"Do You Have Remorse Having Voted For Trump?"

This question was recently posed to me.  I immediately replied "no remorse."  Why would I have remorse?  Let's think about it.  Had Harris won, I would not have agreed with her on anything.  Giving her the benefit of the doubt, maybe I would have agreed with between 1% and 5%.  With Trump, let's say for the sake of argument, that I would only agree with 80% to 90%.  Would anybody prefer to see a candidate completely opposed to their views, actually win?  Who would?

But what about Trump?  Let's see.  When I refer to Biden, I am also referring to Harris, inasmuch as she said she would not change any of Biden's policies if she won.  Under Biden, approximately 10 million people entered the country illegally.  Why don't Democrats see giving up on our sovereignty as a threat to our democray?  Not to mention, these millions were not properly vetted.  So we had gangbangers, cartel members, human traffickers, drug traffickers and various other criminals coming into our country.  But they weren't all criminals, right?  Irrelevant.  If you have wide open borders you do not have a country.  Undder Trump we will have no more than 400,000 illegals in 4 years; and that is a high estimate as the border continues to get more secure.

Under Biden, the culture turned increasingly - I'll be polite - wacky.  We were filled with woke nonsense and DEI nonsense.  Things such as a man can get pregnant.  Biological boys/men changing in girls/womens locker rooms, and competeing in girls/womens sports.  A Supreme Court nominee not being able to tell us the definition of a woman.  And let's not forget the emphasis on "identity politics."  Or, as Biden said to a black crowd when he was running in 2020 - "If you don't know who to vote for then you ain't black."  Racist, and demeaning to blacks.  Did Biden say "ain't" when speaking to a white crowd?  And, let's not forget the targeting of parents at local school board meetings, for daring to insist on knowing what was being taught to their kids.   

Here's something I'll never understand.  Biden allowed countless criminals into the country.  Trump is rounding them up and deporting them.  But Democrats are objecting.  They're objecting!  Would they like to see their wives and daughters raped?  Or murdered?  For those who believe in open borders, why do they have locks on their doors?  Or live in gated communities?

Other presidents have talked about reducing the federal deficit and balancing the budget.  But Trump, through the Department of Government Efficicency (DOGE) is actually doing something.  Yes, I expressed some concerns about Musk and DOGE in my 3/27 post.  But who can complain about getting rid of fraud, waste and abuse in government? 

Trump wants us to be energy independent.  He also wants us to return to self-sufficency in manufacturing.  Hence, the tariffs.  Generally, I prefer free trade.  But why shouldn't it be fair trade?  Back in  June, 1996, someone we all know was speaking to Congress.  She talked about the US having a $35 billion trade deficit in 1995.  We were told then that the average MFN (Most Favored Nation) tariff we placed on Chinese goods was 2%.  China had a 35% tariff on US goods.  

And we were told that only 2% of US exports were allowed into China.  However, 33% of Chinese goods were allowed into the US.  The speaker estimated that this trade imbalance supported 10,000,000 Chinese jobs, compared to only 170,000 US jobs.  The speaker went on to implore her fellow House menbers to tell the President that the trade relationship with China is a job loser for the US.  If you haven't yet guessed, that speaker was none other than Nancy Pelosi.    

More About Mahmoud Khalil

(Note.  On March 15, 2025, I posted "Mahmoud Khalil Must Be Deported."  Khalil is the Hamas supporting, now former graduate student at Columbia University in New York City.)

Khalil, along with co-producer Macklemore (Benjamin Hammond Haggerty), put out a documentary titled "The Encampments."  This "documentary" was made before Khalil's arrest.  While the film asserts that 10/7 (10/7/23, the date of the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel) changed things on campus, it conveniently leaves out any mention of Hamas, or any of the atrocities committed by Hamas (you know, the murders, rapes of women and children, torture, mutilation, taking of hostages - even babies).  So, no surprise, there is no context, no explanation, for why Israel retaliated.  

Khalil:  "The Palestinian people have been living under occupation, ethnic cleansing, and all sorts of crimes since 1948 and we prevailed.  We will prevail no matter what will happen."  This tells you all you need to know about the beliefs of many Palestinians and their supporters throughout the Arab world.  1948 was the year modern day Israel gained independence.  At the same time, the Palestinians could have had a state of their own, under the terms of the UN General Assembly voting to partition the former British Mandate, into a Jewish state and an Arab state.  But the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine have refused a state from 1948 through today.  Because they do not want a state as long as Israel still exists.  That is why they have started war after war, two intifadas, and engaged in constant terrorist attacks.

