Troops At Polling Places

With all the rhetoric coming out Trump about the elections... people are worried about what he will pull out of his hat!

CNN News writes in Will the Trump administration send federal officers or troops to the polls? Here’s what we know

Here is what top officials within the administration or the military have said about the potential of sending troops or federal officers to polling locations:

Mullin says ICE officers could be at polling places in specific circumstances. The law says they can’t be

Concerns about immigration authorities being dispatched to polling places partly stem from Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin’s decision earlier this year to deploy Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to airports during a government shutdown. While immigration authorities have long had a presence and enforced immigration laws at airports, the large-scale deployment of ICE officers to assist with security and lines was a new development.

It also spurred concern about whether polling places could be next, especially given the administration’s broader crusade against what it claims — without evidence — is widespread voter fraud by immigrants in the country illegally.

“These are all tools of how the president is trying to think about a much larger plan, which is, if you cannot hold onto power through democratic elections, then adjust democratic elections,” Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, told CNN in March.

Asked by reporters last week whether ICE officers could be sent to polling locations in November, Mullin left open the possibility that they could be under specific circumstances.

Doesn't this answer give you a warm fuzzy feeling?

In a letter responding to Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat who asked military leaders to commit to not sending troops to the polls, Caine wrote the military has “no plans” to send federal military personnel or federalized National Guard troops to voting locations.

“Likewise, the Joint Force has no plans to use such personnel to seize ballots, voting machines, or other election-related material,” wrote Caine, who is the nation’s highest-ranking military officer.

Notice the wording... “no plans” but that doesn't rule out sending 

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law wrote;

Preventing Voter Intimidation by Federal Agents at the Polls
Any deployment that intimidates voters or interferes with elections would be illegal. Should one occur, officials and civil society are prepared to challenge illegal acts so that voting can proceed uninterrupted.

In May, when President Trump was asked whether he would send National Guard troops or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to polling locations during the midterm elections, he responded that he would “do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections; we have to have honest elections.” Several of his officials and allies have made similar comments in recent weeks and months. While no public information suggests that the federal government currently plans to deploy armed law enforcement agents to the polls in November, these statements appear designed to sow fear among voters.

Despite the implied threat, the law is clear: Sending armed federal agents, including those from ICE, to election sites is illegal. Federal law and many states’ laws prohibit not only armed federal agents at polling sites, but also interference in elections or voter intimidation by any officials or private citizens. More important, using these tactics would be a flagrant attempt to hold on to power through force and intimidation and an affront to free and fair elections. Yet, given the Trump administration’s pattern of flouting rules and engaging in plainly illegal and unethical conduct, including attempting to overturn a valid election, we must take this threat seriously.

The law reads...

Whoever, being an officer of the Army or Navy, or other person in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, orders, brings, keeps, or has under his authority or control any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held, unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; and be disqualified from holding any office of honor, profit, or trust under the United States.

As the old saying goes... "May you live in interesting times!"

Do You Have A Warm Fuzzy Feeling?

I don't... this is from Axios,

 Two key reasons led to Army Secretary Dan Driscoll's resignation, announced Monday: the feeling that his modernization initiatives were being blocked, and the chaos created by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's firing of senior generals.

Why it matters: Driscoll's wartime resignation, on top of Hegseth's firing of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George this spring, leaves the military's largest service without Senate-confirmed leadership, civilian or uniformed.

The last sentence is what got my attention. With this administration in the middle of a war... it is now all Hegseth's cronies and that doesn't sit well with me. Especially with a critical election coming up and all the threats Trump made about the election and using the military. No... this doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

---

Updated: 9/2 @ 5:00AM  

CBS New just published a list of fired officers and civilians.

Here are the military and civilian leaders who've been fired, forced out or resigned since Hegseth became defense secretary

By Eleanor Watson

September 1, 2026 / 9:43 PM EDT / CBS News

At least 20 generals, admirals and civilian defense leaders have been fired or have departed their jobs since Pete Hegseth became defense secretary at the beginning of the second Trump administration. 

Some of the military's most decorated leaders have either been fired by Hegseth and President Trump or have retired with little explanation, including the Army, Navy and Air Force's highest-ranking officers and the leaders of key units. The Army and Navy's top civilian leaders have also either been forced out or resigned.

Before becoming defense secretary, Hegseth had criticized military officers, accusing them of being too focused on diversity initiatives and insufficiently supportive of frontline service members. Before he was nominated, he said on a podcast that "any general that was involved — general, admiral, whatever — that was involved in any of the DEI woke s*** has got to go."  

The Trump administration has pushed out top female and Black officers, and Black and female officers have been disproportionately removed from promotion lists, a source familiar with the lists told CBS News. There are currently no active four-star women generals or admirals in the military. Many of those who failed to secure promotions have left the military.

My worries are that the "new" generals are loyal to Hegseth and not the Consitution

There Is A Pattern

There is a pattern

[Editorial]

Trump is known for stalling, and his administration is doing the same. Back in the first part of the year, a judge ordered the ban on unescorted media access to be lifted. Here it is in August, and they still have no unescorted access. Why? Because of legal wrangling; the Pentagon won a key legal appeal in July. Now that is being adjudicated in the courts.

Then there is the case of Stars and Stripes. The newspaper has a special law from Congress dictating its independence from the military. The Secretary of Defense, Hegseth, fired editor-in-chief Erik Slavin, publisher Max Lederer, and reporter Lara Korte because they printed a story on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.

Then there is this, reported in The Intercept:

U.S. Central Command maintains a secret directory of journalists who have been blacklisted by the press office, according to an official with CENTCOM public affairs. The disclosure comes amid a failed war in Iran, a “cover-up” of U.S. casualties from that conflict, and repeated refusals by CENTCOM to address questions about civilian deaths in Iran, including the killing of a family recently disclosed by The Intercept.

The CENTCOM official who revealed the existence of the list threatened that this reporter could be added to it for calling the command too often.

“You’ll be put on a list of people to disregard,” Richard Allee, an executive assistant with CENTCOM public affairs, told this reporter. When asked for clarification — “You have a list of people to disregard?” — he confirmed it with an emphatic “Yes.” When asked which reporters or outlets were currently on the list, he replied, “I’m not privy to give you that information.”

Remember the sayings: “No news is good news” and “Whoever controls the press controls the mind.” Well, the current administration keeps the news close to its chest.

It was the conditions of the USS Abraham Lincoln coming to light that started the chain of events.

