Break It Down!:

If you like college basketball, Men’s and/or Women’s, it’s Hype Week. The festivities kick off Friday night with the ladies in Phoenix, where the University of South Carolina Lady Gamecocks will tip off in the opener against the UConn Lady Huskies. The Winner will play for the Title against winner of the nightcap between the University of Texas Lady Longhorns and the UCLA Lady Bruins. These same four teams made last year’s Final Four, and this year, represent an all-chalk matchup, as all four Number 1 Seeds reached the Final Four.

The first game arguably features the two titan programs of today’s game. The coaches, Dawn Staley and Geno Auriemma, and the programs, South Carolina and Connecticut, respectively are the standard for the contemporary game. The Lady Huskies bested the Lady Gamecocks in last year’s Title Game. This may be like having dessert before the entrée. But the second game is nothing to sneeze at. Texas and UCLA are powers in their own right. Don’t sleep on this matchup. As noted, both were in last year’s Final Four. Moreover, UCLA’s only loss this year was courtesy of Texas. Fortuitously for fans, perhaps, because they are playing in the Semis, one of them is guaranteed a ticket to the Championship Game. We just have to wait to see which team will emerge victorious in Friday night’s game.

Over on the Men’s side, a little less chalk. Only half of the Number 1 Seeds advanced, and somewhat like on the Women’s side, the best teams on paper meet in the Semi-Finals, as Michigan Wolverines and Arizona Wildcats clash in the late game. But don’t get it twisted, the early game features the Number 3 Seed Illini against the Number 2 Seed Connecticut Huskies. Illinois stormed through the competition to reach Indy, winning all four games by double digits. And lest I remind you, Number 2 Seed Connecticut defeated Duke, the overall Tournament Number 1 Seed to reach the Final Four.

The Women’s Title Game will unfold Sunday, followed by the Men’s Championship Monday Night. This is not a gambling sight, so I’m making no prediction on winners or point spreads. I will say the odds are 100% that the weekend will offer a panoply of great basketball. By all means, if you are a fan of the Men’s Game, the Woman’s Game, or both, tune in. “The Final Fours Are Here: Are You Ready?”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult search engines for more information on the subject.

The Final Fours Are Here: Are You Ready?

Break It Down!

I’ve been thinking about this one for moment.

So, Donald Trump and the MAGA Movement made famous the retort, Eff (you know the word) your feelings. The underlying premise being, Democrats in general, and liberals in particular, never have the facts on their side. They simply make pronouncements, based upon their ever-present feelings. Before going any further, I must note, Trump and MAGA are the perennial Kings of projection. In other words, they assess their faults and short-comings, and rush to blame “the other side” for doing the deed they have not only participated in, but often perfected…raised to an artform.

So, it is patently rich, when Trump and the eff your feelings crew, boldly announce that the President launched a pre-emptive strike on Iran because, hold my beer, he had a feeling. Not only that; then Mrs. Leavitt, his official Town Crier echoes his pronouncement, underscoring and illuminating the fidelity of his eff’n feelings.

But let’s add some context. Trump’s feelings games is not a Johnny-come-lately kind of thing.

Six years ago this week, as Americans were starting to come to terms with the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, Donald Trump said he didn’t believe the World Health Organization’s assessment on fatality rates. To support his contention, the president pointed to nothing in particular.

“This is just my hunch,” he said.

Just weeks later, Trump touted ineffective COVID treatments that had no scientific merit. Asked about his rationale, the president told reporters, “I feel good about it. That’s all it is. Just a feeling. You know, I’m a smart guy.”

His “feelings” proved wrong, of course, but the rhetoric offered a peek into a ridiculous perspective: Trump, a former television personality and the least experienced president in American history, not only has a great many hunches, but he also has an unnerving habit of assuming his hunches are true and as a result, subsequently acting on them.

Suffice it to say, Trump’s feelings surfaced anew last Wednesday.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said last Wednesday that President Donald Trump made the decision to strike Iran because he ‘had a good feeling that the Iranian regime was going to strike’ U.S. assets and personnel in the region.

The Trump administration has said that U.S. faced imminent threats from Iran, which necessitated the strikes that began early Saturday before last. The U.S. has not, however, communicated specific intelligence or information beyond the fact Iran possesses ballistic missile capabilities, as it has for years.

When pressed further, Leavitt suggested the President acted on his feelings.

