Invoke the 25th Amendment Now! Deranged Donald Trump Must Go.

During my lifetime, I have lived through the presidencies of Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. I am now living through Donald J. Trump’s second, nonconsecutive term as president, the first having preceded Joe Biden’s presidency and the second beginning immediately after it. Trump was sworn in for his second term on January 20, 2025.

At various points throughout my adult life, I have agreed and disagreed with presidents I voted for, as well as with presidents I opposed at the ballot box.

For a long time, my objection to Donald Trump was political. I disagreed with his policies, his rhetoric, and his priorities, just as any citizen may disagree with a president from the other side of the political spectrum. But that is not what this is about anymore.

Looking honestly at what I see before me, not one isolated incident or one bad day, but what I perceive as a sustained pattern, I have reached a different and more serious conclusion.

This is no longer simply a matter of disliking a president or disagreeing with his politics. I believe we are dealing with a president who is no longer capable of effectively discharging the duties of the office and who, in my view, has lost focus on the domestic problems actually facing this country: the economy, healthcare, infrastructure, global stability, and the everyday concerns of the people who elected him.

Under Trump, personal grievances have replaced governance and loyalty tests have replaced policy. In my judgment, incompetence has become the norm, while instability has become both a domestic and foreign-policy strategy.

I want to be clear: this is not simply my gut reaction. Over the past several years, mental-health professionals, including psychiatrists and psychologists with clinical training, have publicly raised concerns about what they perceive as erratic judgment, grandiosity, and an inability to separate personal grievance from the responsibilities of the presidency.

I recognize that the professional community is divided on these questions. I also understand and respect the ethical concerns many clinicians have about diagnosing a person they have never personally examined. Nevertheless, when informed professional voices repeatedly express concerns that correspond with what many ordinary citizens say they are seeing and experiencing, I believe those concerns deserve serious consideration. And the consequences, as I see them, are not merely abstract.

Markets can react sharply to unexpected presidential announcements. Allies that have relied on Washington for decades may reconsider how much they can depend on the United States. Adversaries may view unpredictability from an American president as an opportunity rather than a deterrent.

An ideological struggle driven by personal grievance rather than coherent strategy can do more than dominate a news cycle. It can undermine alliances, institutions, and international stability that have been built over generations and sustained through enormous sacrifice.

I do not see tangible benefits that, in my judgment, adequately offset the risks posed by Trump. That is why I now believe the 25th Amendment should be invoked.

I do not say that as a partisan weapon or as an attempt to relitigate an election. I say it because I believe the amendment was created as a constitutional mechanism for addressing presidential inability. Section 4 provides a specific process through which the vice president and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments can declare that a president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office, with Congress ultimately deciding the matter if the president contests that declaration.

From my perspective, I no longer see this as a close call. I believe those entrusted with examining presidential capacity should look honestly at the pattern before them and determine whether it demonstrates an inability to discharge the duties of the presidency.

I do not put forth any of this out of hatred for Donald Trump. I put this forth out of respect for the country in which I have spent nearly eight decades of my life, and out of concern for what I perceive this pattern could mean for my children and grandchildren in the years to come.

Stability is not a partisan value. Neither is responsible leadership in the exercise of presidential power. After nearly eight decades of watching American presidents come and go, I have never felt more compelled to say that a President of the United States is mentally unstable, totally inept, and unfit to remain in office.

Donald Trump is mentally deranged and is far too dangerous to remain as the President of the United States of America. The 25th Amendment must be invoked, now. Donald Trump must be removed from office!

Was the 2020 Presidential Election Rigged?

My query to ChatGPT:

Earlier today, September 10, 2026, a man I know  told me that the 2020 Presidential Election was rigged to keep Incumbent President Donald Trump from being reelected. This man alleged that the election was rigged to favor Biden. I asked him to give me some proof of that, and he just kept repeating himself. How can one say an election was rigged but has no proof is beyond me. What kind of response can I give the person who says the 2020 election was rigged in order for Joe Biden to win and to keep Donald Trump from being re-elected as President?

The response from ChatGPT:

Your basic point is sound: a claim that an election was “rigged” is not evidence that it was rigged. If someone makes that claim, the reasonable next question is, “What specific evidence demonstrates that, and how does it show that the alleged misconduct changed the result?”

There is a particularly useful way to respond without turning the conversation into an argument.

You could say this:

I’m willing to consider the possibility that something improper happened in the 2020 election. But saying “the election was rigged” over and over again isn’t evidence.

If you believe the election was rigged to make Biden win, please give me something specific that I can independently verify: What happened, where did it happen, what evidence proves it happened, and how many votes were affected?

I’m not asking you to prove that every vote was legitimate. I’m asking you to provide evidence for the much bigger claim that the election was deliberately manipulated to change the outcome.

There were recounts, audits, investigations and court cases after the election. Georgia, for example, conducted recounts, and investigations by state officials found no evidence of widespread fraud. The Trump campaign and its allies also brought numerous legal challenges, but the courts did not establish fraud on a scale sufficient to overturn the election.

