Quote of the Day

“No, no, no, not nearly long enough.”

- President Trump

How To Steal An Election In Five Easy Steps

The mid-term elections are a little more than three months away and hardly a day goes by that there isn't a claim by the White House of the recent special elections being stolen, how millions of illegal immigrants are routinely voting and how Democrats are scheming to steal the mid-term elections.  These baseless claims nearly always include a reminder of how the 2020 elections were rigged. 

None of this is surprising as polling isn't looking very good for the GOP's chances of retaining the House; and as the president's approval rating continues to fall; now even retaining a GOP majority in the Senate is at some small risk of peril.  Naturally, Republicans will do whatever is necessary to retain power in the representative branch of government.

In light of the foregoing someone should read to the president the 2022 Report: Lost Not Stolen; composed by eight conservative Republicans including a couple of former GOP senators, three former appellate judges, a former Republican solicitor general and a couple of Republican election law specialists.  They examined all 187 counts in the 64 court challenges filed by Trump and his supporters.  What did they find?

Twenty of those cases were dismissed on their merits before being heard and an additional fourteen were voluntarily withdrawn by Trump and his supporters before being heard.  Of the thirty that were heard on their merits, Trump prevailed in only one, Pennsylvania, involving far too few votes to change the election outcome.  In Arizona, the most exhaustively scrutinized state, a private firm specifically chosen by Trump's team confirmed the president's loss finding 261 fewer Trump votes and an additional 99 votes for Biden.

Even the Heritage Foundation's database undermines Donald Trump's claims of election fraud.  But don't take my word for it; click on Wisconsin and you will learn of exactly 68 proven cases of election malfeasance from 1982 through 2025.  It happens; but blessedly in small amounts insufficient to swing a national election.

Yet, here we are.  We began with Trump's demands that Red States engage in partisan redistricting (gerrymandering) including proposed legislation like the Save Act; all intended to make voting more onerous for those less likely to support a Republican candidate.

The show of force by ICE and CBP agents terrorizing blue neighborhoods in dozens of cities may have been a dress rehearsal for their eventual presence at polling places.  Seizing ballots in Georgia from the previous presidential election provides context for extending the baseless narrative claiming widespread voter fraud.

Is it a real stretch that Trump's threat to nationalize elections in fifteen states may come to pass?  Certainly the potential consequences of masked federal agents confronting voters at polling places is dire.  Voters may recall the killing of Alex Pretti, Renee Nicole Goode and Ruben Martinez without consequence for the triggermen.  In the last few weeks an ICE agent shot and killed a Columbian man in Maine and a Mexican citizen in Houston, Texas.  If enough fear is generated it is possible that it might suppress voter turnout in key Democratic precincts.  

If all else fails; inciting violence, as was done on January 6, 2021 and recently in Minneapolis could be used as an excuse for the imposition of martial law and suspension of the mid-term elections altogether.  Trump's blanket pardon of the January 6 rioters and on-again, off-again, promise to reward them from a $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund laid down the marker; he has got you covered.

Given all the other actions of the Trump administration I cannot conceive of anything that would be a surprise.  Consider this plot line:

Donald Trump is obsessed with convincing his supporters he won the 2020 election.  His hold on power is all about the appearance of winning.  Control over elections is dispersed among thousands of elections officials across the country making cancellation exceedingly difficult.  Plenty of commentators have declared America's decentralized election system a strength.  The implication being that Trump cannot take over all elections across the country.  But that's not something he needs to do.  What he needs to do is tamper with elections in just a handful of places.  America's decentralized system may make that a lot easier as procedures aren't standardized nationwide and elections aren't monitored by an established, professional commission.  Tampering with a few local elections, often managed by volunteers, seems a lot easier under the circumstances.

Consequently, this has more to do with election subversion not cancellation.  The goal is simple; keep the elections going without unseating those already in power. 

In January the president repeated his threat to prosecute election officials who oversaw the 2020 election.  As a follow-on the FBI raided the election office for Fulton County, Georgia and seized election ballots and records.  Was this a dry run or a dress rehearsal?  You pick.

At the same time, federal officials have collected voter data from eleven states that have agreed to turn-over their voter registration lists.  Predictably, we will hear that there are hordes of previously unrevealed noncitizens on the voter roles.  Accordingly, during his confirmation hearing to head-up the Department of Homeland Security, Senator Markwayne Mullin said this about deploying ICE to polling locations:  "The only reason why my officers would be there is if there was a specific threat for them to be there; not for intimidation." 

That tune has changed; in the first week of June in a Senate hearing Mullin refused to explicitly commit to abiding by all federal court orders.  In his testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Mullin stated that the courts are politicized and therefore judges use their benches for political opinions instead of the rule of law.  Does Mullin believe he can therefore ignore a federal court order?

With the appointment in April of Todd Blanche as acting Attorney General and housing official Bill Pulte to lead the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) Trump now has three loyal enforcers in Mullin, Blanche and Pulte to deliver on orders from the White House.  ODNI has drawn scrutiny for an expanded role in election security and my spider sense is tingling.  

