Terry Disseminates Sanity - TDS

18/06/2026

𝑻𝒆𝒓𝒓𝒚 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔 𝑺𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒚 (𝑻𝑫𝑺) 𝑻𝒂𝒍𝒌 #𝟔𝟑
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗲𝗮𝗹?

𝗕𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘆𝗼𝘂’𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨.𝗦. 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝗠𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗺 𝗼𝗳 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 “𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀.” 𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗻’𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗶𝘁, 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲:

𝗠𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗺 𝗼𝗳 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨.𝗦. 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻
𝗕𝗕𝗖: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gy700j0eko

𝗜𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸𝘀, 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗚𝗼𝗼𝗴𝗹𝗲:
“𝗠𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗺 𝗼𝗳 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗨𝗦 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻.”

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝘂𝗻𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗸, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗹𝗲𝘁’𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱.
𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗳𝗼𝗼𝘁𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗲.
𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗹𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴.

𝗡𝗼 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 — 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗿.
𝗡𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻.
𝗡𝗼 “𝘃𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆.”

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲:
𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.

---

𝗛𝘂𝗯𝗿𝗶𝘀 & 𝗕𝗿𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀

𝗟𝗲𝘁’𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝘂𝗯𝗿𝗶𝘀 — 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗵𝗶𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗿.

𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝟲, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲:
“𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝗲 𝗻𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁 𝗨𝗡𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗔𝗟 𝗦𝗨𝗥𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗗𝗘𝗥.”

𝗙𝗲𝗯𝗿𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝟮𝟴, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲:
𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲. 𝗘𝗻𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝘂𝗽.
“𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱… 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.”

𝗙𝗲𝗯𝗿𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝟮𝟴, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 (𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝘆):
𝗗𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻’𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝘀.
𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨.𝗦. 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 “𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝘀.”

𝗡𝗼𝘄 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗢𝗨.
𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗺𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗱, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗱.

𝗡𝗼 𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿.
𝗡𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲.
𝗡𝗼 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 “𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲” 𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘄 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗮 𝗳𝗼𝗼𝘁𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱.

---

𝗢𝗶𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀

𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝟵, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲:
“𝗪𝗲’𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗪𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗼𝗶𝗹.”

𝗔𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗹 𝟭, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲:
“𝗜𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘂𝘀. 𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗼𝗶𝗹. 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱.”

𝗧𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗸𝘀 𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿:

𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝟭𝟳, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲:
𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗢𝗨, 𝘄𝗲 “𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗿𝘂𝗻 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗸𝘀.”

𝗜𝗻 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗹, 𝘄𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗿𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝗼𝗶𝗹.
𝗕𝘆 𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲, 𝘄𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗸𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁𝘆.

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆.
𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗰 𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝗽 𝗮𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆.

---

𝗘𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗲 / 𝗛𝗼𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿

𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝟭𝟳, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 — 𝗥𝗲𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀:
“𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗜 𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗻’𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗶𝘀… 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗲.”

𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝟭𝟳, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 — 𝗧𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹:
𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹, “𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗴𝗼 𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗮𝘁 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝗯𝗼𝗱𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲.”

𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝟭𝟳, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲:
“𝗜 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘁 𝗛𝗼𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿… 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗰𝗸 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝗰𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱.”

𝗦𝗼 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀𝘁‑𝘁𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿, 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝘁.

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻.
𝗜𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗮𝗺𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.
𝗜𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 “𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵.”

𝗜𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗴𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝗱𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝘀 — 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗻.

𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗙𝗲𝗯𝗿𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘆, 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗹 𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗪𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗲𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴.

---

𝗖𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗮𝗿

• 𝗗𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴: 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝘀 $𝟮𝟵 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝗢𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗽𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝘁 $𝟱𝟬–𝟳𝟮 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻.
• 𝗘𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗮 𝗨.𝗦. 𝗳𝘂𝗲𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀: $𝟰𝟬–𝟲𝟬 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻.
• 𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝘂𝗲𝗹 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗰𝗸: 𝗵𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.
• 𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗴: 𝗵𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.

𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁?

𝗡𝗼 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹.
𝗡𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.
𝗡𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻.

𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 — 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗿, 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗱.

𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗲𝘁’𝘀 𝗯𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿: 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗶𝗰𝗲.
𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘆.
𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳‑𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲.
𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱.

𝗪𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹.
𝗛𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗲.
𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗴𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗛𝗶𝘀 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗦𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴

𝗪𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗯𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀.
𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀.