So if you have new or specific evidence that those investigations missed, I'm willing to look at it. But “I know it was rigged” isn't evidence. It is a conclusion. The evidence is what should allow us to reach the conclusion.

That approach has an important advantage: you aren't asking him to prove a negative. You're asking him to substantiate his positive assertion.

There is also a very useful distinction you can make:

“Were there irregularities in the 2020 election?”

That is a reasonable question. Elections involving millions of ballots can certainly have mistakes, isolated illegal votes, administrative errors, and disputes.

“Was the election deliberately rigged so Biden would win?”

That is a substantially different allegation. It requires evidence of a coordinated scheme and evidence that it affected enough votes to change the outcome.

The available record is important here. The Justice Department's compilation of the post-election litigation includes cases in which the Trump campaign itself did not allege fraud or acknowledged that the number of votes at issue could not affect the outcome. And Georgia conducted recounts that did not change the result and investigated allegations of widespread fraud without finding evidence supporting them. 

So if your acquaintance simply repeats, “But it was rigged!”, you can calmly come back to one question:

“What is your best piece of evidence that proves it was rigged, rather than simply your belief that it was?”

Then actually examine whatever he gives you. That's a much more productive standard than arguing about Donald Trump or Joe Biden.

And importantly, you don't have to defend Biden in order to demand evidence for a claim about the election. The same evidentiary standard should apply whether the alleged beneficiary is Biden, Trump, or anyone else.

The 2026 Texas U.S. Senate Race

The 2026 Texas U.S. Senate race features a stark clash of economic philosophies focused heavily on the cost of living. James Talarico’s platform models Lyndon B. Johnson’s populist "Great Society," targeting corporate influence and structural inequality. In contrast, Ken Paxton’s platform aligns closely with Donald Trump's MAGA policies, focusing heavily on targeted federal tax deductions.

The two candidates' platforms clash directly across several major economic areas:

🏠 Housing & Everyday Costs

* Ken Paxton: Focuses on tax-incentivized assistance. He proposes a $50,000 federal tax deduction for first-time and second-time homebuyers, as well as a $50,000 deduction on down payments for people moving to a new primary residence. He also supports making permanent the signature tax provisions passed under the Trump administration.

* James Talarico: Blames billionaires for the affordability crisis. He proposes a sweeping cost-of-living tax cut for the middle class, funded by repealing tax breaks for the top 1%. Additionally, Talarico advocates for federal funding to establish universal childcare.

🏥 Healthcare & Medicine

* Ken Paxton: Proposes expanding the tax code to alleviate medical burdens. His platform includes a $25,000 tax deduction per taxpayer (plus an extra $25,000 per dependent) for all out-of-pocket medical expenses, including health insurance premiums. He also pitches a $5,000 "healthy-living" tax deduction to incentivize fitness and wellness.

* James Talarico: Focuses on anti-monopoly regulation and debt relief. Partnering with entrepreneur Mark Cuban, Talarico has introduced a plan to break up corporate healthcare and insurance monopolies to force down prescription drug prices. He also advocates for the broad forgiveness of existing medical debt.

⚡ Energy & Emerging Industries

* Ken Paxton: Champions the traditional Texas oil and gas industry. He strongly opposes federal climate mandates, green subsidies, and modern global tariffs that add friction to industrial manufacturing and agriculture.

* James Talarico: Advocates for an "all of the above" energy strategy. While stating support for the Texas oil and gas sector, he emphasizes reducing greenhouse gas emissions through technological investments like carbon capture. He also proposes heavily regulating data centers—requiring them to fund their own energy usage and recycle water—and creating a federal dividend by taxing artificial intelligence (AI).

💼 Labor & Wages

* Ken Paxton: Argues that lowering taxes and slashing federal spending will organically stimulate job growth, raise wages, and curb inflation.

* James Talarico: Proposes active government intervention to aid workers. He calls for raising the federal minimum wage, expanding mandatory overtime pay, and strengthening laws to rebuild labor unions. 

Fear of your parents’ old age?

There comes a moment in every family when time bends the natural order.

It is when the son becomes his father’s father.

The father who once walked with strength now moves slowly, as if wrapped in fog.

The mother who once held your tiny hand tightly now fears being left alone.

The same father who once lifted you on his shoulders now pauses twice before standing.

The same voice that commanded with authority now only sighs, searching for doors and windows that seem far away.

One day, the hands that built your world will tremble to button a shirt, forget the pills that keep them alive. And we, as children, will realize: it is our turn to be their strength.

The life that once gave us everything… now depends on us to leave this world in peace. 

Aging is not just wrinkles or weak knees. It is learning to hold on to walls, to climb invisible stairs. It is becoming a stranger in your own home, while your children watch—afraid, uncertain, but full of love.

And when the time comes, nothing matters more than a gentle touch, a whispered promise:

"I’m here… I’m here, Dad. You are not alone."

Because in the end, what every parent longs to hear is that their child stayed by their side.