Monday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Sunday Male Beauty

 

War and Peace Cannot Be Left to The Felon

In the early hours of yesterday, the Felon ordered an attack on Iran and Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed. The move is a wet dream for Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu who has long wanted the USA to attack Iran.  This action was taken in direct contradiction of the U.S. Constitution which provides that only Congress can declare war, not that the Felon - who clearly views himself as a monarch - cares anything about the Constitution or anything else that restrict his desires to become a dictator/king.   I'm sure much of MAGA - which hates non-whites and non-Christians - is thrilled by the attack on Iran even if they cannot locate Iran on a map of the world. But for the rest of us, the situation should be worrisome. ?Like so many of the Felon's actions, there seems to be little long term planning and calls for "regime change" seem to rely on unarmed Iranian civilians who would be faced off against the heavily armed and brutal Revolutionary Guard.  Given the USA's track record with regime change in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq what could possibly go wrong with this scenario?  A long column in the New York Times argues that no single individual, especially a malignant narcissist with signs of dementia and desperate to distract from the Epstein scandal , should be allowed to take the nation to war.  Here are column excerpts (we will be with Senator Mark Warner this afternoon and I'm sure he will have interesting commentary):

Eight minutes. That’s the length of President Trump’s social media video announcing his war with Iran. He didn’t go to Congress. He didn’t obtain a U.N. Security Council resolution. Instead, he did perhaps the most monarchical thing he’s done in a monarchical second term: He simply ordered America into war.

I take a back seat to no one in my loathing of the Iranian regime. I am not mourning the death of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in an airstrike on Saturday. My anger at the Iranian regime is personal. Men I knew and served with during my deployment to Iraq in 2007 and 2008 were killed and gravely injured by Iranian-supplied weapons deployed by Iranian-supported militias.

But my personal feelings don’t override the Constitution, and neither do anyone else’s. . . . . I’m worried that all too many people will say: Well, in a perfect world Trump should have gone to Congress, but what’s done is done. That is exactly the wrong way to approach this war.

Here’s the bottom line: Trump should have gotten congressional approval for striking Iran, or he should not have struck at all. And because he did not obtain congressional approval, he’s diminishing America’s chances for ultimate success and increasing the chances that we make the same mistakes we — and other powerful nations — have made before.

To make that argument is not to sacrifice our national interests on an altar of legal technicalities. Instead, it’s to remind Americans of the very good reasons for our country’s constitutional structure on matters of war and peace.

The fundamental goal of the 1787 Constitution was to establish a republican form of government — and that meant disentangling the traditional powers of the monarch and placing them in different branches of government.

When it came to military affairs, the Constitution separated the power to declare war from the power to command the military. The short way of describing the structure is that America should go to war only at Congress’s direction, but when it does, its armies are commanded by the president. . . . . Our nation cannot go to war until its leaders persuade a majority of Congress that war is in our national interest.

This framework applies both to direct declarations of war and to their close cousin, authorizations for the use of military force, such as the authorizations for Desert Storm in the first gulf war, Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq.

But the constitutional structure, when followed, does much more than that. It also helps provide accountability. To make the case to Congress, a president doesn’t just outline the reasons for war; he also outlines the objectives of the conflict. This provides an opportunity to investigate the weaknesses of the case for the conflict, along with the possibility of success and the risks of failure.

I’m getting a disturbing sense of déjà vu for example, from the idea that degrading regime forces from the air will give unarmed (or mostly unarmed) civilian protesters exactly the opening they need to topple the Iranian government and effect regime change. . . . By the end of Desert Storm, the United States had devastated the Iraqi military and inflicted casualties far beyond anything that Israel or the United States has inflicted on Iran this weekend.

When the Iraqi people rose up, there was a wave of hope that the dictator would be deposed and democracy would prevail. But Saddam Hussein had more than enough firepower — and enough loyalists — to crush the rebellion, retain power for more than a decade and kill tens of thousands of his opponents.

The Iranian regime deserves to fall, but I’m concerned that we’re creating the conditions for more massacres of more civilians, without offering the protesters any reasonable prospect of success.

But if the regime does crack, there is no guarantee that we will welcome the eventual results. From Iraq to Syria to Libya, we’ve seen how civil war sows chaos, fosters extremism and terrorism and creates waves of destabilizing migration.

In a real public debate before a real Congress, these points could have been addressed. The administration could have prepared people for the various contingencies, including casualties and economic disruption. Instead, near the end of Trump’s cursory speech on Saturday, he said, “The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties. That often happens in war.”

Well, yes, that’s certainly true. But that’s not the full extent of the risk; not even close.. . . .  There was a case for striking Iran. . . . . But there was also a case against an attack.

