“Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?’
And I said, ‘Here am I. SEND ME!’”
— Isaiah 6:8
Frankly, this is a shocking association of the US military with religion. I've warned here that the US is in the thick of an Administration that features individuals in it who who hold minoritarian Evangelical views well outside the mainstream of Christianity, and further that were introduced rather late in Christian history. Unfortunately, the United States, which is a Protestant country, is basically the epicenter of such views and many Protestants don't realize their views are not held by most of the globes Christians, most of whom are Apostolic Christians.
Included in that set of views, for some, is the concept that Christians can help bring about the Second Coming and, in some quarters, that the United States is a nation directly charged with a Devine Mission.
The military is definitely suffering right now, with some elements of the Navy having morale problems and a war going on which the administration repeatedly claims we've won, but which drags on. The current hope is that economic sanctions will bring Iran to its knees but none of the predictions about the war have proven correct so far.
Not one.
One way to definitely end the war would be to commit ground troops. It'd also be a bloody mess.
These recruiting blurbs do not indicate a commitment to inserting ground troops, but they do demonstrate a frightening mix of religion with foreign policy. We are not Crusaders and frankly Crusaders would have regarded American Evangelicals as weird heretics. The fact that the government sends out a message like this should be alarming, and it should be offensive to Christians, Muslims and Jews, all of whom regard Isaiah as a prophet.
Indeed, when Isaiah spoke those words, he wasn't asking to be sent into combat. He was being sent as a prophet.
The military should never be committed to an immoral cause, but we should not imagine that every time it has been committed the commitment met Christian standards. None of the military actions taken during the Second Trump Administration do. They most particularly do not under the reconsideration of the Just War Theory made by Pope Leo.
What Parnell did here is wrong on so many levels. Christians should be horrified.
To all of this, the media and digital dimensions are adding new and decisive elements. Communication networks, fragmented information environments and algorithms that reward conflict can magnify polarization and resentment, increase propaganda and make shared discernment more difficult. Thus, war is not only fought, but also culturally conditioned through simplistic narratives, a friend-or-foe mentality, disinformation and fear. When historical memory fades and the ethical principles that protect civilians and the most vulnerable are weakened, it becomes easier to justify violence as necessary, inevitable or even “sanitized.” It is in this context that humanity is slipping into a violent culture of power, where peace no longer appears as a responsibility to be taken on, but as a fragile interval between conflicts. Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the “just war” theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated. [182] Humanity possesses far more effective and capable tools for promoting human life and resolving conflicts, such as dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness. The use of force, violence and weapons reflects a relational poverty that always has disastrous consequences for civilian populations.
Pope Leo XIV, Magnifica Humanitas.
When first released, almost all of the attention given to Magnifica Humanitas was on his discussion of Artificial Intelligence, but then somebody noticed is comments on the Just War Theory, and now people are freaking out. Conservative Catholic pundits have already come out with the "Pope is wrong" commentary, and even an Anglican journal came out with an article to the same effect.
He isn't wrong.
And this isn't really new.
First of all, the Just War Theory was always that, a theory. It's not doctrine, and in some quarters its never been accepted. Moreover, since World War Two the Church has really made significant modifications to what can be considered a "just war".
So, what did Pope Leo really say here.
First, what's the Just War Theory hold?
Well, let's look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It states:
So, presently, those are the criteria set out in the Catechism. Will this be changed? I suspect it will be modified. And frankly, based on prior statements by the last three Popes, the Catechism does not support the view that the Pontiffs have been stating. The thing that they've repeatedly stated is that war is only justifiable for defensive purposes. Hence the comment; "Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the “just war” theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated."
So, with this in mind, what we might suppose (although I'm treading on dangerous grounds here as I'm not a theologian) is that the Church would modify the material set out above to read:
A country may legitimately act in self defense when:
(1) The damage inflicted by an attacking aggressor must be lasting, grave, and certain.
