Operation Epic Fury - Part II

So, who is in favor and who is opposed to this attack on Iran?  The friend mentioned in Part I argued that Trump should have obtained Congressional approval.  There is no chance the Democrats would agree to that.  First, they literally hate Trump.  Second, there is no way they would give Trump what would be perceived as a victory, with the midterms coming up later this year.  Does that mean the President can avoid the Constitution?  No.  But there is still the 1973 War Powers resolution, as well as the 2002 AUMF used by Obama, Biden and now Trump.  And, to be clear, I believe all recent Presidents argued that the War Powers Resolution was an uncontitutional limit on the powers of the Commander in Chief.

Here was former VP Kamala Harris, and possible 2028 presidential candidate, in opposing this operation:  "Let me be clear - I am opposed to a regime change war in Iran."  California Governor, and obvious 2028 presidential candidate, Gavin Newsom, was also opposed.  While agreeing that the Iranian regime must go, Newsom qualified his remarks by saying:  "But that does not justify the President of the United States engaging in an illegal, dangerous war that will risk the lives of of our American service members and our friends without justification to the American people."

As much as I hate to say it, I agree with Newsom on one thing.  Once the attack started, Trump should have immediately addressed the nation from the Oval Office.  Given all the attacks by Iran and their proxies on the United States, not to mention Iran's continued development of enriched uranium and long range missiles, all in order to destroy what they refer to as the "Great Satan" (the United States), that speech could write itself.  Did no one in the White House advise him to do that?  Because the polls are not in his favor (see below).  Given all of the above, I am supposed to believe that the threat from Iran is not imminent?  It's been imminent and continuing ever since 1979.

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez claimed that "this war is unlawful.  It is unnecessary,  And it will be catastrophic."  Then she claimed that Iran was negotiating with us and an agreement would have "staved off war."  Is she kidding?  Iran has been "negotiating" with the Europeans and the the US since 2003!  The entire time they were developing nuclear facilities and then enriching uranium.  It was a ruse.  A stalling tactic.  Feign interest.  They would never adhere to any deal.  

PA. Governor Josh Shapiro agreed that Iran could never be allowed to get nukes.  But he called Trump's actions "Illegal and dangerous."  House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (who will be the next Speaker if the Dems take the House in November) said Trump was involving us in another endless war in the Middle East "that is going to end in failure."

When these people say the war is "dangerous," aren't all wars by their very nature dangerous?  Does that mean we never enter into a war?  I'm not sure I understand the point.  And for Cortez to say the result will be "catastrophic," and Jeffries to say that it will end in "failure,"...these comments might not meet the legal definition of treason, but they certainly lend support to our enemy and serve to undermine our troops.  

There were 3 recent polls - Reuters/Ipsos and CNN/SSRS, and the latest one from Fox.  The Reuters poll had only 27% approving of the attack on Iran, with 43% disapproving and almost 30% unsure.  By party, Republicans approved with 55%, only 19% of Independents approved and a mere 7% of Democrats approved.  With the CNN poll, 41% approved and 59% disapproved.  83% of Republicans felt that Trump had a clear plan, but 88% of Democrats disagreed and 70% of independents disagreed.  The most current poll is the Fox poll, with 50% approving and 50% disapproving.  That's not surprising to me.  As Americans, we want to support our troops when they are in harms way, fighting for us.  But, we also now that if the fighting becomes prolonged, support will likely wane.     

Operation Epic Fury - Part I

(Note.  Ever since the first year of the blog, I have been writing about what to do about Iran and their desire to acquire nuclear weapons.  For those interested in getting some history on the topic, here are some of the posts I have written.  Posted 11/26/09 (the day the blog started, but written on 9/26/09) - "Iranian Nukes."  2/21/10 - "Iranian Nukes, Part II."  3/11/12 - "What To Do About Iran?'  9/13/15 - "And Yet More Comments on the Iranian Nuclear Deal."  6/21/25 - "Iranian Nukes Revisted, Parts I, II & III."  All posts are still up on the blog.)  

