Over A Month Into The Iran War - Part II

The Op-Ed writer discussed in Part I, Anatol Lieven, mentioned the "illegality" of this war.  Many on the Left have discussed it.  Unfortunately, in my 3/3/26 post ("Operation Epic Fury - Part I") I neglected to discuss this issue of "declare" war in sufficient detail.  The Constitution does indeed give the Congress the power to declare war.  But why use that word "declare?"  As it turns out, the original draft of the Constitution gave Congress the power to "make" war.  What a difference.

Imagine letting Congress sit around and debate making war.  Hundreds of people having to decide.  And what if Congress is in recess?  Wait for them all to return to DC?  After much debate, including whether the Senate or the House separately should have the power, it was decided that the President would be best suited to make war.  This was especially so in terms of the need to "repel sudden attacks."  But, did we really want to wait for Iran to have nuclear weapons, with the ability to kill millions of Americans, before doing what each of the last Presidents since 1993 said was necessary - not letting Iran get nukes.  All the prior presidents felt they could put off facing the problem.  Trump realized he could not.  The time had come.

Personally, I never thought that an air campaign alone was capable of ousting the Iranian regime.  Whether the President wants to commit ground troops is something only he knows.  And now he has threatened to end the Iranian civilization.  Hopefully, this is just more of Trump's bluster and intimidation tactics.  We certainly do not want to annihilate the Persian civilization.  

Iran succeeded in downing two American aircraft.  But given the number of successful missions, that means that Iran was successful far less than 1% of the time.  And what a tremendous success we had in rescuing those downed airmen.  An operation conducted by our military, special forces and CIA.  I'd like to think that every American celebrated that success.  Sadly, I can't say if the mainstream media is happy, or disappointed that they didn't have a failure that they could pin on Trump.

Recently, I had a conversation with a friend about whether or not we could reasonably expect an "unconditional surrender" by Iran.  I felt that was highly unlikely.  Japan did not surrender after the first nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, even though over 70,000 people were killed instantly or shortly thereafter.  In Iran, we have religious fanatics.  And we know that the mullahs did not hesitate to kill up to 50,000 of their own people because they were out protesting.  

Our NATO allies?  According to US News and World Report, France would not allow US warplanes that were involved in striking Iran, to use its bases.  Spain said the US could not use its airspace for US planes involved in attacking Iran.  Italy, also, has denied the use of its bases to some of our aircraft.  And the UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer?  "This is not our war?"  I am curious as to why the Europeans had to be pushed to increase aid to Ukraine in their war against Russia.  Ukraine, as they say, is right in their backyard.  And Iran?  Much closer to Europe than to us.  I know.  Trump does not always play nicely with our allies.  But, as even the NY Times acknowledged - Iran, especially a nuclear armed Iran - is a threat to the entire world.

I want to end with a quote from something I wrote on September 26, 2009, and posted on November 26, 2009.  It was simply titled "Iranian nukes."  After pointing out that the Europeans (and the US behind the scenes) had as of that date already been negotiating with the Iranians about their nuclear program for six years, I said this:  "The entire time Iran has vacillated between talking like they were interested in some deal, and then not talking and refusing to deal.  In other words, they were playing the West for fools while building up their nuclear facilities the whole time."  And that, my dear readers, is why we are at the point where we are today.

Over A Month Into The Iran War - Part I

Recall that in my March 30 post I said that I would address the assertion by Robin Abcarian that this is "Trump's poorly thought-out war on Iran."  On March 22, 2026, the New York Times had an editorial focusing on what they said was Trump's lies about the war.  This is serious stuff.  War is serious stuff.  But the mainstream media sees it only as yet another way to attack President Trump.  I would say "shame on them," but they have long since lost any sense of shame.  