(2) All other means of putting an end to it must have shown to be impractical or ineffective.
(3) There must be serious prospects of success.
(4) The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated (the principle of proportionality).
Is that a big change in what the Popes have been saying? Not really.
But does it effect some sort of a change? Well, yes. A clarifying one, in my view.
What I think the Pope's statement makes clear that the moral laxity in interpreting the Just War theory is not justified. It never has been, but all too often those citing it go on to hold that whatever war they're speaking of is kind of sort of justified by the theory. That should not have been the case, and it needs to come to an end.
It's needed to come to an end for a long time.
There's no way that, for example, the US and Israeli war upon Iran is a just war. No way. At least from the U.S. prospective, it's an illegal war as it defies the requirements of the U.S. Constitution for Congress to declare war, making it immoral to a certain extent from the onset. But the criteria required for a just war even as the CCC states it cannot be met. The first criteria alone, that Iran was inflicting damage upon the United States in a way that is lasting, grave, and certain, was never met. The repeated baloney that "they've been attacking us for 47 years" didn't come close to meeting this criteria. Yes, Iran is a sponsor of terrorism. Terrorism, however, is an act of the weak and is largely ineffectual. Launching a massive offensive against Iran was not justified by the fact that Iran acts immorally.
Indeed, on that score, the war does not meet, in my view, the requirements of the forth criteria. And it never met the requirements of the second criteria either.
A war launched to change the regime, which was an earlier excuse for the war, was certainly not justified.
And it turns out that the third criteria cannot be met either. The war has actually made the regime more hard line. The only chance for success would require a massive ground invasion of the country, which is certainly not proportional to the hoped for outcome.
What Pope Leo has clarified is something that other Popes have said, to some degree, and which follows the history of the discussion on the death penalty. Pope St. John Paul the Great made statements to the effect that the death penalty could not be justified in the modern world. The following two Popes amplified that. Catholic conservatives have still refused to accept that, but that's completely correct. In the modern world, the criteria which would allow for the imposition of the death penalty simply to not exist.
And with Pope Leo's statements, it seems fairly clear that the criteria for launching an offensive war never exist either. That's been somewhat presumed all the way back to the 1940s, but now its clear.
And, it should also be clear, this is not a mere academic discussion.
War is killing people and breaking things. There's no two ways about it. Killing people intentionally is gravely evil, except in self defense. Supporting killing people except in self defense is likewise gravely illegal. The same Catholic beliefs that hold that murder is immoral, that abortion is immoral, lead directly to war and the death penalty being immoral. You cannot, no matter how much you might want to stretch it, supporting abortion if you are a Catholic, and frankly at this point, you cannot support immoral wars.
It was Pope St. John Paul, I think, who instructed that Catholic lawyers should not represent people in divorces. Judges can still preside over them however. Which brings us to this next point.
Catholic politicians can clearly not support immoral wars. When people like Chuck Gray and Megan Degenfelder come around seeking votes, as they are Catholic, their position on this war should be asked of. If they support it, as Trump supports it, they're willing to condemn their souls to Hell for their ambitions, or at least risk that. Those Catholics in the Trump administration supporting the war, and we don't really know who they are (we know that Vance wasn't in support of it) are doing the same, to a larger degree. The military raid on Venezuela that occurred earlier likewise presents the same problem. Any invasion of Cuba, which it seems likely we will do, poses the same situation.
But beyond that, can Catholic servicemen morally serve in these wars?
I'm sure opinions will vary, but I don't think they can.
And that is a real change. And given that war involves death, that's a change for the good.
For centuries, the Church has joyfully sung of the event that is the origin and foundation of her faith: “Yes, Christ my hope is arisen / Christ indeed from death is risen / Have mercy, victor King, ever reigning” (Easter Sequence).