The story breaks; sailors jump ship.

Why?

Lack of food, sanitary system backups, low morale.

Why?

Resupply bases bombed, supplies destroyed, causing ships to have shortages.

Why was the ship deployed so long?

The war is going on longer than planned.

Did firing the planners and the logistics people have anything to do with it?

This whole thing reminds me of the song “For the Want of a Nail.”

I would say that this whole war is a clusterfuck, since even before the planning started, and I think the real reason they want to cover it up is their own incompetence.

[/Editorial'

---

Updated: 9/2 @ 5:00AM  

CBS New just published a list of fired officers and civilians.

Here are the military and civilian leaders who've been fired, forced out or resigned since Hegseth became defense secretary

By Eleanor Watson

September 1, 2026 / 9:43 PM EDT / CBS News

At least 20 generals, admirals and civilian defense leaders have been fired or have departed their jobs since Pete Hegseth became defense secretary at the beginning of the second Trump administration. 

Some of the military's most decorated leaders have either been fired by Hegseth and President Trump or have retired with little explanation, including the Army, Navy and Air Force's highest-ranking officers and the leaders of key units. The Army and Navy's top civilian leaders have also either been forced out or resigned.

Before becoming defense secretary, Hegseth had criticized military officers, accusing them of being too focused on diversity initiatives and insufficiently supportive of frontline service members. Before he was nominated, he said on a podcast that "any general that was involved — general, admiral, whatever — that was involved in any of the DEI woke s*** has got to go."  

The Trump administration has pushed out top female and Black officers, and Black and female officers have been disproportionately removed from promotion lists, a source familiar with the lists told CBS News. There are currently no active four-star women generals or admirals in the military. Many of those who failed to secure promotions have left the military.

My worries are that the "new" generals are loyal to Hegseth and not the Consitution

Failure of Judgment?

[Editorial]

Did the Secretary of Defense have a serious lapse in judgment in the firing of the Army’s Chief of Staff, Gen. Randy George, weeks into Trump’s War? Trump invaded Iran, and five weeks later, Gen. George was “Shit Canned” for no reason given at the time.

But let us go back in time, just before his firing… Army attack helicopters did an unauthorized fly-by of Kid Rock’s house. Here is what was reported at the time...

Hegseth ousts Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George
CBS News
By Jennifer Jacobs, Eleanor Watson, James LaPorta
April 2, 2026

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has asked Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George to step down and take immediate retirement, sources familiar with the decision told CBS News.

One of the sources said Hegseth wants someone in the role who will implement President Trump and Hegseth's vision for the Army.

Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement that George "will be retiring from his position as the 41st Chief of Staff of the Army effective immediately. The Department of War is grateful for General George's decades of service to our nation. We wish him well in his retirement."

A senior Defense Department official told CBS News, "We are grateful for his service, but it was time for a leadership change in the Army."

Just like that—BOOM! With no hints… just the ax, with no replacement waiting in the wings! In the middle of the war. What could the general have done? That hasn’t come out until now, and the dots connect it to the Kid Rock fly-by… the general was all for investigating it against his boss’s wishes.

The Los Angeles Times reported back in April that:

The forced departure of George in the middle of a war created yet another blow to morale inside the Pentagon, where multiple officials expressed dismay over the state of the department’s leadership. Over the last year, Hegseth has fired five sitting members of the joint chiefs of staff, with only two holdovers remaining in their posts.

“Whenever you have a change in leadership, military or otherwise, there is bound to be some churn in information management,” one U.S. official said, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “So what you’re doing, in the middle of a war, as we are taking U.S. casualties, is you’re taking out the general in charge of making sure the right people and equipment are flowing into the Middle East."

Was it the bad news that got him “Shit Canned,” or was it something else? CBS News goes on to report:

The ouster follows Hegseth's X post lifting the suspension of the aircrew that flew by Kid Rock's house in Nashville last weekend. After the Army announced the suspension of the aviators involved and an administrative review, Hegseth overruled the Army, writing on his personal X account, "No punishment. No investigation. Carry on, patriots."

Timing?

But wait, there’s more! Since then…

Before Hegseth fired him, top general was advised to drop Kid Rock probe
Dan Lamothe and Noah Robertson,
The Washington Post
August 26, 2026

Days before the Army's top officer was abruptly fired earlier this year, he was advised by a fellow general now vying to replace him to stop the military's investigation into an unauthorized helicopter flyby of musician Kid Rock's Tennessee estate, three people familiar with the matter said.

Gen. Randy George, whom Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth removed as the Army chief of staff without explanation, felt it was important to follow typical protocol and determine whether any safety regulations had been violated during the March 28 flyby, these people said. Like some others, they spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the episode.

Gen. Chris LaNeve, the Army's No. 2 officer, told George that Hegseth did not want the investigation to proceed, one person said. The two others said that George later confided in colleagues that he seemed troubled by the encounter with LaNeve, who suggested it would be best if the review was scuttled.

The revelation, which has not previously been reported, adds a new layer of understanding to Hegseth's potential motivations for firing George on April 2. Kid Rock, whose legal name is Robert Ritchie, is a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump and avowed critic of many Democratic politicians and causes.

Here we are, right in the middle of Trump’s War, and we are changing leaders—not because of incompetence or a failure of judgment by the general. It was because a MAGA hotshot pilot wanted to impress a friend of Trump’s, Kid Rock, so he did a fly-by. The Army Chief of Staff wanted to pursue the possible violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), but his boss didn’t. His boss put politics ahead of the law and morale. That is why he was fired… he didn’t want special rules for special people. The general was advised to drop the Kid Rock investigation but felt it was important to follow normal protocol, and for that, he got fired!

Think about this: Gen. George was the Army’s senior uniformed officer during the planning and execution of the war in Iran. For that, I believe the Secretary of Defense showed a Failure of Judgment in putting politics before the war effort when he fired him.

I am reminded of “The Want of a Nail” by Todd Rundgren:

… For the want of a nail (the world was lost)
For the want of a nail, oh yeah (the world was lost)
For the want of a nail (the world was lost)
For the want of a nail (the world was lost)

[/Editorial]

They’re Not Pawns

[Editorial]

Before I retired, I ran an electronic test department. At its peak, I managed 24 techs, including an Air Force master tech. Every once in a while, he would vanish for a month or two. So I had to hire a “Rent-A-Tech,” and we paid the difference in salaries.