The goal is a one state solution - all Arab.  So who is it that is engaging in ethnic cleansing?  You're prevailing?  Have you seen what Hamas has wrought in Gaza by starting a war with Israel?  Do those pictures of Gaza suggest to you that you are prevailing?  I'm sorry if some of your family was displaced by Israel's war for independence (fought from 1948 to 1949).  But get over it!  Maybe your people shouldn't have started the war in the first place.  Maybe you should have learned to live peaceably with the Jewish people as your neighbors.  Get over yourselves and move on.  Like millions of refugees around the world had to do during and after WWII.  Not to mention all those Jews who had to leave Europe, or who had to leave the Arab countries surrounding the new state of Israel.     

Another commentator reported that the film does not depict the fear of Jewish students, feeling that they needed to remove any items of clothing or jewelry that are Jewish symbols - before going anywhere near these "encampments" at Columbia.  And, apparently, there were no interviews of Jewish students who left the campus for fear for their own safety.  Nor any concern about Jewish students who felt it would be safer to transfer to another school.

What about this co-producer, Macklemore?  It turns out that he's just another pro-Hamas, anti-Israel hater.  And no surprise, he also hates Donald Trump and America.  Macklemore has accused Israel of committing genocide.  And, at a rally last year, he was heard to say "fuck America."  It's a shame that we cannot deport him also.  But he was born in Seattle.

While not related to Khalil, we have another concerning story out of New York City.  This time at Mount Sinai Hospital.  A doctor there, Lila Abassi, is alleged to have posted (under a pseudonym) "Long live Hamas and Hezbollah."  She has allegedly called the IDF a "plague," and is alleged to have accused Israel of slaughtering babies.

She also is alleged to have denied that Hamas raped anyone on 10/7.  And is claimed to have said that Israel is responsible for "massacr(ing) more people on 10/7 than (were) killed by Hamas."  Another doctor said that:  "She's known as one of the more outspoken and egregiously antisemitic physicians in the community."  

Abassi was terminated by the hospital.  But, as a Jewish person, how safe should I feel about receiving treatment by a doctor like this?  As a Jew and a strong supporter of Israel, I would not feel the least bit safe.  And how many doctors are there like her, with her alleged terrorist supporting ideology.  Interesting, though, how Jewish doctors in Israel have treated Arab Muslims from all the surrounding Arab countries.  With no threats to their patients' safety. 

It's Time To Replace Musk At DOGE

Don't get me wrong.  Of course I want to get rid of the waste, fraud and abuse throughout the federal bureaucracy.  And, as to the people destroying Tesla dealerships in various states across the country, and even damaging cars already purchased by individuals, the criminals doing these things should be punished to the full extent of the law.  I suspect that these vandals are leftists, who at one point encouraged people to purchase electric vehicles.  But now, they disapprove of Musk, so they engage in this destructive, criminal behavior.  

So, why am I writing this post?  I'll discuss 3 reasons here.  First, I'm not convinced that Musk has a good grasp of what each federal agency does.  I'd like to see a solid conservative, with experience in government, but who believes in the need to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse.  But someone who also knows what must stay.  People advising Musk's replacement should continue to be people from the private sector.  Business leaders know better than government bureaucrats how to cut waste, fraud and abuse.  

I'll start with USAID (the U.S. Agency for International Development).  Apparently, they were promoting a bunch of leftwing woke nonsense.  Then put in new people to run it.  But I want to keep it.  I want to return it to its core mission.  While the US remains a leading military power, we are also an economic power.  How do we gain influence and friends in other countries?  Through the use of "soft power," such as through the core functions of USAID - economic development, education, providing healthcare and disaster relief, and, of course, encouraging democratic governance.  If you think that is a waste of our tax dollars, think about this.  The CCP (Chinese Communist Party) is not only rapidly growing their military power.

They have been using their "soft power" around the world for years.  The CCP makes "investments" around the globe.  Here's one example.  The Shanghai International Port Group has an agreement to operate a new terminal at the port of Haifa, in Israel, for 25 years.  Yes, in the country of Israel, our ally.  Not to mention the millions (billions?) they are investing in educational institutions through the CCP's Confucius Institutes.  Universities in the US were happy to have them, until the federal government threatened a cutoff of federal dollars if they didn't close the Institutes.  But as of 2018, there were an estimated 100 such Institutes in the US, and 550 in the world.