Easter is the victory of life over death, of light over darkness, of love over hatred. It is a victory that came at a very high price: Christ, the Son of the living God (cf. Mt 16:16), had to die — and die on a cross — after suffering an unjust condemnation, being mocked and tortured, and shedding all his blood. As the true immolated Lamb, he took upon himself the sin of the world (cf. Jn 1:29; 1 Pet 1:18–19) and thus freed us all — and with us, all creation — from the dominion of evil.
But how was Jesus able to be victorious? What is the strength with which he defeated once and for all the ancient adversary, the prince of this world (cf. Jn 12:31)? What is the power with which he rose from the dead, not returning to his former life, but entering into eternal life and thus opening in his own flesh the passage from this world to the Father?
This strength, this power, is God himself for he is Love who creates and generates, Love who is faithful to the end and Love who forgives and redeems.
Christ, our “victorious King,” fought and won his battle through trusting abandonment to the Father’s will, to his plan of salvation (cf. Mt 26:42). Thus he walked the path of dialogue to the very end, not in words but in deeds: to find us who were lost, he became flesh; to free us who were slaves, he became a slave; to give life to us mortals, he allowed himself to be killed on the cross.
The power with which Christ rose is entirely nonviolent. It is like that of a grain of wheat which, having rotted in the earth, grows, breaks through the clods, sprouts, and becomes a golden ear of wheat. It is even more like that of a human heart which, wounded by an offense, rejects the instinct for revenge and, filled with compassion, prays for the one who has committed the offense.
Brothers and sisters, this is the true strength that brings peace to humanity, because it fosters respectful relationships at every level: among individuals, families, social groups, and nations. It does not seek private interests, but the common good; it does not seek to impose its own plan, but to help design and carry out a plan together with others.
Yes, Christ’s resurrection is the beginning of a new humanity; it is the entrance into the true promised land, where justice, freedom, and peace reign, where all recognize one another as brothers and sisters, children of the same Father who is Love, Life, and Light.
Brothers and sisters, through his resurrection, the Lord confronts us even more powerfully with the dramatic reality of our freedom. Before the empty tomb, we can be filled with hope and wonder, like the disciples, or with fear like the guards and the Pharisees, forced to resort to lies and subterfuge rather than acknowledge that the one who had been condemned is truly risen (cf. Mt 28:11–15)!
In the light of Easter, let us allow ourselves to be amazed by Christ! Let us allow our hearts to be transformed by his immense love for us! Let those who have weapons lay them down! Let those who have the power to unleash wars choose peace! Not a peace imposed by force, but through dialogue! Not with the desire to dominate others, but to encounter them!
We are growing accustomed to violence, resigning ourselves to it, and becoming indifferent. Indifferent to the deaths of thousands of people. Indifferent to the repercussions of hatred and division that conflicts sow. Indifferent to the economic and social consequences they produce, which we all feel. There is an ever-increasing “globalization of indifference,” to borrow an expression dear to Pope Francis, who one year ago from this loggia addressed his final words to the world, reminding us: “What a great thirst for death, for killing, we witness each day in the many conflicts raging in different parts of the world!”
The cross of Christ always reminds us of the suffering and pain that surround death and the agony it entails. We are all afraid of death, and out of fear we turn away, preferring not to look. We cannot continue to be indifferent! And we cannot resign ourselves to evil! Saint Augustine teaches: “If you fear death, love the resurrection!”. Let us too love the resurrection, which reminds us that evil is not the last word, because it has been defeated by the Risen One.
He passed through death to give us life and peace: “I leave you peace; I give you my peace. Not as the world gives it, I give it to you” (Jn 14:27). The peace that Jesus gives us is not merely the silence of weapons, but the peace that touches and transforms the heart of each one of us! Let us allow ourselves to be transformed by the peace of Christ! Let us make heard the cry for peace that springs from our hearts! For this reason, I invite everyone to join me in a prayer vigil for peace that we will celebrate here in Saint Peter’s Basilica next Saturday, April 11.
