"Terror and Hate"

To be fair- and if not fair, generous- President Trump has been ambivalent toward the effort of Iranians to overthrow the extreme Islamist government of Iran. A Persian-language news operation based in London, possibly financed by Sausi Arabia, and which has been designated as a terrorist group by Tehran reported on March 9 that when "asked if he still considers helping people of Iran," Donald Trump responded

I'd like to, if they can behave, but they've been very menacing. You know, they're great people. They have an amazing population. It's amazing, smart, brilliant, energetic. They have a great I'd love to help them, but they have to be in a system that allows them to be helped, and right now they're in a system that only allows failure.

The money quote was if they can behave but they've been very menacing. As is surely obvious to Donald, Iranians cannot overthrow their tyrannical theocracy unless they're menacing, and even more than menacing.

Trump approved of the protests, initially. In echoes of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, on January 13, he

urged Iranians to keep protesting and to “take over your institutions”, telling them “help is on its way”, as reports grew that a strike on Iran was imminent. But just a day later, Trump abruptly did an about-face, telling reporters that he had received assurances that Iranian authorities would not execute anyone, walking back from military intervention in Iran, at least temporarily.

In Iran, protesters despaired. Despite Trump’s reassurances, killings of demonstrators continued.

The streets of Tehran were empty, except for pickup trucks with armed security forces patrolling where tens of thousands had marched just days before...

If regime change were the President's goal, Jnuary would have been the opportune time to attack Iran. But it has not been a chief aimof his and on March 12, according to Iran International, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Gurards Corps warned

that opponents could face a blow “even stronger than January 8,” signaling the possibility of a renewed and harsher crackdown if street protests resume.

The warning came from the intelligence organization of the Revolutionary Guards, which said street unrest would be treated as a precursor to military action. “Those we call the ‘Neo-ISIS elements’ should know that a blow even harsher than that of January 8 awaits them,” the statement said.

More than 36,500 Iranians were killed by security forces during a two-day crackdown on nationwide protests on January 8–9. Iran International confirmed the death toll after examining obtained classified documents along with field reports and accounts from medical staff, witnesses, and victims’ families.

In its statement, the Guards accused foreign adversaries of trying to stir unrest inside Iran after failing to achieve their goals on the battlefield. It said enemies were now attempting to “spread fear and provoke street protests.”

The warning came as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel’s military campaign was intended in part to create conditions that could allow Iranians to protest against the Islamic Republic.

Israel is determined to end the regime in Tehran so that Iran can never reconstitute its nuclear program. If met, these objectives would be of invaluable assistance to Prime Minister Netanyahu as he faces a difficult re-election campaign and prosecution for corruption. It's a war he cannot afford to lose.

By contrast, Donald Trump can afford to lose this war, one which he will declare victorious no matter how it turns out. It's not clear what he intended to accomplish by joining this war, which is a major reason he has been ambiguous and ambivalent- confused, actually- as to when it will end and what the end will look like.

Nonetheless, it now should be clear that, though Trump would like to own the next leader of Iran (think Venezuela), an explosion of democracy is far from the top of his mind.

 

Trump calls Iran “a nation of terror and hate.”

The nation, not the government.

Trump lumps the people and government together while simultaneously calling on the people to rise up against the government... pic.twitter.com/fKejWIsakY

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) March 13, 2026

 

Share |

Disdain

Sorry, Sir (as you like to be called), but you can't get the toothpaste back into the tube. And you let the cat out of the bag. Donald Trump has Truth Socialled (inappropriate capitalization and bad spelling his)

The united States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far. So when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money. BUT, of far greater interest and importance to me, as President, is stoping an evil Empire, Iran, from having Nuclear Weapons, and destrotying the Middle East and, indeed, the world. I won't ever let that happen! Thank you for your attention to this matter.   President DONALD J. TRUMP

It's as if Donald realized that he had just advocated higher oil prices for American consumers and inorder to avoid the trouble of deleting what he had typed, claimed stopping Iran is "of far greater interest and importance to me, as President."  Of course, as a world-class grifter, making a boatload of money is of far greater importance to him, and if facilitated by the suffering of Americans on a tight budget, so be it.

I was thinking of this tweet when I came upon a tweet with an accompanying video. The X'er helpfully provided transcript of a portion of the conversation:

SMITH: “Do you believe there is such a thing on the left as Trump Derangement Syndrome? Which is what the right accuses people of, do you believe that exists?”

CARVILLE: “Can I say something to the people that accuse Democrats of having Trump Derangement Syndrome?”

“I got it, and I got it BAD!”

“And I don’t want to get better, I just want to get worse!”

SMITH: “You want to get worse, James?”

CARVILLE: “This is a condition that I’m not trying to get rid of.”

SMITH: “Why not?!”

CARVILLE: “Make my disease worse!”

SMITH: “Why, why James, why do you want to make the disease worse?!” “Trump Derangement Syndrome, why do you want to make that worse?!”

CARVILLE: “Because in my opinion, he doesn’t like the United States.” “He doesn’t like our laws, he doesn’t like our allies, he doesn’t like our treaties, he doesn’t like the fact that we’re an inclusive country, that is built in a large part on immigration…”

Smith eventually had heard enough and fired back at Carville.

SMITH: “Okay, how do you feel about people who say the same thing about the left because of some of the stuff that we were seeing with woke culture, cancel culture, identity politics?” “What about that?!”

Carville notes, as is obvious to anyone- whether unfavorable or favorable to Trump- that the President "doesn't like" our laws, allies, or treaties or that we're an inclusive country that is built in a large part on immigration." More interesting, though, is the charge that the President who is pleased that his subjects are paying higher prices for oil also "doesn't like the United States."

