When President Donald Trump decided to begin bombing Iran last June, he did not state a coherent or lawful reason for doing so. His director of national intelligence and his own CIA had publicly told him that Iran did not possess a nuclear weapon and had ceased building one in 2005.

His secretary of state told him that Iran and Israel had threatened each other, but he could not articulate how Iran imminently threatened the United States. Yet, since Israel planned to attack Iran, he wanted the U.S. to help Israel do so. This was not a lawful request as the U.S. has no treaty with Israel and, under treaties to which the U.S. is a party, the legal bases for all offensive wars can only be treaty compliance or prevention of an imminent attack.

When Trump addressed the nation, his helter-skelter rationale argued for replacing Iran’s government, destroying its civilian-use enriched uranium, destroying its ability to build a bomb it wasn’t building, and neutralizing its offensive and defensive weaponry. None of these goals was lawful; nor was attacking a Tehran girls school. There was no mention of an imminent attack on the U.S. or the economic effect of war on the vital international oil super-highway, the Strait of Hormuz.

No one in Trump’s inner circle registered disagreement, except his vice president and his director of counterterrorism. They told him there was no legal or constitutional basis for his war.

They were correct, but Trump had history on his side.

For much of American history, presidents have steadily accumulated the power to wage war while Congress has gradually surrendered the constitutional authority that the Framers explicitly entrusted to it. This transformation has weakened constitutional checks and balances, expanded executive power beyond its constitutional limits, claimed millions of lives, cost trillions of dollars, and repeatedly drawn the United States into conflicts that had little or nothing to do with defending America.

The Constitution is remarkably clear on the question of war. Article I grants Congress — not the president — the power to declare war. The president, under Article II, wages war, but only after Congress has authorized it.

James Madison argued that the executive branch is the branch “most interested in war, and most prone to it,” which is precisely why the Constitution deliberately divided the war power.

The Framers believed that no single individual should possess the authority to plunge the nation into armed conflict, yet over the past eight decades, presidents of both political parties have steadily ignored these constitutional limits.

President Harry Truman committed hundreds of thousands of American troops to combat in Korea without obtaining a declaration of war from Congress because he said U.S. troops there constituted a “police action.”

The pattern only intensified during the Vietnam War. Although Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, it was based on a fraud and effectively delegated its congressional constitutional responsibility to the president. The result was years of escalating conflict that ultimately claimed the lives of more than 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese while achieving none of its stated objectives.

The attacks of September 11, 2001, fundamentally accelerated this trend. Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force and the Patriot Act — the former granting the president broad authority to pursue those responsible for the attacks, and the latter substantially impairing rights protected by the Fourth Amendment.

What was presented as a targeted war authorization evolved into legal justifications for military operations across multiple countries against groups that did not even exist in 2001.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq illustrate the costs of this expansive approach. The war in Afghanistan lasted two decades before ending with the return of the Taliban to power. Iraq was invaded based on fabricated or erroneous intelligence assessments regarding weapons of mass destruction.

The proper role of government — according to Thomas Jefferson, its only role — is to protect life, liberty and property, not to remake foreign societies through military force. Wars of choice generate unintended consequences, empower new enemies, create refugee crises and expand government power at home.

The economic and human consequences are equally profound. Massive defense expenditures have pushed the debt of the federal government to nearly $40 trillion. A government willing to kill millions and spend trillions on foreign wars while borrowing money to pay the interest on borrowed money will one day collapse of its own weight; as have all empires.

A genuinely constitutional foreign policy would look very different. Military force should be reserved for defending the United States against actual or truly imminent attacks, not speculative threats or ambitious nation-building projects, or favors for other countries. Congress should debate and vote openly before committing American forces to any combat.

Strong national defense does not require perpetual war. A capable military can deter aggression. Diplomacy, commerce and peaceful engagement generally serve American interests more effectively than military intervention.

George Washington’s warning against entangling foreign commitments and John Quincy Adams’s declaration that America “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy” remain relevant guides for a republic committed to liberty, rather than an empire committed to conquest. Of course, monsters abroad can follow you home.

The constitutional allocation of war powers exists not as a procedural rule but as a substantive safeguard for freedom itself. Every unnecessary war expands executive authority, enlarges government, consumes wealth, risks American lives without clear necessity and diminishes personal liberty.

The best protection against endless conflict is a less powerful presidency and a renewed commitment to the Constitution’s deliberate separation of powers and the principle that the United States should fight only when its own security imminently and genuinely requires it.

Is it any wonder that the U.S. is unwilling or unable to justify its recent killings of 163 Tehran school girls and their teachers?

Written by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Official website; https://twitter.com/Judgenap

Their alarm is warranted. The socialist program would be a catastrophe. So, here’s an awkward question: Why is a Republican administration quietly doing the public ownership of businesses part on its own?