On this day of celebration, let us abandon every desire for conflict, domination, and power, and implore the Lord to grant his peace to a world ravaged by wars and marked by a hatred and indifference that make us feel powerless in the face of evil. To the Lord we entrust all hearts that suffer and await the true peace that only he can give. Let us entrust ourselves to him and open our hearts to him! He is the only one who makes all things new
I'm a Westerner and an Irish Catholic. That informs my vote pretty heavily.
When I first registered to vote Ronald Reagan was President. Marine Corps Raider veteran Ed Herschler, a Democrat, was the Governor of Wyoming. D-Day veteran Teno Roncolio, also a Democrat, was our Congressman. Republicans Malcolm Wallop and Alan Simpson were our Senators.
That was sort of the political landscape here at the time. More Republicans than Democrats, but there were still Democrats, and those Democrats tended to be pretty tough conservative people. Republicans were already tacking off into batshit crazy economic theories but they weren't completely bathed in them yet.
I registered as a Republican.
I didn't stay a Republican for a really long time. I don't recall when exactly I switched parties, but by the time I was at the University of Wyoming, I had registered Democratic. I stayed in the Democratic Party for a long time. I was still a Democrat when I became a lawyer and I know that I was when I was married. However, sometime after that, I couldn't stand the sea of blood the Democratic Party had become. I became an independent.
As an independent you missed the primaries pretty much, however, and starting in the Clinton era in general Wyoming Democrats began to drift over to the GOP. After all, the mainstream of the Democratic Party wasn't all that different from the traditional mainstream of the local GOP. After awhile, I registered as a Republican.
Little far right Dixiecrats like Chuck Gray like to scream that people like me are "RINOs", when in fact they're the malignant innovation into the GOP. That element hadn't entered the GOP at the time I was first in it, and didn't for a long time. Gray himself, who nobody really knew anything about, was probably the first, followed by Jeanette Ward, who served one term in the legislature before losing a bid to retain her seat. While she lost, that showed the direction things were headed in. Carpetbaggers who knew nothing about their state moved in and wanted to convert it into pre 1964 Alabama.
It's not as if the Democrats stood still. As moderate Wyoming Democrats left the party, it too became delusional. If the Republicans became increasingly fascistic or Dixiecratic, the Democrats lived intellectually in the Greenwich Villages' Stonewall Inn in 1969. It made going back into the Democratic Party an outright impossibility for people like myself, particularly as they lashed themselves increasingly to abortion and perversion.
More recently, I'll note, that seems to be wearing off. The Democrats are still "pro choice", but they don't talk much about it. For that matter Republicans who were really gung ho on being pro life have sort of lost their fire for that as well, following the lead of Orange Mussolini.
What the Republican Party, nationally, has become is flat out insane. No thinking person can be a member of it and be comfortable.
There are still good Republicans here in Wyoming. They began a big fight against the Dixiecrats prior to the legislature and largely prevailed this session, in spite of the fact that the diehard adherents of The Lost Cause were theoretically in control of the solons. That should give local Republicans who aren't literally whistling Dixie some hope.
But with the current national Trumpites in control, the line has been drawn.
For years people like Dixiecrat Chuck Gray, or Dixicrat Bextel, have claimed that the Republican Party here was infiltrated with Democrats. Well, it was. They're the Democrats. Democrats from 1960 Alabama. They just don't know it. But the screaming lunacy that they've espoused does have an effect after awhile. Yell at people that "you are a RINO" for long enough, and they'll take it up.
I'm remaining registered in the GOP. Chuck Gray's efforts to disenfranchise voters has been enough for me in and of itself not to change registrations. Frankly, if I was to take a run at the House of Representatives, and I've thought about it, I would switch parties as right now that would give a person a place in the November election no matter what. But I'm not going to do that. I'm old, worn out, and very tired.
So I'm remaining in the GOP in no small part so that I can vote for the decent primary candidates, of which there are some right now.