When he came back in the middle of winter with a tan, all he said was, “There was a lot of sand.” But in the news, we knew that the military had sent troops to the Afghanistan area.

The thing is, he was a vital person on my team. His loss was felt!

It cost the company to hire a temp!

The company covered the difference in salaries, but many businesses do not, so it is a hardship on the families!

We didn’t mind because he was being used for what he signed up for, but… picking up trash in Washington, D.C., is wrong. Trump doesn’t care. He is using the Guard as pawns in a chess match. He doesn’t care about the hardships he is causing.

Now he is pissed off about a report that showed that the National Guard is not making any difference, and Trump is pissed. And, true to form, he is attacking the media.

Trump threatens lawsuit against nonprofit that questioned whether National Guard plan lessened crime

AP News

By  GARY FIELDS

August 21, 2026

President Donald Trump is threatening to sue a left-leaning think tank unless it retracts a report that said his National Guard deployments to various cities did not reduce crime as he said.

The letter gave the Washington, D.C.-based Center for American Progress until the end of business Friday to issue the retraction or face a $5 billion lawsuit. The center declined.

The nonprofit’s president and chief executive, Neera Tanden, said in a statement that the lawsuit “is a transparent attempt to silence us. We will neither cower nor bend in the face of it.”

The report, published July 13, criticized the administration for taking credit for a historic drop in violent crime at a time when that decline was already underway. The analysis concluded that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard “had no measurable effect on violent crime trends.”

In typical Trump fashion……. ATTACK!

Before, he used to short his subs on construction jobs. Now he has the full weight of the U.S. government behind him. The FCC is attacking Disney/ABC. The Defense Department went after Stars and Stripes for publishing the article about the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. The First Amendment be damned! When asked about the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the reports were "fake news" and the conditions "completely misrepresented," and insisted the Pentagon makes sure "every ship, every crew, every captain has everything we can provide them at every single moment." So instead of focusing on fixing the problem he went after the media.

The thing is… these are people’s lives. They signed up to defend the Constitution, not to be used as some political pawns, not as cannon fodder for Trump’s political ambitions and to gather more wealth for the Trump family. 

[/Editorial]

---

Updated: 8/26 @ 6AM

I just came across this NPR article: In candid interviews, National Guard members speak out about D.C. deployment and they write,

Thousands of armed National Guard members have been patrolling Washington, D.C., for more than a year now. But central voices have been missing from the public discourse around that deployment, and that's the Guard members themselves. NPR's Kat Lonsdorf has been speaking with some of them, and they say they're worried that this is a new norm of armed troops patrolling American cities. Kat's with me now. Good morning.

[...]

FADEL: So what did they tell you?

LONSDORF: Well, all three spoke really bluntly about how they didn't buy the justification for the deployment by this administration, which, remember, came after President Trump declared a crime emergency despite a 30-year low in violent crime in the city. They all said that reasoning was confusing to them in the beginning but even more so now, as the deployment has been extended for several years.

One Guard member said, quote, "it feels like the Guard is being exploited, being used for political narratives by the administration." Another told me that he hopes there will be some kind of official reckoning someday about why the Guard is here and whether it was worth it. And another Guard member told me that it, quote, "embarrasses" him to be involved in any way with the deployment.

They feel the same way I wrote... that they are nothing but pawns!

The Truth.

Under our Constitution… you, the military are answerable to us. The voters.

And we demand that our congressional representatives get answers from the administration to the following questions:

1. How much damage was done to the U.S. military bases in the Middle East?
2. Are the reports true that some of these bases are unusable?
3. Was the damage the cause of the resupply problems with the USS Abraham Lincoln?

Then there are questions about who was fired or removed from positions within the U.S. intelligence establishment — including the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the NSA, and parts of military intelligence:

4. Did these changes affect the intelligence used in the bombing of the school in Iran?
5. Did these changes affect the planning to protect our military bases in the region?
6. Did these changes affect the deployment of ships to rotate in and out of the Middle East?
7. Did these changes affect logistics and resupply for the Middle East combat zone?

I think we need to find out whether all of this was the result of incompetence, a political agenda, or both.

U.S.S. Donald Trump?

What do you think the new aircraft carrier should be named. Trump want to name it after him.

But there have been other suggestions...

online polls

Or you can suggest a name for the carrier in the comments!

The First Amendment

[Essay]

I remember digging through my father’s WWII footlocker, where he had mementos from his time in the service. In it were copies of the VE and VJ Day editions of Stars and Stripes.

From what I know of history, Stars and Stripes was a well-respected newspaper. Congress even created protections for it as an independent newspaper, with its own staff. The paper writes:

News for America's military Stars and Stripes provides independent news and information to the U.S. military community, including active-duty servicemembers, DoD civilians, veterans, contractors, and their families. Unique among Department of Defense authorized news outlets, Stars and Stripes is governed by the principles of the First Amendment.*

And the “*”?

* Stars and Stripes is a service of the Defense Media Activity (DMA); the views and opinions expressed do not reflect the views of the Department of Defense, the military services or DMA. The Pentagon funding that makes up roughly half of Stars and Stripes’ annual budget is primarily used to print and distribute the newspaper to troops scattered across the globe, including in warzones. The remainder of the newspaper’s funding comes from advertising and subscriptions. Stars and Stripes is editorially independent of interference from outside its own editorial chain-of-command. It provides commercially available U.S. and world news and objective staff-produced stories relevant to the military community in a balanced, fair, and accurate manner. By keeping its audience informed, Stars and Stripes enhances military readiness and better enables U.S. military personnel and their families stationed overseas to exercise their responsibilities of citizenship.

Back in the 1980s, the Reagan administration was accused of interfering with coverage of the Iran-Contra affair, and Congress’ House Armed Services Committee created the ombudsman position in 1990–91. The ombudsman was deliberately structured to be outside the newspaper’s normal chain of command and to report directly to Congress about threats to editorial independence. A later congressional hearing record specifically described the post-1989 reforms as strengthening the paper’s independence and minimizing undue command influence.

And now, Stars and Stripes published the truth about the USS Abraham Lincoln, and that set Hegseth off on a tizzy. But it started before that, when Trump and Hegseth began pushing for control of everything.