“This decision to launch this operation was based on a cumulative effect of various direct threats that Iran posed to the United States of America, and the president’s feeling, based on fact, that Iran does pose an imminent, direct threat to the United States of America,” she told reporters.

The press secretary’s comments are unlikely to inspire greater confidence in the unpopular conflict, but they were part of a bigger picture. As an analysis in The New York Times explained:

In a meeting inside the Oval Office with the German Chancellor Tuesday, President Trump offered a brief moment of insight into his decision-making process on the most consequential of matters: whether to take the country to war.

His decision to order the attack on Iran was mostly a matter of gut instinct about Iranian intentions.

“We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first,” Trump said, adding, “I think they were going to attack first, and I didn’t want that to happen.”

A normal American president, before launching a war, might consult with the National Security Council, among others. The incumbent president, however, appears to prefer his gut, which wouldn’t be quite so terrifying if (a) he had some idea what he was talking about; and (b) we weren’t talking about matters of life and death. “Feelings: That Old White Magic!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult search engines for more information on the subject.

Feelings: That Old White Magic

White House argues that Trump had a ‘feeling’ about an imminent Iranian threat

White House argues that Trump had a ‘feeling’ about an imminent Iranian threat

White House argues that Trump had a ‘feeling’ about an imminent Iranian threat

Break It Down!

U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War spanned 20 years; from 1955 to 1975.The two decades-long conflict spurred numerous protest songs, none more poignant and in-your-face that the mononymously-titled “War,” a song Norman Whitfield and Barret Strong wrote for the Motown Label in 1969. The song was a clear anti-Vietnam War statement, The Temptations were the original vocalists, But the song, released in 1970, was so popular, the Label received a barrage of requests for it to be released as a single. 

Motown deciding to split the baby, opted to have Whitfield produce a version with Charles Edwin Hatcher, commercially known as Edwin Starr, doing the vocals. The Label chose not to release the Temptation’s version as a single because they feared it would alienate the Group’s conservative fan base. Meanwhile, as a single, Starr’s version of War rose to Number 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart in 1970. It was not only the most popular song in Starr’s career, but it was also one of the most popular protest songs ever recorded. Over 30 years later, it was one of 161songs on the no-play list issued by Clear Channel following the events of September 11, 2001.

Fast forward another 25 years, and I am offering the song as an anti-ode to the “No New Wars” President. No one could be more deserving.

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, uhh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y’all
War, huh (good God)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me, oh

War, I despise
‘Cause it means destruction of innocent lives
War means tears to thousands of mother’s eyes
When their sons go off to fight
And lose their lives

I said, war, huh (good God, y’all)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, just say it again
War (whoa), huh (oh Lord)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me

It ain’t nothing but a heart-breaker
(War) Friend only to The Undertaker
Oh, war it’s an enemy to all mankind
The thought of war blows my mind
War has caused unrest
Within the younger generation
Induction then destruction
Who wants to die? Oh

War, huh (good God y’all)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it, say it, say it
War (uh-huh), huh (yeah, huh)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me

It ain’t nothing but a heart-breaker
(War) It’s got one friend that’s The Undertaker
Oh, war, has shattered many a young man’s dreams
Made him disabled, bitter and mean
Life is much too short and precious
To spend fighting wars each day
War can’t give life
It can only take it away, oh

War, huh (good God y’all)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, say it again

War (whoa), huh (oh Lord)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me

It ain’t nothing but a heart breaker
(War) Friend only to The Undertaker, woo
Peace, love and understanding, tell me
Is there no place for them today?
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord knows there’s got to be a better way, oh

War, huh (God y’all)
What is it good for? You tell me (nothing)
Say it, say it, say it, say it

War (good God), huh (now, huh)
What is it good for?
Stand up and shout it (nothing)

Not long ago, (June 21, 2025), Donald Trump said the U.S. had “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities. Let’s hear it for “Operation Midnight Hammer.” He went on to boast it would take years for them to re-group and make nuclear threats and mischief (and that’s not a quote) again. But wait, merely 8 months later, February 28, 2026, Trump Greenlit “Operation Epic Fury” attacking Iran’s missile infrastructure. The stated objective for this attack was to destroy military capabilities and prevent the development of nuclear weapons. On its face, this would seem odd. But only if you believed the facilities had been “totally obliterated” in June. Just to be clear, I did not believe it for a moment. “War: What Is It Good For?”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult search engines for more information on the subject.

https://genius.com/Edwin-starr-war-lyrics

https://genius.com/The-temptations-war-lyrics

War: What Is It Good For?

