No Bullet

I don't care about Megyn Kelly's rant about Scott Pelley, her profanity, or even the non-war record of Mr. Bone Spurs, Donald J. Trump. I care a great deal more about the "sacrifices" Kelly claims the President has made on behalf of the country while he has accumulated billions of dollars during his second term in office.

Yet, none of that contributed to Donald Trump now being a two-term President, unlike the "bullet (he took) for his country."  It's a myth which won't die until Trump does, and not even then if the history books are written by historians frightened to report the truth.

"How dare you begrudge Donald Trump and the sacrifices he's made. Trump literally took a bullet for this country so FUCK OFF Scott Pelley. The absolute arrogance and nerve of that asshole!"

- @megynkelly https://t.co/PL1qBgiJXC pic.twitter.com/jakix796AZ

— The Megyn Kelly Show (@MegynKellyShow) June 9, 2026

Eleven days after Matthew Crooks tried to assassinate Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania on July 13, 2024, the FBI concluded "What struck former President Trump in the ear was a bullet, whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces, fired from the deceased subject's rifle." Good thing, too, that the agency leave open the possibility tthat Trump was struck by a bullet, lest director Chris Wray's tenure not last beyond January 20, 2025 at 12:00 noon. 

Yet, as reported initially by New York magazine, journalist Olivia Nuzzi had

visited Trump's Florida estate in early August. It had been less than a month since he nearly escaped death at his Pennsylvania rally on July 13.

Like many have in recent weeks, Nuzzi appeared to fixate on Trump's injured ear and marveled at how—after a bullet buzzed right past it, leaving it bleeding—it was able to heal so quickly. She asked Trump about his injury, which left his face and ear bloodied on stage, and she reported that he responded by tapping the spot allegedly struck by a bullet fired at him by Thomas Matthew Crooks.

"The particular spot that he identified with his tap was pristine," Nuzzi wrote. "I scanned carefully the rest of the terrain. It looked normal and incredible and fine."

Nuzzi later added: "An ear had never appeared to have gone through less. Except there, on the tiniest patch of this tiny sculpture of skin, a minor distortion that resembled not a crucifixion wound but the distant aftermath of a sunburn."

We all remember Trump in Butler grabbing the right side of his head and dropping to the ground with the help of Secret service agents Secret Service agents. The Republica triumphantly rose back up with a "trail of blood streaked aginst his cheek", then triumphantly yelling "fight, fight, fight" in a dramatic scene worthy of a blockbuster Hollywood film.

And "Hollywood" is the operative term. This past March, former Minnesota govrnor and professional wrestling superstar Jesse Ventura was interviewed on Piers Morgan's "Uncensored" podcast. Morgan

said, “To be fair to Trump, when he got shot, he got back up and said, ‘Fight, fight, fight!’”

“Oh yeah, right, right, right,” Ventura responded. “You ever hear of a blade job?”

In professional wresting, a “blade job” refers to an athlete using a concealed razor blade to intentionally cut themselves to simulate a blood injury during a match.

When Morgan asked Ventura if he believed the assassination attempt was fake, the former Navy SEAL remained skeptical.

“I don’t know,” Ventura said. “Where’s his scar today? Come on, Piers, you’re gonna tell me this guy’s (Trump) a big hero now?”

Donald's WWE (and UFC) fandom is the stuff of legend- and reality. In April of last year, CT Mirror explained

Trump and several Cabinet members sat cageside at the UFC match in Miami; Trump himself holds a spot in the WWE Hall of Fame, where his official bio page notes that he’s the first WWE Hall of Famer to hold the presidency. Ahead of last weekend’s annual WrestleMania, wrestling news sites were abuzz with rumors that the president might again be ringside. At the same time, one of professional wrestling’s biggest stars, Roman Reigns, made headlines for declaring himself as a Trump supporter.

The former CEO of WWE, Vince McMahon, is a longtime friend of the president’s and financial supporter of his political endeavors; McMahon’s now-estranged wife, Linda, is also a former WWE CEO and a current member of Trump’s Cabinet. And the CEO of UFC, Dana White, introduced Trump before he spoke on the final night of last summer’s Republican National Convention — Hulk Hogan also spoke, ripping off his shirt to reveal Trump/Vance campaign merch — and attended Trump’s inauguration in January.

Trump also is a student of professional wrestling and 

The kinds of theatrics baked into the massive success of professional wrestling have been on display throughout Trump’s ascendency in American politics. On the campaign trail and now in the White House, a Trump event has a distinctive feel, a well-honed blend of spectacle, pageantry and hypermasculinity. It’s a style that feels lifted from the professional wrestling handbook, where aesthetics and narrative device choices are central to the delivery. In professional wrestling, this product is a form of entertainment that lets fans — predominantly young men — openly feel and freely celebrate masculinity. In the second Trump administration, the product is a barrage of new policy measures intent on crafting a very specific version of America where the feelings of men are prioritized and their power is irrefutable.

