Where 47 Equals 0

If this is the road Scott Jennings wants to go down, I'm all in. And so it was that

A fiery CNN panel discussion Thursday night turned into a full-blown MAGA-on-MAGA collision when Jennings and former Trump White House aide Caroline Sunshine squared off over Iran, military intervention, and whether America has effectively been in conflict with the Islamic Republic since the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

The clash occurred during a debate on CNN’s “NewsNight with Abby Phillip” over whether Congress should impose additional restrictions on President Trump’s authority to conduct military operations against Iran.

Jennings, who has emerged as one of the most aggressive defenders of Trump’s recent military posture toward Tehran, argued that America cannot afford to view Iran through the lens of diplomacy alone.

“We can’t be all rainbows and unicorns with the Iranians,” Jennings said before making the comment that ignited the segment.

“They’ve been at war with us for 47 years. Forty-seven years!”

Sunshine immediately challenged the framing.

“Forty-seven years? Why did I learn about… I’m sorry, the first time I’ve heard about the 47-year Iran war was like this year,” she replied. “We don’t teach about the 47-year war with Iran in school.”

Jennings responded with a jab that quickly went viral.

“I’m sorry you don’t read much. Did you just start following the news this year?”

Evidently not, because it has been only since President Donald Trump started this war that we have heard this "at war with us for 47 years" fabrication.  Since then, however, we have heard it from many supporters of the regime. Continuing

From there, things only escalated.

Sunshine argued that describing decades of hostility with Iran as a continuous war diminishes actual military conflicts involving American troops.

“We don’t teach about the 47-year war with Iran in school. Like, it’s insulting to actual conflicts that we’ve been involved in,” she said.

And, as Sunshine probably meant, insulting to the men and women, living and dead, involved in those actual conflicts. Nonetheless

Jennings fired back.

“It’s insulting to your intelligence that you have no idea what the Iranians have done.”

The exchange exposed a growing divide inside the broader America First movement over foreign policy, particularly as President Trump intensifies pressure on Tehran following renewed attacks on commercial shipping and escalating threats from Iranian leaders.

While Jennings argued that Iran has spent decades killing Americans through proxy forces, attacking U.S. allies, sponsoring terrorism, and seeking nuclear capabilities, Sunshine questioned whether the current strategy risks drawing America into another prolonged Middle East conflict.

“How many Americans have they killed on U.S. soil in the 47 years we’ve been in the war?” she asked.

Jennings responded that Iran-backed activities have killed and maimed thousands of Americans over the years.

“They’ve killed thousands of Americans — they have maimed American soldiers,” he said.

O.K., now Jennings has approached the realm of reality, though his numbers still are way off. Thousands are a lot more than hundreds and even if including terrorist groups Iran directly or indirectly supported, the figure is well inflated. 

In June, 2025, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a neoconservative organization which has supported the current war against Iran, compiled a list of "Iranian and Iranian-Backed Attacks Against Americans" since November, 1979, when 66 Americans were taken hostage and held at the American embassy in Iran. (The word "Backed" is used very loosely.)

In all, 363 Americans, or 363 too many, were killed between 9/79 and 6/25, inclusive. From there (or something less comprehensive and accurate), Jennings gets his "thousands." The number does not include September 11, 2001, about which the Foundation notes

While the 9/11 Commission Report concludes that Iran had no foreknowledge of al Qaeda’s attacks on the World Trade Center, the report indicates that Tehran facilitated the travel of some of the terrorists. “In sum,” the report notes, “there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers.”

Strong evidence. Facilitated. Transit. Into and out of Afghanistan (not the USA). Some of these. Compare that to another Middle East nation, which has been the subject of ongoing litigation by 9/11 fmilies. One individual has pointed out "There still remain all of these loose ends and paths that lead back to Saudi Arabia." Nonetheless, the centerpiece of President Trump's relationship with the Kingdom is "investments from, partnerships with, and high-value U.S. exports." Which is to say: the deaths of Americans in years past at the hands of a foreign nation or its proxies has nothing to do with Donald Trump's policy in the region.

Off-topic of this post but presented for full context

The most revealing moment may have come later in the exchange when Sunshine questioned both the costs and end goals of the administration’s approach.

“If we’re going to keep going, what’s your number? How many U.S. troops are you willing to expend to achieve your objectives and what amount of money?” she asked.

Jennings was unmoved.

“What amount of money am I willing to spend to keep the American people safe from the worst regime in the world? A fair amount.”

The debate has been building on the right for months.

One faction believes Iran’s rulers have spent nearly five decades waging a shadow war against America through terrorism, proxy militias, hostage-taking, attacks on shipping lanes, and threats against U.S. leaders. Another faction remains deeply skeptical of any policy that could lead to an open-ended military commitment overseas, even under a Republican president.

Jennings: Iran has been at war with us for 47 years.

Sunshine: The first time I've ever heard about the 47 year Iran war was like this year. pic.twitter.com/fo6ahm1sWV

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 10, 2026

If we are to believe that "they've been at war with us for 47 years," then in all fairness, Jennings should be charging a prominent American with treason for actions with repercussions in the years since. An 
open letter from 47 Republican senators in March, 2015 "marked anusually public and aggressive attempt to undermine" President Obama and other world powers "to limit Iran's nuclear programs." 

Believed to be the author, Arkansas' Tom Cotton warned of "two features of our Constitution- the power to make binding international agreements and the different charcter of federal offices- which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress." He said that these two meant

that we will consider any agreement regrding your nuclear weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of  a pen and futrue Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

Cotton et al. were suggesting that Tehran shun the offer from the duly-elected president of the USA and five other world leaders. Bharging the Senators with treason would have been politically explosive and extremely divisive. However, the best legal reason not to do so would have been that a charge of treason would have been constitutionally dubious because this country was not at war with Iran.

