Tag: donald-trump

PROJECT FREEDOM

As always, the contents of this blog are a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my personal opinion where indicated.

Negotiations have gone on long enough. They are at a standoff. The time has come to act. It’s clear that the Iranians are not negotiating in good faith. They are doing what they have always done – stall, stall, and stall some more. This “rope-a-dope” has worked for years, and they are hoping it will work again. They are banking on political pressure from within the US, and they are getting it. Trump is being criticized for his handling of the war, the price of oil, and the rate of inflation. He is losing popularity, and the midterms are coming soon.

The Iranians have not and are not going to agree to our core demands. We don’t even know that the Iranians with whom we are negotiating have the power and authority to negotiate. We are receiving conflicting information. Who’s in charge? Is it the politicians? Is it the military? Is it the Ayatollah? Is the Ayatollah alive, dead or incapacitated? Is a small cadre of close advisors making decisions in his name? (This is eerily similar to the Biden presidency.)

As I have opined in previous blogs in my view, President Trump’s prosecution of the war has been flawless to date. In a matter of weeks our military has destroyed Iran’s nuclear capability, its military, its infrastructure, its communication systems and its economy. Militarily, the war a complete mismatch akin to an NFL team playing against a high school team.

Now, comes the harder part. We won the war; now we have to win the peace, which will be largely fought in the court of public opinion both in the US and abroad. Now, the overriding goal is to bring down the price of oil and hence the inflation rate. The blockade of the Hormuz Strait was a wise attempt to force Iran to surrender without additional loss of lives – ours and theirs. Trump was being considerate of the Iranian people who have suffered greatly and are continuing to do so. That is to his credit. Unfortunately, the blockade has not opened up the Strait. It has not revitalized the flow of oil. Americans are suffering and getting mad.

Now, Trump must take more decisive action. He has a plethora of choices ranging from continuing diplomacy to “letting the dogs loose,” i. e. resuming massive bombing and/or taking Kharg Island. We don’t have to “bomb Iran back to the Stone Age.” Just take control of its oil.

Wisely, he has chosen a “middle of the road” response. Just today he has initiated one of the mildest possible actions dubbed “Project Freedom” whereby US Navy ships will commence escorting commercial oil tankers through the strait. Many of these tankers are owned and operated by neutral countries who have had no part in the war. Nevertheless, they have been stuck outside the strait since the war began. At this point their crews are running low on fuel, food and other necessities. Trump said these countries have been requesting the US for assistance. The situation grew more critical over the weekend as Iranian boats attacked one of these ships. Additional attacks are feared. If this action does not work, he can always proceed with one of the more aggressive actions.

Several observers, such as Retired General Jack Keane, have been advocating for military action to resolve the Iran problem once and for all. There is merit to that position. This will probably be our one and only shot. We have a president who has the guts to do what’s right, not what is politically expedient. Unfortunately, Trump will not be president forever. His successors might be less assertive. Moreover, let’s not forget, we have three carrier groups in the area and thousands of jets and troops. We can do whatever we want.

Conclusion

Domestic support for the war is dwindling. Trump knows the midterm elections are only six months away. Politically speaking, this war must be resolved before then.

When all is said and done, the top issue for voters is the economy. Elections are always about the economy. Thanks to the rhetoric of the Dems and their allies in the media a goodly portion of voters are not even cognizant of the seriousness of the existential threat of a nuclear-capable Iran. They are unaware of the objective of the war and are questioning its necessity.

People are suffering, and they are mad. They don’t care about Iran. All they focus on is the high price of oil, now as high as $115 per barrel and $4.46 at the pump for a gallon of regular. Before the war it was significantly lower. Prices, in general, are high. They are reminded every time they gas-up their car, go food shopping, or pay the rent or mortgage. Naturally, they blame Trump for all of it.

As of early May 2026, President Trump’s approval ratings, heavily impacted by the economy, inflation and the war, have hit new second-term lows. For example, the most recent ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos Poll disclosed his approval to be just 37% and his disapproval at 62%. Unless these ratings rebound Republicans will likely lose control of one or both house of Congress. In that event Trumps’ program will be thwarted and he will likely be impeached again.

It’s time to focus on the needs of the American people, not those of the Iranian people. It’s time for Trump to refocus on his famous mantra – “America First.”

by Tags: , , , , , Leave a comment

GERRYMANDERING

As always, the contents of this blog represent a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my personal opinion where indicated.

Gerrymandering is the act of manipulating the redistribution of electoral districts in order to favor a particular candidate or political party. It has been prominent in the news recently, as both political parties have been engaging in the practice to gain an edge in Congressional representation as well as in their own state legislatures. This practice is especially significant now in advance of the 2026 midterm elections. Currently, the Republicans have very slim margins in both the Senate and the House, and maintaining control will be difficult but crucial. I believe if the Dems seize control of one or both houses, they will seek to stifle Trump’s agenda and possibly impeach him again on some “trumped up” charges. More on this later.

The law requires redistribution in at least every decade. Traditionally, these redistributions have been effectuated in response to periodic census results. The law requires such redistributions to be equitable. One of its major requirements is not to disadvantage any race. As you will see below, all too often, that has not been the case.

According to Wikipedia the practice of gerrymandering originated in 1812 when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed a bill that resulted in the manipulation of electoral districts in a partisan manner with the intention of benefiting his Democratic-Republican Party. It concentrated Federalist voters into a few districts (packing) while spreading Democratic-Republican voters across many districts to maximize their influence. Of course, this was controversial, and the Boston Gazette conceived the term to lampoon the distorted, politically skewed maps. In particular, it denigrated one district it said was “shaped like a salamander.”