Over the weekend, the United States and Israel began "Operation Epic Fury."  Before doing so, President Trump gave Iran the opportunity to give up the development of nuclear fuel.  They refused.  One question raised by some (mostly those opposed to the attack) is whether or not the President has the authority to unilaterally engage in such military action.  Law Professor Jonathan Turleys discussed the legalities in an article on Fox.  We know from the Constitution that the President is the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy (per Article 2 Section 2, and there was no air force at the time).  

But Article I Section 8 says that Congress has the power to declar war.  Yet, the United States has fought many wars since WWII (the last time war was actually declared).  However, Congress has passed various measures regarding the use of military force by the President.  These resolutions are often referred to as an "AUMF" - authorization for the use of military force.  Recall the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, authorizing LBJ to use and expand military force in southeast Asia, even though the resolution did not include a decalration of war.  

There is the well known 1973 War Powers Resolution.  That resolution allowed a President to use military force, but with conditions.  The President must report to Congress within 48 hours of instituting any military action.  (It appears Trump did notify the so-called Gang of Eight.  These are the leaders in the House and Senate from both parties, along with the leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees.)  The 1973 Resolution also states that military action must end within 60 days absent Congressional approval of an extension.  

But can the President just decide on any military action anywhere?  The Resolution provides for authority to the President to deal with "hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances."  In debating this requirement with a friend, he said he didn't see it.  I said I clearly see it.  Starting with the taking of Americans hostage in 1979-1980, and contiuing with the killing and kidnapping of Americans directly by Iran, or by their proxies Hamas and Hezbollah.  When do we say it's enough already.  

What about the 1983 killing of 241 U.S. military members in Lebanon by Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy.  Most were Marines.  But President Reagan took no real action to avenge that attack.  Instead, he withdrew our forces from Lebanon.  It is estimated that Iran, either directly or through their proxies, has killed over 1000 Americans.  And let's not forget that on October 7, 2023, Iran's proxy Hamas, invaded Israel, and in the process killed and kidnapped American citizens.  So, just when do we say it's enough?  What about the attacks on US military bases situated throughout the Middle East?  Again, when is it enough?  Are the threats to our military forces imminent?  Of course they are, because Iran has never stopped since the 1979 revolution.

In 2011, President Obama did not bother to ask Congress for an AUMF before going into Libya.  Nor did President Clinton get an AUMF for the actions he took in Bosnia.   In 2001, Congress did pass an AUMF, which allowed the President to take action against those responsible for the 9-11 attacks, and for the purpose of preventing future terrorist attacks.  In 2002, Congress did pass another AUMF, which authorized the President to use necessary and appropriate force in order to defend the US against the ongoing threats from Iraq.   

Another Personal Post (On Doing Good)

(Note.   For those missing my political posts, I will get back to those shortly.  This post has a religious element to it.  As readers know, I do not generally delve into religious matters.  But, if you bear with me, and read through to the end, I think you will see how the issue I discuss can apply to anyone, religious or not.  What follows is an email that I sent to my Rabbi at Chabad.  I give my further thoughts at the end.)

"Rabbi, I have a story and was wondering about your take on it.  In our temporary residence (since the tree fell onto our house) we have met a few neighbors.  Next door to us is a couple, and we have spoken to the wife a few times.  She explained that her husband had a stroke quite a few years ago, and suffers from aphasia.  On multiple occasions we've seen him sitting at a table in the front of their garage and just looking out while listening to music.  We've only been here a little over two weeks, but I never saw any of the other neighbors sitting with him.

Yesterday, I asked him if he would like company and he pointed to a chair for me to sit down.  I then sat with him for about 45-60 minutes.  There was some conversation.  Not a whole lot.  But at times he was smiling and even laughing.  I don't bring this up because I am looking for praise.  I am not.  But I remember what it was like when I was a kid, having severe orthopedic problems.  Not always being able to get out of bed or walk.  And I remember the people who visited me.  None of my guy friends did.  