Nor are we now at war with Iran- not now, not anytime in the past 47 years. Claiming that Iran has been at war with the USA for nearly the past half-century repesents an effort to convince voters that drastic action needed to be taken against the Mideast nation and that only President Trump had the courage and wisdom to do so, though it has made the region far more dangerous. It is an exercise in trying to make chicken salad from chicken-  well, you know.

Share |

Oh, But Platner!

Do you really want to go there, Scott Jennings?

NAILED IT: Scott Jennings: “[Graham Platner] was vetted. People knew all these things and a whole bunch of Democrats in Maine showed up and voted for him anyway. And a bunch of [people] from around the country sent him money anyway… What changed? Why are you bailing on Graham… pic.twitter.com/ufml9nRrIn

— RedWave Press (@RedWavePress) July 7, 2026

A year ago, Illinois' senior US Senator wrote letters pertaining to the Epstein files to the FBI and the Justice Department in which

Durbin said his office had learned that after that, the “FBI was pressured to put approximately 1,000 personnel in its Information Management Division … on 24-hour shifts to review approximately 100,000 Epstein-related records in order to produce more documents that could then be released on an arbitrarily short deadline.”

“This effort, which reportedly took place from March 14 through the end of March, was haphazardly supplemented by hundreds of FBI New York Field Office personnel, many of whom lacked the expertise to identify statutorily-protected information regarding child victims and child witnesses or properly handle FOIA requests,” the letter said.

“My office was told that these personnel were instructed to ‘flag’ any records in which President Trump was mentioned.”

Well, of course, they were. Well before Trump was revealed to be Jeffrey Epstein's best friend, there were numerous incidents dating to 1985 in which Donald was accused of sexual misconduct.  In one of these instances, a civil court jury in the Southern District of New York in May of 2013 found Mr. Trump liable for sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll many years earlier and for recently defaming her. He was found not liable for rape but presiding judge Lewis Kaplan

later clarified what the “not rape” finding actually meant. In denying Trump’s motion for a new trial, Kaplan wrote that the jury had “implicitly found that Mr. Trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll’s vagina with his fingers” — conduct that most people would understand as rape, even though it fell outside the narrow New York criminal statute requiring penile penetration.

Not surprising. Trump had previously inadvertently tipped us off to his modus operandi. The Access Hollywood video from 2005 had Donald bragging

I'm automatically attracted to beautiful women- I just start kissing them, it's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait.And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything (including) grab 'em by the p_ _ _ _."

Trump's sexually aberrant behavior is far more extensive and spans far more years. And notably- also in contrast to Platner- it includes a criminal conviction, in which Donald

was found guilty on 34 felony counts after prosecutors alleged that he engaged in a "scheme" to boost his chances during the 2016 presidential election through a series of hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, and then falsified New York business records to cover up that alleged criminal conduct.

That's our President! That's the guy Scott Jennings continually and consistently defends on CNN. It's the fellow who has been nominated by Jennings' party three times- not for US Senator from New York or Maine or anywhere else- but for President of the United States of America.

It's too easy to characterize Jennings as a bigot. Something larger is going on here. President Trump has reposted and promoted an Untruth Social post in which the tweeter approvingly compares the President to Alexander the Great, the Caesars, Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Tamburlaine, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.

Trump, a longtime sexual predator and arguably pervert, is a "colossus in the Republican Party" who has "exercised total command of his party," as Jonathan Swan puts it.There is a Democratic Party which at this moment is actively trying to push a bad guy out of a Senate race, which will be a successful effort. And there is a Republican Party which has pulled a very bad guy twice into the presidency and given him the loyalty few of them would give Jesus Christ.

 

Share |

Choices

In one way, Scott Jennings is correct.

How many lives would ultimately be saved if we actually kept violent criminals in prison instead of releasing them onto the streets to terrorize America?

We don't have to live this way. pic.twitter.com/iVyZ119QQP

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) April 20, 2026

In a discussion on CNN last August when President Donald Trump ordered the takeover of Washington, D.C. by federal forces, host Abby

Phillip said it is “interesting” and “probably it’s a good thing” that Republicans are now talking about illegal guns on the streets, as for years they rejected calls for stricter gun regulation and insisted the number of firearms on the streets was not the issue in the country’s gun violence.

Phillip also noted the GOP have long hit out at D.C’s stricter gun laws making it harder to legally own a firearm, which Jennings now seems to be supporting.

“Republicans aren’t for illegal guns. Republicans are for responsible gun ownership,” Jennings said.

Frost then asked Jennings if that was the case, why had Trump stripped funding for the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which included grants earmarked for local gun-violence prevention. Reuters reported last month that the Trump administration had terminated around $158 million in gun violence prevention grants in Democratic-led cities such as D.C., New York, and Los Angeles.

“Republicans are for legal gun ownership,” Jennings reiterated. “The laws of D.C. have obviously not been enforced to the point where the citizens believe they’re safe.”

Phillip then asked Jennings that if Republicans want fewer gun laws, how can he advocate for legal gun ownership while opposing as much regulation on guns.

“A gun becomes illegal when a violent person uses it on another person,” Jennings said.

Making a gun illegal only as it's used on another person is a little late for the children of Shamar Elkins of Shreveport, Louisiana, a National Guard veteran who early on April 19

went to two houses within a short walk of each other, killing eight children – seven of his own – and gravely wounding two women, including the mother of his children. The victims who were fatally shot ranged in age from three to 11, authorities said...