Last week, the Commerce Department announced that letters of intent have been signed to provide federal incentives to seven more companies under the CHIPS program. Each letter of intent is conditioned on the government taking an equity stake. By a Cato Institute count, that brings the federal corporate portfolio to roughly 30 firms.

A year ago, these deals looked like improvisation — one-offs stitched together under pressure with President Donald Trump’s fluid negotiating style. Now, the department announces them in batches. Federal ownership of private companies has become routine, and it is happening on the right even as members busily point fingers at the left for its socialism.

To be sure, this is not the abolition of private property that some in the DSA would love to see. But strip away the label and look at the mechanism. Socialism’s defining move is to put ownership and decision-making in the same collective hands. A government equity stake does exactly that. Washington already regulates these firms, buys from them and subsidizes them. Now, it owns pieces of them. Every lever it controls — tariffs, permits, contracts, the next tranche of subsidies — moves the value of its own holdings.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, sees the implication of the government stake ownership more clearly than most Republicans do. “When government owns part or all of private companies,” he writes, “government is no longer just setting the rules — it becomes a player in the game and sets the rules to its own advantage and against the people.” Polis adds: “Socialism concentrates political and economic power in the same hands.” He is right, and it ought to sting.

Polis later asked during a Fox News segment where the Republicans denouncing this policy are. There are some, like Sens. Josh Hawley and Rand Paul, but it’s a fair question. The answer is probably that politicians condemn a thing only until their own side does it too. Still, the silence from most of the GOP on so fundamental an issue is truly baffling.

As Cato’s Tad DeHaven notes, “The seven nonbinding letters of intent would provide up to $874 million in CHIPS and Science Act research and development incentives.” Remember when most Republicans were against the CHIPS Act passed under former President Joe Biden? I do. And remember when they claimed to care about fiscal responsibility?

How about opposing ownership stakes simply because the right may not always be in charge? An executive branch that can hand out ownership at its discretion has acquired a permanent power, and such powers outlive the people who establish them. Picture a future Democratic president inheriting 30 companies’ worth of shareholder rights and the leverage that comes with these: board seats, emissions mandates, conditions bolted onto the next round of funding.

This is no paranoid fantasy. The Senate’s defense bill would give the Pentagon its own equity portfolio, which means Congress may write the administration’s practice into statute rather than kill it. The right is loading a gun and trusting that only its friends will hold it. LOL, as the young people say.

The economics of government ownership of company shares are worse than the politics. A government does not allocate capital to its highest-valued use; it allocates capital to its most politically valued use. A project that moves forward in a fair market does not need taxpayer money. A project that moves forward due only to government intervention is a loser that the taxpayer is buying.

Either way, the equity stake fixes nothing. It stacks a conflict of interest on top of a market-distorting subsidy. And once the Treasury owns a slice, a failing firm will always be ripe for a General Motors-style bailout.

Finally, you can spare me the national-security argument about needing the domestic chip capacity, steel and rare-earth materials that these companies provide. Government ownership is not the instrument. Procurement contracts and long-term purchase agreements can secure supplies without making the Commerce secretary a shareholder.

The DSA at least tells Americans clearly what it wants. The danger on the right is quieter: a government acquiring the means of production one letter of intent at a time, and a political party acting as though socialism is something only the other side can do.

Written by Veronique de Rugy

Official website; http://twitter.com/veroderugy

Open primaries let registered voters cast a ballot without being members of the party. Closed primaries allow only party members to vote. About 15 states now run genuinely open primaries. There are mixed systems that still help small numbers of voters nominate extreme candidates. Texas is one.

Texas started with an open primary in which incumbent Republican John Cornyn finished slightly ahead of Trump’s choice, Ken Paxton. But because neither got more than 50% of the vote, the top two candidates, Cornyn and Paxton, competed in a runoff. But under Texas rules, anyone who had voted in the Democratic primary could not participate in that contest.

Paxton had been impeached by the Republican-controlled Texas House. His own top aides reported him to the FBI alleging bribery. And his wife filed for divorce citing adultery. Small wonder that recent polls show him trailing Democratic candidate James Talarico in a state said to be deep red.

Maine’s primary system is even less open, which explains how Graham Platner — he of the Nazi tattoo and creepy history with women — became the Democrat to oppose incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins. Platner was a creature propped up by the hyperactive Democratic Socialists of America.

After a plausible rape charge had him dethroned as the Democratic candidate, Platner was replaced with Troy Jackson. Jackson wasn’t chosen in a primary at all but by Democratic delegates at a special convention. Maine polls now have Jackson and Collins running neck-and-neck.

Most big American cities run open, “all-candidate” primaries rather than party primaries, which limit voting to party members. New York City is an exception. And that helps explain how the citizens ended up with the radical and increasingly unpopular Zohran Mamdani as mayor.

