It’s time ro Break It Down!

(Note: This is a reprised, amended, and expanded presentation of my original blog post) 

HAPPY 18th ANNIVERSARY “BREAK IT DOWN!” Today, in acknowledgement of another anniversary of this publication, as I have often done in the past, I am revisiting my inaugural post.

Before launching into the post, it’s certainly appropriate to contextualize my original blog. To do that, I note that post was about a young lion, Barack Obama, coming into what would, for all practica purposes, become his era.

Tempus fugit (Time Flies)! Today marks a significant milestone in the life and development of “Break It Down!”  I initiated this blog on August 20, 2007, on a lark…almost a dare. That was exactly eighteen years (and 938 editions) ago today. Having related the story several times over past years, I will not repeat the complete details today.

I will note, however, that on that summer’s eve, I contemplated and discussed, in five paragraphs, the experience, or in reality the lack thereof, of then Senator Barack Obama, as he navigated the early stages of his historic Presidential Campaign.

So, in a nutshell, the message in Post #1 was five brisk paragraphs and a sign-off:

In an apparent calculated act of derring-do, Obama declares the virtue of inexperience. Gotta love it!

Personal footnote of recollection: I recall Jimmy Carter running the classic “anti-Washington” (i.e., lack of Capitol Hill experience) campaign in ’75-76. You know what, it worked.

The problem was, once JC sent all the reigning bureaucrats & policy wonks home, he was left with an assembly of newbies who didn’t understand how to get things done in DC. The result was that a very smart guy, genuine humanitarian, and erstwhile successful leader presided over what was widely perceived at the time, as a disastrous presidency. President Carter’s solitary term was fraught with numerous challenges (see the Shah of Iran, double-digit inflation, runaway gas prices, & the outrageous Interest/Mortgage rate morass) and public relations gaffes (remember the killer rabbit, and the failed helicopter gambit).

Fortunately for former President Carter, he was able to live long enough and subsequently do enough good deeds to distance himself from most of an unremarkable tenure as a one-term president, followed by a resounding defeat by that cowboy actor, Teflon guy.

Of course, none of that has anything to do with Obama…except in the unlikely event he prevails. If he does, let’s hope he doesn’t take that inexperience thing too far. As W constantly reminds us, getting to the White House is one thing (after all, he’s done it twice), providing prudent and effective leadership once there is quite another. (Of course, in hindsight, we know President Obama not only prevailed, but went on to win re-election, and serve a second term).

As we endeavor to navigate a sometimes tortuous, always unpredictable first year of 45/47’s second term, separated from his first term by Joe Biden’s solo run, we are buffeted by the collective exigencies of the TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) Tariff policy, the Day 1 Promise Series, the Mass Immigration morass, the continuous battle with Fed Chair Jerome Powell, the broadside attack on the Smithsonian Museums, especially of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, and last but not least, the constant efforts to deflect attention from the infamous so-called Epstein Files. It’s enough to make one say, “Where is Obama when you need him?” I kid, I kid.      

Barack Obama, who many Democrats, and even some Republicans consider a sterling orator, won wide acclaim over two decades ago in 2004, when he addressed the Convention in Boston, an aspiring Senatorial candidate at the time. Fresh off an unexpected landslide victory in the March 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate Democratic Primary, he was catapulted into rising star status within Democratic Party circles, and he went on to leverage his newfound celebrity into a speaking role at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, which he crushed. He would go on to successfully vie for and win in his race to become a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois, where he served four years, before his successful 2008 Presidential run.

Just for context, here’s a story carried by national news outlets about the Presidential campaign on August 20, 2007.

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFULS DEBATE IN IOWA

Obama posits virtue of inexperience

What rivals criticize as naiveté, he presents as break from status quo

MIKE GLOVER

Associated Press

DES MOINES, Iowa –Democrat Barack Obama on Sunday tried to parlay his relative lack of national experience into a positive attribute, chiding his rivals for adhering to “conventional thinking” that led the country to war and has divided the country.

In their latest debate, the candidates also said they favored more federal action to address economic woes that have resulted from a housing slump and tighter credit. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson called the current financial crisis “the Katrina of the mortgage-lending industry.”

Prodded by moderator George Stephanopoulos at the outset of the debate, Obama’s rivals critiqued his recent comments on Pakistan and whether he would meet with foreign leaders — including North Korea’s head of state — without conditions.

“To prepare for this debate I rode in the bumper cars at the state fair,” the first-term senator from Illinois said to laughter and applause from the audience at Drake University.

The debate capped an intense week of politicking in Iowa, an early voting state in the process of picking a nominee. The Iowa State Fair is a magnet for White House hopefuls each presidential election.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., directly addressing a question about Obama’s relative inexperience, said: “You’re not going to have time in January of ’09 to get ready for this job.” Dodd has served in Congress for more than 30 years.

Former Sen. John Edwards said Obama’s opinions “add something to this debate.” But Edwards said politicians who aspire to be president should not talk about hypothetical solutions to serious problems.

“It effectively limits your options,” Edwards said.

Obama said he could handle the rigors of international diplomacy and noted that many in the race, including Dodd, Edwards and Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Joe Biden, voted to authorize the Iraq war in 2002.

“Nobody had more experience than Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney and many of the people on this stage that authorized this war,” Obama said. “And it indicates how we get into trouble when we engage in the sort of conventional thinking that has become the habit in Washington.”

The debate, hosted and broadcast nationally by ABC, took place less than five months before Iowa caucus-goers begin the process of selecting the parties’ presidential nominees.

As we reflect upon the Campaign of 2008 it really does harken the recognition of how swiftly time and events pass.  Indeed, I am reminded, especially, of how a supremely confident Senator from Illinois approached his moment.  I shall always recall that it propelled me to write the words, “Obama Plays the Inexperience Card (Edition IX)!” He has gained an enormous amount of experience in the intervening years. I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com.