After the shootings, the gunman, identified as 31-year-old Shamar Elkins, stole a car at gunpoint and fled onto a nearby interstate, officials said. Police pursued him into Bossier City, where they exchanged gunfire. Elkins was pronounced dead at the scene, but it remains unclear whether he was shot by police or died by suicide.

The incident is being investigated by ATF and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Louisiana and

On April 26, 2026, federal prosecutors charged Charles Ford, 56, with being a felon in possession of a firearm and making a false statement to federal agents, with the firearm and false statement charges relating to the firearm used by Elkins....

Whne law enforcement interviewed the original purchaser, that person identified Ford as the person to whom she'd given it. Ford, a convicted felon not permitted to possess firearms, initially lied to ATF agents about possessing the firearm, claiming he never did. Ford later admitted that he did possess the firearm, claiming that he kept the firearm under his seat. Ford further admitted to believieng that Elkins tookd possession of the firearm.

In the video above, Jennings notes that Elkins had been charged in Louisian in 2019 for illegal use of weapons and carrying a firearm on school property. He pled guilty to (only) the illegal weapons charge while the other charge was dismissed and was placed on probation for 18 months. Jennings remarks

It makes you wonder what if he had gotten a lengthy prison sentence back then instead of leniency from progressive prosecutors. Well, we probably wouldn't be talking about eight dead children today if something different had happened back then.  Another example of a criminal justice system that seems to be tilted in favor of the violent instead of the innocent. Living this way is a choice, folks, and we can stop making it any time we want.

"We" can make that decision, though probably neither Jennings nor I knows whether the fault in this case lies with the prosecutor's office of the judge hearing the case in this very conservative, solidly Republican state. (More details would be helpful.) But if we can (re-) create a criminal justice system more concerned with the needs of the innocent rather than of violent offenders, we can also decide to do something with guns.

We can renew an assault weapons ban, which was in place from 1994 to 2014. It was highly effective, perhaps 

because assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms designed for rapid fire and combat use, and large-capacity magazines increase the number of rounds that can be fired without reloading. While the gun lobby prevented the ban from being as effective as it could have been and saddled the law with a 10-year sunset provision, the ban did impede the easy access to the type of lethal weaponry that those intent on mass killing have readily available in most of the country today. (Assault weapons are legal in 43 states; large-capacity magazines, commonly understood as ammunition-feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds, are legal in 41.)

Louisiana has no assault weapon restrictions and its gun laws are among the most lenient in the nation. It also has the second highest rate of gun violence in the nation, which is very likely not coincidental. Firearm violence is a problem, of course, not only for Louisiana but for every state, especially those which tolerate it due to worship of guns and a convenient misreading of the Second Amendment. Punishment of the offender is important but so is prevention of firearm violence and that, too, is a choice we can make. 

Share |

Language

On Wednesday, The Guardian reported

The Trump administration is facing rare bipartisan pushback for firing the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), amid turmoil at the US’ top infectious disease agency that prompted dozens of staff to walk out of its headquarters in protest on Thursday.

The White House has said Susan Monarez, who was confirmed as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention just a month ago, was fired as she was “not aligned with the president’s agenda” – only for Monarez to refuse to depart. The official’s lawyers have said that, as a Senate-confirmed appointee, only Donald Trump himself can remove her….

Monarez was reportedly fired by Robert F Kennedy Jr, the US health secretary, for refusing to remove agency officials and committing to restricting proven vaccines....

“We are witnessing a full-blown war on science, on public health, and on truth itself,” (Senator Bernie) Sanders said. “In just six months, Secretary Kennedy has dismantled the vaccine review process, narrowed access to life-saving Covid vaccines and filled scientific advisory boards with conspiracy theorists and ideologues.”

As explained by Trump chronicler Michael Wolff, Mr. Kennedy was nominated for Health and Human Services secretary so that Donald Trump, responsible in his first term for Operation Warp Speed, could shore up the anti-Covid vaccine portion of his base. He is as much a public health menace as Senator Sanders maintains and the upheaval at the CDC ratches up the danger. Things turned silly, generously speaking:

The Trump administration shows no sign of backing down, however. In a press briefing on Thursday, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, criticized one of the departing CDC officials for using the term “pregnant people” in his resignation letter.

“I understand there were a few other individuals who resigned after the firing of Ms Monarez,” she said. “One of those individuals wrote in his departure statement that he identifies pregnant women as pregnant people, so that’s not someone we want in this administration anyway.”

The official, Demetre Daskalakis, resigned from his position as director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC on Wednesday, accusing the administration of using the agency to “generate policies and materials that do not reflect scientific reality and are designed to hurt rather than to improve the public’s health”.

Daskalakis responded to Leavitt’s remarks in an interview on CNN. “I find it outrageous that this administration is trying to erase transgender people,” he said.

“I very specifically used the term pregnant people, and very specifically added my pronouns at the end of my resignation letter to make the point that I am defying this terrible strategy at trying to erase people and not allowing them to express their identities.

“So I accept the note from the press secretary and I counter that with: I don’t care.”

This is just such a stupid argument. Speaking of which...

Call me crazy, but if you tell me men can get pregnant, you have ZERO credibility with me on anything to do with health.

Why would I listen to a word you say if you fail basic biology?

Once again, I find myself being screamed at for taking the top side of a 97-3 issue 🤷‍♂️ pic.twitter.com/xnJgJrJiyK

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) August 29, 2025

Jennings began by complaining "I just have to say, he did use the term 'pregnant people.'" In the interests of parsimony, I will, uncharacteristically, keep it short: "pregnant people" is a silly term.

The phrase is "pregnant women" or, in some instances, "women who are pregnant." And that goes aside from the issue of whether it is currently, or will be in the future, possible for men to get pregnant.