𝗠𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗣𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲:
“𝗜𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝗯𝗮𝗺𝗮–𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹.”

𝗦𝗲𝗻. 𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗱𝘆 (𝗥–𝗟𝗔):
“𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗲. 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻’𝘀 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗮𝗺𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗯𝗲𝗱, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗛𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘂𝘇 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀… 𝗡𝗼𝘄 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱‑𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹.”

𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗱𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗻’𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲:

𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻.
𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗿𝘂𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.
𝟭𝟯 𝗨.𝗦. 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲.

𝗡𝗼𝘄?
𝟭𝟯 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗱.
𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗺𝗽.
𝗦𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗱.
𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗱.

𝗛𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻:
“𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆 𝗯𝗹𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲𝘀.”

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻’𝘁 𝗺𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀.
𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗵𝗶𝗺.

---

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗚𝗲𝘁𝘀

𝗡𝗼𝘄 𝗹𝗲𝘁’𝘀 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 “𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹.”

• 𝗜𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗶𝗹 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗲𝘀 — 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝗳𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝗢𝗻𝗲.
• 𝗨𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲𝘇𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘀 — 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱.
• $𝟯𝟬𝟬 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 “𝗨.𝗦. 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆.”
𝗜𝘁’𝘀 “𝗚𝘂𝗹𝗳 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆.”

𝗦𝘂𝗿𝗲.
𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗲’𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘂𝘀.

𝗕𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿:

• 𝗨.𝗦. 𝗻𝗮𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲.
• 𝗨.𝗦. 𝗮𝗶𝗿‑𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗲𝘀.
• 𝗨.𝗦. 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘀.
• 𝗨.𝗦. 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗲 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗱.

𝗦𝗼 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗵, 𝗼𝗶𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲, 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗺.

𝗪𝗲 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗯.

---

𝗦𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗣𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁:

𝗔𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲, 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳‑𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆.
𝗪𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗱 — 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻 — 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁‑𝗶𝗻‑𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗲𝗳.

---

𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿’𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗲

𝗜 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺. 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗲.
𝗬𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝘁 — 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲, 𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗲, 𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵, 𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗿𝘆 — 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.
𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗜 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱.
𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀, 𝗜 𝘄𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 — 𝗜’𝗹𝗹 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.
𝗠𝘆 𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲. 𝗠𝘆 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀.