The formula for fringe groups, whether left or right, is to organize a march into thinly attended closed primaries and make their candidate nominee for a major party. That happened in New York on June 24, 2025, a day of record temperatures that made parts feel like 126 degrees. Older voters especially feared leaving their apartments.

The DSA took advantage of the situation and nominated Mamdani in a vote that was closed to the 21% of the voters registered as independents and the 11% who are Republican. Put another way, Mamdani wrangled the Democratic nomination in a primary in which only 8% of registered voters participated. Come Election Day, he got less than half the vote in an overwhelmingly Democratic city.

The city’s Charter Revision Commission adopted an interim report that suggested letting voters decide in November whether to move New York to open primaries. That’s how Boston and Seattle do it. They allow all eligible candidates that can be on the ballot and all registered voters to participate. The top two vote getters advance to the general election.

Mamdani opposes open primaries. “I am quite content with the system of primaries that we have thus far,” he said unsurprisingly.

Not content is John Opdycke, head of Open Primaries, a political-reform organization. “It’s ironic,” Opdycke said, “that Mayor Mamdani, who is raising important questions about the economic power of poor and working people, won’t advocate for their political power.” The group’s own polling shows even most city Democrats favoring open primaries.

There’s a reason fringe governance — from the right, the left or both — is driving so many of us crazy. Open primaries are a step toward saner majority rule.

Written by Froma Harrop

Official website; https://twitter.com/FromaHarrop

“On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.”

Given the nature of the questions being asked about what I believe were deeply personal matters, I believe he was absolutely right to take that position.

Throughout the hearing, Republican members of the Committee were, in my view, unnecessarily rude and disrespectful. Yet Dr. Fauci remained calm and composed. He never raised his voice, never returned insult for insult, and conducted himself with the professionalism that has characterized his decades of public service.

Senator Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist, seemed more interested in performing for the cameras than engaging in a serious discussion with one of the nation’s most accomplished scientists and immunologists. Dr. Fauci led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 until 2022 and later served as Chief Medical Advisor to President Joseph Biden. His career has spanned multiple administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, and has been recognized by presidents of both parties as well as countless medical and scientific organizations.

When COVID-19 threatened the nation, Dr. Fauci offered medical guidance grounded in science. Americans may remember that President Donald Trump repeatedly suggested the virus would simply disappear as the weather became warmer. Most of us also remember other suggestions that left many Americans shaking their heads. Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of people understood that following the advice of medical professionals was far safer than following political speculation.

What troubled me most about this hearing was not simply the tone—it was the purpose. Members of the Senate, few if any of whom possess Dr. Fauci’s medical expertise, devoted their time to questioning him about a personal diary. A diary is exactly that—personal. It is often where people record their private thoughts, reflections, fears, hopes, and frustrations.

I understand that personally.

Years ago, someone had the audacity to find and read my diary and then question me about what I had written. In that moment, something that had been intensely personal was no longer mine alone. The violation was so painful that I destroyed the diary altogether. My journals contained thoughts intended for no one but me, and I can only imagine that Dr. Fauci’s diary served the same purpose for him.

That is why I believe this hearing crossed an important line. At a time when our nation faces enormous challenges—from economic uncertainty to international conflicts to pressing domestic concerns—it is difficult to understand why the Senate chose to devote its attention to a scientist’s private writings. The American people deserve better use of their elected officials’ time.

Before closing, let me update you on another influential Republican ally: Elon Musk. After recently saying he believed he had become “too involved in politics,” he has reportedly announced plans to spend millions of dollars in several key states during the upcoming midterm elections to support Republican candidates while working to defeat Democrats. Americans should remember the enormous influence that concentrated wealth can have on our political system and remain vigilant about who is shaping public policy and whose interests are being served.

We are living through a time when civility, respect, and common decency too often seem to take a back seat to political theater. Public servants who have devoted their lives to serving this country should be treated with fairness, whether we agree with them or not. Political disagreements are inevitable in a democracy. Personal humiliation should never become a substitute for meaningful governance.

That is why I ask again: Morals? They have none.

Written By Dr. E. Faye Williams

Official website; http://www.efayewilliams.com/

The purpose here was the trap. Sen. Paul was open about it. He told reporters before the hearing that any statement made by Dr. Fauci at the hearing would not be protected by the presidential pardon — so if there were any inconsistency between what Dr. Fauci said now and then, no matter how small or insignificant, it could be the basis of a perjury charge. Paul has made no bones about his desire to see Dr. Fauci behind bars. Not that he can single-handedly succeed at doing so, but he got a gaggle of Republican senators who should have known better to follow his lead.

It is the purpose of the Fifth Amendment to prevent such persecutions. That’s what this was, pure and simple, and thankfully we have a Constitution to invoke to stop it.

Not that Fauci was able to escape entirely unscathed. His lawyer — who happens to have a stellar reputation in Washington — got thrown out of the hearing. Some attorney general from the South threatened to prosecute him. For what? Invoking the Fifth. Paul wants to hold him in contempt for that. Again, I ask, for what? Since when is rightly invoking the Fifth because you rightly fear investigation and persecution, if not lawful prosecution, an offense that can land you behind bars? Punishing constitutionally protected activity as a crime?