Demetre Daskalakis, the CDC official with the great surname, should have made his remarks without invoking "pregnant people," which served only to give Karoline Leavitt an opportunity to twist the issue and stir up more hatred and divisiveness.  It was a shout out to the anti-LGBTQIA portion of the GOP basis, valuable because it's an issue which Trump, he of the whatever is in the Epstein files, does not want to deal with.

If Jennings had merely called for clear and unambiguous language shorn of political correctness, he would have been sensible. However, as someone wishing and hoping that the Big Guy in Washington will give him a blessing for a Senate run to replace the retiring Mitch McConnell, the Kentuckian couldn't leave it at that once Leavitt idiotically commented that because Daskalakis "identifies pregnant women as pregnant people, so that's not someone we want in this administration, anyway."

Host Abby Philip is somewhat disingenuous but in relevant part correct when she rhetorically asks Jennings

Are you serious- that of all the things we're talking about here- immunization, vaccines, autism, research on communicable diseases, on cancer. Are you- are the most concerned about someone's use of the word "people?" That's the most important issue?

Actually, Jennings was concerned about the phrase "pregnant people," rather than the word "people," and he has a right to be. Still, Philip came very close to the heart of the problem fundamental to Jennings' objection. All these matters- immunization, vaccines, autism, communicable diseases, cancer, and research on these and others- are far more important than language.

Or at least in this case. Jennings responds to Philip "because you were just complaining about the politicization of science and I can't think of- I can't think of politicization of science more than that."

Yes, he can. Daskalakis would have been politicizing science if the issue had been transgenderism. However, in his bold and thorough (nine paragraphs, 115 lines) emailed resignation letter, Daskalakis addressed that issue only once, citing "the recklessness of the administration in their effort to erase transgender populations." His only reference to "pregnant people" came in a different context.

Which is to say: the LGBTQIA issue was peripheral to his resignation and "pregnant people" nearly irrelevant. Yet, it was central to Jennings and Leavitt. Long gone are the days when conservative Republicans railed against "political correctness"; a good thing, too, because that's exactly what those two are leaning upon when they get bent out of shape with the use of a term,  "pregnant people," largely incidental to the topic. Science wasn't being politicized; language was being politicized, and even I don't consider that a crime.

There also was a time when the right believed in merit, or at least claimed to do so. Yet, here was the press secretary for a Republican president maintaining that the spoken word, a reference to "pregnant people," disqualified someone for a job; and a GOP strategist arguing that someone who uses the wrong language is proof he is ignorant on other, unrelated subjects.

On the other hand, Karoline Leavitt seems to be back conspicuously displaying a cross, so she is on God's side and right about everything and I'll deny I ever criticized her. 

Share |

It's the Guns, Stupid

This is an old argument which until recently, we hadn't heard much of in years. 

It's NOT the guns. It's the CRIMINALS running around the streets using them to k*ll people.

Republicans put the blame on criminals. Democrats put the blame on inanimate objects. pic.twitter.com/8BNuoAlHhw

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) August 13, 2025

It was usually stated as "guns don't kill people. People kill people." 

The only problem is that it is guns which uniquely kill people. Cars kill people, too- but unlike guns, are not manufactured for the purpose of killing anyone, and get most people to and from work, which is a useful function. Moreover, cars in every state must be registered, whereas there is no firearm registration requirement in 42 states.

  

According to Wikipedia, there are at least six definitions of the term "mass shooting" and by a very expansive definition, 272 individuals were killed in such incidents from 1/1/5 through the end of July.  By contrast, the number of persons killed in mass stabbings in the same period was zero, zilch, none. The latest incident of a mass stabbing occurred on July 26 in America's heartland:

A 42-year-old man is facing charges of terrorism and assault with intent to murder after 11 shoppers were stabbed at a Walmart supermarket in the US state of Michigan.

An assailant used a folding knife to stab five men and six women, including a Walmart employee, on Saturday afternoon in Traverse City.

The victims, ranging in age from 21 to 84, are all expected to survive.

Notice something different about this, Jennings? Eleven strangers brutally attacked by a man wielding a knife with "all expected to survive." (They all had been released from the hospital as of eleven days later.)  If eleven people were shot in one incident, would we expect all to survive- and how often is it that eleven individuals are even wounded by a man with a knife?

People with guns kill people. Arguably, guns themselves don't kill people. But bullets from those firearms surely do.

Share |

Very Bad Situation

There are many individuals confused, mistaken, or dishonest about what is currently happening in Gaza and Brigitte Gabriel is one of them.

Another lie propagated by CNN and Abby Phillip.

Israel is not preventing anyone from getting food, Hamas is responsible for all the suffering in Gaza. pic.twitter.com/k495XbASAS

— Brigitte Gabriel (@ACTBrigitte) July 25, 2025

In the discussion to which Gabriel refers, Abby Phillip turned to Scott Jennings and summarized the situation, remarking

What is the rationale for blocking aid, period? Israel and the United States have put together a program to distribute food because they don't want the U.N. to be a part of it. They want to do it themselves. But that program is what everyone is saying is failing.

She was referring, as NBC News reported two months ago,  "aid groups led by the United Nations" had "carried out a massive operation moving food, medicine, fuel, tends and other supplies across Gaza since the war began in October 2023." However, Israel then blocked distribution of aid while it accused Hamas of hijacking shipments. In late May, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a U.S.-backed group approved by Israel assumed responsibility for aid distribution. However

The new mechanism limits food distribution to a small number of hubs under guard of armed contractors, where people must go to pick it up. Currently, four hubs have been set up, all close to Israeli military positions.