I've come around to thinking that Trump usually gets around to doing just about everything he says he'll do; eventually.  The President, administration appointees and his supporters often tell you exactly what they will do.  They are very good at saying the quiet part out loud.  So, if Steve Bannon says ICE will be at the polls; perhaps we should believe him.

Trump might use ICE and CBP, his now loyal militia, on November 4th to seize mail-in ballots in key competitive districts.  This will stop or delay the certification of those new Democrat Representative and Senators.  He will tie it up in the courts for months by claiming foreign interference with mail-in ballots.  Whatever it takes to delay the seating of a Democratic Congress.

Most Congressional elections are noncompetitive with completely predictable winners.  Of the 435 seats in the House only about 40 will be seriously contested.  Who controls the House  will therefore depend completely on those 40 or so elections.  For that reason the Trump administration has no need to control every election in the country - it simply has to put its thumb on the scale in about 40 House elections.

The Senate is similarly noncompetitive; but in a few swing states the strategy to distort the election requires manipulating the vote in a few precincts that are likely to determine who wins.  Again, election interference doesn't have to be widespread.  It can focus on just a few key precincts and districts. 

Neither Russia, China or Iran has yet to cancel an election.  For these nations the institutions and elections persist; only the results are fudged to to keep authoritarian incumbents in place.  Having "won" the election they are subsequently legitimized. 

In the absence of Truth, Justice and the American Way I have to conjure-up a bizarrely unthinkable scheme that makes me sound like a garden variety conspiracy kook; yet, given the current cast of characters is entirely plausible.  

Meanwhile, in a preview of the fall strategy to cast doubt on election outcomes the president gave a televised 26-minute address Thursday evening.  He promised proof of election tampering; the follow-on documents offered no evidence that such vulnerabilities were being exploited nor anything we haven't heard-about before and previously debunked.  On Friday morning even Fox News was mute on the subject.  

Looks like we're in for a belly-full of belly-aching. 

Stay-tuned and strap-in..... 

Theology Of The Purloined Election

Who won the 2020 presidential election?

Joe Biden did; fair and square.

Court after court after court agreed; including courts presided-over by judges appointed by Donald Trump.

Republican secretaries of state agreed on the matter.

Donald Trump's own attorney general agreed.

Recounts confirmed it.

Audits further confirmed it.

Lawsuits were settled over it. 

Time and again the stolen election hoax has been tested and rejected whenever it finds its way into a courtroom, a sworn affidavit, testimony or deposition is undertaken to present evidence.

Nevertheless, it remains an article of faith in MAGA World and no heresy on the subject matter is permitted because Donald Trump demands it be so.  Absolute fealty and obeisance to the Dear Leader is enforced.  

Even those Republicans who cannot bring themselves to say that the long-dead Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez was somehow involved in hacking the vote tabulators in 2020 are loathe to distance themselves from the Big Lie.  They'll shuffle their feet, nervously change the subject and suggest that voting by mail during COVID was somehow unfair.

As a general rule I don't pontificate (pardon the pun) about religion on social media.  Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs; and if you follow one of the three Abrahamic religions or something else that is your business.  Not mine.  But I'm acquainted with a handful of individuals who gushingly worship the president.  Some days I think that ordinarily level-headed and rational adults have somehow become spellbound by magical wishful thinking.  It's kinda creepy.

The stolen election has now been elevated to a modern day political New Testament.  It is the closest thing American politics has conjured-up in my lifetime to idolatry.  Yup; and there's a Commandment that addresses this business of idol worship.

The public profession of faith in a thing known to be false because devotion to the Leader requires it.  Yuck.

Future Enforcer?

The law that created the Director of National Intelligence position stipulates that the officeholder should “have extensive national security expertise.” 

Bill Pulte clearly fails that test. 

Although, his obeisance and fealty to Donald Trump is unimpeachable. 

Nevertheless, Mr. Trump has appointed him in an acting role, which means that the Senate does not need to confirm him. Unless the president formally nominates him, he can serve in the job for only 210 days. 

That appears to be long enough to act on the president's orders for the midterm elections.

Think about it.

Pitch Perfect

With midterms looming and affordability on voters’ minds, Mr. Trump was asked whether Americans’ financial situation was motivating him to make a deal.  

Not even a little bit. The only thing that matters when I’m talking about Iran — they can’t have a nuclear weapon.*

- Donald Trump 

*No sarcasm. The President has finally spoken what needs to be said.  The deal, if it comes, must hold every red line; no enrichment, full removal of the existing stockpile, verification with teeth, the Strait open and free, permanently.  Nothing less.

Mixed Messages

I've published on this subject previously and reflecting-upon recent gains in the investment markets, a reasonably robust jobs report, the peace process (or lack-there-of) for the Iran war why are the people seemingly down on their economic situation and possibly even a wee bit grumpy?

Consumer sentiment has dropped again.  According to the University of Michigan, the Consumer Sentiment Index fell to 48.2. from 49.8 in April.  The numbers are preliminary and subject to revision; nevertheless, this is the second consecutive all-time low in a data set that has been collected since the late 1970s.