Of course, there will always be people who say that only the guilty invoke the Fifth, and that’s what they’re saying about Dr. Fauci. When you’re the target of a witch hunt, invoking the Fifth is an act of courage, calling your persecutors on their case.

Paul tried to smear Dr. Fauci by releasing excerpts from his diary in advance of the hearing. Some of his comments about the president were insulting. Big surprise. Not a crime. He was, it appears, impressed and taken by all the media attention he was receiving. A “narcissist,” one of the Republican senators called him. Since when is that a crime in Washington?

For me, Dr. Fauci will always be a dedicated public servant who spent his life saving lives. There is no full accounting I’ve seen of the millions of lives he saved in the AIDS and COVID epidemics. Did his agency fund research at the lab in Wuhan that Paul is so sure was the source of a “lab leak”? It did, but as countless experts have tried to explain to Paul, it was not the kind of research that could have led to the COVID leak. What do you do with a man who prefers spite over science?

You ignore him, which is what the Senate, and the public, should do with Rand Paul.

Written by Susan Estrich

This annual pilgrimage to Martha’s Vineyard and more specifically, The Inkwell is as predictable as Democrats ignoring the Black vote.

Martha’s Vineyard is a 112 square mile island in Massachusetts, known for its mix of coastal beauty, historic towns, and cultural heritage. The Inkwell (officially Town Beach) is a specific, historically significant beach in Oak Bluffs, MA, on the island, celebrated for its role in Black history.

Martha’s Vineyard is a summer resort destination with a rich history dating back to the 18th century when Methodist and Baptist revivals drew visitors. It has evolved from whaling, brickmaking, and farming into a scenic, cultural hub with towns like Oak Bluffs, Edgartown, and Falmouth. The island offers beaches, historic sites, art galleries, and seasonal events, and it has a diverse cultural fabric.

The Inkwell is a small, sandy stretch of beach in Oak Bluffs, MA near the ferry terminal, popular for its gentle waves and central location. Its name comes from a derogatory nickname used in the late 1800s for the Black community that frequented it.

Blacks began visiting the Inkwell during the Great Migration, attracted by Oak Bluffs’ openness during this time of segregation.

The Great Migration, sometimes known as the Great Northward Migration or the Black Migration, was the movement of six million Black Americans out of the rural Southern United States to the urban Northeast, Midwest, and West between 1910 and 1970.

In 1912, Charles and Henrietta Shearer opened the first Black owned inn on the island, catering to Black vacationers.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

I had the fortune of knowing many of the legendary families who were foundational to the Inkwell.  The ones I knew are all dead, but sitting at their feet and learning history from their lived experiences was phenomenal.

When these very wealthy, successful, influential Blacks made their annual August trek to the Inkwell it was not only for vacation, but also to discuss solutions to what ailed the Black community.  Let me reiterate—SOLUTIONS, not complaints about white folks.

They did not spend their precious time talking about how racist presidents like Roosevelt, Truman Eisenhower, Nixon, Kennedy, or LBJ were.  They believed in the Colin Powell doctrine of “constructive engagement.”

These Oldtimers from the Inkwell believed in talking through their disagreements with people in power, both Democrats and Republicans.

They were focused on solutions that would make life better for the whole of the Black community; not simply flexing and self-congratulating each other about their latest material purchases—their new vacation home, their new Rolls Royce, or their latest million-dollar contribution to the boule!!!

I have had many opportunities to go to the Vineyard, but up now have refused all offers because I have to be in a certain mental frame of mind to be around these types of arrogant, uppity Black folks.

I am not there yet.

I know many who are about to make this annual pilgrimage.

These are the who’s who of corporate, political, and Black high society in America.  These are some of the highest-level executives in Fortune 500 companies.  These are some of the most successful entrepreneurs in America.

They are the talented tenth, the bourgeoisie, and the boule.

The talented tenth was made famous by W.E.B. Du Bois, a prominent Black historian and civil rights legend from the early nineteen hundreds.

In his 1903 essay The Talented Tenth, Du Bois argued,  “That for the Black community to rise from the vestiges of slavery and systemic oppression, a small group of the most talented and educated individuals must be trained as leaders, intellectuals, and professionals…They are supposed to serve as role models, uplift the masses and advocate for civil rights, education and political participation.”

Du Bois would be very disappointed that the opposite is occurring today.

The bourgeoisie and the boule will use the occasion of this annual tradition to pair off their young adult children with what they deem to be suitable potential spouses for marriage.  They want to keep their bloodlines pure, socially, financially, and politically.

There will be multiple millions of dollars spent during the month of August on hotels, housing, and exotic catered parties to talk about how bad America is!

