There Is No Need For Congress To Declare War Because We’re Already At War

American Thinker 

The usual suspects, plus Thomas Massie and Rand Paul, seem apoplectic about Donald Trump giving the order to obliterate a sworn enemy of the US. They all seem to land either on the 1973 War Powers Resolution or Congress’s power under Article I, Section 8 to “Declare War.” Somehow, they insist the President must be on the wrong side of the Constitution. At the same time, they all seem to be unaware of history.

Thomas Jefferson, a contemporary of the conventioners who wrote the Constitution, seems to be of a kind with Trump. Now the threat to America wasn’t as blatant as the nuclear winter threatened by the Ayatollahs, but he faced off against some of their ideological kin in the Barbary pirates.

Those Muslim corsairs were happily capturing American ships and putting American sailors into slavery. This was a war. They had cut down a flagpole and demanded tribute from the US, in effect declaring war by asserting sovereignty over US assets.

Let’s get one thing clear about this. The Barbary pirates were not a manifest threat to the US mainland in the context of military attempts to conquer territory. Nevertheless, this still was war. A territorial threat is not required for a state of war to exist. President Jefferson knew this and sent a task force of Marines to eliminate the threat. He did not go to Congress to get a declaration of war, and Congress did not complain at this “oversight.”

And we should recall that large numbers of sitting Congressmen and Senators, like Jefferson himself, were directly involved in creating and ratifying the new Constitution. None of them is on record opposing this military action. Rather, opinion seemed universally in favor of sending the Marines to defend against a war already underway against the US.

More recent history includes the mission against Libya in response to the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, Clinton’s bombing campaign against Yugoslavia, and Obama’s multiple Middle Eastern bombing exercises. In each case, Congress did not formally declare war. Obama’s adventures led to considerable carping about whether they were lawful under the Authorization for Use of Military Force that led to Desert Storm. Unfortunately, no one bothered to look deeply at the actual justification for most of these. To this we must go.

Islam has been at war with civilization since its founding. Mohammed was little more than a successful local warlord, but it appears that he was visited by a fallen Elohim who claimed to be the Archangel Gabriel. Jewish history was thereby co-opted into a completely different religion that isn’t compatible with civilization. And it has been at war with civilization ever since.

Rome had civilized North Africa, and it was home to much of Christianity. St. Augustine lived there, as did many of the early church fathers. But shortly after Islam took root, Christian civilization was largely destroyed in North Africa. The Moors (an Islamic group) even conquered Spain.

It took heroic efforts by European Christians to dislodge Islam from Europe. But as we can see, that war never ended. Today, many places in Europe are Islamic “no-go zones,” and most of Europe has passively surrendered.

In short, Islam has declared war, and that war has never ended. The most powerful recent iteration is Iran. There are dozens of Islamic nations, but Iran has been the major player in the war against the West.

Iran sits on vast riches of oil, making it mostly self-financing. It has vigorously threatened America and has participated in multiple attacks on us. Khobar Towers and the Beirut Marine barracks bombings were direct attacks on our military assets. In short, Iran has been openly at war with us for decades.

What we have not done is to stand up and publicly declare this fact. Even The Donald hasn’t quite been up front in explaining this. He intuitively understands it, but until the point is made clear, he leaves the door open for the TDS Left to shout.

We have been at war with Iran for over forty years. No declaration of war on our part matters. The war is an open fact. This is little different from Pearl Harbor in concept.

On December 7, 1941, Japan openly declared war on America by bombing Hawaii. Congress declared war in response, but that was simply not needed. The state of war between Japan and the US was already a fact. The Declaration was pro forma and did not change anything. The same is true when Germany joined Japan and declared war on us. A state of war existed before Congress returned that favor.

President Trump should make it very clear that a state of war has existed between Iran and the US since the storming of our Embassy. International norms treat embassies as the sovereign territory of the country represented in them, and Iran did basically the same thing by invading it as the Barbary pirates did by attacking our consulate in Jefferson’s day. They declared war. They prosecuted it in fits and starts through their terrorist proxies. And they made it crystal clear that they wanted nuclear weapons to destroy us and missiles to get those bombs to us.

Because a state of war already existed, Operation Midnight Hammer was simply a defensive strike to limit the ability of Iran to harm us. Ditto for Operation Epic Fury.

Yes, Epic Fury will free the Iranian populace from the oppression of the Mullahs. But it is much more important in that it is designed to end the state of war between Iran and the US by defeating Iran, just as the Allies defeated Germany in World War II. And because these actions are defensive, there is no need to ask Congress for permission.

A declaration of war would be the act that officially transformed a situation from peace into a solemn, public, international war. Because we were not at peace with Iran (by Iran’s initiative), a declaration of war is not needed. Even Alexander Hamilton noted that the President had the unilateral power to engage in defensive action (Federalist 69).

