Netanyahu’s militaristic government and a cabinet epitomized by Israel’s national security minister Itamar Ben Gvir, have greased the skids to a world of blood libels and conspiracy. Ben Gvir openly supports “relocating” Palestinians and, as the national security minister, he supports the vigilante actions of settlers in the West Bank. Netanyahu is the personification of a hammer for which every problem is a nail and the poster boy for anti-Semitic tropes about Jews controlling international affairs.

On the left, Netanyahu gifted a populist, anti-Semitic campaign theme to Chicago’s Mayor, Brandon Johnson. Chicago has problems, according to Johnson, because there is a “straight line” connecting the support for Israel’s “genocide” and inadequate funding for Chicago’s minority communities. ^[i] On the right, Joe Rogan, in his interview with Vice-President Vance, asked Vance about the connection between Epstein and the Mossad. Vance’s response? “Yeah, Mossad or C.I.A., or some other deep state, whether in America or Israel or another country,”^[ii]

The dangerous conflation of anti-Israel sentiment and anti-Semitic belief systems propels long-held conspiracy theories regarding pernicious “global control” over governments, finance and the media. Trump himself aired a television ad in 2016 that discussed a powerful global network undermining sovereign nations and showed images of three prominent Jews.^[iii] There are six health care lobbyists for every member of Congress that destroy access to low-cost insurance and medical services. They are legitimate but not AIPAC, according to the conflators. For them, AIPAC is an omnipotent and shadowy organization that controls international policies. The accusation of “genocide” sets aside the war crime of establishing military infrastructure under hospitals and schools but succeeds in equating Israeli military actions with the Holocaust – a transparent attempt to undermine a primary factor in the creation of an Israeli state.

Conflation, however, has a flip side. There are some within the Jewish community who interpret any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic. One hears arguments such as “Oh, it’s not anti-Semitism but it just happens that Israel is a Jewish state?” For others, “the world already hated us. This gives them an excuse. They cannot deal with the concept of Jews who fight back.” Finally, “Assad killed 600,000 people along ethnic lines, there is an active annihilation of non-Arabs in Darfur,1 Hamas and the Taliban kill anyone not abiding by religious law, but it is Israel that stands accused of genocide. Why is that? It is because we are Jewish.”

Conflators offer simple explanations and theories. They are short on solutions. Their respective perspectives see the world through a pin-hole, narrowed by tribal biases and distrust. They see Hamas versus Israel, Jews and Muslims, and a land dispute. They see the war crime of shielding military infrastructure with civilians, or they see the displacement and killing of thousands of civilians, but not both. They see no path forward other than continued conflict.

Dwight Eisenhower once said, “Whenever I run into a problem I can’t solve, I always make it bigger. I can never solve it by trying to make it smaller, but if I make it big enough, I can begin to see the outlines of a solution.”

In this instance – conflict in the Middle East - the point of making the problem bigger is not to evade moral judgment but to escape the narrow tribal frame that makes judgment a substitute for strategy. If the conflict is viewed only as Israel versus Hamas, or Jews versus Muslims, every argument becomes a test of loyalty and every proposal is trapped inside accusation. Expanding the frame to include the region’s governments, security interests, economic incentives, and shared fear of instability creates room for a political solution that neither side, left alone, can produce.

Rahm Emanuel, in his recent speech in Tel Aviv, expanded the problem. ^[iv] He urged Israeli leaders and others to think regionally – the entire Middle East – rather than locally. Israel and Hamas are enemy combatants with absolutely no ability to reach a peaceful settlement. Their neighbors, however, along with the United States and others have the resources and economic power to impose a peace.

Emanuel proposed a 23-state solution that engages the 21 countries in the Arab League, Israel and representatives of a future Palestinian state. The Arab League countries want regional security and share concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. They want to modernize the region while protecting sources of revenue, e.g., oil. The 21 Arab states would recognize Israel and Israel would accept a roadmap to a two-state solution. A NATO-like consortium would provide governance for the future Palestinian state, removing Hamas’ political authority. Emanuel called for an end to unqualified U.S. military support for Israel and contemplated Israel under different leadership.

For the region to move forward, Israel might take its guidance from David Ben-Gurion.^[v] Ben-Gurion delivered Israel’s Declaration of Independence on May 14, 1948. He served as Israel’s first Prime Minister and many view him as the “Father of the Nation.” Ben-Gurion presented his fellow Zionists with a political “trilemma.” Israel, Ben-Gurion argued, could only choose two out of three goals – Democracy, A Jewish State, and all the disputed land and territory. If they annexed all the land and its people, they could be a Jewish state or a democracy but not both. If they aspired to be both a Jewish state and a democracy, they must cede lands to the Arabs who had lived in the region for generations. To absorb all the land would require subjugation to establish a Jewish state. Alternatively, absorbing the land and establishing a democracy would abandon the goal of building a Jewish state.

Israel Only Gets Two out of Three

David Ben-Gurion

Rahm Emanuel’s 23-state solution, grounded in Ben-Gurion’s trilemma, offers a way out of the sterile arguments of the conflators on both sides. It replaces accusation with strategy, tribal certainty with political realism, and endless moral indictment with a practical framework for peace. If Israel can accept that it gets only two out of three, and their regional neighbors recognize the reality of Israel’s statehood, then the region can begin to imagine something more durable than permanent conflict.

^[i] On August 13, 2026, Mayor Brandon Johnson appeared on Jamal Bryant’s “Let’s Be Clear” podcast out of Atlanta, GA. During his interview, Mayor Johnson falsely accused Israel of genocide and blamed U.S. aid to Israel for insufficient funding to help at-risk Black and Brown communities in Chicago. When posting the interview on his social media, Mayor Johnson wrote, “There is a direct line between federal dollars that are taken out of Black communities and used to pay for bombing brown and Black people around the globe.”

^[ii] New York Times, “Yeah, Mossad or C.I.A., or some other deep state, whether in America or Israel or another country,” July 21, 2026.

^[iii]  he ad’s voiceover featured Trump stating, “The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election... For those who control the levers of power in Washington and for the global special interests, they partner with these people that don’t have your good in mind.” [1]

 The Visuals: As the audio mentioned “control the levers of power” and “global special interests,” the video displayed photographs of billionaire investor George Soros, then-Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein. [1, 2]

^[iv] The “23-State Solution” Overview

· Regional Integration: The plan brings together Israel, Palestinian representatives, and all 21 members of the Arab League into a single collective regional framework. [1, 2]

· Arab World Responsibility: It leverages the Arab League’s desire for regional security and economic modernization, pushing Arab nations to take greater ownership of Palestinian governance, economic development, and ending incitement or financial backing for violence. [1, 2]

· Self-Determination and Security: The proposal intends to grant Palestinians state sovereignty and self-determination while requiring them and regional bodies to officially accept the historic Jewish connection to the land and renounce terrorism. [1, 2]

· Reciprocal Constraints: Emanuel noted the plan requires Israel to stop unilateral actions in the West Bank that undermine peace, while the 21 Arab League members would grant Israel full diplomatic recognition. [1]

Key Criticisms and Context

· Scathing Critique of Netanyahu: Emanuel sharply criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, arguing that his military-focused policies have turned Israel from a praised “start-up nation” into a “territorial pariah” and isolated the country diplomatically from Europe and global academic circles. [1, 2, 3]

· U.S. Support and Changing Tides: He warned that unconditional U.S. support is straining ties and that global public opinion—particularly among younger demographics in the U.S. and Europe—is shifting away from Israel. [1, 2, 3]

· Condemnation of Hamas: Emanuel firmly condemned the October 7 Hamas attacks and denounced violence against Jewish people

^[v] Home Regions Middle East & North Africa Israel

Israel’s Impending Demographic Reality

https://fpa.org/israels-impending-demographic-reality/

Remember being taught that saying something louder than everyone else doesn’t improve your point? Chris Nolan missed that day in forensics. Thankfully, the bland cinematography in shades of gray gave my eyes a rest. Closing them during the gratuitous scenes of graphic violence provided an additional respite.

