Tag Archives: politics

Obama’s JCPOA vs. Trump’s Iran Deal: To Win or Not To Win

Posted on by
Reply

BREAK IT DOWN!

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an agreement reached by the Obama Administration in 2015, and President Donald Trump’s more recent deal or negotiating framework with Iran share a central aim: preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. In that sense, both approaches are built around deterrence, nonproliferation, and the belief that Iran’s nuclear program must be constrained in some way. Both also rely on the same broad logic of exchange—Iran accepts limits, while the United States and its partners offer some form of economic or political benefit. Yet the similarities become thinner once the structure, diplomacy, and strategic assumptions of each are examined.

The biggest difference is that the JCPOA was a detailed multilateral agreement, while Trump’s approach has been more unilateral, coercive, and politically personalized. The JCPOA was negotiated by Iran and the P5+1—China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—with the European Union playing a major coordinating role. It imposed precise, technical limits on Iran’s uranium enrichment, centrifuge numbers, stockpile size, and plutonium pathway, while giving the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) a central role in monitoring and verification. 

In exchange, Iran received phased sanctions relief. By contrast, Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, arguing that it was too weak, too temporary, and too narrow because it did not permanently end enrichment, fully address ballistic missiles, or curb Iran’s regional proxy activity. His “maximum pressure” campaign relied on sanctions and leverage first, with diplomacy coming later and on terms more explicitly shaped by U.S. demands.

Another major difference lies in how each side understood the purpose of a deal. The JCPOA was designed as a managed arms-control arrangement: it did not attempt to transform Iran’s regime or eliminate every source of tension, but rather to lengthen Iran’s “breakout time” and create transparency through inspections. Trump’s preferred deal, by contrast, has typically been framed as a broader strategic reset—one that would not only stop nuclear weapons development but also produce a tougher and more durable outcome than the Obama-era agreement. 

Supporters of Trump’s view argue that the JCPOA’s sunset clauses and narrow scope made it insufficient. Critics respond that any realistic new deal often ends up looking similar to the JCPOA because inspections, enrichment limits, and sanctions relief remain the basic building blocks of any workable bargain.

Still, there are important continuities. Both frameworks assume Iran will not simply abandon its nuclear capacity without reciprocal incentives. Both depend, at least in principle, on outside verification and on some negotiated balance between pressure and compromise. And both reflect the same long-standing American dilemma: whether the better path is an imperfect diplomatic agreement or a riskier strategy built on escalation and possible military confrontation.

The JCPOA and Trump’s Iran deal are similar in objective but different in method, tone, and ambition. The JCPOA emphasized multilateral diplomacy, technical limits, and inspection-based confidence building. Trump’s approach emphasized pressure, tougher bargaining, and a promise of a “better” agreement that would go beyond the original deal. Whether the newer framework proves genuinely different in substance or simply a rebranded version of earlier diplomacy remains the key question. 

It will take time to know with certitude just how to distinguish between the two plans. However, there are visible, measurable, and fundamentally distinct items to consider as you reach your ultimate judgment.

As of this moment in time, The Trump administration does not have a plan. It has a framework for a plan. The principals have agreed in principle to take the next 60 days to work on devising a plan. What a neat trick. Happy Birthday Mr. President. 

As noted above, Trump pulled the U.S. out of the JCPOA in 2018, during his prior term in office. So, after 109 days of planning to plan for a plan, the Trump administration proposes to take two more months to come up with said plan…that it has been saying for weeks, if not months is already done. Or will be done soon. Or in the next few days. Or the next few weeks. Or…at any time now.

it’s important to reflect on the fact the JCPOA was an actual plan, complete with multiple nation-state participants. The agreement, which took 20 months to negotiate, created mechanisms to measure Iran’s compliance. According to not just the United States, but also to the other nations involved in the agreement (China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United Kingdom), along with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran was complying; the agreement was working. This plan was crafted, formalized, adopted, and executed through diplomacy.

That last note makes it imperative to reflect on several points. In the lead up to the coming plan, Mr. Trump, allegedly based on the advice and counsel of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, launched, along with Israel, a joint preemptive strike against Iran, known as Operation Epic Fury. In some spaces, that strike has come to be known as Trump’s War of Choice. We are told that with choices, come consequences. One immediate, likely unintended consequence of the attack was that most of Iran’s political leadership was killed. Their demise, by most accounts, eliminated the most moderate faction of Iranian leadership. That results in any ongoing negotiations being dependent upon working with more hard-core extremists, including Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in the strike. Reports say Mojtaba, the new Supreme Leader, was also seriously injured during the attack. One can imagine his negotiating mind set.