I look at the economic world through the eyes of a recovering financial advisor and while I'm not wearing rose-colored glasses my sense is that excepting for global economic instability and rising energy costs as a consequence of the Iran war, economically-speaking, things are generally OK.  

What gives?  

Seems like the culprit are those nagging exceptions; namely the war, inflation due to energy costs and tariffs along with generalized economic uncertainty; all of which conspire to create bad vibes that bleeds into weakness in the mood of consumers.  This is important as the lion's share of our domestic economy is driven by consumers and their consumption.

According to the survey's director, Joanne Hsu, the drop is; "Owing to a surge in concerns about high prices both for personal finances as well as buying conditions for major purchases."  One-third of respondents mentioned gas prices as the biggest cause for concern; and another one-third cited tariffs. 

Stock indexes held positive in the wake of this news; and the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that job creation was stronger than expected in April with non farm payrolls rising by a modest 115,000 and unemployment holding steady at 4.3%.  A recession is presently a low-probability event.  Further evidence that things, economically-speaking, are generally OK.  

My sense is the weakness in the Michigan survey numbers reflect public opinion in light of soaring prices for gas and diesel at the start of the summer travel season.  Consequently, there is a political shadow over all of this.  People are pissed-off and tiring of the drama have contracted a case of Trump fatigue.  And I get it; we just purchased airline tickets for a family vacation and with the cost of jet fuel doubling it's not a cheap date.

My preference is for policy that improves your and my prosperity and general lot in life.  Along with making the world a safer place; so, where’re we at?

On one hand the stock market is on an absolute tear, with the NASDAQ up 5% last week and nearly 13% year-to-date.  The proximate causes include a shaky cease-fire with Iran, a 28% surge in S&P corporate profits for the first quarter and some consensus-beating economic reports, like Friday's payroll numbers. 

On the other hand, there is this. 

The Strait remains off-line, inflation is up, Iran holds all of its enriched uranium and President Trump's war has set in motion a cascade of destabilizing events that have all manner of consequences for global stability, security and the world economy.  

Meanwhile there is a billion dollar+ ballroom, a triumphal arch, a glowering visage of Trump on passports and national park passes and a no-bid, resort-blue paint job for the historic Washington Monument Reflecting Pool.  

It's a mixed message for sure.

Good grief.... 

Quote Of The Day

"The blockade is somewhat more effective than the bombing.  They are choking like a stuffed pig.  And it's going to be worse for them."

-Donald Trump

How to Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

A funny thing happened on the road to the White House.  The president who turned-up isn't the same guy as the candidate.

The US war against Iran is unpopular and becoming more unpopular as it continues; furthermore, the latest Economist/YouGov Poll also finds few Americans support deploying ground troops to the conflict.

Or do other Americans see it differently?

Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper - Dr. Strangelove

It depends-upon whom you ask.

Only 30% of Americans strongly or somewhat approve of President Trump's handling of the Iran war with 60% disapproving for a net approval of -30.

Almost all Democrats (88%) oppose the war while independents oppose it by a 3-to-1 ratio.  

But there is this: Collectively, most Republicans support the war (62%) yet there is a huge gap in support between MAGA Republicans and non-MAGA Republicans (70% support vs. 33%).  Inasmuch as there are more than twice as many MAGA supporters as non-MAGA supporters among the GOP, MAGA opinion is basically settled science.   

Furthermore, a recent CBS News poll found that 92% of MAGA Republicans expressed support for military action against Iran, compared with only 70% of non-MAGA Republicans.

Amongst my MAGA acquaintances, and mostly on account of my unwavering support for arming Ukrainians in defending their country from a Soviet invasion, I have been characterized as everything from an armchair general to a warmonger.  

Naturally, beginning three years ago and following Vladimir Putin's unprovoked assault on Ukraine these same individuals reminded me at most every opportunity that supporting Ukraine's defense was distinctly at odds with candidate Trump's America First platform.  I quote:  'No foreign entanglements', 'We haven't won anything since WWII', 'Donald Trump is the greatest patriot ever' and 'You like war too much'.    

Candidate Trump may have ridden to reelection with a pledge to avoid forever wars yet systematically blowing alleged drug-running vessels and crews out of the Gulf of Mexico, a birthday military parade, deploying the military on America's streets, Houthis in Yemen (Operation Rough Rider), 529 air strikes across the middle east, Africa and central Asia, aerial strikes against Iranian sites last summer including ISIS in Iraq, threats to take Greenland by force, masked and unidentified federal paramilitary forces killing three American citizens, a military toppling of Venezuela's government, seizure of Venezuelan oil at the point of a gun, threats against Cuba, the current Iran war and recent musings to ditch NATO suggest that America First pretty much means whatever President Trump says it is; on any given day.  My impression is it is exceedingly warlike.

I had always figured that MAGA supporters preferred candidate Trump's populist pitch while bemoaning old-school Reagan neocons and their propensity for an assertive foreign policy.  Deservedly or not it is a fact I have been derisively called a neocon; yet the polling seems to suggest that MAGA world agrees-with and, only a short fourteen months into a second term, seems to have developed a powerful thirst for Trumpian military adventurism - both domestically and abroad.  

