These Latest Democratic Primaries Should Have Removed All Doubt - You Can Even Beat Other Progressives As Long As You Hate Jews

A brief recap is in order.  Graham Platner won the Maine Democratic Senatorial primary.  By a large margin.  He is an admitted communist, hates law enforcement and celebrated the killing of IDF forces by Hamas.  (See more on Platner in Part II of my May 4, 2026 post.)  Abdul El-Sayed will likely be the victor in the August 4, 2026 Democratic primary in Michigan for a seat in the U.S. Senate.  He has the usual leftwing talking points.  And is highly critical of Israel and AIPAC (the American Israel Political Affairs Committee).  (See Part I of my 6/4/26 post for more about El-Sayed.)  And let us not forget that Adam Hamawy won his Democratic primary for the House in NJ.  Again, with the leftwing views accompanied by intense criticism of Israel.  (See Part I of my 6/4/26 post.)

In New York City there was a trifecta of socialist, Jew haters winning their Democratic primaries for seats in the House.  All supported by the socialist, Jew hater Mamdani.  Darializa Avila Chevalier defeated Adrian Espaillat, the Chair of the House Hispanic Caucus.  Chevalier wants to abolish the police and abolish prisons and get rid of our borders.  She has talked about seizing private property and nationalizing industries.  She has called the U.S. a "fucking disgrace," and once posted that "I forgot to get napkins so I just wiped my hand on the American flag behind me (followed by a happy face)."  On the day after the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, she attended a pro-Palestinian (pro-Hamas in my opinion) rally.  I guess the rape, torture and murder of Jewish women did not offend her.  Chevalier also wants to end funding for the Israeli military (which provides significant benefits to the U.S.). 

Claire Valdez was another NYC Democratic primary winner for a U.S. House seat.  She wants to abolish ICE, supports a federal job guarantee and a four-day work week.  And in one quote she managed to get in all the leftwing lies about Israel:  "I will continue to call for Palestinian liberation.  We will stand up to genocide and refuse to abide by apartheid..."  How about calling for Palestinian liberation from Hamas?  That might actually accomplish something.  

The third NYC Democratic primary winner for a seat in the House was Brad Lander.  Yes, he has the usual leftwing talking points, such as defund the police.  Lander is Jewish.  Yet he supported Mamdani for Mayor of NYC.  And he doesn't support Israel much.  He has called for the end of giving a "blank check" to Israel (never was) as the Israeli government is "increasingly authoritarian."  And, he said that Democrats should stop obeying AIPAC (whatever that means).   

Let's not forget that Chris Rabb won his Democratic primary for the House in Pennsylvania's 3rd district.  This guy has called for a Palestinian right of return to the land of Israel.  People who call for that mean that millions of descendants of Palestinians who fled during Israel's war of independence (1948-1949) should be able to return to what is the land of Israel. In other words, Rabb wants to see the end of Israel as the world's only Jewish state.  And James Talarico won the Democratic primary for a House seat in Texas.  He tries to balance his support for Israel getting aid for defensive weapons such as the Iron Dome, versus denying aid for offensive weapons.  Of course, that makes no sense.  It is akin to saying "you can defend yourselves and hope for the best, but don't you dare fight back."  Sorry, but that is, quite simply, stupid.

Let's take a little trip further west to Colorado.  In another win for a Democratic Socialist of America candidate, 29 year old Melat Kiros defeated 30 year incumbent Diana DeGette.  Yes, Kiros has the leftwing talking points, such as abolish ICE.  But she also wants to end all aid to Israel.  If we go a little further west to Los Angeles, guess what we find.  Incumbent Karen Bass was unable to win the primary in June with a majority of the vote.  Therefore, she will be in a runoff election in November against Nithya Raman.  While initially expressing sympathy for Israel after the Hamas terroist attack of October 7, 2023, Raman has learned what it takes to win as a Democrat.  While the Mayor's seat is considered nonpartisan, it is no secret that Bass and Raman are Democrats.  Now, Raman spouts the leftwing talking points about Israel committing genocide and being an apartheid state. 

So, what is going on with all this Jew hatred?  As one writer opined:  it appears that the ticket to winning office in the U.S. is to not only be anti-Israel, but vehemently anti-Israel.  Scott Weiner is a Democratic member of the California State Senate.  And he is gay.  He was attending a trans led pride Shabbat in San Francisco.  Something he has done for 22 years.  He has been critical of the Israeli government.  But not enough.  This time, he was harassed and screamed at with things like "we fucking hate you."  And "you do not belong here."  And, the best one:  "you stopped being queer the moment you started supporting Israel, you piece of shit."

I recall how after the October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, the Los Angeles Times ran a front page story with interviews of one Jewish person (mostly young) after the next, finding out that all the leftwing groups they supported did not support them in their time of need.  Leftists did not support Jews they knew, even after the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust.  I have recently heard a number of leading Democrats, when asked about this Israel-hating and Jew-hating trend in their party, claim that the party is a "big tent" party.  Really?  A big tent should include Jew haters?  Unless whatever more mainstream Democrats that may be left start speaking out against these Jew haters, this trend will continue.  And, unless rank and file Democrats - especially Jewish Democrats - stop supporting this party, the Jew hatred will not end.  Or, will you be like Jewish Chuck Schumer, who hopes that the Nazi tattoo sporting Graham Platner wins a Senate seat in Maine, because even a Nazi is better than Trump? 

Trump's MOU With Iran - Part IV (This Is Still Not Acceptable)

(Note.  A word first.   I received some criticism from other conservatives regarding Parts I and II of this continuing post about the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Iran.  Basically, the complaints were that I should not be criticizing Trump.  I disagree.  It is no secret that I voted for him three times.  And I have not piled on with criticisms over every little thing as the Democrats and mainstream media have done.  But we are talking about a matter of national security.  As I stated previously, I have been following this issue of Iranian nukes since about 2003.  And I've seen the tactics used by Iran - stalling and deception and continuing to call for "Death to America."  So I will not stay silent with regards to such an important issue - even with Trump in the White House.) 

