Joe Biden was always one of the worst Democrats during my lifetime. He was reliably one of the most mean-spirited and Red Team-friendly creeps on the Blue Team. "Reach across the isle" Joe (with his lunchbox stuffed with corporate cash). From my perspective his age is the least problematic aspect of his candidacy (and his age at this point is a huge problem). I can't imagine the Blue Team finding anyone other than Hillary that is as God-awful creepy as Joe Biden.

Expand full comment
Jun 2, 2023Liked by Bill Astore

The Senator for VISA and MASTERCARD.

Expand full comment

You explained exactly Why and How Buden has been in Swampland since Nixon was President in 1973, John; first as a Senator, then as Veep, and now as Prez.

Expand full comment


He should not run for a second term. I second that!

Expand full comment

Of course, many of us thought he shouldn't have run for a first term! Even Obama allegedly said: "You don't have to do this, Joe." Which is another way of saying that you shouldn't run, Joe.

Expand full comment

but can you imagine, in order to stop bernie, obama would have gotten clyburne to rally around pete.

Expand full comment
Jun 3, 2023Liked by Bill Astore

I have been actively on Biden fall-watch recently, especially after he almost took what could have been a scary spill in Japan going down some stone steps.

He lives an entitled life surrounded by people who make problems go away – White House staff, the media, Secret Service, Justice Dept., FBI. So he acts heedlessly, unafraid of the consequences.

As he gets frailer, a normal person would go more carefully, but Biden is doing the opposite: this latest fall happened as he was breaking into one of those sad little jogs he affects to show how vigorous he is.

But gravity doesn’t care that he’s been declared legally and politically invulnerable by the powers that be, and the Secret Service can’t wrestle the ground to the ground if he hits it hard.

Unless there’s an intervention of some sort, I think the probability of him falling again and possibly injuring himself is rising. If it’s bad enough, then there will be decisions to be made.

Expand full comment

Excellent points. It does appear that Biden--with his little jogs--is trying to show he's vigorous, but how long before he breaks a hip or otherwise hurts himself?

As an older friend once said to me: "You know how they call them the 'golden years'? Well, they suck." My dad echoed this sentiment, telling me "It's tough to get old." Yet the media and Biden's handlers encourage us to think Biden is getting younger ... look at Joe go!

Expand full comment

Bill, there are reasons an airline pilot is forced to retire at 65.

Not all for physical reasons.

That the DNC is insisting he will run again is more than disgusting.

What I don't understand is why his wife goes along with seeing him humiliated.

Very sad.

Expand full comment

Yes. My dad, a firefighter, had to retire at 65. Obviously, his job was physically demanding, and the policy is sound. Presidents aren't firefighters, but the job is demanding. And Joe isn't getting younger.

Expand full comment

I guess my point was as a firefighter, an airline pilot and a president you need to be MENTALLY fit. At 75-years old I have been astonished how much slower I have become executing mental tasks. I used to do huge EXCEL spreadsheets in my sleep- now I struggle to do my budget!

I read somewhere that Joe Biden was "shrewdly negotiating" the debt ceiling. I don't believe that. Those skills are sadly gone at 80-years old.

Expand full comment

Yes, mental fitness and stamina is more important than physical. And Biden's mental fitness is on the wane.

But then there's the excuse that he stutters. But when you listen to Biden speak about 10-20 years ago, the stutter isn't an issue. He's just getting older, like all of us.

But unlike the rest of us he's the POTUS.

Expand full comment

His wife likes to be famous.

Expand full comment

That Joe Biden and Donald Trump are the two front runners to be the next President of the United States should tell every American old enough to think for themselves that this nation is in serious, serious trouble. And that assumes that there will be an election in 2024.

If those two are the best that America can come up with to be its next Supreme Leader, there is a very real possibility that it will not survive to celebrate its 250th birthday on July 4, 2026, 1,128 days from today. Or that, if it does survive, that it will be in no mood or condition to celebrate anything.