07/06/2026

𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗿𝘆 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗦𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 (𝗧𝗗𝗦) 𝗧𝗮𝗹𝗸 #𝟲𝟮
𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽’𝘀 𝗖𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘁 — 𝗡𝗼 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱, 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗦𝘆𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘆
In a June 5, 2026 Wall Street Journal editorial, James Freeman praises Donald Trump for bringing in Bill Pulte — a 38‑year‑old heir to a homebuilding fortune — to “overhaul” the U.S. Intelligence Community.
Let’s pause there.
Bill Pulte has zero experience in foreign affairs.
Zero experience in intelligence.
Zero experience in national security.
He doesn’t even have experience building houses.
His sole qualification? Sycophancy — the art of flattering power to gain favor. In other words, he’s a Trump toady.
The editorial quotes Trump directly:
He wants Pulte, his incoming Acting Director of National Intelligence, to begin firing a “large number” of employees and shrink — or possibly eliminate — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Trump even suggests Pulte should model his approach after Education Secretary Linda McMahon, who has been busy shrinking the Department of Education — an agency Trump has repeatedly said he wants to abolish.
Now, I’ll go on record: I’m a proud RINO who believes in lower taxes, smaller government, and smarter regulation. Bureaucracy can be leaner.
What I object to is Trump’s idiotic, performative, and uninformed way of doing it.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗢𝗚𝗘 𝗗𝗲𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗹𝗲
We began this administration with DOGE — a plan to gut $2 trillion from the federal workforce and associated programs. It failed spectacularly. It was less effective than the Clinton/Gore “Reinventing Government” initiative, which at least produced measurable results.
And Clinton/Gore did it without flamethrowers, chainsaws, or Elon‑style theatrics.
See attached.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗮 𝗠𝗰𝗠𝗮𝗵𝗼𝗻 “𝗔𝟭” 𝗠𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁
The WSJ editorial holds up Linda McMahon as a model of Trump‑era efficiency. Let’s recall her recent performance at the ASU+GSV Summit, where she repeatedly praised the promise of “A1 in classrooms” — confusing artificial intelligence with steak sauce.
“First graders… will have A1 teaching every year,” she said.
“Let’s see A1, and how can that be helpful.”
A.1. Steak Sauce even joined the fun online.
So yes — by all means — let’s overhaul the intelligence community using the same strategic brilliance that can’t distinguish AI from condiments.
𝗕𝗼𝗯𝗯𝘆 𝗕𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗺
Then there’s Bobby “Brainworm,” our Director of Health and Human Services — a man with no public‑health background, but plenty of experience snorting co***ne off toilet seats. He has openly discussed an eleven‑year he**in addiction and now oversees the FDA, CDC, and NIH.
This is also the man who taught Trump “Trump Math”:
A drug price rising from $100 to $600 = a 600% increase
Therefore, a drop from $600 back to $100 = a 600% decrease
Harvard and UVA should probably check their admissions records.
𝗞𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶 𝗡𝗼𝗲𝗺’𝘀 𝗛𝗮𝗯𝗲𝗮𝘀 𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗽𝘂𝘀 𝗙𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘁
Kristi Noem, former Director of Homeland Security, once testified:
“Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country.”
That is almost the exact opposite of what habeas corpus means. Most of us learned this in elementary school: habeas corpus protects individuals from unlawful detention.
Yet she ran Homeland Security.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺
And now we have Bill Pulte — a wealthy 38‑year‑old with no intelligence background — tasked with “fixing” national intelligence.
His first major contribution to national policy?
The 50‑year mortgage, a plan to solve the housing crisis by ensuring young Americans remain indebted from cradle to grave.
Brilliant.
𝗦𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗣𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁
Trump doesn’t choose people with experience.
He doesn’t choose people with expertise.
He doesn’t even choose people with common sense.
He chooses sycophants — because loyalty, not competence, is the only credential that matters in Trump’s orbit.
And the country pays the price.
𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿’𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗲
𝗜 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺. 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲. 𝗬𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝘁 — 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲, 𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗲, 𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵, 𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗿𝘆 — 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.
𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗜 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱.
𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀, 𝗜 𝘄𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 — 𝗜’𝗹𝗹 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.
𝗠𝘆 𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲. 𝗠𝘆 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀

04/06/2026

Terry Disseminates Sanity (TDS) #61 – Trump’s Changing Iran Rhetoric, or The Scolded Puppy Effect

Has anyone noticed how dramatically the President’s rhetoric toward Iran has cooled? We’ve gone from a man who claimed he obliterated Iran’s nuclear weapons program during last year’s Operation Epic Fury; who spent months shouting “We won!” and “We’ll accept nothing but unconditional surrender!”; who ranted about Persian genocide — to a remarkably calm, almost statesmanlike figure.

I guess that’s what happens to dogs who steal dinner off the counter and get tapped on the snout with a rolled‑up newspaper.
Let’s examine the timeline.

---

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽’𝘀 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗗𝗲‑𝗘𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻

---

• APRIL 5 — The War God Phase

Quote:
“Open the F**kin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell — JUST WATCH!”

Tone:
Apocalyptic. Profane. A man auditioning for the role of Supreme Leader of the Volcano.

---

• APRIL 7 — The Civilization Ender

Quote:
“A whole civilization will die tonight — never to live again. Sad, but it must be done.”

Tone:
Full supervillain monologue.
If he’d added a cape, it would’ve felt understated.

---

• APRIL 8–10 — The Sudden Quiet

Quotes:
“Our forces are performing brilliantly.”
“We will finish the job.”

Tone:
Like someone unplugged the amp mid‑guitar solo.
Still posing, but the sound is gone.

---

• MID‑APRIL — The ‘We Won’ Era

Quotes:
“We won!”
“We will accept nothing but unconditional surrender!”

Tone:
Victory‑lap energy without the victory.
A man spiking the football at the 20‑yard line.

---

• LATE APRIL — The Scolded Puppy Period

Quotes:
“We’re monitoring the situation.”
“More updates soon.”

