By K.E. Bell

You can see it in your social media feed every day. A teenage girl screams as ICE officers throw her mother to the ground, a knee on her back for the horrible crime of wanting a better life. A clergyman in Chicago gets shot in the head with pepper balls for exercising his constitutional right to protest. An ICE officer points his gun at a protester and says, “Bang bang,” and “You’re dead, liberal.” An ICE officer shoots a Chicago woman and lies about the reason why.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is out of control. It’s a largely fledgling police force that substitutes hatred for training. Of all the horrible aspects of the One Big Beautiful Betrayal, the skyrocketing funding for ICE was the most treasonous. It gave a would-be king and his worm-tongued advisor their Gestapo (gazpacho?).

Served with an agenda to detain and deport more and more migrants, most of whom have no criminal record, ICE storms the streets of US cities like an invasion force, and without the constraints faced by local police officers. Warrants? Don’t need ‘em. Racial profiling. Perfectly fine says this stacked Supreme Court. Brutality? That’s the point, isn’t it?

According to the Orange Menace it is. During an interview with CBS News 60 Minutes last Sunday, when asked if ICE raids have gone too far, President Trump said, “I think they haven’t gone far enough because we’ve been held back by the judges, by the liberal judges that were put in by Biden and by Obama.”

Some of these ICE officers — not the Proud Boys, January 6 rioters, Three Percenters, Trill Trumpers, KKK members, or militia members among them — will get PTSD from their actions. 

ICE must be bound by the same rules as any other police force. Warrants must be procured. Probable cause standards must be met. Police brutality rules must be followed. The federal government won’t do anything to restrain them, but the states can.

On October 16, US District Judge Sara Ellis in Illinois started the ball rolling down the right path by ordering ICE agents to wear body cameras during immigration enforcement activities. This came after incidents of lying to justify lawless actions and of excessive use of force without warning. 

That was only a start. 

The vast majority of ICE arrests are for the misdemeanor of being in the country illegally. That doesn’t require handcuffs and 3 a.m. raids with Blackhawk helicopters. It requires paperwork, sifting through the good and the bad, and prosecuting and/or deporting only those with criminal records. Not only that, but all those targeted, be they citizens or not, have the constitutional right to due process. 

Similarly, the protesters fighting for their neighbors’ rights don’t deserve to be tear gassed or shot with rubber bullets. They deserve respect of their constitutional right to protest an unjust government. 

The immigrants aren’t the felons here. All too often, ICE commits the felonies. 

New York is picking up the ball and moving it downfield. On October 22, Attorney General Letitia James, who is currently the subject of a malicious prosecution by the Trump Department of Justice, announced plans to create a portal for citizens to upload photos and videos of ICE activity in New York. Every attorney general who respects the rule of law should do the same. 

The evidence from those photos and videos should then be used to prosecute the illegal activities of power-mad ICE officers. We the people can help police the police.

A corrupt federal police force is unacceptable in America. It flies in the face of the ideals of this nation and violates our constitutional rights. 

It’s time to prosecute ICE for its wrongdoing. It’s necessary to curb the officers’ illegal behavior and to save the soul of this teetering nation.

Bell is a contributing pundit for The Hustings.

_____________________________________________

Can Democrats Handle a Win?

One of the eternal questions on politics. Democrats are justifiably feeling good after strong wins including those against President Trump’s endorsed New York City mayor and New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial candidates. 

Can they build momentum through the 2026 midterms?  Or at least, can they maintain the momentum they have?

For those of you on the left: How should Democratic Party leaders handle Zohran Mamdani’s victory? Should he be made a party leader himself?

For those of you on the right: Will President Trump be successful with his tactic of describing Mamdani as a “communist”? Would he be better off ignoring the mayor-elect?

These columns, left and right, are for your discussion on such burning political questions.

Please submit your COMMENTS to editors@thehustings.news and indicate your political leaning, left or right, in the subject line so we may post them in the proper column (left or right). ---The Editors

_____
WEDNESDAY 11/5/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA), Speaker of the US House of Representatives, makes $223,500 per year.

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), House Majority Leader, makes $193,400.

The median household income in Louisiana is approximately $60,000. 

To qualify for SNAP benefits in Louisiana, a four-person household can make no more than $64,296 annually. A single-person household’s limit is $31,296.

