BlueAnon: Unhinged writer Joyce Carol Oates thinks Trump faked the Butler attack
Indeed, I talked yesterday about one liberal thinker, a former Obama speechwriter, admitting that he used to snub a more conservative leaning family member for disagreeing with him about vaccines.
But I'm here to tell you that it's not just those zany right-wingers who believe in crazy conspiracy theories. Elite, smart, morally praiseworthy liberals fall for insane ideas, too. And here's a perfect example: Joyce Carol Oates, a well-known and popular author and teacher of creative writing, and a card-carrying member of the liberal establishment.
Joyce Carol Oates seems like exactly the kind of person who would shun a rightwing family member for being wrong about COVID, or Trump, or any number of subjects: you name it. But does Joyce Carol Oates admit to believing some kooky things? Of course not. And yet look what she wrote on X yesterday, on the first anniversary of the Trump assassination.
'While anyone from a shy child to a Green Beret veteran would duck down immediately in a panic, shrink away from having been struck in the head (by a pebble, let alone a bullet), instead [Trump] stood up proudly & raised his fist for photographers, without hesitation,' she wrote. 'Is it unreasonable to assume that only a person absolutely certain that there would be but a single shot, that he was not in any danger, could possibly behave as [Trump] behaved? Yet the media would have the public believe this. as if it's some sort of insider joke or code like pro wrestling kayfabe where, though you know wrestling is scripted, you must not say so, nor will anyone else.'
In other words, she thinks the Trump assassination was a false flag operation. Trump or his supporters, she is saying, arranged for a fake assassination in order to garner sympathy for Trump and orchestrate the legendary photo of him bravely standing up and raising his fist, for political advantage.
And if you don't think it's clear she's saying that, her follow-up tweets remove any doubt.
'It seemed rehearsed, the positioning of officers to allow a hokey publicity shot of [Trump] with a fist raised for a MAGA poster,' she wrote. 'The call 'shooter down!' certainly came quickly; how could anyone possibly know that there wasn't a second shooter? Secret Service would surely be more thorough.' She then added: then added: 'impossible to believe that in the confusion & panic of that moment anyone in his right mind would wish to stand up & face another bullet.'
The attempt on President Trump's life, one year ago in Butler, Pa., was not staged. It was real. It was perpetrated by a deranged gunman, who wounded Trump in the ear.
But for the grace of God — or some higher power, or fate, or sheer dumb luck — Trump narrowly avoided being killed. A man in the crowd behind the president, Corey Comperatore, was not so lucky. The devoted husband and father died because someone tried to kill Trump.
It's not fake. It's not made up. It's not part of some plot. It wasn't intended to be a photo op or a campaign tactic. How Trump reacted in the moment was real, and did in fact show real courage. You can certainly be mad that it helped him politically — that the way he handled the situation resonated with, and impressed, many Americans. But you can't deny that it was real.
If you do, then you are a conspiracy theorist. Oates ought to know better — but this radar isn't really about her.
