The Common Ills: The Snapshot

Tuesday, September 30, 2025

The Snapshot

Tuesday, September 30, 2025. The shutdown the White House has wanted since February looms, Chump's dementia becomes more obvious to the country, Senator Chris Murphy is among the strong voices explaining why this isn't a go-along to get-along moment, and much more.

Let's start with Ben and MEIDASTOUCH NEWS.

The jack-booted thugs -- Governor JB Pritzker is correct -- shots at US citizens. If a police officer did that, they'd be facing charges. They shove a US citizen to the ground. There is no oversight here and these goons aren't even trained. Kristi and Chump have given them free reign to terrorize people.

On JB, Malcolm Ferguson (THE NEW REPUBLIC) notes:

Democratic Illinois Governor JB Pritzker once again used his bully pulpit to rebuke President Trump after federal agents marched through downtown Chicago, kidnapped people, shot a pepper ball (essentially a paintball full of pepper spray) at a journalist’s vehicle, and fired tear gas at peaceful protesters.

“In any other country, if federal agents fired upon journalists and protesters, when unprovoked, what would we call it? If federal agents marched down busy streets, harassing civilians and demanding their papers, what would we say? I don’t think we’d have any trouble calling it what it is: authoritarianism,” Pritzker said at a press conference Monday afternoon. “So let’s not pretend it’s something else when it happens in our American cities.”

This weekend, there was a surge in federal immigration enforcement in Chicago as armed agents patrolled the city. Pritzker on Monday said that Trump is also planning to deploy 100 military troops to Illinois.

Let's turn to the public e-mail account (common_ills@yahoo.com). "You never held Joe accountable for anything! And you let him get away with defending Hunter when he was president!" So whines an e-mail from a deranged man. I have held every occupant of the Oval Office accountable in the time this site has been up. When Barack Obama opened his mouth and shouldn't -- stating Chelsea Manning was guilty when he was president earned a reprimand, it earned one for Joe when he would say something about his son and it also earned two reprimands for Jill Biden -- my goal here was to never have to mention Jill. I like Jill and have known her for years. During the eight years she was Second Lady, I broke that rule only once -- a snapshot where I noted a column she and Michelle co-wrote on veterans and, in the same column, noted that veterans who met with Jill were impressed with her. When she was First Lady, I called her out twice for speaking of Hunter's guilt or innocence. I stated she was his mother (step-mother but Hunted really was raised by her) and she could talk about her love for him or other things but she should stay away from guilt or innocence due to being married to the president (who needed to stay away from guilt or innocence because he was the president). I actually, despite the e-mailers belief otherwise, haven't weighed in on Chump's remarks re: Comey. He's noted in the Friday snapshot and he's noted in a Sunday post. That's really all I have written about James Comey being indicted.

But Chump should have kept his mouth shut. He didn't. And now he could pay for that. Devan Cole (CNN) has an article on this -- how Chump's words could help Comey. He doesn't think it will be successful and explains why. I disagree. I think it could be very successful. I think Cole's thinking of lower level officials. The office of the President of the United States is the highest office in the land. Therefore, actions and words from whomever's holding that office matter more in terms of court proceedings. When it's the words of the president, which jurisdiction do you move to?

That's not a huge issue to me -- and Cole may be correct in his take. What's more of an issue to me is thinking about when I've sued someone. And I always win because I understand what it takes to win. But lose or win, it takes time. And that's my huge issue. When Paula Jones brought a lawsuit against Bill Clinton, before it was allowed to proceed, we had hearings regarding whether it could be brought immediately while Bill was a sitting president. Did we all forget that?

They pondered it and said sure.

That was one case.

If five Paula Joneses had wanted to sue, would the verdict be the same?

What I'm getting at is that Chump is doing an awful job and is elderly and staying up to all hours due to his late night urination cycle and social media posting. Who's signing off on these personal law suits? When he's suing CBS or NYT or whomever, shouldn't he have to go before a court -- the same as Paula Jones -- to argue that he should be allowed to sue while he's a sitting president?

How does he have time to sue as a sitting president. And to be so litigious with so many lawsuits?

He doesn't. That's why so many things are falling apart because he won't do the job he was elected to.

