American oligarchs cash in on Trump

10 Richest Americans Have Gained $700 Billion in Wealth Since Trump Reelection

Jake Johnson

New research published November 3 shows that the 10 richest people in the United States have seen their collective fortune grow by nearly $700 billion since Donald Trump secured a second term in the White House and rushed to deliver more wealth to the top in the form of tax cuts.

The billionaire wealth surge that has accompanied Trump’s return to power is part of a decades-long, policy-driven trend of upward redistribution that has enriched the very few and devastated the working class, Oxfam America details in Unequal: The Rise of a New American Oligarchy and the Agenda We Need.

Between 1989 and 2022, the report shows, the least rich US household in the top 1% gained 987 times more wealth than the richest household in the bottom 20%.

As of last year, more than 40% of the US population was considered poor or low-income, Oxfam observed. In 2025, the share of total US assets owned by the wealthiest 0.1% reached its highest level on record: 12.6%.

The Trump administration—in partnership with Republicans in Congress—has added rocket fuel to the nation’s out-of-control inequality, moving “with staggering speed and scale to carry out a relentless attack on working-class families” while using “the power of the office to enrich the wealthy and well-connected,” Oxfam’s new report states.

“The data confirms what people across our nation already know instinctively: The new American oligarchy is here,” said Abby Maxman, president and CEO of Oxfam America. “Billionaires and mega-corporations are booming while working families struggle to afford housing, healthcare, and groceries.”

“Now, the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress risk turbocharging that inequality as they wage a relentless attack on working people and bargain with livelihoods during the government shutdown,” Maxman added. “But what they’re doing isn’t new. It’s doubling down on decades of regressive policy choices. What’s different is how much undemocratic power they’ve now amassed.”

Are we headed back persistent worries about nuclear war?

Donald Trump has Effectively Ended All Nuclear Agreements

Dr. Bandy X. Lee

I wish I did not have to do titles in all bold—but we have arrived at this point in so many domains! Even as day-to-day matters are consuming us, I have emphasized the need to respond proactively and to understand deeply, so as to prevent things getting out of hand. 

This includes matters related to the future welfare of our country, our world, ourselves, and our families—no person can afford to ignore what is happening. 

As nuclear weapons have proliferated tremendously, increasing the magnitude of their destructive power and the speed at which they can be employed, not to mention their metastasizing types, we have become psychologically inured to their presence. 

This is a huge, quite possibly fatal, mistake to let happen. There are very good reasons Albert Einstein and his colleagues tried to bring to our consciousness this potential through “the Doomsday Clock”—soon after they quickly realized that their scientific discoveries had changed the human condition—which now counts down in seconds rather than minutes.

Especially in the new political, economic, and military situation we are now in, we need to urgently bring our focus to de-escalation, not only of the weapons but of the ways we think about the weapons and about how we are conducting international affairs.

Just minutes before Donald Trump was scheduled to meet with Xi Jinping of China, he declared that the U.S. would resume nuclear testing—for the first time since 1992. With this statement, he has, in effect, effectively ended all nuclear agreements.

It's how I was raised.

Charlestown neighbors need help

Suspension of SNAP (Food Stamps) causing problems everywhere

Fellow Charlestown Residents, Recently, a friend saw very long lines at the RICAN food assistance location — a reminder that many of our neighbors are feeling the strain. If you’re in a position to help, RICAN is always grateful for donations of nonperishable food items like: canned fruit (Note: they are all set with canned veggies) pasta rice cereal pet supplies Baby Food (Note: please check the expiration dates on the baby food. It has a shorter time frame than other foods.) Every contribution makes a difference for a local family. And, of course, cash donations allow RICAN to fill gaps in their offerings. RICAN Drop-off Location: 805 Alton Carolina Rd, Charlestown, RI 02813 The donation bin is in front of the Thrift Shop Hours: Monday - Friday 9am - 2pm Let’s continue to look out for one another and keep Charlestown the caring community we’re proud to call home. Paid for by Charlestown Residents United P.O. Box 412 Charlestown, RI 02813 Visit our Website   Charlestown Residents United | PO Box 412 | Charlestown, RI 02813 US

With humor and candor, Hillary tells Providence audience her views on truth and democracy

At Brown, Hillary Clinton reflects on her career, encourages the pursuit of truth and diplomacy

Brown University

Looking back on her five-decade career in public service, Hillary Rodham Clinton can count numerous accomplishments and successes from her tenure as U.S. secretary of state, first lady, U.S. senator and other roles as a leader and advocate.