The President’s detractors need to be called up short with the facts. Islam declared war on us at its inception. Iran specifically did that when it overran our embassy. Donald Trump is simply recognizing that state of war. He is defending us with the objective of ending the war. He must do it with extreme prejudice since the Mullahs refuse to stop their war-making.

Podcast thread for March 4th

 

Too much to deal with today.

The End Of Western Effetism

American Thinker 

The attack on Iran by the U.S. and Israel is overdue, and a masterful stroke, even if we don’t yet know all of its outcomes. One outcome, however, is clear—the West, meaning western Europe and Canada, is meaningless as a geopolitical force.

Everyone has known for decades the source of violence and instability in the Middle East. It is Iran and its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. The U.S., and western European nations, indeed, Israel itself, have quietly accepted civilian casualties as the price of not disturbing the carefully balanced game of Pickup Sticks that is the Middle East.

Trump has masterfully unwound this dysfunctional modus operandi, the stimulus for action being Hamas’s outrageous attack of October 7. The West, which has repeatedly limited Israel’s right to self-defense, could hardly stand in the way of her response to such a terrible attack. Free of outside limitations, Israel assaulted and systematically dismantled Hamas, killing its leadership and in the process, destroying much of the infrastructure of the state and population that supported it. Israel also destroyed Hezbollah in a beautifully orchestrated mixture of spy-novel-worthy technology (simultaneously exploding beepers!) and air attacks.

The destruction of Iran’s proxies next to Israel made direct action against Iran feasible. Israel and the U.S. took that action last June, destroying much of Iran’s enrichment capacity along with most of its air defenses. This left Iran completely open to assault, unable to make a meaningful attack on Israel or threaten the region atomically. Yesterday that assault came in response to Iran’s intransigence in negotiation. At this writing, their religious leader and more than 40 top politicians and military commanders have been killed, and their missile sites and manufacturing facilities targeted.

Arab nations have largely applauded the attack. The Iranian diaspora is literally dancing in the streets. China and Russia complained, but that was expected. The response from western Europe was a muted, joint communique from France, Germany, and England with three elements.

It urged Iran to negotiate. Negotiation, talking, has been the mainstay of Western international strategy for decades. It has often been its only tool, as western Europe and Canada let their armed forces dwindle away to the point these nations cannot even defend themselves, let alone attack an aggressor.

It specified that no European nation participated in the attacks. Oh, how brave! What solidarity! America and Israel finally take on the source of terrorism that has harmed your nations, and you distance yourself from that act even as you benefit from it. And the reason is obvious. You’re afraid. You’re hedging your bets, in case this attack spirals into terrorism or a general war you’re both unequipped for and afraid to fight.

You condemned Iran’s attacks on others. That’s a safe and reasonable option without actually doing anything. Violence is bad, and it’s acceptable to condemn the violence of your enemy as a veil to condemning the violence of your ally.

An emergency session of the UN was convened. Well, that will help. In the 10 years between 2015 and 2024, the UN condemned Israel 173 times, 17 times per year, or once every 3 weeks. All other nations and groups combined were condemned 80 times. The UN has never approved of military force in the Middle East. It has sent peacekeepers, who serve essentially as a few guards trying, without use of weapons, to separate two gang factions fighting in a prison. The UN frets, it condemns, it meets, but it doesn’t DO anything. It isn’t even run by the Western nations that established it in 1948.

This has been the Western stance for years, and also the stance of the American Left. Violence is always bad, even violence that destroys a yet more violent enemy. Negotiation, protest, trade embargoes, legal proceedings through the International Court of Justice. These have been the West’s tools, as if the world will respond or even submit to what the West thinks is “reason,” or to an international legal system not recognized by numerous nations, including the U.S. and Israel.

The West has abandoned its own institutions and languages. It no longer celebrates its own culture or achievements. Its birth rate is so low that “guest workers” must be imported, who then stay years, establishing Muslim enclaves in major cities. The number one boys’ name in Belgium has been Mohammed. For years. Pakis staff and run most every restaurant and hotel in London. Muslim beggars and thieves are all over central Paris, while churches are deconsecrated and turned into museums, and “international” art is promoted over the works in the Louvre, Uffizi, National Gallery, and Reichsmuseum.

This is the most definitive result of the attack. The West has been revealed as impotent, indecisive, and scared. Everyone knew Iran’s nuclear facilities had to be destroyed and its religious regime replaced, but the West did nothing for 46 years, despite death and provocation. Something as benign as a cartoon of Mohammed prompted bombings and deaths in France and elsewhere, and the West whined and moaned, but did nothing. Western Europe postures, but is powerless to act. They are always citing fear of a wider war, or a nuclear war, an oil shortage, fear of something, to talk themselves into doing nothing against the biggest terrorist and bully in the world.