Break It Down!

Before launching into any discourse about the so-called Epstein Files, it’s important to ask, How did we get here?

Without question, the direct, uncomplicated answer is, a very powerful and influential man sexually abused and trafficked underage girls. Jeffrey Epstein, the man in question, reached a plea deal and served 18 months in a Florida county jail for solicitation of a minor. However, a decade later, he was arrested again in July 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges and was subsequently found to have died by suicide in a New York jail while awaiting trial.

As is the case with most things in life, there is another much more textured and nuanced (story) answer. First, the nexus between a stint in a Florida county jail and awaiting adjudication on federal charges in a New York jail was precipitated by the recognition that for reasons not fully revealed, Epstein received a sweetheart deal in 2008. The long overdue, but inexorable pursuit of justice resulted in the matter being revisited, and as noted above, in Epstein being re-arrested.

This is where it gets peculiarly political, or politically peculiar, take your pick. For more than a decade, numerous right wing conspiracy theories have attempted to tie Democrats, most prominently Bill Clinton, to Epstein, but more importantly, also to his crimes.

Second, that is where we get the gist, not only of how we got here, but of what should most assuredly come next. 

Last week, MAGA finally had its politically orgasmic moment. Both Bill AND Hillary Clinton testified on successive days before the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee on their relationship with Epstein. The closed-door depositions in Chappaqua, New York, the hometown of Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton, came after months of tense back-and-forth between the high-powered Democratic couple and the Republican-controlled Committee.

Executing these depositions has for years been the DEFCON 1, nuclear option scenario that conservatives in general, and MAGA in particular, dreamed of carrying out. The long and short of it is, Hillary testified for 6 hours and said that she did not know, had never met, and had never interacted with Epstein, and moreover that she had shared that information on the record, many times, including with the House Oversight Committee members. For his part, Bill testified for 6 hours about his relationship with Epstein, noting he never saw anything wrong, that he never participated in any wrong-doing, and that he wasn’t aware of any wrong-doing. The Committee Chair, James Comer and other Republicans on the Committee said after Bill Clinton’s deposition that the former President answered or attempted to answer all the questions posed to him, minus a few for which he could not recollect specific details.

It’s important to illuminate these specific truths. One, Bill’s name appears in the Epstein files. Two, numerous photos document Clinton and Epstein together on a number of occasions. Three, none of the above, nor any other evidence accused Bill Clinton of criminal activity. Yet, the subcommittee, insisted both Clintons appear before the committee, despite opting not to invite, request, or demand an appearance by a number of Republicans whose names also appear in the files. 

Be it political, or merely peculiar, that is indicative of the cultural and social space we currently occupy. It’s expected that Republicans, especially those informed and spurred by Trump, and polling consistently shows that includes most of them, are going to consistently and exuberantly stick it to Democrats and show them in the worst light possible…if possible. That effort is energized exponentially, if the Democrats in question happen to be named Clinton.

The Clintons attempted submit their responses in writing, rather than appear in person. The subcommittee rejected their request and subpoenaed them when it seemed likely they would not otherwise show up. 

It is often said, “He who has the gold makes the rules.” Having control of all three branches of government, the Trump regime has operated as though that premise is its North Star. Alrighty.

As I wind down this post, there are two stupendously important points that simply must not be overlooked. It was conservatives, Republicans, the right wing and MAGA that fueled the unquenchable thirst to get to the bottom of the Epstein saga, and it was Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi, in an interview with Fox News’ Jesse Watters, who said in February 2025, more than a year ago, the Epstein Files were on her desk, and significant information would be released the following day.  Suffice it to say, here we are a year later, and millions of files have yet to be released, and of the ones that have been released, many victims’ information was left unredacted, while many potential perpetrators information was redacted. WTF?

So Therefore, I humbly submit, it is only fitting that if and when Democrats secure a majority in either or both Houses of Congress, they should issue an invitation that cannot be refused, to Donald and Melania, to appear and discuss their knowledge of all things Epstein. I can’t think of anything more apropos than to hear, under oath, from the individual whose name appears in the files more than anyone not named Epstein or Maxwell…so we are told. Am I right? “Epstein Files: The Definitive Assessment!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult a variety of news stories on the subject.

Epstein Files: The Definitive Assessment

It’s time to Break It Down!