Here is something out of the NY Times editorial:  "There is a reasonable debate to have about the wisdom of this war.  Iran's murderous government does indeed present a threat - to its own people, to its region and to global stability.  Mr. Trump could make a fact-based argument for confronting the regime now, especially to prevent it from menacing its neighbors and, above all, from developing a nuclear weapon.  We are skeptical, but we acknowledge that there is a case to be made."

You see that?  After laying out the many reasons for this war on Iran, the NY Times says they are "skeptical."  I guess the Times prefers to let Iran continue to be a threat to its own people and to the region and even to global stability.  I guess the Times prefers to let Iran get nukes.  Do these people suffer from any cognitive dissonance?  My guess is they do not.  Because their Trump Derangement Syndrome is so severe, that they actually believe that anything Trump does must be bad - even if they agree with it.  Because Trump = bad.  

On April 1, Trump gave his address to the nation about the war.  Something I said he should have done as soon as the fighting started.  But better late than never.  Then Trump set forth his rationale for this war.  "From the very first day I announced my campaign for president in 2015, I vowed that I would never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.  This fanatical regime has been chanting 'Death to America, Death to Israel' for 47 years."  Then Trump recounted some of the many ways Iran has attacked and killed Americans.  Trump:  "For these terrorists to have nuclear weapons would be an intolerable threat."  Amen to that.  And every President from Bill Clinton forward has agreed.  And, until Trump, they preferred to let their successor's deal with the problem. 

Trump:  "As I stated in my announcement of Operation Epic Fury, our objectives are very simple and clear, we are systematically dismantling the regime's ability to threaten America or project power outside of their borders."  Trump discussed all the targets that have been hit, resulting in a weakened Iran.  He thanked our allies in the Middle East - Israel,Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain.  And, perhaps his best line:  "This is a true investment in your children and your grandchildren's future."  

As Barton Swain wrote in an Op-Ed in the 4/1/26 Wall Street Journal:  "If all you know about the war in Iran is what you read in the American and European press, you might conclude that the U.S. has never prosecuted a war so ineptly as this one.  In fact, nearly the opposite is true."  So far, the US and Israel have hit at least 13,000 targets in Iran.  

But here is an excellent example from the mainstream media about Trump and this war.  In the April 5, 2026 Los Angeles Times, was an Op-Ed by Anatol Lieven:  "America has betrayed its global mission."  His premise is that the Royal Navy ruled the seas for many years, and understood their job was to protect international trade, and specifically the flow of oil, and more specifically through the Strait of Hormuz.  When the US took over the role of protecting the seas after WWII, all was well until President Trump came along.

In case you had any doubts, here is Lieven's assessment:  "Apart from the obvious illegality of launching this war, the Trump administration's decision also displayed profound recklessness, incompetence, irresponsibiity and lack of foresight."  I think Lieven left out a few pejoratives.  Not a single positive word about the exceptional way this war has been conducted, nor about the stated goals of the war.  Instead, we have this lie:  "There was no imminent or even feasible threat from Iran to the United States."  (For a further discussion on the threats from Iran see my 3/4/26 post - "Operation Epic Fury - Part III (My Take).)

Here's a good one by Lieven:  "Beijing has so far been careful not to arm Iran, and not to stir up regional conflicts or to exploit America's difficulties in the region."  Not one word about how China has assisted Iran.  "China has provided Tehran with selective military and dual-use technologies - including air defense systems, drones, and surveillance assistance - while avoiding formal security guarantees."  (From the Middle East Institute.)  No surprise that if someone dislikes Trump, then it is probable that they will  dislike Israel (Lieven does), and not say anything bad about America's adversaries, such as China.

 

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.   

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.    

This Is Who The People Of New York City Elected As Their Mayor - The Real Zohran Mamdani

Mamdani was sworn in as Mayor at midnight on January 1, 2026.  He proudly admits to being a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.  Please.  He is a communist.  From a wealthy family.  So he will never lack for anything.  Why do I say he is a communist?  This is from his inaugural address:  "We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism."  "Rugged individualism" is attributed to President Herbert Hoover, calling to mind the pioneering spirit of America, and American self-reliance.