As I've noted roughly 131 times, Donald Trump on at least two occasions has made clear, unequivocal statements about this country and/or its people which make clear that Carville is right. On October 30, 2022, complaining about Joe and Hunter Biden, Donald tweeted "Our Country is Rigged, Crooked, and Evil"  And not that the 2020 presidential election was rigged, which it demonstrably was not. Not that President Biden was crooked and evil, which would have been true of Biden's immediate predecessor and successor. But "our country," the USA: evil.

On February 26, 2025, Trump was responding to a question at the tail end of the first Cabinet meeting of his second term when he blurted out "this country has gotten bloated, fat, disgusting, and incompetently run." Or was this really a complaint?

And early this week

President Donald Trump donned a white “USA” baseball cap Saturday afternoon as he saluted a transfer case draped with the American flag when the remains of the first six service members killed in the war with Iran were carried off an Air Force transport plane.

The sartorial choice set off a controversy that continued into Monday, as critics — including some Republicans — derided his hat as disrespectful and also criticized Fox News for airing footage that inaccurately showed Trump hatless.

Trump’s cap emblazoned with “USA” in gold letters appeared to be a model that retails on the Trump Organization’s online store for $55.

Each of the two derogatory statments about the USA or its people, by an individual with contempt for his country and its military, was underplayed on print media and social media and virtually ignored on broadcast media. It's very difficult for mainstream media figures working for a major corporation to acknowledge that the President of the USA, elected by the American people and treated as a legitimate individual by the media, actively dislikes this nation. And so it was left to James Carville to state "because in my opinion, he doesn't like the United States."  If that be "Trump Derangement Syndrome," any other pespective ignores reality.

 

Share |

Only the Best Dudes

Let's give it up for Republican senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, who once accurately sized up Teamster president Sean O'Brien in November of 2023 when he

challenged the head of the Teamsters union to a physical fight at a U.S. Senate hearing Tuesday intended to showcase how labor unions are making families’ lives better.

The tense confrontation at the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing stemmed from acrimonious posts on social media, as well as a confrontation between the two at an earlier Senate hearing.

Tuesday’s episode started after Mullin read aloud one of Teamsters chief Sean O’Brien’s posts on X, formerly known as Twitter. In the post, O’Brien had called Mullin a “greedy CEO who pretends like he’s self made.”

O’Brien, general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, ended the post by writing, “You know where to find me. Anyplace, Anytime cowboy.”

“So this is a time, this is a place,” said Mullin, who has a mixed martial arts background, to O’Brien, seated at a witness table in front of him. “You want to run your mouth, we can be two consenting adults. We can finish it here.”

“OK, that’s fine,” O’Brien said. “Perfect.”

“You want to do it now?” Mullin asked.

“I’d love to do it right now,” O’Brien said.

“Well, stand your butt up, then,” Mullin said.

“You stand your butt up,” O’Brien said.

Both men rose to their feet. Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders, an 82-year-old Vermont independent, intervened and called for them to sit down.

“You’re a United States senator,” Sanders told Mullin. “This is a hearing. God knows the American people have enough contempt for Congress, let’s not make it worse.”

For Mullin’s remaining time asking questions of O’Brien and other witnesses, the two continued to throw verbal insults at each other. Sanders pounded his gavel and shouted over them in attempts to shut down the heated exchange.

“We’re not here to talk about fights or anything else,” Sanders said.

Mullin and O’Brien also had a tense moment at a previous committee hearing back in March. In another post on X,  O’Brien told Mullin, “Sounds like you need to shut your mouth & get to work for the people of your state.”

 

During the near-fight in sixteen months ago, Senator Mullin, a former mixed martial arts (MMA) fighter, referred to O'Brien as "this thug."  The observation was unavoidable and bears recollection at this moment in tiem, as Mullin has been nominated by President Trump tor replace Krisi Noem as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.  (He will not, however, replace Noem in bed with Corey Lewandowski.) Thr nominstiom was natural for Donald, who (successfully) nominated a retired Air Force lieutenant general to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because the latter was known as Dan "Razin" Caine. Like Donald himself, he's a macho man!

A few minutes after President Trump announced Mullin as his choice to replace Kristi Noem, Democratic senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania tweeted that he would be an "aye" on he vote to approve the Oklahoman as the next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Then

Fetterman joined Kayleigh McEnany on Fox News’ Saturday in America where he criticized his fellow Democrats not supporting “Operation Epic Fury,” the U.S. military operation targeting Iran’s current regime.

The senator also addressed throwing his support behind Mullin so quickly after Trump announced he would be replacing Kristi Noem. Noem faced bipartisan calls to step down, facing criticism over DHS spending and her response to federal immigration agents shooting and killing two American citizens in Minneapolis.

Fetterman told McEnany he got to know Mullin well during a trip Turks and Caicos (TCI) in 2024 to advocate for detained American citizens to be released.

“I was the only Democrat that joined him on that mission the Turks and Caicos to help save those Americans being locked up in prison because they had a couple random bullets in there as accidentally… I mean, he’s a good dude. I know it’s a significant upgrade, and I’m absolutely going to vote for him,” Fetterman said.

To be fair, that "good dude" was right about Teamsters president O'Brien, who shas responded to the nomination with "if anyone is willing to stand ther butt up to protect Aerica,it's Markwayne Mullin.". In return, the latter has praised O'Brien as a "workout fanatic" who "pulled himself up from his own bootstraps and grew up in a blue-colllar household."   (It's a good thing that toxic masculinity is a myth.)

Makwayne Mullin very likely will be approved by the Senate, short of photographic evidence that he's sharing closet space with Lindsey Graham. (Sure, that 's a cheap shot at Graham. And iIf such a thing were revealed, Mullin still would get approved, though Trump's leverage over the South Carolina senator would be eliminated.) Republicans still bow at the altar of Donald Trump, and M.M. is a Senator himself. He's no less qualified for the position than was Noem when she was nominated, probably will be a little less reprehensible as the DHS secretary, and probably won't be the worst member of Trump's cabinet.

