“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.

Break It Down!

In his novel, “Requiem for a Nun,” William Faulkner wrote, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past. All of us labor in webs spun long before we were born, webs of heredity and environment, of desire and consequence, of history and eternity.” The story has been described as a haunting exploration of the past on the present. Born near the end of the 19^th century Faulkner grew up in Oxford…Mississippi, listening to and being influenced by stories told by his elders — stories that incorporated the Civil War, slavery, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Faulkner family. Stipulating those facts, it’s easy enough to see how Faulkner’s world view could be predicated on powerful elements that unfolded a generation or two before he was born.

Having said all that, let me be clear, this post is in no way related to Faulkner. Rather, it’s about contemporary culture warriors, unable, or unwilling, or both, to divest themselves from the past. A past they never wanted to relinquish, and one they brought back, at the first available opportunity.

So, in case you haven’t heard, Donald Trump, while visiting Fort Bragg yesterday, announced, “We are going to be restoring the names to Fort Pickett, Fort Hood, Fort Gordon, Fort Rucker, Fort Polk, Fort A.P. Hill, and Fort Robert E. Lee. We won a lot of battles out of those forts. It’s no time to change.”  In March, Pete Hegseth changed back the name Fort Liberty, the nation’s largest Army base, to Fort Bragg. In April, he changed Fort Moore back to Fort Benning.

Looked at on its face, this grand renaming scheme boils down to a game of juvenile legerdemain. In 2023, the Biden administration changed the name of several military installations that had be named in honor of Confederate icons. When one considers the Confederacy was composed of states that not only seceded from America, but fought America in a war, to do so, opting not to honor heroes of your vanquished enemy seems like a reasonable and logical thing to do.

Of course, adhering to policy prescriptions based on reasonableness and logic could never prevail in this regime. One might even consider it a telling matter that this administration would expend so much time, energy, and money to reclaim base appellations with the surnames of Confederates. Alas, there was one little sticking point. Congress, in its infinite wisdom, had approved ditching the Confederate connection. In order to give the installations their old name, they had to scrub the services to find other individuals with those last names. For example, instead of Confederate General Braxton Bragg, Fort Bragg is now, so we are told, named for Roland L. Bragg, a World War II paratrooper and Silver Star recipient from Maine.

And so it goes. There’s a similar story supporting each of the renamed-to-their-old-name military installations. This is yet another example of the lengths this regime and its supporters will go to retain its connection to a racist and bigoted past. William Faulkner would certainly understand, if not appreciate, this compulsion to go “Back To The Future!”

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/2025/06/10/politics/army-restore-confederate-names-military-bases

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

Break It Down!

Last week I posted while at sea. That was a piece of cake, compared to today, when I’m posting after a day that for me, has already lasted way past 24 hours. I know what you’re thinking. There are only 24 hours in a day. You’re right, of course. But I began my Tuesday in a city six time zones east of here, at 5:00 a.m., which translates to 11:00 p.m. Monday here in Charlotte. After 2 flights covering 10 hours in the air, and nearly 4,500 miles, and another 10 hours in 3 airports, I returned home to reclaim my life: retrieving mail from a neighbor, getting in 90-minutes on a recumbent bike, taking a shower, unpacking. You know, normal non-vacation life things. Now for the blog. 

It was tempting to reprise an old post. But after nearly two weeks abroad, there was just too much happening not to explore a contemporary topic. I chose one to speak on, ever so briefly. 

The peculiar, and often tricky thing about bosom buddies is, while the individual parties may grow apart, and their interests diverge…life goes on. Often this re-centering of personal priorities goes unnoticed. However, when the two principals are the current President of the United States, who, at least according to The Atlantic, has said, “I run the country and the world,” and the world’s richest man, who until recently, served as a special government employee, there are going to be ripples, and the world, the portion of it occupied by the United States anyway, is going to notice.