Yes, yes, yes…Nolan had a point to make. We must confront the violence and horrors of current events. If not, we will be doomed, if not by the Greek gods, but by a future in which our children and grandchildren condemn us. Like Odysseus, the “heroism” and “military efficiency” of murdering enemies -the massacre of civilians at a music festival, launching attacks while negotiating treaties, indiscriminate bombing of civilians alongside combatants, disrespecting the environment - will morph into regret and unintended consequences.

Nolan’s muddled message takes center stage in the penultimate scene. Odysseus works out his guilt in a confession to Penelope. He recites his many acts of violence in a weirdly monotonic monologue. Athena appears to approve and, then, as a palate cleanser, he kills his enemies. In Nolan’s version, Odysseus’ expiation pleases the gods and they allow him to begin anew, killing 50 or so men before his self-imposed exile. In the “real” Odyssey, Odysseus kills all of the suitors and takes the throne. He never goes into exile. He takes the throne unrepentant. In the real story and years later, one of Odysseus’ other sons (Telegonus) actually kills Odysseus, mistaking him for a raider. Same old, same old. The capacity to make hasty, reckless decisions is a family trait, a congenital curse.

Nolan bludgeons his audience but he never really hits the nail on the head, no matter how big his hammer. He creates a fictional version of a fictional, mythological character and attempts to deliver a message of hope for the future.

If nothing else, Nolan’s deeply flawed, ear-damaging epic caused me to remember others who have written about the failure to change course, to effect change before political and social institutions crumble and a new, frightening world emerges. George Saunders, in “Love Letter,” counsels his beloved grandson – now an adult – to cautiously evaluate his options before intervening in the unjust detention of a girlfriend, a victim of an authoritarian United States justice system that evolved from dramatic changes made post 2016. It is a letter of regret but also an attempt to rationalize his own inaction. At the end, though, he acknowledges that there is no time left for him to confront the system crushing their lives but he worries only about the safety of his grandson. He asks his grandson, “What would you have done? I know what you will say: you would have fought. But how? How would you have fought? Recognition, Regret, but no Reform.1

Saunders made his point with a thumbtack, sharp, penetrating, and precise. Nolan contorted a myth into a chaotic life lesson, filled with horror, disingenuous regret and ear drum-damaging violence. Perhaps the pen is mightier than the sword.

Every day the Brat of the Beltway wants more. The latest outrage? He is selling insider information. Trump owns Trump Social, America’s version of Pravda. Trump’s curated views entertain his fans and excoriate his political enemies. In addition, he tells the public what he might do at home and abroad. He offers predictions on non-war excursions such as bombing other countries. People use this information to place bets on prediction markets, buying and selling stocks and bonds or just for edgy parlor games.

All that sounds un-presidential and very Veruca Salt-ic: “They won’t open the straits? I will end their civilization! I want the straits opened now!”

It gets worse. He is offering early delivery of market-altering information to those willing to pay $100,000 to get a leg up (or a bet down) on the prediction and other markets.

Let’s pause for a moment. Imagine a CEO who plans to speak to a group of investors at a financial conference. Suppose that two hours prior to her presentation, she offers a peek at the updated performance of her publicly-held company – if they pay her $100,000. How would the Board of Directors react? All other investors? The SEC under any administration other than our current one? She would certainly lose her job and, possibly, go to jail. Maybe next to Ghislaine.

Presidents used to have parents of sorts. The Justice Department or the SEC could intervene. Congress could initiate impeachment hearings and appoint a Special Counsel. Voters used to care about blatant corruption. Not so much these days. The Oompa Loompas know the answer:

Who do you blame when your President’s a Brat?

If no one says “You can’t do that!

Blaming him really isn’t fair –

(he told us who he was)

It’s the voters who just didn’t care.

Trump and those in Congress casting a blind eye at his transparent transgressions need to be voted out of office. Millions suffer while a Putinesque-Trump lines his pockets and transfers wealth to the wealthy. Broad issues must take center stage and many of us must lower the temperature on emotional issues that divide us. Perfect cannot be the enemy of good if we want to flip the Senate and Congress.^[ii]

^[i][i] Oompa Loompas:
Oompa Loompa doompadee doo
I’ve got another puzzle for you
Oompa Loompa doompadah dee
If you are wise you will listen to me

Who do you blame when your kid is a brat
Pampered and spoiled like a Siamese cat?
Blaming the kids is a lion of shame
You know exactly who’s to blame:
The mother and the father!

^[ii] Previously I had written that I would have trouble supporting Abdul El-Sayed because of his position on Israel and his apparent disregard of the horrors that Syria, Iran and others have committed. Alas, he is imperfect but on core issues he is light years ahead of any Trump supporter. I must take my own advice: good cannot be the enemy of perfect and it would be very good to flip the Senate.

The Economist recently reviewed the Democrats’ chances of securing a majority in the Senate before and after El-Sayed’s victory in Michigan’s Primary election. According to The Economist, the Democrats’ chances of retaining a Senate seat that they already had, dipped about 10 percentage points after El-Sayed edged out Haley Stevens. His Republican opponent – a MAGA Trumper – now leads by a narrow 50.1% to 49.9% margin.

El-Sayed’s victory augmented the already Sisyphean task of winning the Senate. While they roll the rock uphill to win four senate seats currently held by Republicans (N. Carolina, Texas, Maine, Florida, Alaska, Ohio, Iowa, and Nebraska), they had to hold onto the four seats currently held by Democrats in Michigan, Georgia, N. Hampshire, and Minnesota. Michigan is now in play and will require arm-twisting of politically-orphaned Democrats to hold their nose and support a candidate with no political experience and extreme views on Israel that excite the student body and Dearborn, the first Arab-majority city in the U.S. His resume lists credentials, not accomplishments or actual work-product. For example, El-Sayed holds a medical degree (MD) from Columbia University and a Ph.D. in public health from Oxford University, but he has “never held a medical license, completed a residency, or practiced clinical medicine independently. His hands-on patient contact was limited to brief student clinical rotations”.^[i] He claims to have “revitalized” Detroit’s health department but has been criticized for vast overstatement. For example, during his time as Wayne County health director, his campaign advertised that he “erased $700 million in medical debt,” whereas independent reviews showed the program had cleared roughly $57.4 million, with $700 million being a long-term goal.^[ii]

Sisyphus might have an easier job than the Democratic Party who must push El-Sayed over the goal line.