Nonetheless, someone in the media should ask John Fetterman a basic question about Senator Mullin. If a United States senator credibly- with full intention of following through- challenges a witness at a hearing to a fistfight, what would a bad dude look like?

Share |

Reality, Denied

For much of the right-wing, dishonesty isn't optional. It's required.

 

🚨NEW: Jillian Michaels on corporate media's favorable coverage of Ayatollah Khamenei💰

"Where's the money trail? Where is it? Just show me the check stubs — because when you have The Washington Post and The New York Times describing the Ayatollah as 'MAGNANIMOUS' and… pic.twitter.com/fxT2adVXC7

— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) March 7, 2026

In the video above, health activist/podcaster Jillian Michael contends

When you have The Washington Post and The New York Times describing the Ayattolah as magnaminous and avuncular, taking you all into international power, this is very deliberate and it's absolutely terrifying and this is why people don't trust mainstream media. 

If you were wondering why The New York Times would describe a butcher such as Ayatollah Khamenei as magnaminous and avuncular, rest assured that it did not. The NYT (subscription possibly required) obituary in this regard reads

With his spectacles, Palestinian kaffiyeh, long robes and silver beard, Ayatollah Khamenei cast himself as a religious scholar as well as a writer and translator of works on Islam. He affected an avuncular and magnanimous aloofness, running the country from a perch above the jousting of daily politics.

Thankfully, the NYT did not use the verb "was," but rather "cast himself," implying an image he successfully created.  And he "affected an avuncular and magnanimous aloofness," which does not mean he was avuncular and magnanimous. According to Merriam-Webster (upper case theirs), "affected" means" a) having or showing an attitude or mode of behavior that is not natural or genuinely felt;" or "b) assumed artifically or falsely: PRETENDED."  If the obituary writer had instead used the word "phony," Michaels probably have understood. Probably.

The Washington Post's obituary (subscription possibly requred) of February 28 included

With his bushy white beard and easy smile, Ayatollah Khamenei cut a more avuncular figure in public than his perpetually scowling but much more revered mentor, and he was known to be fond of Persian poetry and classic Western novels, especially Victor Hugo’s “Les Misérables.” But like the uncompromising Khomeini, he opposed moderates’ efforts to promote political and social reforms domestically and to secure rapprochement with the United States.

The "bushy white beard and easy smile" makes this obituary a little more problematic.  However, the remainder of the piece is either negative or neutral and the following day, the Post published several responses from readers, the first being a hearty rebuttal.

The reaction from other, more consistently conservative, figures was worse. Fox News reported on a few, including one who claimed "Ayatollah Khamenei executed tens of thousands of innocent people for the crime of disagreeing with him. The New York Times was cool with that."  This is what "cool" apparently is:

He presided over a state that jailed critics and journalists and enforced draconian restrictions on women. By the end of Ayatollah Khamenei’s life, many Iranians viewed him as the dictator of a corrupt and repressive regime whose policies had killed thousands of Iranians and forced countless others into exile.

During the past decade, as bouts of anti-government protests increased in frequency, Ayatollah Khamenei resorted to ever more brutal tactics. In January 2026, he ordered the security forces to open fire on protesters who had initially taken to the streets peacefully over economic issues.

The government said more than 3,100 people were killed, while human rights organizations estimated the toll at more than 6,000 dead. Ayatollah Khamenei blamed foreign “enemies” for provoking the bloodshed.

Several tweeters echoed the criticism leveled by Michaels when she accused the Washington Post and the Times of "taking you into international power."  They were exorcised by the NYT headline Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Hard-Line Cleric Who Made Iran a Regional Power, Dies at 88. One tweeted "The NYT is garbage and another, who has a weekly hour show on NewsNation, commented "You don't hate the media enough."  A third, Marc Thiessen, who was a speechwriter for George W. Bush and is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and columnist for the Post, remarked "You can't be sserious."

My "favorite," though, was from a sitting United States Senator, Tim Sheehy of Montana, who contended "NYT got the headline wrong. Let me help: Radical Islamic terrorist who murdered thousands of Americans got what he deserved. There we go."

This was not an editorial; it was an obituary. Sheehy's headline would be no more appropriate than, when Donald Trump dies, for the headline to read "Two-term President, Whom Many Historians Consider the Worst Ever, Gives Americans Reason to Celebrate."

Also, contrary to what Sheehy and some other Republicans are charging, Khamenei did not murder thousands, or even hundreds, of Americans. However, weirder is the claim that Iran has not become the regional power the Times describes it as in its headline.

President Trump himself has characterized it as a regional, seemingly international, power. After Secretary of State Rubio and Speaker of the House Johnson indicated that the USA struck Iran because it learned that Israel was about to do so, Donald was asked "Did Israel force your hand to launch these strikes against Iran? Did Netanyahu pull the United States into this war?"  He replied

No, I might've forced their hand. You see, we were having negotiations with these lunatics and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first, they were going to attack first. They were going to attack if we didn't do it. They were going to attack first, I felt strongly about that.  

There is no indication that Iran was about to do that. However, Trump was acknowledging that Iran was capable of attacking our side- whether he meant Israel or the USA. If the former case, the President was conceding Tehran is a regional power; in the latter case, he was conceding that it is an international powe.

It probably was the former and not the latter. In fact, the ability to strike its neighbors is a major rationale for the USA launching this war against Iran. Nonetheless, one conservative after another is rankled because the nation's top newspaper referred to Iran as a "regional power," even though undermining Tehran's standing as a regional power may be the only positive aspect of the war begun by Israel & the USA.

It has been difficult from the start to determine why the regime initiated this conflict. Elimination of the enemy as a nuclear threat seems to be the best rationale, yet the Trump Administration shifts from one explanation to another. That may be why its supporters can't even agree that Iran is a regional power. 