Last night, the 47^th President delivered the State of the Union (SOTU) address. I will make two assumptions about the event. If you watched, you learned everything about it you wanted to know. If you didn’t watch, you weren’t interested in this year’s political version of the Apprentice. However, in the event you missed the actual show, and you want to read about it, check out any of the mainstream media outlets. They got you.

With that said, I’m re-sharing a post I wrote just over a year ago regarding the fallacy of meritocracy, also couched as the anti-DEI movement. 

In the great emotional ruse that is anti DEI, anti CRT, anti-affirmative action, anti-Civil Rights Act, anti-Voting Rights Act, anti LGBTQ, anti-disabled, etc., we are told the motivation for opposing initiatives and programs to right past wrongs, some which endured for centuries, is the pursuit of merit-based selection. The inherent implied premise for this obsessive compulsion is that merit is a special sauce possessed only by white men.

The return to power of the 47^th President has resulted in celebratory exultation among many of his adherents, who believe all their various and sundry shortcomings have been visited upon them because some unfair practice or methodology intervened and redirected benefits that should have inured to them, to some Black, Brown, non-cisgender, or disabled person. 

It’s as if, in their incontrovertible view, the world, especially America, is divided into two sides; one side comprised of white men, and the other side, everybody else. Interestingly, with the certainty of this same uncontestable truth, they believe Team Everybody Else has severely damaged them, taking more than they could possibly have ever deserved, and leaving them, the only deserving ones, with a mere pittance. Inexplicably, they harbor this notion, despite the fact, they control the vast majority of everything of value in a free enterprise and capitalistic society. They have by far, most of the wealth, most of the property, most of the CEO offices, most of the college and university presidencies, most of the tech businesses, most of the highest corporate titles…you name it, white men dominate it (OK, maybe not Basketball, American Football, and track and field sprint events…most of which were segregated until the mid-20^th century).

And yet, the whining and complaining dominates the landscape. The argument is turbocharged by a rightwing echo chamber that is so inescapable, it persuaded many individuals and groups not naturally on that side of the line to vote against their own interests. While it’s conceivable, time will enable many, if not most, to see the light, the damage will have long been done. But that’s a convo for another day.

Darren Beattie, a “Make America Great Again” ideologue has reportedly been hired to run the State Department’s worldwide public diplomacy efforts. Beattie shared with readers of Revolver, a conservative website he worked for, that he would be the acting undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. It was unclear whether he would assume the position on a permanent basis; that would require Senate confirmation. All things considered, in the current environment, there is no reason to believe he wouldn’t gain confirmation.

He first achieved notoriety when he was fired during his tenure as a White House speechwriter for the first Trump Administration. He lost his position after it was revealed that he spoke at a conference attended by white nationalists. More recently, on October 24, 2024, he wrote on the Revolver website: “Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work. Unfortunately, our entire national ideology is predicated on coddling the feelings of women and minorities and demoralizing competent white men.”

This is emblematic of what one writer called a blatant, dangerous, insulting, gaslighting lie. I wish he could have made his sentiment a little more explicit. 

Over the course of couple of the months since the election, Trump has been moving expeditiously to install members of his new Cabinet…and to “unemploy” tens of thousands of federal workers from the previous administration. As the head of the Executive Branch, or as some argue, as the Executive Branch, he has wide ranging leeway to appoint whomever he wants. Wide leeway is not the same as unlimited control. His first pick for Attorney General, Matt Gaetz, was such an unpopular selection that he withdrew his nomination. White guy notwithstanding, I guess, even Team Trump conceded he was not a worthy candidate for that position. Perhaps, miracles do happen.

There are other controversial nominees. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, is a noted anti-vaccine activist, and conspiracy theorist. Still, he’ll probably gain confirmation. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence has allegedly parroted Russian talking points and has met with then Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Although opposed by most democrats, she cleared a Senate Intel Committee vote, 9-8, and she will likely be confirmed by the Senate later today.

By traditional standards, neither Kennedy, nor Gabbard, not to mention Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, who’s highest attained rank was Major, qualify for the positions to which they have been elevated. Anyone arguing that they are is being transparently dishonest, or quite simply, lying. If anyone with their respective resumes were presented by Democrats, for those same positions, Republicans heads would explode; they’d be summarily dismissed as being unqualified, and presented by unserious, if not clueless, Democrats. But such is the nature of the game, when the President, House, and Senate are of the same Party. It is what it is. “Merit: Not Really, Not at All Redux ’26!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult the links below:

https://www.wjbf.com/news/u-s-world-news/competent-white-men-must-be-in-charge-if-you-want-things-to-work-trump-admin-hires-darren-beattie-to-run-public-diplomacy-at-state-department/

Merit: Not Really, Not at All

Merit: Not Really, Not at All Redux ’26

Break It Down!

