US Attorney General Pam Bondi will leave the Trump administration.

 

Pam Bondi and her replacement Todd Blanche. BBC/Getty.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi will leave the Trump administration and will be replaced by her deputy, Todd Blanche. BBC. Bondi's term had been dominated by the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, first promising the release of an "Epstein list" of clients of Epstein but then failing to deliver when no such list existed. Trump had praised her for a crackdown on crime that appears to have had results but the Epstein issue was a drag on his administration. Bondi also faced criticism from Trump for not competently prosecuting Democrats suspected of crimes. Bondi is only the third major Cabinet official to resign or be fired in Trump's 2nd term, along with Kristi Noem and Mike Waltz.

My Comment:

I've got mixed feelings on this one. There is an argument to be made that Bondi was more effective in her role than people give her credit for. After all, there was a major decrease in crime under President Trump and Bondi probably does deserve credit for it. And she has done a competent job of defending Trump's policies in court, but that could be due to the weaknesses of the cases.

Regardless, it's pretty obvious that Bondi made a massive error in how she handled to Epstein files. She made a promise that she couldn't keep and made the issue extremely damaging for the Trump administration. Her presentation that suggested the existence of a "client list" that simply didn't exist sent conspiracy theorists into a frenzy and when she couldn't deliver on that it had the appearance of a coverup. 

It was an own-goal because there really was not a client list. There were a few people that were accused of wrong doing but it was mostly figures that we already knew, like Bill Richardson, Marin Minsky, Jean-Luc Brunel and Prince Andrew. None of those cases were prosecutable and that lead to folks feeling like justice was not being done. 

This was damaging to President Trump. I get the feeling that the general public doesn't care, other than the few people out there that care about nothing else. But it did cause a few prominent Republicans to break with the President, most notable Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene. I was never a fan of either of them, but still, it made enemies. 

Bondi was also having trouble prosecuting some prominent Democrats. Adam Schiff, James Comey and Laticia James should be awaiting trial right now, but Bondi wasn't able to secure an arrest in any of these cases. It's another point of contention with the Trump administration and the Republican base, we generally want to see these people in jail and Bondi wasn't able to get it done. 

So why did Bondi last so long? Like I said before, she did have some successes, but I am guessing it was because she was loyal to President Trump. Bondi helped to defend Trump during his 2020 impeachment and was seen as a personal friend to Trump. But that couldn't protect her forever. 

Will the United States leave NATO?

 

UK Prime Minster Kier Starmer. AP. 

President Donald Trump has stated that he is considering leaving NATO. AP. Trump has been a critic of NATO for a long time but his remarks were more explicit this time. Much of the criticism has been due to the actions of some of the European countries. Despite having some missiles launched at NATO allies like Turkey and a British base in Cyprus, much of Europe has not offered support to the conflict. Indeed, some states, such as Italy and Spain, have vetoed participation in the war and have banned US troops from operating at their bases. However, leaving NATO would be difficult due to US laws that would force leaving the alliance to go through Congress. 

My Comment:

In the short term, it's not really possible to leave NATO. Due to some laws put into place recently, President Trump is unable to unilaterally leave the alliance. He would need bipartisan support that simply doesn't exist even in his own party, let alone a Democrat party that would oppose him no matter what he does, even if it's the right thing to do. So, again, this is more about Trump venting frustration than an actual attempt to leave NATO in the short term. 

But Trump's frustration is more than justified. Europe isn't just not supporting this conflict, they are throwing monkey wrenches into it by banning use of bases. This is despite the fact that NATO allies, most notably the UK and Turkey, have come under direct attack from Iran and that NATO members outside of the United States benefit a lot more from what we are doing in Iran that we do. 

Indeed, Iran was pretty close to being able to threaten the capitals of much of Europe. I still don't think they were that close to nuclear weapons, but even a conventional ballistic attack on Europe's capitals would have been dangerous. If Iran had been able to create a nuclear weapon, after all North Korea was, all of Europe would have been threatened and we would have had a much more dangerous and high stakes conflict compared to the rather anemic one we have today. 

And they are also demanding that we open the Strait of Hormuz for them. We don't really benefit from that directly, and there would be actual risk there compared to the rest of the conflict, it would lower energy prices and ease some of the pain at the pump, but we are energy independent and not only have our own oil but Venezuela's as well. NATO doesn't have either and are refusing to buy oil from us as well. 

And it's not like we have asked Europe to do much. Indeed, Canada is off the hook here just because they supported the mission with words and not actions. All NATO had to do is let us use there bases and offer some words of support and they couldn't even do that. And it's threatening the alliance. 