As I said, currently the practice has become quite common. For example, in just the last five years Alabama, Maryland, Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Illinois, and Utah, among others, have or are planning to gerrymander. Both political parties have engaged in or are planning to engage in this practice and always to the advantage of the party in power in that particular state. The goal is packing (concentrating the opposition party’s voters into a few “safe” districts where they will win by large margins, or cracking (widely dispersing the opposition’s voters so they rarely or never have a large enough majority to win a particular district). Some of these redistributions have been so egregiously inequitable that they have attracted the attention of the Judiciary.

Over the years there have been various cases involving redistricting. However, a few days ago the Supreme Court issued a ruling that promises to have a seismic effect regarding this issue. By a 6-3 margin it ruled that Louisiana’s redistricting plan, (which had been mandated by a federal judge in 2014) in which the state had packed black voters into a newly-created second black majority district constituted a violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law. The court ruled that this practice unduly reduced the statewide effect of the black vote,

The ruling was very controversial and has precipitated vitriolic objections from many black leaders, Dem politicians and their supporters. For example, NAACP President Derrick Johnson characterized it as a “license for corrupt politicians who want to rig the system by silencing entire communities.” In fact, the opposite is true. The Court’s main objection was Louisiana’s packing blacks into just the two black heavily majority districts, which they would win anyway, and which had resulted in more congressional seats for whites at the expense of blacks.

Conclusion

This ruling will likely impact many states. They will have to redistribute their voting districts before the 2026 elections. Most of these redistributions will favor one party or the other. The key question is which party will benefit on a net basis. Early indications are that the G.O.P will benefit more as the current districting is viewed as more favorable to Dems, but we will have to wait and see. Politics aside I believe this was the right decision to foster voter equality.

by Tags: , , , Leave a comment

TRUMP’S STRANGLE STRATEGY

As always, the contents of this blog are a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my personal opinion where indicated.

I like President Trump’s current strategy to blockade Iranian shipping attempting to navigate the Strait of Hormuz. At this stage of the war, it is the best strategy. I prefer it over the alternatives such as additional massive bombing of Iran’s oil wells or agreeing to a peace settlement that falls short of the primary objectives of the war, which for those who may have forgotten is to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weaponry.

The obvious objective of the blockade is to strangle Iran’s economy by depriving it of its sole source of revenue – oil. Normally, some 80% of Iran’s oil and 20% of the world’s oil and liquid natural gas passes through the Strait. It is the best and most expeditious route for these products to transit between the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. As I write this, the blockade has generally been very effective even though a few ships have managed to sneak through.

Iran has no alternative sources of revenue. It has no other natural resources, no manufacturing to speak of, and certainly no tourism. All it has is huge deposits of oil, which heretofore have sustained its economy and funded its desire to foment terrorism throughout the ME and the rest of the world through various proxies.

According to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth all ships (some 34 in total) traveling to or from Iranian ports have been “turned around without incident.”  Moreover, the blockade has been expanding. As I write this, the US now has three carrier groups in the region. Hegseth added “just this week, we seized two Iranian ‘dark fleet’ ships in the Indo-Pacific region that had left Iranian ports before the blockade went into effect.” Furthermore, in posts on his Truth Social platform Trump claimed: “Iran is collapsing financially! [It] want[s] the Strait of Hormuz opened immediately. [It is] starving for cash! [It is] [l]osing about $500 million a day.” Recently, it was reported that Iran has about 127 million barrels of crude oil reserves that are stored in parked tankers. That sounds like a lot, but in truth it will not last long. But that doesn’t mean that the blockade wouldn’t hurt Iran,” he said.

For various reasons a goodly portion of congresspersons and other critics has opposed the war from its inception. As I explained in previous blogs they fall into four categories: (1) those with a political agenda whether or not it is beneficial to America, (2) “never Trumpers,” who blindly and automatically oppose any action or policy Trump undertakes, (3) antisemites and anti-Israel critics, and (4) those who are misinformed by the “fake news” media and/or ignorant of or choose to ignore the lessons of history. These categories of vociferous naysayers include many Dem politicians such as Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Gavin Newsome, Kamala Harris and AOC, who should know better. Perhaps, some or all of them should brush up on their knowledge of history.

On May 1 the Trump Administration may face a Congressional challenge with respect to the continued deployment of the military in Iran. Some Congresspersons have opined that the duration of the US’s military campaign against Iran is limited by the War Powers Act of 1973, which mandates that a President commence military withdrawal after 60 days unless Congress either declares war, authorizes the specific action, or extends the deadline. Congress has not taken either action and is unlikely to do so.

The Administration has “pushed back” claiming there is “no firm deadline for ending the conflict as it has not formally characterized the campaign as a “war.” Consequently, congressional approval is not required. The 60th day is May 1. We’ll have to see how this matter is resolved. It may require a ruling by SCOTUS.

Conclusion

The blockade has been opposed by the usual suspects as detailed above. Due to their ten-year record of lies, exaggerations and obfuscations that have invariably been ultimately debunked their opinion no longer has any credence if it ever did.

In my opinion, however, it has proven to be a very successful strategy. It has strangled Iran’s economy by depriving it of some $500 million of oil revenue per day. As a result, in addition to not having any nuclear weapons or an effective military Iran’s economy and finances are being severely degraded. It has nothing. NOTHING.