Forget Q-Anon. This is BlueAnon. And it's just as false and harmful and offensive.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
19 minutes ago
- Forbes
Can States Handle Disasters Without FEMA? The Legal Gaps Business Leaders Should Know
HUNT, TEXAS - JULY 6: Vehicles sit submerged as a search and rescue worker looks through debris for ... More any survivors or remains of people swept up in the flash flooding on July 6, 2025 in Hunt, Texas. Heavy rainfall caused flooding along the Guadalupe River in central Texas with multiple fatalities reported. (Photo by) A year already marked by record-smashing heatwaves, catastrophic storms, and deadly flash floods is forcing business leaders to reckon with an unsettling question: What happens if the federal government pulls back from disaster response? The idea of handling disasters without FEMA is not an abstract worry. In recent weeks, political debates have intensified over proposals to reduce federal spending on disaster relief or even eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after the 2025 hurricane season, as reported by NBC News. Former President Trump and some congressional leaders have floated plans to shift primary responsibility for disaster recovery to state governments—a move that could leave businesses navigating a patchwork of legal systems without the backstop they've come to rely on for decades. This uncertainty comes as disasters batter communities from coast to coast. In the first half of 2025 alone, the U.S. suffered at least 15 billion-dollar weather disasters, including historic flooding, tornado outbreaks, and prolonged heat waves, according to Yale Climate Connections. Just this past weekend, flash floods devastated Kerr County, Texas, forcing rescues and shutting down businesses in a region still recovering from earlier storms. For business owners, investors, and insurers, this brewing shift raises urgent questions: If FEMA disappears, can state laws and budgets fill the gap? Will private enterprises have to shoulder more responsibility for disaster planning and recovery? And which states are prepared—or dangerously unprepared—to protect their residents and economic lifelines in a post-FEMA landscape? A Federal Safety Net Under ThreatALTADENA, CALIFORNIA - JANUARY 30: People walk past a FEMA sign following a press conference at the ... More Altadena Disaster Recovery Center on January 30, 2025 in Altadena, California. House Democratic leaders and local officials held the press conference near the Eaton Fire burn zone to call for federal disaster assistance following the devastating wildfires in Los Angeles County. (Photo by) Since its founding in 1979, FEMA has been the cornerstone of America's disaster response. It funds emergency shelters, debris removal, rebuilding grants, and cash assistance for displaced families. Critically for businesses, FEMA programs like the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant fund projects that reduce future risks, a crucial buffer as extreme weather grows more frequent. Yet the agency has long faced political crossfire, with critics labeling it bloated or inefficient. Earlier this year, a lawsuit was filed against the Trump administration's previous halt to BRIC funding for certain states, highlighting how political swings can upend even well-established federal programs. If proposals to wind down FEMA proceed, business leaders would be left relying on a fragmented patchwork of state disaster laws—many of which, my research suggests, lack the resources or legal frameworks to handle large-scale crises. State Disaster Laws Are A Patchwork of Authority Every U.S. state has laws empowering governors and local officials to declare emergencies and coordinate response efforts. Yet those powers vary widely in scope, funding, and legal protections for vulnerable communities. Despite these structures, most states still rely heavily on FEMA for funding, specialized teams, and logistical support. Without FEMA, states would have to cover enormous costs themselves. For example, after Hurricane Harvey, Texas received over $13 billion in FEMA aid, money that state coffers alone could not match. The Business Risks Of A FEMA Void Businesses have more skin in this game than ever. Beyond humanitarian concerns, legal and financial risks loom if federal safety nets vanish. Federal aid often helps cover costs insurers won't, such as temporary housing, debris removal, and infrastructure repair. Without that aid, insurance companies may face larger payouts or withdraw entirely from high-risk markets. In Florida, for example, multiple insurers have already exited the market due to hurricane risks, leaving businesses scrambling for coverage. A weakened federal role could mean higher premiums, stricter underwriting, or outright denial of coverage in disaster-prone regions, especially for small and midsize enterprises without deep cash reserves. If state laws differ significantly on evacuation orders, business owners may be caught between conflicting mandates. For instance, if local officials order an evacuation, but state law vests that authority only in the governor, businesses face legal ambiguity about when to close operations, protect staff, or move inventory. Disaster response gaps also raise potential civil rights issues. Federal laws like the Stafford Act prohibit discrimination in disaster aid based on race, disability, or language. Many states lack comparable mandates, meaning vulnerable communities—and businesses serving them—could fall through the cracks if federal oversight disappears. Companies with operations across multiple states face a regulatory minefield if FEMA's uniform national standards vanish. Without coordinated federal logistics, restoring supply chains and reopening businesses could take longer, increasing downtime and losses. Which States Are Ready? Which Aren't? Few states are fully prepared to absorb FEMA's responsibilities. According to my analysis of disaster laws across the South and Mid-Atlantic, only a handful—like Virginia and Texas—have begun integrating equity planning, vulnerable population registries, and robust local emergency powers into state statutes. Other states, particularly smaller ones with limited budgets, may lack: That leaves gaps businesses can't ignore. A company operating in Virginia might navigate disaster recovery relatively smoothly, while the same company in Mississippi or Georgia could face a chaotic patchwork of legal obligations, prolonged closures, and community backlash. What Business Leaders Should Do Now While FEMA's fate remains uncertain, businesses should: FEMA's potential dismantling would represent the biggest shift in American disaster management in generations. Businesses that fail to prepare for handling disasters without FEMA amidst a state-led disaster regime risk higher costs, legal headaches, and reputational damage. Disasters don't respect state lines, but the laws governing them increasingly do. For business leaders, understanding those legal boundaries might be the key to survival in a future where the federal safety net is no longer guaranteed.