Find a new post each Wednesday.

Consult the link below for more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:

The Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC), located on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., serves as an institution dedicated to illuminating the rich and complex history of African Americans in the United States. Since its opening in 2016, the museum has become a cornerstone for education, remembrance, and understanding of the African American experience, drawing millions of visitors from across the nation and around the world.

The Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC), which opened its doors in September 2016, stands as a testament to the complex, rich, and often painful tapestry of African American history. It preserves and tells the stories of the struggles, triumphs, creativity, and resilience of Black Americans—from slavery and the fight for civil rights to present-day achievements and challenges. As one of the most prominent museums on the National Mall, its exhibits have frequently drawn attention, discussion, and at times, controversy. In recent years, the intersection of politics and historical interpretation has become ever more visible, especially when figures such as President Donald J. Trump publicly question, critique, or challenge aspects of cultural institutions like the NMAAHC.

The NMAAHC is the only national museum devoted exclusively to the documentation of African American life, history, and culture. The museum’s exhibits include artifacts ranging from Harriet Tubman’s shawl and Nat Turner’s Bible, to the dress worn by Rosa Parks and the track shoes of Olympian Carl Lewis. Interactive displays cover topics such as the Transatlantic Slave Trade, the Harlem Renaissance, the Civil Rights Movement, and contemporary Black culture from music to sports. The museum has played a critical role in shaping national conversations about race, identity, and the legacy of slavery and segregation in America.

Since its opening, the NMAAHC has attracted millions of visitors, including politicians from both sides of the aisle. Donald Trump has made statements about how American history is taught and presented, particularly in relation to issues of race. Trump has spoken out against what he describes as “revisionist” history and has emphasized the importance of “patriotic education.” He has criticized various educational curriculums and museum exhibits that, in his view, either overemphasize the country’s faults or understate its successes.

Trump’s criticisms of the NMAAHC, have typically centered on specific exhibits or representations he believes to be misleading, divisive, or damaging to America’s image. He has argued that the museum’s focus on slavery, segregation, and oppression risks overshadowing stories of progress, national unity, and the contributions of Americans of all backgrounds. In public remarks and social media posts, Trump has contended that some exhibits “paint the country in a negative light,” and has called for “balanced” portrayals that highlight positive developments alongside painful histories. This specious argument is essentially the racialized equivalent of his infamous “good people on both sides” hot take after the Charlottesville Unite the Right Rally in 2017.

These comments have generally been received as part of a broader political debate about how U.S. history should be interpreted and presented in public institutions. Supporters of Trump’s position claim that American museums, including the NMAAHC, should do more to promote national pride and unity. Critics counter that confronting the darker aspects of America’s past is essential for justice, reconciliation, and understanding the full scope of American identity. 

Let’s be serious. This Trumpian view amounts to, pardon the pun, whitewashing the story of American History. We cannot (and will not) just pretend chattel slavery never happened, or that Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan were not a thing, or that the Civil Rights Movement didn’t alter the course of not just our national discourse, but the way Americans live their day-to-day lives. The Trumpian way, as enunciated by some of his more powerful sycophants, promotes, among other things, fostering a narrative in textbooks that emphasizes how Blacks benefitted from slavery, rather than how America benefitted from slavery. Woosah!

In recent weeks, news reports have surfaced stating that Trump has publicly called for the removal of certain exhibits at the NMAAHC, labeling them as “racist.” This assertion has sparked a nationwide debate regarding museum curation, historical narratives, and the intersection of politics and public memory.

Such calls for the removal of exhibits based on accusations of racism raise questions about censorship, historical erasure, and the boundaries of public engagement with the past. While the debates continue, it is clear and compelling that museums must remain places for honest confrontation with history, fostering dialogue and understanding across generations.

Museums play a critical role in shaping collective memory and public understanding. By curating artifacts, stories, and perspectives, they help visitors grapple with complex questions about identity, justice, and belonging. The NMAAHC, in particular, offers a space for reflection, healing, and inspiration, serving as both a testament to struggle and a beacon of hope.

The Smithsonian Institution has not indicated any intention to remove or alter exhibits at the NMAAHC. In statements to the press, museum officials have reiterated their commitment to historical accuracy, educational value, and the importance of fostering dialogue about race, identity, and justice.

Some political commentators and members of the public have expressed support for Trump’s position, contending that museum displays should be mindful of fostering unity and pride in national heritage, rather than highlighting divisions or injustices. However, many historians, educators, and civil rights leaders have condemned Trump’s remarks, asserting that confronting uncomfortable aspects of history is necessary for societal growth and reconciliation. They argue that the museum’s exhibits are designed to contextualize racism, not perpetuate it, and that understanding both the painful and triumphant chapters of American history is vital for building a more inclusive future.

The debate over how museums portray the history of racism is not new. Institutions across the country have faced criticism from various quarters, with some arguing that certain exhibits are too graphic, accusatory, or political, while others insist that sanitized versions of history do a disservice to both the victims and the perpetrators of injustice.

Proponents of comprehensive historical displays maintain that museums like NMAAHC serve an essential role in presenting unvarnished truths, encouraging empathy, and inspiring action against ongoing discrimination. They emphasize that labeling artifacts, narratives, or exhibits as “racist” due to their content or message misunderstands the educational purpose of museums.

The controversy over Donald Trump’s remarks regarding the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture highlights the enduring tensions in how Americans interpret and present their shared history. While opinions differ on the appropriate boundaries of museum exhibits, the need for thoughtful, fact-based, and empathetic engagement with the past remains paramount.