There will be no mention of the steady Black on Black killings in Chicago, Baltimore, New York City, or St. Louis; there will be no mention of the out of control out of wedlock birthrates in our community. Despite their protestations to the contrary, these pathologies have nothing to do with Donald Trump, racism or poverty.

It has everything to do with the destruction of the Black family and more specifically the Black male.  The supposed talented tenth do not want to have the discussion about how these radical liberal Democrat policies have and are continuing to destroy the very group they claim to speak for and represent.

There will be no mention of how illegal immigrants are devastating the Black community with murder, increased housing cost, and rising unemployment.

But there will be sunup to sundown conversation about how racist Donald Trump is; how America is racist towards Blacks, and how the legacy of slavery is at the root of all that ails the Black community.

The founders of the Inkwell would be totally ashamed of the state of the Black community today.  They had less opportunity in their time but lived a better quality of life than we are living today.

Make it make sense!!!

Today’s Blacks are doing very well financially, but I would argue that we have a lower quality of life than our forefathers.

We have more material possessions, but our families are in an alarming state of dysfunctionality.

Our sons are suffering from major mental diseases like thinking they can become girls; and their parents are co-signing on this foolishness.  Ask Earvin Johnson and Dwyane Wade.

Our daughters may as well be high-class streetwalkers.  But this would be an insult to real streetwalkers.  Ask Angel Reese and Tyla!

These elite Blacks are overwhelmingly radical liberal Democrats who refuse to engage in the politics of self-interest versus simply following Democrat Party orthodoxy.

These Blacks do more harm to our community than anyone with a white sheet over their face.

I challenge my readers to name me one “media approved” Black organization that is making a meaningful difference in the Black community.

It surely is not radical liberal groups like the NAACP (The National Association for the Advancement of Certain People), the National Action Network (the National Reaction Network), the National Urban League (the National Disturbing League), the Black Economic Alliance (the Lack of Economic Alliance), the Congressional Black Caucus (the Con Black Caucus), the National Association of Black Journalists (the National Association of Whack Journalists), to name a few.

The Black community is always REACTING to change; they are never the change.  Blacks are living in a digital world but operating with analog thinking.

These media appointed Black organizations and their leaders refuse to think new thoughts.  Liberal approaches to business, government, civil society is over, dead, finished.

Whether you like it or not, the U.S. and the world is slowing drifting back to a slightly right of center mindset.  The dead body of liberalism is already at the funeral home; the funeral simply has yet to take place.

We have had sixty years of liberal policies unleashed on America and well over twenty trillion dollars spent on various social experiments and they have failed.

The challenge for Black folks is how can and or they willing to craft solutions to the problems that ail the Black community from a right of center perspective?

What does that picture look like and or they willing to form alliances with people like me who have a proven track record of navigating the halls of power at the highest levels?

Black folks have ninety-nine problems but Trump ain’t one!

Staff Writer; Raynard Jackson

This talented brother is a Pulitzer Award nominated columnist and founder and chairman of Black Americans for a Better Future (BAFBF), a federally registered 527 Super PAC established to get more Blacks involved in the Republican Party. BAFBF focuses on the Black entrepreneur. For more information about BAFBF, visit www.bafbf.org. You can follow Raynard on Twitter; RealRaynardJ; on Gettr: RaynardJackson.

Can also drop him an email at; RaynardJ@ThyBlackMan.com.

]]> https://thyblackman.com/2026/08/01/donald-trump-is-not-what-ails-the-black-community/feed/ 3 https://thyblackman.com/2026/08/01/enough-is-enough-war-trump-ice-america-leadership-crisis/ https://thyblackman.com/2026/08/01/enough-is-enough-war-trump-ice-america-leadership-crisis/#comments Sat, 01 Aug 2026 07:34:22 +0000 https://thyblackman.com/?p=141758 (ThyBlackMan.com) I can remember the time we had horrific wars where family members and numerous friends died. That was a sad period in our lives and we prayed that wars would end as quickly as possible. We didn’t have a cheerleader making constant threats about killing people casually. We still support our troops and grieve with the families of those who’ve been killed or injured in the war of the 2 leaders in which they’re willing to collect endless taxpayer money for the war. Add the ballroom, the pool and no-bid contracts to friends, but not for the people’s healthcare, education or ways to deal positively with the economy.

Previously, we didn’t have to listen to the daily news questioning the sanity of our leaders who told us so many things that were not true. Yes, we wanted the old wars to end. We even protested then. I don’t remember our Presidents then calling us communists! The current one has no problem doing that when several of those who are his best buddies make no mistake are real communists! Vladimir Putin of Russia, Xi Jinping of China, Kim Jung Oun of North Korea and others. Never before did our leaders talk like a child who’d just learned a new word. The word popular now is HOT! He constantly talks about everything being HOT and how we are the HOTTEST country in the world. Recently he added the city where I live to be HOT!

