Tag: donald trump

Another Undeclared Unconstitutional War?

From the New York Times this morning:

In Israel, the two defense officials said that significant preparations were underway for the possibility of a joint strike with the United States, even though no decision has been made about whether to carry out such an attack. They said the planning envisions delivering a severe blow over a number of days with the goal of forcing Iran into concessions at the negotiating table that it has so far been unwilling to make.

The U.S. buildup suggests an array of possible Iranian targets, including short and medium range missiles, missile storage depots, nuclear sites and other military targets, such as headquarters of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The ultimate decision on scope of targets is largely up to Mr. Trump, U.S. officials said.

Strangely, nowhere in this article is it mentioned that U.S. military attacks on Iran legally require a Congressional declaration of war. Apparently, it’s all up to Mr. Trump and Israel whether Iran gets hammered soon.

We the people have absolutely no say. The U.S. Constitution simply doesn’t matter.

Iran poses no direct threat to U.S. national security. There is no clear and present danger; no defensible reason to launch yet another attack on Iran. Yet it seems those attacks will soon be coming, as long as Israel has something to say about this (and that country most certainly does).

Why war with Iran? Apparently for “regime change,” apparently for the oil, and apparently for Israel.

A diplomatic settlement appears to be a long shot here. Perhaps more like a “Hail Mary” pass.

No matter how unconstitutional, no matter how unnecessary to national defense, war always seems to find a way. I sure hope I’m wrong here.

Keep reading

War Propaganda and Iran: The Exact Script Used for Every Failed US War Is Hauled Out Again

When President Lyndon B. Johnson decided in 1965 to significantly increase the number of American troops to fight the growing war in Vietnam, he felt obligated to justify this major escalation to the American people (this was from a quaint, obsolete era when Washington believed public support was mildly important for starting or escalating American wars). On April 7 of that year, Johnson went to Johns Hopkins University to present his definitive case for why the U.S. must fight a war on the other side of the world, against a country that had not attacked and could not meaningfully threaten the U.S.

Johnson presented the American war as one of benevolence, selflessness, and a noble desire to liberate the world’s oppressed peoples from a uniquely murderous, tyrannical regime. “Tonight Americans and Asians are dying for a world where each people may choose its own path to change,” Johnson proclaimed. He compared American motives in Vietnam to those of the freedom-craving American Founders who waged the Revolutionary War to liberate themselves from the British Crown: ”This is the principle for which our ancestors fought in the valleys of Pennsylvania. It is the principle for which our sons fight tonight in the jungles of Viet-Nam.”

While Johnson invoked some geo-political justifications, he emphasized that the U.S. was deploying and putting at risk tens of thousands of young American soldiers in Vietnam simply because we wanted to help the Vietnamese people be free. “We want nothing for ourselves — only that the people of South Viet-Nam be allowed to guide their own country in their own way,” Johnson said.

Central to this propagandistic narrative was the repeated parading around by the American media of a handful of South Vietnamese activists with deep connections to the West. These camera-ready “natives” assured Americans that the Vietnamese people — on whose behalf they claimed to speak — desperately craved American invasion and bombing of their country in order to liberate them. Individuals like Phan Quang Da, a Harvard-educated physician, and CIA-fronted groups, like The American Friends of Vietnam, were used as battering rams against American opponents of the war to accuse them of being indifferent, even contemptuous, of the desire of the Vietnamese people to have the U.S. military free the population. “The Vietnamese people are asking for this, but you do not care about them,” was the refrain war opponents invariably confronted.

Keep reading

Trump quietly got Mexico to hand over 100 cartel leaders — including El Mencho’s brother — before Jalisco raid

Mexico has quietly shipped nearly 100 suspected cartel drug traffickers to the US to stand trial after President Trump branded the groups foreign terrorist organizations last year — and pressured the Mexican government to cooperate.

The suspects include the brother of Nemesio “El Mencho” Oseguera Cervantes — the brutal Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) leader who was killed by the Mexican army on Sunday.

The Justice Department said many of the 92 defendants released to the Americans had US extradition requests that were not honored during the Biden administration.

“As President Trump has made clear, cartels are terrorist groups, and this Department of Justice is devoted to destroying cartels and transnational gangs,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said of the first round of transfers, which kicked off last February.

“We will prosecute these criminals to the fullest extent of the law in honor of the brave law enforcement agents who have dedicated their careers — and in some cases, given their lives — to protect innocent people from the scourge of violent cartels.”

