Just Another Antisemite

(Note.  I had planned on this post being about the war with Iran.  But this one is intervening, because a conservative friend sent me an Instagram post of a guy (I'm reluctant to give his name as I don't want to participate in giving him more hits) who put up a video of Israelis - kids and adults - spitting on and hitting a woman that the guy describes as a Christian.  The discussion follows.)

Needless to say the video was disturbing.  What this Instagram poster does not tell his viewers is that these perpetrators were condemned by Israeli officials and Rabbis.  I know that my Rabbis at Chabad would also condemn the behavior seen on the video.  As would every Jew that I know.  Instead, this antisemite concludes that "Jews are just as filthy and grimy as camel humpers."  

He then says that Jews don't even believe in Jesus.  No, we don't.  And he repeats what some Christians believe - that those who do not believe in Jesus will not get into heaven.  As an outsider to Christianity, that sounds an awful lot like Islamists who insist that you must believe in Allah or else.  Jews do not demand that others believe as we do.  Then, he goes for what he thinks is the jugular - Jews think we are better than other people because we think we are the chosen people.   

Here is my rebuttal.. Let's start with the video.  As I said, it is disturbing.  I would ask this poster if any Christians ever misbehave.  If they ever commit crimes, including rape and murder.  Obviously they do.  Following this guy's reasoning, should we then conclude that all Christians are "filthy and grimy?"  The only way to reach such a conclusion is that either you are a child lacking in the ability to reason, or an antisemite looking for any reason to condemn all the Jewish people.  He is not a child, so...that leaves antisemite.  I've said it many times before - whether antisemitism comes from the Right, the Left or Radical Islam, it's all bad.  In this instance, it comes from the Right.    

As for comparing Jews to Arabs (whom he calls camel humpers), let's take a quick look.  Because he uses the video as evidence that Jews mistreat Christians.  Over the last 50 years, where have Christians thrived in the Middle East?  Iraq?  An estimated 1 million to 1.4 million in the 1980's is now down to 150,000 to 300,000.  No doubt war was a factor.  But ISIS was also, destroying Christian holy sites and murdering Christians.  No surprise that Christians fled.

How about Syria?  Again, a decrease in population from about 1.5 million Christians in the 1970's to 300,000 to 500,000 today.  Why?  With the all the fighting, civil war and the increasing influence of Islamists, Christians fled when they were able.

Lebanon?  Had been a majority Christian country.  Again, a civil war.  Again, Islamists (Hezbollah) taking control of the country.  Again, Christians had to flee.  Now, Christians may make up a third of the population.  How about Nigeria?  While not an Arab country, it has seen the growth of radical Islamists, such as Boko Haram.  And one estimate has over 50,000 Christians being murdered between 2009 and 2023.  

What about Israel?  Given how badly Jews treat Christians according to this Instagram poster (I really do not want to call him an influencer), how much has the Christian population of Israel decreased over the last 50 years?  In the 1970's there were approximately 75,000 Christians in Israel.  As of 2023 there were approximately 185,000 Christians in Israel.  Wait...what?  The Christian population of Israel actually grew by nearly 150%.  How is that possible if Israelis so mistreat Christians?  The answer is Christians are free to practice their religion in Israel.  But this poster took a few bad apples to support his obvious antisemitism.

Let's talk about the "chosen people."  In the Torah (also accepted by Christians) G-d tells Abram (later known as Abraham) to "go to a land that I will show you."  He directs Abram to the land of Canaan (which ends up being the land of Israel).  G-d makes a covenant with Abram and his descendants - the people who will become the Jewish people.  And G-d tells Abram "I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse, and all the families of the earth shall be blessed in you."  This poster who claims to be a Christian does not seem to know that Christians accept that G-d made a covenant with the Jewish people.

But what does it mean to be "chosen?"  No, it does not mean that Jews are better than others.  We are all G-d's children.  Jews were actually chosen to fulfill G-d's mission here on earth - to be a "light unto the nations."  To bring monotheism into a world that celebrated pagan gods.  And Jews did.  Jews were to bring justice and righteousness into the world.  And we did.  Just think of all of our laws that are based upon the teachings of the Torah, and other Jewish texts such as the Talmud.  Does this mean Jews are perfect?  Obviously not, as perfection does not exist on earth.  