Occasionally, as I sit to prepare and post a story for the week, I discover a writer at some news outlet has already written the story I’d like to tell, in such a compelling way, I simply opt to share the piece, rather than curate or compose one from scratch. This analysis by Aaron Blake, a CNN Senior Reporter, based in Washington, D.C. is just such a piece.

Blake notes that Tricia McLaughlin, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokeswomanwill soon exit the agency. He provides several salient examples of behavior that precipitated McLaughlin’s pending departure, and quite frankly, should have been deemed worthy of jettisoning others as well.

The administration, with McLaughlin, acting as DHS’s forward-facing rep, seemed to think they could say whatever they wanted about episodes such as the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents, regardless of the evidence. But there proved to be political consequences to that approach, and one such repercussion is that McLaughlin will leave the agency next week. More than a few observers would argue, too little, too late.

A Quinnipiac University poll earlier this month showed registered voters said by more than a 2-to-1 margin (61%-25%) that they did not think the administration had given an “honest account” of Pretti’s shooting in Minneapolis in late January.

Over and over again in recent months, DHS has made claims that were later undermined by video, other evidence, local police and/or judges. Its legal cases against people it accused of targeting federal agents repeatedly fell apart.

Here are 11 DHS claims that, shall we say, failed the Believe Your Lying Eyes Test.

Renee Good – January 7

The claims: McLaughlin said Good had “weaponized her vehicle in an attempt to kill or cause bodily harm to federal law enforcement.” Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem called it “an act of domestic terrorism.” And President Donald Trump said Good “willfully and viciously ran over” the agent.

The evidence: Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jonathan Ross was not run over. There is some question about whether the vehicle made contact with him. But there remains no evidence that Good aimed to run over the agent; indeed, Good was turning away from the agent as she drove away and was shot. And video evidence shows Ross continuing to shoot her even from the side of the vehicle.

Alex Pretti – January 24

The claims: McLaughlin said it looked like Pretti had aimed to “massacre law enforcement.” Noem again invoked “domestic terrorism.” White House adviser Stephen Miller called Pretti an ”assassin” who “tried to murder federal agents.”

The evidence: The video contradicted these claims even more strongly than with Good. There is no evidence that Pretti targeted the agents. He was legally armed but did not draw his gun, and he was disarmed before he was shot and killed. The administration has since backed off of these claims.

Marimar Martinez – October 4, 2025

The claims: Good and Pretti were not the first US citizens to be accused of terrorism. After a Border Patrol agent shot Marimar Martinez several times in Chicago, a DHS statement said the agents involved were “ambushed by domestic terrorists that rammed federal agents with their vehicles.” It said the shots were “defensive.” McLaughlin added: “We will not allow domestic terrorists to attack our law enforcement.”

The evidence: Video evidence released last week bolsters Martinez’s claim that it was her vehicle that was rammed, not the agent’s. And the prosecution of Martinez previously fell apart amid numerous problems, including the fact that the agent’s vehicle — which was due to be evidence — was driven more than 1,000 miles away after the incident.

Attacking agents with shovels and brooms – January 14

The claims: DHS claimed in a statement that three migrants, including one who was shot in the leg in Minneapolis, Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, “violently assaulted law enforcement with a shovel and broom.” Noem described an “attempted murder of federal law enforcement.”

The evidence: ICE admitted last week that its agents made “false statements” under oath, and Justice Department prosecutors moved to drop criminal charges against two of the men. Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said the claims were contradicted by video evidence.

Threats to assassinate Trump – May 2025

The claims: DHS accused Milwaukee resident Ramón Morales Reyes of writing a letter in which he “threatened to assassinate President Trump.” Noem urged Trump’s critics to tone down their rhetoric.

The evidence: Last month, another man admitted in court that the letter was a ruse, and was actually written by him. The man had allegedly stabbed Morales Reyes and wanted to get him deported before he could testify. DHS’ claim remains online, with no indication that it falsely accused Morales Reyes. (It instead says he was “no longer under investigation.”)

Greg Bovino and tear gas – October 23, 2025

The claims: Greg Bovino, the Border Patrol official who formerly led the Minneapolis operation, claimed he deployed tear gas after being struck in the helmet by a rock in Chicago. DHS also said a rock “struck Chief Greg Bovino in the head.”