Stars and Stripes reported:

House Armed Services Committee seeks answers on Pentagon plan for Stars and Stripes

By SVETLANA SHKOLNIKOVA

January 21, 2026

The House Armed Services Committee has sent two requests to the Defense Department asking how the department will ensure the congressionally mandated independence of Stars and Stripes amid a plan to “refocus” its content, according to two people familiar with the matter. A bipartisan request was sent after the Pentagon’s chief spokesperson on Thursday posted to the social media site X that it would overhaul the news organization to rid it of “woke distractions that syphon morale, and adapt it to serve a new generation of service members.” Democratic staff sent a follow-up information request Tuesday after noticing the Pentagon had removed the federal regulation governing the publication. “We have yet to receive any answers,” a committee staffer speaking on condition of anonymity said Wednesday. The Pentagon has also not responded to questions from Stars and Stripes requesting details on the planned changes. The committee staffer said the elimination of the regulation leaves a Department of Defense directive as the only remaining rule addressing the news organization’s editorial independence. The 1994 directive can be changed on a whim, according to Jacqueline Smith, the ombudsman for Stars and Stripes. The ombudsman role was created in 1991 by the House Armed Services Committee to report to Congress on threats to the Stars and Stripes mission of providing independent news to the military community.

[…]

The rule change points out that a proposed modernization of the regulation last year drew 88 public comments that broadly supported Stripes’ independence. Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the committee, said he is asking the Defense Department to explain how it intends to maintain the journalistic independence of Stars and Stripes, as long affirmed by Congress.

Then, in March, Stars and Stripes wrote:

The Pentagon has released a modernization plan for Stars and Stripes that affirms the publication’s independence while expanding Defense Department oversight, introducing new restrictions on content and transitioning away from a print publication. An eight-page memo, dated March 9 and effective immediately, limits the use of wire services, bars comics and other syndicated features and states that content must be consistent with “good order and discipline,” a phrase borrowed from the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The memo is the first formal explanation since Pentagon chief spokesman Sean Parnell said in a Jan. 15 social media post that the Defense Department intended to “refocus” the news organization “from woke distractions that syphon morale.” On Friday, Parnell in a statement provided the first direct comment to the organization since Jan. 15. He said the department is “returning S&S to its original mission: an independent news source for service members stationed overseas that is by the warfighter and for the warfighter.”

Then came the straw that broke Hegseth’s back: the story about the carrier that exposed Hegseth’s claim as lies.

Longtime publisher of Stars and Stripes to retire, citing differences with Pentagon leadership

AP News

By JOCELYN NOVECK

August 19, 2026

The longtime publisher of Stars and Stripes has announced his retirement, ending a decades-long career with the military newspaper as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Pentagon moves to exert editorial control and eliminate what it asserts are “woke distractions.”

Max D. Lederer Jr. announced his retirement, effective at the end of September, in a memo to staff on Tuesday, as well as in an interview with Stars and Stripes. In the memo, seen by The Associated Press, Lederer, the second full-time civilian in the position, wrote that it had “become clear that my philosophy of leadership, and my understanding of the value and mission of Stars and Stripes, differ in fundamental ways from the direction the leadership of the Department of Defense has for the organization.”

The announcement comes less than four months after the Pentagon fired Jacqueline Smith, ombudsman for the newspaper, whose job was to safeguard editorial independence. The news outlet is partly funded by the Defense Department, but has a legacy of independence from military and government leadership. “No one should be surprised that they’re kicking out the one person charged by Congress with protecting Stars and Stripes’ editorial independence,” Smith wrote in a column.

Stars and Stripes has recently been at the forefront of some of the reporting on conditions for sailors on the USS Abraham Lincoln and concerns for their mental health during the aircraft carrier’s long deployment — concerns that President Donald Trump has downplayed.

What can you say about a Secretary of Defense who ignores the laws, who ignores the Constitution, the First Amendment, and the laws? And who lies about the conditions in the military?

If Hegseth was telling the truth and the newspaper had completely lied about the conditions, then where did all these reports come from? And if the conditions really were as good as he claimed, why did thousands of sailors spend more than 250 days at sea without a meaningful port visit?

American soldiers fought a war in which Eisenhower said free press and free speech were principles worth preserving. Eighty years later, the Stars and Strips print the truths and the Defense Secretary is attacking the newspaper rather than welcoming scrutiny.

[/Essay]

---

Updated: 8/22 @ 8AM

Stars & Stripes

Erik Slavin, the editor-in-chief, said he was being fired for insubordination after stating in a CBS interview last month that censorship of news for service members would constitute a red line in the Pentagon’s efforts to exert control over the newspaper. “I stand by the principle that Stars and Stripes must remain editorially independent, as required by law and by the department’s own policies,” he said in a statement Friday. He said he received a notice of proposed separation and is reviewing it.

[...]

“These firings are a shame for the institution and service members, who swore to defend the Constitution and deserve the right to a free and independent press,” she said.

Yes it would and yes it is!

---

Updated: 8/23 @ 4PM

This morning on CBS Sunday Morning they made a statement about Stars & Strips:

Two Stories!

Which one do you believe?

There are now two version of an attack on a Jordan air base in July.

US says two military personnel killed by Iranian attack in Jordan

Reuters

By David Ljunggren, Enas Alashray and Hatem Maher

July 17, 2026

Summary

• US says two service members killed, another missing in action
• Iran's leader says US will pay for breaches of deal
• Iran appears to target Saudi Arabia as well as other US allies
• US airstrikes on Iran reported to continue on Saturday afternoon

The U.S. military said on Saturday two of its personnel were killed in Jordan and another was missing ​after an Iranian attack, while Iran's supreme leader said Washington would pay for "seeking to escalate the conflict" after a seventh straight night of U.S. strikes.

The U.S. and Iran have intensified ‌attacks since an interim ceasefire deal signed a month ago fell apart last week, raising the possibility of a return to all-out war.

U.S. Central Command said the two deaths occurred on Friday and that a third U.S. service member was missing in action. The announcement brought the number of U.S. service members killed since the war began to 16, while more than 420 have been wounded.

But from middle east sources tell a different story...

$300 million up in smoke? Iran claims it destroyed three US F-35 fighter jets in Jordan

Edited by: Vivek Dube

TIMESOFINDIA.COM

Jul 30, 2026

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on Thursday claimed it destroyed three US F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jets and severely damaged three more in a ballistic missile strike on Jordan's al-Azraq Air Base, in what, if verified, would mark one of the most significant losses of America's most advanced combat aircraft.

