Commentary by K.E. Bell

By now I’m sure you’ve seen the clip. In 2001’s movie Shrek, Lord Farquaad, played by legendary actor John Lithgow, tells the knights of a tournament: “Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make.”

That quote sums up President Donald Trump’s modus operandi perfectly. 

The US, the UK, France, China, Russia, Germany, and Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) in 2015, halting Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon by limiting the country’s ability to enrich uranium. The deal included inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and relaxed sanctions imposed on Iran due to its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran complied with the agreement.

But then, unable to concede a foreign policy win for former President Barrak Obama, Trump withdrew the US from the deal in 2018. Iran went back to enriching uranium in 2019.

Then, early Saturday, the US and Israel struck Iran in an act of war.

Trump broke diplomacy and now he intends to fix it with war. 

How many will die because of Trump’s unending ego?

So far quite a few, including more than 100 young girls buried in a strike on a school. As of March 1, three American soldiers have died as well. Many more are likely to die on both sides. 

One of the casualties was the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, an extremist Shia Muslim cleric whose government has killed what is estimated by some at more than 35,000 citizen protesters since December 28, 2025. The Ayatollah was a horrible man running a horrible government. I’m not sad to see him go. 

However, it’s not supposed to be up to Trump to decide to go to war. It’s up to Congress as stated in the War Powers Resolution of 1973, but Congress wasn’t consulted. The equally corrupt Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu obviously was. 

Once again Trump has broken the law. That has spurred Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA) to introduce a House resolution calling for a war powers vote on the Iran strikes. Essentially, it’s a vote to apply a law that already applies.

The US has mettled in Iranian politics since the US and the UK backed a coup d’etat that consolidated power with Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1953. Not surprisingly, the move was to protect oil interests, this time more for the UK than the US. The Shah was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution of 1979 that put Khamenei’s predecessor, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, in power until his death in 1989. 

In a video posted after the attacks, Trump said: “Finally, to the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. Stay sheltered. Don't leave your home. It's very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”

It appears that the US has no succession plan to promote or install a more egalitarian government, and reports say Iran’s opposition movement has no succession plan, either. As of now, theocratic hardliners are still in charge of Iran and they intend to avenge Khamenei’s death.

Given the lack of a plan on both sides, we could be looking at an extended stay in Iran. The last time we waged war in the greater Middle East we were there for almost 20 years at the cost of trillions of dollars, more than 7,000 American lives, and hundreds of thousands of Afghani and Iraqi lives. 

This attack on Iran could have been avoided with diplomacy. Now one man’s ego will claim innumerable lives.

Bell is contributing pundit for The Hustings.

_____
MONDAY 3/2/26

SCROLL DOWN this column for two very different takes on the US and Israel’s war on Iran, from Contributing Pundit Rich Corbett and Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay.

Operation Epic Fury: Strength in Defense of the Free World

Commentary by Rich Corbett

Saturday’s headlines were historic but hardly shocking. A coordinated US and Israeli operation, reportedly targeting the heart of Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure, marks a decisive turning point in a decades-long confrontation with the Islamic regime in Tehran. The reported death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei underscores the magnitude of what just occurred. 

Iran’s retaliatory missile launches toward Israeli and American military bases were predictable. The Iranian regime has always relied on escalation and intimidation. What may be different this time is the resolve of our side.

For years, successive administrations tried diplomacy, sanctions and strategic patience. According to statements from President Donald J. Trump, renewed efforts were made to negotiate constraints on Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its sponsorship of regional terror networks. Those efforts failed, not because of Western intransigence, but because the regime in Tehran has never truly abandoned its revolutionary mission: Export extremism, threaten Israel and outlast the West.

There comes a point when negotiations become theater. When a regime chants “Death to America,” funds proxy militias across the Middle East, arms groups bent on Israel’s destruction, and continues advancing its nuclear capabilities, deterrence must replace dialogue.