The GHF began to take over and 

two of the four hubs started distributing food, both in the Rafah area in the southernmost end of Gaza, where few Palestinians are located. On Tuesday, thousands of Palestinians walked from tent camps outside the city of Khan Younis, crossing Israeli military lines, to reach the distribution points.

At one point on Tuesday, chaos erupted as Palestinians overwhelmed a hub outside Rafah, breaking through fences. Nearby Israeli troops fired warning shots, sending people fleeing in panic. The military later said the situation was brought under control but at least three injured Palestinians were seen being brought from the scene.

GHF publicly launched early this year and is run by a group of American security contractors, ex-military officers and humanitarian aid officials. It has the support of Israel and the United States.

Until resigning, Jake Wood was the face of the foundation. Wood is a U.S. military veteran and co-founder of a disaster relief group called Team Rubicon. He said Sunday night he was resigning because it was clear the organization would not be allowed to operate independently.

Soon afterward, Johnnie Moore, described here as "an evangelical Christian and former PR consultant who advised President Donald Trump during his first term," was appointed executive chairman of the GHF. Source of the organization's funding remains in doubt because Moore claims the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is "a private foundation" and "like lots of private foundations, you know, it doesn't disclose its donors."

Swell. Houston, we have a problem. Significantly

Setting up so few sites for food distribution meant crowd control problems were inevitable, according to Ciaran Donnelly, the senior vice president for international programs at the International Rescue Committee, which ran major relief operations in Gaza. “No aid organization would recommend doing it that way,” he said.

Inside Israel, as well, critics have questioned its independence. Last month in front of Israel’s legislature, opposition leader Yair Lapid, without providing evidence, accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government of funding the GHF through foreign shell companies. And last week, citing unnamed public officials, Israel’s public broadcaster, Kan, reported that the Israeli government had sent hundreds of millions of shekels to the group.

Israel’s government has repeatedly denied it funds the GHF.

Phillip noted  

a statement from a hundred human rights groups that say "as the Israeli government's siege starves the people of Gaza, aid workers are now joining the same food lines, risking being shot just to feed the families. With supplies now totally depleted, humanitarian organizations are witnessing their own colleagues and partners waste away before their eyes. The Government of Israel's restrictions, delays, and fragmentation under its total siege have created chaos, starvation, and death."

Those aid groups never have been sympathetic to Israel. Their mission is to feed as many human beings as possible, not to acknowledge that there never would have been a calamity had Hamas not attacked Israel on October 7, 2023 with the aim of killing as many Jews as possible, extra points for raping women.

Nonetheless, Phillip was right when she added

Again, this is within the power of Israel to alleviate this. And even if the idea is that Hamas is stealing some of the aid, the quantity of aid, Scott, that is coming into Gaza right now is not even close to what is necessary to feed the population. So it would be one thing if they were giving as much food as is necessary and Hamas was stealing all of it but that's not what is happening.

At 2:17, former Republican US Senator Jeff Flake from Arizona comments (emphasis his)

I don't- I don't think Donald Trump wants children in Gaza to starve. I think he's simply saying that U.S. cold do more to put pressure on Israel to allow the food in to be distributed, um, that's what I'm saying.

Donald Trump doesn't want children in Gaza to starve. But he doesn't want them not to starve, either. He doesn't care one way or the other, because he is focused on one thing. 

Trump relatively recently has been nominated thrice for the Nobel Peace Prize: in November 2024 by the head of Ukraine's parliamentary foreign committee, a nomination withdrawn on 6/24/25; on June 20, 20245 by Pakistan leaders for his involvement during a recent India-Pakistan crisis; and on 6/24/25 by GOP Representative Buddy Carter of Georgia for the attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Our President is obsessed with this and on June 24 whined on Truth Social "no, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be. But the people know, and that's all that matters to me!"

Evidently not. This is what interests him in the Israel/Hamas war. Trump wants to win a Nobel Peace, or two or three or four. That can happen only if this particular Mideast war ends and he has something to do with it. It may not end with the complete destruction of Hamas or security for Israel, with food for Gazan civilians, nor with a solution to the crisis on the West Bank or a homeland for Palestinians. A resolution probably won't be just for both sides and possibly for neither; yet, without at least a cease-fire, there is no chance the American President will get the prize he longs for..

And that illustrates a major tragedy of this conflict. Israel cuts off aid to Gaza, later allowing it but only on a limited and ineffective basis. If Hamas cared about the well-being of the people over whom it rules (or did before 10/7/23), it would have cried "uncle" long ago. However, it does not. It is a brutal, terroristic organization which dreams of the genocide of Jews it and its fellow travelers accuse Israel of committing against Palestinians.

Striving for the capitulation of its enemy and return of the hostages it holds, Israel continues starving Gazans as if that enemy is concerned about the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.

That political policy has not succeeded nearly as well as its military has succeeded in nearly destroying Hamas. That aim, justified and necessary, should have been its sole goal in Gaza. Instead, evidence grows that Israel's goal, in which starvation of Gazans is no objective, extends well beyond evisceration of Hamas.

The latter may have been the nation's major, if not primary, goal six months ago. President Biden, unlike President Trump, thought it a net positive that Gazans be fed, and was not interested in monetarization of the region with a Riviera of the Middle East.

And so while Brigitte Gabriel and Scott Jennings question nothing the Israeli government does, pro-Palestine student organizations throughout the USA protest Israeli policy and anti-Zionist Muslim groups such as Americans for Justice in Palestine Action ramp up their condemnation of the Jewish state. Correction: now that more Gazans are killed with the strategic objective of defeating Hamas no longer operative, these activists have held their tongue. 

They did all they could to prevent Israel from defeating Hamas. Having failed to do that, with the lives of Gazan people at stake, they've practically gone into hiding.  Jennings, Gabriel, and others are off-base. The other side is even worse.

