Ashli Babbitt courted death and found it. Renee Good found it by accident.

In an encounter with police, it is best to do what they say. And watch your attitude. 

In ambiguous cases, the law enforcement officer gets the benefit of the doubt. 

On January 6, 2021 Ashli Babbitt was part of a mob bashing in the window and locked door outside the U.S. House of Representatives chamber. The mob was warned to stop. They had begun to breach the barrier. Babbitt was at the broken window, making her one of the first to enter had she not been killed.

The fact that the mob's intention was to stop certification of a presidential election is irrelevant to the validity of her being killed. Relevant is that a mob was attempting to enter a secure area, and that an armed law enforcement officer with the duty to protect people was present.

Of course he used his weapon. Why else are guards armed? 

I presume that any time people break locked barriers to enter a place secured by armed guards they run the risk being killed. That goes for courthouses, banks, airports, police stations, schools, and the Capitol. 

I challenge any reader who thinks that Ashli Babbitt should not have been shot to gather a group of 20 people and break into the interior rooms of your local police station, shouting that your group demands entry because the police chief is a traitor to the country. See how far you get. Or try this at a bank with armed guards getting delivery from an armored truck. 

Or, in the other direction, imagine your child is sheltering in a locked classroom at Uvalde, Texas, and an armed guard is inside with the children. An angry mob is breaking through the door shouting that they want take your children hostage. Wouldn't you expect the guard to use deadly force if warnings were not heeded?

The case of Renee Good is different. Again, the cause she cared about is irrelevant. Her disorderly conduct, having parked her car sideways in the street, isn't relevant either. What is relevant is that her car moved forward toward the officer when he shot her. Police are trained not to stand in front of cars in confrontations, but he was careless -- or perhaps intentional. The encounter was sloppy. The officers may have given contradictory instructions, both to move the car out of the street and to get out of the car. The officer was standing at the front corner of her car, and it moved forward. He had a colorable claim of fear for his life.

The claim of self defense may be utter pretext but the benefit of the doubt goes to the law enforcement officer. The moving car provides scaffolding for Trump's inventions about the car ramming the officer, the officer being dragged down the street and hospitalized. President Trump said  Renee Good was a terrorist and the officer a hero.

The officer filmed the event with his left hand while shooting with his right. An ICE officer having been overheard saying "fucking bitch" -- along with an officer positioning himself at the front corner of the car, against good police protocol -- suggests ICE officers may have been seeking confrontation with a hostile mindset.

I don't know the shooter's motives, but the administration's motives are proudly announced. They want to show they are tough on immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally. They are doing so with conspicuous roughness and arbitrariness, while openly confronting anti-ICE protesters. This sets up a perfect political frame for Trump. Trump is fulfilling a campaign promise to rid the country of unwanted immigrants, doing so by making  their being in the U.S. unpleasant and dangerous. It is strategy and policy. Better for them to self-deport. The frame gives Trump a good antagonist: people he can call "domestic terrorists."

Renee Good stumbled into a campaign commercial. Because this political theater was live and improvised, the political optics are good for Trump, but not ideal. She appears to have been trying to leave, tires turned right, instead of a better story of her aiming at a helpless officer. That is inconvenient for Trump's narrative, but she moved forward, which is good enough. Her last words heard on video were kind ones, "That's fine, dude. I'm not mad at you." That is inconvenient for Trump's narrative. Still, she moved her car forward.

An ICE officer's "fucking bitch" comment is a mixed signal for Trump's purposes. Probably some MAGA women won't like hearing that. Renee Good isn't entirely unsympathetic, even to people who see the event with MAGA eyes. But misogyny is part of the Trump story, and a tough armed man not "taking shit" from a woman is on-brand for Trump. The words are crude and contemptuous, but Trump is OK voicing crude contempt of Democratic women. Trump demonstrates that the era of polite wokeness is over. 

In both cases, the shots fired were messages. The shot through the broken window at the Capitol was a message of "Stop. I am defending House members. Heed my command." The mob stopped. It was a good and necessary message. 

The shots that killed Renee Good were a message of "We can rough up and kill immigrants and anyone who tries to stop us." This administration can indeed get away with it. The people who don't like this reality are "fucking bitches" getting what they deserve. I think this message is dangerous, but Trump likes it.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com and subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Not AI. This is real.