Approximately one in five Louisianians qualify for SNAP benefits.

Mike Johnson effectively put the House on vacation since September 19, 2025.

That is, he maintains that the House passed a “clean CR,” which he repeats over and over in front of microphones in Washington, DC, because he probably doesn’t want to go back to Louisiana and face his constituents in the 4^th congressional district.

His point is that this CR — or continuing resolution — would extend the spending of the previous year with no add-ons or amendments, so SNAP and other benefits would be funded if the Senate were to pass the House bill.

The “clean CR,” House Resolution 5371, passed with 221 votes in favor, 212 against.

Or 51.04% for.

Not exactly a resounding win.

Yet Mike Johnson has, in effect, said that the House has done its work, and won’t go back to work until that work is accepted by the Senate.

Meanwhile Johnson and Scalise, among other House members, continue to collect their salaries.

From September 19 to October 31 there are six weeks.

This means Johnson has made $25,788 during this time. It would take 5.16 months for someone earning $60,000 per year to make that much—and they would undoubtedly have to be working to earn that.

(Scalise, $22,315 during six weeks.)

(“Regular House members make $174,000 per year, so for those who are drawing a salary that’s $20,076 during the House not being in session for six weeks.)

The income aside, this is truly unacceptable behavior.

The members of the House have a job to do, which includes deliberating and negotiating. This whole notion of “Oh, we’ve already done that and so we’re done” is the sort of arrogance that would get an employee of a commercial enterprise summarily sacked.

If this “clean CR” isn’t helping out the people who live in Louisiana’s 4^th or 1^st (Scalise’s district), then do your jobs and get back to work so that there can be a resolution that will help out not just the needy Americans, but all Americans — there are some 1.4 million federal workers who are either furloughed or working without pay, and their jobs have ramifications that go beyond their immediate households (if someone isn’t working, then odds are she won’t be spending money at the local grocery store, which has an impact on the employees who may lose their jobs if there are many such people not shopping).

While the behavior of people like Johnson has been characterized as timidity in the face of Donald Trump, it is also an undeserved arrogance — and Trump is no less guilty of this.

While it seems that the Republicans are dominant, this dominance is pretty much a position rather than something of substance.

Let’s remember the make-up of the House is 219 Republicans and 215 Democrats, and if Johnson does his job and Adelita Grijalva (D-Az) is sworn in, that makes it 219 to 216. Not exactly a huge majority.

Also remember the popular vote in the 2024 presidential election was Trump 77,303,573 and Harris 75,019,257, which means that Trump had 49.9% of the popular vote and Harris 48.4%. Yes, Trump won, but this was not a mandate by any stretch of the imagination.

The recent Economist/YouGov poll showing that while 39% of Americans “Strongly or somewhat approve” of how Donald Trump is doing his job, 58% of Americans “Strongly or somewhat disapprove” of what he’s doing—and that 19-point spread is significant.

When it comes to economic issues, Trump is -22% on “Jobs and the economy” and 

-31% on “Inflation/prices” — the very fundamental things that Americans are directly impacted by on a daily basis and likely the things that a non-trivial number of those 77,303,573 voters thought he would excel at.

And while Trump and his acolytes were all giddy about DOGE, the Economist/YouGov poll found:

• 71% want spending for veterans to be increased a lot or slightly, and another 18% want it to remain the same
• 69% want increases in Social Security and 18% want it to remain the same
• 62% want increased in spending for education and 16% want it to remain the same
• 64% want increases in Medicare and 22% want it to remain the same
• 55% want increases in Medicaid and 22% want it to remain the same

And while the number for SNAP isn’t quite as good:

• 46% want increases

But when you add in the 26% that want SNAP spending to stay the same, that is a total of 72% of Americans who want SNAP spending to be spent where it is now or increased.

Nine percent are unsure, and 18% want it to be decreased slightly or a lot.

In fact, if you look at all those categories and sum the numbers (those who want increases or who want the spending to be the same), then it is clear that people do not want cuts in these programs.