Israel has lived under that threat for decades. No nation can be expected to tolerate a hostile power that openly calls for its elimination while working toward nuclear capability. The Jewish state’s right to defend itself is not merely a slogan; it is a moral and strategic imperative. The United States, as Israel’s closest ally and as a guarantor of broader regional stability, has a parallel responsibility.

This moment is sobering. Civilian casualties are tragic. The prospect of wider regional conflict is real. No serious observer celebrates war. But it is equally serious to acknowledge that peace built on illusion is not peace at all. A nuclear-armed Iran would not stabilize the region; it would ignite an arms race, embolden terror proxies and permanently destabilize global security.

There is also a deeper question at stake when it comes to the future of the Iranian people. For most of the past half-century, they have lived under a regime that suppresses dissent, jails critics and diverts national wealth to ideological warfare. Many Iranians have bravely protested at great personal cost. If this operation weakens the regime’s grip and opens space for reform or transformation, history may judge it as more than a military strike — it may be remembered as the beginning of a national reckoning.

Strength, when exercised reluctantly but decisively, can prevent far greater bloodshed. The United States and Israel did not seek this confrontation; they endured years of provocation and failed diplomacy before acting. In a dangerous world, credibility matters. When red lines are crossed without consequence, aggressors advance. When they are enforced, deterrence is restored.

The coming days will test resolve. Iran’s proxies may lash out. Global opinion will fracture. But the central truth remains: the free world cannot allow a regime committed to its destruction to obtain the ultimate weapon. If Operation Epic Fury signals that era is over, then however grave the moment feels, it may ultimately prove necessary.

Corbett is a contributing pundit to The Hustings.

•••

A Hat & a Tan Suit

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

While the “what-aboutism” that tends to be used in Washington all too often to justify things that are of a questionable nature is itself questionable at most, let’s play that game for a moment.

What if Barack Obama, while president, wearing a baseball cap, posted a message on social media that said the US was going to war with Iran—as it was happening, in coordination with Israel?

How would that have gone over with not just Republicans, but Donald Trump?

And then, after taping that announcement, flew off to a golf resort.

How would Congress have reacted if he said: “The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost and we may have casualties. That often happens in war. But we're doing this, not for now. We're doing this for the future, and it is a noble mission.”

There is that word war. 

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution has it that “The Congress shall have Power. . . To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”*

The president doesn’t.

Historically presidents who have launched attacks against foreign actors have avoided the word war so as not to step on the toes of Congress (or at least the members of Congress who have actually read the copy of the Constitution that they carry around).

But let’s go back to the Obama what-aboutism.

What if, cap on head, he said to the Iranian people in his tape: “No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a president who is giving you what you want, so let’s see how you respond.”

That’s right: Donald Trump said to the Iranian people that he is their president (“Now you have a president …).

So, who is he going to war on behalf of in Operation Epic Fury?

But he did say the mission is also meant to: “defend the American people by

eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.”

Just what those “imminent threats” are, were not detailed.

Last June, after Operation Midnight Hammer, during which US military aircraft bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities (Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan), President Trump said: “Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.”

So evidently that isn’t the source of “imminent threats.”

In his taped speech about the launch of Operation Epic Fury President Trump said:

“For 47 years, the Iranian regime has chanted ‘Death to America’ and waged an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder, targeting the United States, our troops and innocent people in many, many countries.”

Somehow something that has been going on for 47 years isn’t exactly “imminent.”

Back in August 2014 Obama held a press conference about the possibility of the US military going after ISIS in Syria. He wore a tan suit.** Then-US representative Peter King (R-NY) said the following day, "There's no way, I don't think, any of us can excuse what the president did yesterday. I mean, you have the world watching.” And he wasn’t the only critic of the sartorial choice.

A tan suit.

Only imagine a baseball hat.

In September 2014 the US — along with coalition partners including Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, Belgium, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, — launched Operation Inherent Resolve against ISIS in Syria.