As institutions like NMAAHC continue their vital work, the hope is that public discourse will move beyond accusations and division, toward deeper understanding and appreciation of the myriad stories that frame the nexus of the African Diaspora and the American experience. Moreover, if there is one certainty, it is that the answer is not Trump’s stated goal of making the NMAAHC and other Smithsonian Museums comport with his version of American History. That would not only be ahistorical; even worse, it would be a straight-up travesty. “Trump Calls for Removing Exhibits at the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture: He Labeled Them Racist!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime.

A new post is published each Wednesday.

(Large Language model-based writing assistant AI Tool was used composing this post).

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/-trump-smithsonian-museum-executive-order-race-rcna198533

“Break It Down!”

There is way more to say about this topic than I plan to elevate. I do want to make a point that most Republicans are desperately trying to obfuscate, ignore, or otherwise baffle you with bullschitt about the matter. First, the issue.   

In recent political developments, Donald Trump has advocated for a mid-decade redistricting of Texas, a move that would reshape congressional and legislative districts outside of the traditional decennial cycle. Historically, states have redrawn their legislative and congressional district boundaries every ten years following the release of new Census data. However, Trump has called for an off-cycle redistricting initiative in Texas.

There has been widespread discourse about this proposal signaling an attempt to capitalize on shifting demographics and strengthening Republican’s advantages in a rapidly evolving state. Proponents claim that such a move would correct perceived imbalances or respond to legal challenges, while critics argue it represents a partisan strategy to consolidate power and potentially disenfranchise voters. The debate around mid-decade redistricting in Texas reflects broader national tensions over redistricting, gerrymandering, and the ongoing battle for political control in key states.

Republican frequently point to so-called Blue States and the ways they have used gerrymandering as a tool to advantage Democrats. They seem to present that point, as though it were the proverbial coup de grâce. In fact, Blue and Red states have used gerrymandering quite liberally, no pun intended. However, two points that in their telling tend to get whitewashed…or perhaps to turn a less charged phrase, overlooked, are:

1. This proposal, as presented, will significantly reduce Black (and diminish Hispanic) representation in the state that, not coincidentally, has more Black people than any other state in the Union.
2. Redistricting, in Texas, as in many other states, is constitutionally tied to the Census. This mid-decade initiative is not tied to official Census data, not in fidelity with the Constitutional requirement, and not in concert with historical precedent.

These two important considerations are facts that will be absent most of those indignantly framed arguments the GOP hangs it hat on. They are, good, bad, or indifferent, making the case for this questionable act, because Mr. Trump is nervous about his ability to hold on to the GOP majority in the House of Representatives. Consequently, he is now taking a stance that represents an about-face to his heretofore enthusiastically held positions on merit and entitlement. Instead of promoting GOP Representatives earn their seats, based on the redistricting results of the last Census…until the next one as is the norm, he said yesterday, “I got the highest vote in the history of Texas, as you probably know, and we are entitled to five more seats.” That’s not the way that works, Mr. President. It’s not the political equivalent of Name That Tune. You don’t get to say, because the House GOP numerical advantage is at risk, I deserve 5 more seats…regardless of when the next Census is scheduled. Yet here we are. “Trump’s Push For Mid-Decade Redistricting In Texas: “We’re Entitled To 5 More Seats!””

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime.

A new post is published each Wednesday.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult the links below:

(Large Language model-based writing assistant AI Tool was used composing this post).

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/05/trump-texas-redistricting-00493624

Break It Down!

In the United States, Atlantic Hurricane Season officially runs from June 1^st to November 30^th. We are about to wrap up the second month. Storms, of course, can occur outside the parameters of these six months. They may also emanate from the Pacific, in which case they are called a typhoon if it hovers over the Northwest Pacific Ocean (Usually East Asia). If it happens elsewhere in the region, it’s called a cyclone. 

The United States relies on several federal agencies for weather forecasting, research, emergency and notifications. The two most prominent are the National Weather Service (NWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These agencies are funded by the federal government through annual appropriations approved by Congress.

During President Trump’s first term (2017–2021), there were a variety of budget proposals and discussions about federal agency funding, including NOAA and the NWS. Some administration budget blueprints proposed reductions to NOAA’s budget, which sparked discussions and concern among scientists, meteorologists, and members of the public. However, in Trump’s first term, Congress did not enact the most dramatic of these proposed cuts, and both NOAA and the NWS continued to operate with full federal funding.

Welcome to term number two, and a whole new ballgame, as it relates to the administration defunding federal agencies…including NOAA and the NWS. Earlier this year, DOGE, the so-called Department of Governmental Efficiency, brainchild of Trump and Elon Musk, precipitated early retirements and short staffing at the NWS. Moreover, in addition many of the weather service’s most experienced leaders, people with decades of experience in the particular weather vulnerabilities in local areas, are leaving the organization. These scientists and experts have been critical in devising strategies, means, and methods to protect people and property. 

Then, there’s NOAA, which oversees the weather service. There, all probationary employees were dismissed earlier this year. That means, among other things, there is no backfill; no incoming fresh talent to replace the old guard. Even if the weather service were to reinitiate hiring, it may have trouble attracting talented people. What scientist worth his or her salt would want to work at an agency where science is not valued, and where you could suddenly be dismissed without warning, or reason?

Various media outlets have cautioned since the beginning of hurricane season that massive staffing cuts at NOAA from firing probationary employees, DOGE buyouts, and early retirements have left at least eight of the 122 NWS Offices unable to operate around the clock. Due to this loss of staff, regular twice-per-day upper air balloon soundings, which are typically the most important ingredient in making reliable model weather forecasts, have been lost from about 18% of the nation’s upper air stations. Some locations have been reduced to once-per-day launches, and a number are doing no launches at all.

The Washington Post reported that for the month ending May 26, 17% of all U.S. balloon launches that should have occurred have not, most, due to NOAA staffing losses. While preliminary data suggest that lack of balloon data did not have a significant detrimental impact on the Texas flood forecasts, it is a certainty that this level of data loss will cause significant degradation for some forecasts of extreme weather events – potentially including hurricanes making initial landfall along the U.S. Gulf and Atlantic coasts.