But that's not the half of it. Most significantly:

Central to the concept of professional wrestling is the practice of kayfabe, or committing to the illusion that clearly staged events are real and true. It’s a narrative device that asks audiences to suspend their disbelief, not in a way of passive acceptance, but rather active participation in the creation of what is possible.

 “It really does matter how well you’re doing the performance, but then what also really matters is how much the audience is going to buy into it. If they’re emotionally connected, that’s where the buy-in comes in,” said CarrieLynn Reinhard, an associate professor of communication arts and sciences at Dominican University and an expert on narrative devices in professional wrestling. “When you look at what Trump does, he is very good at getting to people’s emotions and understanding their emotions and — I’m going to say — manipulating their emotions for his own goals, and in doing so, he focuses on a reality that he believes in or at least he performs to believe in.”

President Trump could erase any doubts about being hit by a bullet were he to release the full, unredacted medical records of his care following the incident. Yet, he has not, and will not, do this.

The white Santa, white Jesus woman has conned much of the centrist and center-left media into believing that she has made a break with President Trump or MAGA because she is fed up with the Administration's war in Iran. But that is probably due to her perception that Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of the Jewish state, is pulling the strings of the President. She remains the propagandist who can actually claim Donald Trump "took a bullet for this country" and has made great "sacrifices".

President Trump is not stupid. He knows that, if he avoids disclosure of the most important details of his life and presidency, he will have the mainstream media and people such as Megyn Kellycontinue to  eat out of his hand. 

Share |

Get a Spine

The unacknowledged problem is not Donald Trump's bellgerence, hatred, or even his inability to get up on his unknown from NBC's KristenWelker, without holding onto her to avoid falling down. The following is the portion of the interview on Meet the Press which Welker conducted with the President, which has outraged so many. (Skip to the last sentence, if you wish, for the most important statement.)

KRISTEN WELKER:
This $1.8 billion so-called anti-weaponization fund that’s going to compensate people who say the federal government weaponized the legal system against them. It’s been blocked by the courts, met with opposition from Republicans –

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
And Democrats.

KRISTEN WELKER:
– in Congress, and Democrats.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Most, excuse me, mostly Democrats.

KRISTEN WELKER:
Mostly Democrats and some Republicans.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Some. Very few Republicans.

KRISTEN WELKER:
Just to be very clear, are you backing off the fund completely as your acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has said, or are you looking for another avenue to revive the fund?

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
So let – let me explain what the fund is. People have been hurt so badly by radical left lunatics that worked for the Biden administration and Sleepy Joe. They’re vicious. They’re violent, what they did to people. And of course they went after me more than anybody else. They raided Mar-a-Lago and all the other things. But people have been badly hurt. They’ve committed suicide. They’ve lost their jobs. They’re lost their families. They’ve lost their wives. They’ve lost everything. They’ve lost everything over a fake weaponization of government. Now, let me just tell you –

KRISTEN WELKER:
So are you looking for a way to revive it?

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, look. If it was up to me, I’d pay them the kind of money that they deserve. People have been destroyed. Lives have been destroyed. Many suicides, think of it. People have committed suicide because a bunch of thugs went after them.

KRISTEN WELKER:
You don’t –

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
So me, personally, I think the weaponization fund is a great idea, and so do many other Republicans. You have to get it approved. If they get it approved, that’s great. If they don’t get it approved, I’d be disappointed.

KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. We’re going to motor through this.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
But you have to understand, people have — have been destroyed by crooked politicians, and they should be reimbursed for that.

KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you think anyone who attacked police officers on January 6th should get taxpayer money?

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I wouldn’t be inclined to say so, but I have to see it. I can tell you this: 97% of those people, you look at them, the FBI or whoever it was, cause you had a lot of crooked cops, you had dirty cops. Comey was a dirty cop.

KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, there is no evidence to –

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
A guy like Bolton was a dirty cop –

KRISTEN WELKER:
But there is no evidence that-- but there’s no evidence that people who –

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Wait a minute, wait a minute. Oh, you think Comey was a straight cop?

KRISTEN WELKER:
We had 170 people who pleaded guilty to assaulting police officers.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Comey was a dirty cop.

KRISTEN WELKER:
No, no, but the people who assaulted police officers.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP
They had FBI – listen to me. They had FBI agents ushering them into the building. They had FBI “Go into the building.” Those people are walking around, they’re looking, “Oh, isn’t this nice?” They weren’t in-- they were being ushered into the building.

KRISTEN WELKER:
There’s no evidence of that, sir. There’s no evidence of that.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You had a bunch of dirty cops, and frankly, what they did was weaponization of our government.

KRISTEN WELKER:
But sir, there-- there’s no evidence of that. More than a thousand people pleaded guilty to crimes –

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No, well, yeah, no, there’s none. You know what they do?