Or causation may be going in the opposite direction. If its supporters are unable to agree on one basic, critical fact about the enemy, perhaps Donald Trump believes that being unclear about motivation is the best political play. In either case, it's wise to hope for the best, plan for the worst, and expect the worst from this crowd.

Share |

"Guts"

Fox News reports that on March 6, President Donald J. Trump hosted a college sports roundtable

to examine solutions to key challenges, including NCAA authority, name, image and likeness (NIL) issues; collecive bargaining; and governance concerns...Trump has been adamant about "saving college sports," even signing an executive order setting new restrictions on payments to college athletes in July.

Dangling participles aside, if Trump can do for college sports what he did for the United States Football League (USFL) in the 1980s, within a few years college athletics will be but a memory.

In 2019, Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that the NCAA's limits on education-related benefits violated federal law and was on Friday lustfully condemned by Mr. Trump  He also had harsh words for the United States Supreme Court:

 

Says the bone head who launched tariffs violating our constitution https://t.co/4BTsPOQ8at

— Jumbo Elliott (@JumboElliott76) March 6, 2026

Compensation to college athletes, or "student-athletes" as they're often called, is a controversial and fairly complcated issue. However, Donald ripping anyone or any institution for not having "guts" is akin to him crtiticizng someone for being loud and belligerent or being sexually promiscuous.

Besides the war with Iran, the past week featured the firing by the President of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem. Well, not actually a dismissal as

On Thursday, President Trump on his Truth Social announced that the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem has been removed and will be reassign to be the Special Envoy for the Shield of Americas.  That is the new security initiative that President Trump will be announcing on Saturday in Florida.

The President could have removed Noem without reassigning her. Having removed the former South Dakota governor from her role as a Cabinet member, he might have told her to take a hike. And he could have done it in person, rather than from the safety and security provided him by his own social media platform. Instead, he put her in charge of something he made up, either on the fly or which he kept in reserve so that if an Administration official became an albatross, he could simply assign him or her there without any muss or fuss.

Noem should have been fired after she accused Renee Good and Alex Pretti, shot to death by ICE agents in separate incidents during protests in Minneapolis, of having engaged in "domestic terrorism."  The charges proved unfounded and provoked nationwide outrage, with even some Republican members of Congress uncomfortable with Noem's approach. 

There were other good reasons to sack the DHS secretary, though she kept her job until GOP senator John Kennedy of Louisiana asked her during a committee hearing Thursday whether the President had asked her "to run" the ad campaign- costing $320 million- which was a thinly disguised effort to raise her political profile. She replied "we had that conversation, yes, before I was put into the position, screened, and confirmed and since then as well."  Whether true or false, the President was not amused and took swift action. He acted promptly but- notwithstanding headlines which falsely stated that she was "fired"- not truly decisive.

O.K., good move, Mr. President! Corey Lewandowski's main (at present) squeeze, an awful depatmental head from the start, had become an embarrassment for Donald. But it should remind us that no matter the image, Donald Trump was, has been, and is, the guy Bill Maher would call a "whiny, little bitch."

 

Share |

Wimpy White House

Cleanup in aisle 6!

O.K., that cliche in so  2010 (or thereabouts) but still pertinent. First

The US launched its offensive against Iran because it knew Israel was going to attack and “that would precipitate an attack against American forces”, secretary of state Marco Rubio said on Monday.

“We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action,” Rubio said on Capitol Hill after briefing members of Congress on the offensive. “We knew that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”

The next day, House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson 

described the recent U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran as a defensive measure, saying, "Israel was determined to act with or without us" following a classified briefing on Monday evening.

Johnson told reporters after the briefing that Israel viewed Iran’s capabilities as an existential threat and was prepared to conduct operations regardless of U.S. participation. He said Israel’s assessment shaped American deliberations, and it was "determined to act in their own defense here, with or without American support."

But Johnson never has had to face election in anything larger than a blood-red congressional district in Louisiana, and Little Marco shrunk when facing Donald Trump in the GOP presidential campaign in 2016.  They either were unaware of what they were saying or did not understand the implication of implying that USA foreign policy is now subject to the whim of the Israeli government. Therefore, President Trump, ever with his finger on the pulse of voters (and foot on their neck) 

So, cleanup in aisle 6! Donald Trump to the rescue: What say you, Donald?

President Donald Trump denied Israel “forced” the United States into a joint attack that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Tuesday — and said if anything, it was the other way around.

Trump was asked about the strikes by ABC’s Rachel Scott while taking questions at the White House on Tuesday.

“Did Israel force your hand to launch these strikes against Iran? Did Netanyahu pull the United States into this war?” Scott asked.

“No, I might’ve forced their hand,” Trump responded. “You see, we were having negotiations with these lunatics and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first, they were going to attack first. They were going to attack if we didn’t do it. They were going to attack first, I felt strongly about that.”

Trump continued, “If anything, I might’ve forced Israel’s hand.”

The president added both Israel and the U.S. were “ready” to strike Iran in the days leading up to the start of Operation Epic Fury. He said “virtually everything they have has been knocked out now, their missile count is going way down.”

"I might have forced their hand," says Trump of the Israeli leader who, following (scaled down) operations in Gaza, probably will not any time soon be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. 

In December, Prime Minister Netanyahu offered "to the proud people of Iran" the message "Do not let these fanatic mullahs run your lives for a minute longer. The tyrants of Tehran- so cruel, so callous, and so cowardly- they won't last long."  Nevertheless, President Trump claims "I might have forced their hand."

There is little or no chance that Donald Trump would have had to force the hand of Benjamin Netanyahu to attack Iran.  There is little or no chance that both Marco Rubio and Mike Johnson were imaging things when they revealed that Israel had boxed Washington into a corner (or so they believed) and that Trump therefore had no choice but to initiate Operation Epic Fury.