Operation Inherent Resolve is winding down. On February 18, President Trump said he wants all US forces out of Syria within two months. Although major combat has been over since March 2019, there is continued insurgency, which led to Operation Hawkeye Strike, which was launched by the US on December 19, 2025, and has had strikes as recently as February 12.

Nothing goes quickly or easily in that part of the world and it would be more encouraging were there someone who seems both understanding and serious getting the US involved.

Again.

Operation Epic Fury may be over by the time you read this.

But the situation with Iran won’t be. Not for a long time.

==

*While the bombing of “drug” boats in the Caribbean and elsewhere seems to have dropped out of the news, US Southern Command is still at it. Interestingly, the prepositional phrase in the Constitution that precedes the one about war reads: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.” Guess Congress doesn’t seem to want to take up that responsibility, either.

**In 2009 Obama was criticized by the likes of Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham for ordering a hamburger with spicy mustard. As Ingraham called him out: What kind of man orders a cheeseburger without ketchup, but Dijon mustard?” Certainly not the kind of man who is so vain as to wear a baseball cap because he’s losing his hair and probably didn’t have time to have a hairdresser make it look like there is more than is actually there.

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings.

_____
MONDAY 3/2/26

Do not miss commentaries on President Trump's State of the Union address, "America -- and Democrats -- Got the State of the Union Speech They Deserved," by Contributing Pundit T.R. Davis, and "That's Entertainment," by Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay in The Gray Area.

Join the conversation – email editors@thehustings.news with ‘Left Column’ in the subject line.

End Stock Trading -- Last night I gave up two hours of my life to watch a madman spout delusion and grievance. According to Donald Trump, everything he does is the greatest thing anyone has ever done, and all the world's problems are caused by Democrats. I wish I lived in the world Trump described, with low drug prices, a booming economy, affordable healthcare, and worldwide respect for America. Overall, Trump didn't stray too far from the talking points he hits at every speech he gives, which tends to devolve into rally rhetoric. However, he did propose one policy that I would like to see enacted: an end to stock trading by Congress. Extend that to the White House and vote it into law. I'll hold my breath while I wait for that to happen. –Contributing Pundit K.E. Bell

Lacking in Fact Checking -- Reading coverage Wednesday morning, it seems clear to me that fact-checking Trump and his followers is the most secure job imaginable. It isn't even threatened by A.I.: since large language training sucks in social media posts, how would Claude et al ever know what's a lie from them? With no new policies announced, I don't think the speech (or Governor Spanberger's response, which was competent) changed any electoral prospects for this fall. – Contributing Pundit Hugh Hansen

_____
WEDNESDAY 2/25/26

Do not miss commentaries on President Trump's State of the Union address, "That's Entertainment," by Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay, and "America -- and Democrats -- Got the State of the Union Speech They Deserved," by Contributing Pundit T.R. Davis, in The Gray Area.

Join the conversation – email editors@thehustings.news with ‘Right Column’ in the subject line.

Golden Age -- President Trump's 2026 State of the Union was a powerful showcase of America's resurgence — booming economy, secure borders, and bold leadership that puts America First. He avoided directly scolding the Supreme Court justices on tariffs, but had no issue chastising Democrats, stating “these people are crazy” and asking, “how do you not stand up for that?” 

Foreign policy weighed heavily, as all in Congress grasp the gravity of military action. Trump pledged to make peace where possible but said he won't hesitate to use force when necessary. It was an ominous warning, as he highlighted Iran's killing of an estimated 32,000 civilian protesters amid their ongoing nuclear enrichment and weapons pursuit: “I will never allow that to happen.”

A few lines drew extended applause, but one on the threat of criminal illegals stood out: “The first duty of the US government is to protect American citizens … not the illegal aliens.”