Anybody believe that these Confucius Institutes promote democracy?  Or freedom of speech and religion?  Or the right to criticize the CCP?  I certainly would not want to wake up one morning to find out that the majority of countries in the world were relying on the CCP's largesse, with the US left behind.  And I definitely do not think the U.S. and the world would be safer with countries persuaded that the authoritarian rule in China is preferable to democratic rule as in the U.S.  I do not know if Musk gets this.

In a related matter, it appears that the Voice of America, founded during WWII to combat the Nazi propaganda war machine, is now being shut down.  Again, this is no good - unless you believe that China, Russia, North Korea and Iran should be the main influencers in the world.  But Trump's Executive Order of 3/14/25 has put an end to the VOA.  Musk apparently argued that VOA and Radio Free Europe should go.  I don't agree.  Fix them, but don't eliminate them.  If they had no positive impact, why was it reported that Russia spent $1.2 dollars in 2024 jamming the VOA.  (No, I don't know how much broadcasting got through anyway.)  But a major problem is that the 1994 International Broadcasting Act prohibits editorial involvement by government officials.  That needs to be amended.

Here's a second beef I have with Musk running DOGE.  I represent people who have been injured on the job.  A good number of them have suffered severe injuries.  Severe enough that they should be eligible to receive Social Security Disability.  Yet, over two dozen Social Security offices are set to be closed; and 7000 employees are scheduled to be laid off.  While these changes may have been if the offing before DOGE, I do have some concerns about Musk's comments.  Meanwhile, I have clients who have to wait up to two years to get a decision regarding their entitlement to benefits.  And they're unable to work.  Two years is unacceptable.  

Here's my third beef with Musk.  I've said it many times.  Whether antisemitism comes from the Left, the Right or radical Islam, it's all bad.  And I will call it out.  I don't know that Musk is an antisemite, but the alternative is that notwithstanding his brilliance, he is prone to supporting antisemitic tropes and comments.  Just a couple of examples.  Someone posted that Jewish communities "have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them."  Musk then posted:  "You have said the actual truth."  No, they didn't.

And Musk did subsequently apologize, saying it was the dumbest post he ever made.  For his information, Jews come from virtually every country around the world.  They can be white, black, Hispanic, even Arabic.  You name it.  But Musk did one better:  "Stalin, Mao and Hitler didn't murder millions of people.  Their public sector employees did."  Are you kidding me?  I get why Musk would repost that comment.  He wants to get rid of public sector employees.

But his likely rationale for posting that comment is irrelevant to me.  Because the clear implication is that Hitler was not responsible for the Final Solution - the Holocaust.  It is beyond insulting.  It minimizes the pure evil of Hitler, and of the Holocaust.  It is about as antisemitic as one can get.  Musk has tried to explain away some of his stupidity by saying "If I quote something it doesn't mean I agree with anything and everything in it."  And this:  "It's just that I think this is something people should consider."  No, no one should consider any of his antisemitic, Hitler defending remarks.  Ever.

A final note.  I was not fond of seeing Musk prancing around the Oval Office.  Or in the first Cabinet meeting of President Trump's second term.  Okay, maybe he wasn't prancing.  But I don't like his "show-off" style.  Such as when he was holding up a chainsaw, showing how he was going to "cut" the bureacracy.    We have one President.  And that's Trump.  Musk did not seem content to remain in the background.  But the people did not elect him.  So let the work of DOGE continue, but with new leadership.  With someone who knows where and why to cut, and what to keep.

President Trump and the Jews

It is disappointing and hard to explain.  Probably 80% of the Jewish people I know not only do not like Trump, they hate him.  Yet, there has not been a better president ever for the Jewish people.  Recall that in Trump's first term, he moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel's capital city of Jerusalem.  The city where Congress said it should be.  He recognized Israeli sovereignty over the strategic Golan Heights.  He stopped funding UNRWA and the Palestinian Authority.  The PA under Abbas has continued to reward terrorists who kill Jews (pay for slay).  And he was instrumental in negotiating the Abraham Accords between Israel and four Arab countries.