Several specific delineated consequences to consider include:

The war

The loss of American blood and treasure, aka lives and military equipment

Fostering military attacks on our allies and assets in the region

Facilitating, if not expediting, Iran’s move to block or hold the Strait of Hormuz hostage

The mining of the Strait of Hormuz

Emboldening Israel to escalate attacks in the region under the cover of U.S. protection 

Providing the blueprint for future blockading of the Strait of Hormuz/de facto Iranian control

Dwarfing the pallets of money from the JCPOA that Trump & friends obsessed over. Oh my! 

Consider, if you will, “Obama’s JCPOA vs. Trump’s Iran Deal: To Win or Not To Win!”

I’m done; holla back!

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

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

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

Obama’s JCPOA vs. Trump’s Iran Deal: To Win or Not To Win

This post was augmented by the use of AI.

It’s Time to Talk Straight on Hormuz

Posted on by
Reply

BREAK IT DOWN! 

The conundrum of the Strait of Hormuz lies in the fact that the world depends on a waterway that is both indispensable and persistently vulnerable. This narrow passage between Iran and Oman connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. 

Yet despite its modest width, it carries an enormous share of the world’s energy trade. Recent estimates indicate that around 20 million barrels of oil and oil products move through the strait each day, along with a substantial portion of global liquefied natural gas exports, when the Strait is open and operable. 

For major Gulf producers such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, the strait remains the main route to international markets. That makes it not just a regional corridor, but a global economic pressure point.

The core problem is strategic as much as geographic. The Strait of Hormuz is a classic chokepoint: narrow enough to be threatened, but important enough that even a brief disruption can unsettle world markets. Iran’s position on the northern side of the strait gives it leverage. It has long viewed that leverage as part of a broader deterrence strategy against regional rivals and outside powers, especially the United States. 

At the same time, the United States and its partners see freedom of navigation through the strait as essential to global commerce and regional stability. This creates a recurring security dilemma. Measures taken by one side to deter conflict, such as military patrols, naval escorts, missile deployments, or maritime warnings, are often interpreted by the other side as preparation for confrontation. As a result, actions intended to stabilize the strait can actually promote a more tense environment.

The economic stakes intensify the puzzle. There are some alternatives to Hormuz, including pipelines that can bypass part of the route, but they do not fully replace the volume that normally passes through the strait. That means markets react sharply even to partial disruptions, insurance spikes, or shipping delays. Asian economies are especially exposed because a large share of the oil transiting Hormuz is destined for countries such as China, India, Japan, and South Korea. 

In that sense, the conundrum is global: a local conflict or miscalculation can trigger inflation, supply shocks, and financial volatility far beyond the Gulf. Even when the strait is not formally closed, the mere perception of danger can alter shipping patterns and raise costs.

Ultimately, the Strait of Hormuz illustrates a larger geopolitical paradox: the more vital a route becomes, the more attractive it is as a source of leverage, and the harder it is to secure without escalating tensions. No major actor truly benefits from a prolonged closure, including Iran, because disruption would also damage regional economies and global demand. Yet the threat of disruption remains powerful precisely because the world has not found a reliable substitute for the strait. That is why Hormuz remains a conundrum rather than merely a shipping lane. It is a place where geography, energy dependence, military signaling, and global finance converge, making stability essential, but never guaranteed.

All of the above reflects the theoretical framework of what makes the Strait of Hormuz critical to both U.S. and global interests. Then, the United States and Israel initiated coordinated strikes against Iran on February 28, 2026. In retaliation, Iran enforced the effective closure of the Strait by attacking and threatening vessels attempting to navigate the crucial waterway and by boobytrapping said waterway with mines. That’s when, for lack of a better adjective, things got…interesting.

The President of the United States aligned with Israel in an effort to cow Iran into submission. Quickly. Interestingly, while Iran was always capable of launching such a blockage, which this administration frequently mentions, it’s simply essential to note, for the record, that it had never done so. Not under Clinton, not under Obama, not under Biden, not even in Trump’s first term. 

Let’s be clear, it did not happen until Trump was deluded into launching a strike to preclude Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The rub here, and there is one, is that Mr. Trump boasted loud, long, and often, that he had launched an assault that obliterated Iran’s nuclear capacity, Moreover, he contended it would take years, not a year, but years to reassemble the apparatus necessary to become a nuclear nation. And yet, here we are a few months later without even a hint of “I was wrong,” claiming it was necessary to initiate a preemptive strike to solve a problem he previously claimed to have definitively solved. Talk about Fake News.   