At this point, merely stating that you are "pro Trump" will be enough to cross my vote for you off the list. At least three House candidates are promising to be Trump's biggest lover, and they're all of the list. I hope I run into some of them during their campaigns. I probably will.
And I've already quit giving MAGAs in my midst slack. Frankly, since the start of the assault on Iran, that's been easy, as the "never war" MAGAs can't explain that one without sounding like hypocrites, and they know it. Even a few have begun to look as if Valentines to Trump weren't a good idea.
But in the Fall. I'm not voting for any Republicans for anything.
That won't exactly be easy. So far here only one candidate from the Democratic Party has signed on to run for a statewide office. He has my vote even though I like the only Republican whose announced for the same position. And just because I'm not voting for a Republican doesn't mean I will vote for Democrats. In my state house district a really decent Republican holds the seat and a young woman from the Democratic Party has announced against him. She's already on the sea of blood ticket. I can't vote for her, but I won't vote for the Republican I've voted for many times before.
To vote for Republicans in 2026 you have to accept that a low IQ, deranged, octogenarian should have complete dictatorial control over the Federal Government, can start major wars on his own, can demolish parts of the White House as he has the tastes of a bordello owner, can cause the hiding of files on a major pedophile ring, and can have a domestic army occupy the streets. It also means you have to be willing to sacrifice the environment of the planet for scientific denial. You have to be willing to endorse lies at a never before seen rate, which makes you a liar yourself if you do.
Alexander Mosaic, House of the Faun, Pompeii. Alexander the Great fighting the Persians.
You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.
Matthew, Chapter 24.
Give me the money that has been spent in war, and I will purchase every foot of land upon the globe. I will clothe every man, woman, and child in an attire that kings and queens would be proud of; I will build a school-house upon every valley over the whole habitable earth; I will supply that school house with a competent teacher; I will build an academy in every town, and endow it; a college in every state, and fill it with able Professors; I will crown every hill with a church consecrated to the promulgation of the gospel of peace; I will support in its pulpit an able teacher of righteousness, so that on every Sabbath morning the chime on one hill should answer to the chime on another, around the earth's broad circumference; and the voice of prayer and the song of praise should ascend like a universal holocaust to heaven.
Charles Sumner, c.1840
Quand les riches font la guerre, ce sont les pauvres qui meurent.
Jean Paul Sartre
March 2, 2026
The US and Israel v. Iran War.
Even before the weekend news show hits, the Administration and its GOP proxies were trying to form a theory of why the US, in concert with Israel, had attacked Iran.
Why Israel did it is fairly clear. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a mortal enemy of Israel and an existential threat. The fact that the US was going to war with Iran gave it a great opportunity. And not just Israel, according to some information that seems fairly credible, at least Saudi Arabia saw things the exact same way, sort of.
In both instances, those conflicts were religious in nature, at least form Iran's prospective. Iran sees the world in apocalyptic terms and a struggle against Israel is a part of that weltanschauung. Iran sees Saudi Arabia as representing Sunni Islam, and a virulent variant of it at that. In fact, Saudi Arabia was in fact allied internally with Wahhabism, although that's long ceased to be the case. Be that as it may, Sunni Islam and Shia Islam depart from each other radically and have been enemies since the latter first formed. For that matter, Persia and the Arabs have been enemies for ever. Persia was a major civilized empire before Islam, and it knows it. Persia, Iran, could be a great nation without Islam, and it knows that.
But what about the United States?
According to the befuddled Donald Trump we attacked Iran, because, well it was a big honking monster threat to us. The thing is, that dog didn't really hunt.
Two Salukis, Persian hounds, painted by the Xuande Emperor of China (1399–1435)
They were going to have a nuclear weapons, Donny told us, with in the next two weeks. But then, it was realized, that would mean the befuddled Donny, dressed like a toddler in his trucker's cap, had been wrong when he told us that we'd bombed Iran back to the nuclear stone age in what is now being called the Twelve Day War.
Oops.