And if we worry -- and I do -- about a president's ability to influence judicial outcomes -- the whole reason behind the statement "I'm not going to comment on an ongoing investigation" -- why are we not concerned about juries being influenced by a sitting president bringing the law suit?

As soon as possible, Congress needs to pass a law regarding lawsuits during a presidency. Chump has spent far too much time suing and threatening to sue. There might need to be a moratorium on lawsuits brought by a sitting president when the president is the plaintiff.

So that's something I think we need to do as Democrats. How about you?

The reason I ask is that John Gallagher (LGBTQ NATION) reports on how hugely unpopular Donald Chump is. He also notes that the Democrats aren't all that popular as a body either.

I've shared before my belief that some of that is frustration over Dems not having control of the White House or either house in Congress. But note this from Gallagher:

Democrats are also faltering on issues because they have been choosing to avoid topics instead of trying to reshape the debate around them. Nowhere is that truer than when it comes to trans rights issues. Polls show that a significant number of voters think that the party is too focused on trans issues at the expense of economic issues. That’s because the party failed to push back hard enough on Republican attacks on trans people. How hard is it to say that the GOP is attacking parental rights by going after trans kids? Apparently, it’s very hard for Democrats.

Instead, you have Democrats who want to abandon principles because that’s easier than coming up with a new approach to issues. Would-be presidential candidate Gavin Newsom happily threw trans people under the bus in an interview with, of all people, Charlie Kirk. New York Times columnist Ezra Klein floated the idea that Democrats should run anti-abortion candidates in red states, even though pro-abortion initiatives have won on the ballot in red states.

Rebuilding a party isn’t easy. Rethinking how to keep your principles while navigating a changing electorate is incredibly hard. But thinking that you can win elections simply because the other guy is doing a bad job isn’t going to work for the Democrats.

Right now, the electorate is unhappy with both parties. Relying on them to be unhappier with your opponent is a lousy strategy.

The polls are telling Democrats they need to be something other than what they were. Unless the party can rise to the challenge, Trump will maintain the advantage of incumbency and all the power it grants him, plus the power that he seizes.

Dems are not in control of one house of Congress at present -- let alone both. But what if we were?

As a party, we can certainly talk about what we would do. Right now, we can talk about that. I want a strong series of reforms -- such as took place after Watergate -- that will protect the democracy so that it can never be threatened by another madman the way it is today. I want more than that as well. To build a better world, we need to see a better world. And maybe if we could put some time into that and see what idea we could agree on, we could stop feeling are leaders are powerless. We do have power. -- even now we do.

If we didn't have power, Jimmy Kimmel wouldn't be back on ABC. You forced that. You made that happen. And I don't think you get how big it is. Possibly because too many 'informed voices' weren't informed at all. This has never happened before. A show that a large number of affiliates were not going to broadcast got brought back. Never, ever has that happened. Don't give me HILL STREET BLUES, CAGNEY AND LACEY, et al saved by a letter writing campaign. Those were low rated shows at one point. They were not shows that the affiliates refused to air. There are about 238 stations across the US broadcasting ABC content (some put the figure at 250 -- we're going with the lower number because that's the number that broadcasts all ABC content). 72 stations were saying that they wouldn't broadcast Jimmy's show (that's the number of SINCLAIR and NEXSTAR affiliates that broadcast ABC content). You made that happen and it has never happened before.

We have more power than we know and more power than we ever attempt to utilize.

Alexander Bolton (THE HILL) reported yesterday:

Democratic senators increasingly see shutting down the government to send a message to President Trump as a political necessity, Democratic aides and strategists say.

These frustrated Democrats think they need to do something drastic to push back on the Trump administration and buck up their own demoralized voters — and the looming Sept. 30 government funding deadline may be one of their best remaining chances.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) thinks the hard-line Democratic strategy is starting to pay off after Trump agreed to meet with Democratic leaders at the White House on Monday, something the president had previously refused to do.

“We’ve been resolute that we need a meeting, that we need a real negotiation, that you don’t do this by one party putting together a completely partisan bill and saying, ‘Take it or leave it.’ So, they felt the heat,” Schumer told NBC’s “Meet the Press” in an interview Sunday.

He warned that if Trump uses the meeting to score political points, Democrats would again defeat a House-passed government funding bill that needs to pass by Tuesday to avoid a shutdown.