Meanwhile, Trump is doing want can be considered seriously unpopular things:

• 24% approve of his cancelling trade talks with Canada — while 55% disapprove
• 25% approve of his tearing down the East Wing — while 61% disapprove
• 16% approve of his commuting the sentence of George Santos — while 60% disapprove

How does any of this — alienating our key trading partner, doing a profligate act of self-aggrandizement, showing contempt for law — help Americans?

And this brings us back to Mike Johnson and his colleagues. 

The Economist/YouGov poll found the American people have less confidence in Congress than any other institution. Fifty-eight percent have Very little confidence.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that many of those people aren’t doing their jobs.

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings.

_____
WEDNESDAY 11/5/25

Commentary by Jerry Lanson

Three days after the huge Oct. 18 protests, grass roots organizers of the No Kings rallies invited those who had participated to join a national Zoom call.

I don’t know how many people signed in. But I was struck that those who spoke were looking forward instead of merely dwelling on what one speaker described as “the largest peaceful protest in American history.”

An estimated at 7 million people protested in 2,700 different locations. While one person stood out alone in in a rural, red West Virginia town, an estimated 350,000 marched through New York City, a speaker said.

Organizers on the call urged everyone to share photos, videos, articles and stories (I’ve seen dozens and dozens). They noted that No Kings will be sending out weekly updates, including calls for action. They urged people to participate in nonviolence training and to know their rights. And they cautioned that the road ahead will demand the time, determination and sustained engagement of everyone.

“Some of the answer of what’s next depends on you,” activist Ash-Lee Woodward Henderson said.

The call offered promise that No Kings2 wasn’t going to be just another big, but isolated cry of resistance against a regime that is crushing the fundamental tenets of democracy, but instead an important step toward something bigger.

Just who is running the growing No Kings movement and what’s next remain fuzzy to me. Its website lists a mosaic of affiliated organizations that joined together for the first No Kings rallies on June 14. These range from the ACLU to Indivisible to Stand Up for Science to the Sierra Club to MoveOn to Manhattan Young Democrats. In all, the site lists more than 200 allied groups. The list for October 18 is not yet up, but there’s no doubt that there were more protests and a larger turn out than June 14.

I was among the skeptics of the initial “No Kings” label. It struck me that we aren’t fighting King George but modern-day authoritarianism, something akin not to an 18^th century British monarch but the contemporary Hungarian strongman Viktor Orbán.

No Kings felt euphemistic.

But I’ve come around. No Kings, I realize, is an effective American sentiment, harking back to our historic roots and the very reason we fought a Revolutionary War.

We, the American people, often disagree with one another. Yet I still believe a sizable majority of us agree that we have a right to our views, a right to participate in self-governance, a right to freedom of speech and a shared belief in our Constitution.

No Kings speaks to these common denominators.

The question now is how do we get beyond sharing these fundamental beliefs to standing up for them?

Time is of the essence. As Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes October 22;

“We are not living in a functional democracy any longer. It’s not too late to save it, but it is just as important to acknowledge that we aren’t on the precipice of losing our democracy. We are losing it every day.”

His words are evident in the rubble of what was the White House East Wing, flattened without debate or discussion.

They are exemplified in the repeated sinking of boats and those aboard them in the Caribbean, without explanation, authorization by Congress or evidence that those killed are our enemies or even drug smugglers.

They are reflected in Donald Trump’s demand that his own Justice Department repay him $232 million, in the militarization of American cities, in his unilateral firing of whomever he pleases, and in his reliance on a secret donor to pay the military during the shutdown.

All are outrageous. Yet such actions are unleashed by the day as Trump bulldozes all in his path, increasingly unrestrained by courts, Congress, or anyone else.

If there is good news, it can be found in the continued growth of a popular movement to resist his regime, peacefully but forcefully.

There are signs, too, that this resistance is making converts. Though polls show Trump’s core Republican base is still solidly behind him on most issues, 30% believe he is using federal law enforcement to go after his enemies, a Reuters-Ipsos poll finds. Overall, the poll finds Americans by more than 2 to 1 think he is abusing his power in this way, politicalwire.com reports.

Other polls suggest independents in purple states and elsewhere strongly oppose Trump’s leadership and policies, leading political analysts like Charlie Cook to question whether Republicans, even after widespread gerrymandering, will succeed in holding the House in 2026. Another new poll shows Democrats moving ahead of Republicans when voters are asked which party can better lead the economy.