In Paragraph 6 of the MOU, the U.S. "undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran."  Details to be finalized within 60 days.  What's the problem, Mike?  Didn't we have the Marshall Plan after World War II to help rebuild Europe?  Yes we did.  But the Nazis were gone.  Germany was split in two.  And West Germany became a Western oriented democracy, even joining NATO.  And Japan?  Their leadership was gone, with new leaders operating under a US imposed constitution.  Notice that this MOU provides for the reconstruction of the "Islamic" Republic of Iran.  

That is completely unacceptable.  There is no requirement, at least in this preliminary agreement, that the government return to what it was before the Islamic revolution of 1979 - a pro-Western country.  There is no requirement that the IRGC be disbanded.  Perhaps worst of all, there is no requirement that Iran cease its support for terrorism.  There is nothing to stop Iran from using these funds for the purpose of continuing to support Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis, and other terrorist groups.  But Trump said the money will be disbursed in a way that requires Iran to buy food from American farmers.

Aside from Iran saying they did not agree to that, money is fungible.  If, for example, Iran would have needed to set aside $300 billion for food and reconstruction, but now that money is being given to them, that frees up $300 billion to develop their own ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, and provide missiles to their terrorist proxies.  Money is money.  

Paragraph 10 may be even worse.  It provides for the "immediate" termination of sanctions, with the US Department of Treasury to "issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc."  Well isn't that special?  Iran gets to start making billions of dollars immediately.  Just who won this war?  It appears to this writer that the West has given up on actually winning wars ever since FDR and Eisenhower were determined to win WWII.  

I have another problem with all of this.  Three problems actually - Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner and JD Vance.  We have a knowledgeable and experienced Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who happens to be the chief diplomatic officer of the United States.  Yet he seems to not be involved.  Why?  I do not like that Kushner runs a multi-billion dollar venture capital fund, Affinity Partners, which has received substantial backing from Middle Eastern Arab countries, including Qatar.  Qatar has been known to back Hamas, a terrorist organization.  At a minimum, this has the appearance of impropriety, the appearance of a conflict of interest.  Meanwhile, the Trump sons, Don Jr. and Eric, have invested in this company called Powerus, involved in the development and manufacturing of drones.  As we know, drones are increasingly being used in warfare, including in the Middle East, and they compete for government contracts.  Another appearance of impropriety, if not an actual conflict of interest.  

Based on recent comments by Trump and Vance, it appears that I will need a Part V, in order to make it clear that Israel is not the problem.  I guarantee that the US military and the CIA do not want to see an end to our country's close relationship with the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and the Mossad (Israel's CIA), both of which have proven to be invaluable to the United States.     

Trump's MOU With Iran - Part III (I Can't Believe It)

Paragraph 2 provides that the US and Iran "undertake" to respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity.  That's certainly consistent with Paragraph 1, which provides for the "immediate and permanent termination of military options on all fronts."  If regime change was ever on the table, it's not now.  And forget about telling the Iranian people that "help is on the way."  Remember that?

Paragraph 4 of the MOU provides that immediately upon signing, the US will begin to remove its blockade.  So, there is nothing that Iran must do first to get that benefit.  Paragraph 8 says that Iran "reaffirms" it will not procure or develop nuclear weapons.  In other words, Iran is reaffirming what they already promised, yet violated, as they were well on their way to making nuclear weapons.  Basically, Iran is saying we promise again, but we lied the first time and mostly got away with it, so we're lying again.  And it looks like they can get away with it again.  

Paragraph 9 says the two sides will maintain the status quo.  The US will not impose any new sanctions nor will the US deploy additional troops in the area.  And Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program.  What?  Assuming all of Iran's enriched uranium is not buried deep beneath a mountain, and at least some of the material is accessible, that means Iran would likely be able to make weapons grade uranium within a few days.  Unless, of course, all their centrifuges were in fact destroyed.  Hard to know, as Iran still manages to launch missiles at other countries.  

If stopping Iran from obtaining nukes was the highest priority, why isn't removing all of Iran's enriched uranium the top priority?  Which should be removed immediately.  No?  Anybody?  Trump now seems to have backed off from that, saying all the uranium is buried under so much rubble that Iran won't be able to access it.  Can we really be sure of that?  Why doesn't the deal provide for immediate access by the US to take the enriched uranium out?  Whatever happened to Iran not being allowed to keep any enriched uranium?     

Everybody remember when Trump said, back on March 2, "Our objectives are clear.  First, we are destroying Iran's missile capabilities...and their capacity to produce brand new ones."  Defense Secretary Hegseth repeated that.  As did Press Secretary Leavitt.  Fast forward to now.  Trump:  "If other countries have them (ballistic missiles), it's a little bit unfair for them not to have some."  WHAT?  Other countries are not launching ballistic missiles into neighboring countries.  That is like saying that when the police and SWAT arrive at a shootout with their automatic rifles, it's just unfair that the criminals do not have them also.  Has Trump completely lost it?  It appears so.

Then we have this doozy by Trump:  "Missiles aren't the problem.  They hurt a little location, but they don't blow up the planet."  Perhaps that explains why there is nothing in the MOU about ballistic missiles.  But do I really need to explain to Trump that Israelis have to constantly run to shelters when missiles are incoming?  Do I have to explain that people are killed and injured by missiles?  And do I really need to explain that this is not a situation that calls for some misguided sense of equality.  Not when Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism.   

Meanwhile, Iran issued this statement today:  "It is hereby announced that the Strait of Hormuz will be closed to vessel traffic; it is noted that this first step is a response to the enemy's breach of promise, and if the aggression continues, further steps will be planned and taken to force the enemy to comply with its obligaions."  What is the alleged breach?  Hezbollah launched numerous missiles into Israel, and Israel had the temerity to fight back.  But recall what Part II of this blog post said - Paragraph 1 of the MOU "ensured" the "territorial integrity of Lebanon."  It did not ensure the territorial integrity of Israel.

