Saturday, May 30, 2026

Election choice, this November, two candidates for Minnesota House District 31A.

 It is where I live. Where I vote. Where a rep from here goes to the Minnesota legislature

====================================================== 

Brian Walker. To volunteer - https://www.walkerforward.com/volunteer 

Harry Niska. To volunteer - https://www.harryniska.com/jointeam

Donate Walker - https://www.walkerforward.com/donate

Donate Niska -  https://secure.winred.com/niska-for-minnesota-house/donate-today

===================================== 

To Crabgrass, a key constituent issue is education. Public Schools

Walker

Public Schools

Our kids deserve fully funded public schools. Every child, not just those whose families can choose otherwise.

My opponent may not have the same opinion. We need someone to fight for stable and adequate funding of our public schools, not give up on them and pivot to privatization. We need competitive teacher pay and safe learning environments for every kid in the district.

Niska (bolding in orignnal)

 Education: Parental involvement should be celebrated, not demonized. I will fight for school choice, educational options including charter schools, and curriculum transparency.

========================================================== 

 Beyond that one major issue, the links to campaign websites above are there to be explored. 

Crabgrass has a favorite, but that defines one vote. Define your own vote, but be sure to vote early, or at your designated polling place on election day. Crabgrass votes early, getting a ballot at County Hall or at the Ramsey city hall reception desk within days of when early voting starts. Early voting escapes possibly long lines and bad weather. 

And if ICE or border agents  might lurk around polls on election day, with masks, handguns, tear gas canisters,  pepper spray and all, you don't have to look at them or suffer their looking at you if voting early. Some may like the Greg Bovino authoritarian body language and hostile demeanor; but that's for them, not me. 

I'd not want to be shot dead like Renee and Alex, who won't have a ballot and choice.

Primary voting: Of course the House 31A district lines appear drawn without any primary challenges. Or that is how it looks today, but with filing deadlines allowing for possible challengers to the two 31A people. 

In statewide contests, primary elections will most certainly matter. So, do not forget, vote both the primary, and the general election. Consider it a right and a duty.


Wednesday, May 27, 2026

Mark Kelly is an interesting person. He has a background of public service in the military and astronautics, is a current Senator, and just looks honest as well as wise.

Video link. If there is a Democratic politician more promising as a potential future president, name one.

 UPDATE: AOC is mentioned as a candidate. She'd handle the job, but Kelly is more likely to be elected.

That's a guess. But Gavin Whoever, forget him. Kelly is steps ahead. As an accomplished multi-dimensional human.

Tuesday, May 26, 2026

Bernie. Having to keep coming back to Bernie is in one sense sad, but in a larger sense necessary if we are to be allowed a dignified non-traumatic life where we can feel confident in our nation's policies, and not in threat of ruin in a moment's bad luck or misfortune.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3Bd2mcvUjA

In Maine. Speaking for reform candidates. Ones who will be a step in a correct way, against corruption and greed. These are things we each have heard before. It is a personal responsibility for each of us to act toward that goal, with passion, and knowledge we are right and the dissemblers and dividers are not.

Power to the people has long stood as a clear thing. We must make it a real thing. We owe each other that effort. 

And Thomas Massie, a conservative Kentucky politician, now says he will read Epstien file names into the Congressional record. He lost his seat to millions of dollars and to Trump vengence. He has until January 20 of next year to work to unseat those who spent him into a vengence of his own.

And he is a clear Conservative Republican who got fucked over by his confederated peers and enemies, ememies because he did not bend enough to be seen as a roadblock to be dealth with harshly.

It is real what is needed, and there will be a strong fight back. We have numbers. The People outnumber the 1% that is setting the rules to keep them driving the car, and us watching it pass us by. That's wrong.

 

LA Times has a helpful article on the "Iran deal" which seems to see a practical reality that more fighting/destruction is a path of ignorance, piled upon the ignorance of starting the crap and not just letting Israel go it alone.

Bibi's neo-nazi government is not worth two shits. Trump and earlier political weaklings captured by the Israel lobby are/were weak and mean. It does not have to be that way. That's Crabgrass opinion, apart from the featured LAT item: News Analysis: Trump’s framework deal with Iran includes few details, prompts fury on the right

In late February, when he launched massive airstrikes against Iran, Trump said his aims were to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program, destroy Tehran’s ballistic missiles, end its ability to threaten its neighbors and, with luck, bring about “regime change.” More bluntly, in his words, he sought “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.”

Weeks of U.S. and Israeli attacks succeeded in destroying Iran’s air force and navy and reduced its arsenal of ballistic missiles, although the degree of damage to the missile force has been debated.

[...] The result was a stalemate followed by a ceasefire and weeks of negotiations that produced a “framework agreement”: a deal to end the war, reopen the strait and begin longer negotiations that would limit Iran’s nuclear program in return for relaxed U.S. economic sanctions.