KRISTEN WELKER:
Would you –

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Try looking at the tapes one time.

KRISTEN WELKER:
Would you take it off the table?

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Look at the tapes one time.

KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay, but 172 people did plead guilty to assaulting police officers.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You know why they pled guilty?

KRISTEN WELKER:
Should they be exempt –

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Because they told they were going to jail for 15 years –

KRISTEN WELKER:
– from receiving funds?

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– if they didn’t.

KRISTEN WELKER:
Should they –

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
They pled guilty because they were frightened. They went down. They were ushered into a building. Many of them were arrested without even going into the building.

KRISTEN WELKER:
You’d be okay with them receiving taxpayer dollars?

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
The people were destroyed by dirty cops and by weaponization. Many of those people should be compensated. Now, with that being said, the, as I understand it, the weaponization fund was going to set up a group of people, people that could be picked by anybody, fair people, smart people, and they will go on an individual case basis.

KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Now, I don’t know what’s going to happen with the weaponization fund. I love the idea, because people like you, the fake dirty press, the crooked press, people like stupid Biden, he’s not smart enough to know what’s going on, but people that surrounded him, surrounded his beautiful Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, what they did to the lives of people, they destroyed people. They sent people to jail who did nothing wrong.

KRISTEN WELKER:
All right, this is, just to be very clear, there’s no evidence of what you’re saying, but let me ask about Todd Blanche.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
There’s a lot of evidence.

KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask about Todd Blanche.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Listen – listen to me – listen to me.

KRISTEN WELKER:
Let’s talk about Todd Blanche.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
There’s tremendous evidence. There’s nothing but evidence.

KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, it’s not been presented in a court of a law.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
The election was rigged. It was a dirty election.

KRISTEN WELKER:
Mr. President –

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
And it’s happening again right now in California.

KRISTEN WELKER:
– you’ve never presented evidence –

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It’s happening right now in California.

KRISTEN WELKER:
– that the 2020 election was rigged.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Right now, it’s, look at what’s happening in California.

KRISTEN WELKER:
Where’s the evidence to that?

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It’s four days –

KRISTEN WELKER:
The Republicans are doing well in California.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
In California, it’s, no they’re not. They’re dropping fast because it’s a rigged election. Let me tell you, it’s four days and they aren’t even close to coming up with the –

KRISTEN WELKER:
That’s how they count the votes in California.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Do you know why they’re doing that? Because they’re cheating on the election.

KRISTEN WELKER:
There’s – What? Do you have evidence to support that?

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It’s-- all I have to do is look. All I have to do is look.

KRISTEN WELKER:
But that’s not evidence.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
And I listen. And I listen to people. And let’s see what happens.

KRISTEN WELKER:
But sir, that’s not evidence–

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Do you think it’s appropriate–

KRISTEN WELKER:
That’s how they count the votes in California–

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Do you think it’s appropriate that they have an election and five days later, they’re nowhere close to picking a winner?

KRISTEN WELKER:
State and local officials acknowledge they are slow. They’re urging--

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No, they’re crooked.

KRISTEN WELKER:
– they’re urging the votes to be counted quickly. That’s how they vote in California.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
They’re crooked just like you’re crooked, your press is crooked. And Meet the Press is crooked.

KRISTEN WELKER:
To be fair, I’m not crooked. But let’s continue.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Really? Well, you play right into their hands then.

KRISTEN WELKER:
Let’s continue.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You’re either crooked or you’re stupid.

KRISTEN WELKER:
Let’s continue.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You play right into their hands with this stuff. You know that these elections are rigged. Your network knows that they’re rigged. Do you know that I won an election in a landslide and I got 94% bad press.

KRISTEN WELKER:
But Mr. President –

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You know why I got that?

KRISTEN WELKER:
– you’ve never presented –

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Because you have no credibility.

KRISTEN WELKER:
–evidence. But you’ve never presented evidence it was rigged. Let’s keep talking about, I want to talk about Todd Blanche.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You have more evidence, there’s more evidence than ever presented.

KRISTEN WELKER:
Let’s talk about--

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Your elections in this country –

KRISTEN WELKER:
– you went to court.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
We’re like a third world country.

KRISTEN WELKER:
But sir –

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Your elections are crooked and you’re crooked, and Meet the Press is crooked.

KRISTEN WELKER:
But Mr. President–

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
And so is ABC and CBS and CNN.

KRISTEN WELKER:
But Mr. President –

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You’re a one-sided crooked network. Sorry. Let’s call it quits because I’ve had enough. Thank you, darling. Have a good time.

KRISTEN WELKER:
Mr. President, let’s – please, I traveled all the way to Wisconsin.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I’ve sat in the rain with you –

KRISTEN WELKER:
I traveled all – I know. I traveled all the way--

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I sat in the rain with you for an hour.