Just as with the CBS poll, if you dig thru the data, MAGA world is overwhelmingly in favor of mounting a war with Iran; and, when specifically asked if the war counts as an America First policy, only a mere 9% of the president's loyalists say it does not.

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute's 2025 National Defense Survey reveals that self-identified MAGA supporters were also the most supportive of all sorts of interventions in Taiwan with two-thirds supporting 'committing US forces in defense of Taiwan.'  That doesn't sound like isolationism does it?

Speaking for myself I happen to think that the Iranian Mullahs are a dangerous collection of twisted religious revanchists who would represent a threat to a peaceful world order if they had nukes and the capacity to deliver them.  I generally lose no sleep over dealing with bad actors by means of force.

Nevertheless, dealing with security threats deliberately and with forethought is not the same as impulsiveness.  And the world has no shortage of bad actors.  Most days I think the president has stepped in it this time and unleashed a cascade of destabilizing events that have dangerous consequences for global stability, security and the world's economy.  Let there be no misunderstanding, it is in my own self interest that things somehow work out for the best.  I'm also smart enough to know that five weeks into this the president's excursion is nowhere near a forever war.  Oh; and we don't have the highly-enriched stuff in our possession either.  Yet anyway.  There is that as a denouement.  

I have yet to hear what the exit strategy is.  You?

So for now I think we might be in for a stretch of rising energy costs, inflation and possibly some economic stagnation or contraction.  Only the passage of time will write the end to that chapter.

Meanwhile, there's a pile of the US population becoming grumpy over rising gasoline and diesel, increasing grocery prices due to supply chain disruptions and escalating transportation costs.  I'm beginning to believe that post-election MAGA world doesn't really care about that as much as they did a couple-three years ago.  Nobody's bitching about it at all on social media and not a single sole Trump supporter I speak with on a daily basis has yet to bring it up.  Loyalists are called that for a reason after-all.  Which is just fine; and it is perfectly OK to own what you have wrought.

It has occurred to me this might have something to do with ideological principles; dictated by whatever president Trump tells us to believe and the possibility that the beliefs of some reading this might be insincere.  Which is fine too; people are disingenuous all day long.  I understand that sometimes it is difficult to admit making a mistake.  I get it.  I make mistakes too.  Get over it.  Own it.

Or perhaps at its core the principle is to agree with the president in every respect; even if his actions contradict what he promised in order to get a voter's support.  No matter it damages their business and costs them the actual farm.  On that matter I can only speculate.

So, for any of my MAGA acquaintances reading this; if you want to call me an armchair general or a warmonger; have at it.  Throw neocon my direction for good measure.  I have a thick skin and since you're doing it from the warming glow of your device and not personally to my face I understand the context. Water off a duck's back.  Das macht nichts aus.  

Polling is science.  With growing awareness the rest of the world is learning that MAGA world likes war; and way the heck more than me.  Does MAGA like it too much?  That's hard to know as we're only fourteen months into President Trump's military adventurism.  I think we ain't seen nuthn' yet.  But I'm perfectly happy to be wrong.

I'm old enough to remember back to 1965 when a certain general famously pledged to eschew ground troops and use naval and air power to bomb the Vietnamese - Back into the stone age.  In his April 1st address to the nation it was fascinating to see and hear President Trump invoke the very same oath - verbatim.  Curious about from whom the president is taking his cues? 

A general splendidly associated with ruthless scorched-earth tactics against civilians.

Stay-tuned..... 

Guns Versus Butter

I haven't had much to say about the war with Iran.  On one hand it is easy to come down on the side of regime change or, at a minimum, defanging the regime. The Mullahs are a dangerous collection of twisted religious revanchists who would kill me in a heartbeat for simply being American, Christian or both.  Yup, I am the Great Satan.  Nuclear weapons in the hands of these gangsters is taboo.

On the other hand, my preference would have been for a President to take his case before Congress before going to war.  I am unconvinced of the clear and present danger of an immediate threat as much as I am convinced that the president would have gotten the go-ahead from Congress along with buy-in from the public.  What we got instead was more executive unilateralism.

Almost three weeks into Operation Epic Fury - the war on Iran - the President's promise of prosperity and economic growth in his second term is facing a handful of critical risks that heretofore did not exist.  Going into the new year the current economic condition was basically OK.  Notwithstanding a nonsensical tariff regimen my sense was that the president was counting on a second-term economic agenda of deregulation and tax relief to propel the economy forward.  

In the absence of a Congressional resolution supporting the war, shifting rationales for the war itself and no clearly articulated strategy to end the hostilities at this particular point in time and space there are any number of elements that might conspire to trip-up both the domestic and world economies.

The most immediate of which is the disruption to the energy supply chain.  Even an Iranian 'threat' to shipping via the Strait of Hormuz has caused oil prices to spike impacting everything from gasoline, to LNG and diesel. The domino-effect of this is a spike in inflation pressures as a consequence  higher prices for groceries (transportation and farming costs), airfares and utility pricing.

Wars costs a big pile of money; with the first week alone reported to cost us taxpayers $11.3 billion.  Even if the burn rate settles-in at $1 billion a day the implications for expanding the the federal deficit are huge.  The President and Pentagon are going to come back with hat-in-hand to ask for more money; and the resulting borrowing will crowd-out private investment and lead to calls for raising taxes.   