Trump’s speech featured extraordinary stagecraft in weaving honored guests throughout — Olympic champions, real heroes, everyday winners from his policies, and inspiring stories that brought the MAGA vision to life. He reflected on the dire economy and inflation under Biden, then expressed confidence that after one year of his policies, “our nation is back—it is indeed a turnaround for the ages.” The address was bold, honoring, positive, and convincing: “The Golden Age of America is upon us.” –Contributing Pundit Rich Corbett

_____
WEDNESDAY 2/25/26

President Trump’s State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress is 9 p.m. Eastern/6 p.m. Pacific on Tuesday, February 24. 

You are invited to submit your comments on his address, and/or the Democratic response by Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger to be broadcast immediately after. Please indicate whether you lean left or right in your email’s subject line, to editors@thehustings.newsregardless of your opinion within, so we may post responses in the proper column.

The Supreme Court’s ruling Friday on Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump and the president’s tariff policy certainly will come up in his address Tuesday. We invite you to comment on this (and/or any other current) issue, as well with an email to the above address (with your political leanings in the subject line). 

For more on the SCOTUS decision, read our news/aggregate/analysis in the center column, and don’t miss Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay’s “Words Matter” in the right column. 

You also are invited to our first Talking With, Not At/Donuts & Debate; “Has the Trump economy made life more affordable for Americans?” at The Allen Theatre & Salamander Bookstore Café in Annville Township, Pennsylvania, Wednesday, March 11. EMAIL us at editors@thehustings.news to confirm your attendance. It’s free and open to the public as audience members or participants in the debate. --Editors

_____
MONDAY 2/23/26

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

Why does he think countries are “ripping us off”? Or are “treating us badly”?

Why has Donald Trump been, and why does he continue to be, so agitated, by international trade?

Doesn’t he realize that it is because we — the American people — want to buy stuff from those other countries because we find it financially advantageous to do so? Or perhaps we simply want to get a Mercedes from Stuttgart rather than a Cadillac Optiq (which is built in Mexico)?

As anyone who paid close attention to Schoolhouse Rock knows, the parts of speech in the SCOTUS ruling are as important as the ruling itself:

• “Each of the nine verbs. …”
• “… the eight other verbs in §1702(a)(1)(B) are simply wasted ink”
• “’Regulate’ is one of the nine verbs…”
• “… one of nine verbs …”
• “Those verbs are followed by 11 objects … .”
• “Combine the verbs and objects … .”
• “Each of the listed verbs — 'investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit’… .”

“But as the Government thoroughly explains, when a statute contains a long string of verbs and nouns, each term should be understood in context. The relevant section of IEEPA contains nine verbs and 11 objects, for a total of 99 combinations. We do not need to construe each word of the statute to ensure that it is perfectly aligned in all 99 pairings.”

So while much of it is parsing, it is fairly straightforward in what the SCOTUS decision says, which is that Congress is the one that should impose tariffs. As it says in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States … .”

That’s where the tariff power comes from.

Chief Justice Roberts, in his written opinion for the majority, is forthright about this: “Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution sets forth the powers of the Legislative Branch.  The first Clause of that provision specifies that “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” It is no accident that this power appears first. The power to tax was, Alexander Hamilton explained, ‘the most important of the authorities proposed to be conferred upon the Union.’”

Roberts went on to note: “Recognizing the taxing power’s unique importance, and having just fought a revolution motivated in large part by ‘taxation without representation,’ the Framers gave Congress alone . . . access to the pockets of the people.”

That’s right. Again, for those who gained much of their knowledge about things from Schoolhouse Rock, the whole “No taxation without representation!” thing and the Boston Tea Party should resonate strongly.

It seems as though there are plenty in Congress who evidently grew up without TVs.

One part of Article I, Section 8 that doesn’t get the attention that it deserves is this infinitive clause: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations … .”

One of the things that Trump is doing with the tariffs is regulating commerce with foreign nations, and he isn’t shy about pointing that out.

Again, this is something Congress should do, not the president.