According to a statement carried by Iran International, the attack targeted an aircraft parking area and a maintenance hangar at the base in response to a US strike on Iran's Qeshm Island. The IRGC also claimed that several US military officers and maintenance personnel were killed in the strike.

The United States has not confirmed the claim, and there has been no independent verification of the reported destruction or damage to the aircraft.

So which was it? Did the planes get destroyed and the Trump administration doesn't want admit it or Iran is lying?

online polls

You Think We Have It Bad

Can you imagine being in Ukraine and being trans? Being questioned to see if you transitioned to get out of the service.

Trans women now find it more difficult to obtain a diagnosis: Stereotypes, corruption and other challenges facing transgender people during wartime

Zmina

Date: 28 July 2026

Author: Olha Madzhumdar

As part of Pride Month, the three-day Trans Forum 2026 took place in Kyiv, Ukraine, in early June 2026, bringing together transgender people, activists and allies of the community. Today, the trans community in Ukraine faces a range of challenges – from corruption in healthcare and shortages of hormone medication to mobilisation-related problems and the risks posed by the new draft Civil Code.

Is the gender transition procedure in Ukraine really simpler than in European countries?

• Does being transgender constitute grounds for exemption from mobilisation, and how does this work in practice?
• What does the process of legal gender change in Ukraine currently involve?
• What could change once Ukraine transitions to ICD-11 – the latest revision of the International Classification of Diseases?

ZMINA discussed these and other issues with Emiliia Kovalenko, a trans woman and head of NGO “Emancipation”, Salvador Stryzh, a trans man and communications manager at NGO Resistance, and Nick, a community representative.

[…]

In addition to facing prejudice and a lack of understanding from officers of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine and staff of the Territorial Centre of Recruitment and Social Support (TCR and SS), trans people must also jump through numerous bureaucratic hoops to be removed from the military register, says Emiliia Kovalenko:

It must be hard to transition with a war, in such an unstably environment.

The Draft!

There has been some talk about bringing back the draft because of Iran.

Stop right there... WHAT?

This just found its way onto my news feeds. I guess this was from March. But now, with Trump's war going down the tubes, it is getting more attention.

Could the Iran war trigger a military draft? Why experts say it’s unlikely

Comments about keeping military ‘options’ open sparked confusion online, but reinstating the draft would require Congress and remains highly unlikely

Poynter

By: Louis Jacobson and Zoe Weyand

March 11, 2026

The United States’ military attacks against Iran were barely a week old when a controversial topic surfaced: Could the war require the first military draft since the early 1970s?

After White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt spoke to Fox News host Maria Bartiromo March 8, some portrayed her comments as President Donald Trump opening the door to a military draft.

Here’s the exchange:

Bartiromo: “Mothers out there are worried that we’re going to have a draft — that they’re going to see their sons and daughters get involved in this. What do you want to say about the president’s plans for troops on the ground? As we know, it’s been largely an air campaign up until now.”

Leavitt: “It has been, and it will continue to be, and President Trump, wisely, does not remove options off of the table. I know a lot of politicians like to do that quickly, but the president, as commander in chief, wants to continue to assess the success of this military operation. It’s not part of the current plan right now, but the president, again, wisely keeps his options on the table.”

Now, with Trump's War going badly and Trump threatening to blow Iran out of existence... well, it kind of makes you think, with all the rhetoric, that it could be true.

Trump weighed in on ground troops — but not a draft — during March 7 remarks to reporters on Air Force One. Responding to a question about ground troops, he said, “Could there be? Possibly, for a very good reason. Have to be a very good reason.”

Now five months latter????? Will it hold true? Vox wrote last week,

The latest US casualties are a grim reminder that — for all the talk of drones and precision missiles — wars are still fought by actual, human people.

But major military powers are running short on soldiers: The US, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan have all recently struggled to recruit troops. And the forces driving that shortage aren’t easily reversed.

For starters, falling birth rates and aging populations have left many countries with fewer military-age adults. Being the right age is also only half of the equation. In the US, factors including weight, drug use and physical or mental health conditions would disqualify an estimated three-quarters of young Americans from military service.

Then there’s the military’s image problem: Polls show that young people around the world are becoming less willing to fight for their respective countries. And young Americans, in particular, have more negative views of both the military and the war in Iran than do their parents or grandparents.

There is another way to fill the ranks, of course…but it isn’t popular. The US ended its draft in 1973, and most Western militaries have similarly transitioned to all-volunteer forces. If the US did ever need to restart its draft, both the politics and the logistics could prove formidable.

I sure hope that they do bring back the draft!

Huh? What are you talking about? No way do we want a draft! Exactly! Nobody wants the draft again, so I am happy to see them talking about it now.

I wrote back in April:

The Vietnam war... why did we leave?

The protests? No!

The atrocities? No!

We were losing? No!

It was because of the draft! All of a sudden, little Johnny was being drafted!

All the White kids got college deferments (Including me.)

So now all these rich Republicans are saying "What wait a minute!" You're starting a daft again because of your war in Iran. Even though they are not drafting anyone... yet! They hear the silent "yet" and we are the Vietnam generation, we know where this leads!

If they do start a draft... it will probably be a lottery because of past history.

So it will be in November that in the voting booth... you're not getting my grandchild like you did me! It’s not just memories—it’s institutional memory with a human face.

It is true: if Trump & Company try to impose a draft for Trump's War in Iran, there will be a terrible backlash, and it could doom the Republican Party.

Yes It Was...

...Also bigotry, and all the other "isms"!

‘Cruelty was the point’: Transgender troops look back on their ban as it’s set to end

Military Times

By Riley Ceder

July 15, 2026

Transgender service members are on the precipice of being allowed back into the military after a federal court ruled that the Trump administration’s ban against them was unlawful.

As troops look toward a future when their service might be welcome once again, individuals affected by the policy told Military Times that the year and a half time period upended their lives.

Transgender service members are on the precipice of being allowed back into the military after a federal court ruled that the Trump administration’s ban against them was unlawful.

As troops look toward a future when their service might be welcome once again, individuals affected by the policy told Military Times that the year and a half time period upended their lives.

The Pentagon's figure of about 4,240 service members were trans.

But that is out of around 2.04–2.11 million personnel! Or around... are you ready for this? 0.2%

With their lives on hold, these service members felt depression, anxiety and disillusionment over why an institution to which they had pledged their lives suddenly cast them out, swiftly and seemingly without regard for their psychiatric and professional well-being.