Iranian threats have disrupted maritime security resulting in the rerouting of shipping, higher insurance premiums and increased freight costs impacting virtually every last consumer good traveling the global supply chain. 

Economists have been setting-off alarm bells that a prolonged conflict could damage business confidence leading to a pause in hiring and capital investment.  A combination of persistently higher energy costs and depressed growth could lead to a 1970s style 'stagflation'.  Naturally, the investment market's response to uncertainty is greater volatility.

I do not believe that an air campaign alone can effect regime change much less political change. Consequently, I'm anxious to know how this gets wrapped-up before it morphs into an unintentional 'forever war'. 

Meanwhile, the resulting energy crisis and fiscal drain have very real implications to our economy, and the world economy writ-large.  The risk for shifting from an expected period of domestic growth to one of stagnation and rising living costs is quite real.

I want policy that improves your and my prosperity and general lot in life.  Along with making the world a safer place.  But what it is ain't exactly clear.  We have not been to a Trump rodeo like this before.

The Award For Excellence In Cinematic Achievement For Arrogance, Vanity and Excess Goes To....

The Academy For Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is hosting their 98th annual award ceremony tomorrow.  And a funny thing happened on the way to the Oscars.  The $220,000,000 taxpayer-funded boondoggle overseen by former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Kristi Noem has drawn intense scrutiny not only on account of the cost, but because that single 60-second promotional effort she authorized outspent the production budgets of every 2026 Oscar Best Picture nominee.

The combined production and promotion budget of every single film on the Motion Picture Academy's list of nominees came in lower than Secretary Noem's extravagant high-hat testament to personal conceit.  

The following table compares the $220 million DHS ad campaign budget against the estimated production costs of the top-spending 2026 Academy Award contenders:

Feature Film	Category	Estimated Production Budget	vs. DHS Ad
F1	Sports Drama	$135M – $200M	Up to $85M cheaper
One Battle After Another	Period Drama	$130M – $175M	At least $45M cheaper
Frankenstein	Sci-Fi Horror	$120M	$100M cheaper
Sinners	Supernatural Thriller	$90M	$130M cheaper

Consider this:  Film budgets can include one or more years of labor for hundreds of cast and crew members, whereas the DHS budget was for a 60-second clip and its airtime.  $175 million of the DHS expenditure went to Safe America Media Group, a corporation formed just days before the contract was awarded and with no prior government experience.

Representative Joe Neguse (D-CO) labeled the spending a 'fraud' noting that the campaign featured Noem prominently on horseback at Mount Rushmore, serving more as a political branding exercise instead of a legitimate government service.

And, of course, it pissed-off El Jefe (The Boss).  After Noem testified before Congress that President Trump signed-off on the spending, the President publicly stated, I never knew anything about it, noting that he spent less money than that to actually become President. 

Oh boy howdy.  Someone gonna take that girl to the woodshed before too long....

Quote Of The Day

Tell these tankers to get themselves, get to it, we have wiped out most of their launchers.   These ships should go through the Strait of Hormuz and show some guts, there’s nothing to be afraid of.  They have no navy, we sunk all their ships.

- President Trump 

Good Riddance

Seems I saw this coming a couple of years ago.  President Trump has done the right thing.

 Good riddance.  

Moving The Goal Posts

Throughout his political career Donald Trump has often articulated a disdain for open-ended military conflicts.  You know; Forever Wars.    

He has often cited the trillions of dollars spent in Iraq and Afghanistan suggesting the US received nothing in return.  As an America First Populist he has argued that these resources are better spent on domestic priorities.  Both he and his followers have frequently blamed warmongering globalists, neocons, military leadership and a shadowy Deep State for dragging the country into unnecessary conflicts.  And he has been consistent in deriding the notion of nation-building.  

I cannot argue any of the foregoing as there is truth to be found in all of it; particularly the costs in lives, both military and civilian.  The purpose of this post is nothing more than to note, as an outside observer, the shifting rationales cascading in the wake of Operation Epic Fury. 

Following the January 2020 drone strike that killed General Qasem Soleimani Trump claimed the action was necessary to head-off imminent and sinister attacks on US diplomats and service members. Pressed by Congress the administration later moved the goal posts and in a formal memo to Congress, deleted any reference to an imminent claim, instead justifying the strike as a response to past attacks and to deter future aggression. 

In 2025 President Trump launched Operation Midnight Hammer striking Iranian nuclear facilities in Natanz and Fordow.  The president announced the facilities were obliterated, effectively ending Iran's nuclear ambitions.  In short order, and in direct contradiction of earlier claims, the administration moved the goal posts claiming Iran was rebuilding the same facilities as a rationale for the recent escalation of hostilities.

Then the goal posts were planted on Iran's ballistic missile program.  The rationale was the Iran was developing intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of striking our homeland soon. 

Defense Secretary Hegseth moved the goal posts arguing that Iran's conventional missiles and drones were a shield protecting their nuclear ambitions thus requiring the US to first dismantle Iran's conventional military.