Now we are only about two months into Trump's second term.  Yet already, Trump has done much for the Jewish people.  Trump appointed well known civil rights attorney Leo Terrell to head the Department of Justice's "Task Force to Combat Antisemitism."  Education Secretary Linda McMahon has warned schools across the country that they need to protect Jewish students.  Trump froze $400 million in federal money (grants and contracts) that was to be given to Columbia University.  Maybe they'll get the message that they need to do more to protect their Jewish students.

Trump is trying to deport Israel hater Mahmoud Khalil (see the immediate prior post).  When Biden was in office, Columbia took little action to expel students who violated school policy with their protests shutting down parts of the campus.  While some were arrested by the NYPD, the Manhattan DA ultimately dropped most charges.  Trump wants to do better.  

Trump has started a campaign against the Houthis, a terrorist group that now controls most of Yemen.    The US military has been conducting airstrikes against the Houthis and Trump has said they will continue until the Houthis agree to stop targeting American and other ships.  What has this got to do with the Jews?  The Houthis also launched missile attacks into Israel during this current war with Hamas.  Anything that weakens the Houthis is good for Israel.  

The 3/15/25 online edition of the New York Post had an Op-Ed by a David Christopher Kaufman.  The title of the Op-Ed was "When will 'sideline' Jews finally speak up against their haters?"  I have often discussed with my wife that there are many famous Jewish people in Hollywood, and we agreed that it would be nice if more spoke out against the growing antisemitism and Jew-haters.  Yet, these same people have had no problem speaking on behalf of other minorities.  Those who do speak out deserve our praise, because they know they will be catching flak from much of the Hollywood community.

Those Jews speaking out to defend the Jewish people against antisemitism, include Debra Messing. Michael Rapaport, Amy Schumer, Jerry Seinfeld and David Schwimmer.  Michael Rapaport, upon hearing that the Trump Administration revoked Mahmoud Khalil's visa and green card, said "Good, good, good, you f..k."  After Khalil's wife said he was kidnapped, Rapaport went off on her:  "You have the audacity, the balls, the gall to use that word 'kidnapped' when there are 59 hostages who have been kidnapped for 520 plus days, and you're talking about your husband who's a terrorist groupie...here in this country on a student visa, and then had the honor and privilege of getting a green card...and you got the balls and audacity to say that your punk ass husband was kidnapped?...Why weren't you telling your husband, 'Yo Khalil, why don't you get a job, save up.  I'm 8 months pregnant.'"   

On the other hand, we have Jesse Eisenberg.  You may recall he played Mark Zuckerberg in the movie about Facebook, "The Social Network."  And he was up for an Oscar this year.  Here is his incredibly ignorant comment about the Holocaust.  "I think my family does not think in a kind of tribal way.  And so I think, like, the takeaway from the Holocaust would probably be something more along the lines of, you know, goodness, look what people can do to each other rather than, look what people do to Jews."  If he is truly that ignorant about the Holocaust, and the history of the Jewish people, he should keep his mouth shut.  Because it is hard to imagine a more moronic comment.   

So what does Hollywood have to do with Trump and the Jews.  Because Trump does not give a damn about what Hollywood thinks.  Not like Obama and Biden.  And regardless of what Hollywood Jews may think about Trump, it's past time for them to speak out not only against antisemitism, but in support of Trump's numerous pro-Jewish policies.

I think that Mr. Kaufman in his NY Post Op-Ed (see above) expressed it very well.  "There is no more potent a weapon for Hamas and its global band of sycophants and enablers than Jewish silence.  Which is why the time for Jewish timidity is over.  Love Trump or hate him, if he can commit to defending Jews globally, Jews - even along the sidelines - certainly must too."  Indeed!  

Once again I call upon all my readers who support Israel and the Jewish people, whether Jewish or not, to speak out.  Do not let your silence be seen as acquiescence.  We should always have this goal in mind:  Never Again!  Never again will Jews go silently to the slaughter.  Jews will fight back.  Let's start with speaking out against antisemitism and the Jew-haters.  It's the least we can do.  Am Yisrael Chai!  The people of Israel live.  And all Jews are considered to be the people of Israel.  It's past time to stand up for one another.  Never again!  

Mahmoud Khalil Must Be Deported!