The concept of "collectivism" is about as anti-American an idea as one can imagine.  In a collective, the interests of the group are thought to be more important than the interests of the individual.  In America, everything is centered around the individual.  We speak of individual rights and liberties.  This does not mean that we do not help each other in America.  Americans are a very giving and generous people.  But each individual has the choice as to how their spend their money.  And what to do with their time. 

 
What did rugged individualism do for this country?  Everything.  Such individuals built American industries.  They explored the West.  And went into space.  What did the "warmth" of the collective get the world?  The deaths of tens of millions of people in communist China and communist Russia and Nazi Germany.  Because the individual had no value greater than the state.  The state was everything.  But our system of capitalism has not only created more wealth for more people than any other system; and not only lifted more people out of poverty; but by its very nature gives us our freedoms - not the least of which is economic freedom.

So, the largest city in the country elected a communist as Mayor.  What else can we say about Mamdani?  I think we can add he is a Jew-hating antisemite.  What was his focus on his first day in office?  Israel and the Jews.  What was that all about?  He previously had accused Israel of genocide (a lie), while refusing to condemn the actual genocidal intent of the phrase "globalize the intifada."  He previously said that if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu entered New York City, he would have the NYPD arrest him.  Never mind the interference with US foreign policy, which even the Mayor of NYC has no say over.  

On Mamdani's first day in office he reversed outgoing Mayor Adam's order that prevented city agencies from supporting the BDS movement against Israel.  BDS - Boycott, Divest and Sanction.  Mamdani gave the heads of city departments the permission to treat Israel like an enemy of the United States.  Did he encourage BDS movements against the Russians for their brutal war against Ukraine?  How about China?  Or Nigeria, where the radical Islamists have been slaughtering Christians?  And only after being criticized for remaining silent about the mullahs in Iran killing their own people, did Mamdani finally speak out.

Here is something that Mamdani thought was important.  He removed the extra security that had been provided to synagogues throughout the city.  Demonstrating his supposed fairness, he also removed the extra protection from churches and mosques.  Please.  Where are the threats being made?  Against Jews and synagogues.  And why wouldn't he remove protection from Jewish houses of worship?  If he won't condemn the phrase "globalize the intifada," that tells me he is fine with the killing of Jews.  So why would he want to protect Jews in NYC?  

What else did Mamdani immediately do?  He reversed a city order defining "antisemitism" used by the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance), and accepted by the EU and 35 states and our federal government.  Some of the examples given in the IHRA definition include denying that the Holocaust occurred, and essentially claiming that Israel exists as a colonial, racist state.  

I don't give a damn that some self-hating Jews work in the Mamdani Administration.  I don't give a damn that Jewish actor Mandy Patinkin entertained at Mamdani's inauguration.  Were these people swayed by Mamdani's fake smile?  Did they support him because he hates Trump?  None of that can justify the way those Jews shamed themselves and turned against their own people, who have been suffering greatly since October 7, 2023.  Shame on them is the nicest thing I can say.  And shame on the people of NYC for electing a radical Islamist/communist as their Mayor.              

Minneapolis - My Take

(Note.  Yes, it's been a month since I last posted.  But life happens, such as a very large tree crashing through your house in the morning of Christmas Eve.  And then living in a hotel ever since.  So perhaps some of these stories are dated, given that we operate within a 24 hour news cycle.  I do hope that I add some information.  Then, of course, there's my take.)

On January 7, 2026, with ICE officers out in force in Minneapolis, Renee Nicole Good was shot and killed by an ICE officer.  Good had parked her car sideways across a street, intentionally blocking traffic.  There are various camera angles of the incident, with some audio.  Good could be heard saying:  "That's fine dude.  I'm not mad at you."  Good's wife said:  "You want to come at us?  You want to come at us?  I say go and get yourself some lunch, big boy."  