President Trump posted this on Truth Social. 

Maybe it is a troll. Maybe it is a "joke." Maybe it is a trial balloon. Maybe it is bragging, sort of like a lineman who sacks a  quarterback and dances in celebration. Maybe it is a message to the rest of the hemisphere.

He is putting it out there for the world to absorb and consider: The USA took control of a sovereign Western Hemisphere country and Trump is proud of it. 

We can and we did.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com and subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

A Canadian speaks out: Canada is not the United States

     "American domination over Canada would mean making our nation either a vassal state or the fifty-first state. 

     We have no choice but to resist. We will."

          Sandford Borins, Canadian

Venezuela. Greenland. Denmark. Cuba. Nigeria. Don-roe Doctrine. NATO. Iran.

Canada has no choice but to re-evaluate the intentions of the United States.

College classmate Sandford Borins has kept this blog's readers abreast of Canadian-U.S relations. Most Americans barely think about Canada. It's less trouble and less newsworthy than Montana. Even with 41 million -- more than California -- it was an easy neighbor to ignore. So reasonable. So friendly. So well governed.

Canada does not ignore the United States. 

Sandford Borins is an emeritus professor at the University of Toronto, where he taught public management. He maintains his own website, https://sandfordborins.com, where this commentary appeared on Friday. He was awarded the King Charles III Coronation Medal for Public Service, which he is wearing.  He stands here with Rob Oliphant, the member of Parliament who represents Sanday's district in Toronto.

Guest Post by Sandford Borins

Resisting Domination
The extraordinary rendition of Venezuelan President Maduro last weekend, coupled with the release of the Trump Administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS) last month, have riveted the attention of Canadians. These two events are closely linked, as the unidentified authors of the strategy must have been aware of the Administration’s military plans regarding Venezuela and wrote a document that set out a vision of U.S. military and economic domination of the western hemisphere that would justify the impending action.

For Canada, despite apparent bonhomie between Trump and Carney, the last year has been one of a strained relationship with the U.S. No agreement on trade and security is in sight. The Ontario Government’s advocacy advertising using Ronald Reagan’s words on tariffs has deepened the rift.

Wesley Wark, a well-known security scholar at the University of Waterloo, summarized Canadian reaction to the NSS: “the Trump NSS is, plainly speaking, a doctrine that threatens Canada, threatens Canadian interests, and is deeply at odds with a Canadian approach to global security. It is not the doctrine of an ally … Allies share common interests and values and agree on threats. They respect sovereignty and political differences. They share intelligence to mutual benefit. None of that defines the Canada – U.S. relationship under Trump, as the NSS makes brutally clear.”

Wark published this on December 8, 2025. The success of the U.S.’s military action against Venezuela has fed Trump’s appetite, leading to his threats of military force against Colombia and Greenland. If military action against one fellow NATO member is an option on the table, it must also be a possibility against other NATO members, especially the only one that shares a border with the U.S.

American domination over Canada would mean making our nation either a vassal state or the fifty-first state. The trade negotiations have made clear that the Trump Administration thinks of Canada primarily as a supplier of raw materials and wants to see the relocation of as much Canadian production as possible in other sectors (manufacturing, agriculture, financial services, culture) to the U.S. In short, a hollowed-out and impoverished economy.

A Conflict of Values
The reasons for resistance go farther than that, of course. The U.S. and Canada are superficially similar societies. When you look deeper, they are different in fundamental ways. Compare Trump’s vision for the U.S. with Canada: growing reliance on fossil fuels vs. a commitment to renewable energy; Second Amendment rights vs. strict gun controls; prioritization of white Christians vs. a multifaith and multicultural society; unilingualism vs. official bilingualism and a growing acceptance of indigenous languages; a weak social safety net vs. a strong social safety net including the provision of health case as a basic human right; an increasingly regressive income tax system vs. a redistributive income tax system; increasing limitation of reproductive rights vs. full recognition of reproductive rights; a republic in which the head of government cannot be a member of the legislature vs. a parliamentary democracy in which the head of government sits in the legislature and is accountable on a daily basis; and gerrymandering vs. non-partisan electoral boundary commissions. Canada and the U.S. can be friends, neighbours, and partners. But we don’t want to live in the sort of society that Trump envisages.