As my newsroom colleague Eric Schmitt has reported, Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned Trump that there is a high risk of casualties and a risk that a campaign against Iran could deplete American stockpiles of precision weapons — at the exact moment when we need those weapons to deter any potential Chinese maneuvers against Taiwan.

In addition, Iran may now believe that it should not restrain its response to an American attack but instead prioritize inflicting as many casualties as possible on American forces (and perhaps even on American civilians). Iran has already lashed out at multiple nations in the Gulf. Its attacks haven’t inflicted much damage so far, but it’s too soon to simply presume that Iran won’t be able to hurt the United States or our allies.

And if we suffer those losses without eradicating a nuclear program that Trump already claimed to have “obliterated,” without ultimately changing the regime (in spite of the death of the supreme leader), or without even protecting civilian protesters, then for all practical purposes we will have lost a pointless, deadly war.

Now, many millions of Americans are bewildered by events. There is no national consensus around the decision to deploy Americans into harm’s way. There isn’t even a Republican consensus. There’s only a personal consensus, the personal consensus of a mercurial man so detached from reality that he actually reposted on Truth Social an article with the headline “Iran Tried to Interfere in 2020, 2024 Elections to Stop Trump, and Now Faces Renewed War With U.S.”

In 1848, at the close of the Mexican-American War, a first-term congressman named Abraham Lincoln wrote:

Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us.

Those words were true then, and they’re true now. No matter what he thinks, Trump is not a king. But by taking America to war all on his own, he is acting like one.

Sunday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Saturday Male Beauty

 

The Felon Attacks Iran With No Clear Goal

On Thursday and Friday Hillary and Bill Clinton were dragged before a House committee allegedly investigation the Epstein scandal in what appears to be a Republican effort to distract the media from the Felon's own seeming far, far more serious involvement with Epstein.  Indeed, the Felon's name appears more often in the Epstein files than anyone other than Epstein himself and his convicted co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell.  The GOP stunt seemingly backfired as both Clintons called out for the Felon to Congressional approval be called in next to testify under oath and media attention over the Felon's involvement increased.  So what do you do to distract the media from Epstein coverage? Attack Iran, of course, without clearly enunciated goals and no international coordination except seemingly Israel. Living in an area with a huge presence of military personnel, I know that are sailors and troops are not simply props to be used for political purposes - a concept lost on the Felon who only cares about boosting his ego own or finding a means to distract the media. American lives and Iranian lives will likely be lost - reportedly Iran has launched attacks on American bases in the Middle East (see the image above) - not that the Felon cares. His past statements make it clear that members of the military who die in combat are "losers" in his mind and that real living, breathing individuals are of no matter to hip despite disingenuous lip service to the contrary.  A main editorial in the New York Times looks at what the Felon has launched:

In his 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised voters that he would end wars, not start them. Over the past year, he has instead ordered military strikes in seven nations. His appetite for military intervention grows with the eating.

Now he has ordered a new attack against the Islamic Republic of Iran, in cooperation with Israel, and U.S. officials say they expect this attack to be much more extensive than the targeted bombing of nuclear facilities in June. Yet he has offered no credible explanation for why he is risking the lives of our service members and inviting a major reprisal from Iran. Nor has he involved Congress, which the Constitution grants the sole power to declare war. He has issued a series of shifting partial justifications, including his sporadic support for the heroic Iranian people protesting their tyrannical government and his demand that Iran forswear its pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

That Mr. Trump declared the Iranian nuclear program “obliterated” by the strike in June — a claim belied by both U.S. intelligence and this new attack — underscores how little regard Mr. Trump has for his duty to tell the truth when committing American armed forces to battle. It also shows how little faith American citizens should place in his assurances about the goals and results of his growing list of military adventures.

Mr. Trump’s approach to Iran is reckless. His goals are ill-defined. He has failed to line up the international and domestic support that would be necessary to maximize the chances of a successful outcome. He has disregarded both domestic and international law for warfare.

The Iranian regime, to be clear, deserves no sympathy. It has wrought misery since its revolution 47 years ago: on its own people, on its neighbors and around the world. It massacred thousands of protesters this year. It imprisons and executes political dissidents. It oppresses women, L.G.B.T.Q. people and religious minorities. Its leaders have impoverished their own citizens while corruptly enriching themselves.

Iran’s government presents a distinct threat because it combines this murderous ideology with nuclear ambitions. Iran has repeatedly defied international inspectors over the years. Since the June attack, the government has shown signs of restarting its pursuit of nuclear weapons technology. American presidents of both parties have rightly made a commitment to preventing Tehran from getting a bomb.

We recognize that fulfilling this commitment could justify military action at some point. . . . recent history demonstrates that military action, for all its awful costs, can have positive consequences.