North Carolina took a different tack. They put forward a candidate who won statewide elections in the past and tries to talk about issues that citizens and adult voters find compelling. Roy Cooper has a resume of accomplishment as a Democrat in North Carolina! He served as a State Legislator and the State Senate for over a decade, was elected to four terms as the North Carolina Attorney General and served two terms as Governor of North Carolina. He discusses Israel and America’s role in the middle east but it is not the cornerstone of his candidacy, much to the benefit of the citizens he hopes to serve. As governor he raised teacher’s pay, emphasized public education, funded health insurance for children and expanded Medicare coverage. Cooper is outperforming his Republican rival by as much 14 points. Why? According to The Economist, “the things Mr. Cooper says he wants to do are more popular than the things the El Sayed says he wants to do.” Cooper talks about boring stuff like “make things cost less.” He would not ban data centers but would require data centers to pay their own way on energy costs without inflating costs for consumers. His record includes expanding the number of child-care providers, increasing child tax credit, and eliminating unknown medical costs from bills. Cooper is a pragmatist where perfect is not the enemy of good.

El-Sayed excites the fringe with sophomoric accusations of a genocidal Israel and refusing to affirm Israel’s right to exist. He sidesteps the issue of Iran-sponsored terrorism with military infrastructure concealed in residential areas, beneath schools and hospitals. He wants to suspend military support for Israel without regard to its role as a reliable ally in a volatile region.

Cooper offers a nuanced and measured position. He maintains that the U.S. should back Israel as a critical ally, particularly when it faces threats and attacks from groups like Hamas or nations like Iran. He has rejected progressive efforts within his party to block or condition U.S. military aid to Israel, arguing that cutting off assistance is the wrong approach for a key ally under threat. While opposing arms restrictions, Cooper has stressed that the U.S. must apply diplomatic pressure on the Israeli government to improve humanitarian aid delivery to civilians in Gaza.

El-Sayed will likely teach the Democrats how to lose an election while Cooper provides a Master Class in how to win the Senate and change the frightening trajectory of the current administration. Good luck to Michigan Democrats. They may have to get past El-Sayed’s sophomoric views on complex issues and his thin record of achievement to deliver a mid-term miracle of taking the Senate. Sisyphus did have an easier task.

^[i]

Deadline Detroit: Politico: Abdul El-Sayed says he’s a physician but has no experience as a licensed Medical Doctor. May 12, 2026. Allan Lengel.

^[ii] Detroit Free Press. Sayed claim to have already erased $700 million in medical debt untrue. June 26, 2026.

King Tut -
Buried with a donkey. He’s my favorite honky!

The reason? I cannot get my head around the apathetic response to Trump’s abject corruption, self-dealing, pocket lining, and arm-twisting of patrons for “contributions.” Republican senators’ support for the longer-term protection scheme around his family’s feeding frenzy, panhandling, and tax dodging has rightly earned the moniker, “Hospice for the terminally spineless.”

But, still, why the apathy? Previously, I pointed out the Kellyanne Conway explanation: People react to what affects them, not offends them. That Trump’s grifts benefit him offends many but they fail to see any personal loss. Some stick to the rationale that we elected a “businessman” not a politician and getting rich by any means confirms their impression. There is no cognitive dissonance.

Steve Martin, though, might have the right answer. For the MAGA faithful, Trump is their favorite honky. Worried about the loss of demographic dominance to “others?” Their favorite honky opens the immigration flood gates to white South African who suffer in a post-apartheid country. Want more immigrants from nicer, whiter countries like Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden? Your favorite honky says so out loud! Worried about the Great Replacement Theory? Your favorite honky stops brown people at the border and has ICE agents harassing and killing those with darker skin tones. Hispanic singers at the Super Bowl? Trump offers up the honky-est alternative half-time show imaginable.

DEI at the Department of War? Hegseth the Hedgehog is fixing that. High-ranking positions available? Black generals need not apply. Women can apply but only if they bulk up with testosterone.

When Trump’s your favorite honky, policy takes a back seat to cultural assaults on the honky demographic. Costs are higher, we have a six-month excursion in Iran, Trump got a free plane that we paid for, he is getting richer, we are a bit poorer, and we lost our health care. But to the faithful, none of that matters as much as the refrain: “He’s our favorite honky!” It is the organizing principle for inexplicable political loyalty.

Few seem to care. Some argue that Trump gets away with the blatant scamming of America because – hold your nose – he is “transparent” about his self-aggrandizing behavior. Maybe. Kellyanne Conway, though, offered a better explanation long ago. In explaining away the absence of consequences for Trump’s “I grab them by the pussy” in the Access Hollywood video, Conway explained that people do not react to that which offends them, but what affects them.

Kellyanne would point out that it is the wrong chart if the goal were to touch a nerve with the reading public. The New York Times chart is useful as evidence of corruption, but it is rhetorically limited because it asks readers to be outraged by someone else’s gain. That kind of chart can confirm what many already believe about Trump, yet still leave the average voter emotionally detached: the money is his, the grift is complex, and the victim unclear. It’s a punch that doesn’t leave an emotional bruise.

A chart of public losses would be more powerful because it reverses the point of view. Instead of asking, “How much did Trump make?” it asks, “What did Americans give up so that this administration and its allies could profit?” When the bars show higher consumer prices from tariffs, lost health insurance, reduced food assistance, threatened prescription drug subsidies, diminished support for veterans, and higher fuel costs, the story stops being merely about scandal and becomes about household survival. It translates corruption from a moral offense into a balance-sheet injury. A chart identifying meaningful losses would carry more political force: it does not simply expose greed at the top; it measures the cost imposed on everyone else.^[i]

The Losers in Trump World

The picture comes into sharper focus when Trump’s self-dealing wealth growth is paired with the tax cuts he pushed through for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. The 2025 tax law makes the core bargain harder to miss: large benefits flow upward, while the costs are shifted downward through cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, ACA subsidies, and other public support. In other words, the corruption is not only what Trump and his allies take for themselves; it is what everyone else is asked to give up.

Who benefits, and who pays, under the 2025 Trump tax law

Trump’s ambition for a gold-plated legacy with his curated NIL (Name Image Logo) assault on American monuments, money, and toilets costs all of us. It is offensive. It wounds the soul and exhausts our sense of outrage. The outrage, though, fails to connect the dots – the straight line from financial stability and health to Trump’s excesses and tax reduction for the wealthy. Until Americans recognize that Trump’s corruption and coddling of the wealthy affects us - demonizing those with need and lionizing those with greed – we are angry but impotent rather than energized and effective.

What human cost will we have to pay to jolt Americans? This week we found out that the United States has recorded the highest number of measles infections since 1991 and we have five more months to get sicker. Kennedy’s Health and Human Services (HHS) slashed billions in federal public health grants that funded local clinics delivering measles vaccinations, but billionaires got tax breaks and Trump earned over $2 billion. Do you feel affected or just offended?

^[i]  Tax Foundation, Joint Economic Committee minority estimate, and AP News for tariff-cost estimates. [taxfoundation.org], [jec.senate.gov], [apnews.com]

 KFF, CBO, and CBPP for Medicaid/ACA coverage and federal health-spending cuts. [kff.org], [cbo.gov], [cbpp.org]

 CMS and recent reporting on the Part D premium stabilization demonstration for prescription drug subsidy context. [cms.gov], [247wallst.com]

 ITEP, CNBC, and OilPrice.com for Iran-war fuel and energy-cost estimates. [itep.org], [cnbc.com], [oilprice.com]

 VA budget materials, Congressional Research Service, and Stars and Stripes for VA funding figures. [department.va.gov], [congress.gov], [stripes.com]

 CBO, CBO SNAP dynamic analysis, and CBPP for SNAP cuts and participation losses.