In fact, NOAA’s just-released 2026 budget plan would close all NOAA labs, including the National Severe Storms Laboratory (which was founded in 1964), and others with very similar long histories of innovation and accomplishment.  This includes the two labs most instrumental in improving hurricane forecasts, the AOML and GFDL.

The justification? Project 2025 (remember that one) described NOAA’s primary research branch, which operates all these labs – the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research – as “the source of much of NOAA’s climate alarmism.” Not big fans of science?

Meteorologist Michael Lowey wrote, “One of the primary tools we use to predict flash floods like the ones in Central Texas comes from the Multi-Radar/Multi-Sensor System, a project of the National Severe Storms Laboratory or NSSL in Norman Oklahoma. I’ve zero doubt weather service forecasters were leveraging that tool that evening to issue flash flood warnings. The NSSL and associated projects like this one are slated for elimination in NOAA’s proposed 2026 budget, which would be detrimental to our ability to forecast these types of deadly floods in the future.”

During the spring, when DOGE was endeavoring to insinuate its way into the innermost inner workings of the federal government, three things were abundantly clear:

1. Trump 2.0 was serious about the mission, not only of removing the guardrails that prevented him from dismantling the federal government in his first term, but also about executing the job.
2. With Musk and DOGE acting as the metaphorical chainsaw, Team Trump sat to systematically undo most things government was charged to do, from healthcare, to education, to airline safety, to weather.
3. After dismantling governmental structures, and firing professional leadership, replace scientists and experts with his preferred oligarchs, and his and their friends.

Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick’s scope of responsibility includes overseeing the mechanisms used to monitor and predict the weather. Before assuming the role, Lutnick ran a financial firm, which he left in the control of his adult sons. The company stands to benefit if Trump follows through on a decade-long Republican effort to privatize government weather forecasting.

But wait. Lutnick is not alone in that regard. Trump’s pick to lead NOAA, Neil Jacobs, was the chief atmospheric scientist for Panasonic Weather Solutions, and has been a proponent of privatization. And…Trump’s nominee for another top NOAA position Taylor Jordan, is a lobbyist with a roster of weather-related clients.

It doesn’t end there. Mr. DOGE himself, Elon Musk, the world’s richest man spent more than $270 million to help get Trump elected. He owns controlling interests in SpaceX and its satellite subsidiary Starlink. Both are regulated by NOAA’s Office of Space Commerce, which lost about one-third of its staff in February layoffs executed by DOGE, which Musk helped create. That turned down the heat in what had been a contentious relationship between Musk and NOAA leadership.

In most other times and spaces in the last hundred years, there would be at least some palpable concern being expressed about conflict of interest, as well as ensuring that some measure of governmental levers remained in the hands of serious professionals. However, with every aspect of the federal government in the hands of one party; Trump’s Party, to be clear, those aren’t even fleeting notions. And if they were, Trump would have the violator fired, or at the very least, subjected to a primary. And, if I must say so, it looks like it’s destined to get worse, before it gets better. 

As for the season, with only a third of the six months elapsed, we have plenty of time to find out what follows. “It’s Hurricane Season: What Now!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime.

A new post is published each Wednesday.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult the link below:

(In composing this post, Large Language model-based writing assistant AI Tool was used).

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/as-trump-slashed-weather-agency-his-appointees-have-ties-to-companies-that-stand-to-benefit-from-privatizing-forecasts

The Epstein Chronicles: The Ultimate Trumpian Subject Changer 

Jeffrey Epstein is a disgraced financier and convicted sex offender, who was a figure connected with many prominent individuals. He became the subject of intense media scrutiny. Among the individuals associated with him was Donald J. Trump, the 45th and 47^th President of the United States. In recent weeks, Epstein, who died in prison in 2019, has once again become a focus heightened attention.

For more than two decades, conservative leaning politicians and media have tried to link Epstein to various Democratic politicians. After he died in prison, theories quickly emerged and were propagated, suggesting he’d been murdered at the hands of some liberal cabal. Even though the official record stated he had committed suicide, the rumors and theories persisted. Those outlets, and eventually content creators were spurred on by the scurrilous claims and assertions of conservative politicians, a group which Donald Trump would eventually append himself. Conservatives spent years fostering, repeating, and spreading the notion that Epstein kept a list of clients which he cultivated to introduce underaged (teenage) girls to, for the purpose of conducting sexually predatory acts.

In February, Pam Bondi, U.S. Attorney General, turbocharged speculation regarding the so-called list when announcing the pending release of records related to the Epstein case. However, as I wrote a couple of weeks ago, “In a recent memo following what authorities described as an “exhaustive review of investigative holdings relating to Jeffrey Epstein,” the FBI and DOJ said, “While we have labored to provide the public with maximum information regarding Epstein and ensured examination of any evidence in the government’s possession, it is the determination of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.” In short, no secret file, and no homicide.”

As you might imagine, given the historical record that includes Trump and Epstein making laudatory comments about each other, on one hand, and MAGAWorld being continuously primed to seek and destroy what it views as a Democrat-infested pedophile ring, on the other hand, there were quite a few people who had numerous questions for Donald Trump.   

And that is the point where the rhetorical prestidigitation began. Whenever questions regarding his relationship with Epstein have arisen, Trump, unable to manifest the powers of a Genie, and just vaporize or disappear, has frequently defaulted to techniques designed to change or redirect the subject. Not having the ability to shapeshift, he opts to shift the subject.

Trump and Epstein were both well-known figures in elite social circles in New York and Florida in the 1980s and 1990s. Media reports and publicity photos reflect their attendance together at parties and events. Moreover, Trump himself was quoted in a 2002 New York Magazine profile describing Epstein as a “terrific guy.” 