Trump acted decisively and thoughtfully, not even trying to get cooperation from our ossified, erstwhile allies. The groupthink of the liberal West has been revealed as a failure, both practically and morally. Peace isn’t peace if you have no strength. Wringing your hands and calling for UN resolutions are the acts of the fearful, not the strong. Tolerating the civilian deaths of an ally isn’t coexistence, it is immoral.

Trump’s force and leadership broke the Western order that has existed since WW2, and that’s a good thing. NATO, the UN, and the image of a united Europe and America are all antique ideas and organizations. They are now 80 years old. When they were created in 1945, that would have been like clinging to alliances, treaties, and groups from…1865.

It is a new world, one where the response to evil is force, not talk, where reality, not fantasy, is acknowledged, and therefore one that will be safer, more reasonable, and fairer as well. The Western, liberal stance of inaction in the face of injustice is over.

Trump has brought all this and more, and he is to be congratulated for it.

Trump's High-stakes Gamble

American Thinker 

The combat operations against Iran are high stakes for President Trump. Donald Trump, a gamesman par excellence, is taking a big risk. But Trump is accustomed to high-stakes risks. Yet it’s also big stakes for Democrats, many of whom crawled out of their holes this past weekend. Many were found at X. Predators that they are, they believe that Trump has exposed his soft underbelly. Possibly. But they’re likely in for a surprise, and not a good one.

If the president succeeds and the murderous mullahs’ regime is consigned to history’s dustbin, benefits to U.S. national security will accrue from peace in the Middle East (the Abraham Accords gain traction), an end to mullah-instigated terrorism, an end to Iranian oil politics, and -- last but critically -- another prop knocked out from under China, which depends on Iranian oil. The PRC depends on Iranian and Russian oil in its drive to achieve global hegemony. And, not incidentally, Venezuelan oil, over which the U.S. has gained effective control. Trump is being vastly strategic. In this game of chess, his moves are designed to serve multiple ends. Careful calculation undergirds his audacity.

On the other hand, if the war fails -- if it’s protracted; if an aircraft carrier is sunk and scores of service personnel return home in body bags; if there are major Iranian-instigated terrorist attacks at home; if enough radical mullahs and Iranian Guard commanders survive and are still running the show -- then Trump’s presidency is finished. In this year’s midterm elections, the weird, leftist, mostly anti-American Democrat Party will roll up Republicans like Persian rugs. In part, because a lot of demoralized GOP voters won’t vote. Good luck to J.D. Vance or whoever is the GOP nominee in 2028. Putting enough distance between Vance or whoever and a war fiasco will be futile.

But there’s an alternative end. What if the U.S.-Israeli partnership and the Arab states now aligned against Iran accomplish the mission?

If success comes, Democrats are in trouble. Being on the wrong side of “mission accomplished” is bad politics.

On cue and in unison, Democrats first reaction to Saturday morning’s attacks was to denounce Trump for not requesting a Declaration of War from Congress. Sheer nonsense. The War Powers Resolution is what governs Trump’s actions for the next 60 days. He’s complying with the letter of the law. Democrats know better, of course. But they have no other line of attack. You can bet that they’re waiting for setbacks to pounce.

A win over Iran means Democrats lose the trifecta. The trifecta is the economy, immigration, and now, Iran -- or the end of a longtime national security threat. Heading into the midterms, that puts heavy winds in their faces, not at their backs.

As George Patton famously said, in part, “Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time.” Most Americans, that is, at least those living between the coasts. A win over Iran -- in reasonable time -- translates into surging popularity for the president. Ask Lincoln what happens when a controversial war shifts favorably. In 1864, the Atlanta victory saved Lincoln’s presidency and GOP congressional majorities.

What undercuts Democrats’ hopes for a failed war?

Warfare is being revolutionized by AI and detection and precision technologies. This war is being driven by cutting edge intelligence, the U.S. and Israeli Air Forces, and the U.S. Navy. Painstaking planning, months of surveillance, and precise execution by the Israelis eliminated the Ayatollah Khamenei and a large strata of Iranian military commanders. The Israelis continue to hunt and eliminate leadership. There will be no U.S. boots on the ground. No house-to-house fighting in the streets of Tehran. No forever war. No occupation and wholesale dismantling of government and no decades-long nation building commitment.

The evolving nature of warfare translates into smart and decisive execution and no letup in pressing the attack until the Iranian regime capitulates. This makes victory more, not less, likely. Democrat hopes for mire, body bags, and fruitlessness are in vain.