But Jews understand that we were given a burden by G-d - to fulfill his commandments.  And, I'd say the Jewish people have done a pretty good job.  Not perfect, but pretty good.     

(Final note.  There is no room in this post, without it going on forever, to discuss the many ways that Israel has been one of the most, if not the most, stalwart ally of the United States.  Nor is there room to discuss the numerous scientific, medical and technological advances the Jewish people have made to the world.  Just one example - Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin - two men responsible for eradicating polio.  So, this antisemite discussed above can go...you know.)   

"Republicans see hate as a strategy," so says the LA Times

Technically, it was not a Times editorial.  Rather, it was an Op-Ed by Robin Abcarian in the Sunday, March 22, 2026 edition.  But I am familiar enough with the Times to know that their Op-Ed writers are overwhelmingly leftwing.  If the Times felt differently, there would be far more balance in their news articles and Op-Eds.  So, as far as I am concerned, the Times is speaking through these leftwing Op-Ed writers.

Abcarian:  "Who can white people blame now for their woes?  Hey, I know!  How about Muslims?  The election of New York City's first Muslim mayor, a democratic socialist, along with Trump's poorly thought-out war on Iran, has given the bigots in his party a new bogeyman..."  There is so much to discuss in that one paragraph.  But, before I get there, here is Abcarian's proof of her thesis.

Senator Tommy Tuberville:  "The enemy is inside the gates."  Representative Andy Ogles:  "Muslims don't belong in American society."  Representative Randy Fine:  "We need more Islamophobia, not less.  Fear of Islm is rational."  And a Georgia state senator:  "Keep Georgia sharia free."  

So much to discuss (unpack in today's vernacular) in those two short paragraphs.  "White people?"  That sounds racist.  Are all white people the same?  Do all white people feel a need to blame someone?  For what?  Yes, Mamdani was the first Muslim elected to be mayor of NYC.  So what?  Conservatives do not believe in identity politics.  We believe in good values, in American values not socialism, and oppose antisemitism.  As for the quotes from elected officials?  I will assume for this discussion that she is accurately quoting them, and not taking them out of context.  I would make one modification:  "radical Muslims," and therefore "radical Islam."  (The discussion regarding "Trump's poorly thought-out war on Iran" will be covered in the next post, in connection with an editorial in the 3/22/2026 NY Times.)

So let's talk about Mamdani.  I've said much of this in prior posts, but it bears repeating as the assertion by Abcarian is that Republicans hate Mamdani because he is a Muslim.  Speaking for myself, I hate him because I believe he is an antisemite.  (I've said the same about Tucker Carlson, who, as far as I know is a Christian and not a Muslim.)  I also believe he hates America.  Mamdani refused to condemn the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on 10/7/23.  (He may have done so much later for political purposes.)  Men, women and children brutally raped and murdered.  Americans in Israel murdered and kidnapped.  The worst massacre of the Jewish people since the Holocaust, and Mamdani could not bring himself to issue an immediate condemnation.

What else has Mamdani done?  He refused to condemn the genocidal phrase "globalize the intifada," yet ironically accused Israel of genocide.  Clearly genocide by his fellow Muslims against Jews does not concern him.  He reversed orders of Mayor Adams that: prevented city agencies from supporting BDS (the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement against Israel); used the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of antisemitsm; and Mamdani removed extra security around synagogues in NYC.  Then, we have his willingness to order the NYPD to arrest Israeli P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu if he enters NYC.  How about arresting Putin for starting two wars against Ukraine, and targeting so many civilians?

Mamdani's wife is an equally detestable person.  After 10/7, she "liked" various posts.  One approved of "resisting apartheid since 1948."  After 2000 years, Israel again became a country in 1948.  What apartheid in 1948?  Israel was immediately attacked by the Arab world in an effort to eliminate the brand new country and kill all the Jews.  She approved of the false allegations that Hamas terrorists did not rape and sexually mutilate Israelis, calling it a "hoax."  She also approved of posts saying that "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free."  From the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea is what that phrase means.  It also means there would be no more Israel.  And, to clarify, there was never an actual country called Palestine. 