But two girls I was friendly with did visit me.  One was from the neighborhood, and one I knew from school.  And my friend's Mom would come up and talk to me.  Maybe the boys just did not know how to deal with it, or what to say to me.  But, as someone who has 'been there,' I had no reluctance sitting with this neighbor who suffered a terrible stroke.  Then it got me thinking afterwards.  I recalled a passage in the book 'Rebbe' by Rabbi Telushkin.  If I recall correctly, the Rebbe was walking with his assistant back to 770 (770 Eastern Parkway is the location of the Chabad headquarters), when a man stopped them on the street and wanted the Rebbe's advice.  

The assistant shooed the man away, saying the Rebbe was very busy and he would have to make an appointment.  Later, the Rebbe corrected his assistant, telling him never to do that again.  Said the Rebbe:  'What if I was put on this earth to help that man at that moment?  What if that was my mission from G-d?'  Then I thought, what if my mission was to sit with my neighbor?  But for that to happen the tree had to crash into our house, or we never would have ended up next to these people.  Did G-d do all this?  How do we ever know?"  

So, that is what I sent to my Rabbi.  Unfotunately, he never addressed the issue.  I understand how busy the Rabbis are.  Since sending the above, I have sat with my neighbor additional times.  And there have been times when I had to run an errand, but as he sees me about to get into my car, he waves for me to sit with him.  I enjoy sitting with him.  We like the same music for the most part.  Sometimes he sings along.  I told him if I sang along the entire neighborhood would leave.  

But, on the serious issue that has intrigued me...You need not believe in G-d to realize that throughout our lives circumstances arise, giving us an opportunity to do good, or to just walk on by.  The Chabad Rabbis do not believe in coincidences.  Which would certainly explain why the Rebbe might think that his mission might have been to help that man at that moment.  I thought to myself, "what a profound way of thinking."  My job and my family kept me plenty busy for decades.  I'm sure if I could look back in time and see the opportunities for doing good that I missed, I would be deeply embarrassed.  

I can't do anything about missed opportunities.  But I can try to do better from now on.  

A Personal Post (On Retirement, Growing Older and Mortality), Part II

I understood when speaking with others about these topics, that for most people work was their mission in life.  It occupied most of their time.  And most had families to support.  I was interested in knowing if people had adopted a different mission once they retired.  Another person I spoke with said he had no mission.  Yet another was very clear about his mission:  "Enjoy myself and spend every dime I have and leave nothing behind."  

As for me, my Mom always said that I was not happy unless I had 10 things going on at once.  Several people I spoke with are in quite good physical shape.  I'd say most are in better shape than I am.  I never thought about it much while I was working.  But being retired, I find that I am somewhat jealous of those who can engage in multiple physical activities.  Frankly, I'd be happy, no - ecstatic, if I was simply able to stand erect and walk without pain.  

So, do I have a mission absent work?  I do.  Writing the blog will continue to be one of my missions.  I will continue to defend Israel, the Jewish people and conservative American values.  I have not yet decided on expanding the reach of the blog.  I have thought about writing letters to the editor of some of the leftwing papers (I recently wrote one which was not published), and even submitting longer Op-Ed pieces (even though I know that most of those printed are by well known people).   

I have been used to getting up in the morning at 6 a.m. for decades.  Now, I can allow myself to go back to sleep.  Or, if I get up and have breakfast, I can allow myself a nap afterwards if I am tired.  I eat my breakfast sitting on my recliner and watching TV.  Either the news or a show.  I have my morning coffee after breakfast.  But I made the decision to not drink my coffee while sitting on the recliner and watching more TV.  That seemed like a very bad habit to get into.  Instead, I am at my desk reading or talking to friends.

Not directly related, but a few years ago I mentioned to my oldest daughter that I had been to Barnes & Noble and purchased a book on one of my favorite topics (it was about the U.S. Constitution).  When I asked her to guess what it might be, with her very dry, and wry, delivery she said:  "What - talking?"  It's okay.  I can take the dig.  Besides, she wasn't wrong.  Whereas one friend said he has tried to reestablish relations with old acquaintances, but only by text or email, I definitely prefer the human interaction of speaking with people.  Will I make reaching out to people from my past one of my missions?  I don't know.  I guess I'd have to get myself on Facebook first.   