At this point, we don’t have to fight. We don’t have to risk American lives. We can just sit back and watch Iran strangle to death unless it accepts our terms.

by Tags: , , , , Leave a comment

THE HARD WAY OR THE EASY WAY

As always, the contents of this blog are a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my personal opinion, where indicated.

As I write this blog the US is attempting to arrange round two of peace negotiations with Iran. Predictably, round one did not yield any meaningful results. As always, the Iranian negotiators were not negotiating in good faith. Obviously, they did not have the power and the authority to do so seriously. Since then, it has become apparent that the country is in turmoil. There is a power struggle between the politicians who seem willing to be realistic and reasonable and the military, which is not. There is no clearcut leader, so a meaningful, lasting deal cannot be consummated.

Despite all the fake news characterizing President Trump as a reckless, heartless, warmonger the empirical evidence clearly illustrates that he wants a peaceful resolution to this war. Iran has been thoroughly and completely defeated militarily. At the moment, it is “circling the drain” financially and economically. Its navy has been destroyed; its nuclear weaponry and nuclear “dust,” Trump’s term to describe Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile and residual nuclear material currently buried under tons of debris that could be retrieved and “enriched” to make nuclear bombs have been neutralized; its leadership has been virtually wiped out; its communications systems are “shot;” its economy is destroyed; and the US’s blockade of the Hormuz Strait is preventing any ships from entering or leaving its ports. In short, Iran is completely helpless. It is at our mercy. Trump could, as he has said, bomb it back to the stone age. For them, continuing the war would be futile and suicidal.

I believe further negotiations would be a “fool’s errand.” It would provide Iran with another opportunity to lie, delay and obfuscate and turn public opinion in its favor. It’s what they have always done and what they will continue to do. They are not in any position to negotiate terms. Their choices are to (1) surrender and accept our terms unconditionally (the easy way) or (2) continue to resist and be annihilated (the hard way). At this point most countries would accept reality and opt for the easy way in order to retain some semblance of viability.

However, Iran’s leadership is dominated by fanatical religious zealots who have espoused the destruction of Israel, the US, and any other “non-believers.” We have to understand that they have no desire to negotiate a lasting peace treaty. They would rather fight to the end and die as martyrs. They have been attacking Israel, the US and others and fomenting terrorism through their proxies for 47 years. They have tried to assassinate Trump at least twice. They have no empathy for anyone, even their own citizenry who have been suffering greatly. After all, they have already slaughtered tens of thousands of them merely for the “crime” of protesting. They will fight to the last man. I applaud Trump for continually attempting to forge a lasting peaceful solution, but the time to “lower the boom” once and for all is approaching rapidly. The current situation is untenable. It is hurting Americans economically and, by extension, the GOP’s prospects for the midterm elections. In my view, Iran is akin to a cancer that must be extirpated.

Conclusion

The latest Reuters/Ipsos Poll disclosed that Trump’s approval rating has declined to 36%, which is a new low. A majority of respondents were critical of both the state of the economy and his conduct of the war. There is substantial pressure on him to negotiate a settlement even though we have not yet achieved complete and total victory and even if it would allow Iran to rise again in the future.

His critics primarily include the following groups:

  1. The “never-Trumpers” who will always oppose any action or policy of his. In this case many of them have openly stated that they would rather the US lose this war than see Trump get credit for winning it,
  2. those who hate Israel and Jews,
  3. the politicians (mostly Dems) who crave power over doing what would benefit the country,
  4. the well-meaning persons who have been gaslighted by the fake news media, and
  5. the inattentive and/or ignorant persons who neither know nor care about the lessons of history and have no appreciation of the gravity of the current situation.

Luckily, Trump is impervious to criticism and polls. He has consistently pursued the course of action that he believes is right, not one that is politically expedient. It’s what he is doing now. It’s fine to give a negotiated lasting peace a chance, but not for too much longer. I hope that Trump retains the fortitude to persevere and finish the job. To use a sports analogy, we’re at the one-yard line. Punch it in!

by Tags: , , , , Leave a comment

A PEACE AGREEMENT WITH IRAN IS IMMINENT, OR IS IT?

As always, the contents of this blog constitute a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my personal opinion, where indicated.

As I have written in previous blogs militarily, it was a complete mismatch, comparable to an NFL team taking on a high school team. In a matter of weeks, we have defeated Iran militarily completely and decisively. We have bombed them relentlessly (including destroying its nuclear capability, its nuclear enrichment sites, its factories, its communication systems, and its economy, among other targets), killed the Ayatollah and the top two or three tiers of Iran’s leadership, destroyed its Navy, taken out virtually all of its missiles, rockets and other weaponry, opened up the Hormuz Strait, blockaded the Strait to choke off any ships trying to enter or leave Iranian ports, and cut off its primary means of revenue – oil. Like I said, a total and decisive military victory. Kudos to President Trump, Secretary of War Hegseth, and the entire military hierarchy from the Joint Chiefs down to the enlisted men and women.

It was well-known that Iran was close to attaining nuclear capability. Its negotiators even bragged about it at one of the sessions. Everyone knew that the rest of the world could not allow that to happen. Something had to be done and soon.

Iran’s military was no match for the US. All that was required was a US president with the b**ls to do what needed to be done. Unlike predecessors Obama and Biden, President Trump was that man. He understood that history tells us appeasement never works in the long run. The other side views it as weakness and always seeks to take advantage. Aggressors will always keep pressing until they meet resistance. He was wise to Iran’s negotiating tactics and would not be deceived.

However, I believe all that was the easy part. Now comes the hard part, to forge an agreement that will last, that Iran will honor, and that future US presidents will have the fortitude to enforce if it doesn’t. In summary, we won the war; now we have to win the peace. More about this later.