But where the president does have power in this regard is when there is a “national emergency.”

As the Supreme Court points out: “The President declared a national emergency as to both threats, deeming them ’unusual and extraordinary,’ and invoked his authority under IEEPA to respond.”

The two threats are fentanyl said to be coming in from Canada and Mexico. The other is the trade deficit that the US is running with other countries.

Let’s look at those two adjectives, unusual and extraordinary.

Drug smuggling is certainly in the top five of oldest professions. There’s nothing uncommon or rare about it.

Is fentanyl bad? Certainly. Should efforts be made to stop it from coming into the US? Certainly.

But by imposing tariffs?

And as for the trade deficit being “unusual and extraordinary”: the newly minted United States of America, despite having fought a war with it for over eight years, racked up a trade deficit with the United Kingdom.

That’s right: the US has had a trade deficit for as long as there’s been the US.

So why are these things considered emergencies?

While the word “emergency” doesn’t appear in the Constitution, so those jurors who are textualists are out of luck, there is still the sense of those who are originalists, who are looking at the public use of language at the time.

According to Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1755), an emergency is “A state of things that arises unexpectedly; an unforeseen occurrence.”

And in Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (1828), an emergency is “Any event or occasional combination of circumstances that calls for immediate action.”

Again, emergencies?

In a piece published on February 12 in its Liberty Street Economics newsletter titled “Who Is Paying for the 2025 US Tariffs?”, the New York Fed authors explain that the cost of tariffs are paid for by the importers (think Amazon or Walmart), and that the importers can absorb all of the costs or pass some on to the consumers. They calculate that during the first eight months of 2025 (they needed some time to run the numbers, so they didn’t run through December) “94% of the tariff incidence was borne by the US”

In effect, by imposing tariffs, President Trump is imposing a tax on the American people.

Unsurprisingly, the next day National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett went on CNBC and called it “The worst paper I’ve ever seen” and the lowest-quality work in the “history of the Federal Reserve system.”

Hassett provided heat. No light in terms of facts or figures.

On February 20, the same day of the Supreme Court ruling, the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the US Department of Commerce reported: “Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 1.4% in the fourth quarter of 2025 (October, November, and December), according to the advance estimate released today by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased 4.4%.”

That’s right, GDP was three points lower in the fourth quarter as tariffs fully kicked in, than it was in the third quarter. Lower.

What’s more: “The price index for gross domestic purchases increased 2.6 percent in 2025, compared with an increase of 2.4 percent in 2024.” In other words, what it costs to buy things in the US increased in 2025 compared to Sleepy Joes’ final year in office.

Could it be because other countries are “ripping us off” or because there is a “national emergency”?

Or is it simply because the man who announced on Friday, shortly after the SCOTUS ruling, that he is using Section 122, which allows him to impose tariffs of not more than 15%, for 150 days before Congress gets involved, and Section 301, which requires an investigation into unfair trade practices before it can be utilized (the investigation will be made by the likes of Hassert) really isn’t good at economics.

When US importers start passing along some of the hits they’ve been absorbing from the now-overturned tariffs, Trump and his party are going to find themselves in a national emergency in November because consumers are going to find things even more expensive than they are today.

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings.

_____
MONDAY 2/23/26

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

In August 2024, while campaigning, then-candidate Donald Trump, surrounded by milk, meat, eggs, and packaged foods — items that he was later to begin calling “the groceries,” which he defined as “a bag with different things in it” — said he would reduce prices to consumers “on day one,” the same day he was going to end the war in Ukraine.