There is similarly little or no chance that President Trump was uncharacteristically telling the truth when, asked whether Netanyahu pulled the USA into the war, he stated unequically 'nol

Our appreciation should go to Secretary of State "Little Marco" Rubio for reminding us yet again how weak this President is. In complete control of the most powerful military arsenal in the world, he remains a weak leader, no doubt because he is a weak man. A strong leader would have told Netanyahu that we would hit Iran in our own way according to our timetable.

Trump demonstrated again that he is a wily politician. He both denied that the Netanyahu was pulling the strings and laid the predicate- fear of imminent attack- for launching his own attack. A strong leader either would have owned up to his motivation or state clearly that Cabinet officer Rubio was (for whatever reason) wrong. But Donald learned well from Bill Clinton, who famously remarked "when people feel uncertain, they'd rather have someone strong and wrong than weak and right."  

The American people now feel uncertain, and we certainly have a president who is typically wrong. However, has convinced most voters and publics that he is strong, even if he has to capitulate to another nation's timetable to prove it.

Share |

Just Another Deep State Operation

Donald Trump still talks about Communists, Marxists, and fascists and has added "Socialists" and "traitors" to the mix. However, it's the other thing, two words, which should stand out as extraordinary. In a rally in Kenosha, Wisconsin on May 1, 2024, Donald stated

We’ll fight for America like no one has ever fought before. 2024 is our final battle. With you and my side. We will demolish the deep state. We will expel the warmongers from our government. We will drive out the globalists. We will cast out the communists, Marxists and fascists, and we will throw off the sick political class that hates our country.

Yet, a mere four days into his second term, Trump gave notice that he intended to boost whatever deep state already existed, when he

dismissed 17 inspectors general, including those for the Department of Defense, the State Department, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Eight of these officials sued to challenge their dismissal, leading to a Sept. 24 U.S. district court ruling that the dismissals violated the 1978 Inspector General Act because they did not involve a 30-day notice to Congress. The court did not reinstate the officials, stating that Trump could dismiss them again after providing appropriate notice to Congress.

For what it's worth, the Senate as of February 11, 2026 had confirmed at least eight individuals Trump nominated to inspector general positions.However, "six of these nominees had srved as politically appointed officials in the first or second Trump administration."

Thirteen-plus months into his second term, Donald Trump alreeady had shattered all records for corruption by a public official. Now we have learned that

The Trump administration is throwing its support behind the prediction market operators Kalshi and Polymarket in a critical legal battle between the growing prediction market industry and states that wish to ban these platforms.

The move by Michael Selig, the recently appointed chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, could have enormous implications for how sports betting is regulated in the country and, if Kalshi and Polymarket were to prevail, could erode the ability for states to effectively regulate gambling.

Any friendly decision the CFTC makes on this industry could end up financially benefiting the president's family as well. President Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., has invested in Polymarket through his venture capital firm and is a strategic advisor for Kalshi.

The CFTC currently regulates prediction markets, and that federal oversight allows Kalshi and others to operate in all 50 states, even those where gambling is illegal. Several states have sued Polymarket and Kalshi, alleging that the companies effectively operate casino or gambling operations in violation of state gambling laws, and have ordered them to shut down or stop operating in their states.

The Iran war has proven a boon for many investors as

According to a Reuters review of Polymarket's website, $529 million was laid on ​a series of contracts tied to the timing of attacks, and $150 million was bet on contracts on the removal of Khamenei as Supreme Leader.

Analytics ​firm Bubblemaps said on X that six accounts made a $1.2 million profit from Polymarket bets funded in the hours before Saturday's ⁠raids. Rival Kalshi also ran a market on "Khamenei out"....

Democratic senator Chris Murphy on Connecticut has vowed to introduce legislation to ban this practice while

Democratic senators ​on February 23 had also raised concerns that prediction markets breached U.S. rules, and created incentives to foment conflict and disclose classified information, after a mystery trader made ​a roughly $410,000 profit betting on the ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

It was seven months ago that we learned

Two federal investigations of the online prediction betting site Polymarket have been closed with no charges filed against the cryptocurrency-based marketplace, a person familiar with the matter told CNBC on Tuesday....

The anticlimactic conclusion of the probes is the latest example of the Trump administration dropping actions initiated under the Biden administration against crypto companies or online betting markets.

In May, the CFTC moved to drop its appeal of a federal judge’s ruling that allowed the prediction market KalshiEx to accept bets on U.S. elections.

The Justice Department and CFTC had been investigating whether Polymarket was accepting bets from people in the United States, despite promises made by the company in early 2022 not to do so.

The assurances were made after Polymarrket was fined $1.4 million by the CFTC, which concluded that the marketplace had failed to register as a facility for even-based binary options, Bloomberg reported.

As a presidential candidate in spring of 2024, Donald Trump pledged to "demolish the deep state." On election night six months later, the "candidate of peace" vowed "I'm not going to  start wars."  He now has unleashed a massive bombing campaign against Iran, putting the lie to one promise, and his promise to "end the deep state" has become cover for unleashing a deep state with unimaginable depth and breadth.

Share |

Clear and Present Danger, Even Without a Third Term

Chris Matthews says of President Trump "the man has to be stopped by somebody. And that means his Party."

His party obviously refuses to do so, which makes it all the more unfortunate that Matthews' read of the United States Constitution is accurate only in part. He maintains

We're founded on the principle of division of powers. Presidents cannot decide things. He cannot break through the Constitution. I mean, here's a President existence as President. That's a fact. And everybody knows it. But yet  he keeps saying "I may run again next time." I may run again for President and clearly that is a problem because he says he won the 2020 election. He decides what the Constitution will read. He acts like he can do everything.