As I have said multiple times anyone who has been paying attention to the news and is analyzing it objectively, rationally and coherently was cognizant that (1) Iran was close to developing nuclear capability, (2) was lying about it, (3) would likely use it once it had it, (4) could never be allowed to possess it, and (5) it was incumbent on the US to prevent it by force, if necessary.

And yet, the Dems and their allies in the media fought Trump at every turn. This was incredulous under the circumstances, but not surprising. As I have blogged many times, they have consistently opposed and denigrated every Trump policy and action. They have persisted even though it consistently placed them on the wrong side of various “80-20” issues. But this was different. We’re used to TDS. Normally, we laugh it off, but this situation presented an existential threat not only to the US, but potentially to the entire world as a whole. This situation had the potential to impact not only us, but also future generations. Obviously, they didn’t care. Obviously, they wanted Trump to fail even if it damaged our national security.

For example:

  1. At first, they insisted the war was illegal. The Constitution states that only Congress can declare war. True, but there have been a plethora of precedents in which the president has commenced hostilities going all the way back to Thomas Jefferson and the wars against the Barbary Pirates beginning in 1801.
  2. At the beginning Trump was labeled a “warmonger,” a “fascist,” and a “violator of human rights.” Later, when he agreed to a cease fire he was labeled “soft.”
  3. As I said, many of his critics were openly rooting for Iran just so Trump would fail and give them a political issue in advance of the 2026 midterm elections. For instance, NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman, a hardline progressive and avowed Trump-hater actually admitted that “although he doesn’t like [the] Iranian regime,” he is rooting for it because he “doesn’t want to see Trump or Bibi Netanyahu getting credit for what would be a historic win for global peace.”
  4. Reportage of the war was radically different depending upon which media outlet was reporting the news.

Conclusion

As I write this it appears that Iran is agreeing to all of the US’s peace terms. That’s great, but as I said above, given its history of lies and obfuscations a word of caution is needed. Negotiations are still ongoing. We cannot assume anything. We don’t even know for sure that we are negotiating with the persons who actually have the authority to make a deal. Iran could be stalling while it rebuilds and re-arms.

Moreover, even after a deal has been signed there will no assurances that Iran will abide by it. It will require continuous monitoring, probably indefinitely. Iran fears and respects Trump, but it is playing the “long game.” It knows Trump will be gone shortly. Its hope is that eventually we will elect another president who will be weak, lax or inattentive and will re-engage in appeasement. I hope not, but I fear it will happen.

by Tags: , , , Leave a comment

VOTER ID

As always, the contents of this blog are a compendium of various media reports supplemented by my personal opinion, where noted.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act is a proposed US federal law that aims to restrict voting in federal elections to citizens. Voters would be required to present proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate in order to register to vote. Furthermore, it would necessitate anyone voting in person to produce a photo ID, such as a driver’s license, strengthen procedures for on-line voting, and mandate stricter voter roll maintenance by the states to prevent unauthorized persons from voting. President Trump has characterized the Bill as his “number one [legislative] priority.”

The SAVE Act was narrowly approved by the House earlier this year, however, it faces strong opposition in the Senate. The Repubs hold a 53-47 margin in the Senate, but the cloture rules require 60 “yea” votes to pass the bill. The Senate voted 51-48 to commence debate on the bill, but the Repubs acknowledge that at the present time they “don’t have the votes” to pass the bill. Already Repub Senators Lisa Murkowski and Thom Tillis have expressed “concerns” indicating they may not support it. The debate is expected to be lengthy and contentious. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has signaled that he will endeavor to keep it on the floor at least into next week to provide opportunity for a “full and robust debate.”

As I said above the bill is very controversial among the individual congresspersons. I discussed the pros and cons at length in a previous blog, and I don’t see a need to repeat them now. Briefly, the Republicans claim it will (1) eliminate voting irregularities including outright fraud of which there have been many examples in our history, and (2) provide for free and fair elections, which is the cornerstone of our Republic.

In my opinion these are logical and necessary goals. Who would oppose them? Why? Of course, the Congressional Dems. They claim it would disenfranchise minority voters disproportionally. As I explained in my previous in my view this is a load of malarkey. Not only is it fictitious, but also every poll shows that even minorities don’t agree. In fact, many of them take umbrage and deride that argument as racist.

We all know the real reason. Dems want as many noncitizens as possible to be able to vote, because they feel most of them will vote Dem. That is a major reason why they opened our borders for four years. Moreover, loose voter rolls and voting requirements favor them as well. The bottom line is that in the current political climate the only way the Dems can win a national election is by cheating.

Probably, the bill will fail to pass, but at least the Dems will have been forced to disclose their opinions regarding this issue on the record. Some Dems, particularly those who represent districts that Trump won in 2024 or those who are running for re-election in 2026 will have to choose between the lesser of two evils. On one hand, party leadership is pressuring them to vote “no,” but on the other hand doing so will likely hurt their prospects for re-election.

What’s really interesting and informative are some of the comments Dems have made in the past on this issue. In the age of the internet, one can no longer dismiss past comments as “exaggerated” or “taken out of context.” For example, take (Up)Chuck Schumer, aka “dead man walking (politically).” I saw a video of a speech he gave in 1996 in which he advocated voter ID. He made the same arguments that Repubs do today. Once again, it illustrates he is an opportunist, a political chameleon, and not to be trusted.