Keep reading

If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Don’t Join ‘Em

2026 marks yet another year Americans find themselves watching Washington and its media surrogates prepare the country for war in the Middle East. Speaking on Iran, President Donald Trump said that “either we reach a deal, or we’ll have to do something very tough.” He has deployed what he called a “massive armada” to the region and insisted that Iran has only a month to capitulate or face a “very difficult time.” His demands no longer focus solely on the nuclear program; Trump now insists on ending all uranium enrichment, severing Tehran’s ties to regional militias, and placing strict limits on Iran’s ballistic‑missile stockpile. He said a fair agreement would mean “no nuclear weapons, no missiles.” Such conditions, issued by a nation with an arsenal of its own, amount to complete disarmament and have led observers to conclude that the administration is setting Iran up to fail so it can justify another round of attacks. Last June he authorized the bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities, yet he now argues that more force will be needed if Tehran refuses to accept total capitulation.

Hard‑line commentators have joined the chorus. Conservative media host Mark Levin spoke gleefully about the United States organizing a major attack on Iran and that “this regime must be destroyed,” even issuing a direct threat to Iran’s supreme leader. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has adopted similar maximalist rhetoric. Netanyahu has signaled he favors the use of force to topple Iran’s government or at least cripple its missile defenses and that he and his advisors believe Washington should exploit Iran’s recent unrest to end the Islamic Republic’s 47‑year rule. At a February conference he demanded that all enriched uranium be removed from Iran and that any deal include dismantlement of enrichment infrastructure and resolution of the “ballistic‑missile issue” – conditions that would leave Iran defenseless. Tehran has said its ballistic‑missile program is a “firmly established” part of its deterrence and not open for negotiation, but Trump echoed Netanyahu’s stance, saying a fair deal means “no nuclear weapons, no missiles.” These extreme and shifting demands appear less about arms control than about engineering an impasse that can be used to rationalize war.

Keep reading

Trump Administration Issues Rule to Block Illegal Aliens from Taxpayer-Funded Housing

President Donald Trump’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has issued a rule to prevent illegal aliens from gaining access to taxpayer-funded housing, like Section 8, meant for low-income Americans.

On Thursday, HUD issued its rule to require proof of American citizenship or eligible immigration status for such housing aid:

Section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980, as amended (“Section 214”), prohibits the Secretary of HUD from making financial assistance available to persons other than United States citizens or certain categories of eligible noncitizens in HUD’s public and specified assisted housing programs. This proposed rule would revise HUD’s Section 214 implementing regulations to require the verification of U.S. citizenship or the eligible immigration status of all applicants and recipients of assistance under a covered program regardless of age. The proposed rule would also make prorated assistance a temporary condition pending verification of eligible status of all family members, where permitted by statute, as opposed to under HUD’s current regulations where prorated assistance could continue indefinitely. These amendments would bring HUD’s regulations into greater alignment with the wording and purpose of Section 214 and align with the current Administration’s priorities and regulatory reform efforts. [Emphasis added]

HUD Secretary Scott Turner said the rule is meant to close a long-held loophole that has allowed illegal aliens to secure public housing assistance. About two percent of illegal alien-headed households are on housing assistance, as well as six percent of legal immigrant-headed households.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, the days of illegal aliens, ineligibles, and fraudsters gaming the system and riding the coattails of American taxpayers are over,” Turner told Politico. “We have zero tolerance for pushing aside hardworking U.S. citizens while enabling others to exploit decades-old loopholes.”

Keep reading

Trump says he is ‘considering’ a limited military strike to pressure Iran into nuclear deal

President Donald Trump said Friday he is “considering” a limited military strike on Iran to pressure its leaders into a deal over its nuclear program.

“I guess I can say, I am considering that,” Trump said at a breakfast with governors at the White House, after being asked by a reporter, “Are you considering a limited military strike to pressure Iran into a deal?”

The president on Thursday suggested the window for a breakthrough is narrowing, indicating Iran has no more than “10, 15 days, pretty much maximum” to reach an agreement.

“We’re either going to get a deal, or it’s going to be unfortunate for them,” he said.

Keep reading

US Actions Toward Cuba Are Criminal

A recent Wall Street Journal article recently outlined yet the latest attempts by the US government to bring down Cuba’s socialist government, a process that has been going on without much success for the past 65 years. Once upon a time, the US policy toward Cuba was part of the greater Cold War and it was front-and-center in the national news cycle. (Many of us still remember the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, wondering if we were about to face an all-out nuclear war).

When Fidel Castro’s Cuban revolutionaries took over Cuba’s government in early 1959, ousting the US-backed president Fulgencio Batista, many in this country cheered. Batista, after all, was seen as a corrupt dictator and Castro was popular with many Americans who had high hopes that he would do a better job of governing Cuba. After Castro, however, seized and nationalized US businesses, declared Cuba to be communist and turned toward the Soviet Union for his support, the US government since then has sought to overthrow him.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration’s latest efforts are making life almost unbearable for Cubans, who already are among the poorest people in the Western Hemisphere. (Before Castro’s revolution, Cuba was one of the wealthiest nations in the Americas). The WSJ reports:

Daily life in Cuba is grinding to a halt under a US campaign to block the island’s oil imports, drawing international criticism that the Trump administration is pushing the island toward a humanitarian crisis with no clear endgame.