Indeed, the almost soothing reprimand of “inappropriate” allowed it to morph into an oft-used explanation of repulsive behavior. Convicted serial sex offender Larry Nassar, an Assistant Professor at Michigan State University who served as the team physician for the women’s gymnastics team and other athletes, wrote a letter to the judge characterizing his decades of criminal sexual assaults as “inappropriate behavior.” When Melania was asked about her husband’s comments that he “grabbed women by the pussy,” she told CNN that, “I said to my husband that, you know, the language was inappropriate.” She really laid into him.

Witness now the new generation of whitewashing wordsmiths. Unprecedented traditionally referred to that which we found exceptional or innovative and novel. It could be used as an adjective to amplify the goodness or badness of something: unprecedented athletic performance by Ohtani; unprecedented success in some field or unprecedented corruption (think Bernie Madoff).

Now, however, ‘unprecedented’ is treated as the whole verdict, not as a modifier attached to the actual offense. Trump scams the public and it stands alone, not as a modifier of an action. The $2.2 billion gained through his crypto-con is simply “unprecedented.” The media stops short of “unprecedented corruption” or an “unprecedented Ponzi Scheme.” It is just unprecedented. Is Trump is an innovator? He engineered an “unprecedented” mechanism to defraud millions of investors.

Trump assassinates a head of state. It is unprecedented. He puts his image on currency and passports. Unprecedented. He graffiti-trashes the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts with his name. Unprecedented. He demolishes parts of the White House and asks oligarchs to pay for the renovation in return for favors. Unprecedented. He sends agents to Georgia to pursue baseless claims about rigged elections. Unprecedented. He sells presidential pardons.

Do you think that Trump shrinks from being referred to as “unprecedented?” For him, it is a badge of honor. How many times have we heard Trump bloviate “No one has ever seen anything like it before”?

Is the media going to revert to “inappropriate” ala Larry Nassar? Is granting Bezos preferred status for providing data centers to the government in return for a Melania Mocumentary payday inappropriate? That would really make Trump sweat.

It is time for blunt clarity. Bezos bribed Trump. Trump scammed investors. Trump illegally trades stock on insider information and sells pardons in return for political and financial support. He ignores the courts and tramples the Constitution. “Inappropriate” sugarcoats the outrage and “unprecedented” sounds like a potential Oscar category. Enough.

Trump’s attention to this matter was notable. He was in the middle of promoting Dell stock at an oval office news conference, forcing Trump to take time away from this important event that had financial implications for his investment portfolio. He was unable to call Putin to implore him to stop the bombing in Kyiv as there was a time conflict with his FIFA call. Shots and shells are flying in the Straits of Hormuz – which is not a war but a small operation – but, again, he had no time to devote that conflict in the face of a goal-counting scandal.

It is unclear if FIFA will, again, bend the knee and honor Trump’s request. FIFA had previously reversed the red card penalty imposed on Folarin Balogun, an injustice far greater than Putin’s invasion and bombing of Ukraine and more important than the ongoing hostilities in the Middle East.

All kidding aside, Americans were grateful for Trump’s interference in a sporting event. While he added to the time that he spends NOT doing his job, he only degraded America’s global image. He did not invade another country, annex Greenland, assassinate another country’s leader, announce new tariffs, or have another lunch with an anti-Semite at Mar-a-Lago. Americans did wonder, however, if they could exchange a Red Card for the Get of Jail Free Card that Trump wheedled out of the Justice Department. Hope springs eternal.

In 1950, Alan Turing authored his seminal paper on the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) entitled Computing Machinery and Intelligence.[i] In that paper, he defined a procedure for determining if a machine had intelligence. Originally called “The Imitation Game” the procedure required a judge to pose a question – blindly – to a human and a machine. If the judge could not discern a difference, the machine was deemed intelligent. The Turing Test became the gold standard in early AI experiments.

Could we flip the switch on the Turing Test: A Reverse Turing Test that identifies an intelligence vacuum? Could the judge pose the question and determine if the human had intelligence comparable to AI? For example, suppose a judge would blindly ask Google’s AI Summary and Donald Trump a straightforward question: “Did the U.S. wage war against Iran?” and awaited a response that could be judged on accuracy, coherency, and clarity. What would the judge conclude?

Imagine the judge listening carefully to the machine generated speech from the computer and from the “human.” He repeats the question with a time span for clarity:

Judge: Did the U.S. wage war against Iran in the past year?

AI Response: Yes, the U.S. fought a major military campaign against Iran. Beginning on February 28, 2026, the U.S. and Israel launched coordinated airstrikes targeting Iranian leadership, nuclear sites, and military infrastructure. After extensive combat operations, hostilities paused following a memorandum of understanding (MoU), though intermittent skirmishes and tit-for-tat strikes have occasionally occurred.

Trump Response: It’s both a “war” and a “little excursion”…it’s an operation for the U.S., but “for them it’s a war”. It’s also a “short-term excursion” that is “a necessary action” because it turned out to be “easier than we thought” for our military.

Unsurprisingly, the judge determined that the first response suggested intelligence, the second did not. Indeed, the judge described the unintelligent answer as evasive and internally contradictory. When discovering that the second response was Trump’s, he uttered, “Turing never thought it would be so easy for a computer to appear intelligent. He might be upset, though, that there was no ‘imitation’ in the Imitation Game. The human was supposed to be the yardstick.”

To fairly implement the Turing Test, questions must be asked across a broad spectrum of human activity and concerns. The economy, and the machine’s ability to explain complex interactions between multiple variables, qualifies as a suitable discipline to test the machine’s intelligence. Tariffs have been in the news over the past couple of years and the judge produced a simple question.

Judge: Who pays a tariff?

AI Response: A tariff is paid to the government by the importer bringing goods into the country; the cost may then be absorbed by the importer, shifted to suppliers, or passed on to consumers.
Trump Response: Foreign countries are paying us billions. They charged us, so we charge them. It’s reciprocal. It’s about cheating, fentanyl, the border, trade deficits, and bringing back manufacturing.

When a judge checks his hearing prior to rendering a decision, it is not a good sign. The first response was concise, clear, and logical. The tax is paid at the border by the importers. The cost is often passed on to the consumer.

The second answer introduced new subjects (fentanyl?). The answer misidentifies the payer – it is not the seller but the buyer who wants the foreign goods. Then there is the punishment rant for cheating and, then, the manufacturing non-sequitur.

The judge concluded that only one response exhibited intelligence. The judge flirted with asking more questions. There were several that could identify the presence of intelligence. For example, questions regarding the Reflecting Pool, Conflict of Interests while in office, proper investigation of Epstein’s network and the remodeling of the White House. Ultimately, the judge sighed and concluded that no further tests were required.

The judge, in this test, concluded that intelligence, at a minimum, requires answers that respond to the question asked, uses words consistently, and does not collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. By that modest standard, the Reverse Turing Test produces an unsettling result: the machine does not need to imitate human intelligence when humans display none.