As I said in Part II, Iran will object to Israel having troops in southern Lebanon, and will certainly object to Israel defending itself against Hezbollah, which operates out of Lebanon.  And just who is Iran referring to as the "enemy"?  Can't be Israel, as they are not a signatory to the MOU.  It appears that Iran is blaming the US for not preventing Israel from defending itself.  Just how can Trump tolerate Iran continuing to refer to the United States as the "enemy"?  That attitude does not suggest that Iran is sincere about abiding by any agreement.  Which, to anybody with knowledge of Iran's actions over the last 47 years, would be - should be - obvious.  Iran cannot be trusted to abide by any deal!  

Why did Trump do this deal?  Some thoughts in Part IV.  (Maybe Part V.)     

Trump's MOU With Iran - Part II (It's Even Worse Than I Thought)

The very first paragraph of this 14 point (14 paragraphs) plan says there will be an immediate and permanent end of military operations on all fronts.  Furthermore, it ensures "the territorial integrity of Lebanon."  Paragraph 14 provides that the final deal will be "endorsed by a binding UNSC resolution.  

Everyone needs to understand the significance of that.  Israel currently has forces in southern Lebanon because of the nonstop rocket and missile attacks being fired by Hezbollah in Lebanon.  So, first of all, the above provision does nothing other than protect Hezbollah - a terrorist organization .  Second, as the territorial integrity of Lebanon (Hezbollah) is "ensured," that means either signatory, the US or Iran, would have the right (arguably the obligation) to forcefully remove those Israeli troops.

Paragraph 14 then says that the terms of the final deal (which will include Lebanon absent a change) may also be enforced by the UN Security Council.  The Security Council would have the options of imposing sanctions on Israel, and even sending in a UN "peacekeeping" force to remove the Israeli forces.

Iran wanted to make sure that their terrorist proxy in Lebanon (Hezbollah) was protected.  And Trump agreed.  Trump agreed to protect a Foreign Terrorist Organization, so designated by our State Department.

Anybody also notice one glaring omission?  Trump did not insist on protecting the territorial integrity of Israel.  Israel has been hit by hundreds, if not thousands, of rockets and missiles in the last several months.  By Hezbollah in Lebanon.  By Hamas in Gaza.  By the Houthis in Yemen.  And by Iran.

Yet, Trump chose to protect a designated terrorist organization over our best ally in the Middle East, and arguably our best ally in the world.  Cool.

Trump's MOU with Iran - Part I

Some details have been leaked about the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) between Trump and Iran.  Neither side has yet confirmed the accuracy of those leaks, however.  From what I've seen, it does not appear to be any better than Obama's JCPOA.  I have been following the issue of Iranian nukes since shortly after the turn of this century.  Negotiations began with the Europeans, as the US had no direct contact with Iran at the time.  The US was involved behind the scenes; and later on was openly involved.  The entire time - over 20 years - Iran has lied, failed to comply with any agreement, stalled, asked for more time, raised new issues requiring even more time.  To put it simply, Iran feigns interest in a deal, all the while building up their nuclear facilities, and playing the West for fools.

It looked like Trump would be different.  Sure, the US and Israeli militaries destroyed much of Iran's military.  But clearly not all of it, as they have continued to launch missiles at Israel and the Gulf states.  And top Iranian leaders have been killed.  But this "deal" sure looks like Iran won this war.  Let's take a look at the terms.  First off, all fighting stops - including Israel with Lebanon.  We Jews know what that means - Israel may not fight back when Hezbollah continues to launch rockets and missiles into Israel.  There are tens of thousands of Israelis afraid to return to their homes in northern Israel because of the nonstop rockets and missiles coming in from Lebanon.  

Isn't that the goal of Israel's enemies - slowly but surely make increasing parts of Israel uninhabitable by the Jewish people.  Hezbollah can reach the major population centers of central Israel as well.  Should Israel just sit back and take it?  Israel has had to send troops into southern Lebanon to deal with Hezbollah.  Iran says those troops need to leave Lebanon.  In case anyone had any doubt about who really controls Lebanon, there it is - Hezbollah does, and Iran controls Hezbollah.  Otherwise, what business is it of Iran's about what happens in distant Lebanon, nearly 1000 miles away.

Here are Trump's latest comments on Lebanon.  "Israel is fighting Hezbollah too long and too many people are being killed...They should have been able to do the job faster.  It just goes on forever.  And when that happens, it throws a negative light on the big deal, and that's the deal with Iran."  Well, President Trump, why have you capitulated to Iran by letting them dictate what happens between Lebanon and Israel?  Trump:  "Without me, there'd be no Israel, because no other president was willing to do what what I did."  He went on that Iran was "two weeks away from having a nuclear weapon" and would have used it against Israel.  Maybe.  And I have expressed my gratitude for President Trump doing what he has done.  But, telling our closest friend and ally in the Middle East to stand down while the rockets and missiles keep flying is taking the side of Iran - which has been the sworn enemy of the United States for 47 years.  

Instead of allowing Israel to deal with the problem of Hezbollah, Trump suggests that Syria handle it.  I would ask Trump if he would defer to another country when it comes to the protection of the USA.  Obviously, he would not.  Then don't ask Israel to do so.  

This deal provides for a 60 day period of further talks.  Yes, Iran says they agree to never build a nuclear bomb.  Does anyone in their right mind believe that that this Islamist regime, sworn to the destruction of the West, gives a damn about the words on a piece of paper?  This promise has been made by Iran before.  Recall their secret facilities with ongoing nuclear development?  Recall that Iran said all they wanted was nuclear power for civilian purposes?  Then why were they enriching uranium to 60%, just days shy from being able to obtain weapons grade uranium.  Civilian use would never be more than 20% enrichment.  I have zero doubt that Iran will use this 60 day talking period to continue their enrichment of their nuclear material to weapons grade.  

Trump:  "They're (Iran) not going to acquire a nuclear weapon.  If they do, all hell will rain down on them."  First of all, attacking a nuclear power becomes much more problematic.  Because if they feel threatened existentially, that might tempt them to use whatever nukes they developed.  Second, earlier this year Trump assured the Iranian people that help was on the way.  He seemed to want to free the Iranian people from the oppressive Islamist regime.  But I guess that promise has been forgotten.  The people did protest - but tens of thousands were killed.  The Iranian people are obviously reluctant to engage in further protests, absent the United States or another power supplying the people with the neceassary armaments to actually fight the regime.  I am unaware of Trump providing that war materiel.   