Another closely linked indicator as to just exactly how screwed up and screwed America is, is the fact that the new Debt Ceiling "Deal" worked out by the politicians ~ as scripted and choreographed by their owners and operators in America's Ruling Political Class ~ does not set a new Debt Ceiling.

Which means that those politicians can ~ and will ~ spend just as much money as they want to between now and January 1, 2025 on just about anything that they want to as long as that RPC gives them a "Go For It."

Stay tuned for "AMERICA: The Reality-TV Extravaganza."

Expand full comment

Agreed, and the main thing with both Trump and Biden is how both are favored by the two distinct crime families of capitalism in the US (Red and Blue). All capital wants the same thing, more for them, less for everyone else. Donald and Joe are fully on board with that and both love to dip their fingers in the pie that the wealthy are carving up. Whether people want to believe it or not, a major part of the problem is that the crime families have taken over the news entirely and are working hard to censor anything that doesn't match up with the manufactured narrative. And with the two flavors of narrative management (Red = Fox, Blue = MSNBC) you have a totally divided and distracted public that is pretty clueless about how they are being played with the phony issues that show up on the Red and Blue outlets. Not sure how you get people to stop watching the crap, but until you do, nothing will change. Red and Blue voters need to dump the team colors and get together. Workers unite, left and right.

Expand full comment
Jun 2, 2023·edited Jun 2, 2023

Jeff, I'm interested in your choice of words "next Supreme Leader"....

I found these quotes in a quick Goggle search:

" A president is the leader of a country whose decisions make a difference to the whole population. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a leader of the Civil Rights Movement. A leader comes first in line — in a parade or a social system — and gets a lot of attention, but ultimately, a leader needs followers."

"The president is an elected position defined by the Constitution with specific responsibilities and authorities. A leader is someone who through demonstration of wisdom and knowledge has won the respect of others and they have agreed to follow that persons guidance. A president may or may not be a leader."

"The President is the only national voice in affairs. Let him once win the administration and confidence of the country, and no other single force can withstand him, no combination of forces will easily overpower him. His position takes the imagination of the country. He is the representative of no constituency, but of the whole people. - Woodrow Wilson"

When I was taking my citizenship test this is what we were taught:

Article II of the Constitution establishes the executive branch of the federal government and vests executive power in the president. The power includes the execution and enforcement of federal law and the responsibility to appoint federal executive, diplomatic, regulatory, and judicial officers. Based on constitutional provisions empowering the president to appoint and receive ambassadors and conclude treaties with foreign powers, and on subsequent laws enacted by Congress, the modern presidency has primary responsibility for conducting U.S. foreign policy. The role includes responsibility for directing the military.

The Constitution of the United States divides the federal government into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. This ensures that no individual or group will have too much power. As such the President is not the Leader.

Do I have this right? Hope you are doing well today.

Expand full comment

Dennis: How many times since the end of World War II has the legislative branch of this government exercised those “checks and balances,” and done anything but go completely along with whatever the White House has wanted and wants to do when it comes to initiating and waging another and then another and then another formally UNDECLARED by Congress ~ and thus unconstitutional, thus illegal [to say nothing of immoral] ~ war?

Can You cite even ONE instance of Congress not obediently honoring The Leader’s demands for whatever financial and other resources he needed to wage any of those wars?

If that doesn’t make The President “The Supreme Leader,” i’m not sure what possibly could.

When You were prepping for Your Citizenship Test, did anybody bring up that inconvenient fact of history?

Expand full comment

You are right of course Jeff. Congress has shirked its duty since WW2.

So what does the Constitution say about a demented senile Supreme Leaders authority to declare war? LOL Isn't the 25th Amendment the way to take away power from a sitting president who is unable to do his or her job?

BTW, did you know that there are various levels of the citizenship tests. If you are a less fortunately educated person you get the easy test with all soft ball slam dunk questions. If you a dumb enough to have an Engineering degree - you get the test that most of the Americans in my office would have failed.

