti-"Woke" Stance:** Both heavily weaponize cultural issues—pushing back against progressive gender policies, LGBTQ+ initiatives, and green energy transitions—framing them as threats to traditional values and common sense.

* **Weaponizing Grievances Over Immigration:** Both place border security and strict restrictions on immigration at the absolute center of their political appeal, often linking demographic shifts to domestic security and economic strain.

* **Distrust of Mainstream Media:** Labeling critical mainstream news outlets as "fake news" or biased establishment mouthpieces is a staple of communication for both groups.

While the institutional frameworks and histories of the U.S. and Germany are very different—and the AfD operates within a multi-party parliamentary system rather than a two-party presidential one—the underlying populist strategy, rhetoric, and cultural targets bear a striking resemblance. In fact, figures within the AfD and parts of the modern U.S. conservative movement have actively built political ties and expressed mutual admiration.

Do any of these policies sound familiar... they should. They are the rallying cry of authoritarian regimes everywhere: Pick a minority and make them the scapegoat of all the countries "ills'. Slogans like "America First" if you are with us then you must an enemy of the state! Attack the media... they are the real enemies!