Thinking the Unthinkable
How do we Canadians resist domination? Our soul-searching discussions of the last year have intensified. On the trade front, we are trying to diversify away from the U.S. Prime Minister Carney’s visit to Beijing next week is a big step in that direction, especially given Canada’s difficult relationship with China over the last few years. On the diplomatic front, we are working with our EU and European NATO allies to assert the primacy of NATO’s charter, the principle of national sovereignty, and a refusal to resort to the law of the jungle at the international level. Militarily, we cannot help but see the U.S. now – at least while it is governed by Trump and those who share if not shape his worldview – as a potential aggressor. If there is a defence of Greenland by NATO, Canada, which is 40 kilometers from Greenland at the closest point, should be part of it. Canada has been pondering a choice between the F-35 and the Saab Grupen fighter aircraft. While the Canadian military has informally made its preference for the U.S. aircraft clear, the current situation tilts towards the Swedish alternative. If military action against Canada is on the table, then we must game out scenarios and prepare responses.

These alternatives are crazy to contemplate. But the Trump Administration seems to have gone from a trade strategy of using tariffs to punish the U.S.’s trading partners to a strategy of using the military to satisfy its lust for domination. As Canadians who value our nation’s sovereignty and our way of life we have no choice but to resist. We will.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com and subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

 

Easy Sunday: The Renee Good and Ashli Babbitt cases have similarities.

Seeing the other person's point of view is less fun than being secure in one's partisanship.

For an "Easy Sunday" post, today I am going to avoid the hard work of showing why I think a fair-minded person would view the cases of Renee Nicole Good and Ashli Babbitt differently. There are distinctions between them, both moral and legal. I will do that another day.

The cases of Ashli Babbitt and Renee Good are enough alike that readers can learn something about bias, yours and mine. Seeing is not believing. Believing is seeing. 

--  In both instances a White woman in young middle age was shot and killed by a law enforcement office doing his job. 

-- In both instances the woman was not armed in the traditional sense, although cars can be weapons and Babbitt was carrying a knife and was surrounded by people using hard objects to break through doors and windows.

-- In both instances the woman was participating in a rowdy political protest.

-- In both instances the woman was in a space open to the public under normal circumstances.

-- In both instances the woman was told by police to leave an area while doing disruptive acts of the kind they were doing.

-- In both instances each woman was intentionally impeding law enforcement for a political cause with broad public support. In each instance a political faction believed sincerely that the laws that were being enforced -- certification of an election or immigration arrests -- were unjust and wrong.

-- In both instances there was shouting and pushing and harsh language directed at law enforcement by people surrounding the woman. The police reasonably felt themselves to be in a perilous position.

-- In both instances law enforcement people were there doing the jobs they were hired to do: protect Congressmen and carry out deportation arrests. 

-- In both instances law enforcement had a positive duty to protect themselves and others. Failure to do that duty (like the Ulvalde, Texas school security guard who failed to try to stop the school shooter) would subject the law enforcement officer to sanctions.

-- In both instances the protesters were breaking the law: breaking through a Capitol door and window in one case and parking a car sideways in a street in the other. 

-- In both instances the officers gave repeated warnings to leave.

-- In both instances there was videotape showing the circumstances of the shooting.

-- In both instance, the public response falls along partisan lines. People who thought the 2020 election was stolen from Trump argue that the protesters were unruly, sure, but basically doing legal patriotic protest, and therefore Ashli Babbitt should not have been shot while doing nothing seriously wrong. People who consider ICE's actions illegitimate consider protests like the one in Minneapolis to be unruly, sure, but basically legal patriotic protest, and therefore Renee Good should not have been shot while doing nothing seriously wrong.

-- In both instances, public opinion divided over culpability. If people thought the woman was impeding a good law, they think the shooter to be fully justified in defending himself and others. She had it coming. FAFO.  People who think the law to be unjust think the woman was not a danger to anyone, and the shooting to be unjustified. It was murder.

My guest post on Friday shared advice from Raz Mason about staying alive in a police encounter. I will repeat it;

Civilians rarely experience an immediate, conscious realization of mortal danger. Initial responses often include denial, followed by automatic fight, flight, or freeze behaviors. Recognize your peril.