The evidence: In a case involving limits on federal agents’ use of force, a judge said Bovino “admitted in his deposition that he lied multiple times” about the incident. The judge said Bovino’s claims shifted repeatedly, and he finally admitted no rock had been thrown at him before he deployed the tear gas.

The aggressive apprehension of a teenager – October 10, 2025

The claims: After video emerged of an aggressive apprehension of a teenager in Hoffman Estates, Illinois, McLaughlin claimed it was old video and didn’t involve ICE. She called it “a video from a burglary arrest Chicago Police made over a year ago.”

The evidence: PolitiFact determined McLaughlin’s claims were false. The scene involved agents wearing uniforms that identified them as tied to ICE, and it would make no sense for the arrest to involve Chicago police, given it was in a suburb 30 miles away. The teenager’s family also spoke out.

Another shooting by an agent, in Maryland – December 24, 2025

The claims: DHS claimed that two men were in a van that one of them drove “directly at ICE officers,” in Glen Burnie, Maryland. One of them was shot by an agent.

The evidence: Anne Arundel County police later said one of the two men was “already in custody” at the time. DHS later amended its claims to reflect that only one person was in the van.

A 13-year-old and a gun – October 9, 2025

The claims: McLaughlin said that a 13-year-old who was arrested and detained by ICE in Massachusetts “was in possession of a firearm and 5-7 inch knife when arrested.”

The evidence: Everett, Massachusetts, Mayor Carlo DeMaria strongly denied the teen had a gun, saying, “No guns were found.” (DeMaria confirmed the knife.) Asked by CNN for further comment, DHS did not respond.

The tear-gassed family – January 14

The claims: After two children were hospitalized after being tear-gassed as their family drove near a protest in Minneapolis, DHS suggested their parents were “agitators.” DHS wrote in a post: “It is horrific to see radical agitators bring children to their violent riots.”

The evidence: DHS soon deleted the post, with McLaughlin acknowledging the people were not agitators but instead “victims.”

Rümeysa Öztürk – March 25, 2025

The claims: After the Tufts University PhD student was detained by masked federal agents last spring, McLaughlin told CNN that Rümeysa Öztürk had been found by investigators to be “engaged in activities in support of Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization.”

The evidence: Last month, a newly released State Department memo said the investigators did not find that Öztürk had “made any public statements indicating support for a terrorist organization.” It said DHS found no grounds to remove her for “material support to foreign terrorist organization or terrorist activity.”

Even some Republicans concede DHS has done neither itself, nor the administration, any favors. “The Official Version vs. The Truth!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” 

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult the myriad sources carrying this story.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/17/politics/dhs-ice-trump-tricia-mclaughlin

Break It Down!

If you follow the pattern and practice of the Trump administration in recent months, you are probably familiar with Mr. Trump’s pursuit of individuals he perceives as his political enemies, and with the principals in the most recent setback. Six Democratic lawmakers noted below, four Representatives, and two Senators, were contacted by investigators because of a video they posted in November, reminding members of the U.S. Military and intelligence agencies that they do not have to follow illegal orders.

Reps.: Jason Crow, Colorado

             Chris Deluzio & Chrissy Houlahan, Pennsylvania

             Maggie Goodlander, New Hampshire

Sens.: Mark Kelly, Arizona

             Elissa Slotkin, Michigan

Their theatrical foray was met with swift and forceful reaction by the administration in general, and the president in particular, who accused the sextet of sedition, an act so heinous, that under U.S. military law, it is punishable by death.

Within weeks of their action, all six were contacted by federal prosecutors and advised that an investigation into their actions was underway. The DOJ attempted to secure a grand jury indictment. 

It’s worth noting that a grand jury had previously declined to bring an indictment against Letitia James, the New York attorney general who defeated Trump and his company in court. To place a cherry on top, a second set of grand jurors refused to indict Ms. James…within a week. In other developments, a judge dismissed cases against former FBI director James Comey. Mr. Comey argued that the prosecutor was unlawfully installed. The presiding judge agreed.

Back to yesterday’s decision not to indict, all six lawmakers responded to the grand jury decision not to bring an indictment.

Sen. Kelly called the attempt to indict an “outrageous abuse of power.” Kelly added, “It wasn’t enough for Pete Hegseth to censure me and threaten to demote me, now it appears they tried to have me charged with a crime – all because of something I said that they didn’t like. That’s not the way things work in America.” 