Conclusion

The polls regarding this issue are as one-sided as any I have ever seen. They are all consistent – Pew, Gallup, Heritage, Rasmussen, Fox, even fake-news CNN. Some 71% of respondents are in favor of the bill, including 69% of independents and even half of Dems. 81% favor requiring voter ID, including 79% of independents and 70% of Democrats. 80% want states to purge non-citizens from voter rolls. 61% support sharing unredacted voter rolls with the Department of Homeland Security. 58% recognize at least some voter fraud exists in elections. The bill is widely viewed as a “common sense” way to combat fraud and protect the integrity of our elections.”

Once again, the Dem congresspersons find themselves on the wrong side of an 80-20 issue. Once again, they will be exposed as not caring about the well-being of their constituents but only about gaining and retaining power.

I urge you to remember this on Election Day.

by Tags: , , , Leave a comment

DEAL OR NO DEAL

As always, the contents of this blog are a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my personal opinion where indicated.

Below please find my observations, thoughts and opinions with respect to the war with Iran:

  1. Here’s a statement on which all sane, rational, objective persons can agree. IRAN CAN NEVER BE ALLOWED TO POSSESS NUCLEAR CAPABILITY! Anyone who cannot endorse that statement needs to have their head examined. Furthermore, they should be automatically disqualified from holding any responsible government political office or leadership position (on the grounds of deficient mental acuity). Apparently, that includes many if not most of the Dem politicians.
  2. Trump did not want a war. He reiterated that point over and over again. He wanted to make a deal, but a deal the US could live with such as (1) an Iran devoid of nuclear capability, (2) unfettered and independent inspections, and (3) penalties for non-compliance, among other things. The Iranian leadership has been gaslighting us on this for decades. They say they want to make a deal, but they don’t really want to do so. Like I said in my previous blog it’s the Iranian version of “rope-a-dope.”
  3. A nuclear capable Iran would pose an existential threat not only to Israel, not only to the ME, but to the entire world. Its leaders are religious fanatics. They hate and want to kill anyone who is not a “true believer.” They are fanatical enough to use it, even if it would mean mutual destruction. They simply don’t care.
  4. The concept that America is protected by two vast oceans is outdated. In a war we would be in range of our enemies’ ballistic missiles. Moreover, there is the threat from within posed by terrorist cells.
  5. As I write this, the war is eleven days old. Militarily, it has been a success beyond all expectations. In that short period the US and Israel have destroyed Iran’s Air Force, sunken in excess of 60 naval vessels (which constituted most of its navy), and taken out most of its missiles and missile launchers. 
  6. Enjoying complete air superiority, Israeli and US bombers have had free rein to attack any targets they choose. As I write this, they have destroyed more than 5,500 targets inside Iran, and Trump has said there will be more to come.
  7. They have killed the Supreme Leader, virtually all of the top echelon of leaders and advisors and most of the second tier.
  8. Trump has made it clear that the Ayatollah’s replacement must have his support, or else he won’t “last long.” We don’t want to end up with a government of more of the same. They have chosen Mojtaba Khamenel, son of the late Supreme Leader, who likely will likely be more of the same.
  9. Anyone who doubts the urgency and legitimacy of this war should listen to Steve Witkoff, the US’s co-chief negotiator. He told Fox News that at the latest meeting the Iranian negotiators’ first comment was to brag about how they had surreptitiously developed 460kg of 60% enriched uranium. It’s been estimated that Iran could have enriched it up to 90%, which is weapons grade, in a mere ten days or fewer. At that point Iran would have possessed nuclear weapons.
  10. Iran tried to gaslight Witkoff by insisting its nuclear goals were peaceful, but Witkoff denoted that if that were true there would have been no need to enrich beyond 20%.
  11. The Iranians told Witkoff they viewed it as their “inalienable right” to develop such weapons. Witkoff responded that it was our “inalienable right” to stop them. At that point it was clear that there would be no deal.
  12. The Strait of Hormuz, which is just South of Iran, is a vital choke point for oil that is shipped to and from the ME. Some 20% of the world’s oil is shipped through it. In order to disrupt the oil markets Iran has attempted to blockade it and attack ships traversing it. A few days ago, it sunk three oil tankers, and it sought to mine the strait even though Trump had warned them not to do it.
  13. As a result of Iran’s actions, the price of oil has been fluctuating wildly. A few days ago, it hit a high of $119.50 per barrel before retreating to $90 on Monday. We sunk their warships, which is good, but we’re not completely out of the woods yet. It has been reported that Iran still has a multitude of small boats, minesweepers and sea explosives.
  14. The International Energy Agency, which for decades has monitored global crude oil supplies and helped to prevent price shocks, announced that its 32 member countries would release 400 million barrels of oil from their respective strategic reserves. That would represent the largest release ever and the first such coordinated action since 2022. However, the IEA has not yet released details about when countries will start releasing oil, nor how much they will be able to put into the market at a time. The goal is to moderate rising oil prices prospectively.
  15. Hezbollah, in an ill-advised strategic move, has been attacking Israel with barrages of rockets. Israel has responded with waves of airstrikes in Lebanon and an extensive ground campaign. To date, more than 630 people have been killed in Lebanon, and some 1,500 others have been injured.
  16. The primary critics of the war have been the Dem politicians and their allies in the media. They can’t help themselves. As I have said in prior blogs this war is not one of choice. It is of necessity. This is not a replay of the Bush Administration’s false claims of “weapons of mass destruction.” Naturally the Dems have been critical. First, they claimed that it was illegal since Congress was not consulted beforehand, and only Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war. Nevertheless, precedent for a president starting a war is clearly on Trump’s side. Presidents have been doing so all the way back to Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates Wars (beginning in 1803). The idea of consulting with Congress on war strategy is absurd on its face. There would be no confidentiality. One does not disclose to the enemy when and where one will be attacking. That claim was thwarted.
  17. Now, many of them are still claiming there is no clearcut strategy. They just don’t “get it.” For example, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D CT) told reporters, “I emerged from [last Tuesday’s] briefing [to the Senate Armed Services Committee] as dissatisfied and angry, frankly, as I have from any past briefing in my 15 years.” I say, why, about what? Our goals are crystal clear. Chuck Schumer (dead man walking politically) still professes that Trump’s justification for the war is “confusing” and exhibits “blatant disregard” for [the safety of] American soldiers. I didn’t realize he was that ignorant of history. Maybe, he should research the preamble to WWII and read my last two blogs.
  18. Although Iran cannot defeat us militarily, it does present a real clear and present danger via possible terrorist attacks. It likely has a plethora of terror cells in the US that it could activate if it hasn’t already. We are especially vulnerable since the Dems have caused a government shutdown which is undermining the effectiveness of the DHS and the secret service, which have responsibility for ferreting out and preventing terrorist attacks. I urge Congress to agree on a deal to end the shutdown asap. (Schumer, are you listening, or are you confused about that too?