Though the alliance was in trouble in the first place. The Russia-Ukraine war is a large part of it. Europe has largely depleted their weapons and bankrupted their economies in a war that is no longer necessary. Indeed, our goal now is to end the war and normalize relations with Russia. And, as critical as I am of Ukraine I have to note that they have done more to help in Iran than most of NATO, at this point I'd rather ally with them and Russia (were such a thing possible) than NATO. 

But the real problem is this question. Does it make sense to ally with people that don't have a future? As far as I can see it, much of Europe doesn't, and the US government agrees with me. Instead of focusing on their economy or military, they focused on social programs. Indeed, I am not impressed with much of NATO's military, again, Ukraine is a lot better than the majority and only Turkey, Poland and maybe France, are going to be useful in a military conflict. The UK is a joke and much of the rest are just as bad off. 

Immigration though is the elephant in the room. Europe brought in millions of military aged males in the last decade and its going to permanently change their demographics and future. It's to the point where I don't think they can make them leave without a conflict and I think that conflict is coming soon. I don't think Europe is going to be able to integrate their millions of Muslims the way America is able to do so with our immigrants and that means that NATO is likely doomed long term...

The Supreme Court has struck down bans on conversion therapy.

 

File photo of the Supreme Court. Politico/AP.

The Supreme Court has struck down a Colorado law banning conversion therapy. Politico. The case, Chiles v Salazar, in an 8-1 ruling found that Colorado's law that banned the practice was a violation of the 1st Amendment. Conversion therapy is a practice that attempts to reduce or remove same sex attraction and transgenderism through talk therapy. The practice has become controversial and 20 states have bans on the practice when used with minors. However, the court ruled that banning the practice was a violation of free speech. 

My Comment:

I have always thought that bans on conversion therapy were a pretty obvious violation of the 1st amendment, both on free speech grounds and religious freedom grounds. The government shouldn't get to have a say if a patient and his or her doctor want to talk out desisting from homosexuality or transgenderism. This wasn't a case where it was doctors prescribing medication or surgery, just talk therapy and the government is always going to get in trouble with the courts when they regulate talk.

The key problem here was that Colorado was pretty obviously and egregiously promoting viewpoint discrimination. Conversion therapy was banned but therapy that promoted or encouraged homosexuality or transgenderism for children was allowed. This is the government promoting one viewpoint and discriminating against another and the politics of it didn't matter to anyone but Ketanji Brown Jackson. 

Justice Kagan did point out that it was the discrimination that was the problem. Theoretically, a ban on the same kind of therapy encouraging homosexuality and transgenderism, would be just as legally suspect as Colorado's law. Outside of cases where people are being prescribed medication or surgery, you could face the same kind of ruling for a ban on that kind of therapy. You either have to allow both, or ban both, but picking and choosing is not going to be allowed anymore. And that means a lot of these conversion therapy bans are going to be removed. 

None of this is a judgement on if conversion therapy works or not. Given how politicized it is, I am guessing there isn't an honest study out there. My gut says that it probably does work when it comes to transgenderism but not so when it comes to homosexuality. I generally see transgenderism as a social contagion, not something that is natural, while homosexuality appears to be something that just happens naturally, though the cause is unknown.   

It also depends on what you mean when you say "works". I don't think homosexual attraction is something that you can talk yourself out off. But I do think that certain behaviors, like promiscuous or dangerous sex, are things you can talk yourself out off and that it could absolutely be helpful to talk those things out with a professional. And I think even from a secular perspective, there are reasons to encourage this, it's generally good to talk people out of their worst instincts. 

And for things like transgenderism? I absolutely think that this kind of therapy could help. I generally view the T portion of LGB to be a social contagion, not something that is real and that if people were allowed to talk it out with a therapist that wasn't trying to encourage it, most if not all transgender people wouldn't be transgender. 

Can I prove any of that? No, and that's the main problem. Studies are going to be so hopelessly politicized that we don't really have science as a tool and it's a real problem with modern science. My feeling is that every study showing conversion therapy doesn't work or does work would only be useful in telling who actually funded the study. 

Regardless, all of that is simple speculation that has little to do with the ruling. This was a very simple legal question, could the State of Colorado discriminate one political/religious point of view while promoting another? Obviously, they could not and that is why the ruling was so one sided. 

US airports return to normal after Trump ordered TSA agents to get paid.

 

Travelers at a TSA checkpoint in Baltimore. Reuters. 

US airports return to normal after President Trump ordered TSA agents to get paid. Reuters. Waits at TSA checkpoints went from hours to minutes after Trump ordered the paychecks to be cut and ordered ICE to help with the lines. TSA Agents received two paychecks worth of backpay and will get the half-paychecks for the first week worked after the government shutdown. The shutdown has caused some TSA agents to quit and thousands of other DHS employees are going without paychecks. Democrats have refused to fund DHS due to funds going to ICE and CBP. 