What does this say about the state of the Democrat Party? Only the progressive Democrat senator from Pennsylvania, John Fetterman, is publicly supporting the war effort. Fetterman is doing so at his political peril, according to polling. Commonwealth Republicans and independents have a favorable job approval opinion of Fetterman while Democrats have soured.

Democrats barely conceal their contempt for America. There are the usual suspects like Ihan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, but privileged, white Democrats in blue states -- mainstay constituents -- regard red America as the sum of what they hate: tradition, patriotism, faith, and family -- and a confident America overseas. California is their ideal -- a corruptly and incompetently run, failing enterprise. Blue cities -- Chicago is sliding down the tube -- are increasingly dystopian. Imagine what eight years of the Biden administration would have wrought?

How is the economy playing for Democrats? Affordability? Affordability problems exist in blue states, where bureaucratic oppression and high taxes and fees jack up costs.

Otherwise, the economy has begun picking up steam in the first quarter. Moderate solid growth is expected through the first half of the year. But the impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill is being underestimated, per Goldman Sachs. Growth in the second have may surprise dour economists.

Could Gulf refineries slow production should the Iranians manage to hamper shipping through the Strait of Hormuz? As of this writing, the Strait is open. The Iranian navy is being sunk. The U.S. Navy and Air Force are hunting onshore missile and drone launchers.

The final major issue, immigration. Strike Three. The Democrats have already lost this issue bigly. The borders have been closed for many months. Deportations near three million. Despite Tim Walz’s and Jacob Frey’s theater in Minnesota and Minneapolis, ICE continues to accomplish its mission there.

Three big wins doesn’t mean that Republicans will rack up a slew of victories in the midterms. Gerrymandering is nearly an exact science now. There are very few competitive U.S. House districts. The GOP House majority hinges on holding a handful of those seats. There are many variables that will impact outcomes.

Let’s be clear. The jury is out on the war, but the opening phases are encouraging. If Democrats lose the trifecta -- if the war with Iran is resolved expeditiously -- then, along with a solid economy and successful immigration enforcement, Democrats face a bleak electoral landscape in November and 2028. Trump will increasingly be considered an historic figure. What will that leave Democrats with? Whoopi and her chums on “The View” shaking their fists and calling Trump a fascist over and over again?

Yep.

A Tax Proposal Against Progress and Democracy

A Tax Proposal Against Progress and Democracy

Jesús Huerta de Soto for Mises

It has become fashionable to believe that inequality and “extreme” wealth compromise democracy, and that, consequently, taxes on high incomes and wealth must be increased even further. Several left-oriented economists (such as Krugman, Stiglitz, and Zucman) and political and social leaders have endorsed this idea, which easily resonates with citizens burdened by stagnant real wages in societies sclerotized by state interventionism and excessive regulation. Faced with the facile slogan and the demagogic manipulation suggesting that if “those at the top” pay more, the social “contract” is reinforced and democracy is purified, it is the duty of every good economist to ask some uncomfortable questions. For example, who will ultimately end up paying more: the caricatured rich, or ordinary workers in the form of poorer jobs and lower future wages? And what real effect does all this have on democracy?

Well, economic science is stubborn: raising taxes on the rich punishes saving, investment, innovation, capital accumulation, and entrepreneurial creativity, thereby decreasing productivity and the real wages of the majority. At the same time, it further expands the discretionary power of politicians to grant privileges and subsidies to interest groups and to buy the votes necessary to remain in power. All of this occurs to the detriment of equality before the law, which a healthy democracy requires.

Suppose there are two workers—one Indian and one American—with the same working hours and the same effort. The former works with rudimentary tools and precarious irrigation and fertilizer; the latter works with a modern tractor and has state-of-the-art irrigation and fertilizers at his disposal. Who earns a much higher salary? Obviously the second, and this is due to the fact that he is much more productive, not because of state regulation, public spending, or income redistribution. It is simply due to the greater quantity and quality of capital equipment that makes the worker much more productive. Therefore, fiscally penalizing those who save, accumulate, innovate, and invest precisely in those capital goods is the surest way to slow down and halt the growth of wages.

Let us do some math: a wealth tax of 3.5 percent per year means that, for example, after 10 years, more than 40 percent of the capital goods that could have been accumulated at the disposal of workers will evaporate, at an immense cost to them in the form of foregone future wage increases. Suppose now that demagoguery ultimately triumphs and Amancio Ortega’s 80-billion-euro fortune is expropriated to be distributed among the 2 billion poor people in the world, which amounts to receive 40 euros per person. Seriously, can anyone claim that this would improve democracy? Because the cost in terms of prosperity, living standards, and social cohesion would be colossal: closed or decapitalized companies, canceled investments, blocked innovations, and, above all, destroyed jobs and lower-quality work with lower wages. To this, we must add the elephantine growth of the state, bureaucracy, and political patronage. Because the more income and wealth the state coactively detracts and the more discretionary its power becomes, the more effort and ingenuity “rent-seekers,” subsidy-hunters, and lobby groups devote to securing particular advantages, further corrupting democracy and the rule of “law.” Indeed, as the loot to be distributed increases (only in the short term) in a context of slowing economic development, social conflicts are encouraged and become unsolvable in an increasingly-polarized environment that hinders or makes the normal functioning of democracy impossible.