Hope you are doing well.

Expand full comment

With the possible exception of Biden, Dennis, none of those Supreme Leaders that Congress went along with ~ and permitted all those wars to happen ~ were "demented and senile."

Unless You're calling Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush I, Clinton, Cheney and Bush II, Obama, and Trump demented and senile.

But that would depend entirely on how one defines "demented and senile," wouldn't it? i'm sure there are quite a few Americans who have no doubt that Trump is definitely demented.

But You are correct, Dennis: That is exactly what the 25th Amendment is all about.

And i just went to my friend, Google, and asked it "Are there different citizenship tests for different education levels?"; and could find no indication that there are different tests for people with different levels of educations. Can You direct me to someplace on the iNet that spells out the details of these different tests?

And finally, it would be interesting to see how many Americans at any education level could actually pass the current Citizenship Test, eh? i've got on my list of Things To Do to take a Practice Test and see how i do.

[ https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/questions-and-answers/100q.pdf ]

Google noted that some States are requiring that high school seniors pass the Citizenship Test before they can get their diploma, In 2018, that number stood at 8. See

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform/tab6_1_2-2020.asp for details.

Expand full comment
Jun 3, 2023·edited Jun 3, 2023

Jeff, I took my citizenship test in 1981. 42-years ago. There was written and oral test. At the same time as several laborers in our Company work force took their test. I know from comparing notes with them that they never were asked the same questions I was. We also had an Egyptian PhD Engineer sit the test. He was asked to name the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS and amendments to the Constitution about who can vote. I was not. Thats my experience and the basis for my comment.


You can also expect the complexity of the questions and the evaluation process to be based partly on:

*Your age

*Your background

*Your educational attainment

*How long you’ve lived in the United States

*Study opportunities that were available to you

*Other factors concerning your knowledge and understanding

Twisting my words again. I never said or implied Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush I, Clinton, Cheney and Bush II, Obama, and Trump were demented and senile.

While we are on the subject my teachers taught me that Truman committed U.S. troops to the Korean War as part of a United Nations “police action,” and Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon oversaw the undeclared conflict in Vietnam.

And I'm sure you, with your great knowledge, are familiar with The War Powers Act. A congressional resolution to limit the president’s ability to initiate actions abroad. It was enacted in November 1973 over an executive veto by Nixon. The law requires that presidents notify Congress after deploying the armed forces and limits how long units can remain engaged without congressional approval. I think its 60-days.

The first challenge to the Act came in 1981, when Reagan deployed the military to El Salvador without consulting Congress. In 1999, Clinton continued bombing in Kosovo beyond the 60-day time. We all know about Bush II. In 2011, Obama initiated a military action in Libya without congressional authorization.

Congress have objected to the executive branch’s disregard for the War Powers Act, but taking the issue to court has never been unsuccessful. In 2000, the SCOTUS refused to hear a case on whether the law had been violated during military operations in Yugoslavia.

BTW During his four years in office, Congress made challenges to Trump’s authority as Commander in Chief twice invoking the 1973 War Powers Resolution. The first 2019 resolution, expressed disapproval of the U.S.’ logistical and material support for Saudi Arabia’s campaign against the Houthi rebel movement in Yemen. The second 2020 challenge came after Trump authorized a drone strike that killed Iranian Major General Qassam Soleimani.

I don't know if either were successful. I think not?

But will you agree that it is true that Trump did not start any new wars in foreign countries?

Take it easy Jeff.

Expand full comment

Well Dennis, You have provided what folks in the artillery, close tactical air, and naval gunfire support business call a “target-rich environment.”

But first, i agree completely that Trump did not start any new wars or expand upon any ongoing war. That is about the only good thing he did while sitting on the throne.