"Shut out? Shut down!" That should be the motto. It happened because Dems -- and the citizens they represent -- were shut out of the process.

There are 214 elected Dems to the Republicans 219. That's a lot of members being shut out and that's a lot of Americans who they represent that aren't getting a voice in the so-called people's house. Let's not forget that the number is technically 213. Why? Because Speaker of the Closet Mike Johnson refuses to seat Adelita Grijalva. She was elected on Tuesday of last week. He won't seat her. He's afraid she'd become the last needed signature on the Epstein petition. Steve Benen (MADDOW BLOG, MSNBC) notes:

Democrat Adelita Grijalva cruised to a landslide victory last week, winning her congressional special election by roughly 40 points. Once sworn in, she’ll be Arizona’s first-ever Latina congresswoman, succeeding her father, the late Rep. Raúl Grijalva, and she’ll narrow the GOP majority in the U.S. House: Republicans will hold 219 seats to the Democrats’ 214, with two vacancies remaining.

What’s more, upon arriving on Capitol Hill, she’s also said she intends to sign a pending discharge petition to force disclosure of the Jeffrey Epstein files, currently being held back by Donald Trump’s Justice Department. Proponents of the effort are currently one member short of 218 signatures, but Grijalva’s support would trigger a process House Speaker Mike Johnson would be largely powerless to stop.

All the Arizonan has to do is wait for the chamber to return from its current break, at which point she can take the oath of office. With that outcome hanging in the balance, The Arizona Republic reported:

Democrat Adelita Grijalva has for months been on a glide path to become Arizona’s next member of Congress. But now that she’s been elected, as the U.S. House stares down a government funding standoff and a bombshell measure related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a political fight is brewing around when exactly Grijalva will be sworn in.

At the heart of the matter is a question about how best to deal with routine electoral bureaucracy.

In theory, Grijalva could be sworn in as Congress’ newest member on Oct. 7, the day members get back to work. This would be consistent with standard practice, including recent developments with Democratic Rep. James Walkinshaw of Virginia, who was declared the unofficial winner of his special election and was sworn days later.

But there are growing concerns that Republican leaders in the chamber will try to delay Grijalva’s swearing in until officials in Arizona certify the special election results — which, again, were not close — weeks later.

He needs to seat her. She needs to be sworn in. He is spitting on the US citizens living in her district. Failure to do so is taxation without representation -- the rally cry of the Revolutionary War.

Last night on his MSNBC show, Lawrence O'Donnell spoke with the House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

Lawrence rightly notes Chump's continued cognitive decline. This gets worse with every day. And during all of this, the Crooked Supreme Court keeps tearing down the separation of powers that the Founding Fathers valued so much to give this dementia plagued person more and more powers. The Supreme Court has betrayed the country, the Constitution and our democratic system. They have the same eyes and ears the rest of us do -- those six crooks sitting on the Court and repeatedly trashing the law -- trashing established law -- to hand more and more powers to Chump.

Imagine being federal judge trying to uphold the Constitution and watching the Crooked Supreme Court overturn you over and over and over?

And what the Supreme Court's not trying to destroy, Republicans in the US Congress are. Let's note this from Senator Patty Murray's office:

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, spoke on the Senate floor ahead of a vote Senate Republicans teed up on a bill introduced by Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) that would indefinitely extend an automatic 14-day continuing resolution (CR) in the event of a lapse in appropriations.

Senator Murray’s remarks, as delivered, are below:

“This bill has a nice-sounding name, but that’s about the only good thing you can say about it, because what it really does is hand over Congress’ power of the purse to Donald Trump and Russ Vought.

“If this bill passes, it won’t just be Democrats’ voice in funding that gets squashed; Republicans will be cutting themselves out of funding decisions.

“Because this bill extends government funding indefinitely, so Donald Trump and Russ Vought never have to worry about Congress again.

“If this bill were to pass, Trump could quite literally refuse to sign any funding bill, even a bipartisan bill, unless it met all of his demands, and Congress would then have to override his veto with a two-thirds vote in both chambers if we ever wanted to get off the forever CR that this bill would put in place. No way.

“There’s a very simple way to avert a shutdown. It starts with Republicans working with Democrats to hammer out a solution. It’s time to do that.