And just what will Trump do if Israel continues to defend itself from the Hezbollah rocket and missile attacks?  It's certainly an interesting question.  The bigger questions are these:  why does it appear that Trump is now willing to let the Islamist regime remain in power?  Iran continues to refer to the US as the "enemy."  How is that the basis of any deal?  Iran may be getting even more money than the JCPOA under Obama provided.  I will discuss that and other issues in the next posts.  But, as of now, it is no surprise that Iran believes they won this war.  Because maybe they did. 

This Is Today's Democrat Party (Just Don't Expect Democrats To Express Outrage Over Anything Other Than Trump) - Part II

New York's 10th Congressional District lies entirely within Brooklyn.  Running for that seat are two Jewish candidates - incumbent Dan Goldman and Brad Lander.  Goldman is a mostly strong supporter of Israel.  Lander is another matter.  He has been endorsed by Mamdani.  Not surprisingly, he is highly critical of Israel.  He has accused Israel of committing genocide, and occupying Palestinian land.  All lies.  He has opposed military aid to Israel.  And, like his ally Mamdani, refused to march in the Israel Day parade.  The primary is on June 23, and Lander has a substantial lead in the polls.  

Let me be clear about something.  I have previously criticized fellow Jews who are on the Left.  But I will defend all Jews against antisemitism.  But while I'm at it, recall that 40 Senators recently voted to withhold military aid to Israel in the middle of Israel fighting a multi-front war.  Incredibly, seven Jews joined (in whole or in part) in that vote.  Here are the Jews who embarrassed themselves:  Bernie Sanders, Adam Schiff, Jon Ossoff, Ron Wyden, Brian Schatz, Elissa Slotkin, and Michael Bennett.  Two voted only to block bulldozer sales.  But they should all be ashamed of themselves.  

Chris Rabb will be the Congressman from Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District.  What do we know about Rabb?  He opposes arms sales to Israel.  Like Mamdani, he believes the mere existence of Israel is an ongoing Nakba.  And he says he will sponsor a resolution recognizing the Nakba, and calling for a Palestinian right of return.  Which means millions of Palestinians would be entitled to live in Israel, effectively ending the one Jewish state in the world.  Anybody believe that a Palestinian state, likely run by Hamas, would be an ally of the United States?

But it appears that Rabb does not think that much of Jews in general.  Recall the Bondi Beach massacre in Australia last December?  What were Jewish people doing on that beach?  Simply celebrating Chanukah.  Two evil perpetrators shot and killed 15 people and wounded 40.  On Rabb's website was a post claiming that the whole thing was a "false flag" operation carried out by Zionists.  Rabb later claimed that he had nothing to do with that post, and that a staffer must have written it.  Does he think that's better?  What kind of staffers (Jew haters) does he have working for him?

Incredibly, Jewish Congress member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has come out in support of Rabb.  Recall that Raskin led the second impeachment proceeding against Trump.  Josh Shapiro is the Governor of Pennsylvania, and he is Jewish.  While there have been reports that he quietly worked against Rabb, he has yet to publicly condemn Rabb or his hateful comments.  Rabb will be a Congressman from the state Shapiro runs.  Yet no public condemnation.  This is what happens when the Leftists and Islamists dominate the Democrat Party.  It is the rare exception that can be counted on to say or do the right thing.  They fall in line out of fear of being attacked by the Leftists and Islamists. 

Have you heard of James Talarico?  He is a Democrat running for Senate in Texas.  Not surpisingly, he has accused Israel of "atrocities in Palestine" and "war crimes."  All lies, not to mention that there is no Palestine.  He wants to ban the sale of offensive weapons to Israel.  Talarico is critical of AIPAC.  He has opposed the Iran war.  He wants to take money from ICE and spend it in the local communities.  As for American sovereignty, with Texas being a border state, he says we should have a "giant welcome mat out front" but have a lock on the door.  That seems like a mixed message.  

I had previously discussed Graham Platner in Part II of my May 4, 2026 post, "Are We Living Through The Fall Of Western Civilization?"  Apparently, the entire 18 years that he had that Nazi tattoo on his chest he says he had no idea what it was.  Sure.  Now, it's been revealed that he has had a habit of "sexting" with various women, even while married.  His defense?  Let's not talk about gossip, let's discuss the issues.  Sure, Democrats are always willing to do that for Republicans.  Right?  One last point about Platner.  Or two.  He is a self-described communist.  And he has suggested that female victims of sexual assault bring it on themselves.  But the Party that brutally attacked Kavanaugh does not care about any of that.  They want to take back the Senate - at all costs.

J Street is a self-proclaimed pro-Israel lobbying group.  In my opinion, they are anything but.  It has been constant criticism of Israel, from ending military subsidies, to asserting Israel is responsible for civilian casualties in Gaza.  They do not support President Trump in the war against Iran.  They did not even support moving the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Israel's actual capital city - Jerusalem.  So, it was no surprise that Israel's Ambassador to the U.S., Yechiel Leiter, has called J Street a "cancer within the Jewish community."  That comment was met by an objection from over 500 Rabbis, Cantors and other Jewish leaders (undoubtedly all leftwing Democrats).  They insisted that the Ambassador apologize for his comment.  I hope he does not.  But if he does, here is my opinion:  J Street is a cancer within the Jewish community.   

How should I end this two-part post?  What is there to say about a Democrat Party that would crucify any Republican for comparable comments made by these Democrats.  Sporting a Nazi tattoo.  Saying women are responsible for sexual assaults on them.  Palling around with people like the Blind Sheikh and Hasan Piker - two people who would like to see America destroyed.  But this is where that Party is.  Don't expect to hear outrage from Democrats you may know.  No, that outrage is reseved solely for Donald Trump.  Sad to say, as much as I've tried to connect the dots for people I know who still belong to that party, I have been unsuccessful.  No one should ever again contact me to tell me how awful Trump is.  I'll take Trump any day over these Nazi/communists/Islamists America hating and Jew hating Democrats.