Meanwhile, the economic conditions continue to sour. Inflation in September climbed back to a 3.0% annual rate for the first time since January. Health insurance rates are about to spike for millions who rely on the Affordable Care Act. Millions more will lose food stamps in November. All this while the price tag for the new ballroom Trump intends to name after himself climbs to $350 million.

But the resistance still faces steep challenges. Even though 7 million people turned out October 18, that falls short of the roughly 12 million active resisters that research shows is needed to boost the odds of stopping the authoritarianism of this regime. 

Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist who among multiple roles directs the Nonviolent Action Lab at Harvard University’s Ash Center for Democratic Innovation and Governance, has studied hundreds of cases of non-violent popular resistance around the world over the last century. She has documented, the BBC notes, that “civil disobedience is not only the moral choice; it is also the most powerful way of shaping world politics.”

But there’s a rub. Chenoweth, the BBC reported, has found that “it takes around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change.”

In the United States, that would mean about 12 million people.

Based on these projected numbers, the US resistance, though growing from rally to rally, must continue to grow, person to person, town to town, state by state.

Chenoweth and three colleagues recorded promising signs in an article published at the Ash Center two days before the October 18 protest. They noted that the protest movement during this administration has been “far greater” than in 2017, and “overwhelmingly (and even historically) nonviolent, and far-reaching.”

Furthermore, the article noted, “the current protest movement has already reached deeper into Trump country than at almost any point during the first Trump Administration.”

This is encouraging. Whether it continues to grow rests with us.

Lanson’s column first appeared at his Substack, From the Grassroots.

_____
THURSDAY 10/30/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

On Friday October 17, Donald Trump put this on his social media platform:

“George Santos was somewhat of a 'rogue,' but there are many rogues throughout our Country that aren't forced to serve seven years in prison. I started to think about George when the subject of Democrat Senator Richard 'Da Nang Dick' Blumenthal came up again. His War Hero status, and even minimal service in our Military, was totally and completely MADE UP. This is far worse than what George Santos did, and at least Santos had the Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN! George has been in solitary confinement for long stretches of time, and by all accounts, has been horribly mistreated. I just signed a Commutation, releasing George Santos from prison, IMMEDIATELY. Good luck George, have a great life!”.

George Santos, who was elected to Congress in 2020, was voted out of office in 2023 by a bi-partisan majority.

Santos was to plead guilty in 2024 to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft; he went to prison on July 25, which means this “rogue” spent just over 3% of his seven-year sentence in prison.

***

On October 23 Donald Trump granted a pardon to Changpeng Zhao, the founder of Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange. Zhao was convicted of violating US anti-money laundering laws; he pled guilty and was sentenced to four months in prison, which he served last year. He also paid a $50-million fine.

Binance the company pled guilty to the charge of bypassing sanctions and was ordered to pay $4.3 billion. The cryptocurrency company was reportedly involved in transactions that facilitated monetary activities of various terrorist organizations (e.g., 

Al Qaeda, ISIS) as well as child sexual exploitation networks.

As a press release from the Department of Justice from November 2023 put it:

“’Binance turned a blind eye to its legal obligations in the pursuit of profit. Its willful failures allowed money to flow to terrorists, cybercriminals, and child abusers through its platform,’ said Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen. ‘Today’s historic penalties and monitorship to ensure compliance with US law and regulations mark a milestone for the virtual currency industry. Any institution, wherever located, that wants to reap the benefits of the US financial system must also play by the rules that keep us all safe from terrorists, foreign adversaries, and crime or face the consequences.’”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt described Zhao’s conviction as part of the Biden administration’s “war on cryptocurrency.”

Sounds like a “war on terror,” medium of exchange notwithstanding.

Of course, there would have been no convictions had the Biden administration simply ignored the law.

But there’s the little issue of Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution, which says the president is obligated to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Something that seems so pre-January 2025.

***

On July 31 Donald Trump said that the construction of the White House ballroom wouldn’t have an impact on the then-existing building, which he described himself as being “the biggest fan of.” He said there would be “total respect to the existing building.”

On October 20, the White House East Wing demolition commenced.

On October 21 the official White House website included an article that described the public reaction to the demolition as being “manufactured outrage” that is largely among “unhinged leftists and their Fake News allies.”