Well, explanations for that being wrong, other than Trump Is Always Wrong, needed to be found, as the GOP mantra worships Trump almost as much as Trump worships Trump.
They were fibbing in negotiations over the nuclear weapons program we destroyed was tried next, was the next thing.
They were going to have missiles that could hit the US was tried, but it was pretty quickly revealed that at some point they might, but it would be years from now, plenty of time to go to Congress and ask for a declaration of war. Well, they were going to have missiles that could hit Europe, which is much more credible, but the problem is that the Europeans, whom we've been telling need to fend for themselves, have had a "m'eh" reaction to that. The country that really can hit Europe with missiles, and has a demonstrated ability to do it, Russia, which Trump has a crush on so large that it probably looms larger in his nighttime dreams than Melania, who of course is mostly in New York, helicoptering over Barron, whom we might note will not be joining the Armed Forces to serve in this war, putting him in good company with the ancestral Trumps. Since Frederick Trump first set foot in the United States, the Trumps have missed the Spanish American War, the Philippine Insurrection, World War One, World War Two, the Korean war and the Vietnam War, a record few American families could match, including my own.*
Anyhow, that dog wasn't going to hunt either, so a new one had to be developed.
Neapolitan Mastiff. Indeed, the modern foundational Neapolitan Mastiff. Mastiffs are war dogs, of the "let slip the dog's of war" type. The only one I've been personally familiar with was enormously cowardly.
Finally, the "they've been at war with us for forty seven years" thesis was come up with.
Well, I'll give whoever came up with that some credit. There's really something to it. Iran's Shia clerical state has been at war with the rest of the world for more or less something like forty years.
Which raises this point. Up until now it was just our strategy to wait that out. . . and it was working pretty well.
Cleary, things had not reached a point where all of a sudden we needed to go to war on an emergency basis with Iran. And under the U.S. Constitution, this excuse is complete horseshit. In order to deploy force like this, in this way, we would have had to have been suddenly attacked.
We weren't.
This was completely illegal.
Not only that, it was highly ill advised. If Iran has been plotting against us for 47 years, it's had plenty of time to prepare for this day, and so far, it's been fighting back pretty well. Our burn rate of high tech munitions is unsustainable. It's burn rate on missiles might frankly not be. And its allied, for all practical purposes, with Russia. We're allied with Israel, which frankly depends on us for military support.
This was not smart.
We're going to be hit domestically. Iran is capable of waging an asymmetric war and will. It may have started that, in Austin, today. It's believed that it has targeted Trump in the past. If so, it will now, and there's no reason to believe it'll only target Trump.
The irony is, of course, that its likely not Trump who causes this to occur. While not meaning this to sound the way it might, Israel, knowing that Trump is a demented fool, may very well have played the sad bloated corpse of the once playboy, now hoping for redemption and to be remembered, twit. Saudi Arabia may very well have as well. And then there's Pete Hegseth and Mike Huckabee, holding variant of Christian beliefs that Apostolic Christians, back during the Crusades, would have regarded as heretical. They may have thrown us into a holy war that we'll pay for, for decades.
At least it will be an American Evangelical Protestant Crusade. Due to the Black Legends, a common Protestant, and then atheist, argument stopper has been "what about the Crusades".
Well, MAGA, now you are the Crusader you imagined we were, even though we were never that.
At the end of the day, nobody publicly knows why we attacked Iran. The best guess is that it's a combination of Neo Conservatives (Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz), foreign influence (Israel and Saudi Arabia) and far right Evangelicals trying to being about the end of the world (Huckabee and Hegseth).
All brought about illegally and through influence on a very weak mind, that being Donald Trump's.
Oh, 150 Iranian school girls were murdered for this.
May the perpetual light shine upon them. Some of them were probably Christian.
Pete Hegseth, cultural warrior.