Civilian bottom line: In tense law-enforcement encounters, your safety depends on minimizing motion and maximizing clarity. Keep hands visible. Stop the vehicle completely. Ask calmly and clearly: “What do you want me to do -- stay still or exit?” Do not creep, turn wheels, or move unless instructions are unambiguous and the path clear.

Recognize that the protest is not all about you and your cause. Police officers on the scene have a point of view, too, and they are armed. They may be afraid of you and people around you. They may have hostile feelings toward you and your point of view, not improbably if people are shouting hostile insults at them. Don't give them a reason to shoot you. Do not let your sense of righteousness persuade you that other people surely see events as you do. Many will not.

Be polite. Protest legally and carefully. 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com and subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Report from Mexico, in the aftermath of the Venezuelan incursion

Trump tariffs, tough talk, and invasion of Venezuela are having an unexpected effect on Mexico.

Mexican exports to the U.S. are up, the Mexican peso has climbed against the dollar, and the Mexican president is getting more popular because she is standing up to Trump.

Erich Almasy and his wife Cynthia Blanton are college classmates. They are expats, living happily in Mexico. Erich sends this report from their home in San Miguel de Allende. They have "gone native" enough to have written a guidebook to Mexican foods.

Amazon

Photos are of Cynthia and Erich, costumed for the Day of the Dead.

Guest Post by Erich Almasy

Se rumorea en la calle (Heard on the street)

January 6th was Epiphany for most of the Orthodox Christian world, celebrating the baptism of Jesus. In México, it was Día de Reyes (Kings’ Day), celebrating the arrival of the Magi (Melchor, Caspar, and Balthazar), who, following the Star of Bethlehem, brought gifts to the baby Jesus. On Monday night, children in México put out their shoes and the next morning find gifts inside. Everywhere, people were feasting on Rosca de Reyes (Wreath of the Kings), the circular fruitcake that contains a porcelain figurine of one of the Magi or of the baby Jesus.

Wreath of the kings

Figures hidden in the cake

Trump’s “visit” to Venezuela has produced much discussion here. Among the gringo residents, there is concern about anti-American sentiment. A notification from the U.S. Department of State warned, “A protest denouncing U.S. actions against Venezuela continues to take place in front of the U.S. Embassy in the Polanco neighborhood of Mexico City. Protestors have thrown rocks and painted vandalism on exterior walls.” The United States has invaded Mexico on several occasions, one in 1914, when the U.S. Marines occupied the city of Veracruz for several months. This is referenced in the Marine Hymn, as the “Halls of Montezuma.” Again, in 1916, American General “Black” Jack Pershing and a small army chased Pancho Villa through northern México in a futile effort to bring him to justice. For Mexicans, the looming American behemoth is always viewed in two lights—benevolent as an investor, giant export market, and home to emigrant relatives. The other side of the centavo is the potential despot, who increasingly appears belligerent toward the brown people of Central and South America.

Following the kidnapping of Venezuela President Maduro, on January 3rd México’s President Claudia Sheinbaum sent out a tweet that stated that all UN members "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." She reiterated México’s foreign policy of non-intervention and asked that the United Nations take a role in resolving the situation. México’s President Lázaro Cárdenas nationalized oil here in 1938, and many Mexicans still believe the United States will respond. They have seen the trade agreement called NAFTA, established in 1994 renamed USMCA in 2020 during Trump’s first term, and now essentially dissolved at Trump’s whim this past summer. Despite the uncertainty, México’s exports to the United States totaled $504 billion in 2024 and are projected to exceed $700 billion in 2026, surpassing China’s exports to the United States. Tariffs on the rest of the world boosted México’s economy and helped the peso gain 13 percent in value against the United States dollar during 2025. While a stronger peso may seem a blessing for local people, it decreases the value of remittances that Mexican families in the United States send to their relatives back home. Added to that injury is this insult: As of January 1, recipients in México, Bangladesh, India, and the Caribbean must also pay a 1 percent excise tax. Gringos in México use bank transfers and debit transactions and are not subject to the excise tax.