Secretary of State Rubio suggested that the recent wave of attacks were preemptive in nature arguing that the US struck Iran because it knew Israel was planning an attack; consequently, the US had to strike first to neutralize Iran's capacity to attack our middle eastern bases.  Goal posts moved, again. 

Ironically the most inconsistent is the regime change rationale requiring moving the goal posts in both end zones.  Trump himself appealed to the Iranian people to take control of your government as he cheered the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as a turning point.  Simultaneously, Defense Secretary Hegseth stated that the operations are not a so-called regime change war, framing it instead as a narrow mission to destroy specific Iranian military assets.  

Trump Says Germany is Helping With Iran Strikes

Between you and me, and hopefully within a relatively short passage of time, the administration will settle on some sort of rationale.  The goal posts may look something like this:  With insufficient international and weakening domestic support, military losses, rising oil prices, market volatility, insufficient evidence of any Iranian opposition capacity for overthrowing the current theocracy and a general lack of progress towards whatever rationale the administration eventually settles-on, it will be TACO time. The President will declare a win and victoriously announce we've done all that is possible for freedom-loving Iranians and that it is now time to move-on leaving them to pick-up the pieces.

I happen to believe regime change is overreach.  For the sake of Americans who wear a uniform in service to this country and civilians caught in the crossfire I pray for sooner; rather than longer. 

EDIT to add one hour following publication:

Attacks have intensified, with Iranian drone and missile strikes heading towards the Arab Gulf states. Many of these states rely on costly U.S. interceptors, and with stockpiles dwindling, energy infrastructure could become exposed.

Fools and Lapdogs

The U.S. merchandise trade deficit hit a record $1.2 trillion last year, despite President Donald Trump’s promise to eliminate it by imposing the highest tariffs in eight decades on foreign-made products.

Thursday’s Commerce Department report represents the first full-year assessment of the president’s ambitious reordering of global trade. The persistence of the deficit in the face of steep new taxes on imports from China, the European Union and scores of other nations reflects the limits of Trump’s blunt policy tool.

As expected, the Supreme Court today nullified Donald Trump's signature economic policy this morning in a ruling that invalidated the president's arbitrary and capricious imposition of trillions of dollars of import taxes on our trading partners around the world.  

Naturally, the President's response was to be presidential and call the justices fools and lapdogs for ruling against him on tariffs.    

 

Back in August the president threatened the court stating that this ruling would: Literally destroy the United States of America. 

Well, it's happened and in the long term we're all likely to be better-off for the ruling.  Tariffs, on their own, are not likely to raise-up or destroy the country inasmuch as imported goods account for only about ten percent of our total economy.  Because we are largely a service economy tariffs don't have much direct impact on things like education and healthcare.  Manufacturing constitutes less than ten percent of the US economy.

Nevertheless, the imposition of import taxes at the sky-high levels the administration imposed are a tax on all consumers, business and manufacturers shrinking the country's Gross Domestic Product by an estimated .3 percent per year. If you put a number on that it amounts to roughly $90 billion a year in losses. That isn't insignificant but nowhere close enough to destroy America.  It just raises everyone's cost of living, jeopardizes farmers, ranchers, small business and contributes to inflation.

So where is this all going to lead us?  Too early to tell but I suppose there are companies for whom imports are a necessary part of doing business; and they're going to want a tax refund. 

Meanwhile, I guess none of us are getting the tariff dividend we were promised and the income tax isn't going to be replaced by tariff revenue.  Of course the DOGE dividend never showed-up in my checking account either.  

Money talks, baloney walks.....

Reflections

This year the NFL is expanding its international series to a record eight regular-season games across five countries: Spain (Madrid), Germany (Munich), Brazil (Rio de Janeiro), the UK (three games in London), France (Paris), and Australia (Melbourne). These games will feature match-ups in new cities, including the first-ever game in France and Australia.​ 

It is no secret the NFL wants to make their product a global brand.  People from other countries who might not even use English as a primary language are going to figure significantly in NFL marketing.  Old white guys like me need to get over it because we're not a target market. 

The NFL brand is a business and I don't think they care what the current occupant of the White House thinks about their business model. 

Why?   

The NFL wants to expand their brand beyond our borders. The NFL wants to grow profits.  The NFL is bigger than Trump. The NFL will be around long after Trump is gone.

​If I were a fly on the wall of the NFL's boardroom I'd likely learn they're tickled-silly that everyone's jabbering this week about record viewership of a halftime performance interrupted by a thoroughly forgettable game.

If Only The Dead Could Talk

Somewhere along the line I shared that I refreshed my CCW training during COVID.

My instructor had some sage advice. Basically, she had this to say (I am paraphrasing):

If you happen to be legally carrying and someone invites you to a protest, an act of civil disobedience or a riot; run the opposite direction.  

The gist of this was in the wake of the George Floyd protests and the Kyle Rittenhouse shootings your CCW permit isn't a superpower against kryptonite circumstances.  A perfectly innocent legal carry situation is not a shield against an overzealous prosecutor.  Mounting a successful defense can drain your financial resources.  Worse case?  Worse case is always worse.  Use your imagination. 