Mr. Netanyahu allegedly persuaded the American Stable Genius that a collective U.S.-Israeli show of force would render Iran feckless and defeated in short order. Since March 1, Mr. Trump has assured Americans that Iran would fold, in a matter of days, then in a matter of weeks. Claims he has reiterated, with a straight face and a faux confident tone. Over, and over, and over again…38 times and counting.

I am not prepared to say, we are engaged in the next forever war. I absolutely pray we are not. But if there is one thing that is true, and readily visible to even those of us who possess what jokesters often refer to as lying eyes, it is that Trump “may not” have lied…but he sure as hades was wrong. We are engaged in a new war, and no amount of fanciful wordsmithing, and contorting the language can transpose this into another imaginary war ended by the MAGA-in-Chief. “It’s Time to Talk Straight on Hormuz!”

I’m done; holla back!

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

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

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

It’s Time to Talk Straight on Hormuz

This post was augmented by the use of AI.

If It’s Not In Writing, Is It Really A Deal?

Posted on by
Reply

“BREAK IT DOWN!”

A couple of weeks ago, I penned a post entitled, “It’s A Great Deal…If You Can Get It”(https://thesphinxofcharlotte.com/2026/05/20/its-a-great-deal-if-you-can-get-it/). Yesterday, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche made an announcement that suggests it may not be possible to get it. At least, not all of it.

The decision to abandon the Justice Department’s proposed “anti-weaponization” fund while preserving the separate ban on audits of President Donald Trump’s past tax returns underscores a familiar pattern in Washington: when a controversial package becomes politically toxic, officials often jettison the most visible liability while trying to preserve the quieter but more consequential benefit. Recent reporting indicates that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told lawmakers the administration would no longer proceed with the roughly $1.776 billion fund after backlash from Republican senators as well as broader criticism that it could become a vehicle for politically sympathetic claimants, including people tied to January 6. At the same time, Blanche said the agreement shielding Trump and his family from future audits of previously filed returns would stay in place.

That split matters. The fund was always the easier target because it was public, expensive, and symbolically explosive. The Department of Justice had framed it as a mechanism to compensate victims of alleged government “lawfare,” but critics across the political spectrum saw it as a slush fund in waiting. The strongest objections were not just legal but political: lawmakers worried about taxpayer money being used to reward allies of the president or individuals who would become instant symbols of partisan grievance.

Once that perception hardened, the fund became a burden on the administration’s broader agenda, especially as Republican legislators signaled it could complicate unrelated negotiations over immigration and spending. In short, the fund generated immediate heat and limited upside. Dropping it was a way to defuse the loudest controversy.

The audit ban, however, appears to be the provision the administration most wanted to preserve. Unlike the fund, it does not require creating a new bureaucracy, distributing money, or defending visible payouts. Yet it may be far more significant in practical terms. Reporting on the settlement indicates that the IRS is barred from auditing returns filed before May 18, 2026, covering Trump, certain family members, trusts, and businesses. 

Legal and tax experts have described that kind of prospective immunity from examination as extraordinary and difficult to reverse. Because the provision is embedded in a settlement agreement rather than a headline-grabbing public program, its political profile is lower—even though its long-term implications may be greater. It diminishes scrutiny, if not controversy.

Seen that way, dropping the anti-weaponization fund while keeping the tax-audit shield is less a retreat than a recalibration. The administration appears to have concluded that it could sacrifice the most combustible piece of the arrangement while retaining the part that most directly benefits Trump and his family. Politically, that may blunt some immediate criticism, because the discarded provision was easier to explain in one shocking number: nearly $1.8 billion. But substantively, the surviving clause may prove more important, because it narrows the government’s ability to examine past tax matters involving the sitting president. If the fund was the flashpoint, the audit ban is the legacy provision. And that is why the real story is not only what was dropped, but what remains. But not so fast. Mr. Blanche was asked whether he would provide a written memo detailing the decision to forego the nearly $2 billion settlement? He declined. No disrespect to the Acting AG, but this non-legal scholar’s inquiring mind wonders, “If It’s Not In Writing, Is It Really A Deal?”

I’m done; holla back!

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

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

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

If It’s Not In Writing, Is It Really A Deal?

This post was augmented by the use of AI.

It’s A Great Deal…If You Can Get It

Posted on by
1

BREAK IT DOWN!