This Is Today's Democrat Party (Just Don't Expect Democrats To Express Outrage Over Anything Other Than Trump) - Part I

In the last few posts I discussed Graham Platner, Zohran Mamdani (again), and Maureen Galindo.  Galindo, recall, wanted to lock up Zionists.  And put us in camps.  She lost the election for a House seat in Texas.  But 36.2% of Democrats voted for.  No one should claim:  "well, that's Texas."  Why?  Let's take a look.  (Yes, I also discussed Dan Bilzerian, a Republican.  But he is not supported by the Republican Party, the way these Democrats are supported by their party.)

Speaking of Mamdani, he became the first Mayor of NYC in over 60 years to not march in the Israel Day Parade on 5th Avenue.  Keep in mind that many ethnic groups in NYC have parades.  Let me know if he has, or will, refuse to march in any other.  Mamdani has made his hatred for Israel quite clear.  Quite simply, he does not believe Israel should exist.  His sympathies lie with the Islamists and the socialists/communists - all of whom hate Israel and America, as a hatred of one goes hand in hand with a hatred of the other.  

The Democratic National Committee, on Memorial Day, posted photos of the 13 service members killed in the war with Iran.  And they wrote this:  "Today we honor the American heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice in Trump's war with Iran."  Disgusting.  They were fighting for the United States of America.  But, as is typical of Democrats, they must attack Trump every minute of every day.  And ignore everything else.  And let's not forget that 40 US Senators, all Democrats, voted to stop aid to Israel, which has been our main ally in this war with Iran.  

Pushed by House Democrats, and joined by four Republicans, the House just passed a measure to withdraw US troops from the fight with Iran, unless Congress authorizes it.  Think about that.  Trump has been trying to negotiate a deal with Iran (which I happen to believe is a waste of time, as Iran will never stick to any deal).  But these Democrats have now told Iran:  we won't support Israel and we won't support Trump.  If there was any hope whatsoever of a deal, that hope has just gone out the window, as Iran sees the lack of will voiced by our Congress.  

Abdul El-Sayed, a medical doctor, is running for the Senate in Michigan.  He claims Israel is guilty of genocide.  A lie.  But as I said, when they hate Israel they hate America.  He wants to abolish ICE.  A sure sign that he does not respect American sovereignty.  And he has campaigned with Hasan Piker, who I discussed in a prior post.  Recall that Piker said that America deserved 9/11.  How could any Democrat campaign with someone who says America deserved 9/11?  Yet, Piker is now influential within the Democrat Party. 

What do you know about Adam Hisham Hamawy?  He is also a medical doctor.  And he is expected to be the next member of Congress from the 12th District in New Jersey.  He was born in Egypt.  What does he think of America and Israel?  No surprise - he wants to ban sales of military hardware to Israel.  (Our military leaders can tell you how beneficial it is that Israel has to constantly use our fighter jets, for example.  By doing so, they find deficiencies and make improvements.  Which is beneficial to our pilots.)  And, Hamawy wants to abolish ICE and the Department of Homeland Security.  I would like to ask him what his issue is with protecting the American homeland.  

Hamawy also traveled around the country with the "Blind Sheikh," Omar Abdel-Rahman.  Many will recall that this Sheikh was convicted of seditious conspiracy, following the first effort to take down the World Trade Center in NYC in 1993.  While they were not successful at that time in bringing down the towers, they did kill six people and injured over a thousand people.  Hamawy was said to have acted as an interpreter for the Sheikh.  Was he privy to discussions planning the 1993 attack?  I would sure like to know.  

Hamawy has been supported by the American Priorities PAC.  Do not be fooled by the name.  It is a pro-Palestinian group, that is trying to deflate the influence of the pro-Israel PAC - AIPAC (the American-Israel Political Action Committee).  Here is a question for Democrats that you know.  Have they connected the dots?  Are they looking forward to the complete takeover of the Democrat Party by Leftists and Islamists?  Are they happily anticipating an end to our relations with Israel, to be replaced by our support for the Islamist countries of the Middle East?  Are they hoping for that worldwide caliphate?  Of course, they will say that's ridiculous.  So I would ask - then where is the same outrage that you exhibit at the mere mention of Trump's name?  Or the outrage many express at seeing any picture of Trump or hearing him speak?  Are you not sufficiently outraged by those who hate America and Israel?

  

Maureen Galindo, Democratic Candidate for the 35th Congressional District In Texas

It appears that politicians are vying to see which one can demonstrate that they are the biggest antisemitic Jew hater.  I'm thinking that Ms. Galindo may take the prize.  At least for this year.  Let's take a look.

In the Democratic primary for this seat, Ms. Galindo actually beat out Sheriff Deputy Johnny Garcia, 29.2% to 27%.  As neither got sufficient votes to avoid a runoff, there will be a further election.  According to Axios, Ms. Galindo has said that if she wins, she will make the Karnes County Immigaration Processing Center "a prison for American Zionists and former ICE officers."  We know that the Left generally does not agree with enforcing our immigration laws.  Although why "former" ICE officers?

As many on the Left call all Jews "Zionists," or at least the overwhelming number of Jews who support Israel, her desire to imprison us has a certain 1930's ring to it.  I say "us" because I consider myself a Zionist.  All that means is I believe in the existence of a Jewish state in the land of Israel.  But Galindo is not done.  She also will propose legislation that "all American candidates and elected officials who have ever taken Israeli money be tried for treason."

Interesting, as it is already illegal for any foreign national to donate, directly or indirectly, to any Federal, State or Local election or candidates PACs.  Permanent residents/green card holders are excluded from that restriction.  AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is likely the biggest Jewish organization giving to political candidates.  And their money comes from American donors, such as myself.  But, there are many other lobbying groups who donate on behalf of various other countries.  Galindo does not care about them.  They're not Jews.