In short, taxation “against the rich” seriously harms workers, especially the most vulnerable, while simultaneously crippling and further corrupting democracy. Therefore, the recipe to be applied to reverse the social and democratic crisis of our time, which is an inevitable consequence of the virus of statism affecting us, is exactly the opposite: low and simple taxes, the elimination of taxes on savings and wealth, legal certainty, respect for private property, generalized deregulation, and strict limits on public spending to prevent the unproductive political caste from plundering and distributing—by buying votes—the wealth of those who generate it with their effort and entrepreneurial creativity.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

Iran Is Merely a Chess Piece in a Much Bigger Game

Townhall 

Let’s get real about what this latest iteration of the until-now endless Iran War is all about. There’s no imminent threat. That assertion is a pacifier to the weak-kneed and timid. Last June, we set the mullahs back years in their quest for nukes. They have a metric butt-load of ballistic missiles, rockets, and drones, but they weren’t going to fire them off unless we attacked them. After seeing Sulemani turned into sushi, and their nuclear weapons program neutered like a Bulwark job applicant in one fell swoop, they weren’t about to restart throwing fists as long as Donald Trump was in the White House. Note that the word is “restart,” not “start,” as the cynical liars and historical illiterates insist. We didn’t start this war. The pagan freaks started it 47 years ago when they took our people hostage, and continued it when they killed our Marines in Beirut, our embassy workers, our Air Force folks at Khobar Towers, our troops in Iraq, and so on and so on. They started this war; we’re merely finishing it.

But why are we finishing it now?

It’s simple. Donald Trump is resetting the entire global gameboard. He’s playing 4-D chess, with the Fourth Dimension being time. This is the long game, and we finally have a president playing to win.

And it’s not all Iran. Iran is merely one piece of a much bigger whole. Understand how momentous this undertaking is. President Trump is changing the world as we have known it for the last 50 years – scratch that. Make that the last 80 years. When he is finished – which comes after many of our major foes have been finished – the world will look very different, and we will be back on top as the undisputed unipower in a unipolar world. When this is done, Donald Trump will be the most consequential president since Ronald Reagan; it’s something to be tied with the Gipper, who reset the board by defeating the Soviet Union without a shot (at least, without an acknowledged shot between Americans and Russians). From what’s happening in Europe to what’s happening in the Middle East, and elsewhere, Donald Trump is changing the game. He is no longer kicking the can down the road. He’s going to kick the tails of our enemies (and, figuratively, our allies)by changing how the United States does business.

How has the United States done business for nearly a century? It has restrained itself and allowed itself to be restrained by others. Until now, it has never fully flexed its muscles. After World War II, the United States was a megapower. Yes, the Soviets had nuclear weapons, and that put them sort of on par with us, but they never had the strategic reach that the United States had. The Soviets could never move a half-million Americans and their heavy combat equipment to the other side of the world, then move it all into another country and wipe out its entire army (the fourth largest in the world) in 100 hours. I was part of that during Desert Storm. Nor did the commies have the economic power we had. As a reserve currency with an economy that dwarfed everyone else, we were it, the man, A-number one.

But we never used our power to its full extent. We were restrained. Part of it was voluntary. Our morally misguided ruling elite believed that, at some level, America was unworthy of its power and not trustworthy to wield it. They counseled restraint, and so we restrained ourselves. We allowed the Vietnamese communists to drag a war on for decades that we could have won in a year. We didn’t bomb Hanoi or mine its harbors (where the Soviet arms came in) until Christmas 1972. And when we did, we had a peace treaty by March 1973.

Of course, our trash foreign policy establishment and cultural left screamed about that. How dare Nixon do the thing that would win the war? After they got rid of Tricky Dick in the first iteration of Russiagate, they betrayed our South Vietnamese allies and let the North win – as our elite felt it should.

In Europe, we agreed to pick up the tab for defending Europe to get our allies back on their feet after WWII. That continued until Trump drew the line. The allies chose degeneracy, weakness, and to spend the money they saved, thanks to Uncle Sucker picking up the tab, on welfare and Third World invaders. Similarly, we never used our economic power. We gave trade deals that screwed our own producers to our allies – and others – to grow their economies. And we allowed ourselves to be restrained by international law, a mythical construction pushed by European globalists who were less interested in right and wrong than in making their lilliputian move by tying down the United States of Gulliver with rules and norms that bound only us.