Conclusion

Iran miscalculated our power and our resolve. They were not the first, and they won’t be the last to do so. They are paying dearly for their miscalculation. Iran’s only hope is to turn American public opinion against the war like with the Vietnam War.

We must exhibit resolve in the face of economic adversity. This war is too important, and I don’t believe it will last a long time. I view it as short-term pain, long-term gain. I repeat, IRAN CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE NUCLEAR CAPABILITY.

No deals, except unconditional surrender.

by Tags: , , , , Leave a comment

THE WAR WITH IRAN

As always, this blog is based on a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my personal opinion, where indicated.

The decision to go to war with Iran was not a “reckless,” “spur of the moment” decision as some Dems and other critics would have you believe. President Trump repeatedly advocated for a peaceful settlement, but due to Iran’s intransigent negotiating strategy it became obvious that it would never agree to curtail its quest to become a nuclear power. He warned them what would happen, and then he followed through. As I have always said, Trump says what he means and means what he says.

I believe that in retrospect we can all see that Trump began to lay the groundwork for a potential war with Iran in his first administration beginning with the Abraham Accords. Furthermore, he has nurtured a positive relationship with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States most of which are also fearful of a nuclear-armed Iran. So, this was a well-planned, well-thought-out operation. Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

Remember, every war has its underlying causes and an immediate cause. In this case the underlying causes were thousands of years of religious antipathy and 47 years of terrorist activities committed by Iran and its proxies. In 1979 a group of religious fanatics overthrew the government run by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (aka “The Shah of Iran”). Since then, Iran has become the primary source of terrorist activities in the Middle East, the US and Europe. It has been well-funded by oil money and its allies such as Russia and China.

In recent years Iran has engaged in various negotiations with the US and others aimed at achieving a lasting peace in the ME. Lately, however, it has become increasingly apparent that Iran does not really want peace and never did. It has engaged in several negotiations and agreed to various peace deals such as the toothless Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or Iran nuclear deal, but it never abided by them. What it does want and has always wanted is nuclear capability, and recently the evidence shows unequivocably that it was very close to achieving that, maybe within weeks. According to Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, currently the US’s chief negotiators with Iran, the Iranian negotiators admitted as much at the most recent meeting, even bragging about how it had achieved that status surreptitiously,

What many have long suspected became obvious. All of the negotiations with prior presidents were just camouflage, an Iranian “rope-a-dope,” if you will. The US has tried to bribe Iran with various concessions and billions of dollars, all of which failed. Finally, in Donald Trump we have a president who was not deceived, who realized that the world was being “gas lighted” big-time, who would not be deterred from what must be done, who had the cojones to do what was right as opposed to what was politically expedient, and who realized that the world was rapidly approaching Armageddon. The timing was propitious. Iran had been weakened by previous attacks, and its citizens were rising up against the government. The feeling was if not now, when?

Simply put, Trump realized what these prior administrations did not or were afraid to act on. Iran, a country that was governed by religious fanatics who were virulently antisemitic, anti-Israel, anti-America, and anti-Christian and had repeatedly openly declared that its goal was to destroy Israel and the US, could never be allowed to possess nuclear capability. Surely, they would not hesitate to use it. Even the mere threat of them using it would destabilize the entire ME if not the world. That realization was the immediate cause. Anyone who doubts the righteousness of Trump’s decision need only recall the preamble to WWII. During the 1930’s European leaders repeated appeased Hitler in the hope of avoiding war. We all know how that worked out.

I am perplexed why any clear and objective thinker would criticize this war. Yet, the Dems have not disappointed. They are predictably consistent, the gift that keeps on giving. The defenders of criminals, illegal aliens, election fraud, and boys participating in girls’ sports cannot help themselves. Their DNA requires them to criticize anything Trump advocates or does. In the words of the late former president Ronald Reagan, “there they go again.”