“I urge a no vote.”

###

Back to the shutdown, David Dayen, Whitney Curry Wimbish (THE AMERICAN PROSPECT) remind that Chump and the administration were planning for shut down on September 30th all the way back in February:

Talks at the White House on Monday aimed at preventing a government shutdown left both sides far apart on a deal. Earlier in the day, reports emerged that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) would consider a ten-day extension of government funding if Trump agreed to negotiate on enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies that expire at the end of the year.

Reaction to this was swift. “You don’t pick a fight and then run away,” said Emma Lydon, managing director of P Street, the government relations arm of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. Within a couple of hours, Schumer told reporters that he would not back a short-term funding agreement under any circumstances. But one bigger problem with the conversation around government funding, with less than 24 hours to the deadline, is the nature of the fight being picked.

The negotiations and debates are operating under the premise that appropriations to federal agencies are flowing today and will stop flowing tomorrow, and that this is something political leaders want to avoid. It’s hard to uncover any evidence that this is truly the case.

The Supreme Court’s latest ruling definitively allows the Trump administration to cancel whatever funding they disfavor within 45 days of the end of the appropriation, without any approval from Congress. The administration now has power, formalized by the Court in a sleight-of-hand move by claiming nobody has standing to sue, to cut whatever they want out of the budget, at a time when they are pressuring Congress to send them a budget.

That Supreme Court ruling involved $4 billion in foreign aid funding that the administration semi-formally tried to rescind; it doesn’t include the $410 billion that the White House has simply withheld from programs across the country. That represents close to half of all outlays in the fiscal year 2025 nondefense discretionary budget, which have simply vanished, perhaps permanently after the last day of the fiscal year, which is today. The Office of Management and Budget, as Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) has explained, has offered no explanation of how money is being spent or where withheld spending is going.

About 12 percent of the federal workforce has been terminated. Last week, we heard threats from OMB director Russ Vought that a shutdown will really allow the Office of Management and Budget to fire workers. A shutdown provides no actual legal authority to fire federal employees, but then again there was no legal authority to rescind or withhold appropriated spending without congressional approval, or put workers on extended administrative leave, as they did with the unauthorized buyout back in January.

As Daniel Schuman points out, Vought presented guidance to agencies in February that they should prepare for mass layoffs by today, September 30. Any allegedly shutdown-induced “mass layoff” should be seen as the continuation of an existing plan that has been public for seven months.

They've planned it and they own it. But they lie about Democrats and try to blame them. Democrats are fighting for We The People on this. No one's made that more clear than Senator Chris Murphy:

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Monday took to the floor of the U.S. Senate ahead of Tuesday’s government funding deadline, arguing that amidst President Trump’s authoritarian use of the federal government to suppress political speech, prosecute political enemies, and send in the military to Democrat-run cities, any budget agreement must include safeguards for our democracy and guarantees that President Trump won’t lawlessly ignore budget provisions he doesn’t like. Murphy also called for a postponement of health care premium increases that will substantially raise costs for millions of working families.

Murphy emphasized the Senate should not support a budget which will fund President Trump’s increasingly aggressive assault on American democracy: “To me this is simple. We should not willingly pay the bills for the most serious assault on political freedom since the Civil War - an assault that may collapse American democracy as we know it… The majority party has an obligation to honor and fight for a basic set of protections for our democracy. And when it doesn’t, it really stops being a good faith negotiating partner.”

He continued: “If we are going to keep the government open, why can’t we all agree that it should only be a government that respects our democracy, that is not corrupt, that doesn’t treat people and places that oppose President Trump as enemies, deserving of indictment or military deployment? That also seems like a pretty minimalist ask.”

Murphy demanded Trump stop weaponizing the federal government against his political enemies and illegally impounding duly appropriated funds: “Stop the deployment to our cities. Stop the witch hunt of Comey and Soros and Senator Schiff. Stop using the FCC to censor speech. Stop unconstitutionally ignoring the budget and spending only money that the President wants to spend.”