It was a long way from unconditional surrender.

“The deal is deeply flawed,” wrote Danny Citrinowicz, a former Iran analyst at Israel’s defense intelligence agency. “But given the options President Trump actually had, it was probably the least bad choice. … Trump was forced to accept Iran’s terms because the alternatives were even worse.”

Iran hawks in Washington reacted with fury.

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a former Trump appointee, charged that the deal being described would “pay the [Iranian regime] to build a WMD program and terrorize the world.”

 “Not remotely America First,” he complained.

“If a deal is struck to end the Iranian conflict because it is believed that the Strait of Hormuz cannot be protected against Iranian terrorism … then Iran will be perceived as being a dominant force,” warned Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “It makes one wonder why the war started.”

Mark Dubowitz, a leading critic of past agreements with Iran, said the terms of the deal that have been described so far sounded like “a foolish agreement” under which “Iran would get real money, but they could continue to close the strait any time they wanted simply by making threats.” He said he hopes the final terms of the deal will turn out to be tougher.

It seemed telling that Trump and his aides, who declared weeks ago that the United States had won the war by every measure, made no claims of victory this time.

Instead, the president reacted to his conservative critics with irritation. “Don’t listen to the losers,” he wrote on his social media site. “[The deal] isn’t even fully negotiated yet.”

[...] “The net result of this war is significant damage to U.S. strategic interests,” wrote Daniel B. Shapiro, who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel under President Obama. “That said, since the war was a mistake from the beginning, we can at least be thankful it appears President Trump is moving belatedly to end it.”

But Robert Kagan, a conservative foreign policy scholar at the Brookings Institution, wrote that a deal to reopen the strait while deferring the nuclear issue would amount to a U.S. “surrender.”

“On the present trajectory, Iran will emerge from the conflict many times stronger and more influential than it was before the war,” Kagan wrote in the Atlantic.

Despite the apparent progress toward a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the gaps between the two countries on other issues — Iran’s nuclear program, and the U.S. sanctions that have crippled its economy — remain large.

When the war began, Trump’s goals included completely eliminating the vestiges of Iran’s nuclear program, [...]  Instead of banning Iranian nuclear activities completely, the recent talks have focused on narrower, more achievable goals: a “suspension” of nuclear enrichment for 20 years or less and removal or destruction of Iran’s highly enriched uranium, the essential ingredient for a nuclear weapon.

“The fact that we’re talking about a suspension of all enrichment, and the question is whether it will be five years, 20 years or halfway in between — that’s important,” said Nate Swanson, an Iran expert who worked at the National Security Council under President Biden and Trump. [...] Swanson said other issues, including Iran’s long-term nuclear research and its advanced ballistic missiles, haven’t been addressed and will remain points of contention between the two sides.

“An interim deal to buy time [is] probably where we end up,” he said. “Buying time is not a bad thing. Ending a war is not a bad thing. But it’s not a comprehensive solution.”

Absent from the analysis - "regime change." Bibi was hot to trot on that, and it splatted all over him.

The Republican Guard - military was largely in charge before, and is more firmly in charge now, in Iran.

That, a rigid military dictatorship, is not necessarily bad. The Arabs across the Persian Gulf from Iran are not beacons of good statehood either. Sunni, Shia and China got them talking to one another before Bibi with Trump in tow moved to scuttle that. China is interesting. Since Mao's Cultural Revolution, they've not warred with anyone, and built infrastructure and quality electric automobiles. TSMC on the island makes chips for Nvidia and others, so the Chinese mind, both sides of the earlier civil war, needs respect.

Let Iran and the Arabs pump and ship oil in competition with the Brazilians, Mexicans, and Nigerians; and whoever else can do it cheaper than fracked US stuff, the Norwegians - a market that existed already, and tell the Trump oil oligarchs to just fuck off. That's policy, of a better kind than Trump - Rubio empire lust and such. Just get along. We've already, the US of A, lost too many wars, divided Korea, onward.

Try peace for a change. As Whats-his-name campaigned in the 2024 election. The guy sitting with somebody else's Nobel Prize. You know who I mean. The one with the Greenland fetish.

UPDATE: Apology for meaning to mention it sooner, letting it slip. Pompeo. That Christian Nationalist asshole - even Trump 47 gave him the cold shoulder after Trump 45. Trump showing a learning curve is not an entirely bad thing. But Trump only switched Christian Nationalists, Pompeo out, Hegseth in. Both vomit-worthy sicko sociopaths. (Opinions may differ. But really should not.)

 

Gary, the Republican "barometer" blogger in Minnesota uses the "T word."