Tone:
Tail tucked. Eyes down.
The unmistakable posture of someone who has been told,
“Post like that again and you’re sleeping in the garage.”

---

• MAY — The Man Who Remembers He Has Advisors

Quotes:
“Our mission continues.”
“We are working with our partners.”

Tone:
Scripted. Muted.
Like he’s reading from a teleprompter held by someone glaring at him.

---

𝗦𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗣𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁

From “Open the F**kin’ Strait!” and “a whole civilization will die tonight” to “We’re monitoring the situation” in under 30 days.
That’s not strategic discipline.
That’s the Scolded Puppy Effect — the bark disappears the moment someone rolls up a newspaper.

𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿’𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗲:

𝗜 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺. 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲. 𝗬𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝘀𝗲 — 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲, 𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗲, 𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵, 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗿𝘆 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲 — 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗜 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀: 𝗶𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜’𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗶𝗱, 𝗜 𝘄𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂; 𝗜’𝗹𝗹 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. My page, my rules.

02/06/2026

𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗿𝘆 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗦𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 — 𝗧𝗗𝗦 𝗧𝗮𝗹𝗸 #𝟲𝟬
𝗔 𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗶𝗳𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁-𝗶𝗻-𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗲𝗳

---

It’s almost poetic: three different Trump projects — the $1.8B “weaponization fund,” the Kennedy Center re‑branding adventure, and the July 4th celebration that lost its performers faster than a karaoke bar on fire — all collapsed for the same reason. When you spend your life believing rules are for the little people, eventually the little people’s rules get tired of being ignored. Courts, boards, and even musicians with functioning self‑respect all delivered the same message: “No, actually, you can’t just do whatever you want because you feel like it.”

And of course, this is classic narcissist‑style behavior — the belief, as critics often describe it, that rules, whether legal or just basic societal norms, are for everyone else. Who knew?

These weren’t isolated setbacks; they were a group intervention by reality itself. Turns out that when you govern like a man who thinks “process” is a personal insult, the universe eventually sends you a reminder that contracts exist, statutes exist, and performers don’t enjoy being drafted into your pageantry without consent. Who knew?

And we’ll leave it at that. We’ll be nice and not even get into how critics say the rest of the world has been rolling its eyes at Trump’s Iran bravado — the “we won” declarations, the “nothing short of unconditional surrender” talk sixty days ago, and now a posture that doesn’t even secure a rollback of Iran’s nuclear program. Analysts estimate the U.S. has poured tens of billions into this conflict and imposed what amounts to an energy tax on Americans, only to drift toward a nuclear arrangement that looks, at best, no stronger than Obama’s — which, in Trump’s telling, was unacceptable mainly because Obama got credit for it.

---

𝗦𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗣𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁:
We live in a democracy — specifically a Constitutional Republic. Leaders don’t get to do whatever they want. Thank goodness some, not all, checks and balances are working.

---

𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿’𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗲:
𝗜 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺. 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲. 𝗬𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝘀𝗲 — 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲, 𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗲, 𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵, 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗿𝘆 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲 — 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗜 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀: 𝗶𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜’𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗶𝗱, 𝗜 𝘄𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂; 𝗜’𝗹𝗹 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗠𝘆 𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲. 𝗠𝘆 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀.

28/05/2026

Well, we are finally there - government by cult. Fealty - intense, unwavering loyalty or fidelity to a person or group; Cult - a group of individuals bound together by an intense devotion to a person or idea. (Webster). After what we just witnessed in Kentucky, Texas, and Indiana it’s clear no Republican is capable of having an independent thought without being voted off of Trumps ever shrinking island. Congratulations MAGA - you’ve Made America a Gaping As***le in the eyes of the world.

13/05/2026

Terry Disseminates Sanity -TDS Talk #58 Payback to the Ethanol Lobby

In reading the attached May 10, 2026 Wall Street Journal Editorial Board Opinion piece, I could not help but react not just to the hypocrisy of this Administration’s actions, but also the simply obvious incoherence of its policies. Let’s examine.