[i] [i] Turing, A.M. (1950) Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind, 59, 433-460.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433

Prominent Features

· Social withdrawal: A tendency to disengage from conversation, community, or public life because the surrounding environment feels hostile or exhausting. Practices MAGA avoidance

· Perceived confinement: A sense of being trapped inside social, political, or informational conditions one did not create and cannot easily escape.

· Anticipatory anxiety: Persistent worry about future instability, loss of rights, social conflict, or further disruption.

· Loss of agency: A diminished sense of personal control, accompanied by frustration, helplessness, or civic fatigue.

· Hypervigilance: Heightened attention to news, rhetoric, policy changes, or public behavior as potential signs of worsening conditions.

Clinical-Style Note

People, otherwise unremarkable with respect to emotional characteristics, wake up in the middle of the night to see if Trump is still alive. They awake from dreams in which legal immigrants wear yellow armbands and bibles are placed in public school desks and five billionaires own transportation, the news media, entertainment monoliths, communication infrastructure, and medical institutions. A lesser nightmare invades the daytime as the Trumpdemic haunts their nights.

P

Language changes with the times. Semantic relativity reflects moral relativity. Jon Ossoff coined the term “The Epstein Class” to describe those who transcend the inconveniences of legal restraints, cultural barriers and decency. They are the new “Untouchables” who live and operate without fear of consequences. Fueled by wealth and power, the Untouchables rewrite history, erase misdeeds and rig whatever game they play.

Examples abound. You attack officers at the Capitol, chase elected representatives down the halls of Congress and call for the hanging of the sitting Vice President? No worries. Trump pardons the felons and proposes a slush fund to compensate them for the pain of being brought to justice. They are untouchable.

Trump gets convicted of fraud and refuses to disclose his tax returns. How does he escape scrutiny? He sues the IRS, an agency he controls, and settles for perpetual immunity. His personal attorney, Todd Blanche, masquerading as a government employee, engineered this deal. The Supreme Court immunized Trump for all “official acts” which now inlcude cash transfers from the U.S. Treasury and immunity from fraudulent tax returns before and after his time in office. Untouchable. Ghislaine Maxwell watches hopefully from her country club jail cell.

Binance founder Changpeng Zhao was convicted of permitting criminals to launder money through his block-chain maze. He was sentenced to a few months in jail and paid a fine. A funny thing happened on the way to the penitentiary. According to Bloomberg, Binance helped create the code that launched the USD1 crypto coin offered by World Liberty Financial, a Trump family and friends company. MGX, a UAE firm, used USD1 to make a $2 billion investment in Binance. Billions have flowed into Trump’s World Liberty Financial.1 Zhao actively promoted sales of USD1 days after his pardon. He knows the path to Trump’s heart and untouchable status.

Privileged billionaires know as well that they can protect their business interests against pesky government regulations and scrutiny by limiting media criticism. They attain Untouchable status by eliminating unwanted media attention to Trump’s foibles. Witness Bezos and Ellison.

Some billionaires trade in untouchability. That is, they secure untouchable status in return for fortressing Trump’s untouchable status. Jeff Bezos need to protect his Amazon empire. He coveted federal and defense contracts for Amazon Web Services and Blue Origin. Bezos flinched when Trump threatened regulatory scrutiny, postal price increases and other retaliatory actions when stung by critical coverage in The Washington Post. Bezos needed to achieve Untouchable status. He decimated the Post’s editorial board, stressing coverage of personal liberties and free markets, rather than the expression of strong views about Trump’s foreign and domestic policies and, importantly, presidential endorsements. For good measure, Amazon MGM financed the “iconic” Melania documentary for $75 million and Melania’s production company pocketed $28 million of that investment. Untouchable status can be bought in many ways: handcuffing an inquisitive press or enriching the President’s wife.

Trump also disapproved of his treatment by late night hosts and 60 Minutes. This concerned the Ellison family. Larry and his son, David, are the new Murdochs of media. They own Paramount and CBS and want favorable reviews on their propsed merger with Warner Bros. Discovery. Ellsion took decisive action. He paid Trump $16 million to settle a baseless suit regarding the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. They eliminated the DEI initiatives at CBS under fire from the Trump acolytes. They cancelled Stephen Colbert’s Late Night show because of his criticism of Trump and the $16 million payoff and they gutted 60 Minutes, firing Scott Pelley. As of May 27, 2026 “U.S. antitrust authorities appear close to approving Paramount’s proposed $110 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery (NASDAQ:WBD), according to a report published Tuesday by Semafor citing sources familiar with the discussions.”2 Untouchable in his pursuit of media monopolies, Ellsion will also receive untouchable status on handling the TikTok integration, its availability on the massive (and potentially unsecured) storage in the U.S.

April 24, 2026 New York Times

Emasculated regulatory bodies and a rubber-stamping Congress enable Trump to confer untouchable status at will. The untouchable class has limitless financial resources and continually explores paths to Trump’s good graces. Financing the White House renovation? It is a feeding frenzy for the untouchable wannabes.

We have but a few arrows in our quiver. Oppose the confirmation of unqualified lackeys to important cabinet positions. Boycott certain products and services. Learn to live without Tik Tok, Teslas, Paramount, and Amazon. Support voter mobilization and legal action groups. Write letters to all elected officials in your orbit and make sure that you and your friends march to the voting booth in November. We need serious, competent national leadership. Remember, when a clown moves into a palace, the clown does not become a king. The palace becomes a circus.

Many of us first encountered Hans Christian Andersen’s classic The Emperor’s New Clothes as children, or later while reading it to children of our own. The lesson learned in our formative years resonates today: Respect for power and position clouds vision and saps the courage to state the obvious. In Andersen’s fable, a child watching the emperor’s procession says the one thing everyone else is afraid to say: ‘He isn’t wearing anything at all.’ The literal image is beside the point. What matters is the spectacle of power insisting on its own grandeur while reality says otherwise.

Another idea, though, deserves discussion. Is Andersen’s classic really an allegorical and cautionary tale about the limits of imperial power? The Emperor’s New Clothes shows what happens when intimidation stops working. Once unassailable, the emperor finishes the parade in shame, defeated and exposed.

Great Britain acknowledged it could not govern India. United States learned that unifying Vietnam under its puppet leader was unrealistic (57,000 lives later). The Soviet Union faltered in Afghanistan, leaving a roadmap for the U.S. to do the same. Putin cannot get Ukraine to bend the knee and despite overwhelming military assets, Iran punched back with an economic energy haymaker to the western world.

Trump presents bluster as strength, declares success before outcomes are secure, and treats alliances as disposable. But rhetoric is not strategy. When claims of dominance collide with battlefield realities, strained alliances, and rising costs, the image of command begins to collapse. He “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capability a year ago. Fourteen American deaths later and near depletion of our defense arsenal and a spiraling cost of over $29 billion, the re-obliteration continues. Iran, and now our allies denying air space, punched Trump in the nose. China now describes our country as “a giant with a limp.” NATO is now hedging against American unreliability, recognizing its flagging leadership and Trump’s affinity for Putin and his ilk.

Before World War I and their obsession with the sun never setting on their empire, Great Britain was the undisputed global leader of that era. That dissipated as India and others punched back. Great Britain relinquished its superpower status, flexing muscles against lesser foes such as the Falklands.