As of October 24, the East Wing of the White House is completely demolished.

“Total respect.”

***

Let’s go back to the George Santos case. He pled guilty. He was convicted.

But the whole rationalization related to Richard Blumenthal is, well, not particularly reasonable.

Blumenthal acknowledged in 2010 that he had mispresented his military service.

He was in the US Marine Corps Reserve during the war in Vietnam. He was not deployed to Vietnam during that time.

After The New York Times broke the story in 2010 Blumenthal held a press conference and said took “full responsibility” for being insufficiently clear about what he did or didn’t do (i.e., serve in Vietnam).

Blumenthal was in the Marine Reserve for six years.

So while he didn’t serve in Vietnam, he served in the military.

Which means what Donald Trump describes as “minimal service in our Military, was totally and completely MADE UP” wasn’t made up. Blumenthal did serve.

Donald Trump did not serve in the military in any capacity (stints as Commander in Chief notwithstanding).

He had four student deferments during the 1960s and a fifth medical deferment (bone spurs in his heels).

What does this have to do with George Santos, who pled guilty of wire fraud and aggressive identity theft?

Nothing.

But, as Donald Trump put it, “Santos had the Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!”

Odds are Blumenthal, US Senator representing Connecticut, a Democrat, doesn’t “ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!”

***

Then Zhao and Binance. 

Zhao did his time. And paid a fine. Binance paid big, too.

Again, the pleas were of guilt.

It could be argued that the reason there were guilty pleas was simply out of convenience: better to spend a few months in prison (more than Santos, however) and spend billions of dollars than go through some legal slog.

For Zhao the slate is clean.

He can now resume his position as CEO of Binance and the company can return to business in the US.

Asked about the pardon, Donald Trump said, “A lot of people say he wasn’t guilty of anything.”

And who might “a lot of people be”?

And didn’t Zhao plead guilty? Do people do that when they aren’t guilty?

While this gets a little tricky, DT Marks DeFi LLC owns 60% of WLF Holdco, which controls World Liberty Financial. DT Marks DeFi is a Trump-affiliated company.

World Liberty Financial is largely — but not exclusively — run by Donald Trump and his family.

World Liberty Financial is hosted by Binance.

Go figure.

***

Finally, the East Wing.

Donald Trump, throughout his career, has positioned himself as a Master Builder.

In his speech to the UN General Assembly in September, apropos of seemingly nothing, he said this:

“Many years ago, a very successful real estate developer in New York, known as Donald J. Trump, I bid on the renovation and rebuilding of this very United Nations complex.

“I remember it so well. I said at the time that I would do it for $500 million, rebuilding everything. It would be beautiful. I used to talk about, ‘I'm going to give you marble floors, they're going to give you terrazzo.’ The best of everything. ‘You're going to have mahogany walls, they're going to give you plastic.’ But they decided to go in another direction, which was much more expensive at the time, which actually produced a far inferior product. And I realized that they did not know what they were doing when it came to construction and that their building concepts were so wrong, and the product that they were proposing to build was so bad and so costly, it was going to cost them a fortune. And I said, ‘And wait until you see the overruns.’ Well, I turned out to be right.”

Perhaps the people at the UN had an inkling of what would happen were they to turn the project over to the Trump Organization.

It is also interesting that Donald Trump has been acutely critical of Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell for the construction cost overruns for the renovations of the Federal Reserve headquarters.

The initial estimate was $1.9 billion. It is now up to $2.5 billion. That’s an increase of 31.6%.

Powell’s job was rumored to be at risk because of the cost overruns at the Fed HQ.

The East Wing has been torn down. No construction work other than that has been undertaken.

Yet the cost for the ballroom has gone from $200 million to $300 million. That’s an increase of 50%.

“And I said, ‘And wait until you see the overruns.’ Well, I turned out to be right.”

Macaulay is pundit-at-large at The Hustings.

_____
WEDNESDAY 10/29/25

On Stephen Macaulay’s ‘Reagan on Tariffs’ (right column) --  You lay out Reagan’s text beautifully. I wrote about the same controversy from a different angle: how our fixation on Reagan’s ‘purity test’ for conservatism keeps limiting our democratic imagination. The ad wasn’t just about tariffs — it exposed how both Trump and his critics are still orbiting the myth of Reagan rather than confronting what his era really set in motion. –Steward Beckham (via Substack)

•••

Join the conversation. Email your COMMENTS to editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings in the subject line so we post them in the proper column.