While AIPAC is not a 501(c)(3) organization, CAIR is.  CAIR is the Council on American-Islamic relations.  As a 501(c)(3), CAIR is not permitted to make campaign contributions.  But the state affiliates apparently are permitted to do so.  CAIR is permitted to engage in advocacy for their causes.  Although, the Washington Free Beacon has alleged that CAIR's advocacy has been done "without the licenses, registrations, and legal authority required in any of the 22 states where it raises money or conducts political activity."  

In the 2007 trial involving the Holy Land Foundation, federal prosecutors name CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator.  And there was evidence that CAIR's founders had ties to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.  Some political entities have designated CAIR a terrorist organization - Texas, Florida and the UAE (United Arab Emirates).  Again, CAIR is of no concern to Ms. Galindo because no Jews are involved.  I wonder if any of the Islamic terror organizatiztions are of any concern to her.  I would doubt it.  

But that's not all.  She also wants to make that Immigration Processing Center "a castration processing center for pedophiles, which will probably be most of the Zionists."  Nice.  Most Jews are pedophiles according to her.  Now, I might otherwise be inclined to say this is laughable; the rants of a clearly insane woman.  But she won the initial primary.  And this type of thinking is so widespread that it cannot be laughed off or ignored.  

After asserting she does not want Jews in internment camps, she then said "if you are a Zionist then you are a danger to humanity and belong in prison."  She also managed to throw in that "Zionists are not real Jews."  Because she obviously knows so much about our religion - which is nothing.  I will not recount the entire history of the Jewish people here, and the over 3000 year connection to the land of Israel.

On the good news front, many Democrats have condemned this dangerous lunatic.  Which does make me wonder why they have supported Graham Platner, rather than condemned him.  (See the May 4, 2026 post "Are We Living Through The Fall Of Western Civilization?  Part II.")  On the bad news front, there is an allegation that some Republican affiliated PACs have contributed to Galindo's campaign.  Why?  Apparently on the assumption that if she wins the Democratic nomination for that Congressional seat, she will be easy to defeat.

First, one should never make assumptions.  As the saying goes, don't assume anything as it makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me."  More importantly, if any Republicans, whether or not affiliated with the Party, supported this woman because she might be easier to defeat, that is reprehensible.  

Dan Bilzerian, Republican Candidate for the 6th Congressional District in Florida

(Note.  In my Part II post on May 4, 2026, I mentioned Graham Platner, an antisemite running for Senate in Maine.  He is a Democrat who is expected to be facing Republican Susan Collins in the general election.  I pointed out that Platner not only had the support of the Leftists like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, but also Senate Jewish Minority Leader Chuck Schumer...and even the official Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.  I guess the only thing that matters to the Democrats is getting back control of the Senate, regardless of how morally despicable a candidate might be.)  

What do we know about Dan Bilzerian?  Even more despicable than Platner.  According to Wikipedia, he supports Hamas, apparently not being bothered by the rape and torture and murder of women and children.  He called now deceased Yahya Sinwar, former head of Hamas, a "hero."  He claimed that Jews caused the famine in Ukraine, killed JFK, created "transgender," were behind 9/11, were behind the Iraq war, and are the cause of most of today's problems.

I feel like we could ask this guy about every bad event throughout history, and he would say the Jews were responsible.  He says Jews promote "Jewish supremacy" (not sure what that is), and rape and steal.  Then we have the usual nonsense, such as Jews inventing genocide, denying the Holocaust (or claiming 6 million were not killed), and that Jews don't have the DNA of the ancient Hebrews, as they are all Ashkenazi.  

Oddly enough, he says that he is 12% Jewish.  He has had various run-ins with the law, including kicking a woman in the face when she was on the ground.  In 2018, he flew to Armenia to get dual citizenship, to fight with the Armed Forces of Armenia.  

According to AI, he said that if he ever became President, his first act would be to declare war on Israel.  Of course, he would cut off all aid to Israel.  He accused Israel of being a terrorist state.  And he would like to kill Israelis, and would put boots on the ground to fight Israel if he was President.

And, according to a post on Facebook, Bilzerian is alleged to have gone to Qatar to solicit people to kill Israeli ministers.  But that post could not be verified.  Another antisemite, Nick Fuentes, claims Bilzerian did ask about killing Israeli government ministers and conservative Jewish commentator Ben Shapiro.  Bilzerian appears to have denied these allegations.  Unfortunately, we don't tend to have the most upstanding people as witnesses to what people like Bilzerian might say. 

One cannot help but wonder how someone could have such a distorted and warped and hateful worldview.  I wonder if he has any idea how much Israelis have contributed to the world, scientifically and medically.  And how much Israel has helped the United States with intelligence, and militarily (not just with Iron Dome and missile defense, but with improving American military hardware that gets battle tested all too often unfortunately.)  Israel's Ministry of Diapora Affairs posted a global "Top 10 Prominent Antisemitic Influencers."  Bilzerian has a huge following, and was ranked No. 1.  Hardly a surprise. 

The good news - the Republican Party does NOT support him.         

Zohran Mamdani, Mayor of New York City

(Note.  I have previously posted about Mamdani on July 4, 2025 (a 2 part post), July 27, 2025 and January 18, 2026.  These posts can easily be located by typing "Zohran Mamdani" in the search bar of the web version of the blog.  This post deals with a very recent event of a couple days ago.)

On this past Friday, just before the beginning of the Jewish Shabbat, Mayor Mamdani saw fit to use the Mayor's office to post the following:  "Today marks Nakba Day, an annual day of remembrance to commemorate the expulsion of more than 700,000 Palestinians between 1947 and 1949 during the creation of the State of Israel and the year that followed."  Along with his comments is a link to a video.  It is a story told by an elderly woman of having to leaving her home in Jerusalem.  She tells us that she had to flee her home because "the Zionists were coming into Jerusalem."  

The video also tells us that "The Haganah, Irgun and Lehi militias, among other others, destroyed more than 400 Palestinian villages and cities, killing thousands of Palestinians and carrying out dozens of massacres.  May 15 is the annual commemoration of the Nakba.  For Palestinians, their displacement and Nakba continue to this day."  (The Haganah later became the IDF - the Israeli Defense Forces.  The Irgun and Lehi were more aggressive and controversial offshoots of the Haganah.)  I admit that I do not have all the details of the war.  But when Mamdani says thousands of Palestinians were killed and villages were destroyed - it was a war!  Started by the Arabs.  