While virtually everyone in their seventies is aware of mortality, I found that most do not dwell on it.  One expressed an idea that I suspect most grandparents have.  "Will I be around to see my grandson graduate from high school?  From college?"  And:  "How will my kids and grandson feel without me around?"  And I would add:  "Will they remember me (for grandkids), and will they think of me often?"  I frequently quote some of the funny lines my Dad used to say, such as:  "Stay single, and your pockets will jingle."  

One friend described having no mission, saying he takes it one day at a time.  He thinks about his mortality indirectly.  Such as:  "Is this going to be my last car?"  And:  "Should I replace that water heater."  Another friend said he doesn't really think about mortality much.  He is spiritually oriented and is a "very strong believer."  But he does not believe in ultimate mortality, as he believes the soul continues on.  

Another friend had a very realistic thought about mortality:  "I don't feel I'm entitled to live even one more day."  And:  "I don't pretend I have even one more week."  Not because of anything bad he has done, but because he understands that death can come suddenly, and at any time.  He went on to say that while he is agnostic, "I want to believe there is a G-d."  And, as a former law enforcement officer, having seen the worst of humanity, he "does not wish to be in a heaven with child molesters." 

As for me, I certainly hope to have a much longer life.  But I also understand there are no guarantees.  My biggest concern about retirement?  It goes back to what my Mom said about needing to have 10 things going on at once to be happy.  My biggest concern is being bored.  Don't get me wrong.  I have plenty of hobbies and interests.  And I plan on attending religious services more often.  And going to classes at Chabad.  And I have the blog.  But will all that fill up my days?  Or, will I become bored?  For now, at least, less than 2 weeks into my real retirement, I am loving it.           

A Personal Post (On Retirement, Growing Older and Mortality), Part I

I retired effective 11/30/25.  But I had to keep the office through 12/31/25 in order to dispose of the furniture, file cabinets, electronics and accumulated stuff.  So, the planned full retirement date was 12/31/25.  Except, that pesky tree decided to crash into our house on 12/24/25.  Then we were in a hotel for five weeks.  We finally moved into a temporary rental on 1/28/26, and after a week of resting and getting organized, we are now finally retired.  Which got me to thinking about the subjects listed in the title of this post.  

I retired last year for two reasons.  My wife, who worked with me, wanted us to retire by age 75, which she is now, and I will be in several months.  The other reason is that my lifelong orthopedic problems got worse with age, and I found it increasingly difficult to keep up with the workload.  With regards to the topics in this post, I decided to talk to others who had retired, and were in their 70's.  I also emailed my Rabbi.  And I read some excerpts in the book "Rebbe," about Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who was the last leader of the Chabad Lubavitch branch of Judaism (from 1951 until his death in 1994).  The book is by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, and is filled with the wisdom of the Rebbe.  It is a worthwhile read by people of all religions.   

When you see Chabad Houses all over the country and even all over the world, that is substantially because of the efforts of the Rebbe.  The Rebbe was widely considered to be the most influential Rabbi of the 20th century.  But back to the topic.  When he turned 70, some people advised the Rebbe to slow down.  He was known to work, and consult with others seeking guidance, late into the night and into the next morning.  He replied that not only would he not retire, he would set himself a goal of opening 70 new Chabad Houses.  The Rebbe:  "I don't understand that word 'retirement.'  It's not in my vocabulary."  And:  "How can a person even think of retiring from life?"

One friend in his seventies has been retired for nine years, and described retirement as "one of the best periods of my life."  He is basically healthy, but a couple of years ago needed a heart surgery.  He has always been physically active.  In retirement, he increased his outdoor activities.  He also does more reading and more traveling.  He has renewed acquaintances with people he has known, via text and email.  He does not enjoy talking with others as much as some (I) do.  