Service members also felt betrayed that the Defense Department used their “gender dysphoria” diagnosis to justify their separation. The term was assigned to service members during previous administrations as a medical diagnosis that allowed them to serve openly as transgender and receive gender-affirming care.

They say family values are passed down through the generations... I think that is true. Trump's father was arrested a KKK rally in New York City! We see what family values that are being passed down through the family. So far it seems his family are following in his foot steps.

Army Infantry Major Kara Corcoran has served for over 18 years and is currently involved in the involuntary separation process.

In May 2025, she graduated from the School of Advanced Military Studies after completing an esteemed one-year master’s degree program that trained her to become an operational planner.

But she was informed by her chain of command that senior leadership had prohibited her from crossing the stage with her peers during graduation unless she adhered to male regulations and standards, in keeping with the new DoD policy.

“Cruelty was the point,” Corcoran said of the rule.

Yes, it was.

By the way, these countries permit transgender military service:

• Australia
• Belgium
• Canada
• Denmark
• France
• Germany
• Japen
• Netherlands
• New Zealand
• Norway
• Spain
• Sweden
• United Kingdom

All The King's Horses And All The King's Men

I don't know about you, but it sure does seem like everything is falling down around "The Art of the Deal" Trump. It feels like everyone except his most devoted MAGA shills is jumping ship.

As for all his loyal minions, he either had to shit-can them because things were getting too hot, or they committed the unforgivable sin of contradicting the boss.

Take a look at the Secretary of Defense... um.. er... Secretary of War.

Just look at the whole name thing. Why "war"??? Did he feel that it fit better with his macho self-image of him riding off to battle on a white charger?

Case in point: D-Day, Normandy, 2026.

 ‘A point of resistance’: the Normandy village that said ‘non’ to Pete Hegseth

US defence secretary cancelled appearance at D-day event in Langrune-sur-Mer after protest by residents

Ashifa Kassam and Kim Willsher

Sun 14 Jun 2026

When news came that the US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, would be travelling to Normandy to mark D-day, some in the seaside village of Langrune-sur-Mer – where the afternoon ceremony was slated to be held – felt they had to speak up.

“We found it unbelievable that they could send someone who held views and values contrary to democracy, human rights, peace and Europe,” said resident Chantal Richard. To her, the incongruence felt deeply personal. “We grew up going to D-day ceremonies, some of us had grandparents or parents whose lives were affected by this war.”

The view led Richard and the 40 or so other members of Langrune en Commun, a residents’ association, to sign a 179-word statement. Published days before the 82nd anniversary of the D-day landings, it called for Hegseth’s visit to be cancelled.

But wait! There's more! He got caught in an embellishment.

"Shoes for Industry"

"Shoes for Defense"

On CBS's Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan, he got called out for...

Pete Hegseth says it's a "manufactured story" that U.S. faces munitions stockpile shortage

By Kaia Hubbard

June 14, 2026

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Sunday refuted the idea that the U.S. is facing a crisis with its munitions stockpile, despite testifying earlier this year that replenishing the stockpile could take "months and years."

"That is a manufactured story that the media wants to peddle and ultimately our stockpiles are great, and they're only getting stronger," Hegseth said on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan."

Weeks after the ceasefire began in the war with Iran, Hegseth testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the Pentagon's $1.5 trillion budget request. During the April 30 hearing, Hegseth estimated that it could take "months and years" to replenish the stockpile as the Iran war had stretched on for months. Hegseth called the timeline "fast," and he noted that the speed will depend on the weapon system.

[...]

"I think it's widely understood that when you attack over 10,000 targets from the air with cruise missiles and ballistic missiles and bombs from airplanes, you are using a lot of munitions, and we do not have an endless supply of these things," Kelly said. "So now we're in a posture where we've got to be incredibly careful."

Then came the biggie! He admitted that Trump's war accomplished nothing... we got the exact same thing President Obama had.

WOW! Secretary of War Crimes Pete Hegseth Admits Trump’s Iran Deal Gets NOTHING that Obama Didn’t Get

Daily Kos

by News Corpse for Media Watch

June 14, 2026

The political and PR tug of war between Donald Trump and Iran is continuing to strain relations without making any observable progress. On Saturday Trump posted a comment on his dedicated propaganda platform, Truth Social, declaring that an alleged “peace” deal would be signed Sunday (today). So far, there’s been no confirmation of that.

On Sunday morning Trump’s Secretary of War Crimes, Pete Hegseth, was interviewed on CBS News’ Face the Nation by Margaret Brennan. During their discussion Hegseth admitted something that totally contradicts what Trump has been lying about for years with regard to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated by the Obama administration to halt Iran’s nuclear aspirations.

Hegseth: Obama begged Iran for a deal. We bombed Iran, and then put in a blockade…The document says Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, won’t seek one, won’t buy one, won’t have one.

Brennan: JCPOA said that too.

Hegseth: But they didn’t have the threat of military force the way that we do…and that’s why they’re at the table. The huge difference is we did this from a position of strength. Trump led with military might.

I hear that Hegseth is hopping around on one foot now. Somehow, in Pete Hegseth's mind, blasting a country into ruin is better than sitting down peacefully and negotiating a treaty.

Do I think Trump will fire him? No, his Christian Nationalist base is too strong.

Of Course Not

Of course he attacked the press, he couldn't say yes or no, so he attacked the question. If he did he would be admitting to a war crime.

Hegseth on whether strike on civilian infrastructure is a war crime: ‘Disingenuous question’ 

The Hill

by Sarah Davis

06/11/26

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday slammed a reporter’s question about whether a U.S. strike on Iran’s civilian infrastructure would be considered a war crime. 

“Well, it’s precisely the kind of disingenuous question that I’m used to from the media, impugning the motives of the folks on our side who are incredibly professional and incredibly effective,” Hegseth responded.

“We will hit them hard, on our terms, on the targets that improve the environment for us to operate in and undermine the capabilities that Iran wants to have,” he continued. “Again, they can’t do that to us meaningfully, the way that we can to them.”

Let us not forget in the opening salvos of the war the U.S. hit a school and the attack reportedly killed more than 150 civilians, most of them children.

You Probably Seen This Already, But...

What I want to point out is what the judges said...

Pentagon policy illegally banned transgender troops from military service, appeals court panel rules

AP News

By  MICHAEL KUNZELMAN and LINDSAY WHITEHURST

June 1, 2026

A Pentagon policy illegally banned transgender troops from military service, a divided panel of federal appeal court judges ruled on Monday in another legal setback for President Donald Trump’s sweeping agenda.