During last year’s Presidential Campaign, Elon Musk aligned himself with Donald Trump and the Right. Some would argue, more with Trump than the Right. Over the course of the campaign, multiple media sources reported that Musk infused Republican campaigns with more than $270 million. If you’re checking to see if the math is mathing, that equates to a $million or more for each Electoral College vote. 

As a result of Musk’s windfall investment, he instantly became a favorite of conservatives, after having been considered just another wealthy, but kooky liberal, Simultaneously, he was widely castigated by liberals. Some even attacked Tesla showrooms and service centers, as well as individual owners and their vehicles.

After his warm generosity, and key assistance in helping Trump regain the White House, Mr. Trump rewarded him by making him the Co-Leader of the Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE), along with Vivek Ramaswamy. According to numerous news reports, Ramaswamy clashed with Musk, and soon quit. He is said to be considering a run for Ohio Governor.

Musk spent a controversial stint as a special government employee. He gutted the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and substantially hampered Health and Human Services, the Social Security Administration, the Department of Education, and the General Services Administration…news reports say. He promised to cut $2 trillion dollars from the budget. More recent estimates from DOGE put the number around $150 billion, which some experts say is still improbable. If you’re still tracking the math, that’s a fraction of what was promised.

After a chaotic experience in government, plus an unsustainable pushback at Tesla, both internal and external, Musk announced he would be exiting his role as a special employee; a position that current rules limit to 130 days within any 365-day period. Of course, there is a perception of a “rules are made to be broken” governing philosophy in the Trump administration, based on Trump and Company frequently challenging the rules, almost no matter what.

Yesterday, in the face of his departure, and Trump’s lobbying Congress to pass his Big, Beautiful Bill, which the House has done, with the slimmest of margins, Musk pointedly pushed back, challenging the efficacy of the bill. He had previously expressed disappointment about the bill but escalated considerably the tone and tenor of his disagreement, when he wrote on X, “I’m sorry, but I just can’t take it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.”

He added in a subsequent post: “Congress is making America bankrupt.”

In yet another post, he said: “In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people.”

There’s more that could be said, but after having only “airplane sleep” in the last 27 hours, I’m calling it a wrap. ““A Disgusting Abomination,” Oh My!”

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.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/03/politics/elon-musk-trump-republican-bill

Please enjoy a reprised edition of “Break It Down!” This post was originally published May 30, 2012 at: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com, reposted May 27, 2015 at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com as “Memorial Day: What Your Teacher Never Told You!,“ again on May 31, 2017, May 29, 2019, on May 27, 2020,  May 31, 2023, and last on May 29, 2024.

OK, so Memorial Day was earlier this week. You may be familiar with my holiday week philosophy, which is: make it easy on the readers, who are always otherwise engaged, no matter the holiday. Of course, in the process, I am also giving myself a break. That makes for a natural win-win scenario.

With that  overarching thought in mind, I will endeavor to apply three elementary rules of communication:

• Utilize the KISS Principle, AKA, Keep It Short & Simple (also Keep It Simple Stupid).
• Convey new or “not widely circulated” information.
• Always remember to emphasize points 1 and 2 above.

Memorial Day is a federal holiday to honor America’s fallen soldiers. It originated after the Civil War. Falling between Easter and Independence Day, it is often equated with a late spring break, or a pre-summer respite.

The weekend typically includes a cornucopia of sports.  For example this week included the NASCAR Coca-Cola 600, the NBA Playoffs, College Men’s Baseball playoffs, and College Women’s Softball competition, as well as others, such as the ACC Men’s Baseball Tournament Championship, and NCAA Women’s Lacrosse, both won, coincidentally, by the University of North Carolina Tar Heels. GO HEELS! 

Historically, there have been a plethora of other activities thrown into the mix. As a result, the holiday is sometimes almost lost in the shuffle. 

But wait; Memorial Day has a special cultural significance. In fact, it is because of that nexus we should pay special homage to this late spring holiday. 

In the annals of Trump 2.0, in which Don and his consiglieres are running it back, in new and improved (in his opinion) fashion. One of the more pronounced features of this new high octane Round 2 is a full-frontal assault on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives. To date, the most visible aspect of this slash and burn effort is to target and un-exist positions, programs, and services designed to assist or employ Black people.