KRISTEN WELKER:
– to Wisconsin.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
On and off in the rain, and I’ve given you enough time. You ought to straighten out your press, because you know what?

KRISTEN WELKER:
Mr. President –

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
A country can never be great with a dishonest press. Come on. Let’s go.

KRISTEN WELKER:
– we traveled all – listen. We traveled all the way to Wisconsin for this interview.

[END TAPE]

KRISTEN WELKER:
I spoke with President Trump on Saturday, and we both acknowledged the complications during the interview posed by the rain. He agreed to sit down with me for another “Meet the Press” interview.

KRISTEN WELKER:
When we come back, the panel weighs in on my interview with President Trump.

 

Here's the full chain of events that led to Trump storming out of his interview with Kristin Welker, beginning with her pressing him on the weaponization fund, continuing with her pointing out the baselessness of his "rigged election" lies, and concluding with him calling her… pic.twitter.com/p8frVtICTt

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 7, 2026

It was "Donald Trump's Greatest Hits," in which the President of the USA does what he does best- whining through an interview and lying at a furious pace: "radical left lunatics";  "crooked cops"; "Comey was a dirty cop";  "FBI agents ushering them into the building:;  "stupid Biden";  California cops "cheatin on the election";  "Meet the Press is crooked";  "won an election in a landslide";  "your elections are crooked and you're crooked and Meet the Press is crooked... and so is ABC and CBS and CNN." 

The most interesting one, which will be ignored by the media, was Donald Trump characteristically hating on* the USA. "We're like a third world country," says the man who never misses an opportunity to condemn the country that twice elected him to the presidency.

Yet, the most significant comment, arguably, was Kristen Welker's promise "when we come back, the panel weighs in on my interview with President Trump". If only.

When the panelists returned, they touched on several topics: gas prices; the economy; Iran's nuclear program; voter frustration; tariffs.  But what they chose to ignore was the actual interview.

The panelists were the inaptly named Marc Short, who has worked for President Trump and Vice President Pence, Carol Lee of NBC News,  and Ashley Etienne.

So we couldn't expect anything worthwhile from Short. However, Etienne was communications director for Vice President Harris, communications director for House Speaker Pelosi, and special assistant to Barack Obama. Imagine being her and exhuming 259 words and saying: not a thing about an interviewee who a few moments earlier described our country as "third rate"; or that the show- or the host, with whom she herself is talking- is "crooked;" or who insisted without evidence that a statewide election in a Democratic state is "rigged" and "dirty;" or who called a former Democratic president "stupid".

Admittedly, if President Trump had called Barack Obama "stupid," Etienne probably would have been moved to defend the ex-President because, after all, it was Obama. But the silence from her and the refusal of Lee or Welker to defend their network, the news media generally, or Welker should be stunning.

It isn't, of course, because that's the way the media has been playing this game. Last November, Bloomberg's Catherine Lacey was among a group of reporters on Air Force One. After she asked a question about the Epstein files, Donald told her "quiet, piggy" and cut her off. Other reporters defended her- just kidding, they went on to ask their own questions.

CNN's Kaitlan Collins didn't even have to ask Donald a question at the White House press briefing last week, on June 3.  Trump stated "CNN is a very corrupt organization with a corrupt reporter standing right there." Then Collins asked about the D.O.J. fund and a moment later the President told her "you used to be a conservative, she was a conservative from Alabama."

To her credit, Collins smartly (and accurately) snapped back "I'm still from Alabama, Sir".  But the news conference with the Liar-in-Chief went on, reporters blithely asking questions after Donald had called one of their colleagues "corrupt".

It was standard operating behavior from the press, which satisfies itself enabling Trump while diplomatically questioning a few of his outrageous lies. However, with the exception of Collins on this occasion, no one- no one- confronts Trump.  When Collins was called "corrupt," any one of a few things could have been an appropriate response.

The assemblage could have left at that moment. However, they faced the prisoner's dilemma and, given that unless most of the correspondents had walked out, those who did probably would have been fired by their organization. 

Another, more realistic, option would have been for one of them, presumably the next reporter called upon, to do the heavy lifting. He or she could have defnded Collins or, better yet, called upon the President to apologize.

That would have put Donald in a rough spot, which may be why this sort of thing isn't done. Defend a reporter to Trump's face- or in Welker's case

During the Meet the Press interview, when Welker was told by Trump "you're either crooked or stupid," she could have replied "well, we know you're not stupid, so that leaves only one other option".  

To Welker's credit, she did at one point object "to be fair, I'm not crooked."  Nonetheless, that's insufficient- and protesting at the end "Mr. President, let's- please, I traveled all the way to Wisconsin" sounds weak and whiny, and no way to gain the respect of Trump, his supporters, or even the audience of Meet the President.

Nevertheless, it's not up to one NBC, CNN, or Bloomberg correspondent to stand up to Donald Trump and say "No"!  Either the individuals or the news organizations they're working for are failing big time and if the latter, someone needs to call them out.