The Chief jokes about affordability and mocks our concern as the price on everything goes up! He’s still more concerned about his rich friends and known fellow criminals than about the least of our people.

After basically thanking criminals for attacking the U.S. Capitol, while costing taxpayers to have to come up with millions for clean up, he just told the perpetrators he loved them and to go home. After some of them were convicted, and sent to prison, he pardoned them with no regard for the taxpayers and loss of lives and injuries caused by his friends. They came out of their brief incarceration, then we were asked to pay them, and he treated them like beloved citizens of our country! Despite killing and injuring some of our police officers in the District of Columbia, the man made sure they were not punished and even tried to extract more money from taxpayers to pay them!

What a nightmare the man has been for the world! Many ICE agents have illegally attacked, arrested and killed people while the victims were simply being Good Samaritans trying to help others. Some ICE members seem to  be trained to be killers! Good people have been hurt and others killed for no reason.

Some people have been illegally deported or dragged into prison having to take their minor children with them. After the bodies of some of our brave soldiers were returned to Dover, the war leaders showed no grief. Their family members were not involved in these wars—at least none of their children served our country in the military. The leader personally dodged the military by indicating he had a bone spur! This seems to be a joke for him. I wonder how long it will take for these men to end their dangerous war?

They can and they must stop the war, stop the killing and truthfully acknowledge all who’ve been killed. They’re too busy dropping women from the promotions list, firing men with years of experience—including the great Chaplin, Major General William Green, Jr. without cause, as had already been done with General Lloyd Austin.

Now, the man in direct charge of war is demanding a testosterone test to help him achieve a more macho service! One can only wonder what the women he has not yet named or has refused to promote will have to do to gain his favor!

Who will say ‘ENOUGH IS ENOUGH?

Written By Dr. E. Faye Williams

Official website; https://x.com/DrEFayeWilliams

Throughout most of America’s history, the answer has been an emphatic yes. Scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, artists and strivers from around the world have chosen the United States because they believed they could build something, discover something or start a business while making a better life in this country.

We should worry about the day when this is no longer true.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration seems determined to make that day arrive sooner rather than later. Its destructive embrace of protectionism is not merely directed against foreign goods and capital. It’s not limited to low-skill immigrants, either. It’s also directed against in-demand foreign talent.

For instance, a rule finalized in early July replaces “duration of status” for foreign students, exchange visitors and foreign journalists with fixed admission periods. In other words, it forces international students to seek government approval to stay beyond four years, regardless of whether their studies can be completed that quickly. It also makes it more difficult for international graduates of American universities to stay and work after graduation through the Optional Practical Training program.

A recent brief by Amy Nice, Michael Clemens and Jeremy Neufeld of the Peterson Institute for International Economics highlights the stakes. The authors examine the pipeline through which international students — particularly those studying science, technology, engineering and mathematics — enter American universities and eventually the American workforce. It is an enormously valuable pipeline for all of us.

The authors found that America’s science and technology workforce depends heavily on talent from abroad. Immigrants fill almost one in three advanced STEM positions and nearly one in two requiring a doctorate. People who first entered the country to study represent about one-fifth of degree-holding STEM workers and more than one-third at the Ph.D. level.

Clemens explains that the STEM students who stay in the U.S. after graduation “patent new inventions at four times the rate of typical college graduates and are responsible for around 10 percent of all new inventions patented in the United States. They found high-growth startup companies at six times the rate of US-born graduates.”

That means we can dispense with the idea that if a foreign engineer gets a job, an American engineer must have lost one. Protectionism applied to human capital relies on the same economic fallacy that underlies other forms of protectionism: the belief that the economy is like one pie, and hence, allowing foreign interests to take a seat hurts those already at the table.

Economies don’t work that way. Talented people don’t merely fill existing jobs. They create them by inventing products, starting companies, conducting research and making the people around them more productive. In the process, they create opportunities for other people that otherwise wouldn’t exist.

Giving a cold shoulder to foreign students is particularly absurd when you consider Washington’s obsession with competing against China. Politicians insist that America is engaged in an existential technological race. They spend billions of dollars subsidizing semiconductors and other favored industries. They develop elaborate industrial policies intended to make America dominant in artificial intelligence, quantum computing and advanced manufacturing.

Then, when a potentially brilliant young scientist from India, China or anywhere else earns an advanced degree at an American university and wants to stay and contribute to the American economy, our government says perhaps they should leave.

You can throw billions of taxpayer dollars at a semiconductor factory in Arizona. You cannot manufacture genius through an appropriations bill.

The Peterson researchers estimate that discouraging just one-third of international STEM graduates could leave the American economy 0.7% to 1.3% smaller, or roughly $200 billion to $400 billion in GDP over a decade — equivalent to losing the entire economy of Utah or South Carolina.