I asked people if they had experienced a change in their spirituality.  And, if work had been their "mission" in life until retirement, if they had a new mission.  This individual advised he started Torah study classes.  When asked if he had a new mission, he replied:  "Become a better, wiser, more giving person.  Have deep, honest, loving, supportive relationships with my family and friends."  He relayed that, with retirement, he lost much of his sense of competitiveness, intensity and ambition.

Another friend is semi-retired.  He sees old age as a good time of life, except for the health issues.  With regards to having a mission, it is to spend more time in Israel.  Two of his kids live there.  And he simply has a better feeling being there, in the Holy Land.  He also said that he is "spiritually oriented," and is a "very strong believer."   

Another friend found that he enjoys walking and doing jigsaw puzzles.  He has lunch with friends, goes to concerts, watches TV (and likes to watch sports - which I happen to know).  He has his share of health problems, but basically feels good.  As for having a mission, he says he takes it one day at a time.  

Another friend, has not been that thrilled in retirement.  He did not describe having many hobbies.  But he does some work for the attorney who took over his practice.  And he is doing more reading.  He likes walking his dog (a big beautiful dog).  And helps his kids by watching the grandkids.  Otherwise, he did not express having any other particular mission.   

I absolutely loved my Rabbi's idea of retirement:  "As long as we have life, we have a mission.  We never retire from our mission in this world."  If your mission was work, understandable for most of us, did anything replace that mission in retirement?  The Jewish people, of course, understand that G-d gave us a mission - to be a light unto the nations.  

(More on this topic, mortality and my take in Part II.)     

What's Wrong With Trump?

I see just how many people suffer from TDS - Trump Derangement Syndrome.  So, let's take a look at what's wrong with Trump.

He secured our border.  A border that Biden left wide open for anyone to cross.  That includes criminals, terrorists, drug traffickers, etc.  Now, the Senate Democrats are holding up funding for DHS and ICE because why?  They prefer that violent criminals be allowed to roam the streets of our country, rather than round them up and deport them?  Or, do they simply want as many as possible to stay and vote, on the assumption that they will vote Democratic?

He got the hostages home.  I'm not sure what the complaint about that would be, but I am sure some leftists must think that was terrible.  Because it showed support for our ally, Israel.  

With the aid of Israel, Trump took out Iran's nuclear program.  It was a bold move to be sure.  And Iran insists that they will continue to enrich uranium.  But how far back did the strike on their nuclear facilities set them?  Long enough, hopefully for the people to topple the tyrannical regime of the mullahs.  Trump has sent major military assets to the region.  He told the Iranian people that help was on the way.  Will he intervene?  

Iranian forces have killed tens of thousands of their own citizens; people on the streets seeking to gain freedom.  Where is the Hollywood crowd?  Where are the Leftists?  As we Jews like to say:  "No Jews, no news."  Unless Jews can be blamed the leftwing crowd is not interested.  Just like Nigeria, where radical Muslim groups have been slaughtering Nigerian Christians.  No Jews involved, so the Left does not care.  But Trump cared.  He ordered strikes on these Islamist terrorist groups.  And, make no mistake - Trump's attack on Iran demonstrated to our enemies that the US remains the supreme power in the world.

Trump has not only been bolstering our military.  Increased funding.  Created the Space Force.  Paid a "warrior dividend" to our troops.  He was able to get NATO to agree to have the member countries contribute 5% of their GDP (by 2035) to defense spending - an increase from the previous 2% requirement.  Because the threats to the West are real and growing.

Trump established the Abraham Accords.  Originally between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain.  Later Sudan and Morocco joined.  Now Kazakhstan has joined.  But I know why the Left does not approve.  Because it has nothing to do with the "Palestinians."  But Trump saw that the Palestinians refused peace time and again.  Therefore, why not bring peace to the wider Arab world, with Israel?  Why not, indeed.  It was brilliant.