This reduced-grocery prices claim became one of his pledges throughout the campaign, along with …

• border and immigration efforts focused on “the worst of the worst” (according to CBS News, citing a Department of Homeland Security document, “Less than 14% of the nearly 400,000 immigrants arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in President Trump’s first year back in the White House had charges or convictions for violent criminal offenses,” which pretty much puts the lie to that “worst” claim); 
• he would put tariffs on those countries that have been “ripping us off” (curiously, there is a 50% tariff on goods from Brazil and we have a trade surplus with that country, which makes the “ripping us off” remark somewhat odd) and would grow US manufacturing (according to the National Association of Manufacturers, “Employment in the sector has been in decline over the past year,” with said year being 2025);
• he would reduce energy prices by 50% within 12 months and as a result, “everything comes down” in terms of their prices (January 20, 2026, 12 months later, no one has seen their energy costs go down by 50% unless they’ve stopped driving and decided they really don’t need to use their appliances or furnace).

On February 13 the US Bureau of Labor Statistics released its Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, which was hailed as a victory for the administration, as there was a mere 0.2% increase in January over December. Almost nothing.

Thing is, very few people only bought things in January. So another set of numbers in the BLS release need to be considered.

These are the “Unadjusted 12-mons. ended Jan. 26.”

In other words, the tracking of the rise since January 2025.

“All items” are up 2.4%, which is certainly more than that 0.2%.

Food? Up 2.1%.

Energy is down — but 49.9% off Trump’s 50% decrease number. It is down 0.1%.

But those using electricity saw a 6.3% rise, and those who have natural gas piped to their homes saw a 9.8% increase.

Apparel? Up 1.7%. Shelter? Up 2.9%. Need medical care? Up 3.9%.

In other words, the groceries have gone up in price as have plenty of other consumer products.

Meanwhile, the president is spending his time on things like ballrooms and arches … and golf.

On more than one occasion Donald Trump criticized Barack Obama for spending too much time playing golf and not enough time doing the job he was elected to do.

In his two terms in office Obama played golf 333 times. That was 113 in his first term and 220 in his second.

During his first term Trump played golf 261 times. According to didtrumpgolftoday.com, he has played golf 97 days out of his 392 days back in office. 

261 + 97= 358.

And he still has nearly three years to go.

Yes, the man is working hard to bring down prices for the American people, just like he said he would.

_____
PRESIDENTS DAY MONDAY 2/16/26

“Has the Trump economy made life more affordable for Americans?” That’s the Debate & Donuts topic at The Allen Theatre & Salamander Bookstore Café in Annville Township, Pennsylvania, Wednesday, March 11, and you are invited. EMAIL us at editors@thehustings.news to confirm your attendance. It’s free and open to the public.

•Don’t miss Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay’s column, “Jesus Wept” in The Gray Area.

Scroll down the page with the trackbar on the far-right to read, in the left column …

•Contributing Pundit Hugh Hansen’s quick take, “About Lion King Trump.

•Contributing Pundit K.E. Bell’s commentary, “Can the Dems Find Their Spine?”

More Macaulay in the right column: “Do Laws Matter to Conservatives?” 

Scroll down the page with the trackbar on the far right to read …

•”Truth.”

•“Diplomacy & Dollars.” 

To read any column to the end, scroll down with the trackbar in each individual column.

We welcome civilly stated comments from across the political spectrum on news/aggregate/analysis and commentary published in The Hustings at editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings in the subject line so we may post your comments in the proper (right or left) column. --Editors

______
TUESDAY 2/10/26

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

Margaret Brennan on CBS News’ Face the Nation Sunday asked Rep. Tony Gonzalas (R-TX) a question about ICE agents acting without judicial warrants, agents entering private property at will, as well as arresting people. She said people who are against that extra-judicial behavior “just want adherence to Fourth Amendment constitutional protections. As a conservative, shouldn’t a judge be consulted?”

That bears repeating: “As a conservative” — and let’s quote a man who was moderately conservative so as to provide a sense of what conservatives think on the subject of things like adhering to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution: “The world no longer has a choice between force and law; if civilization is to survive, it must choose the rule of law.” — “shouldn’t a judge be consulted?”

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe during World War II, knew far more than most about force and consequently the importance of law.