For decades, the rationale for putting ethanol in gasoline was straightforward: it burned cleaner (not true but we are not getting into organic chemistry here), displaced a slice of petroleum, and gave us a small domestic renewable component. Even at 10%, it helped combustion run cleaner — and yes, as the WSJ notes, it even boosts octane. Fine. That’s chemistry. But the policy justification was always environmental and energy‑security based. You know, good old home grown fuel when we were at the mercy of OPEC. Well those days are behind us as we have plenty of oil so the energy security argument no longer holds, so the only reason to use ethanol at all, must be environmental, right?

This Administration spent five years rolling back fuel‑economy standards, weakening Clean Air Act enforcement, and kneecapping the domestic EV industry — all moves that increase gasoline consumption and pollution. That’s the “deregulatory” story they’ll tell.

And yet, in the same breath, they shoveled billions into ethanol subsidies to appease the corn lobby — subsidies as noted in the editorial that were designed to compensate farmers for the tariff‑driven losses in soybean markets. Then the lobby went further: they threatened to hold the farm bill hostage unless they got year‑round approval for E15 fuel. The problem? E15 (15% ethanol) can only be sold in non‑summer months because in summer it actually increases smog formation. In other words, the last remaining environmental argument for ethanol collapses — we’re now subsidizing a fuel blend that creates the very pollution ethanol was supposed to reduce.

Sanity Point:

So we end up with the worst of all worlds: more pollution, fewer EVs, higher long‑term costs, and a massive government subsidy to support a policy rationale, environmental benefit, the Administration has already abandoned everywhere else in transportation. Further, the expansion of this subsidy (year round E15) is not an environmental enhancement at all.

This is not deregulation, it’s pure pork to compensate constituents that have been harmed by other policy decisions - tariffs. If this Is“energy policy,” then it’s totally incoherent with every other policy in the area of domestic transportation.

The attached table assists in summarizing.

𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿’𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗲

𝗜 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺. 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲. 𝗬𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝘀𝗲 — 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲, 𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗲, 𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵, 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗿𝘆 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲 — 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗜 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀: 𝗶𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜’𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗶𝗱, 𝗜 𝘄𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂; 𝗜’𝗹𝗹 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.My page. My rules.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/ethanol-farm-bill-renewable-fuel-standard-donald-trump-congress-23f77f7d?st=nsuMgq&reflink=article_copyURL_share

07/05/2026

Terry Disseminates Sanity – TDS Talk #57 – My Disdain for Trump Is More Than Personal

I was at a Kentucky Derby party with friends who know my disdain for the Trump presidency. Someone remarked, “Well, you just don’t like the personality — where’s your allegiance to the ideology?” Really? Trump represents Republican ideology? My objections are not limited to ideology. I also find his behavior, rhetoric, and conduct repugnant — and I’m not afraid to say that out loud.

For most of my adult life, I understood the Republican Party to stand on a set of clear, durable principles. These were not abstractions; they were the backbone of American conservatism for nearly half a century. Free trade, strong alliances, constitutional restraint, and a firm opposition to authoritarianism were not optional components of the GOP identity — they were the identity.

I aligned with those principles because they reflected a confident, outward‑looking America: a nation that led the free world, strengthened markets, honored its commitments, and defended democratic norms. That was the Republican Party I knew.

Over the past decade, however, I have watched the party’s center of gravity shift dramatically. What now passes as “Republicanism” bears little resemblance to the principles that defined the party from Reagan through Romney. This is not just a matter of ideology — though the ideological break is real. It is also a matter of character, temperament, and basic civic decency. Trump fails on both fronts.

Although Trump did campaign on using tariffs as leverage, the sweeping, multi‑front tariff regime he ultimately implemented went far beyond what he described on the trail. His campaign rhetoric focused on targeted measures aimed primarily at China and offshoring companies; he did not present voters with a plan to impose broad tariffs on allies, launch a global steel and aluminum tariff program, or replace decades of Republican free‑trade policy with a protectionist economic framework. The governing reality represented a much larger ideological shift than the campaign message suggested.