A senior Hamas leader, Khaled Mashaal, just reiterated their refusal to comply with Trump's plan for Gaza.  They will not give up their weapons.  They will not agree to any foreign intervention.  This is the same playbook they have used for 100 years.  Their only goal is to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews.  Their last effort, on 10/7/23, ended up destroying much of Gaza.  But they still do not care.  Mashaal:  "As long as there is occupation, there is resistance."  But Israel left Gaza in 2005.  What he and Hamas mean by "occupation" is the land of Israel.  They refuse to accept Israel.  While other countries are flourishing with increased trade and other benefits from having relations with Israel, Hamas has zero interest in improving the lives of the people of Gaza.  It's just "kill the Jews."  No matter how many Gazans die in the process.  

Trump had various Latin American drug cartels designated as "foreign terrorist organizations."  This allows the government enhanced abilities (legal, financial, military) to counter these cartels.  He had Nicolas Maduro arrested.  Maduro had already been indicted in the US as a drug trafficker.  The capture and arrest of Maduro also demonstrated to the world that the US is back.  

So what is wrong with Trump?  In terms of policy, not much.  What he says is another matter.  I wish he had not said he wanted to make Canada our 51st state, which only served to insult our northern neighbors.  I wish he had not mentioned the possibility of taking Greenland by force.  But make no mistake - Trump understands the strategic importance of Greenland.  Not just for their rare earth minerals.  But for the sea lanes through which enemy ships and submarines might travel.  But Trump, don't threaten them.  Make a deal that leaves everyone satisfied, without having to take over the land.  

So what is wrong with Trump.  Not much, if he would keep his mouth shut at least half of the time.  Most of the time?  

And Elsewhere In The News (Some Quick Hits)

Nicolas Maduro.  He had already been indicted in the US in 2020 for drug trafficking, narco-terrorism, money laundering and corruption.  So Trump had US forces arrest him.  Good.  Both sides of the political spectrum here already agreed that he stole the last election in Venezuela.  

Muslim terrorist.  This terrorist was just sentenced to life in prison for plotting to hijack a US plane and fly it into the 55 story Bank of America tower in Atlanta.  This terrorist was part of al-Shabaab, a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda.  Thank you to the FBI.

California.  According to the NY Post, California's non-partisan auditor said there were eight state agencies at "high risk" for "waste, fraud, abuse or mismanagement."  These agencies also failed to take "adequate corrective actions," per the auditor.  Yay, California.  Newsom for president!

Nigeria.  Nobody in the Western world and the Western media seems to care very much about the slaughter of Christians by Islamic terrorists in Nigeria.  Nobody except Donald Trump.  Trump ordered what the AP described as a "powerful and deadly" strike against the terrorists.  IS in Nigeria is thought to be part of the terrorist group Boko Haram.  Our Secretary of Defense thanked the Nigerian government for their support and cooperation.  Although, shouldn't they be thanking us?

The Heritage Foundation.  The conservative think tank is continuing their downhill slide, as the leaders of three of their departments bolted.  They went over to former VP Mike Pence's Advancing American Freedom Foundation.  The Heritage Foundation has been losing people and support ever since the president of Heritage refused to condemn Tucker Carlson for hosting a Holocaust denier and a Jew hater.  Said Pence:  "They (the ones who left Heritage) see us as being a consistent, reliable home for Reagan conservatism."  Personally, I always liked Pence.  

VP JD Vance.  "Let me be clear.  Anyone who attacks my wife (Usha Vance), whether their name is Jen Psaki or Nick Fuentes, can eat shit."  Good for you, Mr. VP.  Good for you.  But then I'm confused.  Why did you make an excuse for Tucker Carlson in his feud with Ben Shapiro?  Vance, at the Turning Point USA Conference:  "President Trump did not build the greatest coalition in politics by running his supporters through endless, self-defeating purity tests."  So, if Carlson hosts Nick Fuentes (he did), and doesn't challenge Fuentes' antisemitism, that's because we don't want to put him through a purity test.  But if Fuentes condemns your wife for her ethnic background, now we can run the purity test?

C'mon Mr. VP - be consistent.  Condemn Fuentes for his attacks on Jews, and Carlson for hosting him, just like you condemn Fuentes when the attack is on your wife's ethnic background.