 Gary's headline - Donald Trump, TACO, appears again -- 

Unfortunately, Donald Trump is no President Reagan or Lady Thatcher. While I agree with his economic and homeland security policies, I've never been a fan of his national security policies. For instance, Russia's war with Ukraine continues with no end in sight. Our was with Iran continues with no end in sight. In both instances, all I see are endless negotiations. I get it that we don't want endless wars. Still, what's the upside of endless negotiations? High gas prices for longer times isn't an upside. No certainty in the world's most volatile region isn't an upside, either.

When asked by a reporter what his strategy was towards the Soviets, President Reagan replied "Simple. We win. They lose." President Reagan understood that there'd be a time for negotiations. President Reagan also understood that he wouldn't negotiate with Gorbachev until he'd scared the daylights out of Gorbachev. You can't scare the daylights out of the IRGC. They're messianic. They dream of meeting their 72 virgins.

According to this Fox News article, [...] TRANSLATION: More Trump happy talk. When will Iran surrender their enriched uranium? When will the IRGC surrender? Without those questions answered, we're nowhere. [...]

I'll be clear. I HOPE I'm wrong. It's just that I've seen the IRGC play President Trump for the fool too often. I'll believe it when the last I is dotted and the last T is crossed on the surrender/exile agreement is finished. Until then, I'll be skeptical of President Trump.

Comments


  1. Given that they are still negotiating (according to SOS Rubio), how can you claim he caved?

    Reply
    1. They shouldn't be negotiating. They should either be telling the IRGC to surrender or face immediate annihilation.

Gary also posted part of a Trump tweet. Same old, but Gary took offense.
 
There likely are warhawks in Congress, and Trump, while talking peace, is angering those who say it's a surrender. The document is discussed, but not signed, not released in draft form, and likely does not exist.
 
Crabgrass did: search = republicans criticize trump surrender iran deal
 
Among returned items:
 
Lipstick on a pig is the cliche that first comes to mind. Go to war, then hang it up, for this?
 
There will be some saying that, no matter what the deal in final form is. But for now, it looks like an Iranian win, Trump using the lipstick poorly. Nobody fooled. Iran in the driver's seat. 
 
When will the Strait be opened? On what terms? What of Uranium enrichment, past near weapon grade, future uncertainty?  Isreal a stumbling block? Gary on a high horse. Cruz up there too.

UPDATE: oilprice.com --- here and here. Bibi and Trump really fucked things up masterfully. Also, here.

FURTHER: Cargill is headquartered in Minnesota, but worldwide in operation. Storage is a question, how much and how good, in the light of Strait-based ag uncertainty; see, e.g., here

FURTHER: Yesterday, CNN coverage of the surrender/deal - https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/25/politics/trump-iran-war-deal-analysis -- Either it drags on, Iran wins with this "deal." or the sides reengage; that last option being what the warhawks want.

 

Monday, May 25, 2026

Continuing the theme of might Trump want a long closure of Hormuz, while saying otherwise -- AJ reporting may be relevant.

Trump-favored US oil interests might be pressing for a longer closure with subsequent higher and longer profits for their business. If so, the expectation is they would hide such a policy.

AJ publishes -

Trump says any deal with Iran will be ‘great and meaningful’

An agreement with Iran will be ‘great and meaningful’ or there will be ‘no deal’, US president says.

 Does "great and meaningful" mean long and drawn out? Trump-speak often has a meaning behind the actual words used, often close to or beyond greatly bending truth. In part - from the start -

Vehicles drive past a billboard on the facade of a building depicting the Strait of Hormuz
A billboard in Vanak Square in Tehran depicts the Strait of Hormuz with a caption in Persian reading, "Forever in Iran's hand" [Atta Kenare/AFP]


United States President Donald Trump says a deal with Iran would either be “meaningful” or there would be “no deal”, days after claiming an agreement with Tehran had been “largely negotiated” to end the nearly three-month war.

“The deal with Iran will either be a great and meaningful one, or there will be no deal,” he wrote on his social media platform Truth Social on Monday.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Washington and Tehran have observed a ceasefire since April 8 while mediators push for a negotiated settlement although Iran has continued to block the Strait of Hormuz to most shipping and the US has blockaded Iran’s ports.

Earlier on Monday, Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Iran and the US “have reached a conclusion on a large portion of the discussion topics” but warned that “this does not mean that the signing of an agreement is imminent.”

Addressing a news conference in Tehran, Baghaei also emphasised that at this stage, Iran and the US have not been “talking about the nuclear issue” and their focus is “on ending the war”, which began on February 28.

Those links to other AJ reports were left in the quote, as they look interesting. Readers may wish to follow up on linked content. I have no idea what "Persian-Style" means, nor how Trump might talk around it.

UPDATE - Bibi troops still run amok in Labanon, and a deal without addressing that would be a strange deal, with Iran seeming disinclined to go that way. 

A different AJ report notes:

Alan Fisher, Al Jazeera senior correspondent in Washington said: “The President has repeatedly claimed that Tehran has agreed to various concessions, only for Iranian officials to deny them. Many argue Trump’s calculus shifted over the last 24 hours following sharp blowback from his own base, with critics warning that a weak deal would make the entire military campaign a waste of time.” 