The majority opinion — by a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit — held that the Trump administration’s policy was designed to exclude people from the military based on their gender identity.

The ban remains in effect. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon to start enforcing it last year, as litigation continues to plays out.

The panel’s new ruling would keep the military from kicking out current service members named in the lawsuit, but wouldn’t allow new transgender recruits to join. The judges put their decision on hold, though, to let the administration seek further review.

So, this is a double-edged sword... yes, the court ruled it is discriminatory, but the military can keep on discriminating against us for now.

The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins wrote for the majority. Wilkins was nominated to the court by Democratic President Barack Obama.

That was what caught my attention: "driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group." The judge absolutely nailed it!

The Advocate writes;

Writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Robert Wilkins concluded that key portions of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's policy likely violate the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection because they appear rooted in hostility toward transgender people rather than legitimate military concerns.

[...]

"As such, at this preliminary stage, I conclude that the Hegseth Policy is both arbitrary and based upon animus."

I find that his ruling calls the ban exactly what it is: a bigoted, targeted attack on us. Al Jazeera wrote;

A second judge – Judith Rogers, who was picked by former Democratic President Bill Clinton – agreed with his opinion, but only in part. She felt it should extend to those who seek to enlist, too.

And the third judge, Trump pick Justin Walker, issued a dissent questioning the court’s ability to second-guess US military policy.

Writing for the fractured majority, Wilkins wrote that Trump’s policy violates the “constitutional right to equal protection of the law”.

[...]

In it, he denounced the US armed forces as having been infiltrated with “radical gender ideology”. He proceeded to describe transgender people as unfit for service for embracing a “false ‘gender identity'”.

“A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member,” Trump wrote.

Our best case that this is a targeted attack against us comes directly from Trump's and Hegseth's own words.

“To add insult, the President labeled transgender persons as dishonorable, undisciplined, arrogant, selfish liars,” Wilkins added, pointing to the executive order.

He pointed out that the transgender plaintiffs in the case had a combined 130 years of military service and had earned more than 80 commendations for their work.

In the face of such evidence, Wilkins said the Trump administration had “forfeited any argument” that “retaining these service members will harm national security”.

The New Republic wrote...

“What has been clearly and repeatedly explained are the foundational premises of the Hegseth Policy: persons with a ‘false gender identity’ are unfit for the military, and persons with a history of gender dysphoria are also unfit because they lack ‘honesty, humility, … and integrity,’” the court wrote. “Those animus-filled reasons were expressly given to justify aspects of the Hegseth Policy. As a result, this is not a case where we are left to speculate why the government drafted such broad, undifferentiated classifications. Unless we are going to fall for the old Groucho Marx line—‘who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?’—we have direct evidence in this case that animus motivated the classifications in the Hegseth Policy.”

The ban was announced via a Trump executive order in the president’s first week in office last year. It stated that “radical gender ideology” had infected the military, and that being transgender wasn’t an “honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle.”

“A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member,” it read—equating gender dysphoria with mental illness or a deep moral deficiency.

Ultimately, this isn't over until the Supreme Court says it is, but the Appeals Court has laid out a sound, powerful legal ruling on exactly why this policy is discriminatory.

The judges also pointed out that the facts show that the records of servicemembers was exemplary! The plaintiffs' 130 combined years of service and 80+ commendations completely dismantles the argument that this ban has anything to do with military readiness. It proves that the service members are operating with the utmost humility and selflessness, while the policy itself is what creates the disruption.

Only The Best, Only The Fittest

That caught my attention. The Secretary of Defense said that, and my first thought was, "Huh? What does he mean?"

Troops Must Be Fit and Tall to Attend Trump’s UFC Fight

“No fat troops” at the president’s birthday.

Mother Jones

Inae Oh

May 30, 2026

In preparation for President Donald Trump’s UFC fight on the White House South Lawn next month, Pentagon officials are hoping to lure hundreds of troops to attend the event. The catch? Troops need to meet strict physical requirements, including weight and height standards, in order to be eligible.

That’s according to internal memos seen by the Washington Post, including one demanding that troops “MUST MEET CURRENT WAIST-HEIGHT RATIO” and wear short-sleeved uniforms. Another memo revealed that the Pentagon is soliciting only junior-level officers. In other words: No heavyweights. You better be jacked. And no old people.

The report comes as construction for the cage fight begins to take shape, with the beginnings of a beastly octagon-shaped arena popping up on the South Lawn this week. The effort to attract a very specific kind of soldier is something of a theme for the Pentagon under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has effectively gone to war with “fat troops” and what he has deemed as “unacceptable” physical appearances in the military.

“Frankly, it’s tiring to look out at combat formations, or really any formation, and see fat troops,” Hegseth said in October. “Likewise, it’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon.”

I would like to remind you all that this comes from history. We have seen this obsession with the hyper-masculine "perfect warrior" before.

A central part of Nazi ideology during World War II was the promotion of a highly idealized form of masculinity: physically strong, disciplined, militaristic, emotionally stoic, and devoted to the state.

Sound familiar?

Miltarty.com reported that,

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host and National Guardsman, has attempted to reframe the role of the Pentagon's top civilian leader during his first months on the job, casting himself as a relatable everyman -- "one of the guys."

Instead of the standard suit and tie, he regularly appears in khaki hiking pants, rolled-up sleeves that reveal tattooed forearms and occasionally a trucker hat emblazoned with an American flag. He often posts videos and photos of himself working out with troops.

But that carefully curated image -- so different from past defense secretaries -- may not be totally landing with the rank and file. Interviews with service members and a review of hundreds of social media posts on message boards suggest the image the Pentagon chief is trying to project is seen by some as overly manufactured and desperate for affirmation.

I think Hegseth has visions of himself as Crusader on a white horse leading the charge carrying the banner of the Crusades.

His visions match those of Germany 90 years ago.

 

Theme	Pete Hegseth's "Warrior Ethos"	Nazi "Hyper-Male" Ideal
Social Status	A separate "breed" of human untethered to the norms of polite society.	An elite racial/military aristocracy (SS) operating above regular law.
The Body's Role	Must be physically imposing, fit, uniform, and stripped of personal expression (no "shabby" troops).	Must project "Aryan" physical perfection, symmetry, and absolute uniformity.
View on Diversity	Rejects DEI and gender inclusivity as "woke weakness" that dilutes combat lethality.	Rejects diversity as "degeneration" and a contaminant to the collective state.
Rules of War	Rejects international constraints and rules of engagement in favor of maximum violence.	Utterly rejected international law, viewing violence as a positive good for state survival.