This has been another eventful week for government in the United States…and it’s only Wednesday. Another GOP Congressman targeted by DJ Trump lost his re-election bid. Down goes Thomas Massie. The Kentucky solon, who lost last night, joined the five Indiana Senators who lost a couple of weeks ago, after also having been targeted by Trump. 

As an aside, Senator John Cornyn of Texas saw Trump throw his endorsement to his opponent, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Most observers now cede next week’s runoff to Paxton, aided by Trump’s backing. While Paxton may win, his candidacy is not without concerns. He has previously overcome several controversies, including, impeachment, felony securities fraud allegations, which he ultimately settled, election integrity (attempt to overturn the 2020 Election) issues, and a marital/divorce scandal. These issues are not expected to derail his GOP runoff chances.  

Believe it or not, actual election matters are not the top line. Earlier this week, it was reported that Trump was dropping his $10 billion, that’s billion with a b, suit against his own Department of Justice. Instead of $10B, a $1.776 billion dollar settlement was reached, which will provide payouts to Trump allies, and others who have been impacted by “so-called” Biden law fare. 

Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal criminal attorney, and current Acting Attorney General negotiated the settlement, and will select a 5-person panel to oversee the “1776 Fund.” While it remains unclear who will get money from what some are referring to as a self-dealing slush fund, Neither Trump, JD Vance, nor Blanche have ruled out the prospect that individuals who committed violent acts against law enforcement at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and who on January 20, 2025 were granted a blanket pardon for their actions by Trump on the first day of his second term, will receive money from the settlement. 

That sounded like the top line. But then this happened. The Justice Department added an  addendum to its settlement with President Donald Trump. It immediately ignited controversy because it reportedly says the government is “forever barred and precluded” from pursuing certain tax examinations or claims against Donald Trump, his family, and his companies, involving returns filed before the settlement’s effective date. 

According to recent reporting by ABC News, CBS News, and NBC News, the addendum expands a broader agreement resolving Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his confidential tax information. That reporting suggests the deal reaches far beyond an ordinary settlement term because it appears to shut down not just currently pending matters, but also any claims that could have been raised concerning older Trump tax returns. Even with the Justice Department later saying the addendum applies only to existing audits and not future ones, the language has landed like a political and legal earthquake, especially because it concerns the sitting president and a tax agency meant to apply the law uniformly.

The backstory matters. Trump sued after an IRS contractor, Charles Littlejohn, admitted leaking tax return information belonging to Trump and other wealthy Americans to the press. It should be noted that Littlejohn is current serving a jail sentence related to the matter.

That breach created a serious privacy and accountability issue for the government. But critics argue that redressing an unlawful leak is not the same thing as granting a president sweeping protection from tax scrutiny. The question is not whether Trump had grounds to complain about the disclosure of his returns; plainly he did. The question is whether a settlement negotiated by a Justice Department led by his own administration can lawfully or appropriately insulate him, his family, and associated businesses from tax enforcement on prior filings. That is where the matter becomes far more significant than a simple damages dispute.

This is the nexus where both the broader settlement, and especially the addendum appears to earn the label self-dealing. The benefits do not inure just to Trump, but also to his family members and businesses. As one analyst noted, he sued himself, settled with himself, and is now paying himself. Trump supporters are quick to counter; Trump is not getting any of the money. 

Seriously? Stop playing! The addendum itself is undoubtedly worth millions. Think of all the past returns that will now not be reviewed. Don’t be ridiculous. Trump’s taxes have long drawn attention and at least one long-running audit could have carried a very substantial financial consequence. In that light, the addendum is not a symbolic gesture. It could amount to a durable shield against significant liability, which is why opponents see it as a direct challenge to principles of equal treatment under the law. “It’s A Great Deal…If You Can Get It!”

I’m done; holla back!

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

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

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

It’s A Great Deal…If You Can Get It

This post was augmented by the use of AI.

Don’t Call It Incompetence: More Like A Diabolical Plot

Posted on by
Reply

BREAK IT DOWN!

It is tempting, in moments of chaos, to dismiss an administration as merely incompetent. That interpretation can feel comforting because incompetence suggests limits: mistakes can be corrected, confusion can be clarified, and disorder can eventually give way to normalcy. 

But there is a more unsettling possibility. What looks like ineptitude may in fact be strategy. When leaders consistently undermine institutions, inflame division, exhaust the public, and weaken long-standing norms, it becomes harder to call the outcome accidental. At some point, the pattern is too coherent to ignore. 