*rap parlance, circa 2000

Share |

Debacle

If this is what victory looks like, I'd hate to see defeat.

Marco Rubio was labeled "Little Marco" in 2016 by Donald Trump, who also called him "Mr. Meltdown" and "lightweight choker" before the Florida senator was dispatched from the presidential race

On Tuesday,June 2 Little Marco appeared on the Hilll for a budget request hearing and

"We're no longer conducting sustained strikes inside of Iran to degrade their military, because Epic Fury is over," Rubio told the House Foreign Affairs Committee, asserting that the US had secured victory….

"We define victory as destroying their defense industrial base, significantly reducing the number of missile launchers that they possess, significantly reducing their stockpile of drones," Rubio said.

"And we achieved all those, in addition to destroying what they had left of an air force and wiping out their entire conventional navy."

Grilled at the hearing by Democrat Cory Booker of New Jersey, the Secretary weirdly asserted "well, the war is over."

Yet, just this past week

Kuwait’s military said Iranian strikes that hit a terminal at its international airport killed at least one person and wounded 63 in the first deadly attack in the Gulf since a ceasefire on 8 April came into effect.

The US and Iran also exchanged fresh missile and drone strikes, further jeopardising efforts to secure a new ceasefire agreement between Washington and Tehran.

Donald Trump said in an interview released on Wednesday that talks with Iran were continuing and he was not looking to escalate, adding: “We don’t need boots on the ground now.”

He later claimed Iran was “pretty close” to signing a peace agreement with the US and “it could happen over the weekend”.

If President Trump appears to be looking for a way out of this debacle, looks here are not deceptive. Sixteen days ago, after Donald asked for a 30-day extension of the ceasefire reached in April, Brookings Institution senior fellow Robert Kagan wrote

As the Institute for the Study of War reports, Iran has been using the cease-fire period to “normalize” its control over the strait by “compelling oil-importing countries” to establish transit agreements with Tehran and charging fees on vessels from nations without such deals. According to Iranian officials, the new strait regime will give Iran’s strategic partners, such as Russia and China, priority and allow nations friendly to Iran, such as India and Pakistan, to negotiate their own transit agreements. Vessels associated with nations that Iran regards as an adversary will be denied access to the strait entirely.

Several nations, including South Korea, Turkey, and Iraq, are reportedly already negotiating at least temporary transit agreements. Now that Trump has made clear he has no intention of fighting to reopen the strait, the stampede to get good terms with Tehran will begin. All nations heavily dependent on energy from the Persian Gulf will want to cut their deal quickly to get the oil and gas and other commodities flowing and rescue their battered economy. Those nations currently allied with the United States and friendly to Israel will feel pressure to distance themselves and make their peace with Iran. The international sanctions against Iran will collapse, and even more money will pour into the country’s accounts as its newly central role in the global economy becomes normalized. By the end of 30 days, most of the world will have a stake in the new arrangement and will oppose any resumption of hostilities, even in the unlikely event that Trump wanted to go back to war…

The Iran war may end up as the single most devastating blow to Israel’s security in its brief history. On the present trajectory, Iran will emerge from the conflict many times stronger and more influential than it was before the war. It will exercise leverage with dozens of the richest nations in the world, all of which will have an acute interest in keeping Iran happy. They will be unlikely to take Israel’s side in any conflict that it has with Tehran or with its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza, because Iran will have the means to punish them if they do. Israel will emerge more isolated than it has been at any time in its history—and not least from its only reliable protector, the United States. When Trump turns his back on Israel, as he must do to implement this policy, MAGA will gladly follow. The bipartisan anti-Israel consensus in the United States will grow and harden.

Will Israel go gentle into this good night? That is the wild card that may disrupt the financial markets’ dreams of a new stability in the Gulf. A stronger, richer, more influential Iran will mean new life for Hamas and Hezbollah. It will mean the end of the Abraham Accords, as the Gulf States will have to make their own peace with Tehran so that their economies can survive. Trump says that Netanyahu “will do whatever I want him to do.” But can Israel stand by while Iran replaces the United States as the arbiter of power in the region?

When a Memorandum of Understanding- or whatever it will be or will be called- is finalized, Donald Trump will declare victory, perhaps characterizing the Iran war as the greatest America ever has fought. Trump will be his lying, corrupt self, Little Marco will still be a sniveling loser, and the Middle East will be more unstable and dangerous than it has been in a very long time.