My lack of support for Donald Trump is rooted in this divergence — and in his conduct. He has jettisoned core Republican principles and replaced them with a populist‑nationalist framework that is fundamentally at odds with the party’s long‑standing commitments. And on top of that, his behavior, language, and disregard for norms are simply unacceptable to me. I do not reject conservatism; I reject the abandonment of it — and I reject the behavior that accompanies it.

To illustrate this shift, I offer the following high‑level comparison of traditional GOP positions and the Trump‑era realignment.

𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐏𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭

My disagreement is not with conservatism. It is with the abandonment of it — and with the behavior that now accompanies that abandonment.

𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿’𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗲

𝗜 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺. 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲. 𝗬𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝘀𝗲 — 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲, 𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗲, 𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵, 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗿𝘆 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲 — 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗜 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀: 𝗶𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜’𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗶𝗱, 𝗜 𝘄𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂; 𝗜’𝗹𝗹 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.My page. My rules.

02/05/2026

𝗧𝗗𝗦 𝗧𝗮𝗹𝗸 #𝟱𝟲 — 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗜𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗪𝗮𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲?
𝗢𝘂𝗿 𝗦𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝗙𝗹𝗮𝘄𝗲𝗱.

The purpose of this TDS is simple: to explain how a President can ignore both the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, and why—despite months of public argument—nothing stops it.

This analysis summarizes the constitutional and statutory framework governing the initiation of military force by the United States. It draws on publicly available legal sources, including the Constitution, the War Powers Resolution, and relevant Office of Legal Counsel opinions. It is provided to help you understand the confusion over War Powers and how Presidents, not just Trump, are able to conduct wars while bypassing Congress. Readers are encouraged to consult primary materials to deepen their understanding of the issues discussed.

Ever since the Venezuelan operation, and now throughout the Iran conflict (which the President and his allies insist is “not a war”), many of us have been arguing that these actions are illegal. And yet the operations continue. The question is how. How can this be?

Article I of the Constitution is unambiguous: Congress has the power to declare war. We haven’t declared war since World War II, but we’ve certainly had our share of wars. Why?

Article II names the President as Commander in Chief. That role carries limited authority to use military force without Congress. It is not open‑ended. Twice this century, the President’s own Office of Legal Counsel has reaffirmed the same rule: a President may unilaterally use force only when the operation is limited in nature, limited in scope, and limited in duration.

Congress eventually recognized that Presidents were stretching this “limited” authority beyond recognition. In 1973, after Vietnam and the secret bombing campaigns in Cambodia and Laos, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution over President Nixon’s veto. The law requires a President to seek congressional authorization after 60 days if hostilities continue.

In the Iran conflict, that 60‑day clock expired on May 1, 2026.

Will anything happen? Not likely.

The President says he doesn’t need to come to Congress because “hostilities have ended,” but in the next breath he says Iran has only two options: make a deal or be destroyed. Even if Congress were unified enough to order a cessation of hostilities, the President would likely ignore it, claiming the WPR is unconstitutional.

And who would stop him?

The answer is: no one. This is the structural flaw in our system of three coequal branches. We teach that one branch makes the laws, one executes the laws, and one interprets the laws. But in war powers, the branch that executes the law also interprets it. And the courts refuse to intervene because they do not want to second‑guess a Commander in Chief during an ongoing conflict.

That is how we have entered and sustained 21st‑century wars with only one Authorization for Use of Military Force since World War II. It took me months to understand this convoluted construct. This TDS is meant to give everyone else the same clarity—because very few people understand how something that looks so blatantly illegal can continue unchecked.

𝗦𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗣𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁:
Two hundred fifty years into the American constitutional system, the United States still lacks a workable mechanism to prevent or reverse unilateral presidential military actions. On paper, Congress holds the war power. In practice, the legal tools designed to enforce that power — including the War Powers Resolution — have proven largely unenforceable.

𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿’𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗲
𝗜 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺. 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲. 𝗬𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝘀𝗲 — 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲, 𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗲, 𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵, 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗿𝘆 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲 — 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗜 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀: 𝗶𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜’𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗶𝗱, 𝗜 𝘄𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂; 𝗜’𝗹𝗹 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗠𝘆 𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲, 𝗺𝘆 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀.