Share |

Worth the Paper It's Written On

"They literally announced it in the Oval Office."

O.K., then, that seals it: the war in Rwanda is over!

🚨 LMAO! CNN liberal panelist gets community noted in real-time by Scott Jennings as she fails to realize Trump ENDED the Congo-Rwanda war.

PANELIST: "It's not done, it's not done!"

JENNINGS: "You didn't watch the news yesterday. They literally announced it in the Oval Office."… pic.twitter.com/2TvggqJM6N

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 28, 2025

Jennings is right about one thing: the end of the war was declared on June 27 at the White House when the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda

signed a peace deal facilitated by the U.S. to help end the decades long deadly fighting in eastern Congo while helping the U.S. government and American companies gain access to critical minerals in the region.

“Today, the violence and destruction comes to an end, and the entire region begins a new chapter of hope and opportunity, harmony, prosperity and peace,” President Donald Trump told the foreign ministers of the two countries at a White House meeting.

So, it's all over.... except when it's not, because 

While the deal is seen as a turning point, analysts don’t believe it will quickly end the fighting because the most prominent armed group says it does not apply to it. Many Congolese see it mainly as an opportunity for the U.S. to acquire critical minerals needed for much of the world’s technology after their government reached out to Trump for support in fighting the rebels.

Trump has pushed to gain access to such minerals at a time when the United States and China are actively competing for influence in Africa.

President Trump specializes in signing deals, purportedly to end wars, which leave out a major party to the war. It's how he sold out the U.S.-backed Afghan government when he signed a "peace" agreement with the Taliban in 2020 and left Kabul out in the cold. In east-central Africa

The Rwanda-backed M23 rebel group is the most prominent armed group in the conflict, and its major advance early this year left bodies on the streets. With 7 million people displaced in Congo, the United Nations has called it “one of the most protracted, complex, serious humanitarian crises on Earth.”

Congo hopes the U.S. will provide it with the security support needed to fight the rebels and possibly get them to withdraw from the key cities of Goma and Bukavu, and from the entire region where Rwanda is estimated to have up to 4,000 troops. Rwanda has said that it’s defending its territorial interests and not supporting M23.

So Trump- uh, er, the USA- gets mineral rights, Congo gets military assistance, and Rwanda gets to say that it has made peace and of course, not supporting the rebel group because, well, it signed a peace treaty. Meanwhile

M23 rebels have suggested that the agreement won’t be binding for them. The rebel group hasn’t been directly involved in the planned peace deal, although it has been part of other ongoing peace talks.

Trump does it again! He makes a deal and appears to broker a peace he hasn't produced. And he has plenty of Republican stooges, Scott Jennings one of the most avid, to make way for the authoritarian.

Share |

Disreputable Bunch

"I trust his wife."

Who would have expected that Scott Jennings, who yearns for a request from President Trump that he run for the US Senate seat being vacated by Mitch McConnell, would become a "trust all women" kind of guy? Well, in the case of Kilmer Abrego Garcia, he conveniently has become the feminist he has scorned.

"Maryland man" Saint Abrego Garcia lived in our country illegally for 14 years, is accused of domestic violence by his wife, has MS-13 tats & now faces charges of HUMAN TRAFFICKING.

And it's still not enough to make Democrats stop defending this guy! Lord, beer me strength. pic.twitter.com/14ikebUYg7

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) June 7, 2025

Jennings' reacted after  

Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the man at the center of a political and legal maelstrom after he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, was flown back to the United States on Friday to face charges of transporting undocumented migrants....

 The decision to pull Mr. Abrego Garcia out of El Salvador and instead put him on trial in an American courtroom could provide an offramp for the Trump administration, which had bitterly opposed court orders requiring the government to take steps to return him after his wrongful removal in March.

The 10-page indictment — filed in Federal District Court in Nashville in May and unsealed Friday — might also be an effort to save face: Bringing Mr. Abrego Garcia back to face criminal charges may allow the White House to avoid a broader legal confrontation that was increasingly headed toward questions of whether Trump administration officials should be held in contempt of court.

Jennings argues

We also know what his wife told the courts and law enforcement about him, that he was violent, that he beat her, that he was... I trust his wife when she runs off and says "please protect me from (this? my?) man.

That's the truth but not the whole truth.  

In April, USA Today received an audio recording of am August, 2020 hearing before Judge Ada Clark-Edwards, in which Garcia's wife

Vasquez Sura describes in detail how Abrego Garcia was detained and in ICE custody through her 2019 pregnancy but returned home a changed person.

“Once he came out, maybe like a month after he was out, he changed a lot with me and my kids,” Vasquez Sura told the judge. “He would yell at them, yell at me for anything, and any little thing.””

Thus in 2021

Vasquez Sura filed for a protection order a second time, citing instances of violence in 2019, 2020 and 2021. Abrego Garcia “punched and scratched” Vasquez Sura, ripped off her shirt and grabbed and bruised her.

However, according to ABC News, the documents "noted two past incidents, alleging that in 2020, Abrego Garcia hit her with his work boot and that in August 2020, he hit her in the eye." A temporary protective order, requiring Abrego Garcia to stay away from their residence and to have no contact with Vasquez Sera, was issued. It was dismissed in June after the complainant failed to appear in court.

If you conclude that the extent of the domestic violence is unclear, you're catching on, especially because the alleged perpetrator never has been charged with domestic violence. And if you're unsure what their relationship is now, you're even more insightful because in a May 1 statement

"Recently an audio clip of a civil court hearing related to the protection order I filed became public. I previously acknowledged the protection order and will again address a personal and painful part of mine and Kilmar’s life. Neither of us were in a good place at that time," Vasquez Sura told USA TODAY...