But, Abcarian did not see fit to mention even one of the antisemitic, and anti-American, words and actions by the Mayor and his wife.  Because isn't it so much easier to just accuse white Republicans of being bigots.  I'll say it:  Sharia law has no place in American society.  Unless you believe in the subjugation of women and lack of religious freedom.  Fear of radical Islam is rational.  The FBI just announced that the recent attack on the largest synagogue in Michigan was, in fact, a terrorist attack inspired by the radical Islamist group Hezbollah.  Just one of many recent attacks on Americans by radical Islamists.  So that fear is quite rational.  

And what does Abcarian's article say about the Los Angeles Times?  What does it say about a newspaper that sees no problem in allowing an Op-Ed to be published when that article has such glaring omissions of such salient facts?  I think it is just another example of why the mainstream media is so untrustworthy.  And why Trump rightfully calls them the "fake news media."

A Few Observations (The Democrats and National Security) - Part II

In Part I, I reviewed the Democrats' lack of interest in border security, and their refusal to fund the Department of Homeland Security, when the threats to our homeland seem to be as great as ever.  What else can we say about today's Democrats?  

Now, this may be hard to believe, but Senate Democrats brought a measure to the floor that would have brought a halt to Operation Epic Fury without Trump getting Congressional approval.  The vote was mostly along party lines, 47 in favor and 53 opposed.  Republican Rand Paul voted in favor along with the Democrats.  But Democrat John Fetterman voted with the Republicans. 

The House had a vote on a similar resolution, which would have brought Operation Epic Fury to a halt.  This measure failed also, with 212 in favor and 219 opposed, with the vote being mostly along party lines.  Two Republicans voted with the Democrats - Thomas Massie and Warrn Davidson.  Four Democrats voted with the Republicans - Henry Cuellar, Jared Golden, Greg Landsman and Juan Vargas.

I can only imagine what these Democrats would have proposed during WWII.  We are in the middle of battling a mortal enemy of the United States, one that constantly yells "Death to America." One that was ever so close to having nuclear weapons.  One that has killed, directly or indirectly through their proxies over 1000 Americans.  And these Democrats want to stop the war in the middle?  While we are winning?  While we are at the very least setting Iran back years in their capacity to wage terrorism and threaten the United States with nuclear weapons.  

I want to take a minute to discuss the resignation of Joe Kent, a semior Trump Administration official, who worked as the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center.  In resigning today, Kent gave this explanation:  "Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby."  Okay, so Kent does not care for Israel.  He has also been accused of associating with white nationalists and even a Nazi sympathizer.  Of course, the mainstream media could not wait to jump on this story, because anything and anyone who opposes Trump in any way becomes a darling of the media.

Prominent attorney David Boies has been a lifelong Democrat.  He was the attorney who represented Al Gore before the Supreme Court in the 2000 case of Bush v. Gore.  Boies is 85 years old now, and likely grew up in an era when Democrats were mostly classical liberals.  In any event, Boies recently penned an Op-Ed in the 3/12/26 edition of the Wall Street Journal.  In explaining his support for Trump attacking Iran, Boies wrote:  "Every past president since Bill Clinton, Republican and Democrat alike, has declared that Iran couldn't be permitted to develop nuclear weapons.  Not one acted to prevent it. 

Every president since Ronald Reagan has condemned Iran's role in terrorism against American citizens, interests and allies.  Not one acted to stop it.  Instead, each president left his successor with a more dangerous Iran and a more complicated threat to address."  Boies also discusses two groups who automatically oppose this war.  One, of course, consists of the people who hate Trump.  Anything that Trump says or does they automatically oppose.  That group is joined by the isolationist Republicans.

Boies notes that there is another group that opposes this war - the Israel haters and Jew haters.  They automatically blame Israel for any US involvement in the Middle East.  It does appear that Joe Kent may be in this latter group.    

The way I see it?  Trump may go down as one of the most consequential presidents in US history.  He is remaking the world order.  Following WWII, the US was instrumental in shaping the world order.  Now, even our NATO allies refuse to assist in this war against the leading state sponsor of terrorism.  But look at what Trump has done.  We have the Abraham Accords, a giant step to bringing peace between Israel and the Arab world.  A giant step in stabilizing the Middle East.  

But Hamas, backed by Iran, tried to interfere with that success when they launched their October 7, 2023 attack on Israel.  The timing was clear.  It appeared that Trump might have gotten the most important Arab country to join the Accords - Saudi Arabia.  But the Hamas terrorists, supported by Iran, launched their attack in order to derail any further success of the Accords. 