See, Crabgrass here, quoting from a Minnesota Republican-leaning blogger. We await a big, beautiful deal with Iran - which could take a long time to be born. Give it, like a human gestation situation, nine months to be born? Would US big oil find that too long, or too short, from their wishes and perspective?

FURTHER: https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2026/03/iran-260323-presstv07.htm 

FURTHER: https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/24/politics/republican-iran-hawks-trump-analysis 

FURTHER: It is hard to find consistency between two BBC reports:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd0p4y9y48xo 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crmp121z3z8o 

He has a deal. He wants a deal. He has all the time in the world. Time is of the essence.

The certainty on USA's Memorial Day - Oil prices remain high, for crude, at the pump. 

AJ publishes about Brazilian Oil - "Petrobras, Brazil’s state oil company, has increasingly redirected exports towards Asia, where refiners are paying more for crude that does not pass through the Gulf. More than 60 percent of Petrobras exports are now heading to China, while exports to the US have reportedly fallen to zero from about 60,000bpd in March, according to oilprice.com."

 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/5/25/could-brazilian-oil-emerge-as-one-of-the-big-winners-of-the-iran-war -- in part 

Who is buying more Brazilian oil?

Demand from China is driving much of the increase in Brazilian exports, with Chinese imports of Brazilian crude averaging about 1.316 million bpd between January and May this year, compared with about 704,000bpd in 2025, according to Kpler data.

In dollar terms, official data compiled by the Brazil-China Business Council shows that the value of Brazil’s crude exports to China surged by almost 95 percent to $7.2bn in the first quarter of this year.

Meanwhile, India has also sharply increased purchases, with its imports averaging about 238,000bpd between January and May, up from roughly 100,000bpd in 2025, according to Kpler. In April, Brazil became India’s fourth-largest crude supplier.

“China and India, along with other Asian countries, need non-Hormuz alternatives that are politically safer and physically available,” Ritolia said.

“Brazil’s medium-sweet pre-salt grades fit many Asian refinery slates, and Asian buyers are competing for barrels not exposed to Gulf shipping risk.”

India’s demand is also being driven by rising fuel consumption at home, unlike China, which has pivoted more heavily to electric vehicles (EVs).

India also has less flexibility to absorb a prolonged disruption through strategic reserves, meaning refiners have a stronger incentive to keep crude flowing if supplies are available and profitable.

What about countries beyond China and India?

Brazil is also looking to deepen energy ties elsewhere in Asia.

Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira said last week that Brazil is “ready to contribute to the energy safety of Japan” through increased crude exports, adding that Petrobras was prepared to expand its presence there.

The comments came as Brazil steps up diplomatic and economic engagement across Asia, including with South Korea, Japan and other Southeast Asian countries.

[...]

What other constraints exist on Brazilian oil?

Distance is a major issue for Brazilian exports of oil to Asia. Shipping crude from Brazil to China can take roughly 50 days – far longer than Gulf routes – increasing freight costs and tying up tankers in an already strained shipping market.

Russia could also become a stronger competitor later this year as Arctic shipping routes reopen seasonally. Cargoes travelling from Russia’s Arctic terminals to China can take almost half the time of the Brazil-China route.

Last week, the US also announced another 30-day extension of a sanctions waiver on Russian oil and petroleum products already loaded onto tankers at sea.

That could make floating Russian crude more attractive to Asian buyers in the coming months.

“Brazil helps diversify crude imports for Asian countries, but its role as an alternative supplier remains capped by Brazil’s overall crude supply growth, freight economics, and competition from buyers in Europe and the US,” Ritolia said.

[Sumit Ritolia, is identified early in the report as  a specialist in modelling refinery and oil markets, and is extensively quoted.] 

“As a result, Brazil is a meaningful marginal alternative for Asia during periods of supply disruption, but it is unlikely to become a structural replacement for Middle Eastern crude in the long term.”

From that, it appears tankers are taking a route apart from the Panama Canal, given size beyond the bounds of the Canal. Whether the Strait of Magellan is tried, or a long cross-Atlantic route favored was unclear from the report.  Crabgrass guesses cross-Atlantic and South of South Africa, into the Indian Ocean as a route of cheaper vessel insurance and lower risk.

[The Crabgrass headline quote is taken from inside the AJ report.] 

 

Sunday, May 24, 2026

Experiencing a situation with the feel you and I are seeing a person with a Charlie Kirk future. Hopefully not, but politics in the USA has its history, and vested interests take these things seriously and have guns.

 The speech is as it is, and is posted first. The candidate is, however, not unidimensional, with no struggles on an easy past, and just gives a good speech, and could catch Potomac fever if sent to DC. The Crabgrass outlook is not likely any change for the worse.