Trump is not playing any of that. While the convoluted explanations and fake moralizing that attempt to justify hobbling the United States and preventing it from exercising its full power in the defense of its interest may appeal to the elite, normal Americans – of whom Trump is an avatar – don’t buy it, especially nearly a century after World War II ended when we nuked Japan (have you noticed how mad they get that we used that power to save hundreds of thousands of American lives?).

We took out Venezuela because it has been an enemy for a couple of decades and a thorn in our side, cooperating with our other enemies. We will soon take out Cuba for the same reason. No, they did not launch an overt attack at us lately for the same reason Iran didn’t. They are weak, and we are strong. So, what better time to attack? The usual suspects are making hilarious arguments that it’s wrong for us to attack weaker countries, as if this were some playground where we’re trying to steal their lunch money. Only an idiot fights fair; hitting them while they are weak, before they fix their defense systems, replenish their missile stocks, and build a hot rock is the best time to hit them.

It's another made-up “norm” that no one ever voted on that exists solely to restrain the United States from leveraging its power to promote its interests. When Iran goes, that deprives Russia of a key arms partner and lets us get our hands around China’s throat because the CCP’s oil comes largely through Iran. If you want peace, support regime change in Iran so we can control the fossil fuel spigot. China can’t invade Taiwan as long as we can turn off the gas.

Imagine the world that Donald Trump and his team imagine. The Europeans will start paying their own checks; maybe getting their allowance cut off will encourage them to get serious about preserving their culture. Even if they don’t, the fact that Trump did not even bother inviting them into the Iran fight shows they are totally irrelevant as far as actual power goes. We will have the Americas free of communist subversion for the first time since JFK shamefully wussed out at the Bay of Pigs, which additionally helps us domestically on drugs and immigration, while providing new markets for what we manufacture. In the Middle East, the regime that is the main force for destabilization in the region will be replaced by people who do not chant “Death to America!” and we can finally end the ‘forever wars” we hear so much tiresome whining about. We will never face a coterie of seventh-century savages with The Bomb atop a ballistic missile that can reach Kansas City – could you imagine that, because it was in the cards if the “adults in the room” had their way?. And Russia and China will have the military option taken off the table – no oil, no war. Then, when the delusion of conquest has dissipated, we can build a peaceful relationship.

Trump loves peace. That’s why he has gone to war. But more than that, he has totally rejected the perpetual cycle of failure and defeat that allows our enemies to persist for decades when we could have brushed them off our shoulders like dandruff. If you want peace, support Donald Trump and this war. If you want war, support the pinkos, traitors, half-wit podcast bros, and libertarians who support “peace.”

Spain and U.K Response to Iran Conflict Highlights NATO Weakness and Duplicity

When addressing Greenland’s strategic value within U.S. Arctic defense efforts, President Trump argued that although the European Union and NATO insisted there was no need for American control —promising instead to marshal their combined military strength to defend the territory— he remained skeptical of their assurances. Trump’s remarks were met with swift shock and visible dismay. Pearls were clutched and jaws stood agape.

However, it only took a few weeks for a moment of clarity to surface following the Israeli/U.S. decision to strike Iran and eliminate the long-standing nuclear threat. Suddenly Great Britain and Spain tell the U.S. they will not allow American military use of their joint airbases.  Once, again President Trump’s lack of trust in NATO proved correct.

This visible example of unidirectional self-interest is happening at the same time European and British leadership are requesting demanding the United States provide the security guarantees for their Ukraine ambitions.  The contrast is stark.

Concerns about Islamist extremism within the U.K. appear to influence the thinking of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. With a significant number of immigrants from Muslim-majority countries now living in Great Britain, some argue that actions perceived as antagonizing more radical elements abroad could have domestic repercussions within the U.K.  That said, the contrast in support is so stark that opposition leadership inside the U.K. are now confronting the British Prime Minister.

SCOTUS Safeguards Parental Rights, Halts California’s ‘Exclusion Policies’

 SCOTUS Safeguards Parental Rights, Halts California’s ‘Exclusion Policies’ 

The court held that the state cannot conceal students’ gender dysphoria symptoms from parents, while litigation continues in lower courts.

Dylan Kresak for American Spectator

The court held that the state cannot conceal students’ gender dysphoria symptoms from parents, while litigation continues in lower courts.

On Monday, in a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court blocked California’s school policies that prevented educators from informing parents if their children identify as transgender at school.