However, he did absolutely nothing to reign in the people Obama and his team had put in power in Ukraine with their coup that overthrew the democratically-elected government of Ukraine in 2014, and ended up killing 14,000 fellow Ukrainians in the eastern provinces who felt closer to Moscow than to Kyiv. And that ~ along with the expansion of NATO ~set the stage perfectly for what has been and is happening in Ukraine since the Russian invasion in 2022.

As for those “targets”:

~ 1. i am very familiar with the War Powers Act of 1973. And i am even more familiar with the fact that it has not had any impact whatsoever in its 50-year existence on what Presidents do or don’t/can or can’t do when they decide to have another war. You cited several examples of that fact, and i see no need to elaborate beyond what You already said. The War Powers Act changed absolutely nothing about what Congress can and does do when the White House decides to send in the troops.

The main point being that ~ even with the War Powers Act on the books ~ Congress has never refused to finance ANY war ANY President has wanted to have since Nixon was on the throne. In other words, the War Powers Act has been and is completely and totally worthless as a means for the Legislative branch to have anything effective whatsoever to say or do about what the Executive branch does when it comes to war; and the Judicial branch has gone right along with the charade.

~ 2. Re: demented and senile Presidents, re-read what i wrote. i didn’t say You stated or implied that all the Presidents from Truman on have been in that condition. i prefaced that statement with the very important word “Unless.” And Bush II was nothing but a script reader and cheerleader; that show was being run entirely by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz, Armitage, Rice, and the rest of the “New Vulcans” in the Project for the New American Century crowd Bush the Lesser was completely surrounded and controlled by.

~ 3. Whether or not Korea was technically a UN “police action” is irrelevant to the point that Congress did absolutely nothing to prevent America from getting involved in what was a WAR with American troops getting sent overseas, killed, and maimed just like they did in any other war, as in World Wars II and I. And that was the beginning of America’s Undeclared-by-Congress Wars that Congress has never effectively challenged, and that have continued for more than 70 years.

~ 4. Re: Vietnam. Don’t limit Yourself to just Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon when speaking of American Presidents and what the Vietnamese People call “The American War.” America’s war in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia started immediately after the end of WW II with Truman’s decision to bankroll, supply, and support the French attempt to reclaim their Colonial Empire in Southeast Asia. And it was dutifully carried on by Eisenhower even up to the bloody end at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, and then the US refusal to honor the Geneva Accords that attempted to bring that conflict to some sort of settled resolution and conclusion. And a very strong case can be made that the primary reason Kennedy was killed was because he was NOT prepared to take that war to the next level; which, of course, LBJ did willingly and obligingly.

~ 5. Re: the Citizenship Test. i’ll both take and leave what You said about different Tests for different would-be Immigrants with different levels of education. i’m sure that lots of things have changed over these past 42 years.

Lots of things, that is, except the failure of the United States Congress to do its Constitutionally-mandated duty to reign in the White House running wild when it comes to having another war. After all, America’s Ruling Political Class has complete control over what goes on at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, in the Oval Office and up on The Hill. And have for quite some time now.

Have a Great day. ~ jeff

Expand full comment

THE NATIONAL DEBT IS A NATIONAL CURSE by Michael Boldin / Tenth Amendment Center 060223

The national debt is a national curse.

That’s not just our view, it’s how James Madison described it.

“I go on the principle that a Public Debt is a Public curse and in a Rep. Govt. a greater than in any other.”

That’s because, as Madison put it, debts are one of a trio of tools that people with power use to establish tyranny.

“Armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.”

Madison was far from alone.

Thomas Jefferson said he considered “public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared.”

In his Farewell Address, George Washington urged us to use debt sparingly – and, get this, actually pay it off as quickly as possible!

“As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it.”

In other words, running a perpetually growing debt is not just a bad economic choice, it’s also a threat to national security.

Benjamin Franklin warned that running into debt gives “to another Power over your Liberty.”