Share |

Non-Christian Nation

The Fox News banner during an argument between network host Kayleigh McEnany and network contributor Harold Ford reads "TALARICO IS WORSE" TRUMP SAYS TX SEN CANDIDATE WORSE THAN GRAHAM PLATNER."   I

It's odd to believe that a guy who has said that he believes communion "is a form of asking for forgiveness" and that with it "I feel cleansed" is qualified to refute James Talarico's biblical arguments, but here we are. I don't know precisely what preceded the portion of the McEnany/Ford confrontation but the remarks of the onetime Trump 45 press secretary are intriguing. McEnany comments

There is a one-and-a-half, three minute clip of Charlie Kirk. It is epic A breakdown of how nine of the thirteen original states required you to be a Bible-believing Chistian- the original states of the United States. He goes on to list thirteen of thirteen required a declaration of faith. Several of them said "profess Christ as Lord and Savior." You're lying to say this is not a Christain nation. You're lying to say that God is several genders. You're lying to say that Christianity is not a religion of eclusivity. 

Say what you will but President Trump is very spot-on to say the greatest danger and I believe and I will cross the Democratic Party is not Graham Platner for his moral indiscretions. There are people in the Republican Party who have moral indiscretions, too. It is someone who lies about Scripture and that is what this man is doing.

Kayleigh: He says we are not a Christian nation—false

Ford: The constitution never mentions the bible.

Kayleigh: Go read the original 13 colonies and their constitutions. Nine of the 13 required you to be a bible-believing Christian. pic.twitter.com/4t5uhmDXbA

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 3, 2026

 

If the Center for the Study of  the American Constitution is reliable, McEnany is not entirely wrong when she remarks that "thirteen of thirteen required a declaration of faith. Several of them said 'profess Christ as Lord and Savior.'"  While only one- Delaware- referred to Jesus Christ, all of them required what McEnany presumably means by "a declaration of faith,".adherence to a specific religion.

And what would that religion be? McEnany's clear implication- "Bible believing Christian" and "declaration of faith"- is that all of these states required an office-holder to be a Christian. However, that applies only to five of the states- the aforementioned Delawar, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Massachusetts. The other four- New Jersey, North Carolina,, Georgian, and New Hampshire- required the individual to be a Protestant Christian. It was expressed as "professing belief in the faith of any Prorestant sect" (N.J.); "no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion" (N.C.) "of the Protestant religion" (Ga.); and "shall be of the Protestant religion" (N.H.).

So to be clear: not all of the 13 originals were the same.  It has been a very long time that voters required thought that non-Protestants were unqualified because they were of the wrong (in their view) branch of Christianity.

Fortunately, the framers of the USA Constitution believed similarly.and inserted the No Religious Test Clause, which reads  

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The Constitution forbids a religious test clause. Individuals who identify as Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox Christian are equally entitled to serve in public office, as are members of any religion, or individuals who have unconventional religious beliefs or none at all.. Further, a growing number of Americans identifies religiously as "none and aside from Jews, an increasing number of citizens are of the Muslim faith or another.  Approximately 45% of individuals of a Christian religion admitted (split infinitive alert!) in a 2025 survey of the Baptist Press to not attending church, and many of the others are lying.

I would like to be a strong safety in the National Football League, or maybe a nuclear engineer.  Kayleigh McEnany would like this to be a "Christian nation". But wishing doesn't make reality, and for better or worse, this hasn't been a Christian nation for a very long time, is not one now, and won't be one in the future.

Share |

Imperfect People and Imperfect Theology

Leave it to a MAGA Republican, an infamous "Stop the Steal" activist and influencer, to atttack the one accurate remark made by a Democrat. The following evidently comes from a speech the current Democratic nominee for governor of Texas made in October, 2021 on the floor of the Texas House of Representatives when he was a member of that body.

 

I FOUND IT!

Here’s the video of democrat James Talarico calling God non-binary.

“God is both masculine & feminine & everything in between.”

In the same breath, Talarico said, “[Trans children] are perfect, beautiful, & they are sacred.”

No, Talarico. God isn’t non-binary. pic.twitter.com/RnS21b8TeH

— ThePersistence (@ScottPresler) May 31, 2026

God obviously is is not binary, though it's understandable- albeit inaccurate and reprehensible that the Republican right would reinforce the myth that God is male. In the first book, verse 29 of chapter 15, of Samuel the prophet Samuel (probably) says "he who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind."  In verse 24 of chapter 4 of the gospel of John, the apostle John (very likely) states "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth." God is non-binary.

I don't know what Talarico actually believes God is but unless the Bible is wrong on this point, God is non-binary. His statement "God is both mascline and feminine nd everything in between" is open to interpretation. Although Scripture consistently refers to God in masculine terms (e.g., "father")

God created humanity in His image-both male and female (Genesis 1:27)-showing that all people reflect His likeness. This underscores God’s transcendence above human gender divisions. He is neither male nor female in the physical or biological sense. The masculine pronouns convey how God relates to humanity and expresses His authority and intimacy, not that He has a human body defined by gender.

There has been less backlash against Talarico for the comment about transsexual (uh, er, "transgender") children, possibly because that remark made less sense.