In Mirabelli v. Bonta, the court overturned a lower appeals court’s pause on a district court ruling, and this allowed the injunction against California’s nondisclosure policies to take effect for the parents challenging the law. The majority grounded its ruling in the First and FourteenthAmendments. It argued, “[P]arents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim,” adding,  “Under long-established precedent, parents — not the State — have primary authority with respect to ‘the upbringing and education of children.’” California’s policy barred schools from disclosing a student’s gender transition to parents without that child’s permission.

Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Jackson and Sotomayor, dissented. She said the court was “impatient” for stepping in before the appeals process played out, which she argued shows a “malfunction” of the judicial process. Kagan also said that the majority’s reasoning creates a “strong sense of whiplash” and that it relies on constitutional protections for parental rights after the court “repudiat[ed] a woman’s right to make important decisions about her own health” in Dobbs.

The legal challenge to the California policy began in 2023, when two teachers sought an exemption from their “compelled participation” in district policies barring them from informing parents about a student’s gender transition at school without the student’s consent. Their school district argued, “[S]tate law, as interpreted by the California attorney general and Department of Education, required it to adopt these policies.”

Among the parent plaintiffs are John and Jane Poe, whose experience was described in the court’s per curiam opinion. Their daughter “socially transitioned” at school in the seventh grade, without their knowledge. The court stated, “At the beginning of their daughter’s eighth-grade year, she attempted suicide and was hospitalized. Only then did her parents learn from a doctor that she had gender dysphoria and had been presenting as a boy at school.”

The opinion also noted that “Contrary to the Poes’ instructions, teachers and school officials continued to use a male name and pronouns for their daughter” after she was hospitalized as a “risk for self-harm.” 

Similar legal disputes are unfolding nationwide. One case in Massachusetts, Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, challenges a district policy that requires teachers to use a student’s chosen name and pronouns.

President Trump Rejects Premise: The U.S is Not Running Out of Strategic Munitions

Conservative Treehouse 

There has been an ongoing narrative from the insufferable leftists and professional pundits in opposition, that the United States military will soon run out of missiles, rockets, drones, bombs and lethal munitions.  Given the global stockpiles of these weapons, the underlying premise always seemed absurd.

President Trump responded to the false claims in both a direct Truth Social message and an interview with Politico.

[Truth Social] – “The United States Munitions Stockpiles have, at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better – As was stated to me today, we have a virtually unlimited supply of these weapons. Wars can be fought “forever,” and very successfully, using just these supplies (which are better than other countries finest arms!). At the highest end, we have a good supply, but are not where we want to be. Much additional high-grade weaponry is stored for us in outlying countries. Sleepy Joe Biden spent all of his time, and our Country’s money, GIVING everything to P.T. Barnum (Zelenskyy!) of Ukraine – Hundreds of Billions of Dollars’ worth – And, while he gave so much of the super high end away (FREE!), he didn’t bother to replace it. Fortunately, I rebuilt the military in my first term and continue to do so. The United States is stocked, and ready to WIN, BIG!!! Thank you for your attention to this matter.” President DONALD J. TRUMP

(VIA POLITICO) – […] In a roughly 4-minute phone call with POLITICO, Trump argued that Tehran’s military capacity is being steadily degraded, even as Iranian forces are expected to “keep lobbing missiles for a while.”

“They’re running out and they’re running out of areas to shoot them, because they’re being decimated,” Trump said. “They’re running out of launchers.”

[…] Trump during the interview said, “we have unlimited of the middle- and upper middle- ammunition and things. We save it and we build it.”

“The defense companies are on a rapid tear to build the various things we need,” he added. “They’re under emergency orders. We’re making it fast. But we have unlimited, as stupid as [former President Joe] Biden was, he didn’t use it.”

[…] Trump has suggested the war could last four or five weeks or be over in a few more days.

He justified the war by saying Iran was on the verge of having a nuclear weapon or being capable of attacking the United States, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio and House Speaker Mike Johnson said Monday that Israel was poised to strike Iran anyway — meaning America would have been hit in response.

[…] Asked whether it is too late for him to consider working with someone in a new government, Trump replied, “Nope, not too late. 49 [senior Iranian leaders] were killed, don’t forget, so that goes pretty deep, right? New ones are emerging. A lot of people want the job. Some of them would be very good.” (read more)

See, President Trump is so good at creating jobs, he’s even creating job openings in the Iranian government.

Has Trump misunderstood Iran’s IRGC and the Basij forces?

The US president called for IRGC members to lay down their arms or face ‘certain death’. Here’s how he misunderstands the IRGC.

On Saturday, as the United States and Israel attacked Iran, US President Donald Trump sent a message to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) conscripts, demanding they surrender or die.

“To the members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, the armed forces and all of the police, I say tonight that you must lay down your weapons and have complete immunity,” Trump said. “Or in the alternative, face certain death. So, lay down your arms. You will be treated fairly with total immunity, or you will face certain death.”