The story is more complicated than that. This is a legitimate candidate running because the chance came up and a very real sense of responsibility held, if he passed it up as an easy choice to dodge controversy and live out a happy life, he'd have lost something as a person at a time hard effort is required.

For a deeper view of the man's character, this interview. He had a time fighting his devils, making trust in him a far easier thing to feel. Don't be turned off by the video titling. You have an individual with a gounding to his life, which he tells as not having been an easy trip, to get to his candicacy.

Check it all out. And hope the ready guns of keeping people "in their place" do not take him out of the equation. We need Senators such as he'd be, presuming I judge correctly. Please follow those two links. Find the time. This is in its way an epic moment. 

Dan Burns gets a shoutout.

 Read it at left.mn 

There are things that are true and should not need to be said.  However --- They do need to be said.

Trumpism is really true Reaganism

 

Well, sports fans, what do you make of this?

 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-reveals-jaw-dropping-truth-about-ballroom-project/ar-AA23CHTM (with embedded opening video)

The text of the report - Stating in part -

Donald Trump’s White House ballroom is merely a facade for what will actually be a six-story underground fortress featuring a military hospital, classified meeting rooms, and top secret research facilities.

The 79-year-old president made the startling revelation as he took reporters on a tour of the ballroom construction site and spilled previously unknown details about the ever-expanding project.

In a jaw-dropping disclosure, Trump told reporters that his $400 million White House ballroom was in fact just a “shield” for a massive multi-level subterranean bunker he was quietly building below.

“We went down six stories. It’s actually far more complex,” he said.

“They’re building a hospital—it’s a military hospital—they’re building all sorts of research facilities, they’re building meeting rooms.

A military hospital? Or a paramilitary thing, for the intended beneficiaries of the $1.776 billion thing Trump and Blanche and whoever else crooked up, all too recently. 

I picture Robert Duvall, in Apocalypse Now, saying, "I love the smell of coup time in the morning."

Or was his wording a bit different?

The item continues:

 [IMAGE]

“The ballroom is really a shield and protecting all of the things that are being built here,” he added, pointing to the giant hole in the ground where construction was taking place behind him.

The comments are the first time the president has discussed how expansive his pet vanity project will be—far beyond the scope of the Mar-a-lago style event space that was initially pitched.

But the revelations have already drawn criticism, as well as conspiracy theories that he is building the facility to cling on to power.

“Trump is going to use the ballroom as a bunker. He’s not planning to leave the White House even after the 2028 presidential election,” Democrat and strategic consultant Sergio Grant wrote on X, echoing the fears of many others.

You think? That stable man, doing that? As if deranged or demented, or starting on that road.

More -

Other features of the project included titanium fencing so strong that “a bulldozer cannot knock it over”, Trump said, windows four inches thick and “9,000-pound concrete.”

There would also be a hardened roof made of “impenetrable steel” and enough space to accommodate what he described as a “drone empire.”

[IMAGE]

“The ⁠entire roof is built for military," Trump said.

“They have a massive drone capacity. Not only is it drone-proof, if a drone hits it, it bounces off, it won’t have any impact. But it’s also meant ⁠as a ​drone port that would protect all of Washington.”

The president’s tour of the ballroom construction site was not initially part of his daily schedule. In a highly unusual move, Trump also provided reporters on the tour with breakfast sandwiches made by the White House chef.

What about let them eat ballroom? Fitting the theme of the day, "Look what I've gut, and guess what it's for." More -

[IMAGE] 

Trump initially argued that the ballroom was needed for large events of 1,000 people, which is far more than White House event spaces can currently accommodate.

The president also originally promised it would be privately funded through wealthy donors and corporate backers, with “not one dime” of taxpayer money.

But after a third assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner last month, Senate Republicans proposed a separate $1 billion federal funding package for Secret Service “security adjustments and upgrades”, suggesting that Americans ought to foot the bill.

That was an assassination attempt, not a staged show? A perp arrested, largely unharmed? Huh? 

Speaking to reporters on Monday, Trump said he and his donors were financing the main ballroom, while the money Republicans were asking for centered on “surrounding areas and maybe enhancing some security aspects of it.”

Asked why the ballroom was so important to him, the former real estate mogul replied: “Number one: security; and number two, it’s needed just on a social basis for presidents.

Umpteen floors down, vs a top floor ugly-as-shit ballroom, and he keeps saying "Ballroom?" Business Times adds a bit more to the story:

Trump Says New $400M White House Ballroom Will Be ‘Drone-Proof’ With Sniper Positions and Military Complex

 Donald Trump is pitching a planned $400 million White House ballroom as something far beyond a ceremonial venue, describing the proposed structure in Washington as a fortified complex equipped with missile resistance, drone defense systems and elevated sniper positions overlooking the nation's capital.