As Epstein’s crimes gained public attention in the late 2000s and again after his 2019 arrest, Trump was repeatedly asked about his prior association with Epstein. And, naturally, his characterization became less generous; not so flattering. In fact, Trump began to just change the subject and start one of his infamous riffs on some totally unrelated topic, usually designed to blame of denigrate someone, or something else.

Recent faves include:

Barack Obama – Trump’s personal nemesis 1

In response to questions about his ties to Epstein, over the weekend, Trump pivoted to call for the arrest and prosecution of Obama, claiming Tulsi Gabbard “unequivocally exposed” evidence he plotted to conduct the “highest level Election Fraud.” He even showed an AI depiction on his social media platform of Obama being arrested, while he looked on smiling approvingly. Obama released a statement yesterday noting that the findings of the commission he formed were affirmed in a 2020 report by s bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio, Trump’s current Secretary of State, National Security Adviser, U.S. Archivist, and Head of USAID…though at last count, the latter may have been dissolved.

The Washington Commanders

In a classic Epstein sidestep, Trump demanded that the Commanders ownership change the team’s name back to Redskins. In a mind-numbing case of WTF, he maintained there is a big clamoring to change the name back to Redskins, and that changing the name from Redskins offended millions of Native Americans. In reality, it was the name Redskins that offended Native Americans. But hey, the guy obviously loves “alternative” facts.

The Cleveland Indians

As with the Redskins, Trump prefers the Native American moniker. Again, he claimed, without evidence, that our great Indian people, in massive numbers, want this to happen. Guardians President of Baseball Operations, Chris Antonetti said in response, the team is “excited about the future” as they continue to build their brand as the Guardians.

Coca-Cola

Trump claimed on his social media feed that he has persuaded Coca-Cola to use real cane sugar in its U.S. cola. In its rendering of the story Coca-Cola said it will expand its U.S. offerings, launching a beverage that uses cane sugar, instead of high fructose corn syrup. Just in case you’re reading for comprehension, there is a difference. I’ll leave it there.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Trump Administration did release the extensive FBI Files this week. Oh wait, not the Epstein Files. Psych! On Monday, the FBI records related to the investigation of the assassination of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr. (Codename: MURKIN) were released. Notably, these records were released against the wishes of the King Family. But they, undoubtedly, were not his intended audience. 

On Monday, Karoline Leavitt, Trump’s Press Secretary, defending her Principal, DJT, Sr., noted, the President is the creator and leader of the Make America Great Again Movement, and he and he alone gets to set the agenda for MAGA. Her point was, to those reporters asking questions about those among MAGANation who were upset because suddenly, there was no story, according to Pam Bondi, when MAGA had been expecting a news Tsunami, MAGANation will just have to settle down. Trump has spoken.

When asked about Epstein, Donald Trump defaults to change the subject mode. He has repeatedly shifted the subject to a variety of alternative topics—his own distance from Epstein, the actions of others, media bias, or general statements about law and order and victim support. These maneuvers serve to minimize his association and redirect public attention. 

Usually, by understanding the ways in which subjects are changed in response to uncomfortable questions, observers and interviewers can develop more robust strategies for uncovering substantive answers and holding those in power to account. However, to put Mrs. Leavitt’s comments in plain English, that does not apply to Donald Trump. He has no intention of answering your question. Despite the persistence of the commoners, Trump’s Little Helpers are at the ready. Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, has already shut down the House until after Labor Day, ensuring there will be np sneaky little votes to force a House investigation of the Epstein matter before September. Take that MAGA. “The Epstein Chronicles: The Ultimate Trumpian Subject-Changer!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime.

A new post is published each Wednesday.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult the link below:

(In composing this post, Large Language model-based writing assistant AI Tool was used).

“Break It Down”

In the unpredictable theater of global politics, few relationships have been as scrutinized as that between past and current President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. For years, Trump’s approach to Putin was marked by a distinct tone of admiration and an apparent willingness to give the Russian leader the benefit of the doubt, even amidst controversy and criticism from both allies and opponents at home. Yet now, there appears to be a marked shift—Trump openly casting Putin as a “bad guy” in his public statements. What underlies this change, and what might it mean?

From the earliest days of his first term in office, Trump often praised Putin’s strongman image, calling him a “leader” and suggesting that U.S.-Russia relations could be improved through the inestimable power of his own personal rapport. Trump, after all, fancies himself as the king of dealmakers. Conversely, critics argued this stance was overly deferential, especially considering allegations of Russian interference in U.S. elections and aggressive foreign policies. Trump, however, frequently brushed aside such concerns, insisting that engagement—rather than confrontation—was the more pragmatic path.

Observers are left to wonder: What prompts Trump, now that he is on the Oval Office again, to distance himself, at least rhetorically, from his previous position? Several possible explanations present themselves:

• Political Strategy: With upcoming elections or shifting public moods, Trump may see value in appearing tougher on Russia to counter critics who have long accused him of being soft on authoritarian leaders.
• Changing Global Dynamics: As international condemnation of Russian actions intensifies, particularly in relation to conflicts and human rights concerns, maintaining a friendly tone toward Putin could be increasingly costly, politically and diplomatically.
• Reframing the Narrative: By taking a more critical stance now, Trump may aim to reframe his legacy, positioning himself as a pragmatic leader willing to adapt to changing realities.
• Pressure from Allies: Domestic and international allies, especially those in NATO, have grown more unified in their criticism of Russian policy. Trump’s shift may reflect a response to these allied pressures.
• An unexpected epiphany. Unlikely as it may seem, Trump finally came to his senses, and finally understands, that like his predecessors, Putin was playing, and winning a sophisticated game of misdirection, and like the Russian’s critics alleged, he had no intention of ending his war against Ukraine.