A responsible American president could make a plausible argument for further action against Iran. The core of this argument would need to be a clear explanation of the goals — whether they were limited to denying Iran a nuclear weapon or extended to more ambitious aims, like ending its support for terrorist groups — as well as the justification for attacking now. This strategy would involve a promise to seek approval from Congress and to collaborate with international allies.

A responsible approach would also acknowledge the risks that the next conflict with Iran might go less well than the last American attack. Iran remains a heavily militarized country. Its medium-range missiles may have failed to do much damage to Israel last year, but Iran maintains many short-range missiles that could overwhelm any defense system and hit Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other nearby countries. An attack on Iran risks the lives of American troops, diplomats and other people living in the region.

Mr. Trump is not even attempting this approach. He is telling the American people and the world that he expects their blind trust. He has not earned that trust.

He instead treats allies with disdain. He lies constantly, including about the results of the June attack on Iran. He has failed to live up to his own promises for solving other crises in Ukraine, Gaza and Venezuela. He has fired senior military leaders for failing to show fealty to his political whims. . . . Mr. Trump shields them from accountability. His administration appears to have violated international law by, among other things, disguising a military plane as a civilian plane and shooting two defenseless sailors who survived an initial attack.

Recognizing Mr. Trump’s irresponsibility, some members of Congress have taken steps to constrain him on Iran. In the House, Representatives Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, and Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, have proposed a resolution meant to prevent Mr. Trump from starting a war without congressional approval. The resolution makes clear that Congress has not authorized an attack on Iran and demands the withdrawal of American troops within 60 days. Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, and Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, are sponsoring a similar measure in their chamber.

Mr. Trump’s failure to articulate either goals or a strategy for a potential military intervention has created shocking levels of uncertainty about this attack. Americans do not know whether the president has ordered an attack in their name mostly to set back Iran’s nuclear program — or to go so far as toppling the government of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

If it is the less ambitious of the two goals, it raises an obvious question. Iran will surely rebuild its nuclear program in the years ahead. So is the United States committing itself to a yearslong cycle of military attacks? If it is the more ambitious goal, Mr. Trump has offered no sense of why the world should expect this effort at regime change to end better than the 21st-century attempts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now that the military operation has begun, we wish above all for the safety of the American troops charged with conducting it and for the well-being of the many innocent Iranians who have long suffered under their brutal government. We lament that Mr. Trump is not treating war as the grave matter that it is.

Saturday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Friday Male Beauty

 

America Chose Not to Hold the Powerful to Account

Around the world outside of the USA the Epstein scandal has triggered elites being held accountable for their ties to Jeffrey Epstein.  Here at home, other than a few resignations from corporate boards and Larry Summer's resignation from his position at Harvard, American elites have gotten off free so far.  In Brazil and South Korea, leaders who attempted coups are now in prison, but not here in America.  America which fixates on false "American exceptionalism" and pretends to be a "shining city on a hill" allows the rich and powerful to avoid accountability for misdeeds as if these individuals were aristocrats of years gone by.  Worse yet, so-called "conservative Christians" are the Felon's most loyal supporters.  As a piece in The Nation lays out:

Every segment of the Trump-backing right wing—America First nationalists, Trump loyalists and rank-and-file MAGA activists—has unsubscribed from the idea that there is any such thing as right and wrong, much less that wrongdoing should result in consequences. In effect, there is no behavior Trump’s GOP sees as too wrong to vote for. In late July 2025, almost half of Republicans said they would keep voting for Trump even if he were “officially implicated in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking activities.”

The Felon boasted that he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and get away with it. So far, evidence that the Felon may have been involved with the rape - or worse - of minors seems to have drawn nothing but yawns from the self-congratulatory and piety feigning "godly folk." Yet, as a long piece in The Atlantic lays out, the trend of allowing the rich and powerful to get away with crimes that would send the rest of us to prison began long before the Felon first sought political office. It is disturbing that in America where supposedly no one is above the law, the elite are above the law even as some of their foreign counterparts are being held accountable.  Here are article highlights:

Around the world, powerful men are facing consequences for their actions. Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro was convicted of trying to overthrow the government in a January 6–style coup, as was his South Korean counterpart, Yoon Suk Yuol. Marcin Romanowski, the former deputy justice minister in the right-wing Polish government, is in hiding in Hungary, accused of misusing public funds. The former Prince Andrew—Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor—became the first member of the British royal family in several centuries to be arrested; he’s been accused of crimes related to his relationship with the late sex-trafficking financier Jeffrey Epstein. . . . They’re all unfortunate not to be American. Otherwise they probably would have gotten away scot-free.