Gonzales: “Of course, I believe in the Fourth Amendment. But what worries me is a judge should not hold up everything. We're seeing judges all over the country go beyond their level of authority, and so, if a law enforcement officer, let's just say, for example, sees a crime that's being committed or has due pro- or has due cause, then why can't they go in there. These administrative warrants, they aren't new. All of a sudden, the left is --”

And there you have a prime example of why what has historically been conservativism in America, the belief in the rule of law and the protection of individual liberty, is now meaningless. If judges get in the way of an ICE agent, then that can’t stand.

What he is saying is that if enforcing the Fourth Amendment is inconvenient, then it should be forgotten.

Sure, if an ICE agent happens to be looking through a home’s front window and sees an assault occurring or a giant stack or explosives or something, then certainly there is reasonable cause and no need to wait. But what has been shown to be the case more than once in Minneapolis/St. Paul, are ICE agents entering homes and seizing people without judicial warrants and without apparent crimes being committed. 

(“Oh,” some might object, “if a person is in the country illegally and is in the house, then a crime is being committed by that person being there.” OK. But is there evidence that person is in there? If so, wouldn’t a warrant be in order? “But they might leave before one can be secured.” Yes, but if they were there long enough for it to be known they are there, wouldn’t there have been time to get a warrant beforehand? And if there really is a concern that the person of interest might leave the home, given the number of federal agents on the ground, couldn’t at least a couple of them be assigned to keep watch on the house?)

Brennan brought up the case of the now-famous-for-reasons-he-probably-wishes-never-existed Liam Ramos, the five-year-old who was seized by ICE. Brennan pointed out the little boy and his father “had entered with US government permission through a process that the Biden administration had deemed legal. The current administration does not.” As she put it, Ramos and his father came “in through the front door with US government permission.” They didn’t sneak across the border. They followed the rules.

Gonzales: “Well, the front door was via an app that Biden knew exactly what he was doing, and he created this huge mess, and now President Trump is there to clean up.” 

“In through the front door with the US government permission.”

This has nothing to do with Biden, the favorite scapegoat for everything the Republicans don’t like. Mess or no mess, there was nothing illegal going on. 

With further questioning about the incident, Gonzales went on to say: “So what do you do with all the people that go through the process and do not qualify for asylum? You deport them. I understand the five-year-old and it, you know, it breaks my heart. I have a five-year-old at home. I also think, what about that five-year-old US citizen —”

That’s right. Those who don’t qualify need to leave. 

But when someone is following the procedure and suddenly the procedure changes, do you punish them, as that young child certainly was punished from the standpoint of having been torn away from his family?

Before Gonzales could go on about a “five-year-old US citizen” — and if he was going down the path that Kristi Noem does, something heinous would have happened to that child — Brennan cut him off saying:

“You feel comfortable defending that?”

Gonzales: “I feel comfortable — we have a nation of laws. If we don’t have a nation of laws —”

[What about the aforementioned enforcement of the Fourth Amendment that he apparently thinks isn’t important?]

Brennan: “They were following the- the law that is -- that is that's the reg, is that a new administration deemed the last administration's regulation not to be legal.”

Gonzales: “We can be compassionate, and we can also, we can also enforce our laws. And I think that's the secret sauce that the administration and Congress must do.

“Let's enforce our laws, but let's do it in a humane way.”

So why isn’t that happening? Why isn’t there humane treatment of people, regardless of their immigration status? This is not to say that if someone is committing a violent act that that person should not be stopped from doing so, but as we’ve seen in the cases of Renée Nicole Good and Alex Pretti, humane enforcement is not occurring.

This is how President Trump is cleaning up the mess — by ignoring the rule of law?

There is nothing conservative about armed troops in the streets of America.

If the ends justify the means, and if the means are outside the law, then where do we arrive at the end? Someplace that isn’t America.

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings.

_____
TUESDAY 2/10/26