This rhetorical pivot has not gone unnoticed. Supporters may interpret it as a sign of growth or wisdom, while detractors could see it as opportunistic or inauthentic. Pundits and analysts, meanwhile, are left parsing Trump’s true intentions: Is the shift a genuine reassessment, or merely a calculated move for political advantage? As is often the case with Trump, he acts as if he believes reality bends to his rhetoric. Quite possibly, that is because, for his supporters, it pretty much does. In this case, he now pretends he never trusted Putin, as he asserts his disappointment in Putin’s continued bombing of Ukraine. He does this, even though, during his first term in office, he once said he trusted Putin over and above his own intelligence agencies.

While rhetoric alone does not determine policy, it often signals possible directions for future engagement. If Trump continues this trajectory, it could influence the tone of dialogue between the two nations and shape broader geopolitical strategies. It may also alter the expectations of allies and rivals alike, recalibrating the chessboard of international relations. In fact, while the national media in America is atwitter at Trump’s newfound bluster, at least when it comes to Putin and Russia, reaction in the Kremlin is one of umbrage. Analysts there have gone from pro-Trump to belittling the American President, and calling for nuclear reprisal, should Trump move forward with elevating the U.S. supply of offensive armaments to Ukraine. 

Political postures are rarely static, and the relationship between Trump and Putin is no exception. Whether this change in tone is a fleeting maneuver or the start of a lasting realignment remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that when high-profile leaders revise their public stances, the world takes notice—ever wary of what such shifts might portend for the global order. Meanwhile, when asked directly, whether Ukraine should attack Moscow directly, which it is alleged Trump asked about, Trump responded, no. It remains to be seen, whether this sudden hutzpah, as it relates to the head Muscovite is a fleeting mirage, or a spine induced growth spurt. My money is on the former.  “Sudden Shifts: Trump’s Changing Rhetoric On Putin!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime.

A new post is published each Wednesday.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult the links below:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/15/politics/trump-putin-rewrite-history-analysis

In composing this post, Large Language model-based writing assistant AI Tool was used.

“Break It Down!”

To say that the mere mention of “the Justice Department’s Epstein file” sends shivers down the spine of internet sleuths, political junkies, and late-night talk show hosts alike would be an understatement. Having laid down that marker, let’s go no further without remembering that that some of the brightest and most heralded luminaries of Team Trump promised to deliver the goods, so to speak, regarding the infamous Epstein File. Moreover, MAGA minds also contended Epstein did not commit suicide, as authorities stated at the time of his death.

For years, rumors of an Epstein “client list” have circulated online. As Trump’s most recent presidential campaign unfolded throughout 2024, the Big Guy himself intimated that were he to be returned to office by American voters, he might release a list of individuals associated with Epstein. (See legerdemain, political hucksterism, and Kool-Aid (as in “Don’t drink it)).

In February, Pam Bondi, U.S. Attorney General, fueled speculation regarding the so-called list when announcing the release of records related to the Epstein case. Unfortunately, for eagerly awaiting Trump sleuths, and their voracious appetite for new salacious, juicy weaponizable Democratic/liberal fodder, much of what was later distributed had been in the public domain for years.

In June, former DOGE impresario, and until recently, Trump pal, Elon Musk said the government had not released records related to the case because Trump “is in the Epstein files.” Of course, Trump dismissed the claim. Nevertheless, the assertion added jet fuel to the interest level in the government’s records. 

Context

Jeffrey Epstein was a convicted sex offender who died in a New York jail in 2019. At the time, he was awaiting additional sex trafficking charges. A noted successful financier, he was known to host high-profile guests on his private island of Little St. James in the U.S. Virgin Islands. That is where many of his alleged crimes are said to have occurred.

What To Know

In a recent memo following what authorities described as an “exhaustive review of investigative holdings relating to Jeffrey Epstein,” the FBI and DOJ said, “While we have labored to provide the public with maximum information regarding Epstein and ensured examination of any evidence in the government’s possession, it is the determination of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.” In short, no secret file, and no homicide.

That was followed by Trump writing on Truth Social: “The FBI, under the direction of Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino, is back to the basics: Locking up criminals, and cleaning up America’s streets.

We have the Greatest Law Enforcement professionals in the World, but ‘Politics’ and Corrupt Leadership often prevented them from doing their job. That is no longer the case, and now, they have been unleashed to do their jobs, and they are doing just that. Keep it up—MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN!”

This seemingly sudden about-face has roiled MAGAWorld. Trump supporters have taken the almost unheard of step of criticizing President Donald Trump following the review and assessment by the FBI and Department of Justice that found “no incriminating “client list” related to Jeffrey Epstein.

After praising FBI Director Kash Pate and Deputy Director Dan Bongino in a Truth Social post, Trump took major incoming, receiving pointed pushback from people from whom he normally receives unconditional, unyielding support.

A few examples of reactions from the MAGA faithful include:

Andrea Lizebeth wrote on Truth Social: “Trump I have been extremely loyal to you! I’m very pleased with almost everything you’re doing, but I absolutely draw the line on this one! If you are … brave, big heart, and will stand ten toes down for what’s right, then bring the truth to light!!! Release the info no matter what!!! 

If you don’t stop/expose what happened on that island and what is a huge problem in our country for these children then who will?! Somebody is being blackmailed!!! God put you in your position for a reason!!! If you do what’s right your supporters will always stand by you!!!”

Belinda Chartrand, another Truth Social user, who describes herself as a “wife, mother and patriot,” wrote: “I appreciate the hard work being done, but America deserves to see the Epstein list—and we need to see more arrests! No child should ever have to endure the kind of trauma these young girls suffered.

I don’t care if the names on the list are Democrats or Republicans, CEOs, or pastors. If they abused children, they belong in prison. As someone who has survived this kind of trauma, I can tell you these kids will carry the weight of it for the rest of their lives—it touches every single part of who they are, and they will never fully recover.”