Now, Trump is trying to eliminate, or at least significantly degrade, the ability of Iran to continue their support for worldwide terrorism.  Trump sees the significance of the waterways around Greenland.  I disagreed with his threats against Greenland and Denmark.  But he is right in understanding Greenland's importance.  Maduro is gone from Venezuela, hopefully bringing freedom to the people.  Just as he wants to bring freedom to the people of Iran.  And China and Russia?  Both weakened - by the lack of oil for China, and lack of weaponry for Russia.  Iran had been supplying drones to Russia in their war against Ukraine.

I have heard since I was a kid that America is not, and should not, be the policeman of the world.  I understand that sentiment.  And I wish that it was not necessary.  But the Europeans (at least the western European countries) continue to prove that they are worthless allies in the battle against evil terrorism and dictatorships.  So I always come back to this question:  if America does not take the lead, who will?  China would be happy to.  Russia?  Iran?  North Korea?  How is any of that good for American security?  Please do not suggest the UN.  Can anyone tell me the answer?  If you tell me diplomacy is the answer, I will ask how.  Diplomacy has been tried with Iran since about 2003.  It clearly has not worked.  Has diplomacy stopped Russia from their war on Ukraine?  No.  The Palestinians feigned an interest in diplomacy - yet refused multiple offers to have a state of their own.  Sometimes diplomacy simply does not work.  I suppose one answer is to let Iran get nukes and ICBMs, and pray they leave us alone.  Is that a tenable national security policy?  

A Few Observations (The Democrats and National Security) - Part I

I understand that the Left has control over much of today's Democrat Party.  As previously discussed, the party has an ever shrinking share of classical liberals.  Liberals who aligned with Republicans on many issues.  Issues such as the national security of the United States.  I am not quite sure when Democrats stopped caring about our security, but it is easily demonstrated that they do not care.

Let's start with Joe Biden's open border policy.  10 million or so who entered illegally.  And the American people are supposed to believe that all those people were properly vetted.  We didn't even know who some of them were.  One common refrain from the Left is that American citizens commit crime at a higher rate than illegal immigrants.  Even assuming that is true - so what?  We should allow more criminals into our country because they don't murder and rape as much?  Tell that to all the victims and their families of these illegal immigrants.  (No, I'm not a racist.  I have no problem with legal immigration.  I have even argued that if we need more immigrants for the benefit of our country, then Congress should change the laws.)

Let's talk about the Democrats refusal to fund the Department of Homeland Security.  Although Republicans have the majority in the Senate, the filibuster rule requiring 60 votes to bring a measure to the floor for a vote means that some Democrats would have to side with Republicans to allow a vote on funding DHS.  But the Democrats object to ICE enforcing federal immigration laws.  Many would like to get rid of ICE.  Of course, had Biden not allowed so many to enter illegally, we would not need so much enforcement.  

And I won't ignore that two Americans were killed by ICE - Renee Nicole Good and Alex Jeffrey Pretti.  As for Ms. Good, she disobeyed police orders to get out of her vehicle.  Then she turned her car around, after blocking the street, and allegedly hit an ICE officer.  It was not easy to tell from the video.  I will say this, from a friend who is a retired police officer.  When interacting with the police, do what they say.  If you think they are wrong, do not make an issue on the street.  Once things escalate, it is more dangerous for both the civilian and the officer.  And Ms. Good made two obvious mistakes.

As for Mr. Pretti, he did seem to get in an officer's face.  Beyond that, I was unable to ascertain what the threat from him was.  I know he was carrying a permitted gun.  But he did not appear to have drawn his gun.  If this was a mistake by ICE, it was a tragic one.  But why does that equate to eliminating ICE?  Doctors make plenty of mistakes.  Some cost people their lives.  Is anyone advocating getting rid of the medical profession?   Because the Democrats object to ICE, they refuse to pass a bill funding DHS.  DHS includes not only ICE, but the TSA, Customs and Border Patrol, the Secret Service and the Coast Guard, among others.  

As it is, the lack of funding has caused quite a few TSA agents to leave their jobs.  But that happens when people are not paid.  The Democrats told us that it was terrible when Musk/DOGE laid people off.  But now the Democrats are effectively laying people off by not paying them.  And we've seen the long lines at airports, with wait times of 3 to 5 hours.  Do less TSA agents mean less security at our airports? 