Khalil was a student at Columbia University in NYC during last year's pro-Hamas demonstrations and takeover of parts of the campus.  He is described as a Palestinian born in Syria.  He came to the US on a student visa and also has a green card.  He is married to an American citizen who is said to be 8 months pregnant.  If he wants to be with his wife and soon to be child, then they can voluntarily leave the United States when he gets deported.  Because I don't give a damn.  

Section 1227 of the Immigration and Nationality Act lists numerous grounds upon which an alien residing in the US can be deported.  Just as there is no "right" to come to the US - it is a "privilege" -  there is no "right" to remain in the US as an alien.  Among other things, Section 1227 states:  "Any alien who has engaged in, is engaged in, or at any time after admission engages in - any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence or other unlawful means, is deportable."  

On March 8, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested Khalil, and he is currently being held at a detention facility in Louisiana.  A US District Court Judge in NYC has delayed his deportation, and has given the government and Khalil's attorneys until next Wednesday to submit briefs in support of their positions.  Meanwhile, the Trump Administration has announced that it withheld $400 million in federal grants and contracts from Columbia.  Good.  Columbia did nothing to protect its Jewish students and other students last year.   

So why had Mahmoud Khalil come to the attention of the US government?  He was one of the leaders of the student "protests" at Columbia last year.  He distributed pro-Hamas flyers.  And he was involved with CUAD (Columbia University Apartheid Divest).  This group not only advocates for the end of Israel, they advocate for the end of the United States of America.  Here are some examples.  CUAD calls for the liberation "from Turtle Island to Palestine."  What is Turtle Island?  The way some leftwing groups refer to all of North America.  

Here's more from CUAD:  "...we cannot separate the struggle in support of a free Palestine with the struggle against US imperialism."  And:  "We support liberation by any means necessary, including armed resistance."  The group also praised the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7, 2023, which, as a reminder, included the taking of Americans as hostages.  

Let us not forget what these pro-Hamas demonstrators did last year.  They blocked access to parts of the University at Columbia, including taking over buildings.  They intimidated Jewish students.  Here is a question for those who support Khalil:  do you favor bringing into the United States members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah?  If you answer "yes," you are a sick moron.  If you answer "no," then why in the world would you favor bringing in or keeping anyone who actively supports Hamas, Islamic Jihad or Hezbollah?  

Of course, those on the left are unable to distinguish between "speech" and "actions."  Here is Bernie Sanders, socialist, US Senator:  "No, Mr. President, you cannot illegally arrest and detain US residents because of their political views or opinions.  In America, we have a little something called the First Amendment."  Here is Chuck Schumer, Minority Leader in the US Senate:  "If the administration cannot prove he (Khalil) has violated any criminal law to justify taking this severe action and is doing it for the opinions he has expressed, then that is wrong."  These two Senators ought to read Section 1227 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Never to be outdone, the leftwing New York Times on 3/12/25 ran an Op-Ed by Michelle Goldberg, which  screamed:  "The Greatest Threat to Free Speech Since the Red Scare."  No, it's not.  But nice to see that now the Times now supports free speech.  No, the threat to free speech exists across our country, in the universities, in the mainstream media and in Hollywood - places where conservative viewpoints have not been accepted for years.  Goldberg says that Khalil has not been charged with any crime.  Irrelevant.  She too should read Section 1227.  

Goldberg quotes the ACLU:  "It is a direct attempt to punish speech because of the viewpoint it espouses."  Wrong again.  Think of it this way.  Back in 1977, the National Socialist Party of America (neo-Nazis) planned a march in Skokie, Illinois.  At the time, Skokie had about 40,000 Jewish residents, including many Holocaust survivors.  The US Supreme Court said the march could go forward.  These sick, evil bastards were Americans who had First Amendment rights.  But with regards to resident aliens, the Supreme Court has previously supported the right of the government to deport these people as the government's "power of self preservation."  

I think of this analogy.  Many on the Left have supported Biden's open border policy, notwithstanding the criminal gangs entering the US.  I usually hear the same argument - US citizens engage in criminal conduct at a rate that exceeds that of illegal aliens.  Does that really make sense to anyone?  Let's have more crime and criminals here because US citizens are worse?  Try telling that to the victims of these illegal aliens.  The US government has a right, nay, an obligation, to protect its citizens, and to protect the country from those who seek its violent overthrow.  Deport Khalil!  And others like him.  