Under Trump, America’s abdication is multi-dimensional. Trump launched our decline by weakening soft diplomacy, undermining confidence in NATO, discouraging scientific talent from coming to the United States, and signaling indifference as Putin devastates Ukraine. He projects strength while eroding the foundations that made American leadership durable.

Trump can still boast of unmatched power, but boasting cannot repair weakened alliances, strategic drift, or declining credibility. That is the real lesson of Andersen’s fable: when spectacle outruns reality, exposure becomes inevitable. The emperor may keep walking, but the world clearly sees the the pretense of power.

Funerals have many forms. You learn something about a person’s life. You share in a family’s grief and offer comfort with your presence. Many trigger reflection on one’s own mortality.

What is rare, at least for me, is illumination. At the memorial service for my wife’s cousin, the Rabbi shared his last conversation with him. Her cousin told the rabbi that “my life is perfect” and “all I want is another day in paradise.” Wracked with a terminal disease, dealing with a complicated transplant during the pandemic, and emotionally surviving the tragic and early death of his parents, his view was that his life was perfect. Compartmentalizing the challenges, he found joy in his marriage, children, grandchildren, brothers and friends. He carved out a space in which his family, career, hobbies and child-like fascination with how things work commanded salience. Tragedy and illness were the mosquitoes at a majestic national park. He held fast to his Eden.

Marcus Aurelius: “Don’t fear dying. Fear living without life”

He made the most of the six-year expiration date for his transplant, squeezing out every bit of life and happiness that he could generate. Trips with his nuclear and extended family, birth of a grandchild, joyous occasions, and laughter. Disease existed. Tragedies had occurred but he honored the life-giving gift of his transplant, grabbing paradise by the lapels and never letting go.

The illumination? It is aspirational. I want to soften the hard edges of life and awake each morning contemplating the next day in paradise. A family tension, a defeat of some sort, or a health crisis will become a stone in my shoe. Nothing will diminish the joy of the journey.

One can choose to go back toward safety or forward toward growth. Growth must be chosen again and again; fear must be overcome again and again.” - Abraham Maslow

Digest that. This is the Pete Hegseth that invited his wife, his brother, and his personal assistant on a Signal chat about the strike plans last June and, by mistake, included Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic on a separate chat with JD Vance. Shocking that confidential information could leak – if a fire hydrant leaks – from the Pentagon. Think back…Republicans wanted to “lock her up” because Clinton mingled private and government emails. Seems quaint compared to insider trading on military prediction markets.

Hegseth, like Trump and so many others in this administration, exhibit no compunction about transcending truth to create their own self-serving narrative. Truth? As Kelley Anne Conway explained to the world, there are “alternative facts” that warrant equal time. There was no assault on the Capitol on January 6, 2020. Patriots, jailed for violent acts, were victims worthy of presidential pardon. The election was rigged. Guiliani carried Trump’s water as he identified mint candy as a memory stick holding fraudulent votes. We obliterated Iran’s nuclear capability in June 2025 only to wage war - or an “excursion” as described by Trump - in 2026. Hegseth and Trump were so certain of the initial obliteration that Lt. General, Jeffrey Kruse, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, lost his job for disagreeing with Hegseth’s and Trump’s assessment.

Trump believes in inculcating “alternative facts” in our nation’s youth. This week, during a staged ceremony to revive a national fitness program, Trump lurched into a rambling discussion of Iran, transgender sports and the “rigged“ 2020 election and “transgender mutilation.” Trump replayed one of his top ten anecdotes about transgender competition, telling the teenagers “Did you see that they had a man powerlifter … he decided to go the opposite direction.” Finally, because of the fitness program’s direct relevance to the “excursion” in Iran, Trump heralded the U.S. military operations in Iran. “Maybe we wouldn’t all be here,” he said, if he – the only president willing to act – had not attacked Iran. Back to fitness, he asked a teenage boy if he could “take him” in a fight.

His team got the memo. When ICE murdered Petti and Good in Minnesota, Kristi Noem described the victims as paid or “funded” agitators. JD Vance repeated the claim and then pronounced the ICE agents as immune from prosecution. They flushed that crap hard and it got all the way to Fox News who further obfuscated the truth.

Kennedy lies about unpasteurized milk, vaccines, and the miracles of non-prescription supplements. Rubio tells the nation that Israel dragged the U.S. into the Iran conflict then gives credit to Trump for his initiative. Bondi and now Todd Blanche target Trump’s enemy list and concoct narratives to justify targeted prosecution. Seashells spell out death threats. “86-47” translates into an assassination threat not a desire to simply end a rogue presidency, led by a mob boss. Truth hides in the shadows. Political narratives command center stage.

It is time to wear a provocative t-shirt, write Trump a letter identifying his lies, be civil but direct when confronted by falsehoods. Most importantly, vote and support organizations that mobilize the vote. In Trump’s words, we need to “drain the swamp.”

Trump wants the money and power Putin amassed in Russia’s “Big Bang” transition from communism to a warped capitalism. The Big Bang describes the sudden explosion of wealth and power when Yeltsin propelled Russia from its state-owned, planned Soviet economy to a Wild West of rapid privatization. Insiders became rich—today’s oligarchs—who funnel money into Putin’s family accounts. The top ten control $250 billion, and Putin himself (and family) controls between $70–$200 billion. Putin protects the oligarchs, targeting journalists and dissenters who attempt to reveal the government’s corrupt practices. The grateful oligarchs protect Putin.

Putin-protected oligarchs amplify wealth disparity by capturing formerly public assets at bargain prices, then using political connections to lock in monopolies, preferential contracts, and regulatory carve-outs. Instead of broad-based growth, profits concentrate in a small circle, squeezing wages and competition and eroding public revenue through tax avoidance and capital flight. The result is a self-reinforcing system: extreme private fortunes buy protection and influence, and the state’s protection helps those fortunes keep growing. The result? In 1990, most wealth in Russia existed as public (state) property, with little private wealth to concentrate. Today, private wealth dominates—and it is highly concentrated: in 2024 the richest 10% own well over 60% of Russia’s wealth. The bottom 50 percent? They share 1-2 percent of Russia’s wealth.

Sound familiar? Trump’s Amerika aspires to replicate Putin’s political platform. While Trump’s Amerika has its origin in Reagan’s “trickle down” voodoo economics, Trump and his sycophantic acolytes in Congress have institutionalized an “Epstein Class” of oligarchs. Trump rigs the tax system in their favor, creates a permanent ‘working poor” class that must beg for health care and affordable childcare and education, and uses their money to fund campaigns that will ensure the politics of economic disparity. Trump sells pardons, collects money from the industries he protects, for example, cryptocurrency and prediction markets. His store-bought Supreme Court grants him immunity for these “official acts.”

In Trump’s Amerika, the top 1 percent captured about 40 percent of the wealth compared to 23 percent 50 years ago. The bottom 50 percent held only .2 percent of the nation’s wealth in 1976 and, under Trump, even that has fallen to negative net wealth.

We clearly see the imperfections in others. Putin is a monster that we recognize. Power and money hungry, he is willing to sacrifice the health and welfare of his country. He brutally targets those in opposition to his blatant corruption and strongman tactics. But we are hyperopic – our vision blurs with proximity. Fueled by money pouring into the coffers of the wealthiest, facilitated by fiscal policies that disadvantage millions of Americans, Trump’s Amerika poisons every aspect of our country. Wars of choice distract us from the corruption of the Epstein Class, tax policies gut basic health care, and the Justice Department has become a tool of intimidation.