Local people here are once again wearing facemasks (without a formal mandate) against what promises to be a virulent flu and COVID season. Our local government clinic provided us free pneumococcal, flu, and COVID boosters. The line was filled with mothers carrying young babies because people here believe in science and vaccines. In the 1900s, life expectancy in México was less than 30 years. By 2023, that number had reached over 75 years and continues to increase. Presently, the United States has a life expectancy of just over 76 years.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com and subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Survive an encounter with the police

"And we're stayin' alive, stayin' alive
Ah, ah, ah, ah
Stayin' alive, stayin' alive
Ah, ah, ah, ah
Stayin' alive"

   Bee Gees, "Stayin' Alive," 1977

I want readers of this blog to survive encounters with law enforcement. I want law enforcement officers to survive, too. 

Each side of a police encounter is looking at different things and perceiving different risks. The setting on the street in Minneapolis was chaotic. There were angry shouts from bystanders and sharp commands from ICE agents. Events moved quickly. Renee Good apparently thought she was supposed to move her car out of the street. She was looking to her left, at ICE agents pulling at her door. She moved her car forward and to the right. A third officer was in front of her car, toward the path of that movement. He shot and killed her. 

Raz Mason prepared a nonpartisan safety bulletin. Each side in the encounter needs to understand the point of view of the other. This is a recurring high-risk scenario: Vehicles + armed officers + compressed time + divided attention. Any of us could find ourselves in this situation.

Raz Mason is the owner of CompreSec LLC (Comprehensive Security), a consultancy focused on upstream causes of violence.  She works with public-facing professionals on safety, situational awareness, and prevention strategies that reduce unnecessary escalation. She is a Force Science Institute–trained analyst, addressing how people perceive, decide, and act under extreme stress, including real-world limits of human attention, reaction time, and motor control in high-risk encounters.

Mason

Guest Post by Raz Mason

Following the January 7 shooting of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis, public narratives quickly polarized. Some accounts emphasize officer self-defense; others civilian cooperation and disproportionate force. The assumption is that the other person should have and could have done something different. My purpose in this piece is not to determine legality, but to address a dangerously widespread lack of security literacy.

The physiological and perceptual constraints discussed here apply equally to civilians and law-enforcement officers. Under stress, human nervous systems do not become more capable. They become narrower, faster in some ways, and slower in others.

Several observations appear reasonable:
--- Ms. Good is seen with her arm outside the vehicle window, a gesture that may be interpreted as communicative rather than hostile.
--- Video shows her interacting with an officer at the driver’s side window.
--- Another officer approaches from a different angle, closer to the front of the vehicle.
--- Key to what unfolded is what Ms. Good perceived, what commands she heard, whether commands were consistent, and how the tenor of the interaction impacted her responses. 

These details matter because human perceptions under threat are partial and unfold sequentially, not instantaneously.

Guidance for Civilians

If you are a civilian interacting with law enforcement in an emotionally-elevated situation, particularly inside a vehicle, you are in a high-risk environment. Several realities are critical:

--- Recognize that officers are trained to treat occupied vehicles as potential weapons; courts have at times found deadly force reasonable when a vehicle is perceived as an imminent threat.

--- Under stress, perception lags behind movement. Beginning to move a vehicle to comply, reposition, or leave may occur before you register an officer approaching from another angle.

--- Stress narrows your attention. Focusing on one officer may prevent awareness of another officer, a drawn weapon, or a shouted command until it is too late to respond safely.

Civilians rarely experience an immediate, conscious realization of mortal danger. Initial responses often include denial, followed by automatic fight, flight, or freeze behaviors. Recognize your peril.

Civilian bottom line: In tense law-enforcement encounters, your safety depends on minimizing motion and maximizing clarity. Keep hands visible. Stop the vehicle completely. Ask calmly and clearly: “What do you want me to do -- stay still or exit?” Do not creep, turn wheels, or move unless instructions are unambiguous and the path clear.

Guidance for Law-Enforcement Officers

Officers operate under the same physiological constraints as civilians, with the added burden of threat assessment, policy, and scrutiny.

Force Science principles relevant here include:

--- Automaticity under stress: Highly trained actions, such as drawing a firearm, can initiate rapidly with limited conscious thought. Memory of the sequence may later be incomplete. 