Murphy called out his Republican colleagues for enabling President Trump’s lawlessness: “My Republican colleagues know why Comey and Senator Schiff and Soros are being targeted. They know that the President just picked the people that give him the hardest time and told his folks to come up with charges. My Republican colleagues know the impact that this has on people who want to politically and peacefully oppose the President, but now won’t do that because they fear for their freedom. Republicans know this. They should not defend it… And Republicans know that using the FCC to crack down on speech that the President doesn’t agree with is wrong. They know, as Senator Cruz pointed out, that that’s a slippery slope that we may never get off.”

Murphy blamed Republicans for the coming shutdown, highlighting their inaction and refusal to negotiate with Democrats: “The Republican House of Representatives isn’t here. And they aren’t coming back until the government has been shut down, reportedly for days. That tells you all you need to know about who is responsible for a potential shutdown of the government... President Trump doesn’t care either. He boycotted even meeting with Democrats until 24 hours before the shutdown was to begin. He was watching golf or posting on social media - basically anything except trying to negotiate, to do the job of government.”

Murphy concluded: “It’s decision time. Is this Senate going to fund the destruction of our democracy? Or are we going to do what’s necessary to stand up for basic American values?”

A transcript of Murphy’s full remarks is available below.

The House of Representatives is not coming back into session reportedly until next week. The government is shutting down tomorrow night and the Republican House of Representatives isn’t here. And they aren’t coming back until the government has been shut down, reportedly for days.

That tells you all you need to know about who is responsible for a potential shutdown of the government. Republicans care so little about funding the government that they aren’t even showing up.

President Trump doesn’t care either. He boycotted even meeting with Democrats until 24 hours before the shutdown was to begin. He was watching golf or posting on social media - basically anything except trying to negotiate, to do the job of government.

I wish Republicans were trying to keep the government open, instead of trying to shut it down.

But what I really want is for Republicans to open their eyes and see what is happening at an increasing pace to our democracy. What I want - what I think is necessary at this moment - is for any budget that we write to put the health of our democracy first.

In fact, as I’ve watched the events of the past few weeks play out - with political enemies being systematically hunted by this administration - I think that we all have a moral obligation to only support a budget that at the very least puts the brakes on the President’s lawlessness.

Right now, our democracy is in grave peril. And there is no better example of this than the events that played out last week over the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey. The President has made it clear that he wants to put his political enemies in jail as retribution for the charges brought against him. He does not care about whether there are grounds for these charges. He just wants charges.

And so he instructed Erik Siebert, the U.S. Attorney in Virginia, a Republican, to bring charges against James Comey. But Siebert refused for a simple reason. There was no evidence that James Comey had done anything illegal. So Trump fired Siebert. He appointed his personal lawyer - who has never set foot in a courtroom - as the new U.S. Attorney, simply because he knew she would follow orders.

Every career prosecutor in the office recommended she refuse to bring the charges - again, because there were no charges to be brought. But she did it anyways, as instructed. Not a single other lawyer in the office would sign the indictment - virtually unprecedented in a case like this.

Trump cheered the indictment, and then he warned that there would be more charges brought against others that had vocally opposed his policies.

And that’s not all that happened in the last two weeks. Trump ordered the FCC to issue threats to TV stations that did not remove one of his primary late night critics, Jimmy Kimmel, from the airwaves. He announced new military deployments to additional cities. He began a process to harass and arrest leaders of prominent political groups that oppose his presidency, threatening at least one funder of groups that oppose his policies, George Soros, with arrest, simply for supporting opposition to Trump.

Much of this - though not of all it - has happened in the wake of the brutal, horrific murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. His assasistation was abhorrent. And it was, and still is, a moment for all of us to consider what we can do to stamp out political violence and violence of all kinds.

But his murder does not justify the dizzying campaign of political repression that has been carried out often in his name since. To exploit his murder to crush dissent or to censor speech is unacceptable.

And this brings me back to the debate over the expiring budget.

I join with my colleagues in wanting this new budget to, at the very least, postpone the health care insurance increases that are coming for millions of Americans, that are going to ruin people’s lives in this country. 75 percent increases for people that are going to make this awful decision about whether they should continue to pay their premiums, whether they should put food on the table for their kids, or whether they should risk going without insurance. I think that’s a pretty reasonable ask - just don’t increase costs on families when it comes to health care, at a time when the cost of everything else is going up because of President Trump’s insane economic policies.