Anyway, her words were good advice.  Prescient too.

Nevertheless, what happened in Minneapolis shows that ICE will treat the mere presence of a legal firearm as justification for lethal force.

Carrying a gun is not a crime, yet it was readily used as irrefutable proof of dangerous intent.  And now that Alex Pretti is dead and unable to contest that narrative; that’s the narrative.  

 

From the president on down the chain of command the instant narrative is this:  

Pretti was obviously a domestic terrorist and a would-be assassin.  Consequently, he deserved to die.  This was a good shoot.  

The practical upshot of this is if you are interdicted by the Federales while carrying - even legally - masked paramilitary forces without visible personal identification can and will kill you on the spot.  With the support of our government.

Judge.

Jury.

And executioner.

At this point there isn't much you can do about it; you're dead.  

Because our government has declared you guilty beforehand. 

 

Am I willing to be wrong about all of the foregoing?  You bet I am.  Yet the president has expressed a desire to impose martial law across the land.  And he usually gets around to trying to do everything he says he wants to do.  I'd also bet he'll continue to use his shadowy veiled paramilitary forces to terrorize a small blue enclave in Minnesota with only an estimated 130,000 undocumented migrants to provoke unrest.  

It's rather quiet where I live; not that counts for anything in a world where the Constitution counts for nothing....

Style Counts for Something

One of the redeeming features of Face Book is that it has facilitated the reunification of any number of us who grew-up together and came of age in the 60s and 70s.  I suppose we can thank COVID for more free time and screen time.  Add to this a milestone High School reunion only a couple of years ago.  After roughly 50 years of separation for some of us the reconnection has been a good thing.  

Plenty has changed for many of us; nevertheless, becoming reacquainted is A-OK by my standards.  FB has become our Town Square and gathering spot to share thoughts and opinions and remain in-touch. And while the pace of new friends and acquaintances may have slowed the list continues to grow.  In any event, one of those pals from the old neighborhood posted this photo on his FB page including his own words (italics) preceding it:

The Democrats saw Obama as their chosen one that would lead them into their socialistic utopia. When Trump was elected those same people realized that their utopic dreams were not going to be realized. They then started hating and attacking anything and anyone that threatened the " progress" they believed they had made politically and culturally in transfirming/destroying the USA.

 

So, their protesting and at times violence is the continuation of their deranged hatred of President Trump. If Kamala or some other person adored by their Party was directing these deportations there would be no issue no protests, no threats to Law enforcement personnel. Hypocritical in their thoughts and actions. Sad, real sad.

 

I commented with this:   

I was actually studying-up on this phenomenon this afternoon.  Under Obama, interdiction and deportation was hardly ever public and rarely involved any drama. Not even background noise. Interestingly, very close to same in the early years of the first Trump administration. I absolutely know what changed (because I took old fashioned notes).  10 guesses anyone?

 

The discussion that followed included defenses of President Trump considering everything from Trump Derangement Syndrome, generalized media bias, to perceived Face Book and iPhone (Apple) algorithm biases.   My childhood pal shared this:  I respect your research and notes Tom. Please share.  

 

So I did.  I had to cut and paste my notes from my laptop resulting in poor formatting; nevertheless editable.  They are as follows:  

Here’s a brief summary of deportations under Barack Obama (2009–2017) and Donald Trump - (both terms, including his second term starting in 2025) - focused on ICE/DHS removals/deportations by the numbers.  Note: The Trump second term is incomplete and stats both reflect that and are annotated.

 

Over the eight years (2009 - 2017) of Obama’s presidency, ICE and DHS reported approximately 3.1 million immigration removals/deportations. Highlights - FY 2012: ~409,849 deportations — one of the highest annual totals.  FY 2013: ~438,421 deportations — often cited as the highest year. 

 

Observations:

 

Deportations were high early in his tenure and declined later — partly due to changes in enforcement priorities and declining border apprehensions. Later years saw lower totals: ~235,413 in FY 2015 and ~240,255 in FY 2016

 

Obama’s approach focused more on recent border crossers and noncitizens with criminal convictions, rather than broad interior enforcement.

 

Trump Administration (2017 - 2021 & 2025 - ?)

 

First Trump term (2017–2021): DHS/ICE data shows fewer overall removals than under Obama, with around 932,000 deportations reported over those four years.

 

Second Trump administration (2025 onward): Data is less centralized, but multiple sources provide partial figures:  ICE deported nearly 200,000 people in the first seven months of 2025 alone. Some government estimates suggest combined deportations + other removals could reach ~300,000+ in FY 2025 under Trump’s enforcement surge. Public reports cite overall removals including border expulsions and voluntary departures in the hundreds of thousands by the end of 2025.

 

Observations:

 

Trump’s highest annual ICE deportation figures (e.g., ~267,000–300,000+) clearly have not surpassed Obama’s peak year totals (which were ~438,000 in 2013). 

 

The Trump administration’s enforcement in 2025 increased interior ICE arrests and targeted broader categories of unauthorized immigrants including many without criminal records. 