What's missing in this sad tale?  The truth.  But first, some history.  After the Allied victory in WWI, the League of Nations gave a mandate to Britain to control the area known as Palestine.  Prior to the war, the Ottoman Empire controlled the area for about 400 years.  There was never a country called Palestine.  In November, 1947, with the British having turned over control of their mandate to the UN, the UNGA voted what came to be known as a "partition" plan - dividing the mandate area into a Jewish state and an Arab state.  But let's be clear.  The Arabs said they would never accept the existence of a Jewish state, so they refused to accept the partition plan.  The Jewish people accepted the partition plan.

What the Arabs did was attack and kill Jews after the UN voted for the partition plan - even before Israel declared their independence on May 14, 1948.  When people like Mamdani say Nakba, it means catastrophe.  In other words, the creation of Israel was a catastrophe.  When Mamdani says the Nakba continues to this day, he is saying that Israel's existence is unacceptable.  What else do we know?  When Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion, announced Israel's independence on May 14, 1948, this is what he said:  "WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel, to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions."

Imagine that.  In the midst of attacks on the Jewish people, Ben Gurion offered an olive branch.  The Arabs refused.  On May 15, 1948, at least five Arab countries attacked Israel, in an effort to wipe the new State of Israel off the map and kill all the Jews.  The Arab countries told the Arabs of Israel to get out, saying they would be able to return after the Arab victory.  The Jews were badly outnumbered.  And their weapons were few.  But they prevailed, and the new country of Israel survived.  It was, indeed, a miracle.  After their defeat, the infuriated Arab countries either expelled their Jewish citizens, or made it so unpleasant for them to stay that the Jews left.  Over 800,000 Jews were displaced.  

Does Mamdani mention the 800,000 Jews displaced?  No.  Does he mention the thousands of Jews killed during Israel's war of independence?  No interest.  Does he point out that the UN has made these Palestinian Arabs "permanent refugees," and that no other group has ever been designated "permanent refugees?"  Of course not.  Because every other refugee group, in every war, has simply had to move on and make new lives for themselves elsewhere.  Just like the Jews who had lived for centuries in the Arab countries had to move on.  They received no "permanent refugee" status.  Does Mamdani care about any of this?  Obviously not.  

Does Mamdani mention that the Arabs were given a state by the UN but they refused?  No.  Does he say that the Arabs could have had their own state now for 79 years had they accepted the partition plan?  No again.  And, of course, he makes no mention of the offer by Ben Gurion to the Arabs.  Nor does he ask this woman why she didn't return to Jerusalem in 1949 when the war ended.  Because from 1949 until the Six Day War of 1967, Jordan controlled Jerusalem.  So why didn't she return?  Mamdani can reasonably be called not just an antisemite, but a Jew hater.  

Are We Living Through The Fall Of Western Civilization? Part II

At the beginning of Part I, I said I would address the lack of distinction between Islamists and Leftists, and the Democratic Party.  So, let's take a look.  Thomas Friedman, multiple Pulitzer Prize winning writer, and Democrat, at the New York Times, and the paper's preeminent Op-Ed writer, seemed to have a difficult time choosing sides.  In an interview with CNN's Michael Smerconish, Friedman said this:  "The problem is I really don't want to see Bibi Netanyahu or Donald Trump politically strengthened by this war, because they are two awful human beings.  They are both engaged in anti-democratic projects in their own countries...And so I really find myself torn.  I want to see Iran militarily defeated, but I do not want to see these two terrible people stengthened."

Just incredible.  Trump and Netanyahu were democratically elected.  The war is being fought by American troops and Israeli troops, against a regime that has murdered tens of thousands of its own people.  But Friedman can't decide if he should take the side of the United States of America versus The Islamic Republic of Iran.  Wow.  But let's assume for one minute that all the horrible things Friedman believes about Trump and Netanyahu are true.  So what?  Many of us can visualize the picture of FDR sitting with Churchill and Stalin in Yalta.  FDR and Churchill, two Western leaders of democracies met with the brutal dictator Stalin, in order to coordinate strategies to defeat Hitler.  Would Friedman be torn because, for that limited purpose of defeating Hitler, two Western leaders sided with Stalin?  It is beyond difficult to comprehend that Friedman does not know if he should hope for the victory of the United States.

You know who else is conflicted about a victory of the United States and Israel over Iran.  Almost the entire Senate Democratic caucus.  40 out of the 47 Senate Democrats voted to block the sale of arms to Israel in the middle of the war.  Who is the lone country fighting alongside the United States?  Israel.  By voting to block the arms sales, they were voting against the United States.  Jake Sullivan, former National Security Adviser to Joe Biden, said that those 40 Democrats "did the right thing."  These are all mainstream Democrats opposing a United States victory.  Hakeem Jeffries is the Democrat's Minority Leader in the House.  He has repeatedly said that the attack on Iran was a "reckless war of choice."  It matters not that every President from Bill Clinton forward said that Iran must not be allowed to get nuclear weapons.  Jeffries is fine with it.  It matters not to Jeffries the Americans killed and kidnapped by Iran and its proxies.  It matters not how often the Iranian leaders say "Death to America."  Let them get nukes.   

But who do mainstream Democrats support?  We know they supported socialist and Islamist Zohran Mamdani.  Graham Platner is the Democrat candidate for Senate in Maine, running against Susan Collins.  What do we know about Platner?  He had a Nazi tattoo on his chest, until he recently had it covered up.  He said that all cops are "bastards."  Like many Democrats, he accuses Israel of genocide and "exterminating" the people of Gaza.  (See the growth of the Gazan population in Part I.)  When Hamas killed Israeli soldiers, whose side did he take?  Hamas, of course.  He said the killing of those troops was "damn fine looking."  Add him to the list of Democrats who cheer on an Iranian (and their proxies) victory.  But surely mainstream Democrats push back on a guy like Platner.  You really think so?  Not only is he supported by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.  He is also supported by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.  Got that?  Just another example of "mainstream" Democrats aligning with Leftists and Islamists.  Because there is no longer any difference!  