In 1776, the upper one percent of the colonies controlled 7 percent of the wealth.[i] John Adams, as Vice-President, went home to Massachusetts to work his farm. That was the promise of the founders’ America: paths to prosperity for all under a system of fair governance.[ii] Trump’s Amerika looks different and appallingly like Putin’s Russia.

[i] This excludes the scourge of slavery that left many with negative wealth and horrible quality of life.

[ii] Again, the exclusion of an entire race from this promise has to be noted.

Hegseth’s systematic exclusion takes other forms. NBC News reported that Hegseth intervened in promotions for more than a dozen Black and female senior officers. Most notably, he blocked or removed Black and female officers slated for one-star general promotions despite the candidates passing formal merit-based review boards. Hegseth fired the white Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, Gen. Randy George, because he clashed with him over the blocked promotions of Black and female officers. Hegseth personally and on the record suggested that Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. was appointed as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because of race rather than merit.[ii] Trump abruptly fired Brown within his first month of office.

For Hegseth, Christianity transcends all religious belief systems and is the arbiter of moral reality. For some, Christianity, above all else, is foundational to Western civilization – a belief that motivated Vance to support the continued leadership of Hungary’s Christian white nationalist leader. For Hegseth, Christianity is not a “personal truth” but the “ultimate truth.’ At a Pentagon press briefing he said “To the American people, please pray for [U.S. troops] every day on bended knee with your family, in your schools, in your churches, in the name of Jesus Christ.[iii] He compared the rescue of a downed U.S. airman to Christ’s death and resurrection and our enemies as “religious fanatics” pursuing a “religious Armageddon.”

In previous essays, I have discussed Isaiah Berlin’s dissection of “positive freedom” – the ability to act and behave in accordance with one’s belief system. One does as one sees fit, as consistent with a set of principles, self-proclaimed to be rational and correct. Berlin explains that this type of freedom will betray freedom in a broader sense. First, an individual enjoys “positive freedom.” Then a group embraces the concepts, giving them intellectual and physical expression. Berlin cites Fichte, the 19^th century German philosopher who extolled the virtue of the true German who fully realized the future dominance of “Germanism” and the leader – the “Zwingherr” who will bring the nation to this realization. Others, such as Heinrich Heine, saw clearly a future in which “armed Fichteans whose fanatical wills neither fear nor self-interest can touch.”[iv]

Divided Oaths — Dangerous Outcomes

The imposition of Hegseth’s “ultimate truth” dictating the composition and direction of a national military force is no longer a faint echo of Fichte and others who sought to bring the world to heel. The question raised by Pete Hegseth’s conduct is not whether Christianity has a place in public life, nor whether faith can inform moral judgment. It is whether a single religious “ultimate truth” can be permitted to govern the composition, language, and mission of a national military charged with serving a pluralistic republic. A military that treats one faith as authoritative truth rather than personal conviction ceases to be a civic institution and becomes a sectarian instrument. At that point, we abandon constitutional neutrality. History suggests that religious crusades erode restraint and dissent becomes disloyalty. Violence acquires the imprimatur of righteousness.

Hegseth etched into his skin the symbols of the Crusaders – the Jerusalem Cross and the words “Deus Vult” (God wills it). We cannot allow him to carve it into the cornerstones of the Pentagon.[v]

Note: Tonight I am drinking to the political demise of Viktor Orban. Vance certainly knows how to pick a winner.

[i] Jennifer Bendery, “Pentagon To Host Good Friday Service Just For Protestants, Not Catholics,” HuffPost, April 3, 2026; Kathryn Wilkens, “Hegseth Holds Protestant‑Only Religious Service at Pentagon,” Mediaite, April 3, 2026.

[ii] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/21/trump-hegseth-joint-chiefs-cq-brown-jr

“First of all, you’ve got to fire the chairman of the joint chiefs,” Hegseth said during a November interview on the Shawn Ryan Show. “Any general that was involved, general, admiral, or whatever, that was involved in any of that DEI woke shit has got to go.”

Regarding Brown’s appointment, Hegseth said “Was it because of his skin color? Or his skill? We’ll never know…” — Pete Hegseth, writing about CQ Brown J

[iii] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/pete-hegseth-iran-war-religion-b2947994.html

[iv] https://open.substack.com/pub/martysinger1/p/freedom-its-betrayal-and-a-perilous?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web

And

Berlin, Isaiah. Freedom and its Betrayal, Pp. 74-75. Princeton University Press. 2014.

[v]

The logo of the Crusaders has become a favorite among violent white nationalists.

[i]

The meaning of “No one has ever seen anything like it” depends on inflection and emphasis. Hawaiians describing the recent Kona storms that caused flash flooding, road closures, mudslides and property damage, might have shaken their heads and said, “no one has ever seen anything like it” while looking at their mud-filled homes. Others might have been ecstatic describing Ohtani’s World Series multi-function performance as something that “NO one has EVER seen ANYTHING like it!!” For Trump, when referring to himself and his actions, the phrase has one meaning: his consistent delivery of superlative performance that no one else has done or could have accomplished.

It is as tiresome as helicopter parents endlessly recounting the achievements of their gifted children. Everyone in earshot waits for them to stop talking.

Trump’s verbal tic is incurable. Trump’s self‑proclaimed marvels follow a familiar pattern. He praises the White House renovation as historic. He boasts of head‑spinning tariff deal‑making that only he could have achieved. He trumpets his performance on a routine cognitive screening test— “I had to remember five different words! Can you imagine?”—as evidence of genius. He claims to have stopped “eight or nine wars,” eradicated inflation, and restored universal respect for the United States. Our NATO allies might disagree.

His latest vanity project, the Iran War attempted to demonstrate America’s power to enforce a regime change and secure our country’s future. According to Trump, no one has ever seen anything like the “obliteration” of Iran’s Natanz nuclear enrichment facility. Yet months later, Iran’s nuclear capabilities required renewed “obliteration,” and enriched uranium still exists. The United States demonstrated that it can efficiently kill, demolish infrastructure, and cripple military systems—and still emerge without a victory. We can strike leadership while pretending to negotiate, only to leave behind a power vacuum eagerly filled by the next generation of hardliners.

As he frantically attempts to end the war he initiated, he claims through social media that he is close – remarkably close - to achieving peace with Iran despite the reality of failed negotiations and an increasingly emboldened Iran. He knows enough, though, to establish his Vice-President as the face of failure.

Just as we have learned that Trump Derangement Syndrome is really Trump’s Derangement Syndrome, we have learned that “no one has ever seen anything like it” is not a description of reality but a defensive reflex. Trump converts failure into spectacle and ego into evidence. We have seen this before in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere: overwhelming force mistaken for success and bravado substituted for strategy. The consequences are always deferred, always denied, and always inherited by others. As Iran throttles the flow of energy and America gives birth to the next generation of Iranians who despise us and vow revenge, remember - we have seen this before.