Chris Matthews: We're founded on the principle of division of powers. Presidents cannot decide things. Here's a president who keeps talking about running for reelection in 2028. Everybody knows he's limited to a two-term existence as president. But yet he keeps saying, I may run… pic.twitter.com/44oxq1KWbS

— Blue Georgia (@BlueATLGeorgia) February 28, 2026

Division of powers is an important principle embedded in the Constitution or, as the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision put it, something which exists within the penumbra of the Constitution. (And we know how that turned out in Dobbs 45 years later.)  Nonetheless, the document does not prohibit an individual from serving more than two terms as President. Instead,the Twenty-Second Amendment reads

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or  acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

And so it was on February 25 that Trump administration officials announced

that the federal government would withhold $259 million in Medicaid funds to Minnesota, the latest effort by the federal government to pull funding from Democratic-led states as President Trump rails against a major welfare fraud scandal there.

Federal judges have blocked most of the Trump administration’s efforts to claw back funds from states like Minnesota, New York, California, Illinois and Colorado. The states have decried the cuts as politically motivated, adding that they would harm hundreds of thousands of people. The Trump administration has pointed to allegations of fraud to justify the cuts.

The latest action targeting Medicaid funds will almost certainly be challenged in court.

Although obviously unconstitutional, it may take awhile for that to go through the courts. And if lower court(s) decide against the regime, Mr. Trump will continue to act illegally until the matter has run its course, because of course he will. It's not Donald's first rodeo as

In January, the Trump administration moved to withhold funding for food stamps and other hunger relief programs in Minnesota. A federal judge blocked that order. The Department of Health and Human Services also tried to freeze $10 billion in funding for child care subsidies, social services and cash support for low-income families in Minnesota, New York, California, Illinois and Colorado. A federal judge blocked that order, too.

Earlier this month, the Trump administration again moved to withhold a smaller pot of Health Department funds that included grants aimed at curbing H.I.V. and other sexually transmitted infections. A federal judge blocked that move, and his order broadly enjoined the government from terminating public health grants “based on undisclosed agency priorities.”

The cuts to social and health care services came as Mr. Trump has fixated on allegations of fraud in Minnesota, claiming, without evidence, that similar large fraud schemes are playing out elsewhere in Democratic led-states.

.

You and whose army? If the Administration decided to defy the courts in this or virtually any other matter, it is questionable he'd be blocked by the same U.S. Supreme Court which ruled in 2024 that the President can do whatever he wishes in his official acts and is completely immune in the "core" acts.

At some point, the regime will again the court(s) the figurative middle finger, as it came within hours of doing on April 7, 2025, until Chief Justice John Roberts let the Adminstration off the hook. Donald Trump has almost told us so, such as when in February of last year, he

posted on social media a single sentence that appears to encapsulate his attitude as he tests the nation’s legal and constitutional boundaries in the process of upending the federal government and punishing his perceived enemies.

“He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” Mr. Trump wrote, first on his social media platform Truth Social, and then on the website X.

By late afternoon, Mr. Trump had pinned the statement to the top of his Truth Social feed, making it clear it was not a passing thought but one he wanted people to absorb. The official White House account on X posted his message in the evening.

The quote is a variation of one sometimes attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte, although its origin is unclear.

Nonetheless, the sentiment was familiar: Mr. Trump, through his words and actions, has repeatedly suggested that surviving two assassination attempts is evidence that he has divine backing to enforce his will.

He has brought a far more aggressive attitude toward his use of power to the White House in his second term than he did at the start of his first. The powers of the presidency that he returned to were bolstered by last year’s Supreme Court ruling that he is presumptively immune from prosecution for any crimes he may commit using his official powers.

The sentiment has become even more familiar. Whining yet again about losing the 2020 election, in December of 2022 Donald posted on Untruth Social

A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great 'Founders' did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!

And now, this:

Pro-Trump activists who say they are in coordination with the White House are circulating a 17-page draft executive order that claims China interfered in the 2020 election as a basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly previewed a plan to mandate voter ID and ban mail ballots in November’s midterm elections, and the activists expect their draft will figure into Trump’s promised executive order on the issue.

Peter Ticklin, the Florida lawyer advocating for declaration of national emergency, told the Post "we have a situation whee the President is aware that there are foreign interests that are interfering in our election processes. That causes a national emergency where the President has to be able to deal with it."

Asked about the idea, Donald replied "I've never heard about it." You're forgiven for having flashbacks to the 2024 presidential campaign, when in the debate with Kamala Harris, Donald maintained "I have nothing to do with Project 2025. I haven't read it. I don't want to read it purposely. I'm not going to read it." 

Project 2025, which turned out to be a blueprint for the Trump Administration, includes plenty of ideas to detonate free elections.  It's one more reason, a big one, that this man does have to be stopped by somebody, whether Donald Trump seeks to stay in office beyond January, 2029 or even if he doesn't make it through this term of office.

Share |

The Money Factor

Balderdash.

Appearing on Bill Maher's Real Time in October of 2024, Van Jones had stated 

If progressives have a politics that says all White people are racist, all men are toxic, and all billionaires are evil, it's kinda hard to keep them on your side. if you're chasing people out of the party, you can't be mad when they leave.

This quote had become most widely circulated only recently, and nothing Jones has said or even hinted at suggests that he has revised his perspective. So earlier this week I wrote "in 2020, neither Jones, or (Rahm) Emanuel (nor Carville) was heard offering criticismor even skepticism, maybe a word of caution,of the Black Lives Matter protests or the movement it symbolized. That would have demonstrated leadership, boldness, or prescience."

I have not changed my opinion but have changed my perspective. There are such Democrats who bash their own party because, among other things, it (allegedly) says that all white people are racist. These Democrats in neither 2020 nor the intervening years have uttered even a word of skepticism about BLM, thus rendering them feckless.

Most Democrats, even most progressives, don't argue that all white people are racist. However, the idea that some whites don't believe they're fully accepted by the Democratic Party because of their race has merit.

This (real or imagined) perception goes back decades. However, it was placed on steroids by the George Floyd protests of 2020,  of which the Democrats publicly skeptical could fit inside a phone booth, were one to be found.