The better description is not failure but success on its own terms. To say an administration is incompetent assumes it is trying and failing to preserve stability, fairness, and democratic order. Yet if its real objective is to break those things—if it aims to disorient the public, discredit expertise, erode trust, and replace shared rules with raw power—then the apparent disorder is evidence not of weakness but of achievement. 

The disruption is the point. Every norm shattered, every agency hollowed out, every conflict manufactured becomes proof that the project is proceeding as intended. This is why the language of incompetence can be so misleading. It frames the damage as unintended side effects rather than as central goals. A common to describe this state of affairs is, “It’s a feature, not a bug.”

The incompetence theory encourages observers to keep waiting for a correction, for adults in the room, for a return to ordinary governance. Meanwhile, the administration continues reshaping public life through attrition. People grow numb. Outrage becomes routine. Standards fall seemingly sequentially at first, then suddenly, all at once. 

We have devolved into an environment in which success is measured not by effective administration in the traditional sense but by the ability to make the unacceptable seem inevitable. None of this means every action is coordinated with perfect discipline. Political movements are often messy, contradictory, and driven by ego as much as ideology. That’s how the metaphor of government as sausage-making came into common parlance. 

Messiness does not cancel intent. In fact, confusion itself can be politically useful. Prior to the 2024 Election, the detractors frequently and forcefully warned of the impending Project 2025. The GOP nominee for President repeated denied having even read it, and further claimed to have no knowledge of it, whatsoever. That he had not read it…sounds plausible. Reading may be fundamental, but if one doesn’t read daily briefs…Conversely, it seems likely he was aware of the document and its intent.

It is fair to say it is incomprehensible that a regime could be both incompetent, and simultaneously capable of so swiftly and with such precision, undoing affirmative action, DEI, and the Voting Rights Act. All that has happened, literally, in a matter of months; less than 16. 

When reality feels unstable, accountability becomes harder to enforce. When citizens are constantly reacting to the latest outrage, they have less energy to defend the deeper principles being dismantled underneath. Calling this dynamic incompetence therefore understates both the intelligence and the danger we face.

It mistakes destruction for clumsiness. If we want to understand what is happening, we need to judge it by outcomes, not excuses. And if the outcome is a weaker civic culture, a more cynical public, and a more fragile democratic system, then we should stop assuming the architects have failed. Rather, they are succeeding exactly as planned.

You can call them a lot of things, but by all means, scratch incompetent from the list. I shudder to contemplate our collective circumstance, by the end of this hellscape of an administration term has ended. “Don’t Call It Incompetence: More Like A Diabolical Plot!”

I’m done; holla back!

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

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

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

This post was augmented by the use of AI.

Don’t Call It Incompetence: More Like A Diabolical Plot

Be Honest; Would You Believe The Image Depicted A Doctor If Anybody Else Said That?

Posted on by
Reply

BREAK IT DOWN!

Not much to say about this one. Last Sunday, Easter, the man we call President shared an expletive-filled rant on his Truth Social platform directed at Iranian leaders. While a post of this ilk from a U.S. President would have drawn widespread attention anytime, that this one appeared on Resurrection Sunday sparked quite a controversy. Of course, with D-Trump, most controversies are short-lived, because they are pushed out of the headlines…you guessed it, by the next controversy.

True to form, fast forward a week, and on this past Sunday, Donald Trump posted an AI-generated image of himself, agreed by most observers far and wide, as a Jesus-like figure, complete with bright light emanating from both hands. Not surprisingly, the post sparked a controversy of its own.

Those who follow current events know that Trump has been engaged in an escalating tête-à-tête, a feud really, with Pope Leo. The image drew widespread criticism. Even some of Mr. Trump’s staunchly religious conservative supporters, people who regularly go to the mat for this POTUS, complained. In fact the intensely negative reaction, notably from his core support group, resulted in Trump doing what Trump seldom does…taking down one of his ridiculously offensive posts.

Of course, Trump being Trump, he did not simply take down the image. Neither did he take it down and apologize. No, he took it down, or had it taken down, and claimed it was not what your lying eyes saw. Rather, he said of the image, that it was not reimagining himself as Jesus; rather that it depicted him as a doctor. As usual, he said this with a straight face.

Back to the Pope-POTUS beef. Pope Leo criticized the war that jumped off after U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran as inhumane. Not long before publishing the image, some commentators would say, in response to the Pope’s criticism, Trump posted a lengthy screed against Pope Leo, calling him “WEAK on crime and terrible for Foreign Policy.” 

However, there is no need to overreact to this kerfuffle; there will be another soon enough. The question I leave with you, especially MAGA/Trumpers is, “Be Honest; Would You Believe The Image Depicted A Doctor If Anybody Else Said That?