_____
MONDAY 10/27/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

“Based on their egregious behavior, ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED.” —Donald J. Trump, October 23, 2025

"Because of their serious misrepresentation of the facts, and hostile act, I am increasing the Tariff on Canada by 10% over and above what they are paying now".  —Donald J. Trump, October 25, 2025

What “egregious” act did Canada make against the United States such that the president of the United States has ended trade negotiations with the country?

Before answering that, it is important to note, using Trump-style typography:

CANADA IS THE LARGEST EXPORT MARKET FOR US GOODS. IN 2024 THERE WERE NEARLY $350 BILLION OF US GOODS SHIPPED TO CANADA.

That’s right. American companies send more products to Canada than any other country. 

All of the interest in China might lead you to believe that it is the biggest market.

Actually, it is a somewhat distant third, at $143.5 billion.

Mexico is in second place ($334 billion).

(You’d think Team Trump would be nicer to our two closest neighbors.)

The horrible thing that happened was that the government of Ontario ran an anti-tariff ad that aired during the first game of the World Series (which, ironically enough, the Toronto Blue Jays, dominated, 11-4 over the Los Angeles Dodgers).

The ad cleverly used a radio address from then-President Ronald Reagan, aired on April 25, 1987.

The charge is that somehow Reagan’s anti-tariff remarks were cherry-picked from his address.

So here are 300 consecutive words from the 784 words that Reagan spoke (counting the “My fellow Americans” and “Until next week, thanks for listening, and God bless you.”):

Now, that message of free trade is one I conveyed to Canada's leaders a few weeks ago, and it was warmly received there. Indeed, throughout the world there's a growing realization that the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition. Now, there are sound historical reasons for this. For those of us who lived through the Great Depression, the memory of the suffering it caused is deep and searing. And today many economic analysts and historians argue that high tariff legislation passed back in that period called the Smoot-Hawley tariff greatly deepened the depression and prevented economic recovery.

You see, at first, when someone says, ``Let's impose tariffs on foreign imports,'' it looks like they're doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes for a short while it works -- but only for a short time. What eventually occurs is: First, homegrown industries start relying on government protection in the form of high tariffs. They stop competing and stop making the innovative management and technological changes they need to succeed in world markets. And then, while all this is going on, something even worse occurs. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. The result is more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, and less and less competition. So, soon, because of the prices made artificially high by tariffs that subsidize inefficiency and poor management, people stop buying. Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse; businesses and industries shut down; and millions of people lose their jobs.

The memory of all this occurring back in the thirties made me determined when I came to Washington to spare the American people the protectionist legislation that destroys prosperity.

“Spare the American people the protectionist legislation that destroys prosperity.”

Perhaps the only concern that Trump might have is that there is no legislation — he’s just applying tariffs as he sees fit.

What Trump wants us to believe is that a single TV ad is a threat to our national and economic security.

Is there a single Republican — Reagan-style or otherwise — who actually believes this is the case?

There was no misconstruing Reagan’s position on tariffs, a position that actual conservatives hold, as well: 

Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse; businesses and industries shut down; and millions of people lose their jobs.

MAGA!

_____
MONDAY 10/27/25

Well, we know who evidently doesn’t. . . .

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

On Saturday on a stretch of Interstate 5 in southern California between San Diego and Orange counties, the US Marines had an unexpected but certainly not unimaginable or impossible incident.

As part of the Corps’ 250^th anniversary celebrations, a live-fire event took place at Camp Pendleton. Camp Pendleton is located mainly northeast of I-5, which runs through the southwestern edge of the Marine base. To the west of the I-5 is the Pacific.

During the event on Saturday there was a simulated assault with amphibious craft, jets, helicopters, Marines, Navy SEALs, and artillery. The whole shootin’ match. It was to show how the Marines can get it done (and they can) for two very special observers, Vice President JD Vance and Defense War Secretary Pete Hegseth, among thousands of others who were on hand for the event. 