 

Data releases from DHS/ICE have been inconsistent, making comprehensive year-by-year comparisons harder than with historical Obama data.

 

COMPARE AND CONTRAST

 

1. Enforcement Priorities: Targeted Arrests vs. Universal Arrests

 

Obama:

Focused on enforcement priorities aimed at public safety: Serious criminals, national security threats and recent border crossers. ICE was supposed to emphasize these groups before acting on others; this constrained the agency’s interior enforcement focus.

 

Trump:

Early executive orders broadly expanded enforcement priorities to include all undocumented non-citizens as targets for arrest and removal. This resulted in enforcement shifting from a targeted, risk-based approach to a wide net aiming to arrest anyone removable under immigration law.

 

2. Criminal History Composition of Arrests

 

Obama:

A larger share of ICE interior arrests historically involved people with criminal convictions. ICE largely confined interior enforcement to those with broader public safety concerns.

 

Trump:

Recent data show a dramatic rise in arrests of people with no criminal records. Nearly 1/3 of those arrested in 2025 by ICE had no criminal history. Another report suggests tens of thousands without criminal convictions were picked up, contradicting official focus on criminals. Independent data also show a sharp shift in arrest composition, with non-criminal individuals making up a much higher share of total ICE detentions under Trump.

 

3. At-Large vs. Custodial Arrests

 

Obama:

ICE largely arrested individuals already in jail/prison (custodial arrests) via information sharing with local jails and prisons; use of at-large arrests (sweeps in communities) was more limited.

 

Trump:

ICE dramatically increased at-large arrests — apprehending people in homes, workplaces, and communities rather than primarily from jails. This shift meant broader, more public operations compared with the historically jail-linked approach.

 

4. Collaboration with Local Law Enforcement

 

Obama:

ICE cooperation with local police/jails — such as through Secure Communities — was significant but tempered by enforcement priorities and some jurisdictions’ non-cooperation.

 

Trump:

Expansion of programs like 287(g) dramatically increased the role of local police in immigration enforcement, allowing them to question and detain immigrants for ICE — a tactic scaled back or de-emphasized under Obama.

 

5. Detention Policy and Public Operations

 

Obama:

Fewer large-scale, publicized raids; enforcement often occurred in less visible ways (custodial transfers from local jails, routine immigration check-ins).

 

Trump:

Enforcement has included public raids, frequent at-large operations, and actions in “sensitive locations” that were avoided under prior internal DHS policies — including immigration court check-ins, workplaces, and neighborhoods. ICE has also faced criticism for increased detention populations and facility deaths tied to expanded enforcement.

 

6. Policy Framing and Quotas

 

Obama:

Restored a degree of prioritization to manage enforcement resources and judicial backlogs, focusing removal on higher-risk individuals in many years.

 

Trump:

Reports indicate daily arrest “quotas” and political mandates for mass enforcement, with leadership pushing ICE to meet broad arrest targets rather than focusing solely on prioritized categories.

 

Summary:

Obama’s ICE tactics centered more on defined enforcement priorities and collaboration with the criminal justice system; whereas, Trump’s approach expanded who could be targeted, expanded community arrests, and integrated local law enforcement more deeply, resulting in broader sweeps and more arrests of people without criminal records.

*Note:  The notion that I had burned about three hours time (time I will never get back) that same afternoon was a consequence of a FB post - including an eight year-old YouTube "Ride With ICE" video - from another neighborhood pal of mine.  It was thought-provoking and encouraged me to initiate some background as it didn't get anyone's interest on FB other than me and maybe one additional individual.    

 

Inasmuch as things went silent on my pal's FB page following posting my notes I added an additional comment for purposes of background (see asterisk above) on Sunday morning.  That comment, including the YouTube video, are as follows:

 

As a follow-up to my notes I posted yesterday I want to share that the inspiration for my inquiry into this subject was a post that (name redacted) put out there four days ago. 

 

In it he asked: "8+yrs ago Obama's Ice agent's were well respected heroes, just doing their job. wonder what changed?"  (Note: Video is dated August 25, 2017 making these Trump's ICE agents.  Typo?) 

 

The video is from 8 years ago and taken during the first year of the first Trump term. It's not very long so watch it to the end and then afterwards ask yourself  "what changed between Trump 1.0 and 2.0 with respect to ICE protocols and reflecting on the differences between the two Presidents and their approach to interdiction and deportation.

 

Not stirring things-up as I happen to think (name redacted) has raised an excellent point and asked a thought-provoking question.

 

 

Have you ever wondered what it's like during the life of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent?  Phil Shuman of Fox 11, Los Angeles, takes you along for a ride on August 25, 2017.

At the time of this post's publication that thread has gone silent.  No further discussion.  The point I was attempting to make (perhaps not very clearly) was we have the same President today as eight years ago.  Almost at the same point in time of each presidential term. 

 

The clip is from the first year of the first Trump term in 2017.  Contrast that with ICE operational procedures today - the first year of the second Trump term in 2025. 

 

Are there objective differences between ICE agents and their protocol between then and now?

 

If any, what may they be?  What, if anything, changed?

 

I have some working theories about how, and why, ICE evolved between Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0 

 

You?