Oh, and by the way... just like the Secretary of Defense, Nazi Germany also hated gay people.

Danger Will Roberson!

There are a few things that raises my heckles, I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling with this, religious zeolites rewriting the military code of justice... I don't know.

Pentagon begins sweeping review of military legal system

"Reviewing the military legal system is not a problem, reviewing it inside the building without independent structure is structural concern," Ira Rushing said.

Federal News Network

Anastasia Obis

May 18, 2026

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has launched a sweeping review of the military legal system, directing the Pentagon to evaluate legal programs across the services, compare them with one another and benchmark them against the Justice Department and criminal justice systems. 

In a May 8 memo to service secretaries, the Joint Chiefs staff and legal offices across the Defense Department, Hegseth instructed the Pentagon’s general counsel to convene a special review panel that will conduct what he described as an “ongoing, long-term, departmentwide review of all aspects of the military legal system as it affects our warriors.” 

The panel is expected to issue interim reports and recommendations over time rather than produce a single final study. Hegseth said the effort is intended to “cut unnecessary bureaucracy, strengthen training and organization and make military legal professionals more effective.”

And what will the religious make-up of this panel be, and who choses them?

The question is not whether to review the system — the military legal system faces a number of challenges, including yearslong backlogs, inconsistent policies across the services and chronic staffing shortages — but how that review is structured.

“There’s a lot of areas in the military legal system that need reform,” Ira Rushing, an associate at the Tully Rinckey law firm, told Federal News Network.  “I would have some reservations about having the panel structured and convened by DoD general counsel, which is a bureaucratic position, so a bureaucrat making suggestions on how to reduce bureaucracy. I think throughout the history of time that has never been a very good idea. But again the difference between this being an executive branch panel versus a legislative branch panel is its ability to actually effectuate any change to begin with.”

I don't really trust Hegseth, I am scared he will change the balance of their legal system to favor the military!

Some of the things to watch over the next six months to better understand where this panel is heading include its membership list, once it is released — the credibility of the effort will depend heavily on whether the panel includes independent voices such as retired military judges, defense practitioners and academic experts or it is dominated by political appointees and Pentagon insiders.

“The more diverse the better. If it’s a roster of political appointees or inside the building council  — maybe that’d be a different signal,” Rushing said.

Yup!

Is Time To End Air Shows?

I remember how much I used to love air shows and military planes. But is it past time to end the military's participation in them?

4 crew members eject safely after two Navy jets crash during air show in Idaho

AP News

By  REBECCA BOONE and MATTHEW BROWN

May 18, 2026

All four crew members ejected safely after two Navy jets collided and crashed Sunday during an air show at the Mountain Home Air Force Base in western Idaho, officials said.

The collision involved two U.S. Navy EA18-G Growlers from the Electronic Attack Squadron 129 in Whidbey Island, Washington, said Cmdr. Amelia Umayam, spokesperson for Naval Air Forces, U.S. Pacific Fleet.

I am extremely glad that no one got hurt!

However, is it time to end military participation in air shows altogether? Back when I used to go to these shows, the planes were just airplanes. Now, they are so stuffed with electronics that a new F-18 Growler costs between $100 million and $125 million! That crash not only put four lives in danger but also cost taxpayers around $250 million—that is a quarter of a billion dollars!

Meanwhile, these assets are desperately needed for the war in Iran. Taking elite pilots and highly specialized aircraft away from active duty or combat readiness to perform stunts can easily be viewed as a misuse of vital resources. They say that air shows are the military's most powerful recruiting tool, and I totally agree! But that recruitment should happen on the ground, not in the air—except for simple flyovers.

So I ask you...

online polls

Yes Men

Defense Secretary Hegisth has been firing naysayers to Trump's War.

Pete Hegseth fires U.S. Navy Secretary John Phelan

Axios

Colin Demarest & Marc Caputo

April 23, 2026

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has fired Navy Secretary John Phelan. The Pentagon framed it Wednesday as an immediate departure.

Why it matters: The ouster of the Navy's top civilian caught many off-guard and adds to the pile of military officials who have either abruptly exited or been pushed out of their posts under Trump 2.0.

"Phelan didn't understand he wasn't the boss. His job is to follow orders given, not follow the orders he thinks should be given," a person familiar with the situation told Axios.

The same person said Phelan and Hegseth did not "get along."

Yeah, former Secretary Caputo told Hegseth that the war was wrong!

Despite the turmoil, Hegseth remains in Trump's good graces because he has a solid relationship with the president, Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The Axios article goes on to write Hegseth and Trump dream of a "Great Golden Fleet" to rival Roosevelt's "Great White Fleet"

Of note: Phelan sat down with a dozen reporters Tuesday afternoon to discuss the future of the Navy and its major investments, including the Golden Fleet and its battleship and frigate.

"We're going to really need to improve our ability to build ships," he said at the time.

Thump's pipe dream is the battleship "Trump" the first navy ship to be named after a living president!

Introducing Trump's puzzling nuclear-armed battleship

Axios

Colin Demarest

Jan 7, 2026

America's newly promised warship, the Trump-class neo-battleship, is an oddity.

The big picture: The future vessels — should they actually be paid for and constructed — subvert years of precedent, just like the commander in chief.

Military thinkers have prioritized dispersion of firepower, people and supplies, especially in the Indo-Pacific. This is not that.

• Outfitting surface ships with nukes, in this case promised to be nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles, bucks decades of post-Cold War practice.
• Warships are named a certain way and after certain people. Here, naming conventions are also out the window.

What we're hearing: While supporters have been the loudest, critics appear to be more numerous.

• "Dumb," one defense industry executive told Axios when asked about the design. "I like the overall energy and vision in Golden Fleet, though."
• "I'm struggling to see the upside, other than lots of missile launchers and 'super lethal,'" another person familiar with the Navy's plans said. "But the downsides and complications are many."

Yup... it is really dumb. 

Wow!

A friend sent me this on Facebook, it is amazing!

So does that mean that AI is more ethical than the humans running the program?

What got me is the very last sentence. That the data to bomb the school was a decade out of date! WTF!