Slotkin said in a post on X, “Tonight we can score one for the Constitution, our freedom of speech, and the rule of law.”

Crow issued a warning to the administration, saying Americans “should be appalled by the fact that Donald Trump and his goons at Department of Justice and everywhere else are weaponizing their justice system just to try to silence dissent and to crush political opponents.”

Deluzio said on X, “I will not be intimidated for a single second by the Trump Administration or Justice Department lawyers who tried and failed to indict me today.”

Goodlander responded in a statement saying, “Today an American grand jury honored our Constitution by standing up to an outrageous abuse of presidential power and taxpayer dollars. No matter the threats, I will keep doing my job and upholding my oath to our Constitution.”

Finally, Houlahan said on X, “This is good news for the Constitution and the free speech protections it guarantees. The grand jury upheld the rule of law – this is a win for all Americans.”

Not surprisingly, conversely, House Speaker Mike Johnson, a staunch Trump ally, said the six Democratic lawmakers “probably should be indicted,” after the failed attempts.

The declination is a rebuke of the administration’s efforts to paint the six lawmakers – all of whom served in either the military or intelligence services – as dangerously undermining the president’s authority as commander-in-chief. Meanwhile, the effort to indict, in and of itself, was an extraordinary escalation of DOJ’s willingness to prosecute those who speak against the president and the administration’s actions.

So, in summary, to Trump, Bondi, and Hegseth, “Nice Try; Not So Fast!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” 

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult the myriad sources carrying this story.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/10/politics/jury-declines-to-indict-lawmakers-illegal-orders-video

Nice Try; Not So Fast!

Break It Down!

What goes around comes around. For centuries, American conservative ideology revolved around the principle that states’ rights are sacrosanct. That argument served them well, in part because it enabled individual states to actively participate in peddling flesh. The blood, sweat, tears, and free labor of slaves was an outsized component in fueling the rise and expansion of the America many would come to refer to as exceptional. Interestingly (and frankly, understandably), that facet of Americana has never been one that prompted America to bask in pride.

One would be hard-pressed to find many lengthy or in-depth depictions of Blacks’ contributions to building America in our standard history textbooks. Over recent decades numerous policies, and the institutions that fostered them, began to put in place measures to elevate and display evidence of the roles played and contributions made by the enslaved, and their progeny.

Enter Trump 2.0. Suddenly, what had taken centuries to put in place was being subjected to full-frontal assault, and systematic dismantling. Elements, from voting rights laws to affirmative policies, to DEI frameworks, to museum exhibits; anything not defaulting to a Euro-centric, so-called Western Civilization favorable view of the American experience was disparaged, disqualified, or otherwise dismissed.

Fast-forward to the start of year two of T-2.0 and now, voila, out of the blue, states’ rights no longer meet the moment. It’s now not, shall we say, convenient. Mr. Trump has read the room, and the prognosis that the GOP may lose the House, and or the Senate during the midterms left him wanting more. So much more, that he already ordered states to find him more GOP voting districts, similar to the way he asked Brad Raffensperger to find him 11,780 votes. The difference was, unlike the Georgia Secretary of State, Texas Governor Greg Abbott and the leaders of the Texas state legislature were only too eager to comply.

Alas, with Democrats fighting back, and California taking similar action, on behalf of the Dems, Trump concluded, it was not enough. So, he decided to up the ante. In the past two weeks:   

1. The FBI conducted a search in a major Democratic county in a swing state, in 

            service of debunked theories about fraud in 2020 elections

• The Justice Department attempted to extort voter rolls from another Democratic  

            state under threat of armed occupation

• The president floated plans to nationalize elections

This is not Trump’s first rodeo. He has attempted to subvert elections before. This time, he has initiated his efforts earlier, in a more organized way, and—crucially—by employing the power of the federal government to help him achieve his personal political goals.

In a Monday conversation with Dan Bongino, the podcaster, turned FBI deputy director, turned podcaster, Trump called for his party to seize control of voting in states. “These people were brought to our country to vote, and they vote illegally, Trump said, reprising an oft used and incorrect claim. (Voting by noncitizens is rare and does not amount to enough to swing elections).

He added, “The Republicans should say, “We want to take over’—we should take over the voting in at least, many, 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting. We have states that are so crooked, and they’re counting votes. We have states that I won that show I didn’t win.” 