[i] https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-hyperbole-economy-border-318dd6c8a0c97b0a261adc8e282550f1

Bill Frischling from Roll Call explained that this phrase appears to be a verbal tic of Trump’s, used only when he deviates from the script, as he avoids it in his social media post.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2025/09/07/never-seen-anything-like-it-what-trumps-favorite-phrase-says-about-his-presidency/. They report that “The phrase, which Trump is using with increasing frequency, is not just a rhetorical signature. It’s also a reflection of how Trump views the world and approaches the presidency. Almost everything is black and white, with himself as the hero and his political opponents as the villains. His successes are legendary in his eyes, and the country’s problems are urgent crises that require him to consolidate power…”

“Szilard Demeter, the Ministerial Commissioner and Head of Budapest’s Petrofi Literary Museum wrote “Europe is George Soros’s gas chamber” and that as “the liberal Fuhrer…his liber-Aryan army deifies him more than did Hitler’s own.” Demeter’s grievance? “Poison gas flows from the capsule of a multicultural open society, which is deadly to the European way of life.” Orban faced national and international pressure to dismiss Demeter. He promoted him. Today, Demeter serves as the Director General of the Hungarian National Museum and will merge other cultural institutions to ensure cultural homogeneity. As Orban has explained, he aspires to “embed the political system in a cultural era” in which the arts “protect the nation’s survival.” He refers to this new era as “Christian Liberty.” His government proposed a bill that would have the state appoint directors of theatres “

Soon after Orban explained his approach at a CPAC conference at which he was the star attraction, Trump dismantled the Kennedy Center leadership and affixed his name to the national cultural institution. Orban “implored the organization to recognize the importance of state-owned media. He said that the path to power required them to have their own media outlets.” Trump jumped on that idea quickly.

And now, Vance travels to Hungary – during wartime – to bolster Orban’s tenuous status in Sunday’s national election. Orban is a staunch supporter of Putin. Putin’s Russia currently provides Iran with satellite intelligence and cyber assistance:

“Russian satellites have made dozens of detailed imagery surveys of military facilities and critical sites across the Middle East to help Iran strike U.S. forces and other targets.”[ii]

Unbothered by the hypocrisy of attacking our NATO allies for not actively engaging Iran in the Strait of Hormuz while campaigning for a man who supports Putin – the guy assisting Iran, Vance lavishly praised Orban. In the thinly veiled language of white nationalism and disdain for foreign influences, Vance described Orban as “an ally of Donald Trump in the defense of Western civilization” and shouted out to the crowd “Will you stand for Western civilization? Then stand with Viktor Orban because he stands for you.”

How does Orban stand for “Western Civilization?” When asked about refugees from Syria, Orban said,

“We don’t see these people as Muslim refugees. We see them as Muslim invaders.”

To punctuate this view, he added that large-scale Muslim immigration would create “parallel societies” that “will never unite” and referred to multiculturalism outright as “an illusion.”[iii] Vance uses similar language. Immigrants, according to Vance, bring “ethnic grievance” and social conflict into the United States. He stated in a 2025 podcast interview that it was reasonable for Americans to want neighbors who share the same language and cultural background.

Trump skips over the pretense of cultural concerns. He is more direct. Immigrants are from “shit countries” and others are “not humans…they’re animals” (April 2, 2024, campaign rally).

All of this is ugly hate rhetoric and none of it begins with laws or decrees. It begins with words—invaders, vermin, poison, civilization. Words that reduce neighbors to threats and minorities to sub-human. Orbán proved that once such language is normalized, institutions follow. Trump proved it can be shouted. Vance hopes that it can be footnoted, reasoned, and sold as common sense. History’s lesson is not that democracies collapse when people stop believing in them, but that they collapse when people accept Orbanesque language and Vance-like platitudes on Western civilization. When repression arrives, it no longer needs justification, it has already been explained.

.

[i]

[ii] Reuters (April 7, 2026) – Satellite imagery and cyber support

[iii] https://www.dw.com/en/viktor-orbans-most-controversial-migration-comments/g-42086054 and https://www.politico.eu/article/viktor-orban-hungary-doesnt-want-muslim-invaders/

Terrorism, unlike pornography, is not determined by the eye of the beholder. Congress, in passing the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1990, established a federal statute that defined terrorism.[i] Our country – our laws – defines terrorism “as violent or dangerous acts intended to intimidate civilians, influence government policy, or affect government conduct through mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.” It is not exculpatory to claim that the terrorist acts were – as Hegseth states – “in the name of Jesus Christ.”

International Humanitarian Law[ii] (IHL) proscribes attacks on civilians and civilian objects. Proportionality prohibits “excessive civilian harm” in relationship to specific and essential military advantage. Hegseth and Trump might be surprised to learn that “Religious or ideological justification is legally irrelevant” as a defense against criminality.

Trump’s record is not confined to statements. During his first term, U.S.‑led operations in Iraq and Syria produced the highest civilian death tolls of the anti‑ISIS campaign. Independent investigations by the New York Times, Human Rights Watch, Airwars, and the United Nations documented thousands of civilian deaths, widespread targeting failures, and a systematic minimization of harm in official accounting. Urban bombardments hit schools, markets, and neighborhoods. Subsequent Pentagon reviews repeatedly acknowledged civilian deaths without disciplinary consequences. The pattern was not accidental. It followed policy changes that loosened strike authorization and reduced transparency.[iii]

Trump’s second term extended this posture. No one quite understands the rationale for blockading the delivery of oil to Cuba but there is little doubt about the impact on civilians: nationwide blackouts, hospital shutdowns, food and water shortages, and the collapse of public transport. United Nations officials warned that fuel deprivation jeopardized surgeries, cancer treatment, vaccination programs, and access to drinking water, disproportionately harming children, the elderly, disabled people, and pregnant women. Whatever its political intent, the oil blockade functioned in practice as widespread punishment of civilians.

Today, Iranian civilians are killed in large numbers; infrastructure essential to hospitals, water systems, and daily life has been deliberately targeted; and responsibility for resulting harm denied or shifted onto the victims. In a prime-time address to the entire nation, he stated that the United States – at his command – would “hit” Iran “extremely hard over the next two to three weeks” and “bring them back to the Stone Ages, where they belong.” Days later, President Trump asserted that God supports the Israeli-U.S. war against Iran, which has killed thousands, “Because God is good,” he said, “and God wants to see people taken care of.[iv]

The Mirror We Avoid

Most Americans assume that terrorism laws and humanitarian rules protect them from violence inflicted by others. They rarely consider that those same laws protect others from us.

Politics can sully the law. Rhetoric disguises the act itself. Divine appeal masks the intent. The question at hand, though, is clear: who targets civilians, who foresees their suffering, and who uses that suffering to force obedience? Terrorists.

[i] 18 U.S.C. § 2331, which provides definitions for terrorism-related crimes in the U.S. Code, was established by Congress through the Antiterrorism Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–519, § 132, Nov. 5, 1990).

[ii] International Humanitarian Law was formally established by governments, acting together, through treaty law.

· The foundational rules of IHL are contained in the Geneva Conventions, which were negotiated, adopted, and ratified by states.

· The modern core of IHL comes from the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, adopted after World War II.

· Every country in the world is now a party to those conventions.

[iii] The Civilian Casualty Files

By Azmat Khan, Lila Hassan, Sarah Almukhtar and Rachel ShoreyDec. 18, 2021

[iv] Chris Cameron

Reporting from Washington

April 6, 2026, 7:38 p.m. ET