The Caribbean island’s Communist authorities are rationing dwindling fuel supplies, curtailing public transportation and furloughing workers. Children are being sent home from school early, people can barely afford basic food like milk and chicken, and long lines have sprung up at gas stations.

Keep reading

Trump DOJ Axes NY Immigration Judge Who Rubber-Stamped an Absurd 97 Percent of Asylum Claims

The Trump administration has fired New York immigration Judge Vivienne Gordon-Uruakpa, who boasted the highest asylum approval rate in the state at a staggering 97%.

The 66-year-old judge, known for her soft-on-asylum rulings, was terminated in September without fanfare, as part of a broader purge of lenient judges under Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Gordon-Uruakpa’s ousting came to light after she vanished from the downtown Manhattan courthouse website, where she had presided over cases.

A Justice Department spokesperson confirmed the site is up to date but declined to elaborate on the specific reasons for her firing, though an unnamed government official speaking to the New York Post pointed to her prolific record of granting asylum as the key factor.

Unlike lifetime-appointed federal judges, immigration court judges serve at the pleasure of the Attorney General and can be hired or fired, a power the Trump team is using as another tool to restore order.

Gordon-Uruakpa graduated from Fordham University and Howard University School of Law. Her courtroom became a virtual rubber stamp for asylum seekers, approving claims at a rate far exceeding her colleagues and contributing to the backlog of cases that critics say enabled illegal immigration under previous administrations.

This firing is not an isolated incident.

The Trump administration has axed more than 100 overly permissive immigration judges during his term.

Meanwhile, tougher judges like John Burns, known for denying asylum at high rates, have been promoted. He was named Acting Assistant Chief Judge in January.

The results are undeniable. Deportation rates are soaring, with nearly 80% of migrants seeking asylum being deported in the last quarter, according to Syracuse University’s TRAC program.

Illegal border crossings have also plummeted under Trump’s renewed enforcement policies.

Keep reading

Is Trump’s Alien Disclosure Directive a Distraction?

Is it a coincidence that the president is directing government agencies to release information about aliens exactly as public frustration over revelations in the Jeffrey Epstein files are boiling over? Is it a coincidence this is happening when pressure continues mounting on his Justice Department to release the three million files they’re illegally holding onto? Is it a coincidence we’re hearing about aliens just as the president is on the verge of making a unilateral decision to catapult the country into war against a struggling nation that poses no imminent threat to the United States?

Short of President Donald Trump admitting so, it’s difficult to tell. But probably not. As soon as Trump announced the alien disclosure move, the internet en masse arrived at the same conclusion. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) was among the many who sensed what’s likely happening.

“They’ve deployed the ultimate weapon of mass distraction,” Massie said in an X post Thursday night, “but the Epstein files aren’t going away… even for aliens.”

Trump posted his announcement two hours earlier, around 7 p.m. Thursday night, saying, “Based on the tremendous interest shown, I will be directing the Secretary of War, and other relevant Departments and Agencies, to begin the process of identifying and releasing Government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and any and all other information connected to these highly complex, but extremely interesting and important, matters.”

Keep reading

Trump’s $2,000 Tariff ‘Dividend Checks’ Go Up in Smoke

President Trump’s promise to send Americans $2,000 “tariff dividend” checks appears all but dead after the Supreme Court struck down a key pillar of his trade agenda Friday, the New York Post reports.

In a 6-3 ruling, the high court found Trump exceeded his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping tariffs tied to trade imbalances and fentanyl smuggling.

While the decision could save households hundreds of dollars on the goods marked up by tariffs — it also wipes out the revenue stream that would have funded the proposed rebate checks.

Before the ruling, the average U.S. household was projected to pay an extra $1,300 to $1,700 in 2026 due to tariffs, according to the Yale Budget Lab.

With the IEEPA tariffs now halted — though others remain in place and Trump has vowed to impose a new 10% global tariff effective Friday — that burden could fall roughly in half to about $600 to $800, John Ricco, associate director of policy analysis at the Budget Lab, told CNBC.

Still, experts cautioned that consumers may not see full relief.

“I’m actually shocked that the number wasn’t a little higher on the financial burden to the average American household than $1,000,” Erik Rosica, sales supervisor at OEC Group New York, told the Post.

“I do agree that the impact of reversing them would hopefully halve it — but again, that’s only if people lower their prices,” he added.

Rosica noted that companies may be reluctant to cut prices, particularly on higher-ticket goods, even if tariff pressures ease.

Keep reading