A user named Katie, who used a profile picture/graphic that said, “We the people love Trump,” wrote: “We The People do not believe the latest Epstein excuses by the FBI and it’s insulting to your base of MAGA supporters!!! We KNOW it is not true!!!

When will you, Mr. President, demand accountability from the FBI? The children, sir?? Do it for them!! Heads need to roll for what these people did to the children!!”

The account “MAGA God Bless America” wrote: “No one of big significance has been arrested! Yes, they’ve done great things but the elite still skate.”

The account “Patriot4Life” wrote: “We thought no one was above the law. I guess we were wrong!”

What Happens Next

Trump, and numerous people vigorously trying out to be his top surrogates, stoked this fire, and they are now faced with the unenviable task of dousing the flames and crushing the embers. It is reasonable to presume, the skepticism, which TrumpWorld actively supercharged, will not be quickly or easily expunged.

Frankly, the question that MAGA’s finest should be asking themselves is, have they been played? The faux list, and the supposed suicide machination look/sound a lot like tried and true bromides to gin up the base with hate for good old-fashioned imaginary Democratic foils; something I’ve coined as DDS, or Democrat Derangement Syndrome. From afar, it sure looks like MAGA got took, hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray, and run amok by their besties. Footnote: Without Vaseline.

Trump and his A-Team will likely face continued scrutiny over promises made but not delivered. But seriously, what are they gonna do about it? “Hold Up, Wait A Minute: What Had Happened Was…”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime.

A new post is published each Wednesday.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult the links below:

https://www.newsweek.com/maga-donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-list-2095868

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-supporters-angry-justice-departments-epstein-memo/story?id=123567461

Large Language model-based writing assistant AI Tool was used in composing this post.

Break It Down

The NAACP, aka, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, is the nation’s premier, largest, and oldest civil rights organization, founded in 1909. Last month, CEO Derrick Johnson announced that this year, for the first time in the organization’s 116-year history, the NAACP will not invite Donald Trump, the sitting President, to its convention.

In the wake of the Trump Administration’s high energy, broadscale anti-DEI, anti-CRT, and anti-affirmative action campaigns, this deviation from historical norms has barely scratched the surface of the daily news. Instead, naming a former Fox & Friends Co-host Defense Secretary, replacing C.Q. Brown as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with a less qualified service member, removing the head of the Library of Congress with one of his former attorneys, and attacking the National Museum of African American History and Culture as “divisive,” are among the issues that have dominated the media landscape.

Johnson cited the reason for not inviting Trump, as his attacks on American Democracy: 

“The President has signed unconstitutional executive orders to oppress voters and undo federal civil rights protections; he has illegally turned the military on our communities, and he continually undermines every pillar of our democracy to make himself more powerful and to personally benefit from the U.S. government.  

This year’s NAACP convention will be held in a couple of weeks in Charlotte. The theme is “The Fierce Urgency of Now,” which echo’s the words of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and reflects current political divisions and threats to civil rights. Not extending Trump an invitation is yet another flashpoint between the Trump administration and the NAACP, which is conducting legal battles, including those against efforts to dismantle the Department of Education and changes to voting regulations.

In response to Derrick Johnson, and the NAACP, Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson said the “The NAACP isn’t advancing anything but hate and division, while the President is focused on uniting our country, improving our economy, securing our borders, and establishing peace across the globe.” I suppose this is where I note, Mr. Fields obviously spoke that last point before Trump boasted of having obliterated Iran’s nuclear capabilities. But I digress.

The NAACP has invited sitting presidents to its conventions since 1909, when it was founded. The historical tapestry includes all presidents, irrespective of political party. Johnson noted, “There is a rich history of both Republicans and Democrats attending our convention – from Harry S. Truman to Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and beyond. This administration does not respect the Constitution or the rule of law.”

Not surprisingly, Mr. Fields was not alone in his dismissiveness of the NAACP. To the extent voices on the right addressed the matter, they seemed all-in on attacking the organization for divisiveness. But hold up; wait a minute. A key aspect of the discussion has been repeatedly overlooked. Mr. Trump actually has a record. As the phrase goes, this is not his first rodeo.

In 2016, when, he was merely a candidate, of course, he was still extended the courtesy of an invitation. Don’t be shocked, but, he declined to address the NAACP Convention as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. After being elected, President Trump declined to speak at the convention in 2017. In 2018? Yep, declined again. In 2019, he refused to address the convention, he said, because of changes in the date and format of the appearance. Trump said the organization wanted a question-and-answer session, instead of a speech, which he had agreed to deliver. It was probably just as well. Convention delegated unanimously voted to call for Trump’s impeachment. I didn’t find any record of a 2020 snub. I’m gonna give him the benefit of the doubt and blame that one on Covid and the shutdown. And no, I’m not going to suggest he created the pandemic, so he wouldn’t have to attend the convention. 

In the past, Republican presidents have attended the conventions, recognizing their role in shaping national conversations on race and civil rights. While at the 2006 convention, President George W. Bush lamented that the Republican Party had let go of its ties to the Black community. “For too long my party wrote off the African American vote, and many African Americans wrote off the Republican Party,” he said to applause.

“That history has prevented us from working together when we agree on great goals. That’s not good for our country … I want to change the relationship,” he added.

And in 1981, President Ronald Reagan rebuked racial bigotry as fundamentally un-American, saying in his convention address: “A few isolated groups in the backwater of American life still hold perverted notions of what America is all about,” adding that “this country, because of what it stands for, will not stand for your conduct.” 

Whatever dude!

So as not to put too fine a point on the matter, perhaps we should re-evaluate the current situation. All things considered, maybe the organization simply shouldn’t have bothered to request the honor of someone’s presence, who clearly has no interest in, or intention to attend your event. “The NAACP Didn’t Invite Trump To Its Convention: Don’t Bury The Lede!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime.