The remarks, delivered during a tour of the proposed site on Monday, immediately intensified debate surrounding the controversial project, which has already faced scrutiny in Congress over both its price tag and its use of taxpayer funding.

Trump told reporters the ballroom would be "drone-proof" and "missile-proof," while also functioning as a defensive hub with what he described as "great sniper capacity."

JD does have the 25th Amendment, if he's enough ball room to use it. So to speak. In a sense. More or less.

 _________________UPDATE________________

If you want a context, I can give you a context

Former MAGA congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene is raising the alarm about Donald Trump attempting to cancel the 2028 presidential election.

The 51-year-old ex-Trump ally appeared on Alex Jones‘ new show and raised concern about a comment Trump made to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last year. Ukraine’s election has been postponed on account of the country’s war with Russia.

“So you say, during the war, you can’t have elections,” Trump said. “So let me just see. Three and a half years from now, so you mean if we happen to be in a war with somebody, no more elections? Oh, that’s good.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2Ik3Q0Rxzo

____________UPDATE__________

The Crabgrass read on this story is Vance is in calculation mode, and with distant possibilities unpromising, after this 2026 election JD may try the 25 Amendment putsch, win or lose. And, who for his VP, after a successful putsch, to go with into 2028, a term of his own? The Samoan lady?

 

The smell of Iran War surrender, or what? "After the initial 30-day period, 'the parties will have 30 days to agree on the nuclear issue. These 30 days can be extended by mutual agreement,' Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem said. 'During [the initial 30-day period], passage will be facilitated through the strait. According to Iran, management of the Strait of Hormuz will be an Iranian-Omani issue and is being negotiated with Muscat.' ”

What reading should be put to "management of the Strait of Hormuz will be an Iranian-Omani issue?"

AJ reporting: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/5/24/marco-rubio-says-significant-progress-made-in-us-iran-talks-to-end-war 

[UPDATE The headline of this post is a mid-paragraph of the AJ item.] 

An MOU (Memorandum of Understanding)? Uranium enrichment a postponed issue? Subject to additional postponement - i.e., open ended maybe?

It reads like an Iran victory. Well short of what Obama reached, and Trump scuttled. Consider one possibility - Iran-Oman joint "management" meaning a fee for passage, split, where on the Omani side, who shares? A fee for passage would mean a tax on Gulf Arab oil at the Strait, in competition with other oil in the world market? Or not? Freedom of the Seas abandoned as a global rule of law?

It seems wisdom suggests, wait until something's on paper, read it, and then there may be clarity that is lacking at present.

Trunp is capitulating? Or not? We have to wait and see. And, the AJ report is of something not yet born, which could be stillborn. Count on what the deal is, if any, once papers for a deal are signed and put into effect. Anything short of that is guesswork.

 ______________UPDATE_____________

AJ reports. Look at the evasive crap the AP puts out: https://www.twincities.com/2026/05/23/britains-navy-prepares-to-clear-mines-in-the-strait-of-hormuz-while-waiting-for-a-peace-deal/  

That is shameful of AP. 


The local paper, StarTribune, says there is grumbling about Ken Martin as DNC chief.

 Inner party politics are unknown to me as I am not inner party. Ellison and Omar locally ssupport Martin.

This paragraph from the report:

Martin won the DNC chairmanship overwhelmingly on the first ballot, beating Wikler, who had the support of House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Martin likes to emphasize that he did not get the backing of the “status quo” billionaires or the establishment, instead touting grassroots support.

Jeffries, Pelosi and Schumer are what is wrong with the Democratic Party. Ossification. In the saddle, shit for healthcare for people, so go figure. And old timers together with the Harris spouses and their backing and elite style fucked it up. Ken is brought in to mop up, he does somewhat, and steps of a few toes. 

Big story. These hunters for his job, this close to the election, are no help in handcuffing Trump.

Let the man do the job. There will be retrospective time between this November and November 2028.

The sharp knives can come out then and Martin can defend as he may. But now? He's who is there, and I remember Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and her "Hillary's turn" crap against Bernie - Martin's several cuts better than that walking disaster. 

As in, who says Ken is unfair? Who are the critics? What's their bitch? The New York Dems and Pelosi are not the best of people, and a conscience is needed rather than serving the wealthy while hoodwinking the people who have faced little choice since Bill Clinton fucked things up via GOP - lite. 

Ihlen Omar in his corner, Kieth Ellison in his corner, that means his corner has class. A future.

I hate the stupid song, "Stronger Together" there being convention cause to think that and the balloon drop were a sign of no real substance, just narcissistic egomania of a spousal pair who have been passed up. 

Good that they have. Move on. Don't undermine Martin until after the election. It will be as it is.

The old guard did not do well with Harris, so cut Martin slack. Being able to lose to Trump is not an endorsement of particularized competence. 