Because states’ rights are a thing, the federal government has no constitutional or statutory role in states’ election administration. The call for “nationalization” is an assertion of power that the federal government does not have, a hallmark of other recent White House ploys. 

In addition to trying to pull out all the stops to retain control of both houses of Congress, he’s also still on a mission to prove the counterfactual; that he won in 2020. A supposition premised on a boatload of false claims but buttressed by the singular conclusion about the matter, that he reached long ago. 

Now, Trump is also claiming he was cheated out of votes in Minnesota. “I feel that I won Minnesota—I think I won it all three times,” he said. “I won it all three times, in my opinion.” 

On January 24, Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a letter to Governor Tim Walz demanding that the state turn over its voter rolls to the Justice Department as a condition of the federal government ending its violent crackdown in Minneapolis. Since May 2025, the DOJ has ordered 44 states and the District of Columbia to hand over voter rolls, though it has no statutory right to them. Many states, including Minnesota, have resisted.

Trump has been publicly setting expectations for poor results for Republicans in the midterms. He has attempted to force gerrymanders in GOP-controlled states.

It has been theorized that an election is at greatest danger of interference when the margin of victory is narrow. Americans’ growing disapproval of the president’s handling of immigration and the economy has buoyed Democrats on the generic ballot for Congress. An old joke goes that the election administrator’s prayer is, “Lord, let this election not be close.” Despite Trump’s efforts to influence the upcoming elections, his actions in office make it more likely that the prayer is answered. “Nationalize This!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” 

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult the myriad sources carrying this story.

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/2026/02/trump-threats-american-elections/685873/

Nationalize This

Break It Down!

A year ago in this space, I wrote, albeit briefly, about Donald Trymp and his path to the Oval Office, a second time. A year later, there are still more than a thousand days left in his current term: 1,086, to be precise. Today, I am mindful, that Trump’s Phoenix-like rise was predicated upon the narrative that he spun effectively, arguing that America, was not only no longer great, but that for all practical purposes, we had sunk to the absolute nadir.

In the aftermath of November 2024, most observers conceded that Trump prevailed, to a large extent, on the strength of his painting the Border as Biden’s Achilles. If we stipulate that it was, we can also assess that over the course of a year, he fundamentally and positively changed the dynamics of Border crossings. Arguably, he could have declared victory…and walked away.

But, if we know anything about Mr. Trump, we know, that is not his way. That would be too neat, too simple, and too understated.

So, fast forward to Minneapolis, which is about 300 miles from the closest foreign country border, which happens to be Canada, by the way. And, let’s face it, ICE and Birder Patrol are not profiling Canadians. It’s almost 1500 miles (1,463) to Mexico; the so-called Southern Border. Moreover, with regard to the country that’s home to the most notable block of immigrants in Minneapolis, Somalia, it’s over 8,300 miles away. 

That Trump has chosen to make an example out of a place so far away from pertinent foreign borders is, well, bizarre. That is, if targeting and removing the worst of the worst immigrants, or, illegal  aliens, as MAGA likes to call them, is the point. A segment of conservative world contends, it’s the rampant fraud, conducted by a cabal of Somalians, that ICE and Border Patrol at in the Twin Cities to curtail. The problem was purportedly so big, Trump has sent 3.000 plus Immigration agents to the city.

Then there is this. In the 17 days from January 7 to January 24, Immigration agents shot and killed two people. It’s worth noting, those people were not Mexicans, or from anywhere else, south of the Border, they were not from Somalia, they were not even from Canada; they were American. Born and raised in the USA. To add insult to injury, thanks to an abundance of available video, there is broad consensus that both cases, multiple shots in each instance, were bad shoots. In the latest case, the victim, who possessed a Concealed Carry Parmit, was condemned by the President and his chief actors on the ground for having been armed with a weapon, and ammunition. Some even alleged he was brandishing his weapon, and attacked the agents.

Interestingly, the position taken by members of the administration put Trump at odds with the NRA. In a vast departure from his regular shtick, Trump has actually pivoted and removed Immigration Chief Greg Bovino and Homeland Security Chief Kristi Noem, who had been leading the effort, known as Operation Metro Surge, and replaced them with Border Czar Tom Homan.

If at the end of the day, this summation leaves you with more questions than answers, great, my work here is done. “Started From What We Thought Was The Bottom; Now We’re Here!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” 

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult the myriad sources carrying this story.

Started From What We Thought Was The Bottom; Now We’re Here