I’m done; holla back!

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

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

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

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/trump-posts-ai-image-himself-jesus-like-figure-drawing-outrage-2026-04-13/

Be Honest; Would You Believe The Image Depicted A Doctor If Anybody Else Said That?

This War Has Been Won: Really?

Posted on by
Reply

BREAK IT DOWN!

Short post alert!

Yesterday, Donald Trump declared, again, the war against Iran has been won. He said, among other things:

“We’ve won this. This war has been won.”

“They’re totally defeated.”

“The only one that likes to keep it going is the fake news.”

Simultaneously, The Associated Press reported, also yesterday:

The United States military is preparing to deploy at least 1,000 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East in the coming days.

I haven’t heard of anyone who wants to keep the war going, except perhaps Iran, which, Mr. Trump’s assertions, notwithstanding, has shown little if any interest in conceding. Now, I am not saying the President of the United States is being untruthful, despite media reports that he made over 30K false or misleading statements during his first administration. Rather, I am suggesting you should consider the source, and draw your own conclusions. Just remember, this is the same dude who claimed back in July that he had totally obliterated Iran’s nuclear capabilities, only to say a few weeks ago, “he had a feeling” Iran was with a couple of weeks of launching a preemptive strike. “This War Has Been Won: Really?”

P.S. There was a Special Election in Florida yesterday. In an ironic twist, the District which includes Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home flipped from Red to Blue. In what some might consider an even bigger irony, the leader of the Voting-by-Mail is anathema brigade, Donald J. Trump (in case you’re wondering), voted…by mail. The same guy who directly called Mail-in-Voting, Mail-in-Cheating. Go figure.

I’m done; holla back!

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

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

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

https://www.npr.org/2026/03/24/nx-s1-5759000/iran-war-talks

https://apnews.com/live/iran-war-israel-trump-03-24-2026

This War Has Been Won: Really?

James Earl Carter, Jr.: Centenarian

Posted on by
Reply

It’s time to Break It Down!

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, set a record yesterday, October 1, when he observed his birthday, and became the first American president to reach triple digits.

It’s a milestone more and more Americans will reach in the years to come – and frankly, it’s something for which our national social safety net is unprepared.

Carter left office in 1981 after Ronald Reagan defeated him in his reelection bid. He was 56, at the time, too young for Social Security and Medicare.

A very long, incredible retirement

Carter opted not to follow the traditional post presidential path of dedicating himself to sitting on corporate boards and raking in speaking fees.

Instead, Carter got his hands dirty building houses, took on peace missions to Cuba and the Middle East, negotiated the release of hostages, lived in his hometown, taught Sunday school and college classes, wrote books, and won Grammys.

His has been, indisputably, the longest, most righteous and most productive post-presidency in history, although John Quincy Adams’ post-presidential, anti-slavery efforts in Congress get honorable mention.

In the nearly 44 years since leaving office, Carter helped essentially eradicate Guinea worm, a parasite that infected around 3.5 million people in the mid-’80s and just 14 in 2023, according to The Carter Center.

It’s been 22 years since he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, just as the US was preparing for war in Iraq. Carter also paid a landmark visit to Cuba that year.

It has been nine years since Carter announced at a news conference that he had been diagnosed with brain cancer and might not have long to live.

CNN’s Stephen Collinson wrote at the time:

“I have had a wonderful life,” Carter said with the same unsparing honesty and meticulous detail that marked his presidency. “I’m ready for anything and I’m looking forward to new adventure,” Carter said, in the 40-minute appearance before the cameras, in which he frequently beamed his huge smile and never fell prey to emotion. “It is in the hands of God, whom I worship.”

Carter had more to do

By December 2015, Carter announced that after treatment, the cancer was gone. A timeline of his life maintained by CNN’s research library has many more notable entries.

It’s been nine years since Carter published an autobiography, “A Full Life: Reflections at Ninety.” He won a Grammy Award– his second – for the audiobook. He would win a third a few years later.

It’s been seven years since he was hospitalized for dehydration in Winnipeg, Canada, where he was outdoors – still working! – for Habitat for Humanity, the organization with which he had a long association.

It’s been five years since he won that third Grammy in 2019, broke his hip and joked that there should be an age limit on the presidency since he couldn’t have done the job at 80. He also turned 95 that year, and became the longest-living American president, surpassing George H.W. Bush.

It’s been nearly two years since Carter entered hospice care and almost a year since his wife, Rosalynn, died. They were married in 1946.