The irony here is, the first well-known observance of a Memorial Day type was held May 1, 1865, in Charleston, South Carolina. Over 250 Union soldiers that had been prisoners of war, died in Charleston, and were quickly buried in makeshift graves. A group of blacks, mostly freedmen, organized the observance and led cleanup and landscaping of the burial site.

Most of the nearly 10,000 people who attended were freedmen and their families. Of that number, 3.000 were children, newly enrolled in freedman’s schools. Mutual aid societies, black ministers, and white Northern missionaries were also in attendance.

David W. Blight, Professor of American History at Yale University, and Director of the school’s Gilder-Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, & Abolition, described the day this way:

“This was the first Memorial Day. African Americans invented Memorial Day in Charleston, South Carolina. What you have there is black Americans recently freed from slavery announcing to the world with their flowers, their feet, and their songs what the War had been about. What they basically were creating was the Independence Day of a Second American Revolution.”

Professor Blight conceded there is no evidence that the Charleston event led directly to the establishment of Memorial Day across the country.  But the record is clear they formed the earliest truly large-scale event, complete with media coverage.  Their effort was the prototype, if not the catalyst.

Having said that, I believe I honored the rules established above for this post:

• Told this story in a direct and uncomplicated fashion
• Presented information I am confident most readers did not know
• Recognized points 1 and 2, were accomplished and closed the post

Enjoy your bonus time and be sure to reflect on “Memorial Day: What Your Teacher Never Taught You (Edition VIII)!

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 relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/

wiki/Memorial_Day

http://www.davidwblight.com/

http://www.snopes.com/military/memorialday.asp

http://www.dailykos.com/story2014/05/25/1301862/-Memorial-Day-Has-African-American-Roots-First-One-Was-Conducted-By-Former-Slaves#

http://en.wiktionary.org/

wiki/KISS_principle

wiki/American_Civil_War

http://www.yale.edu/glc/index.htm

http://www.civilwarhome.com/freedmen.htm

If You Know, You Know, But, If You Don’t…You Might Be A Trump Appointee

Habeas corpus is a bedrock legal principle requiring that government be able to produce a reason to detain someone. I lay this out at the start of this conversation for three reasons. First, because the average American may not know what it means, second, because the Trump administration is allegedly considering suspending Habeas Corpus, and third, one of Trump’s top lieutenants attempting to bluff her way through testifying before a Senate Committee doesn’t, or at least didn’t know what it means.

Yesterday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem testified before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on the Department of Homeland Security fiscal year ’26 budget. In the process, she was asked to define the aforementioned legal principle. Noem, in responding to Senator Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., responded: “Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country.”

Of course, habeas corpus is a legal principle that safeguards individuals from unlawful imprisonment by enabling them to petition the court to review the legality of the detention. President Trump likes to boast about hiring the best people. Simultaneously, he has engaged in a full-frontal assault on DEI and other remedies to historical disparities, especially in employment. That someone he placed in this key position was unable to correctly answer such a basic question about a fundamental tenet of a core responsibility of the job, is at best, tragicomic. But it was also the latest example of one of Trump’s so-called best people lacking the foundational heft to understand key elements of her job assignment. “If You Know, You Know; If You Don’t…You Might Be A Trump Appointee!”

I’m done; holla back!

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

It’s time to Break It Down!

President Donald Trump has announced what liberally might be called his plan to accept a jet from Qatar for use as Air Force One. As word spread about the pending largess from a foreign government, particularly one with dubious ties to some of our most notorious adversaries, Trump has gone on the defensive, arguing it would be stupid not to accept the gift of the Qatari plane.

Surprisingly, at least a few of MAGA’s most dedicated and celebrated supporters beg to differ.

In an unusual departure from their typically predictable sycophancy, some MAGA media outlets and the voices behind them are activating their platforms to urge Trump to change his mind about this extraordinary and extravagant gift. Still others are asking Trump voters to reflect upon how they would react if a Democratic president endeavored to enact this very same plan. 

Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro said Monday on his podcast, “I think if we switched the names to Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, we’d all be freaking out on the right.” 

Shapiro also linked the potential Qatari deal with other reports of “influence peddling,” like Trump’s cryptocurrency sweepstakes.

Shapiro added, “The administration’s policy is too important for this sort of activity.” He emphasized that he wants Trump to succeed. “President Trump promised to drain the swamp. This is not, in fact, draining the swamp.”

Naturally, some Trump-aligned commentators and social media stars are echoing the president’s talking points about the luxury jet, including his insistence that only “stupid people” would turn down such a gift. Other MAGA media outlets are deflecting the criticism by sowing doubt about the media coverage of the controversy. After all, the non-MAGA media is considered the enemy of the people, by Trump and MAGA.

However, a surprising number of Trumpniks sound almost as outraged as the Democratic lawmakers who say accepting the plane would be profoundly unethical and possibly illegal.

Many of these right-wing critics, like Laura Loomer, predicated their objections on Qatar’s relationship with the militant group Hamas.

Key members of Hamas leadership have long been based in Doha, the capital of Qatar. Notably, Qatar reportedly agreed to expel Hamas officials last November.

Laura Loomer criticized Trump’s potential jet deal on Sunday and Monday by writing a series of anti-Qatar posts on X, including:

“This is really going to be such a stain on the admin if this is true.” 

“And I say that as someone who would take a bullet for Trump. I’m so disappointed.”

Fox News host Mark Levin shared her post and wrote, “Ditto.”

For now, most of the conservative criticism has been leveled in social media spaces, not on the TV shows Trump is known to enjoy. The jet controversy has been only lightly covered on Fox News, the country’s dominant right-wing TV channel. The main story on Fox’s website about the matter on Monday was titled, “Trump rips ABC reporter for asking about accepting luxury jet from Qatar,” making it sound as though ABC was the problem.

In one outlier instance, “Fox & Friends” host Brian Kilmeade asked White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt about the matter on Monday morning.

In responding, Leavitt framed it as a government-to-government transaction that would be done “in full compliance with the law.” In doing so, she sidestepped reports that Trump’s presidential library will take possession of the plane shortly before he leaves office, which of course, would ensure he can still use it.

The “Fox & Friends” host followed up by asking Leavitt, “Do you worry that if they give us something like this, they want something in return?” The press secretary said no because Trump “only works with the interest of the American public in mind.”

Kilmeade then dropped the subject, moving on to Mother’s Day.

Some other conservative media figures seem less inclined to move on.

Batya Ungar-Sargon, who has championed the MAGA movement on CNN and other channels, told Newsmax on Monday afternoon, “This is not a gift” from Qatar, it’s “a bribe.”

National Review contributing editor Andrew McCarthy wrote Monday that accepting the plane is “indefensible. The president and his flacks again demonstrate that they don’t grasp the concepts of constitutional duty and conflicts of interest.” He cited the “Trump family crypto venture” as another example.

Talk radio host Erick Erickson, who, like the National Review, has often criticized Trump from a conservative perspective, didn’t mince his condemnation of the potential jet gift.

On his Monday show, Erickson argued that Qatar is not a US ally (though the US government disagrees) and pointed out that Attorney General Pam Bondi, who reportedly signed off on the legality of the gift, was previously a paid lobbyist for Qatar.

“I think she’s opening Donald Trump up to legal trouble later,” Erickson said.

Later in the day, on X, Erickson observed that “even a lot of Trump supporters were not thrilled about the Qatar plane gift” when the initial reports surfaced on Sunday.

Erickson suggested bots are flooding X with pro-Trump propaganda, “a lot of small accounts I’ve never interacted with before are flooding my timeline insisting it is a great idea.”

“When MAGA Says: “Indefensible.” “It’s a bribe.” “Such a stain” on the administration!”

I’m done; holla back!

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

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/12/media/maga-media-shapiro-loomer-levin-trump-qatar-plane-gift