UPDATE:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-itNjgCJDxU Not your Nancy Pelosi clone. Nor your Susan Collins clone. Those two, clones of each other? Anyway, Ken Martin is not your DWS clone, and some don't feel comfortable while preferring a DWS clone; a filter from and against the masses.

FURTHER: Reporting about the sniping at Ken Martin is widespread. Who's shooting? Minnesota reporting first:

 https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2026/05/inside-the-furor-plaguing-democratic-national-committee-leader-ken-martin/ -- saying:

Amanda Litman, who leads the Democratic-allied organization Run For Something, said she’s been approached by senior strategists in recent days gauging her interest in replacing Martin. She declined but said many in the party have lost faith in the DNC leader.

“I think it’s a really hard job, and also Ken is not doing it very well,” Litman told The Associated Press. “I honestly think he’s going to have a hard time rebuilding trust.”

So, she wants to take over Martin's job. Who is she? Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/26/run-for-something-co-founder-amanda-litman

That says what she says, but does nothing about who she is. Wikipedia, better on that:

Run for Something (RfS) is a progressive American political organization dedicated to recruiting and supporting young candidates running for down-ballot office. Its mission is to get young progressive candidates from non-traditional backgrounds to run for and win state and local offices, and create a next generation slate of political candidates that will seek higher office in the future.[1]

It was founded on January 20, 2017 — the day of the inauguration of Donald Trump as president — by Amanda Litman, the email director of Hillary Clinton's 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, and Ross Morales Rocketto, a veteran of political campaigns.[2][3]

In May 2017, political action organization Onward Together, founded by Clinton, selected Run for Something as one of its three primary partner organizations.[4]

Wiki footnotes 3,4

  • Hillary Clinton [@HillaryClinton] (November 8, 2017). "Congratulations to @RunforSomething founders @amandalitman + @RossMoRock for a huge night! 25 of the local candidates they helped to recruit and run won" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  • Palmer, Anna (May 15, 2017). "Clinton launches new political group: 'Onward Together'". POLITICO.
  • The Clintons were the ones who misdirected - shrot term - the traditional Dems to coopting the Republican agenda - with the Stronger Together song blaring at the convention balloon drop preceding Clinton's losing, much worse than Harris losing, i.e., without excuse.

    Bottom line there, Amanda Litman is nobody's sensible answer of better than Ken Martin.

    Politico -

    Weak,’ ‘whiny’ and ‘invisible’: Critics of DNC Chair Ken Martin savage his tenure

    The new DNC chair has faced messy drama since stepping into the role in February.

    Rahm Emanuel, former President Barack Obama’s first White House chief of staff, said the committee is floundering. “We’re in the most serious existential crisis with Donald Trump both at home and abroad — and with the biggest political opportunity in a decade,” Emanuel said.

    “And the DNC has spent six months on a firing squad in the circle, and can’t even fire a shot out. And Trump’s world is a target-rich environment.”

    Many DNC members and outside Democrats, including Martin’s supporters, said they wished the party would just move on from recent internal turmoil and focus instead on mounting an effective fight against Trump.

    Rahm is nobody's answer to anything. In the Daly Chicago seat these days, seemingly, bad news. There is Bulwark

    But much of the criticism is about things that are directly under Martin’s purview. Since 2025, the DNC has spent more money than it has raised and has more debt than cash on hand. The RNC has a roughly seven-to-one money advantage over the DNC, and last October, Martin took out a $15 million loan ahead of the elections in Virginia and New Jersey. Multiple people familiar with the DNC’s money issues said that the situation is so dire that Martin will likely be forced to make another tough call this summer: take out another loan or lay off staff. During his Pod Save interview, Martin repeatedly characterized the claim that the DNC is contemplating layoffs as “garbage.”

    “The biggest strike against him is that he seems to be utterly incapable of managing a budget. To put the DNC in such a bad financial situation going into what is . . . likely be the most wild [presidential] primary we’ve had in a while—it reeks of irresponsibility and immaturity,” said a DNC member who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the topic.

    “It just feels like we’re being gaslit at this point.”

    The agita over the state of the DNC is not merely another round of Beltway bickering. It’s one of the more consequential storylines in Democratic politics these days. There is a deep concern among party officials that Martin is driving the committee into irrelevance, potentially harming Democratic chances in the midterms, and inviting uncomfortable questions about whether the 178-year-old committee should even exist anymore.

    “The DNC should not be a useless or irrelevant institution,” said Democratic strategist Ross Morales Rocketto. “It’s currently irrelevant because of the leadership.”

    So, it is about money. The consultants are not being fed as usual. Christesakes, Harris went through a billion dollars and lost. That's a message too.

    AP:

    Martin, a little-known Minnesota operative before emerging last year as the head of the national party’s formal political machine, has already faced criticism for dismal fundraising and inability to inspire confidence among his party’s unruly membership.