But what would she do differently? Without hesitation, she said it would be the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

“Obviously, I’d win,” Clinton declared to a packed house in Brown’s Pizzitola Sports Center during the University’s 104th Stephen A. Ogden Jr. ’60 Memorial Lecture on International Affairs on Thursday, Oct. 30. 

“I should caveat that — I’d win the electoral college,” she quipped, eliciting a burst of cheers as she nodded to having won the popular vote.

Presidential politics, tales from the world of diplomacy, and U.S.-international relations were among the topics that Clinton discussed in a wide-ranging conversation with Brown University President Christina H. Paxson. 

Clinton was the latest among dozens of leaders and diplomats to participate in the 60-year-old Ogden Lecture series, which has hosted everyone from His Holiness the Dalai Lama to New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger to heads of state including Jacinda Ardern (New Zealand), Mikhail Gorbachev (Soviet Union) and Theresa May (U.K.). 

Clinton’s visit was co-presented by Brown 2026, an initiative to observe the U.S. semiquincentennial and the role of research universities in advancing democratic societies, and by the University’s Thomas J. Watson Jr. School of International and Public Affairs, which celebrated its launch during a public event at Brown on Oct. 25.

Who gets SNAP benefits to buy groceries and what the government pays for the program

By the numbers

Tracy Roof, University of Richmond

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has helped low-income Americans buy groceries for decades with few disruptions.

But on Nov. 1, 2025, the federal government halted the flow of funds to states to distribute as SNAP benefits. The Trump administration blames this unprecedented disruption on the federal government shutdown, which began a month earlier. Following multiple court orders, federal officials said they plan to distribute at least a portion of the US$8 billion that’s supposed to flow monthly to the states to cover the costs of the program’s benefits. On Nov. 6, another judge ordered the distribution of all SNAP funds that were due in November.

Although the program costs billions, the benefits that families and individuals can receive from it are modest. The most a person living on their own can get is $298 a month, but many people receive far less. The average benefit is an estimated $6.17 daily – which falls below some estimates of the minimum cost of eating a nutritious diet in the United States.

The Conversation U.S. asked Tracy Roof, a political scientist who has researched the history of government nutrition programs, to explain who SNAP helps, how enrollment varies from state to state and what the program costs to run.

How many Americans are enrolled in SNAP?

The number of people getting SNAP benefits soared during the Great Recession, a big downturn that began in December 2007 and had long-lasting effects on the economy.

Because of high unemployment and poverty rates, more people were eligible for SNAP during those years. Many states, eager to bring dollars into their economies from federally funded SNAP benefits, made unprecedented efforts to enroll eligible families. SNAP enrollment peaked in 2013 at roughly 15% of Americans. The number of the program’s participants fell as the economy recovered, but never returned to pre-recession levels because a greater share of eligible families continued to enroll in the program after the economic crisis than before.

When the COVID-19 pandemic upended the U.S. economy in 2020, the number of people with SNAP benefits soared again. President Donald Trump has blamed high enrollment in SNAP on the Biden administration “haphazardly” handing benefits “to anyone for the asking.”

That assertion is misleading. While the Biden White House increased benefits, it did not expand who was eligible for SNAP. In fact, President Joe Biden agreed to apply work requirements and time limits to more SNAP recipients. Moreover, states, not the federal government, are primarily responsible for determining eligibility and enrolling people in SNAP. The number of people who received SNAP benefits during Biden’s presidency never exceeded 43 million – the peak reached in September 2020 during the first Trump administration.

The number of people using SNAP benefits to buy groceries has not fallen substantially because the number of people in poverty and the cost of living, including what Americans pay for food, have both increased since 2020.