My Comment:

The Democrats strategy here was to make plane travel as annoying as possible. That was working for a short period but that is no longer in the cards. TSA is back to work and the long lines travelers were facing are now gone, thanks to these paychecks and the assistance of ICE. Almost all of their leverage is now gone. 

I do feel pretty bad for the TSA workers. Missing out on two and a half paychecks because the Democrats are throwing a fit is terrible. Many of those folks had to quit or take temporary jobs just to get by. The TSA isn't a great job to begin with but it's absolutely sad that they have to deal with constant congressional disfunction. Of course there are still thousands of DHS employees that are still out of work and I feel bad for them. 

It is bizarre that the Democrats are still trying to make the ICE issue into something. I don't think people cared that much when ICE was in the news every day and folks realized that Alex Pretti and Rene Goode caused their own deaths and shouldn't be mourned. This seems like another 80/20 issue that the Democrats are on the wrong side of. 

I do wonder when the shutdown is going to end. The Senate had passed a deal that would have funded all of DHS except for ICE and CPB and the House rejected it. I think the Republicans were right to do so. ICE and CPB are critical government functions and it's absurd to think that the Democrats should get there way here. They need to fund both agencies in full. 

Finally, I do have to say that I am glad I didn't have to travel in this mess. The last time I traveled via plane was back in 2017 and then the TSA line was basically empty both from my small local airport as well as the airport in Las Vegas. Had I had to wait an hour I would have been furious. Thankfully, that shouldn't be a problem anymore. 

Of course, there is always a chance that some judge will issue an injunction despite it not being supported by the law at all. That has been the Democrats plan throughout Trump's 2nd term and it would be a real problem in this case. Hopefully the government shutdown will be resolved before that can happen. 

Will the United States take Kharg Island from Iran?

 

Smoke from a missile strike on The UAE on March 14th. CNBC/AFP/Getty.

President Trump hinted that America might "take Iran's oil" and may take over Kharg Island, Iran's main oil hub. CNBC. Trump compared it to the successful action in Venezuela that led to a change of leadership and de facto control over the states oil. The Iran conflict has lasted around five weeks and has caused some disruption to oil markets. The Washington Post says that the Pentagon is preparing for a weeks long ground operation as thousands of troops have entered the region. 

My Comment:

Keep in mind that Trump is pretty good at misdirection when it comes to foreign policy. His words really don't mean that much and we don't actually know what he is thinking. This could be an effort to force Iran to defend Kharg Island while the actual target could be elsewhere. 

Do we have enough troops in the region to take Kharg Island? Yes. We have around 10,000 combat troops there, including two Marine Expeditionary Units aboard our amphibious assault ships, along with a couple thousand paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne. That's more than enough troops to take the island, and hold it, from the Iranians. 

Does that mean it's going to happen? Absolutely not. I see this more of a threat than anything else. Trump usually doesn't telegraph moves so transparently and doing so is not likely in this case. I feel that this is more of a threat than anything serious. 

Trump's main goal here is to get the Iranians to give up there nuclear material and cut a deal with the United States. This is another threat like the previous one to destroy Iran's energy generation. Again, we could have easily done that as well, but we backed off on it, most likely due to humanitarian concerns. It's probably why the threat didn't work, Iran didn't believe that we would do it, but they might believe that we could take Kharg. 

Is it a good idea militarily? You could say so. Iran absolutely needs Kharg Island if they want their oil to be sold, it's their most important hub. Taking it would cripple them. Doing so would not be difficult and neither would be holding it. The Marines and the 82nd would be well suited to take the island and much of the defenses there have already been destroyed, though Iran has made moves to reinforce it. 

Politically though? I am not sure. Such an operation would absolutely lead to US casualties and most Americans are opposed to boots on the ground. The casualties might even be heavy, though not so heavy that the operation wouldn't be sustainable. That too would play extremely poorly politically, folks want to avoid a "quagmire" and any casualties for our ground forces would play into that narrative. 

It's why I think if ground operations do happen, they will be raids, not taking and holding territory. Think the Venezuela raid, not the Iraq War. And I think there would be very different targets than Kharg Island, the main goal would be to fully open the Gulf of Hormuz, so a raid on areas with missile bases or naval docks would be likely goals. 

As for the course of the war itself, I do think that it's likely to not last too much longer. Trump is clearly talking to somebody, though it's also obviously not the IRGC or the Ayatollah. My guess is the actual secular Iranian government, or perhaps the military, wants to make a deal wile the country's religious leadership, including the IRGC, are keeping this from happening. I just don't see how the IRGC can stay in power long term with so much of their leadership dead and eventually a deal will be made.