Heavily tatted Pete Hegseth, emblazed with Crusader images, but whom the Catholics of the Crusades, and the Orthodox through whose lands the Crusaders traveled would have regarded as a weird heretic, was busy, just before Donny launched a war against Iran, in the Culture Wars.
First, he engaged in a skirmish with wokeism and the Boy Scouts.
We're not completely unsympathetic with this. We've noted this cultural zeitgeist before.
It does seem to us, quite frankly, that the Boy Scouts, which we have very little personal connection, have evolved into being somewhat less than it was. It's less manly, it seems. And it definitely isn't the example of Muscular Christianity it once was. However, it seems to be an odd thing for Hegseth, who doesn't seem to have a sports coat that fits, to be engaged in so close in time to a major war being launched. Indeed, it seems a bit odd for the Secretary of Defense to care about this at all, but maybe Boy Scout interactions with the military are greater than I suppose. I'd have had to have been a Boy Scout near a military post to know, I suppose. I know a friend of mine, who was a Scout growing up in an Air Force family in the 70s related to me that all of their leaders were Air Force members and they always had Air Force tentage when they were camping.
On a related matter, Hegseth clearly wants women out of combat roles. This war, given as its a real one, gives him the opportunity to do that. It's going to be his last opportunity as well. The political tides are shifting. In November, the opportunity will be gone.
Somebody seemed to back Hegseth down, after which he went on to picking on the Ivy League.
I frankly didn't realize that Pete's an Ivy League graduate himself. Princeton. It really surprises me.
Which brings me to this. I think, that MAGA hates education in general. They Wyoming Freedom Caucus seems to. And if Hegseth, Cruz, Trump and Chuck Gray can come out of such vaunted schools and still be so blistering ignorant as they seem to be, it really backs up my long held opinion that the Ivy League and associated schools are a dumpster fire, but not for the reason that Pete and company would hold it.
Rather, they just aren't doing a good job of educating. Look at Trump and Hegseth. It's hard to believe they have more than 5th grade education. Or Chuck Gray. He comes across like a 7th grade brat.
Diverting
Back on Trump, while I completely discounted it for a long time, it's getting hard to ignore that the US is getting into more and more grave matters as the Epstein files begin to hit closer and closer to home. The thesis that some hold that Trump is creating diversions is getting a little hard to ignore.
People keep saying, even now, that there's nothing "to implicate" Trump. Oh bull, there most certainly is. There's apparently direct testimony of his "abusing", which means screwing, a teenage girl. No, I'm not saying he did it, but the information we already have about who he hung around with is pretty damming. And his conduct with adult women has been less than admirable. Even that gets ignored, however, for no good reason. There's no reason to believe that Carol Alt is lying about being groped by Trump, for example, but people ignore it.
We've dealt with it before, but if Trump didn't have his hands in the underaged cookie jar it would have been an act of restraint for a guy who otherwise has shown no restraint. It might be time to start really looking at these claims vis a vis Epstein.
But then there's a war going on.
Speaking of underaged girls, one of the first things that happened in the war against Iran was a school was hit and 150 girls were killed.
There's always collateral damage in war, to be sure, but this war wasn't legally launched. Killing those girls, therefore, is something akin to manslaughter, if the US did it. It'll go unpunished however.
Noblis Oblige
Theodore Roosevelt's sons served in World War One, and World War Two, one winning the Congressional Medal of Honor. FDR's sons served in the Second World War. Beau Biden served in Iraq.
This war gives the Trumps to finally serve the nation. They sure haven't done so, so far. At least Eric, Tiffany and Barron are young enough to serve.
They should.
They won't.
Americans have already died in the war. Nobody who dies will be a Trump.
It's probably fairly safe to assume that most of the children of those who visited Epstein Island won't be serving in harms way.
Footnotes:
*My father served in the Korean War. One of my mother's cousins served in Vietnam and he wasn't even an American citizen. I have uncles who served in World War Two and great uncles who served in World War One, albeit in the Canadian Army. One of my Canadian uncles served in World War Two as well.