Instead, they retaliated with drone and missile attacks on Israel and multiple Arab states that host US assets in the region. Early on Sunday morning, Iranian state television announced that one of the strikes on Tehran killed its longtime supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

If Trump’s appeal to the IRGC was aimed at inspiring defections or abdications, it does not seem to have had the intended effect. So why did Trump’s call for the IRGC to lay down their arms fall on deaf ears?

Here’s everything you need to know:

What is the IRGC

It is an elite armed force and a constitutionally recognised component of the Iranian military, established in 1979 after the Islamic revolution. It operates alongside the country’s regular army but answers directly to the supreme leader.

In fact, its doctrine is built on velayat-e faqih, or guardianship of the Islamic jurist, essentially the protection of the Islamic revolution and its fealty to the supreme religious leader, initially Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who died in 1989 and was succeeded by Khamenei.

It is composed of ground, naval and air forces troops and includes an internal security paramilitary militia known as Basij. It also has an external operations force called the Quds Force, which is focused on special operations outside Iranian territory.

It plays a key role in Iran’s defence, foreign operations and regional influence with its 190,000 or so active personnel and a total of 600,000 if reserves are included. The IRGC manages Iran’s ballistic missile programme, is responsible for security for the country’s nuclear programme and coordinates with its regional allies in what is described as the “axis of resistance”.

The IRGC has been heavily sanctioned by various states. The US designated it an FTO (foreign terrorist organisation) in 2019. The European Union did the same in February 2026, prompting Tehran to respond by naming all EU member states, naval and air forces, as terrorist organisations the same month.

The IRGC, however, is also deeply entrenched in Iran’s political and economic structures. Its economic role expanded during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, as it handled engineering and logistics to sustain Iran’s war effort. Firms affiliated with the IRGC reportedly have contracts in key sectors such as Iran’s natural resources, transport, infrastructure, telecommunications, and mining. Iranian officials call this the “resistance economy” and say this is part of how the country has circumvented sanctions.

What is the Basij?

Also founded by Khomeini in 1979, the Basij is a volunteer paramilitary force that falls under the IRGC and enlists civilians motivated by their devotion to the country, though some analysts say young men also sign up for privileges and economic betterment.

The group is considered to be deeply ideological, often made up of young, working-class men. There are an estimated 450,000 personnel in the group, according to the Institute for the Study of War, though that also includes members who manage the group’s communications and sociocultural programmes.

Basij personnel are often deployed on the front lines of protests and have played a large role in countering uprisings against the government in recent years, including the 2009 Green Revolution and the 2022-23 Woman, Life, Freedom protests.

During the Iran-Iraq war, Basij members volunteered and were deployed to the front lines. They were encouraged to undertake “martyrdom missions”, wherein they would clear minefields in “human waves” to clear the battlefield for more experienced soldiers to advance.

Will they listen to Trump?

In short, it seems the answer is no.

Michael Mulroy, former deputy assistant secretary of defence (DASD) for the Middle East, told Al Jazeera: “In Iran, you have the supreme leader, of course, but there are multiple different power centres in the clerical, in the military, in the IRGC, in the intelligence service. They are unlikely to comply with what President Trump has done, and Israel.”

“Everything that they are saying right now, including recent statements from [Ali] Larijani, is that they intend to escalate this and essentially turn the region into an all-out war, causing as much pain not only to the United States but also against the Gulf countries in the region,” Mulroy said, referring to the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran.

Ideology and loyalty to the Islamic revolution and the supreme leader are key ideological tenets of the IRGC. But even beyond that, the economic and social power that many members receive makes it unlikely that a mass abdication will occur.

In fact, some analysts believe the latest attacks on Iran and the assassination of Khamenei might even expand the IRGC’s control over the Iranian state.

Director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, Jonathan Panikoff, said an end of the current regime in Iran is less likely to lead to a democracy than a “military-controlled state that might offer a new supreme leader as a symbolic token to millions of conservative Iranians, but with power firmly vested in the hands” of the IRGC.

Will Trump’s promise have any impact after Khamenei’s death?

That seems unlikely.

The IRGC is still very likely in control, despite a turbulent year for Iran.

After Israel’s war on Iran in 2025, the government grappled with relaxing social freedoms and appointing advisers to reach the country’s youth in an effort to improve national morale and ease public discontent.

Still, in January, Iran erupted in antigovernment protests, with analysts saying economic hardships from years of sanctions and government mismanagement were a key cause.

In terms of the group’s organisational capacity, it replaced the leaders assassinated during the 2025 war with Israel. And during that time, Khamenei also reportedly appointed three potential successors and named a series of replacements throughout the military chain of command.

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2026/3/1/has-trump-misunderstood-irans-irgc-and-the-basij-forces