Do you know who Hasan Piker is?  You should.  He is a Turkish Muslim, who says he was influenced by Recep Erdogan, the Islamist leader of Turkey.  Piker is on a social media site called Twitch.  During the week of the 2020 election he was the most watched streamer on Twitch.  At the 2024 Democratic National Convention he was given press credentials, and his election coverage garnered 7.5 million views.  He has worked with Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  What are his views?  He has called white people "crackers."  He said that "America deserved 9/11."  He later claimed that he was being satirical.  Nearly 3000 people, mostly Americans, were killed that day.  Nothing funny or satirical about it.  

Not surprisingly, he has all sorts of false claims about Israel.  Says that Israel is "fascist."  Of course, he claims that Israel is an "apartheid" state, and a "settler colonial" state.  He said he would "vote for Hamas over Israel every single time," because Hamas is the "lesser evil."  In fact, he claims that Hamas is "a thousand times better" than Israel.  He has said that Zionism needs to be eliminated.  Zionism is nothing other than a belief in a Jewish homeland.  Not only did he say we deserved 9/11, he also said that the "American empire is going to inevitably fall."  He is certainly doing his best to make it so.  

Piker called the fall of the Soviet Union "one of the greatest catastrophes of the twentieth century."  With regards to the events of October 7, 2023, Piker said "it doesn't matter if effing rapes happened," because the Israeli response was unjustified.  So, women being raped is not a problem for him.  And the illogic of his statement must have failed him.  What would he have said about the rapes before Israel fought back?  Probably the same thing, because it was just Jewish women being raped.  

Now, one might imagine, given all of his hate filled opinions about America and Israel, that he would be shunned by polite Democrat society.  One would be wrong.  He was invited to Oscar parties.  And was also invited to speak at Yale University.  There was a time when the elite universities were bastions of Western liberal (not Leftist) thought.  But having seen what has happened at Columbia and other "elite" universities, we know that they have become cesspools of anti-American and anti-Israel hate-filled propaganda.

So, just where is there a difference between radical Islamists, Leftists and Democrats?  You tell me.

Are We Living Through The Fall Of Western Civilization? Part I

I think a few generalities are in order.  It should be obvious to everyone that there are two main forces working against Western civilization - radical Islam and Leftism.  It should also be obvious that they usually work hand in hand against Western values.  And, while this next point is obvious to conservatives, I cannot say that it is for Democrats.  And that is - the Leftists and the Islamists have now taken over the Democrat party.  The most recent electoral example is Zohran Mamdani (a socialist and Islamist) becoming the Mayor of New York City, and gaining the support of many "mainstream" Democrats.  Because there is no distinction between mainstream Democrats and the Leftists and radical Islamists with whom they align themselves.  (I will address that further in Part II.)

First, however, I would like to make another obvious point, or one that should be obvious to everyone.  There are currently only two world leaders standing up and fighting for Western civilization:  Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu.  I am well aware that those who hate Trump also hate Netanyahu.  Here are a few words from our European "allies."  British P.M. Keir Starmer:  "This is not our war.  We will not be drawn into the conflict."  Not your war?  Without nuclear weapons, Iran directly and through its proxies already destabilizes the Middle East.  What do you expect their pernicious capabilities will be with nukes?  

German P.M. Friedrich Merz agrees that Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.  Yet, he publicly announced that Iran was "humiliating" the U.S.  Very helpful.  French President Emmanuel Macron, never one to be outdone, said our action against Iran was "unrealistic."  And that bombing alone will not work.  (I happen to agree that bombing alone will not work.)  But here is the interesting thing - Macron favors negotiations.  That is beyond hilarious.  Because the Europeans were the ones negotiating with Iran over Iran's nuclear program starting shortly after the turn of the century.  At that time the U.S. did not have direct contact with the Iranians.  Yet, through the years, and then the decades, Iran has feigned interest in negotiating, then stalled, then feigned interest again, and stalled again - all the while building up their nuclear facilities and centrifuges.  

So, we know that the Europeans do not care if the leading state sponsor of terrorism gets nuclear weapons.  They maybe think it would be a good thing if Israel was wiped off the map, and if New York and Washington were nuked.  I cannot leave Spain's P.M., Pedro Sanchez, out of this discussion.  "Spain, as you know, doesn't have nuclear bombs, aircraft carriers, or large oil reserves....we alone can't stop the Israeli offensive.  But that doesn't mean we won't stop trying."  Everyone get that?  If Spain had the capabilities, they would take up arms against the one Western style democracy in the Middle East in order to protect and defend the world's leading state sponsor of terror.  Would Spain also nuke Israel if they had nukes?  Maybe.  

And what does Sanchez mean by the Israeli "offensive?"  Israel fought back against the Hamas offensive of October 7, 2023.  But how dare they?  Isn't Israel committing genocide?  Honestly, I am so sick of hearing the word "genocide" tossed around so easily.  I believe I previously discussed all the things that the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) does to protect civilians.  I believe I previously discussed the tons of humanitarian aid (food and medical supplies) that Israel has allowed to enter Gaza during the current war.  When Israel vacated Gaza in 2005, the Gazan population was estimated at 1.35 to 1.4 million people.  In 2025, the estimate is 2,050,000 people.  That appears to be a reverse genocide.  Perhaps the Spanish P.M. is pining for the good old days of the Spanish Inquisition.    

Here is more from Spain's P.M.:  "China can do more...For example, by demanding as it is doing, that international law be respected and that the conflicts in Lebanon, Iran, Gaza and the West Bank and Ukraine cease."  China can do more?  China, which constantly does its best to undermine the West, and which does not adhere to the Western values of liberty and democracy and free speech.  That is who Spain looks to to lead the world.  And, clearly, Spain has no sense of fighting for Western values - values shared by Israel.  Those values are not shared by Iran, which has murdered tens of thousands of its own citizens because they were protesting for those Western values of freedom and liberty.  By all means, side with Iran.

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.