Those estimates necessarily depend on assumptions about future immigration and productivity, but we don’t need to know the precise numbers to understand the effect. When productive people leave — or never arrive — we lose their ideas, businesses, discoveries and all the related economic activity.

There is also something deeper at stake. One of America’s greatest strengths is that people vote for this country with their feet. They leave familiar places, sometimes traveling thousands of miles, because of possibilities unavailable elsewhere. It’s an extraordinary vote of confidence in American institutions: our markets, rule of law and culture of entrepreneurship. We should never take it for granted.

Indeed, the possibility that the world’s brightest young people will decide that America is no longer worth the trouble should terrify us. Not simply because we will lose their economic contributions, but because their decision will tell us something about what America has become.

Written by Veronique de Rugy

Official website; http://twitter.com/veroderugy

What to do about a nominee as chief law enforcement officer in the land who has and will not disavow this conflict? Reject him.

Here is the backstory.

For America’s first 100 years, there was no Department of Justice. Federal laws were enforced by state authorities in federal courts. This was part of James Madison’s genius to divide governmental power between the states and the feds.

The modern presidency sits at the intersection of two powerful and often conflicting ideas. One is the unitary executive theory, which argues that because Article II of the Constitution vests “[t]he executive Power” in the president, every official exercising executive authority ultimately answers to him.

The other is the longstanding expectation that the DoJ, while undeniably part of the executive branch, should administer the law impartially and according to facts, evidence, caselaw, precedent and professional ethics rather than presidential preference.

Today, the tension between these principles has become especially visible in the nomination of Blanche.

Supporters of the unitary executive theory argue that the president cannot faithfully execute the laws if subordinate officers are free to disregard his lawful directives. In this view, all executive officials exercise authority only because the president has delegated it to them. If DoJ lawyers become independent centers of power, democratic accountability suffers because voters elect only one chief executive.

The DoJ, however, has always occupied a somewhat unusual position. Legally, there is no constitutional independence. The attorney general serves at the pleasure of the president. United States attorneys are presidential appointees. Federal prosecutors exercise executive authority. Nothing in the Constitution establishes the DoJ as a fourth branch of government insulated from presidential supervision.

Yet, over many decades, norms have developed to preserve public confidence in criminal prosecutions. Presidents of both parties have generally avoided directing individual prosecutorial decisions. Attorneys general have frequently emphasized that charging decisions should be based upon evidence, applicable law and the likelihood of obtaining a sustainable conviction — not political advantage.

Adding another layer to this tension are the professional obligations of DoJ lawyers themselves. Federal prosecutors are not simply political appointees. They are attorneys licensed by state authorities and bound by professional rules of ethics. Their paramount duties include candor toward tribunals, honesty in representations to courts, disclosure obligations, fidelity to their client and the prohibition against presenting evidence they know to be false.

Those ethical responsibilities do not disappear because a president expresses a preference. If a presidential directive would require an attorney to violate professional ethics or mislead a court, a prosecutor should resign rather than participate in conduct believed to be unethical.

That is precisely where the theoretical collision occurs. A strong version of the unitary executive theory suggests the president should ultimately control every exercise of executive discretion. We know from history and common sense, however, that certain prosecutorial judgments require legal expertise and professional competence inherently independent from political influence. Neither principle entirely eliminates the other. Instead, both coexist in uneasy tension.

Blanche finds himself squarely within that difficult intersection. Two notorious cases, one involving government murders of innocents and the other involving a swindle of taxpayer dollars, came across Blanche’s desk recently, and in both cases, he rejected the rule of law and bowed to presidential whim.

Blanche surely knows the basics of due process — notice, hearing, right to appeal — whenever the feds want life, liberty or property. Yet he permitted and accepted as appropriate the presidential order to enforce U.S. laws against drug trafficking by murdering 221 persons in 67 speedboats on the high seas. Needless to say, none of these folks received due process, and Blanche must answer for that.

The better known of Blanche’s ethical failures involves Trump suing the IRS for $10 billion because an IRS employee criminally revealed the contents of Trump’s tax returns. Two weeks ago, the U.S. District Court in Miami excoriated both Trump’s present personal lawyers and his former lawyers for engaging in a false cause of action — one where there was no adversity between the parties because both sides wanted the identical result.

In response to the lawsuit, Trump’s DoJ lawyers agreed to give his personal lawyers a fund of $1.776 billion from the federal Treasury to disburse to Trump’s supporters at Trump’s personal discretion; and Trump’s IRS lawyers agreed that neither Trump personally nor his family or closely held corporations could be audited by the IRS.

According to the DoJ, none of the $1.776 billion has been spent and the fund is now dormant. But Blanche refuses to renounce it or negate his own signature on a document he filed establishing the fund. The federal court ruled the lawyers on both sides of this matter did not act in good faith because all sought to please Trump at taxpayer expense.