So, the Democrats do not care about border enforcement.  They do not care about funding DHS because ICE is part of DHS, and they want major changes to ICE first.  Some want ICE eliminated all together.  So, TSA and the other agencies that protect our country do not get funded.  But there are no threats to the homeland, are there?  Even though we are at war?  Let's take a look at that.

Just this month.  March 1.  A shooter in Austin, Texas did a drive by shooting outside a bar.  Then he got out of his car with a rifle and fired at people walking by.  Three died and over a dozen were injured.  The shooter?  A naturalized citizen from Senegal.  And he was wearing a sweatshirt with these words:  "Property of Allah."  Police arrived quickly and were able to shoot and kill the perpetrator.  It is being investigated as a terrorist attack.

March 9.  Two men were charged with throwing an explosive device near Gracie Mansion, the residence of the NYC Mayor.  The media made it sound as if the ISIS inspired terrorists were aiming at the Muslim Mayor.  It appears, however, that their target was an anti-Muslim protest outside the Mayor's home.  

March 12.  An ISIS supporter shot up a classroom at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia.  He was said to have shouted "Allahu Akbar."  One person was killed and two were injured.  The shooter was previously sentenced to 11 years in prison for aiding ISIS.  Fortunately, students in ROTC were able to subdue and kill the shooter.  

March 12.  A Lebanese born naturalized citizen decided to drive his vehicle into a Jewish synagogue in West Bloomfield Township, Michigan.  Then, he exited his vehicle and started shooting.  Fortunately, the armed security guards were able to shoot and kill the shooter.  That's what conservatives call "a good guy with a gun."  In fact, good guys with guns were able to end the threat in at least 3 of these incidents, possibly all 4.  

Open border.  Refusing to fund DHS when the threats to the homeland could not be more obvious.  Anything else?  Yes - see Part II.  But tell me - does anybody have any confidence whatsoever in Democrats giving a damn about protecting our country?

Operation Epic Fury - Part III (My Take)

I honestly do not know what it will take for the country to realize that Iran is an imminent threat to the USA.  Did everybody forget that 46 Americans were killed and 12 were kidnapped by Hamas on October 7, 2023?  And please do not tell me that Hamas is not Iran.  Iran funds Hamas (and Hezbollah and the Houthis) and supplies them weaponry.  Iran aided the various militias in Iraq when our troops were fighting and dying there.  And Hezbollah killed 220 of our Marines in 1983.  And Iran has continued to attack US military bases throughout the Middle East.

When do we say it is past time for Iran to pay the price? 

Iran recently bragged to Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff that they have enriched enough uranium to make 11 nuclear bombs.  How many times does Iran have to threaten the United States (the "Great Satan" to the Aytollahs) for people to believe that they want to annihilate us?  Do people really prefer that Trump give billions of dollars to Iran, the way Obama and Biden did?  Don't tell me how those funds were simply released to Iran, as it was their money.  What difference does that make?  The money enabled them to fund further terrorist attacks, and accelerate their nuclear program. 

So, instead of eliminating the threat that Iran is, we should shower them with more money, because that will make them want to be part of the civilized world?  If anyone truly believes that, then you are living proof of an oft used maxim in my blog:  "liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality, conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs."

I also don't believe the poppycock being voiced by some Israel haters that Israel led the USA into this war.  Every President this century - every single one - said that Iran must not be allowed to get nuclear weapons.  But what did they do about it?  Either appeasement and/or sanctions.  Sanctions have never succeeded in deterring a country determined to get nukes.  As for appeasement...please.  But when Trump said that Iran must not be allowed to get nuclear weapons, he meant it.  And, he realized that the only way to stop them was by military action.  Not by appeasement.  Not by throwing money at them.  Not by sanctions.  But by force. 

Unfortunately, some of our so-called allies in Europe and the Middle East refused to get involved initially.  Then Iran started hitting them too, and at least some have come around.  What a shame, however, that they would not stand with US from the outset.

As for me, I stand 100% behind President Trump in his effort to end Iran's nuclear capabilities and, hopefully, bring about regime change.  Iran has been a threat to America and the world since the Islamic revolution of 1979.  It is past time for the mullahs to go.  As one very astute world leader said back in 2009 at the UNGA meeting:  our fight against the religious fanaticism of the mullahs pits "civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death."

May G-d bless America, President Trump and our troops.

 

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.