She added: "My husband was traumatized from the time he spent in ICE detention and we were in the throes of COVID. Like many couples, we were caring for our children with barely enough to get by. All of those factors contributed to the actions which caused me to seek the protective order."

Assuming that Vasquez Sura was honest when she applied in 2020 for a protection order,  Abrego Garcia had been in ICE custody most of 2019, came out and was violent toward her. she filed for a protection order, the second, on August 3, 2021 alleging that Abrego Garcia locked her and the children out of the house and slapped her when they got back in. Also, "police came and he acted violent broke my phone in front of the officer. This is not the first time. I have photos of all the bruises his (sic) left on my body."

Eight days later, Vasquez Sera withdraw the petition, because of course, she did. And now, she defends her husband while stating in part "We were able to work through  the situation privately as a family, including by going to counseling."

Because, of course she does. Scott Jennings, who trusts Donald Trump, says "I trust his wife."

Sorry- not sorry- but I don't trust his wife. Neither do I trust Abrego Garcia, who was- and maybe still is- a wife beater, possibly belongs to MS-13, and according to the Justice Department (for what it's worth), is part of an "alien smuggling ring."

I trust the Justice Department even less. And Scott Jennings, who once upon a time labeled Donald Trump an "authoritarian,"  should understand what thinking people always have known: as with men, women should be believed at times, doubted at others.

Tear Down This Myth

Scott Jennings is a GOP strategist who appears regularly on CNN's News Night with Abby Phillip and  is a potential entrant into the 2026 Republican primary to replace retiring Senator Mitch McConnell. There are other likely candidates for the nomination but it would be foolish to sell Jennings short because he is a favorite of Donald Trump, whose Administration he defends exceptionally well at every turn.

He's very skilled, on television and on X Twitter, at selling an alternate reality.

I've been with the President recently. I've watched him in these meetings.

Let me state plainly: There is no chaos.

Unlike the previous administration, there's no doubt who's running the country, and it's President Donald J. Trump. pic.twitter.com/saDy7p33aB

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) May 3, 2025

Donald Trump may be running the country. But evidence to the contrary keeps accumulating as

Donald Trump gave a completely incoherent response to a question about his crackdown on Harvard University and ended up ranting about fictional riots.

During a phone interview with NewsNation Wednesday, Stephen A. Smith, the firebrand sports pundit turned political commentator, asked the president to expand on a comment he’d made about Harvard University, which has seen $2.2 billion in government grants frozen by the current administration.

Smith asked Trump what he would say to those who view his attacks against the Ivy League school as “an attack on academic freedom, rather than a defense of fairness.”

“Well, I say this. We had riots in Harlem, in Harlem, and frankly if you look at what’s gone on—and people from Harlem went up and they protested, Stephen, and they protested very strongly against Harvard. They happened to be on my side,” Trump said.

“You know I got a very high Black vote. You know that? Very, very high Black vote. It was a very great compliment to me,” Trump continued.

The president appeared confused about the subject of the question, ranting about Harlem instead of Harvard and inventing a fictional riot in support of his war on higher education.

Trump’s stumped response is particularly disturbing because, crucially, Smith repeated the word “Harvard” three times in asking his question, and was responding directly to something Trump had just mentioned. Halfway through the question, Trump seemed to realize his mistake, but then felt it necessary to comment on the support of Black voters, which was at that point entirely off topic.

There have been concerns over Trump’s cognitive decline since he first started to deliver weaving, nonsensical stump speeches on the presidential campaign trail. Now his divorce from reality manifests mostly in his disastrous economic policy, as the president is more or less kept away from making lengthy addresses.

Last October, a senior lecturer at Cornell University's Psychology Department and Weill Cornell Medicine Psychiatry Department remarked

What’s alarming is how the rate of Trump’s bizarre speech and political decisions have been increasing. He gave an answer about childcare to the Economic Club of New York so incoherent that even his supporters were concerned. Last week he got cognitively lost in a rally and began to talk about the ‘eight circles’ that Biden filled up with journalists. No one on his staff has been able to explain the reference.

Trump has shown evidence of dementia for the past year as indicated by his strange gait, phonemic paraphasia—when he begins a word and can’t finish it—and decline in the complexity of his words and concepts. This limited capacity explains his poor debate performance, but there are two more disturbing signs of his decline.

Since when? In February, 2017 the NYC, NY office of Donald Trump's doctor, Harold Bornstein, was raided by Trump's personal bodyguard, a lawyer at the Trump Organization, and a third man, and the president's medical records were stolen.

On Saturday, November 16, 2019 President Trump was suddenly whisked away to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for a still-unknown reason.

Four days after an apparent assassination attempt of presidential candidate Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania in July last year

the public is still in the dark over the extent of his injuries, what treatment the Republican presidential nominee received in the hospital, and whether there may be any long-term effects on his health.

Trump’s campaign has refused to discuss his condition, release a medical report or records, or make the doctors who treated him available, leaving information to dribble out from Trump, his friends and family.

In an interview five weeks ago, psychologist Dr. John L. Gartner explained

When we’re diagnosing dementia, what we need to see is a deterioration of someone’s own baseline of functioning. What we see that a lot of people don’t appreciate is that when Donald Trump was younger in the 1980s, he was actually quite articulate. He spoke in polished paragraphs; now he has difficulty even finishing a sentence. His thoughts were logical and related: now they’re tangential. He goes off on these ramblings where he is confabulating things – weird things in which he’ll talk about Venezuelans and mental hospitals, and then he’ll talk about sharks and batteries or the late, great Hannibal Lector and Silence of the Lambs. And why is he talking about Hannibal Lector – a fictional character who was not great; he was a murderer, a serial killer. It makes sense in Trump’s mind but these are really random associations. And there is an accelerating rate of decline….