An officer tells her to get out of the car.  She doesn't.  Rather, she turns the steering wheel and starts to drive away.  The officer says she hit him with her car.  The last video I saw, sent by a friend, seems to support the officer.  Someone can be heard yelling "woah!, woah!"  There are gun shots.  Eventually, Good's wife can be heard screaming "I killed her."  

My take.  Let's back up.  People (probably mostly leftists, and probably many paid protesters) were protesting the presence of ICE officers in Minneapolis.  I would ask them if they also protested the 10 million people that Biden allowed to enter the country illegally.  Did they protest Biden ceding the sovereignty of the United States of America?  Because Trump would not have needed to send ICE out across the country if Biden had enforced the immigration laws.  I would also ask these protesters why they don't want criminals here illegally (murderers, rapists, gun and human traffickers) to be deported.  Why do they want them here?

Clearly, I grew up in a different era.  An era when we were taught to respect law enforcement officers.  Taunting the police was out of the question.  As was assaulting police.  I saw the protesters throwing snowballs at the officers.  I saw them disobeying the police, and engaging in physical altercations with them.  I don't understand any of it.

I am not sure how many laws Good violated.  Blocking traffic.  Disobeying a police order.  Evading the police, and in the process possibly hitting an officer with her car.  To be clear, most of that does not warrant the use of lethal force by the police.  But if the officer had a reasonable belief that the person was trying to cause serious bodily injury or death, then it's my understanding that lethal force may be used.  My judgment?  I'd like to see the full investigation report.  Calling the officer a murderer immediately after the fact was so wrong.  But perhaps these are the same people who celebrated/justified the murder of Charlie Kirk.

The Mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Frey, made one wrong comment after the next.  "They (ICE) are not here to cause safety in this city."  "They are already trying to spin this as an action of self-defense.  Having seen the video myself, I want to tell everybody directly that is bullshit."  And this:  "To ICE, get the fuck out of Minneapolis.  We do not want you here."  Great job, Mr. Mayor - if you're trying to stir up violent protests.  I guess he did not think that political leaders should be voices of reason.  (And no, it is no excuse to say that Trump is not a voice of reason, so why should the Mayor be.  Trump is not always a voice of reason.  I've said that previously.  But if you justify Frey's remarks, then you've just justified all of Trump's remarks.)

And I agree that the Administration could have been more circumspect in defending the officer.  Probably better to say "we believe he acted in self-defense, but there will be a complete and thorough investigation."  While I have read that ICE officers do not have the authority to arrest American citizens, that on its face sounds preposterous.  At the very least it would seem to be obstruction of justice, for which the offender could be taken into custody.  Even if then turned over to the local police.  Although obstruction is likely a federal offense as well.  

Frey:  "We all know the agenda of this Trump Administration is to create chaos."  Assuming for the sake of this argument that Frey is correct, just what does he think he is doing with his crude language?  Is it chaos to remove from the streets of his city illegal aliens who have already been convicted of murder, sexual assault, drug trafficking or domestic violence?  Those are the people he wants to protect from Trump?  

I'm with the New York Post on this:  "The left bears full blame for this bloodshed."  There has been nonstop criticism of ICE, even after all the assaults, and the shooting at an ICE facility in Dallas (which resulted in the killing of 2 illegal immigrants).  The left has even posted the home addresses of ICE officers.  To what end?  Isn't the job dangerous enough.  But the left wants to eliminate ICE and defund the police.  Let the criminals run wild?  Until someone in their own family is raped or murdered.  One Democrat official after the next has been egging on the protesters.

The Post:  "He (Mayor Frey) and Walz (the Governor of Minnesota) need to start calming the waters, lest more bloodshed flow...If the civilians had just left the law enforcers alone, Renee Nicole Good would still be alive."  Instead, this 37 year old woman, and mother of 3 children, is dead.  It's tragic.  And I agree with Governor Walz on one thing:  her death was "preventable" and "unnecessary."  He just puts the blame in the wrong place.