29/04/2026

𝗧𝗗𝗦 𝗧𝗮𝗹𝗸 #𝟱𝟯 — 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗟𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗔𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻, 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆

𝗔 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝘂𝗹𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆, 𝗼𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗱𝗼 𝘀𝗼 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲, 𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲, 𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳-𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲.
That pattern was on full display in Donald Trump’s interview with Norah O’Donnell on 60 Minutes following the shooting outside the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

---

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗘𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗽𝘁

𝗢’𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗿’𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗼:

“Administration officials, they are targets.”
“I am no longer willing to permit a pe*****le, ra**st and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.”

𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱:
“I’m not a ra**st. I didn’t r**e anybody. I’m not a pe*****le.”

𝗢’𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗲𝗱:
“Do you think he was referring to you?”(Authors interjection - take down was better than the Secret Service’s- Go Norah)

𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲𝗱:
“I am not a pe*****le. You read that crap from some sick person. I got associated with stuff that has nothing to do with me. 𝗜 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝘅𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱. Your friends on the other side of the plate are the ones that were involved with, let’s say, Epstein or other things… You should be ashamed of yourself reading that because I’m not any of those things.”

𝗢’𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗱:
“Mr. President, those are the gunman’s words.”

𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵:
“Excuse me. You shouldn’t be reading that on 60 Minutes. You’re a disgrace.”

---

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗶𝗲? “𝗜 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝘅𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱.”

𝗢𝗵 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆? 𝗟𝗲𝘁’𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁.
And remember — he said he was ready for this “embarrassing, disgraceful, horrible” question.

---

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆: 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗜𝘀 𝗡𝗼 𝗘𝘅𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻

𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 “𝗲𝘅𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱” 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗱.
There has never been a criminal charge against Donald Trump for r**e, sexual assault, or pe******ia.
None. Not in New York. Not federally. Not anywhere.

And because no prosecutor ever brought a case, there is no legal mechanism by which he could have been 𝗲𝘅𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱. Exoneration is a criminal‑law concept — overturned convictions, dismissed indictments, DNA‑based clearing. None of that applies here.

So the claim is not merely false.
It is 𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲.

---

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗘. 𝗝𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗹 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝘅𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

Two federal juries heard testimony, reviewed evidence, and reached clear conclusions:

• Trump was 𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝘅𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗲.
• Trump was 𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 for statements he made about Carroll.
• A second jury found him 𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻 and awarded $83.3 million.
• The judge later clarified that the conduct proven at trial meets the common definition of r**e, even though New York’s statutory definition is narrower.

These are not exonerations.
They are 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 — the strongest findings available in a civil system.

---

𝗛𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗱 “𝗽𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮” 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

There is no criminal charge, civil claim, investigation, or judicial finding involving pe******ia.
Nothing exists from which he could claim to have been 𝗲𝘅𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱.

So when he tells Norah O’Donnell, with full indignation, “𝗜 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝘅𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱,” he is not referencing any legal process.
He is not referencing any judicial ruling.
He is not referencing any factual record.

He is referencing 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴, because nothing exists.

---

𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆.

𝗔 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗿 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀.
He constructs an alternate reality in which:

• the absence of criminal charges becomes proof of innocence, and
• the presence of civil liability becomes proof of persecution.

Trump was not exonerated.
He was never charged.
And in the one venue where evidence was actually tested — he lost. Twice.

Yet he looks into the camera and declares the opposite, because the truth is incompatible with the self‑image he must maintain.

That is not strategy.
That is pathology.

---

𝗦𝗼 𝗻𝗼, 𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱. 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆. 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘆. 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀 — 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 — 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗼𝘂𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹. 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁, 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲, 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗽𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘁.

---

𝗦𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗣𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝗼 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗮𝗻𝘆𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲. 𝗜𝘁’𝘀 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗴𝗮𝘀𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗮 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗲’𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗲𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗵𝗶𝗺. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲.

𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿’𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗲
𝗜 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺. 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲. 𝗬𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝘀𝗲 — 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲, 𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗲, 𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵, 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗿𝘆 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲 — 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗜 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀: 𝗶𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜’𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗶𝗱, 𝗜 𝘄𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂; 𝗜’𝗹𝗹 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗠𝘆 𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲, 𝗺𝘆 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀.

43 likes, 15 comments. "Trump calls CBS correspondent Norah O’Donnell a ‘disgrace’"