Ukraine, Part VII (A Public Brawl in the Oval Office)

I watched the entire 50 minutes or so of the meeting between President Trump, VP Vance and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy.  As much of the world now knows, the last 6 or 7 minutes did not go well.  So what happened?  I'd like to dispense with what I consider to be a minor issue - Zelenskyy showing up in his wartime garb, instead of a suit.  When Trump met Zelenskyy outside as he was arriving at the White House, he made a lighthearted comment to the effect of "I see you dressed up for your visit."  It was not nasty.  During the 50 minutes, one reporter asked asked Zelenskyy something like this:  "Don't you own a suit?  Why aren't you wearing a suit?"  Trump very graciously stepped in and said "I like his outfit," or something to that effect.  And let's not forget Elon Musk's attire at the recent cabinet meeting.  He wore a t-shirt with what appeared to be a long coat (sports jacket?) over it.  Anyway, enough about that.

Here's a question - as a deal had not yet been signed by the two leaders, why was there an informal press conference?  Why was the media there?  Isn't the usual procedure to make the deal first, then have either a formal joint press conference, or an informal one such as the one we saw?  Why didn't that happen?  Why didn't these discussions occur behind closed doors, before going in front of the media?  I know that many on the Left believe it was a set-up, an ambush.  Unfortunately, arranging this get together backwards could lend credence to that idea.  And so could VP Vance's unwarranted attack on Zelenskyy.

But let's back up.  It is no secret that many of the world's countries are in search of these rare earth minerals, such as lithium and cobalt.  After all, they are components in many technological devices, such as electric batteries, electric vehicles and solar panels.  And given how Trump, and much of America, views China, we don't want to have to depend on the Chinese for these minerals.  Especially if we end up in armed conflict with China.  Unfortunately, while the US has oil and gas, we are lacking in these minerals.

Zelenskyy's focus was on getting "security guarantees."  It was a mistake.  Trump was not about to commit to sending US troops to Ukraine.  And Trump did not want to keep spending US taxpayers' dollars for a war that might continue for another 3 years, or more.  The US spent over $2 trillion in Afghanistan.  While not even securing a victory.  I cannot imagine that Zelenskyy would not know Trump's position on endless wars.  Nonetheless, Zelenskyy pushed for "guarantees."  He explained how Russia had violated countless agreements previously.  And, of course, he was right about that.  

We can go back to the December, 1994 "Budapest Memorandum."  That was when three former Soviet Republics, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, agreed to give up their nuclear weapons.  In exchange, the UK, France, the US and Russia, all signed off on "security assurances" for those former SSR's.  But that did not stop Putin from doing what he wanted - to reestablish the Soviet Union.  He wants those former Soviet Republics back.  He has said so publicly.  The 1994 "security assurance" signed by Russia meant nothing to him.  Nor would any current peace agreement mean anything to him.  So Zelenskyy's concerns are reasonable.

But where did Zelenskyy go wrong?  Trump wanted the deal for those rare earth minerals.  Reasonable people can argue about whether or not Trump was taking advantage by asking for a 50% interest in the future development of those minerals.  And maybe it requires US investment for Ukraine to be able access those minerals for their own benefit.  Once the USA had that ownership interest, once Ukraine had an agreement to jointly harvest those minerals with the USA, that's about as good a security agreement as anyone could get.  After all, Russia would have to think twice about further incursions into Ukraine, if it meant harming interests of the United States.  We want those rare earth minerals, and I have little doubt that any president would make it clear that we will protect our interests.  That is the security guarantee.  The best that Zelenskyy could get.

 Having said that, Vance was also wrong.  Zelenskyy explained how Russia had violated every agreement.  Vance said that Biden talked tough, but that did not stop Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine.  So now it was time for Trump's diplomacy.  Zelenskyy erred again by asking what kind of diplomacy, given all the failed efforts previously.  Vance already had no love for Ukraine.  Vance replied that it was "disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media."  Vance had also claimed, incorrectly, that Zelenskyy had expressed no gratitude to the United States.  He had many times previously, and even earlier in the meeting.  