Many members of Congress are mad that Congress wasn’t asked for prior approval or even consulted beforehand. For example, Hakeem Jeffries said that “the Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East.” For good measure he opined we would lose the war. Majority leader Chuck Schumer, said this war is “not necessary.” He called for “more information.” In her typically “wishy-washy” manner, NY Governor Kathy Hochul was all over the place, afraid to offend anyone. She “blasted” the Iranian regime as a “global threat,” but then in the next breath she commented that “it is deeply disturbing that we entered a war without an exit strategy.” My response to them is Trump’s actions were no different than those of other recent presidents. Also, once a decision was made speed and confidentiality were paramount to success. You don’t tell the enemy where and when you are coming. Finally, words of wisdom from Senator John Kennedy (R LA), he of the acerbic wit; “We’re not trying to start a war…We’re trying to end it.” And, with respect to the late Ayatollah, “may he rest in ‘pieces.’ ”

Trump is angry with some of our European allies including the UK, Spain and France, among others for refusing to allow the US to utilize their bases to refuel during the attacks particularly since their countries have already been victimized by Iranian-sponsored terrorism, and they are already within the range of Iran’s missiles. He denigrated UK’s PM, Keir Starmer, as “no Winston Churchill.”

Conclusion

An Iran with nuclear capability would have presented an existential threat not only to Israel and the US, but to the entire world. Be honest. Would you have rested easy in that case? I think not.

As I said, already some of its ballistic missiles have the capability to reach parts of Europe. That makes our European allies’ actions even more puzzling. In a short time, Iran would likely have developed enhanced weaponry with the capability to reach parts of the US as well. Heretofore, the nations that have had nuclear capability have exercised responsibility and restraint. They may bluster and threaten from time to time, but they know that using a nuclear weapon would likely provoke an all-out war that would devastate everything and everyone. I and many others believe that the Mullahs of Iran, being crazy, deranged lunatics, could not be counted on to follow suit.

This should be an all-out war. No halfway measures. Finish the job once and for all. Don’t fight not to lose. Fight to win. When Iran loses, and it will lose, I advocate unconditional surrender.

Trump’s critics, which are legion, have characterized this war as a “war of choice.” In fact, in my view it is just the opposite. It is a war of survival. Therefore, Trump should be applauded, not criticized, for his actions. To his critics I say take a deep breath, hold your nose, swallow your pride, suspend your TDS and be grateful he is our president.

by Tags: , , , , Leave a comment

STATE OF THE UNION

The contents of this blog are a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my personal opinion where indicated.

In accordance with Article II, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution the President “shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” The Constitution does not offer any specifics, such as the date and manner of delivery.

President George Washington delivered the initial SOTU in person to a joint session of Congress on January 1, 1801. Thereafter, most presidents chose to deliver a written report. In 1913 President Woodrow Wilson broke with tradition and commenced the practice of delivering the SOTU in person. Later, with the advent of radio, then TV and later the internet, the SOTU began to be communicated live to a nationwide and worldwide audience. Traditionally, presidents have delivered the SOTU between January 1 and March 1.

Typically, presidents utilize the SOTU to present a positive account of their past accomplishments and prospective plans. Political sycophants in the audience frequently interrupt the speech to stand and applaud while political opponents often just sit stone-faced. Most viewers are aware that the SOTU is short on facts and long on politics, hyperbole and theatre. Fact checkers would have a field day. As the expression goes, “it is what it is.” It should be noted that the opposition party gets to offer a rebuttal.

Last night President Trump delivered the SOTU for 2026. Everyone will have his or her own opinion. Below please find my comments and takeaways:

  1. Trump’s speech was typical “Trump.” That is, he sprinkled the serious content with moments of humor and sarcasm. For example, on several occasions he chastised Dems in the audience for not standing up to acknowledge his special guests, and then when many of them (not Nancy Pelosi) did stand up to show support for the “Stop Insider Trading Act,” which aims to prohibit congressmen from profiting from trading on inside information, he feigned surprise. Undoubtedly, some of his detractors will criticize him for his style, but I loved it.
  2. Many Dems exhibited a considerable lack of class and professionalism. Approximately 70 of them boycotted the speech entirely; some texted; some interrupted by shouting slogans; one or two nodded off; once again Al Green had to be ceremoniously escorted out of the chamber; and most who did attend mostly sat on their hands even for poignant and patriotic moments.
  3. He admonished the Dems for their stance on various “80-20” issues, such as gender transition of minors without their parents’ consent or even knowledge, sanctuary policies, and opposing voter ID for elections. As I have blogged previously we all know that the only reason to oppose voter ID is to foster cheating.
  4. On several occasions he denoted that the Dems’ policies inexplicably favored illegal aliens over citizens, whereas the Repubs’ policies appropriately favor American citizens over illegals.
  5. He called out NYC mayor Mamdani for his hypocritical stance of requiring volunteer snow shovelers to present multiple forms of ID in stark contrast to his advocating no IDs to vote.
  6. He criticized Dems for causing multiple government shutdowns in order to defund ICE and to gain Medicare and other rights for illegals.
  7. He vowed to continue the fight to reduce healthcare costs.
  8. On the international front he mentioned the many peace deals he had brokered to settle longstanding conflicts and the ongoing negotiations between Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Hamas. He reiterated that Iran will “never” be allowed to possess nuclear capability. I believe Trump knows Iran is stalling (its version of a “rope a dope”), and he will attack sooner rather than later.
  9. My one criticism was he couldn’t resist admonishing the Supreme Court for its recent opinion, which struck down his “reciprocal tariff” policy. He characterized it as “a very unfortunate ruling.” He didn’t have to do that, particularly since his Administration is already pursuing alternate pathways to achieve his goal, and most of the other countries have indicated that they will honor their tariff agreements anyway. Moreover, he will need the court’s support on other crucial matters prospectively.
  10. He emphasized several of his major accomplishments, such as reducing inflation, improving the economy, passing the Big Beautiful Bill, closing the border, and drastically reducing the flow of fentanyl and other deadly drugs. Inflation, unemployment, food prices and gas at the pump are down. Oil production and the financial markets are up. (Remember, the financial markets are a leading indicator, so this bodes well for the economy prospectively.) The BBB will provide the most substantial income tax reduction for the middle and working classes in my lifetime, such as no tax on tips or overtime, reduced taxes on social security for most seniors and the advent of the “Trump Accounts” for children of American citizens.
  11. On several occasions he repeated the theme of patriotism. For example, he lauded the Olympic gold medal performance of the men’s hockey team. They had been his guests at the White House, and he introduced them to wild and sustained applause (even from some, but not all Dems in attendance). In addition, he presented the star goalie with the Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor. The women’s gold medal team was also invited. They could not attend due to a scheduling conflict, but it is expected that they will prospectively. He introduced a 100-yer-old veteran of the Korean War and a WWII veteran who will be celebrating his 100th birthday on July 4 and presented them both with the Congressional Medal of Honor.
  12. He touted America’s upcoming 250th Birthday Celebration on July 4 and its hosting of the 2026 World Cup this summer and the 2028 Republican Convention in 2028.