Trump’s anti-Venezuela actions lack strategy, justifiable targets and legal authorization

Even if they have proof - which they have not shared - it is still murder to kill people in international waters absent a declaration of war 

Jeffrey Fields, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

The image accompanying Secretary of Defense
Pete Hegseth’s Oct. 28, 2025, social media announcement
that the U.S. had destroyed four vessels in the
Pacific allegedly smuggling narcotics. 
Pete Hegseth X account

“I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. OK? We’re going to kill them. You know, they’re going to be, like, dead,” Donald Trump said in late October 2025 of U.S. military strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea north of Venezuela.

The Trump administration asserted without providing any evidence that the boats were carrying illegal drugs. Fourteen boats that the administration alleged were being operated by drug traffickers have been struck, killing 43 people.

On Oct. 24, the administration began a substantial military buildup in the region. The Pentagon moved the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford and some of its strike group, along with several other naval ships, to the Caribbean and moved F-35 fighter jets to Puerto Rico. This is the largest U.S. naval deployment in the Caribbean Sea since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.

According to the White House, the naval buildup and strikes on boats in international waters are part of counternarcotics operations. The vessels targeted allegedly belonged to Venezuelan drug smugglers, though the administration has produced no evidence that there were drugs on the boats, or what type. Trump has named fentanyl as one of them.

At times the president and some of his advisers have referred to the operators and occupants of the boats as “narco-terrorists.” But they have offered no explanation why the people would be considered terrorists.

The president and his advisers’ own words have also indicated that the larger intentions of the administration could be to topple the government of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela.

But as a former political-military analyst and former senior adviser at the Department of Defense, I find it hard to discern a coherent strategy or objective.

The U.S. deployed its largest warship, the USS Gerald R. Ford, to the Caribbean, north of Venezuela, following multiple strikes on vessels allegedly involved in drug trafficking. Omar Zaghloul/Anadolu via Getty Images

The Charlestown Town Council December 2 Special Election

Who is best for Charlestown?

By Will Collette

Now that the Blue Tide has swept over Nov. 4’s off-year elections, it’s time for Charlestown to focus on its December 2 special election to pick a successor to Rippy Serra whose unexpected death created a vacancy.Rippy served as Council vice-president, was a stalwart in the Charlestown Republican Town Committee (CRTC) and a leader in the non-partisan Charlestown Residents United (CRU) that ended the long rule of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance with landslide wins in the 2022 and 2024 elections. The December 2 election features three women who will appear in the following order on the ballot. 

At the top of the ballot is Democrat Jill Fonnemann well known to patrons of the Rathskeller where she works as beverage director and has organized numerous community fund-raisers. She is endorsed by the Charlestown Democratic Town Committee (CDTC) and the CRU. Spoiler alert: Jill is also my personal choice. Second on the ballot is Laura Rom, chair of the CRTC, who wants to keep Rippy’s seat Republican. She currently serves on the town Planning Commission and chairs the Charter Revision Commission. She is endorsed by the CRTC and shares a joint endorsement from the CRU with Jill Fonnemann. In a statement, the CRU explained why it issued this unusual joint endorsement:

A Message from Charlestown Residents United (CRU)

As many in the Charlestown community know, Council Member, Rippy Serra passed away this past August.  His dedication, integrity, and commitment to serving all residents left a lasting impact, and his loss is still felt by many in our town.

As we look ahead to the upcoming election to fill this important Council seat, Charlestown Residents United (CRU) recognizes the contributions that both candidates - Laura Rom (R) and Jill Fonnemann (D) - could bring to the Council.  We believe each candidate offers valuable experience and a strong commitment to serving our community.

Consistent with our mission as a nonpartisan, community-focused organization, CRU supports both candidates equally and remains committed to a respectful, informed and inclusive process.

We hope every resident will take the time to learn about each candidate’s vision, values and priorities and vote in a way that best reflects their hopes for Charlestown.

Together, we can continue fostering respect, transparency and collaboration in our community.

Charlestown has the distinction of being governed effectively and without drama – despite the partisan rancor roiling the country – by the CRU’s bi-partisan coalition. Together, they ended the financial mismanagement, shady land deals, secrecy and cover-up that marked the 10-year reign of the CCA. Thus the dual endorsement.

The third name on the ballot is a familiar one to any resident who follows local politics, Bonnita B. Van Slyke who is endorsed by the CCA.