Trans children are God's children, made in God's own image. thee's nothing wrong with them.  Nothing at all. They are perfect. They are beautful, and they are sacred.

Collins Dictionary defines "sacred" as "holy and having a special connection with God"; Cambridge as "considered to be holdy and deserving espect, especially because of a connection with a god; Merriam-Webster as "dedicated or set apart for the worship of a deity.'  How Talarico gets from there to transsexual children or trans children (or straight children, were that his preference) are "sacred" is a mystery to me, and probably to himself.

Trans/transexual children are beautiful- just as straight children are. Except that most of them, as with most of us, are simply not beautiful. A world of mostly beautiful people? Awesome! (It would be almost as awesome as a blog post with only complete sentences. And far less likely.)

And then we come to the characterization of transexual/trans children as "perfect". Yes, a Christian  seminarian said that a whole class of people is perfect. Yet he no doubt read the "Teacher" (presumably Solomon) write in Ecclesiastes 7:20  "indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins".  We move to the New Testament, where in Romans 3:23 the apostle Paul asserts "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

These are not outliers.  If individuals- trans or whomever- were perfect, there would have been no need for a Jesus Christ. We're not perfect, and cannot be.  

It's disappointing that an individual who received a Master of Divinity degree from a Christian seminary would understand this. However, Talarico attended Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, a Presbyterian Church in the USA school.

The PCUSA long ago lost its way theologically. Fortunately, James Talarico, a supporter of abortion rights and opponent of state-mandated religious displays in public schools, has not lost his way politically. Of course, he is superior to opponent Ken Paxton in approximately 3,283 ways, spanning both political ideology and personal character. But suggesting that trans children possess virtues which other children and adults do not is both biblically unsound and, frankly, weird.

Share |

Wrong Issue

In a newsletter from Bulwark, Adrian Carrasquillo writes

Ro Khanna, the ubiquitous California congressman with one eye ever on the White House, put his fellow Democrats on blast this week, saying anyone who supported the Laken Riley Act—one of the first major laws passed during the second Trump administration—should be disqualified from becoming the party’s next standard-bearer.

“Nine swing-state Democrats gave permission for mass deportation,” Khanna told me. “No one who voted for the Laken Riley Act should have any role in the future leadership of the Democratic party in this country. . . . It’s disqualifying, just like the Iraq War vote."  

Laken Riley was an August (Ga.) University student who was murdered while she was jogging in February of 2024. The perpetrator had entered the USA from Venezuela illegally in 2022, arrested by Border Patrol, released, and given temporary permission to stay in the country. The murder sparked outrage which led to passage of the act, signed in January 2025, named in her honor.

The National Immigration Project, an immigration rights group explains

Before the Laken Riley Act, many people were already forced to go through their immigration cases under mandatory detention. These laws require certain immigrants to remain detained while their casegoes on in immigration court. People who are affected by mandatory deterntion cannot be considered for release by an immigration judge and generally must remain in detention until their immigration court case ends, a process that can take years. In contrast, people who are not detained under mandatory detention laws can get a “bond hearing” in immigration court in which they can try to convince the immigration judge that they should be released while their immigration case is pending.

According to the Project, the law applies to individuals arrested for, convicted of, or who admit to having committed, any one of a number of serious offenses or shoplifting (shoplifting?). It does not apply to individuals already under a deportation order, who have been granted refugee status, who have overstayed their vis, or are lawful permanent residents.

Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna says any Democrat who voted for the Laken Riley Act is disqualifying.

KHANNA: “It was a terrible vote…I’m tired of a Democratic Party that throws immigrants under the bus.” pic.twitter.com/sxeUV1690j

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 29, 2026

"Throws immigrants under the bus?"  The Act is an overreach and faulty legislation promoted by the Trump Administration. However, Democrats ignored the chaotic border, then not coincidentally got their rear ends handed to them in November, 2024. They still speak as if there are no illegal immigrants in this country, nor immigrants with green cards who need to have their cases adjudicated.

Thus, it's a big issue- but not the only issue, and not the most important one. If Khanna really wants a litmus test, he can consider cryptocurrency, whose

openness has made it a playground for scams. Rug pulls, where project founders disappear with investor money, still happen. Pump-and-dump schemes, Ponzi projects, and fake initial coin offerings remain threats.

On a personal level, romance scams and “pig butchering” schemes are becoming more sophisticated. These target individuals directly, tricking them into sending funds to fake platforms or wallets. Without due diligence, it’s easy to fall victim.

One of the biggest risks is the lack of consistent global rules. Some countries embrace crypto, while others impose heavy restrictions or outright bans. What is legal in one country may not be in another.

Individuals are very vulnerable to being scammed by investing in crypto. But some will profit enormously because

The primary appeal of cryptocurrencies for criminals lies in their decentralized nature, which offers a degree of anonymity and independence from traditional financial systems. They present an attractive alternative to conventional money laundering methods as they enable quick, cross-border transactions that are often harder to trace. Moreover, the absence of a central authority – like a bank or government – overseeing these transactions makes it more challenging to monitor and regulate this activity.