A new post is published each Wednesday.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult the links below:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/06/17/naacp-trump-invite-president/?=undefined

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP

“Break It Down!”

If one were to take a ride in the Wayback Time Machine, to August 17, 1998, one might read about or hear the President of the United States say: “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. … Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.” – Bill Clinton, August 17, 1998

Nearly three decades ago, that slick wordplay was the source of countless jokes. It was the handiwork or a former Rhodes Scholar attempting to use his presumed superior intellect to filibuster his way out of a potentially existential (to his presidency) jam. Suffice it to say, aside from generating comic relief among the masses, it didn’t work. He went on to be impeached four months later. Some would argue that such an ego-driven word salad warranted that impeachment. Of course there was more to his getting impeached, than his testing the elasticity of the word is, but I digress.

Saturday night I read that Donald Trump, President of the United States, and Commander-in-Chief of the nation’s military, after a surprise, and I might add, successful “Operation Midnight Hammer” attack on three Iran nuclear facilities (Fordo, Isfahan, and Natanz), said, and I quote, “Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.”

As to be expected, TrumpWorld, led by his cabinet, rallied, at least initially, to echo, subtweet, and hit the news shows with the intent of seeing how often, how loud, and how enthusiastically they could say the word Obliterated.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said, “Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on ABC, “We are confident, yes, that Iran’s nuclear sites were completely and totally obliterated, as the president said in his address to the nation on Saturday night.”

On Sunday, Trump doubled down on the assertion, writing on Truth Social, “Monumental Damage was done to all nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term! The white structure shown is deeply imbedded into the rock, with its roof well below ground level, and completely shielded from flame. The biggest damage took place far below ground level. Bullseye!!!”

I’m not a nuclear scientist, I’m not a reporter, I’m not a soldier, but even I know…minutes, or even hours after such a strike, successful though it were, the notion of the obliteration of the facilities, and especially the ambitions of the so-called number one state sponsor of terrorism is but hyperbole. When Trump first made the claim, there had not been nearly enough time to conduct a review thorough enough to confirm such a boastful assertion. Moreover, there are 18 intelligence agencies…not a chance such a determination had been made, and or, agreed upon. 

Of course, let’s not ignore the elephant in the room. Trump is engaged in a perpetual campaign to role back the legislative successes of his Democratic predecessors, Obama and Biden, and to one-up them both, at every opportunity. To wit, going all the way back to his first term in office, Trump has cast himself as worthy of a Nobel Peace! Prize (which President Obama won). What better way to burnish and cement his bona fides for the award, than to orchestrate an end to what he has deemed “The 12-Day War?” 

Let’s be clear. From what we know so far, the plan was bold, and its execution, flawless. That, in and of itself, should have been enough to tout. But just as with the “Big Beautiful Bill,” Trump loves and needs the razzle-dazzle. It wasn’t enough to be proficient and precise, he desperately needed to floss, as the kids say. So, he did.

When Clinton was flummoxed by his inane word choice, he was trying to stay a step ahead of Ken Starr’s posse. It didn’t work. But, from a technocrat’s view, he won the rhetorical argument. There is indeed a distinction between is and was. Unfortunately, Clinton was on the wrong side of both of them. 

In Trump’s case, the definition of obliterate is to eradicate, erase, abolish, destroy, annihilate, or expunge. To put it bluntly, to un-exist something. That simply did not happen. First and foremost, it’s questionable whether that was even the objective. Iran has thirty nuclear sites. This operation attacked only three of them. If they had nuclear ambitions before the mission, they almost certainly still do; and after an attack, they may be even more motivated. “Operation Midnight Hammer” was a spectacular military success. If only Mr. Trump had stopped there, he’d have remained on solid ground. Alas, he just couldn’t leave well enough alone. It simply wasn’t a total obliteration of Iran’s key nuclear facilities, to say nothing of their ambitions. “Trump’s Nobel Quest: Why His ‘Obliterated” Is Not The Contemporary Equivalent of Clinton’s “Is!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime.

A new post is published each Wednesday.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult the links below:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1998/09/bill-clinton-and-the-meaning-of-is.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/23/donald-trump-calls-obliteration-an-accurate-description-of-damage-to-irans-nuclear-facilities.html

“Break It Down!”

Generally, people tend to think of funerals as sad affairs. And, regardless of your religious bent, or your spiritual inclination, there is usually some degree of lamentation. As a PK, I understand the Christian principle, that to be absent the body, is to be present with the Lord. Still, as mortals, we, the survivors, are frequently, if not usually, sad. But not always!

I attended a funeral yesterday. The deceased lived 97 years. By all accounts, and there were many, he didn’t just exist on this planet for 97 years, he lived! He lived to serve, and he served for the duration of his life.

In our community, funerals are often referred to as Homegoing Services. Yesterday, that euphemism seemed apt. More than half a dozen speakers from different arenas of the decedent’s life paid tribute to him, and they not only appeared glad to be there, but they left me with the impression that they wouldn’t have considered not being there, or being there and not speaking about the life of the dearly departed, and the many ways he impacted both his community in general, and themelves in particular.

The Eulogist understood the assignment. Moreover, he deftly incorporated the comments of the litany of speakers to present his subject in a manner that was elegant; yet also underscored by simplicity. After citing his own personal examples of being tutored in life lessons by the man whose funeral he was preaching, he circled back to demonstrate the art of beginning with the end in mind. He had established as his subject: Amen. He concluded by defining Amen as, I agree, or so be it, or it is so. Then in reference to the entirety of comments, including the homily, he implored those assembled, “Let the church say Amen.” And the church said…”Amen!”  

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime.

A new post is published each Wednesday.