He is losing his capacity for coherent speech. We’ve collected dozens and dozens of Trump’s phonemic paraphrasias, in which you use sounds in place of an actual word  (a hallmark of brain damage and dementia).  What happens is that someone is trying to say a word and then they get the first part out but they have to end it or create one because they can’t remember the rest. Trump will say something like ‘mishiz’ for missiles, or “Chrishus” for Christmas, because he can’t complete the word. Then we see also a lot of semantic paraphrasias, in which he uses a word incorrectly, as in “the oranges of the situation” because it rhymes with “the origins of the situation.” This is not within normal limits; his basic ability to use language is breaking down.

So there is that verbal deterioration. And then there is the physical deterioration. He used to be quite graceful, and now he uses a wide-based gait typical of frontotemporal dementia, sometimes he swings his right leg in a semi-circle. He also has trouble getting up the ramp; he has trouble doing physical things.

 And sometimes Trump is lucid or articulate. On other occasions, he is baffling or incoherent. It's that way with an individual suffering from an ailment, whether physical, mental, or psychological. It was that way with President Joe Biden, also; it's why General Mark Milley in October of 2023 could maintain "I engage with him frequently, and (Bidenis) alert, sound, does his homework, reads the papers reads all the read-ahead material, and is very, very engaged in issues of very serious matters of war and peace and life and death."

Biden probably declined from that point to his June, 2024 debate with Donald Trump. However, his bizarre performance that night probably was due to an individual in decline- as Trump clearly has been- who had a very bad night, which was interspersed with many good days. For some reason, President Trump's diminished state has not received 5% of the scrutiny which President Biden drew.

It is highly unlikely that Donald Trump is running the country in the manner Scott Jennings wants us to believe. However, it is not his responsibility as a shill of the President to reveal the true state of the politician he publicly venerates. Moreover, Jennings knows that much of the source of the spell Trump has cast on the public derives from the perception of Trump as strong and powerful and whether right or wrong, always in charge. It's time for the Democratic Party, which must oppose this dangerous man, or an inquisitive media to tear down this myth..

Share |

Leadership Myth(s)

Crudely, tastelessly, and without redeeming social merit, Representative Jasmine Crockett of Texas' 10th Congressional District

mocked her state’s governor during a weekend appearance, referring to Greg Abbott — who uses a wheelchair — as “Gov. Hot Wheels” while speaking at a banquet in Los Angeles.

“You all know we got Gov. Hot Wheels down there. Come on, now,” Crockett, a Dallas Democrat, said about Abbott, a Republican, while addressing the Human Rights Campaign event. “And the only thing hot about him is that he is a hot-ass mess, honey.”

Abbott was paralyzed in 1984 after a tree fell on him while he was running. The accident severely damaged Abbott’s spinal cord. Abbott, now 67, was elected in 2014.

The day before Crockett's remark, according to CBS News

An estimated 34,000 people gathered Friday evening at Civic Center Park in Denver to hear Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York push a number of progressive policies.

Just hours later, they spoke before a crowd of about 11,000 at the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley.

The two stops for the progressive leaders in Colorado were part of what they dubbed the "Fighting Oligarchy Tour."

The figure of 34,000 is not objective because apparently it originated with a tweet by Ocasio-Cortez herself. Still, a lot. A heck of a lot, a number Donald Trump circa 2016 would have been happy about. And then, there is Scott Jennings, a regular on CBS NewsNight (Usually) with Abby Phillip

Jasmine Crockett will learn no lessons from the “Hot Wheels” episode because the Left’s angry mobs eat this stuff up. Trust me: the unquestioned head of the Democratic Party thinks is a winning vector. pic.twitter.com/egtZIbPyDV

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) March 26, 202

"I don't know how the Democrats," Jennings says, "came to appoint Jasmine Crockett as the unquestioned leader of your Party But thank God...."

Let's not play the How About Game. Of course, we remember Donald Trump when he mocked a disabled reporter.

   

:

But that happened several years ago, and we know that if Donald Trump were videotaped shooting someone in the back on 5th Avenue, most of his supporters would respond with something akin to "it was a Democrat and he stuck his tongue out at the greatest President ever."

However, this is 2025. Now, strategist Jennings is a CNN contributor and may end up running for the GOP nomination to succeed Kentucky senator Mitch McConnell, who is retiring and for whom Jennings once worked. 

It is not up to Scott Jennings to anoint someone as leader of the Democratic Party. Nor is it necessary for there to be one leader for the entire Party at this time. Hakeem Jeffries is the leader in the House of Representatives and Chuck Schumer, whatever his worth, in the Senate. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are now the de factor leaders of the activist wing of the Party, to whatever extent there is an activist wing and it has leadership.

After Mitt Romney followed in John McCain's footsteps by losing a presidential race to Barack Obama, the Republican National Committee launched an "autopsy," the "Growth and Opportunity Project." It cited the need for the rudderless GOP to become more inclusive, including welcoming racial minorities and immigrants. Four years later, the Party nominated for President a reality television star who filled a vacuum by condemning immigrants because "they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists." He won the election and the Republican Party lost fewer seats in the Senate and the House of Representatives than expected. 

So much for the importance of leadership the year after a presidential election.

In the wake of the Signal fiasco, the lies are coming fast and furious from the Trump Administration, with some officials acting as if trying to undo Donald Trump in mendacity. Scott Jennings is a serious Republican operative who may become something even more prominent and significant. His guile must not go unchallenged, and the Democratic Party must not go undefended. 

Share |