--- Startle and sympathetic muscle response: Sudden movement can spur involuntary muscle contractions, particularly when fingers are near triggers.

--- Once a weapon is drawn, the encounter is already deep into a high-risk pathway. De-escalation might be the much-superior course, but to be accessible, de-escalation must be honed through prior training, practice, and ongoing nervous system regulation.

--- When multiple officers issue commands or move tactically, rather than maintaining clean delineation between contact officer and cover officer(s), officers divide civilian attention and create conflicting cues.

--- Vehicle contacts amplify risks. Crowding an occupied vehicle lessens decision-making and reaction times for everyone. Crowding can manufacture the threat you are trying to prevent.

Officer bottom line. Human perception and reaction are slower and more fragile than we wish. Effective safety requires planned responses, clear communication with the subject, and policies that tolerate delay. Presume confusion and divided attention. Do not assume perfect perception or instant compliance.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com and subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

 

Ministry of Truth

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history."
          Attributed to George Orwell

“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
          From George Orwell's "1984"

The image of Nancy Pelosi used in whitehouse.gov

The White House posted its version of events on the official government website: www.whitehouse.gov/j6/

-- The real January 6 insurrection was by Democrats. "The Democrats masterfully reversed reality after January 6, branding peaceful patriotic protesters as 'insurrectionists' and framing the event as a violent coup attempt orchestrated by Trump—despite no evidence of armed rebellion or intent to overthrow the government. In truth, it was the Democrats who staged the real insurrection by certifying a fraud-ridden election. . . ."

-- It was a peaceful protest by patriotic Americans. "Following the President's speech, the massive crowd peacefully marches down Constitution Avenue to the Capitol to protest the certification of the fraudulent election. The march is orderly and spirited, with flags, signs, and chants supporting President Trump."

--  President Trump tried to stop the riot. 

"As events unfold, President Trump repeatedly calls for peace, tweeting support for law enforcement and releasing a video telling supporters "go home in peace" while reiterating love for them and election concerns. He consistently promotes non-violence despite the attack on attendees and emotions running high." 

--  Mike Pence is the bad guy here. "Betrayal of the president. Mike Pence Refuses to Act. Vice President Mike Pence, who had the opportunity to return disputed electoral slates to state legislatures for review and decertification under the United States Constitution, chooses not to exercise that power in an act of cowardice and sabotage. Instead, Pence presides over the certification of contested electors, undermining President Trump's efforts to address documented fraud and ending any chance to correct the election steal."

--  The 2020 election was stolen from Trump. "Fraudulent certification. Stolen Election Certified. After law enforcement clears the Capitol, Congress reconvenes late that night and certifies Joe Biden’s electoral votes—votes from battleground states marred by massive mail-in ballot fraud, hidden suitcases of ballots, exploding water pipes, voting machine irregularities, and unprecedented pandemic-era rule changes that bypassed state legislatures. 2020 is considered the greatest election theft in U.S. history, with widespread fraud deliberately ignored by courts, officials and the media.

--  Anything bad that happened is Nancy Pelosi's fault. "Pelosi’s own security lapses invited the chaos they later exploited to seize and consolidate power. This gaslighting narrative allowed them to persecute innocent Americans, silence opposition, and distract from their own role in undermining democracy."

The campaign rhetoric and rally statements are solidifying into a new version of the truth for about 40% of Americans. 

The AP described its own poll in September 2024: 

Trump continues to lie about the outcome of the 2020 election, saying it was rigged against him even after dozens of his court challenges failed, reviews, recounts and audits in battleground states all affirmed President Joe Biden’s win, and Trump’s own attorney general said there was no evidence of widespread fraud. Despite no evidence of any widespread fraud, a 2023 poll found that most Republicans believe Biden was not legitimately elected president.

The AP quoted a 38-year-old Republican from Gulfport, Mississippi: “I trust Donald Trump, not the government. That’s it.”

Trump is the government now. People inclined to trust the official reports of a president, the head of the FBI, an attorney general, a secretary of defense, and government statistics on consumer prices and unemployment have new sources of authority. 

If the American republic gets through this, and I expect it will because Trump is mortal and no one else has Trump's shameless audacity and hold on GOP voters, I expect historians of this era to be able to sort it out. But for now, this country is going through a rough patch.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com and subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]