Apparently the whole simulation was filmed for a prime-time special the White House is going to have broadcast on November 9. It will be quite an exhibition of your tax dollars at work taking place at a time where there is all manner of concern regarding how our military personnel are going to be paid during this government shutdown.

Now, as mentioned, most of Camp Pendleton is east of the I-5, and as the ocean is on the west side of the interstate, the “invasion” had to be conducted from that side of the road, from west to the east. And there’s that interstate highway in the way.

California Governor Gavin Newsom decided that 17 miles of the I-5 had to be closed during this event for the safety of motorists. 

Reporting in The Washington Post has it: “The Trump administration and the Marines had said there were ‘no public safety concerns’ surrounding the event.’”

Evidently “Newscum” was simply trying to cause trouble.

Or as a post from RapidResponse47, a White House X-Twitter outlet put it on Saturday, “Newscum is lying. He closed the highway — not only did nobody at the White House or the Marines ask him to do so, the Marines repeatedly said there are no public safety concerns with today’s exercises.”

As it turned out, one of the 155-mm rounds fired by a M777 howitzer detonated where it wasn’t supposed to.

Sh*t happens.

Now in the event that you’re not all caught up on various munitions, know that a 155-mm round is 6.1 inches in diameter, about two feet long, weighs some 100 pounds, and can carry various payloads, including explosives.

The lede to the Post story: 

“An artillery shell detonated prematurely during a US Marine Corps ceremony in California over the weekend, sending shrapnel toward Interstate 5 and California Highway Patrol officers who were part of Vice President JD Vance’s protective detail for the live-fire exercise, the California Highway Patrol said Sunday.”

It goes on:

“No officers were injured in the incident. A patrol car was hit by a two-inch piece of shrapnel, leaving a dent in its hood. One of the officers recalled hearing what he said sounded like pebbles falling on his motorcycle, according to an incident report.”

Perhaps there was some bona fide public safety concern.

Oh, it is also worth noting that a 155-mm projectile can fly at 1,850 mph, so even if there were no explosives on board, an impact from that would be at the sort of velocity that could completely ruin your day.

While it is wonderful that no one was hurt, that “two-inch piece of shrapnel” is concerning. 

Odds are had it hit, say, the windshield of someone rolling along, minding their own business, in an F-150 on the I-5, things would not have been good. Anyone who has traveled the I-5 knows there is always heavy traffic, so even if only one vehicle was impacted by a piece of shrapnel, the likely consequences would be vehicles careening off of one another. Not good.

But it seems the Trump Administration is fully in favor of having military personnel engaging with American citizens not merely in demonstrations of military prowess (does anyone doubt the Marines and the SEALs are the most bad-ass fighters on the planet?), but in city peace-keeping (which is odd because there is no “war” in the classic sense of the term. Bad guys? Yes. But do we go to “war” with them or do we let the police departments do their jobs? . . . and if they can’t, then they ask for help.).

Yes, the event at Pendleton was an accident. But as Helmuth von Moltke, a 19^th-century Prussian field marshal, put it, “No plan survives first contact with the enemy.”

While there was no enemy on the I-5, Murphy’s Law still exists.

Later that day there was Donald Trump’s AI-generated cartoon video posted to his social media platform in response to the “No Kings” rallies held across the US on Saturday.

Despite his saying many times last week that he isn’t a king (e.g., on Air Force One, October 19, “I’m not a king. I work my ass off to make our country great.”), the cartoon Donald Trump is, crown on head, flying a jet plane (there were F-35s and F/A-18s flying at Pendleton Saturday). 

And the character is dropping on the crowds below what is clearly excrement.

Classy.

For all of you parents: How would you feel about your kids posting a piece like that?

According to the Silver Bulletin, which aggregates and averages polls to come up with its numbers, as of October 20, Donald Trump’s approval rating is 44.2% and his disapproval is at 52.1%.

It goes on to point out: “Trump’s net approval ratings on inflation (-27.2), the economy (-14.4), and trade (-13.8) are also firmly underwater. And even his immigration approval rating has fallen from +11.0 at the start of his term to -3.2 today.”

To put in indelicately, he shouldn’t be dropping that stuff on Americans who are executing their democratic rights. He ought to be trying to get out of it, because he seems to be in deep.

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings.

_____
THURSDAY 10/23/25