One way to look at the rise of Donald Trump is as part of a decades-long backlash among the American leadership class to the idea of accountability. Since Richard Nixon was forced to resign, powerful people in both political parties have worked assiduously to ensure that their leaders would escape the consequences of their actions. Trump has evaded punishment for crimes both low (campaign-finance violations, for which he was convicted, though he will serve no time thanks to his 2024 victory) and high (his attempted overthrow of the federal government in the aftermath of his 2020 election loss, for which he was spared by the Supreme Court’s decision to grant him a kingly immunity). This is not just about Trump; his impunity is the product of a society that has worked hard to help the rich and powerful elude punishment for criminal behavior.

Gerald Ford pardoned his predecessor in the name of “healing,” but inadvertently set a precedent that executive lawbreaking was no crime. The Reagan administration engaged in blatant violations of federal law during the Iran-Contra scandal, in which it sold weapons to the Iranian regime and used the finances to support anti-communist death squads in Nicaragua. George H. W. Bush, the former head of the CIA, pardoned nearly all of the officials implicated in Iran-Contra—a move that many Americans supported, because they believed that fighting communism justified extreme measures. George W. Bush’s administration broke laws fighting the “War on Terror” but almost no one faced consequences, because many Americans believed that fighting terrorism justified extreme measures.

While Congress and the presidency have been working hard to raise the executive branch above the law, the Supreme Court has done its part to ensure that laws against bribery and corruption are near-unenforceable. With a series of rulings on campaign finance, the Roberts Court has ensured that the rich can try to buy elections without formally breaking the law. As a result, politicians are indebted to a few hundred billionaires who drop unholy amounts of cash every election cycle.

Getting convicted of bribery in America requires some serious effort—take former Democratic Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey . . .caught with gold bars in his house. When Trump first took office, he paused enforcement of foreign bribery cases entirely—but there are some signs that he intends to revive such prosecutions as a weapon against his political enemies, in the mold of the Hungarian strongman Victor Orbán.

Such erosion of anti-corruption law has often been a bipartisan project. In 2016, the bribery conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell for receiving gifts from donors was overturned unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court. Since then, the Roberts Court has slowly dismantled anti-corruption law. In 2024, it decided in Snyder v. United States that federal law does not bar receiving “gratuities” given after the fact for “official acts.” Convenient not just for politicians, but also for justices who enjoy lavish lifestyles funded by billionaires with interests before the Court!

The logic of the Roberts Court’s quest to legalize white-collar crime led to Trump v. United States, which decided in 2024 that the president is basically entitled to commit whatever crimes he wants in the course of his “official duties,” and which successfully shields Trump and potentially future presidents from federal criminal prosecution for any “official” actions while in office. This was comically framed by the right-wing justices as protecting democracy, rather than undermining it.

Although some of these decisions were more defensible than others, together they suggest a pattern of elite class solidarity: powerful people making sure that powerful people rarely face real consequences.

The #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements can be seen as, at least partially, a brief rebellion against this culture of elite impunity.  . . . . Those movements didn’t last. The backlash against them nevertheless fed a Trumpian nostalgia for the good old days, when sexual assault and police brutality were easily rationalized or not even discussed. This nostalgia also helps explain the extreme response to the call for accountability—many powerful bystanders behaved as though they had narrowly survived Robespierre and the guillotine and worked to prevent such movements from ever emerging again by trying to censor speech associated with them.

This is not to say that the rich and powerful are never held to account. Menendez is one counterexample, and Epstein himself was a billionaire who died in a jail cell, after all. But his crimes were taken seriously by authorities only after the journalist Julie Brown uncovered the extent of Epstein’s crimes and the lenient response from law enforcement over decades.

Unfortunately, many Americans who might have been outraged at this edifice of impunity have instead directed their resentment toward the poor and weak, supporting a cruel and unforgiving system of criminal justice that harshly punishes those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder while exempting many at the top from any accountability at all. So you did a few death-squad massacres or wedding bombings? Well, that was what America’s leaders had to do to fight communism and terrorism. You can even take a sack of cash from an undercover FBI agent if you’re the Trump immigration czar Tom Homan. But if you overstayed your visa or got an abortion, you deserve to have the book thrown at you.

MAGA also offered an implicit bargain: Not only can you be a bigot toward whatever group makes you mad by existing, but everyone will have to love and respect you anyway. This was an impossible promise to keep—not even Trump has managed to bully comedians mocking him into silence—but politicians make impossible promises all the time. Many Americans are simply content to live vicariously through Trump’s impunity, even if they cannot share it.

The answer to why powerful people in some other parts of the world face consequences, while in America they rarely do, is that elite impunity is now an American national project. We might need to reframe “American exceptionalism.” Instead of a New Deal, we have a Great Society for white-collar crime, a New Frontier of executive lawbreaking, a No Rich Crook Left Behind. Most of us probably don’t even realize it. Nevertheless, this has been the priority for the wealthy and powerful, who have managed to convince a critical mass of Americans that they will be able to enjoy the same privileges. They won’t.

Friday Morning Male Beauty