Lawyers in litigation have a duty of zealous advocacy and unimpeachable loyalty to their clients. They cannot secretly or openly aid their client’s adversary. If they are morally or personally or legally conflicted, they must withdraw from the case.

Blanche remains bound by the same ethical obligations governing every federal prosecutor. He cannot simply substitute presidential preference for legal analysis.

If Blanche can’t do the right thing on cases where the law is obvious and unambiguous, how can he be trusted with complex decisions? Courts, disciplinary authorities and history judge attorneys according to established legal standards rather than partisan loyalty. In the case of Todd Blanche, the Senate should do the same — and reject his nomination.

Written by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Official website; https://twitter.com/Judgenap

Destin Relaxation Massage Experience for Mindful Souls

The Destin Relaxation Massage experience is meticulously crafted to cater to individuals seeking a holistic approach to self-care. At the core of their service is a commitment to Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), a practice that combines meditation and body awareness to alleviate stress and enhance well-being. By incorporating MBSR principles, clients can achieve a profound state of relaxation and mental clarity, crucial elements in any successful mindfulness retreat. Moreover, those who choose to experience Destin Relaxation Massage will find that the integration of these principles enhances their overall well-being.

Furthermore, Destin Relaxation Massage offers a customized experience with the use of a Self-Care Assessment Tool. This tool helps therapists tailor sessions to meet the unique needs of each client, ensuring that the massage not only addresses physical tension but also supports emotional resilience. Such personalized care is vital for those attending retreats, as it fosters a more profound connection between the mind and body.

Additionally, the venue itself enhances the retreat experience. Nestled in the tranquil surroundings of Destin, the massage center provides a serene backdrop that complements the calming therapies offered. The natural ambiance is designed to amplify the benefits of each session, facilitating a deeper sense of peace and relaxation.

Elevating Your Mindfulness Retreat with Spa Treatments

Incorporating spa treatments into a mindfulness retreat can significantly elevate the overall experience. Destin Relaxation Massage offers a diverse range of services that align with an Integrative Wellness Plan. This plan emphasizes the balance of physical, mental, and spiritual health, ensuring that participants leave the retreat feeling rejuvenated and centered.

One of the notable offerings is the Sleep Hygiene Assessment, which targets sleep-related issues that often impede mindfulness practices. By addressing these concerns, attendees can enjoy more restful sleep, enhancing their ability to engage fully in retreat activities. This focus on restful sleep is pivotal, as it supports the body’s natural healing processes and mental clarity.

Moreover, the integration of Biofeedback Therapy within spa treatments encourages participants to gain greater control over their physiological states. This therapy is invaluable for those on a mindfulness journey, as it equips them with the tools to manage stress more effectively in their daily lives. By understanding their body’s responses, individuals can better navigate stressors and maintain a state of calm.

Techniques and Modalities of Destin Relaxation Massage

Destin Relaxation Massage employs a range of techniques and modalities designed to enhance the mindfulness retreat experience. Key among these is the Therapeutic Lifestyle Change approach, which focuses on long-term health improvements through massage therapy. This approach is particularly beneficial for those seeking sustainable wellness solutions beyond the retreat setting.

The center also utilizes Emotional Resilience Training within its therapy sessions. This training is essential for clients looking to build mental fortitude, enabling them to face life’s challenges with a balanced mindset. By fostering emotional strength, participants can better appreciate and maintain the mindfulness practices learned during their retreat.

For those interested in a more scientific approach, the integration of Nutritional Genomics into massage sessions is a unique offering. By understanding how genetics influence nutrition and health, clients can make informed decisions about their diet and lifestyle. This knowledge complements the physical benefits of massage, promoting overall well-being.

Finding Serenity in Destin: Your Path to Inner Peace

Destin Relaxation Massage provides an unparalleled opportunity for those seeking inner peace on their mindfulness retreat. The emphasis on a Wellness Metrics Dashboard allows participants to track their progress and health improvements, offering a tangible measure of the retreat’s impact. This data-driven approach is invaluable for clients committed to long-term wellness.

Furthermore, the center’s collaboration with Functional Medicine Practitioners ensures that the therapies offered are grounded in holistic health principles. This partnership enhances the retreat experience, as clients receive comprehensive care that addresses both physical ailments and emotional well-being.

For anyone looking to embark on a transformative journey, the combination of Destin’s serene environment and expert massage techniques is a powerful catalyst for change. The Destin Relaxation Massage offers a perfect blend of relaxation and rejuvenation, making it an ideal choice for those committed to self-discovery and healing.

Conclusion

Destin Relaxation Massage is a premium choice for anyone attending a mindfulness retreat, offering a unique blend of therapies that support holistic wellness. By integrating practices like MBSR, personalized care, and innovative modalities, it provides a comprehensive approach to stress reduction and relaxation. For those seeking a transformative experience, the center’s commitment to self-care and inner peace makes it a worthwhile consideration for your next retreat.

Staff Writer; Larry Shaw