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Coca-Cola confirms it will launch cane sugar version in US amid Trump ‘enthusiasm'
Coca-Cola Company confirmed on Tuesday that it will launch a cane sugar version of its iconic drink in the U.S. amid President Trump's ' enthusiasm,' coming less than a week after the president revealed the change on social media. 'As part of its ongoing innovation agenda, this fall in the United States, the company plans to launch an offering made with U.S. cane sugar to expand its Trademark Coca-Cola product range,' the company said in a news release. The Atlanta-based company said the addition is 'designed to complement the company's strong core portfolio and offer more choices across occasions and preferences.' Trump said in a post on Truth Social last week that Coca-Cola agreed to use cane sugar in its flagship drink instead of high-fructose corn syrup. 'I have been speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so,' the president wrote on Wednesday. 'I'd like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola. This will be a very good move by them — You'll see. It's just better!' The soft drink giant did not confirm the change last week, but said it appreciated Trump's 'enthusiasm' for the brand and that more details on 'new innovative offerings within our Coca‑Cola product range will be shared soon.' The soda sold in the U.S. is usually sweetened with corn syrup, while other countries — like Mexico, already use cane sugar. The 'Mexican Coke' is also sold in the U.S. Trump has been a longtime aficionado of Diet Coke, with the president having a red button installed at the Resolute Desk during his first term. When pressed, a staffer would bring the drink to the president.
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Court allows Trump administration to end deportation protections for Afghans, Cameroonians
An appeals court on Monday cleared the way for the Trump administration to end protections from deportation for Afghans and Cameroonians, declining to bar removals amid a review of the move's legality. The decision will impact more than 10,000 citizens of both countries who remain in the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which bars deportation of those who cannot safely return to their country due to civil unrest or a natural disaster. While a lower court had agreed to bar deportations for another week, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to continue to bar them while the legal battle continued. 'There is insufficient evidence to warrant the extraordinary remedy of a postponement of agency action pending appeal,' they court wrote. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ended TPS for both countries, with protections for Afghans designed to end last week and protection for Cameroonians set to expire August 4. In doing so, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reversed findings of the Biden administration that each country was too dangerous for its citizens to be returned. Some 9,600 Afghans and nearly 3,500 Cameroonians have TPS, according to The National Immigration Forum. Those impacted will have to apply for asylum or protections under the Convention Against Torture in order to remain in the country. Afghanistan remains under Taliban rule and deteriorating conditions in the country have accelerated since the U.S. withdrawal in 2021, including widespread food insecurity. Many of the roughly 80,000 Afghans who came to the U.S. after the fall of Kabul have adjusted their status, either securing asylum or a special immigrant visa given to those who assisted U.S. military efforts there. 'Thousands of Afghans who served alongside U.S. forces are now at risk of detention and deportation,' Shawn VanDiver, president of #AfghanEvac, said in a statement. 'These are our allies, neighbors, coworkers—people who believed in the promises this country made.' The Biden administration had also cited armed conflict in Cameroon as a rationale for keeping protections there. 'Since 2014, ongoing armed conflict between the Government of Cameroon and nonstate armed groups in the Far North Region, specifically Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), has resulted in killings, kidnappings, displacement, and destruction of civilian infrastructure,' the Biden administration wrote in the 2023 re-designation.