More people will turn 100

As remarkable as Carter made his years since American voters retired him from the White House, there’s also something increasingly normal about people living to 100.

Former presidents, all well-to-do and protected by a generous pension, aren’t a representative sample of society, but it’s notable that the four oldest former presidents – Carter, Bush, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan – all lived in the 21st century.

Overall, US life expectancy dropped during the Covid-19 pandemic. It has not yet returned to pre-pandemic levels, and it lags behind other developed countries, according to an analysis by KFF. As of 2022, the life expectancy for US males was 74.8 and for US females was 80.2.

But the population of 100-year-olds is expected to quadruple in the coming decades, according to PewResearch Center. It estimated in January that the current number of centenarians was around 101,000 and that the figure would increase to about 422,000 within 30 years, a small but growing portion of the US population as the average age increases and the birth rate declines. Today, celebrate “James Earl Carter, Jr.: Centenarian!”

I’m done; holla back!

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

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

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

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/30/politics/jimmy-carter-presidents-what-matters/index.html

https://www.axios.com/2024/10/01/jimmy-carter-100-birthday-president-record

James Earl Carter, Jr.: Centenarian

Mark Robinson is No Donald Trump: Just Stating the Obvious

Posted on by
1

It’s time to Break It Down!

Mark Robinson, the ever controversial, recently embattled GOP candidate for North Carolina Governor is quickly discovering what many politicians, especially Republicans who’ve endeavored to mimic Trump’s obnoxious, reckless, devil-may-care attitude and behavior. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen’s soberingly soul-snatching put down of Dan Quayle, Lt. Governor, you’re no Donald Trump. 

Trump, who fervently endorsed, and repeatedly boosted Robinson’s candidacy, has appeared to cool on the Maverick from Greensboro, since a CNN story last Thursday linked Robinson to a pornography website, where among other things, he allegedly characterized himself as a Black Nazi, expressed support for slavery…even indicating he would like to own a few himself, and made an array of lewd and sexually explicit remarks. For his part, Robinson has vehemently denied the report, calling it false lies, and salacious tabloid trash. He added, “You’d better understand I am coming after CNN full throttle.” 

Since then, Trump visited North Carolina but declined to include Robinson in his coterie of influential state pols. In fact, at least 10 Republicans and conservative groups have canceled events with Mr. Robinson, rescinded endorsements, and/or erased their digital footprints to distance themselves from their fellow GOP candidate in the upcoming General Election, to be held in just under 6 weeks. It’s fair to say, Mark Robinson is officially, politically toxic.

Prior to last week’s explosive revelations, Robinson was already a controversial figure, well-known for making sexist, racist, Islamophobic, homophobic and otherwise vile comments. And, for quite some time, he appeared to float above the chaos that would seem destined to result from such bellicosity. Not unlike a certain other public figure, Robinson may have gone out of his way to craft a public political persona with the express intent of owning the libs.

America writ large, if not the world, is well aware that for nearly a decade, Trump has flouted virtually every known political protocol, and more often than not, still managed to thrive. Liable for sexual assault and an $83 million settlement, no problem. Convicted of 34 felonies, no problem. A classified documents case, no problem. Election racketeering, no problem. Election obstruction, no problem. Trump University $25 million settlement, no problem. Civil fraud case, $354.9 million settlement, no problem. Assert that he could shoot people on 5th Avenue, and not lose any votes, no problem. Propose a Muslim ban, no problem. Commentary ignited an insurrection at the Capitol, no problem. And those infringements on decency don’t include such gems as the Charlottesville saga, the housing discrimination case, of the newspaper ads seeking the death penalty for the Central Park 5, all of whom were exonerated.

Suffice it to say, a much more extensive list would be required to complete a Greatest Hits Summary for either of these men. But hopefully, you get the point. Robinson, who pointedly refused to abandon his Gubernatorial bid, has been jettisoned from the GOP Inner Circle. While there is still a chance he might secure the Governor’s Office if Trump wins North Carolina, it was already substantially less than a sure bet, and now looks flat out unlikely. Conversely, Donald Trump is in the thick of the race to return to the Presidency, in a contest that 6 weeks out, appears too close to call. He leads in most of the Sunbelt swing states, though within the margin of error, and trails in most of the Midwest Blue Wall states, though also within the margin of error. Current assessments, 1,500 GOP lawyers, and a host of new GOP-inspired state laws make it a foregone conclusion the outcome of the race will not be known by the end of Election Day. Oh yeah, did I say, the majority of Republicans, especially office holders and candidates are sticking closer to Trump than a straight razor shave? “Mark Robinson is No Donald Trump: Just Stating the Obvious!”