I don't like litmus tests, but if Ro Khanna does, here is a suggestion:

Here with Tim Miller is .@ben_mckenzie talking about the Genius Act, and how corporations have found another way to screw over the American people. #DemsUnited pic.twitter.com/cXzP1LhYnf

— Rod (Izzy) 🇺🇸🦅 (@1zzyzyx1) April 24, 2026

The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act ("GENIUS Act") “defines specific government entities that will oversee stablecoin issuers” but

Excluded from these definitions of regulatory agencies overseeing payment stablecoin issuers are the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), none of which have roles to play in regulating of payment stablecoin under the GENIUS Act.

So the GENIUS Act, signed into law by President Trump in July of 2025, specifies that cryptocurrency will be regulated as a commodity, rather than as a security. It will reduce, not increase, regulation of this shameless industry.

If details of the legislation are complicated or at least obscure, an examination of the roll call vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate makes things a little clearer. In the Senate, 16 Democrats and 50 Republicans voted for the bill. Among those who voted for this dangerous legislation were four Democrats who have been mentioned at one time or another as possible candidates for the party's 2028 presidential nomination. They were Booker of New Jersey; Gallego of Arizona; Ossoff of Georgia; Slotkin of Michigan. Credit where credit is due: Thirty Democrats voted "nay" and included Murphy of Connecticult; Sanders of Vermont; Van Hollen of Maryland; Warnock of Georgia. Two Republicans voted against it and Democrat Mark Kelly of Arizona, often mentioned as a 2028 possibility, joined Republican Hawley of Missouri in not voting.

In the House of Representatives, 206 Republicans and 102 Democrats voted "aye" while 12 Republicans and 110 Democrats voted "nay".  Among the 102 Democrats who gave the crypto industry an early Christmas gift in 2025 was the U.S. Representative from the 17th congressional District of California, Silicon Valley's man in D.C., one Ro Khanna.

The whole of a member's body of work should be considered. Senator Raphael Warnock, senator from the conservative state of Georgia, is one of those individuals Khanna cited as disqualifying because he voted for the Laken Riley Act. Yet, he boldly voted against the GENIUS Act, in my opinion more important legislation.  

This- nor anything else- disqualifies Ro Khanna from public office or even seeking the Democratic nomination for President, as he is rumored to be interested in. But when Khanna poses as a populist, we should remember that at a very important moment, he came up on the side of big money.

Share |

The Only Win Donald Trump Wants is His

"I'm not saying the're rooting for Ameica to lose," the former press secretary to President George W. Bush states, "but they're not saying America wants to win."

Dana Perino on Democrats and Iran: “I think they are trying to separate themselves so much from Donald Trump that, I’m not saying they are rooting for America to lose.. but they are not saying America wants to win.”pic.twitter.com/MQ27X0jpda

— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) May 26, 2026

Donald J. Trump on October 30, 2022 tweeted on Truth Unsocial "Our Country is Rigged, Crooked, and Evil."  During the first Cabinet meeting of his second term, on February 26, 2025, Trump stated "our country has gotten bloated, fat, and disgusting". The day after speaking to mainland Chinese president Xi Jinping in mid-May, Donald remarked on Untruth Social "When President Xi very elegantly referred to the tremendous damage we suffeed during the four years of Sleepy Joe Biden and the Biden Administration and on that score, he was 100% correct."

Sure sounds like a President who wants America to win! Not.  Nor is it only words which confirm Trump's preference that the USA decline or as Perino might put it, not to win. On Wednesday, January 24, 2024, Donald 

privately pressured Senate Republicans to “kill” a bipartisan deal to secure the U.S. border because he doesn’t want President Joe Biden to chalk up a win ahead of the 2024 presidential election, according to a source familiar with the tenuous negotiations on the package.

Trump directly reached out to several GOP senators on Wednesday to tell them to reject any deal, said this source, who requested anonymity to speak freely. The GOP presidential frontrunner also personally reached out to some Senate Republicans over the weekend, the source told HuffPost.

“Trump wants them to kill it because he doesn’t want Biden to have a victory,” said the source. “He told them he will fix the border when he is president… He said he only wants the perfect deal.”

If the perfect deal- nearly impossible- had been achieved, it still woldn't have been perfect in Trump's eyes. As a zero-sum devotee, Donald doesn't want anything good for the other because he assumes that would be bad for him. And of course, Donald Trump is the only cause Donald Trump is interested in. Hence, he supports only what is bad for whomever or whatever he considers his adversary, irrespective of whether it is good, or a win, for this country.

Dana Perino can only speculate about motives of Democrats. We know what Donald Trump's motive always is, and it's he, not us.

Share |