Thomas Jefferson put it this way:

“It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which, if acted on, would save one half the wars of the world”

For Washington, paying off the debt was “urgent.” That’s how he put it in his Fifth Annual Message to Congress:

“No pecuniary consideration is more urgent than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt. On none can delay be more injurious or an economy of time more valuable.”

The Antifederalist writer Brutus agreed, and during the ratification debates, forcefully expressing his concern about the ability to borrow:

“I can scarcely contemplate a greater calamity that could befal this country, than to be loaded with a debt exceeding their ability ever to discharge. If this be a just remark, it is unwise and improvident to vest in the general government a power to borrow at discretion, without any limitation or restriction.”

For many in the founding generation, leaving massive debt to future generations was also morally unacceptable, and something that should be rejected. Washington referred to it as “ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.”

Thomas Jefferson emphatically agreed, writing to John Taylor that “the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”



With the amount of debt we’re facing these days, that might be the understatement of the century.

And an even bigger understatement is that relying on people in government to limit government spending is a totally failed strategy.

Lysander Spooner may have summed it up best. Writing in NO TREASON VI, he put it this way:

“The lesson taught by all these facts is this: As long as mankind continue to pay ‘National Debts,’ so-called,—that is, so long as they are such dupes and cowards as to pay for being cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered,—so long there will be enough to lend the money for those purposes; and with that money a plenty of tools, called soldiers, can be hired to keep them in subjection.

“But when they refuse any longer to pay for being thus cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered, they will cease to have cheats, and usurpers, and robbers, and murderers and blood-money loan-mongers for masters.”

Source: https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/06/02/the-national-debt-is-a-national-curse/ ; EMPHASIS added.

Expand full comment

Let's face it physically & cognitively speaking "65" should be the Age cut-off for POTUS. On my Fire Dept. where I Served mind you a Working Class City of over 105, 643-- back before State Civil Service mandatory guidelines "Pre-War", and new Rules & Regulations of the City Dept. were set there was a Chief Dickinson who during World War 2 Served before Age Limits were amended Post War well he Served till Age 70. I believe I heard he needed help boarding (by his Chauffeur) his Chief's Buggy/ Car. Believe me these Guy's would stay on to the bitter end if they could. Chauffeured Blk. Caddy's, and all the other bennies/ goodies aside. Since you have to be 35 minimum now and a U.S. Citizen to boot plus Term Limits. Why not amend our Laws to say 70 maximum age limit. I'm almost a couple yrs. now from Septuagenarian Status myself, and man do I feel the Age at times. Where I used to go to the Bar after Games, Workouts, Biking, etc. now I go to Bed & McDonalds! :o)

Expand full comment

Don't the Democrats have any other politicians other than Biden and Clinton? Are there no governors or senators who are doing a reasonably good job?

Expand full comment

You got me, Alex.

Clinton and Biden, of course, are known quantities, throughly corrupted by the system. Kamala Harris is a Clintonite and the powers that be consider her to be "one of us," able and willing to follow orders.

Sanders, of course, was less reliable, so the system marginalized him and kept him from power. Other Democrats just haven't shown staying power at the national level, e.g. Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and the like.

If Biden truly falls from grace, look for a Draft Clinton movement or a wildcard like Gavin Newsom.

Expand full comment

Actually, no. The Dems are a bunch of rich snobs who hate the "basket of deplorables" meaning you and me. Every single one of them is a war mongering, hyper corporatist stooge for the even wealthier. Joe Biden is famous for pleading cup in hand to the billionaires... "I really need you guys"... and "don't worry, nothing fundamentally will change". Those are the exact same kind of quotes you will get from every single Democrat and every single Republican and every single Libertarian in Congress or in the state houses. You don't get to one of those positions by being a good person, you get there by sucking up to the wealthy.

Expand full comment

President Biden is in danger of losing early New Hampshire primary.


Expand full comment
deletedJun 2, 2023Liked by Bill Astore
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Yes, I take your point. The DNC is a front, I suppose. A conduit.

Expand full comment