Yet, as Sam Seder recognized, the thrust of Jones' comments was not directed toward race or gender. It concerned primarily money, or class. Seder remarked (with remarks in parentheses made by off-screen contributors)

It sounds like he's making an argument like "look, you just don't have the votes if you say no white people or no men. Yea. But honestly, like how many votes could we lose if we said no billionaires? (About a thousand.) I mean, how many billionaires do we have voting for, uh, Democrats now or progressives? How many billionaires do we have that are supporting progressives?

I don't know. Yea, a bunch. And with, uh (there are 200 billionaires in the United States but they're all in, um, in Ohio.) We could be losing a small town somewhere. (We'd be losing Pritzer?) It just gives you a sense of what his project is and it, it really is one of the best illustrations of that whole cohort of voices that you hear across the spectrum who considers themselves moderates The will argue we've got to stop this identitarian politics.

Characterizing Jones' sentiment, Seder adds "we've got to stop demonizing, uh, white people, we've got to stop demonizing, uh, black people. I mean, excuse me, we can still do that. Uh, we've got to stop demonizing men, etc. etc."

For one brief moment, Seder geot it wrong. Not only does Van Jones never demonize black people but no reasonably prominent Democrat on the national level demonizes black persons. A black person, obviously, can be demonized but never black people as a race nor anyone because he or she is black. Never.

Pardon the digression (or as they say on ESPN, Pardon the Interruption).  

Date:  July 6, 2017

Motorist: Philando Castille, 32-year-old black male

Police Officer: Geronimo Yanez

Location: Falcon Heights, a suburb of Minnesota

Incident: Officer stops car with whose two adult occupants look like robbery suspects. Castille tells Yanez that he has a gun (legally/illegally carried unclear). Yanez tells Castille not to reach for it or pull it out. Castille makes a move. Yanez believes Castille is reaching for gun, shoots him five times, killing him.

Trual: Prosecutor argues that Yanez was "a nervous officer who lost control of his traffic stop. He was too quick to pull the trigger after learning Castille had a gun" (CNN).

Verdict: Not guilty of "culpable negligence" 

It was awful police work, Castille shouldn't have been shot, and Officer Yanez soon thereafter was separated from the St. Anthony, Minnesota Police Department. 

The victim should not- and was not- blamed by anyone anywhere for having been shot. It proved tragically disastrous that Castille was carrying a firearm while driving with his wife and his child. The police officer, as the prosecution conceded in its own argument, panicked. Following the killing, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain issued a travel advisory as they warned of the USA's "gun culture." (Good point, guys.)

Gun safety advocates joined all notable Americans  (NRA excepted, for its own reasons) in acceptance of an individual unnecessarily carrying a firearm. Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, otherwise a gun safety advocacy group, argued "A traffic stop should not be a death sentence for Black men but, in America, it's an all-too-oommon occurrence."

Not "a traffic stop should not be a death sentence" but "a traffic stop should not be a death sentence for Black men." He was a hero because he was black, which runs contrary to Seder's notion that blacks can be demonized. Moms Demand Action hardly demonized blacks, Van Jones did not demonize blacks, and given black women as the base of the Democratic Party, no Democrat demonizes blacks. However, Seder is spot-on when he continues 

But what they're doing is they're protecting money interests. They're just trying to distract you with the first two. It was really the perfect illustration, the perfect and most concise illustration. And the context in which he said it also was sort of magnificent. You would literally have to goto a laboratory and create that.

Van Jones et al. are trying to distract us with the other stuff.  Moms Demand Action was unintentionally and stupidly diverting attention from its calling, gun safety. However, Jones and others usually are trying to distract us, turning our attention from their support of monied interests. Race and gender are easy distractions, but money talks.

 

Share |

Mythmaking

Blogger Steve M, whom I quote probably more than anyone else, recognizes that President Donald Trump's State of the Union address Tuesday

was aimed exclusively at the Trump/GOP voter base. That base -- the last people in America who still admire and respect Trump -- doesn't want the president and Congress to pass a bunch of laws. The people in the base want Trump to make them feel good, partly through simple-mided flag-waving patriotism, but mostly through endless Democrat-bashing. Like the rest of us, they've stopped expecting the political system to improve our lives. But they're content if Trump hurts the people they want to see hurt, demeans the people they want to see demeaned, and declares that America is strictly Republican.

The President presented a master class in mythmaking and "simple-minded flag-waving patriotism" designed to make people feel good.  A moment or two into his speech, Donald offered one of his golden oldies, "winning too muc," when he boasted

People are asking me, please, please, please, Mr. President, we’re winning too much. We can’t take it anymore. We’re not used to winning in our country until you came along, we’re just always losing. But now we’re winning too much. And I say, no, no, no, you’re going to win again. You’re going to win big. You’re going to win bigger than ever. And to prove that point, to prove that point, here with us tonight is a group of winners who just made the entire nation proud. The men’s gold medal Olympic hockey team. Come on in.

And then, at his command, out strode the men's gold-winning USA hockey team. It was a dramatic moment brought to the audience by a man expert in the ways of Hollywood through The Apprentice, which followed a stint as an awful businessman in New York City.

He spoke of the "spirit of 1776," and introduced 100-year-old Buddy Taggart, who fought in the Battle of Manila and earned a Purple heart and a bronze star. "From 1776 to today," declared Captain Bone Spurs, "every generation of Americans has step (sic) forward to defend life, libety and the pursuit of happiness." 

The flag-waving segued effortless into mythmaking, such as when he claimed "we just received from our new friend and partner, Venezuela, more than 80 million barrels of oil," an estimate off by more than 50 million. He later stated

Moving forward, factories, jobs, investment and trillions and trillions of dollars will continue pouring into the United States of America because we finally have a president who puts America first. I put America first. I love Aaerica. For decades before I came along, we had the exact opposite.