I’m done; holla back!

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

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

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

Mark Robinson is No Donald Trump: Just Stating the Obvious

Biden-Trump 2.0: It’s On

Posted on by
Reply

It’s time to Break It Down!

Yesterday, like last Tuesday, Super Tuesday, several U.S. states conducted Primary Elections. Nikki Haley bowed out of the GOP Nomination process a week ago today. At that point, technically, there was no remaining mystery related to who would represent the Grand Old Party in the 2024 Presidential Election. The reality is, we’ve known for some time who would be the two principal candidates. 

But, as is often said, the job is not done until the paperwork is complete. Wrapping up the job requires a candidate on each side to reach the required numerical threshold. For Biden, the number of delegates required to clench the Democratic Nomination is 1,968. Biden exceeded that number early last night, almost as soon as the polls closed at 7:00 p.m. in Georgia (ironically), and news agencies projected Biden’s win in the Peach State. Within 10 minutes of the polls closing at 11:00 p.m., in Washington State, Trump, who needs 1,215 delegates, was declared the winner, and simultaneously, cited as having earned his party’s nomination. States voting yesterday included primaries in Georgia, Mississippi, and Washington, and Caucuses in Hawaii.

So far in the pre-electoral process, Trump has won every state, but Vermont, while Biden has lost only the Territory of American Samoa. This is one of the earliest points in history when the finalists have been determined for both parties. There are 236 days remaining until Election Day. That means many things, perhaps none more important than for the next 33 weeks, we will be locked in one continuous 2024 Election Day news cycle. Oh yeah, it is vital to know and note, both candidates have to go to their respective Conventions and be officially voted in as the Nominee.

We have been warned about the intrusion of AI into our election process. The candidates and their surrogates will be endeavoring to paint their opponent with the least flattering of brushes. Meanwhile, The GOP House will try to impeach President Biden. Team Trump will be working to delay, and or pursue judicial elimination of court cases in New York, Washington, DC, Georgia, and Florida, on one hand, while, on the other, appealing massive (literally, hundreds of millions of dollars worth) court ordered payouts.    

Lest we forget, last week, President Biden delivered the State of the Union (SOTU) Address. Republicans leaned head over heels into painting Biden as an old, addled, dementia-suffering frail being, who may not live to next week. Frankly, it sounded as though they didn’t think he’d even make it through the SOTU last Thursday. Not surprisingly, after the GOP lowered the bar of expectations to just North of ground level, Biden easily cleared the hurdle, so much so, until they were forced to change their attack line from Biden’s inescapable feebleness to, Biden was, instead of low energy and lost, he was too loud, and overly political. Side note: let’s not gloss over the fierce and loud suggestion of Biden’s mortality, as I have previously advised in other posts, is primarily about the intense fear that in the event Biden were to die while in office, he would, horror of horrors, be succeeded by Vice President Kamala Harris. The fear (and in may instances disdain) of a Black woman President is real, and palpable. Even Nikki Haley argued, when she was an active candidate, “There will be a woman President. The choice is whether it will be me or Kamala Harris.”

The beauty of being entrenched in opposition to Biden is, when one idea or position fizzles, or is demonstrated to be untenable, the GOP just secures another attack line and rides the wave until it’s necessary to reboot and find another rhetorical brick to hurl into the debate. Yesterday’s brick was the testimony of Special Counsel Robert Hur, who wrote a report describing Biden as “old, forgetful, and sympathetic.” However, despite those notable negative traits, the one that most ignited Republicans was “Unlikely to be convicted by a jury.”

During questioning, Hur likely left both Democrats and Republicans dissatisfied. He insisted on noting the word exonerated did not appear in his report. That frustrated some Dems. And, while he defended his decision to characterize Biden as he did, he added he did not say Biden was senile. GOP House members were visibly and audibly disappointed. Upon direct questioning, Hur said Biden didn’t hide documents, or refuse to cooperate/testify, or direct his lawyer to lie, or ask aids to move classified material to keep them hidden or deny access to any of his homes. There was more, but you get the point.

I understand you may be tired of hearing about the coming Election. I apologize. Regardless of whether I write about how our nation’s political dynamics are playing out, you will find them at every turn, and in every nook and cranny. We are there. “Biden-Trump 2.0: It’s On!”

I’m done; holla back!

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

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

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

Biden-Trump 2.0: It’s On