I agree with the assessment of the Wall Street Journal as to what should have happened next:  "Mr. Zelenskyy would have been wiser to defuse the tension by thanking the U.S. again, and deferring to Mr. Trump."  Instead, when Trump spoke up after Vance, Zelenskyy tried to speak over him.  He tried to keep arguing his case for security guarantees.  That was a mistake.  And one that led Trump to say:  "You either make a deal or we're out."  Later that day, Zelenskyy appeared on Fox News with Bret Baier.  When asked by Baier if he should apologize, he replied that he did not do anything wrong.  Foolish.  Even if he believes that, an apology can be in order when the other party has been offended.  Especially when you want billions of dollars from that party.   

During this meeting, Trump again said that he supports NATO, but that he wants the European countries to step up their contributions.  As they should.  Especially with regards to Ukraine, which is in their backyard.  The US cannot keep sending armaments to Ukraine if we are depleting our own supplies.  It was clear from Trump's comments that he believed a deal had been made.  But as someone who has also made deals his entire career, I have never believed that I had a deal until it was signed off on by all the parties involved.   

I do not believe that Trump wants to see Ukraine fall to Russia.  Zelenskyy should have his ambassador to the US (you may have noticed her holding her head in her hands as the conversation turned ugly) contact Secretary of State Rubio, and tell him that Zelenskyy would like to apologize to Trump.  And ask if Trump will take his call.  And if Trump wants a public apology, Zelenskyy should do so.  Otherwise, I'm afraid that Zelenskyy is not as smart as I thought he was.    

Ukraine, Part VI

To make matters worse, I think it was Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth who said that Ukraine will not get all their territory back, and will not be allowed to become a member of NATO.  Why would any of that ever be said out loud before the signing of a peace deal?  That does not sound like "peace through strength."  But it does sound like peace at any cost - in other words, appeasement of our enemy, Russia.  

When I first heard some of these comments by Trump, I thought of a post I wrote the first year of the blog, called "Fools, Liars and Thieves," written on 12/12/09.  I gave quotes from 2 former presidents about war.  First, Jimmy Carter:  "War may sometimes be a necessary evil.  But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good."  I strongly disagreed with Carter.  WWII was fought by the US and our Allies in order to defeat Nazism and totalitarianism - threats to the entire world.  It may be tragic that the war had to be fought, but it was definitely not evil.

Hitler was evil for starting that war, for invading other countries.  For causing the Holocaust.  But there was nothing evil about the Allies fighting back.  I contrasted Carter's remarks with those of Teddy Roosevelt.  Roosevelt:  "Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy."

"To further the ends of despotism."  That is certainly what Trump's words have sounded like.  None of them sound like "peace through strength."  It sounded like peace at any cost; akin to Biden's exit from Afghanistan at any cost.  Trump's comments even sounded like Neville Chamberlain's "peace for our time," after he ceded the Sudetenland to Hitler in the Munich Agreement.  Chamberlain's actions probably constituted the most well known case of "appeasement" of a totalitarian dictatorship in the 20th century.  It was the opposite of "peace through strength."  Winston Churchill called it "a total and unmitigated defeat."  Of course, Churchill was correct, as after the Munich Agreement the Nazis very quickly continued their aggressive invasion of other countries.      

So what is going on?  Has Trump really given up on "peace through strength?"  Is he really willing to sell out Ukraine, a friend and ally of the US.  I wish that Zelenskyy had not publicly responded to Trump's comments.  Trump has proven on multiple occasions that he has somewhat of a thin skin.  If he is verbally attacked, he escalates.  

The Wall Street Journal's lead editorial of 2/20/25, about Ukraine, started with this sentence:  "One challenge in the Trump era is distinguishing when the President is popping off for attention from when his remarks indicate a real change in policy and priorities."  They expressed their concern that "President Trump's rhetorical assault on Ukraine in recent days appears to be the latter, and perhaps it is a sign of an ugly settlement to come."

Perhaps.  I suppose that cannot be ruled out.  But in discussing this issue with a friend, he reminded me that Trump often has something else at play.  Some plan, which may not be immediately apparent.  When he made his Gaza comments, did he really mean that the US would take over Gaza?  Or was it his way of telling the Arab world that they need to figure out how to get rid of Hamas, or Trump will let Israel level Gaza?

So, for now, I remain concerned.  I hope that Zelenskyy refrains from further negative comments about Trump.  And I hope that Trump realizes that Ukraine is a friend, and that Putin/Russia are mortal enemies.  And I hope that Trump has something up his proverbial sleeve, the likes of which I have not yet been able to ascertain.