Trump consistently exaggerates the amoung of investment made in this presidenial term, but that's not where the critical myth lies. "I love America," states the man who called the USA "evil" and its people "bloated, fat, and disgusting."  "I put America first" contends the man who in December released from prison former Honduran President Juan Carlos Hernandez, who had been sentenced to 45 years in prison for conspiring to distribute more than 400 tons of cocaine and related firearms offenses. 

Loving America and putting America first is a myth invented by the man who in his first term alone on at least six occasions- most famously, with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki- sided with foreign governments over the USA. In Tuesday's State of the Union address itself, Trump condemned his immediate predecessor four times, including an accusation that Biden "gave us the worst inflation in the history of our country" (which did not occur then) and that he "created (our) housing problem," which was ludicrous.  Directly criticizing a former President while you yourself are President is virtually unprecedented.

Nonetheless, the most intriguing and very significant myth has gone unexplored, for fear of any politician, news organization, or pundit being accused of "political incorrectness" or worse. After boasting of an initiative of the First Lady, Donald said 

I’m very proud to say that during my time in office, both the first four years and in particular this last year, there has been a tremendous renewal in religion, faith, Christianity and belief in God. This is especially true among young people, and a big part of that had to do with my great friend Charlie Kirk. Great guy. Great guy.

So last year, Charlie was violently murdered by an assassin. And martyred, really, martyred for his beliefs. His wonderful wife, Erika is with us tonight. Erika. Please stand.

Thank you. Erika, thank you a lot. In Charlie’s memory, we must all come together to reaffirm that America is one nation under God. And we must totally reject political violence of any kind. We love religion, and we love bringing it back.

The only accurate portion is that Charlie Kirk was murdered, and for his beliefs, though even that is not confirmed. There is a critical myth circulating in respectable conservative circles that "there has been a tremendous renewal in religion, faith, Christianity and belief in God."

It is reflected in the Gallup headline from last June "More Americans See Religion Increasing Its Influence in U.S." The article's author wrote "thirty-four percent of U.S. adults believe religion is increasing its influence in American life, similar to the 35% measured in December but up from 20% a year ago."

Nevertheless, he says the increase "likely does not reflect a change in Americans' personal religious commitment, as 47% of U.S. adults say religion is 'very important' in their lives, unchanged from a year ago."  Americans, as far as we can tell, are not becoming more religious- they believe others are. (It's a comforting thought.)

The reason for this is quite simple. Americans keep hearing, from Trump and others. that religious faith is booming in this country. Donald is an accomplished actor, thus an extraodrinarily convincing liar, especially because practice makes perfect. Most of his lies are fact-checked at one point or another. However, bold would be the man or woman who would dare to check for veracity the claim that religion is gaining influence in society. "Anti'Christian" would be the least of the attacks leveled. 

Gallup found also 

The most notable increase occurred after the 9/11 terror attacks, when 71% in December 2001 saw religion as increasing its influence, up from 39% in February of that year. The 71% reading is the highest in Gallup’s trend, which dates back to 1957.

A second surge occurred amid the COVID-19 pandemic. In April 2020, 38% of U.S. adults believed religion was becoming more influential, up from a pre-pandemic reading of 19% in December 2019. The April 2020 figure was the highest Gallup had measured since 2006.

In 2016, a Duke University academic explained

After the Sept. 11 terror attacks, many expected American houses of worship to be jammed with parishioners seeking refuge, community and a place to grieve.

And that spike in church attendance did in fact occur. Briefly.

But the attacks did not have a lasting effect on American religiosity, says Mark Chaves, a Duke professor of sociology, religious studies, and divinity. Chaves directs the National Congregations Study, which examines American religious places of worship over time. He says the jolt to church attendance following the attacks lasted just a few weeks.

“People thought this type of crisis of national significance would lead people to be more religious, and it did,” he says. “But it was very short-lived. There was a blip in church attendance and then it went back to normal.”

Religious behavior isn’t usually affected in the long term by single events, Chaves says. Rather, religious practice in a society tends to change slowly over a long period of time, often owing to demographic changes. For example, changes to family structure -- like people marrying later, or not at all, or choosing not to have children -- have led to changes in church attendance and other sorts of religious involvement, Chaves says.

And though church attendance spiked briefly after 9/11, America’s overall participation in religious activities was actually in decline at that time -- a trend that was slow enough not to be identified until recently. The best data point to a slow, steady drop in religious involvement dating back to at least the 1970s, he says.

There was a flurry of increase, which then evaporated, in church attendance after the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, whereupon religiosity continued its long-term decline in the USA. And the effect of Charlie Kirk's murder upon the American psyche, despite the GOP's effort to create the myth that Kirk was an overarching figure in society whose death mobilized right-thinking people everywhere, was perhaps 1-2% as great as "9/11."  Donald is eager to perpetuate the myth- hence, the invitation to his widow and the claim that her "great guy" was "martyred."

There is also the the disingenuous notion that America is "one nation under God." The idea emanates from the Pledge of Allegiance, which was written in 1892 without a reference ro religion. "Under God" was added by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 in response to "the second Red Scare, a period when U.S. politicians were keen to assert the moral  superiority of U.S. capitalism over Soviet communism, which many conservatives regarded as "godless."

Typically, individuals who believe in God recognize God as all-powerful and "in control."  The "under God," was added to the Pledge to emphasize our superiority to communist nations, To Donald Trump, a little less obviously to other individuals wishing to exploit religion for political ends,"under God" now asserts superiority over every other nation.

It's absurd to argue that the USA, under the leadership of Donald Trump, is guided by the hand of God. That may be good and may be bad, and is probably both. It would an improvement generally over Donald John Trump- but lends easily to the claim that America is a "Christian nation," all others be damned.. 

However,crushing truths perish from being acknowledged, especially those persisting to make us feel good. The untruth that our country is a land of Christian faith led by a benevolent patriot is only one. But it's bad enough.  

Share |