Van Slyke on the right. Her puppet master
Ruth Platner to the left

Van Slyke has become the CCA’s main spokesperson, delivering the script prepared for her by the CCA’s de facto leader Planning Commissar Ruth Platner.

I’ve devoted a lot of time to debunking the endless stream of false statements that came from the Platner-Van Slyke duo over the past 10 years. There are a total of 62 articles so far featuring Van Slyke. You can read them all by CLICKING HERE.

The CCA is already cranking up its propaganda machine. As usual, they seem compelled to lie, even when it is so easy to disprove them. Here’s a “whopper” (one of Van Slyke’s favorite words) in their latest piece about the CCA and Van Slyke’s greatest claim to fame:

“Reduced the tax rate to one of the lowest in Rhode Island and adopted a policy to reserve sufficient savings to protect taxpayers in the event of emergencies.

This is a two-part false claim. First, the CCA did NOT reduce the tax rate and certainly not during Van Slyke’s tenure from 2014 to 2022. Simply look at the tax rate table from Town Tax Assessor Ken Swain that shows the tax rate steadily increased when the CCA took power in 2008 and dropped dramatically when the CRU kicked them out in 2022.

The CCA took power in 2008 and
were kicked out by the CRU in the
2022 election.

While Charlestown’s tax rate is very low compared to other municipalities, property values driven by non-resident purchases, not anything the CCA did or didn’t do, that determined your property tax bottom line.

Second, the CCA policy of raising the actual taxes you pay to pad the town’s surplus fund account spawned such scandals as the $3 million that went missing (“misallocated” was the term the CCA used).

It drove a series of shady land deals where Van Slyke acted as Platner’s puppet plus a systematic cover-up campaign by CCA tool, former Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz.

Van Slyke's other recent campaign pieces are also packed with easily disproved and discredited claims as we'll be showing you over the coming weeks.

Over the month of November leading up to the December 2 special election, we’ll be covering these issues and more. 

We’ll look at why Charlestown needs Jill Fonnemann, a young, fresh new face, on the Council. 

We’ll also examine Van Slyke’s past record and current claims to see what Charlestown will get if she is returned to the Council.

Here are the ways you can vote:

You can also get an application for a mail ballot by e-mailing Town Clerk Amy Weinreich at arweinreich@charlestownri.gov. Amy turned my own request around very quickly.

Last Tuesday, November 4, record numbers of Americans turned out for off-year elections. “No Kings” translated into a Blue Wave that swept from Virginia to California sending a clear message that Americans do not want a corrupt, inept and repressive government.

We had that in Charlestown for 10 years under CCA rule. Your vote for Democrat Jill Fonnemann keeps Charlestown on a forward track for the benefit of all Charlestown’s people.

Send us your huddled mass of pedos yearning to be free

Welcome home, Andrew

Why the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles may need to be moved

He has already declared he wants the strictest possible anti-trans tests on female Olympians. What about all his travel restrictions? 

Under Trump Proclamation 10083, twelve countries face a full ban on both immigrant and non-immigrant visas: Afghanistan, Myanmar (Burma), Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Seven countries face partial restrictions: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. 

Why are psychopaths different?

Just remove their brains and they'll be fine

By Nanyang Technological University

A team of neuroscientists from Nanyang Technological University (NTU Singapore), the University of Pennsylvania, and California State University has uncovered a biological difference between psychopaths and non-psychopaths. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, they found that the striatum, a region in the forebrain, was about 10% larger in individuals with psychopathic traits compared to people with little or no such tendencies.

Psychopaths, or individuals who display psychopathic traits, tend to show a combination of self-centeredness, emotional coldness, and a lack of empathy or remorse. In some cases, these characteristics are accompanied by antisocial or criminal behavior.

The striatum, part of the brain’s subcortical forebrain region, is involved in functions such as motivation, decision-making, and reward processing. It also helps coordinate motor actions and plays a role in how people plan and respond to stimuli.

The hidden plastic problem in your daily dental routine

A mouthful of plastics

Saroash Shahid, Queen Mary University of London

You brush twice daily, floss religiously and see your dentist every six months. But what if these acts of oral hygiene are quietly contributing to one of the planet’s most pressing environmental crises?