Conclusion

A sampling of post-speech polls was generally favorable. For instance, 54% believed that Trump was focusing on the right issues; a majority opined that his immigration and economic policies are “in line with the nation’s best interest;” 45% expressed full faith in his leadership; 43% support his using US military power “responsibly;” and a plurality of 38% felt that he would be able to deal with Iran “appropriately.” Respondents were evenly divided on his tariff policy. However, 45% felt he was paying insufficient attention to the cost of living, and 40% expressed “no confidence” that he could make things more affordable. These polls are merely a snapshot. They are informative but no means dispositive.

Since he entered politics Trump has been heavily criticized for many things, but one cannot deny his patriotism. His deep love for America is epitomized by his twin slogans “MAGA” and “America First.” When all is said and done, I, for one, will rest easily as long as he is the President.

by Tags: , , Leave a comment

VOTER ID LAWS

As always, the following is gleaned from a compendium of multiple media accounts supplemented by my personal opinion, where indicated.

Once again, the Dems are espousing the wrong side of an 80-20 issue. It should be surprising that they keep finding themselves in this position, but it seems to be their modus operandi. It seems that they can’t help themselves. Their TDS overrules all rationality. Anything President Trump is for they must be against regardless of the will of the people. The current issue is whether or not a person should be required to produce proper identification in order to vote.

Before 2006, no state required a person to present ID in order to vote. However, in 2006 Indiana became the first state to pass a law requiring voters to produce ID at the polls. Its legality was challenged, but eventually, the Supreme Court upheld this requirement as long as the laws were “neutral and did not significantly burden voters.” According to Wikipedia currently thirty-six states have implemented voter ID laws with varying degrees of stringency. The other 14 states plus Washington D.C. still allow voting without ID. Support for voter ID laws is often fueled by concerns over voter fraud. A 2013 poll disclosed that 43% of voters believed that voter fraud was “relatively common,” and a 2010 survey revealed that some 80% of respondents supported some form of ID requirement.  At the present time various polls have reported bilateral support. Some 80% of the public, including some 70% of Dems, support voter ID laws.

Critics of strict voter ID laws argue that they disproportionately affect minority, low-income, and elderly populations. Furthermore, they claim it is a “non-issue” as voter ID fraud is “exceedingly rare.” I don’t subscribe to these arguments. Our history is replete with instances of elections whose results were tainted by suspicions of voter irregularities, if not outright fraud. For example, for years there were suspicions that “machines” such as NYC’s Tammany Hall perpetrated such irregularities. In the 1960s it was suspected that Chicago Mayor Richard Daley padded Dem votes. The joke was that in Chicago even dead people voted. The 2000 presidential election results were tainted by irregularities such as the infamous “hanging chads” in Florida. Eventually the Supreme Court had to weigh in. To this day, many Gore supporters insist he was the real winner. Most recently many Trump supporters have questioned the validity of the 2020 presidential election.

The arguments against voter ID laws had some validity in the South during the “Jim Crow” period when voter suppression of Blacks was common. Nowadays, I don’t believe that is an issue. In fact, many minorities view the Dems’ opposition to voter ID as an insult and racist in and of itself. The implication is that Dem politicians such as Chuck Schumer, Kamala Harris and Jamie Raskin, to name a few, consider minorities and women to be incapable obtaining a valid ID via the DMV or the internet. Schumer has even characterized voter ID laws such as the Trump sponsored SAVE America Act as “Jim Crow 2.0.” Pollsters who have queried minorities regarding this matter have generally been met with puzzlement or indignation.

Let’s be honest. We all know the real reason for the Dems’ opposition. They want legions of non-citizens to be able to vote. They feel that most of them would vote Democrat in order to continue to get freebies from the government, and that would result in Dems having a better chance to win elections. I and many others firmly believe that that was one of the reasons why they pursued the open borders policy during the Biden Administration.

Conclusion

Voter ID requirements are necessary in order to engender confidence that elections are fair and equitable. Furthermore, one is required to produce ID for a myriad of routine activities in everyday life such as driving a car, flying on an airplane, gaining employment, applying for or receiving government benefits, getting a marriage license, and age-restricted purchases such as alcohol or cigarettes. Why not for voting, which in my view is the most important act for a citizen.

Fair and equitable elections are one of the cornerstones of our democracy. If the public does not have confidence in election results our entire system of government would dissipate.

by Tags: , , Leave a comment