But let me ask you this as well:

Why would we not also simply say that any budget we pass should stop the worst of the lawlessness? Stop the deployment to our cities. Stop the witch hunt of Comey and Soros and Senator Schiff. Stop using the FCC to censor speech. Stop unconstitutionally ignoring the budget, and spending only money that the President wants to spend.

To me this is simple. We should not willingly pay the bills for the most serious assault on political freedom since the Civil War - an assault that may collapse American democracy as we know it.

I know my Republican friends think that this is hyperbole. That our fear for democracy is just fear mongering, just politics.

I swear it is not. My Republican colleagues know why Comey and Senator Schiff and Soros are being targeted. They know that the President just picked the people that give him the hardest time, and told his folks to come up with charges. My Republican colleagues know the impact that this has on people who want to politically and peacefully oppose the President, but now won’t do that because they fear for their freedom. Republicans know this. They should not defend it.

Republicans know that it’s wrong to sit down and agree to a budget and then cheer the President when he refuses to spend the money in blue states or on the priorities that got Democrats to sit down at the table to begin with. Republicans know that that’s not fair play. They shouldn’t defend it.

And Republicans know that using the FCC to crack down on speech that the President doesn’t agree with is wrong. They know, as Senator Cruz pointed out, that that’s a slippery slope that we may never get off.

I want to find agreement with Republicans on stopping these premiums from going up. I do. I think that’s really important for people in this country.

And I think it’s okay to admit that this is an odd arrangement that we have in American government today, where the minority party in the Senate, so long as it has 40 members, is kind of in a coalition government with the majority party, because the budget can’t pass without bipartisan agreement.

But the majority party has an obligation to honor and fight for a basic set of protections for our democracy. And when it doesn’t, it really stops being a good faith negotiating partner.

How do Republicans expect us to vote for a budget that funds a government that is lawlessly pursuing Democrats, that is arresting and harassing our members and our allies? That’s deploying the army and masked officers to our cities?

We are at a moment of decision for this country. Right now, Republicans aren’t even trying to keep the government open. They’re not even here. They’re rooting for a shut down.

But if we are going to keep the government open, why can’t we all agree that it should only be a government that respects our democracy, that is not corrupt, that doesn’t treat people and places that oppose President Trump as enemies, deserving of indictment or military deployment? That also seems like a pretty minimalist ask.

So, it’s decision time. Is this Senate going to fund the destruction of our democracy? Or are we going to do what is necessary to stand up for basic American values?

Jacob Bogage and Riley Beggin (WASHINGTON POST) break down what a shutdown would entail.

Last night Lawrence also tackled Chump on social media with a post beneath the office of the president, a vile post that goes to just how much the dementia has set in.

Of the meeting at the White House yesterday and what followed, Tyler Pager, Catie Edmondson and Michael Gold (NEW YORK TIMES) notes:

Mr. Trump’s meeting with Mr. Schumer; Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the majority leader; Speaker Mike Johnson; and Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the House minority leader, came less than 32 hours before the government was slated to shut down, at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday. It marked the first time Mr. Trump hosted the Democratic leaders at the White House in his second term.

Democratic leaders characterized the private meeting at the White House as candid and frank, but said they left without being any closer to a breakthrough.

On Monday evening, Mr. Trump seemed to make that possibility more remote. He shared an A.I.-generated video on Truth Social, mocking Mr. Schumer, Mr. Jeffries and the Democratic Party by fabricating Mr. Schumer’s voice at a news conference on Monday afternoon. The video falsely accuses Democrats of trying to give free health care to undocumented immigrants to gain their support. In the video, Mr. Jeffries, who is Black, is pictured with a fake mustache and wearing a sombrero.

Kit Maher (CNN) notes the reactions of Chuck and Hakeem to Chump's garbage:

Shortly after Trump posted the video, Jeffries wrote on X, “Bigotry will get you nowhere. Cancel the Cuts. Lower the Cost. Save Healthcare. We are NOT backing down.”

Schumer followed moments later, commenting on X, “If you think your shutdown is a joke, it just proves what we all know: You can’t negotiate. You can only throw tantrums.”

The following sites updated:

The Common Ills

Tuesday, September 30, 2025

The Snapshot

About Me

Blog Archive

The Common Ills