A growing body of research reveals that our pursuit of clean, healthy teeth comes with an unexpected cost: we’re washing billions of microplastic particles down the drain every day.

Take toothpaste, for example. Decades of using toothpastes with plastic microbeads triggered bans in many countries, but studies show that many modern toothpastes still contain microplastic particles.

And toothpaste isn’t the only offender; dental floss is another stealth culprit. Most flosses are made of nylon or Teflon – non-biodegradable fibers – that shed and linger in ecosystems.

Even the simple toothbrush sheds dozens of nylon bristle fragments during normal use. These fragments enter sewage, pass through treatment systems and end up in marine food chains where they are ingested by plankton, shellfish, fish and, eventually, us.

Rhode Island rights groups ask courts to hold virtual hearings to prevent ICE courthouse snatches

ICE trolls courthouses looking for immigrants to grab

Rhode Island Deportation Defense Coalition

On Saturday, November 1st, over 30 Rhode Island organizations, court workers and politicians, including Providence City Council, penned an open letter calling on Governor Dan McKee, Chief Justice Suttell, and the RI Judiciary to immediately implement virtual court hearings in response to the brutal kidnappings of immigrants at Rhode Island’s courthouses. 

These organizations and individuals have added their support to the nearly 2,200 individuals who signed the petition for virtual courts since it was launched in July.

The full text of the letter and list of signatories is printed below:  

–––––––––––––

ICE is a pandemic: We demand virtual court hearings now!

To Governor McKee, Chief Justice Suttell, and the Rhode Island Judiciary,

Every week, ICE vehicles wait outside of RI courthouses to abduct our immigrant community members. Since the end of July, we have witnessed over 20 abductions outside the courts, and those are only the ones we have seen. These community members are trying to navigate a system that fails them — like the well-documented case of a woman who was a victim of domestic violence, was never charged with anything, but was still kidnapped while leaving court. 

Trump’s use of National Guard troops on American streets is bad enough. This could be worse.

Present and former military alarmed at Trump's misuse of National Guard and federal troops

By Joan Johnson-Freese, Rhode Island Current

I saw some of my former Naval War College colleagues at the recent No Kings rally in Providence. Given that National Guard troops and protestors had clashed in Los Angeles at an earlier June rally protesting ICE raids, we wondered whether we would see National Guard troops as we marched, where they would be from, and their mission? 

We didn’t. That doesn’t mean, however, that there is no need for concern about the future.

The National Guard is unique to the U.S. military given it is under the authority of both state governors and the federal government and has both a domestic and federal mission. 

Governors can call up the National Guard to help when states have a crisis, either a natural disaster or a human-made one. Federal authorities can call on the National Guard for overseas deployment and to enforce federal law. 

President Dwight Eisenhower used both federalized National Guard units and regular U.S. Army units to enforce desegregation laws in Arkansas in 1957. But using military troops to intimidate citizens and support partisan politics, especially by bringing National Guard units from other states has never been, and should never be, part of its mission.

But that’s what is happening now.

A host of Democratic U.S. senators, led by Dick Durbin of Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and 25 others has called for an inquiry into the Trump administration’s recent domestic deployment of active-duty and National Guard troops to Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Portland, Oregon, and Memphis, Tennessee. 

In an Oct. 17 letter to the Defense Department’s Inspector General, the senators challenge the legality of the domestic troop deployment and charge that it undermines military readiness and politicizes the nation’s military. 

Ostensibly, the troops have been sent to cities “overrun” with crime. Yet data shows that has not been the case. Troops have been sent to largely Democratic-run cities in Democratic-led states. 

The case for political theater being the real reason behind the deployment certainly was strengthened when largely Republican Mississippi sent troops to Washington D.C., even though crime in Mississippi cities like Jackson is higher than in D.C. Additionally, there is an even more dangerous purpose to the troop presence  — that of normalizing the idea of troops on the streets, a key facet of authoritarian rule.

There are fundamental differences in training and mission between military troops and civilian law enforcement, with troop presence raising the potential for escalation and excessive force, and the erosion of both civil liberties and military readiness.

Shut up