    However, there was no sign that a serious alternative was emerging. The Associated Press contacted a half dozen Democratic presidential prospects to gauge their support for Martin and all of them declined to weigh in.

    The intraparty feud represented an extraordinary distraction for a Democratic Party showing signs of momentum in its fight to break President Donald Trump’s grip on power in Washington. Democrats hope to regain majorities in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate in the November midterms, and Republicans could be vulnerable because of Trump’s low approval ratings, dissatisfaction over the war in Iran and lingering economic frustration.

    Martin’s allies across the country lashed out at Democrats who were fueling the election-year drama, dismissing them as unhappy consultants and supporters of Martin’s previous rivals for DNC leadership.

    Kansas Democratic Party Chair Jeanna RePass described calls for the first-term chair to step down as “ridiculous and dangerous.”

    “It is dangerous for Democrats to be playing politics with our leadership when these elections are five and a half months away,” she said. “The American people are counting on us.”

    Janet Kleeb of Nebraska, who leads her state party and the DNC’s association of state committees, said the fighting “is nuts.”

    “I haven’t had a single chair come to me saying I think Ken needs to resign,” she said. “Ken was elected by the DNC members to do a four-year term, and he has not violated any of our rules or bylaws where there would be a two-thirds vote, right? Because that’s what it would take to remove the chair.”

    Kleeb added, “These reports are such distraction.”

    If there is a thread, it is the greedy consultant class wanting money that isn't there, and bitch, bitch, bitch.

    They had a ton of anti-Trump money for Harris, and blew it all on a loss. Now they complain. And Martin did not want to release the report on how badly they underperformed.  Covering the mess, as "Let's avoid distractions, and they pushed him." Real smart. Smart people. Know how to lose folks.

    Enough. This is no defense of Martin. If his fundraising lags, it is a problem. But not THE problem.

    That THE problem thing, is try not losing this time, which Martin is set to do, despite crap being thrown at him by his lessers. The beltway consultant class are leeches. Hands off, this late, please. 

     

    Saturday, May 23, 2026

    This is a place where confusion hits me. Gary Gross, a Republican blogger in Minnesota posts a "should do" thing almost saying TACO, but not; and it is as if he presumes a "can do" scenario. Without any discussion, that way.

     So never mind the "wants to move the needle" vs "wants to drag out the status quo" as to Trump loyalties and beliefs of what is best for people close, vs people far away. Leave that open for now.

    "Should do" before examining "can do," where is good sense in that equation?

    Gary writes,

    Donald Trump's moment of truth

      It's decision time on Iran's cease-fire. What started out as a 2-week cease-fire is now approaching a 2-month cease-fire. It's time for Donald Trump to decide if the IRGC dies this week or if they get yet another undeserved reprieve. Mark Levin's op-ed lays things out properly, saying "When we suddenly hit the brakes and called off the planned military operation against the Iranian regime, it was clear that something was going on. We gave the regime 2-3 days to come to some arrangement that presumably includes no nukes. What does no nukes mean? Are their scientists going to forget what they developed? How long can we keep that in a box? What happens to the enriched uranium? We are told: 1. they have enough to make 10 bombs in 11 days, and 2. that it takes a matter of weeks to further enrich uranium from 60% to 90% nuclear grade. What about the plutonium, which no one is talking about?"

    The Trump administration's standard defense of their strategy has consisted of saying that a) 'we aren't in a hurry', b) the fundamentals of our economy are solid, c) we should give diplomacy a shot and d) we've got Iran on the ropes. First, the fundamentals don't include gas prices, which are way too high! Further, they've been way too high for way too long.

    The prices would've dropped if President Trump hadn't gotten cold feet and agreed to a cease-fire that's lasted too long, too. This has played into the IRGC's survival plans perfectly. When President Trump made it known that he didn't have the stomach for killing the IRGC, they took that as weakness. This report from Trey Yingst from Tel Aviv, Israel is the best report I've seen recently:  

    [...] It's time to rid the planet of the scourge of the IRGC forever. This isn't the time to go wobbly as Lady Thatcher once famously told George H.W. Bush after Iraq invaded Kuwait in the summer of 1990.

    This moment is President Trump's defining moment, the decision he'll be remembered for, his legacy. If he obliterates the IRGC, he'll be remembered as a great president. If she [sic] lets the IRGC drag this thing out, then he's just another ordinary president.

    That's an editorial position that assumes a lot, which might not be as assumed, in reaching such conclusions.

    It might be too much of a stretch, but Crabgrass is betting that Hormuz will continue to be under Iranian control, and closed, even after election day, this November. I may email Gary, and propose that bet.

     

    This man has grivences and wants subpoenas. Should he ask to subpoena Pam Bondi, over whether any of the complained of conduct he asserts was discussed befor her leavind DOJ?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV3V1AWrDIY 

    She'd probably assert executive privilege. Without someone saying yes or no, it was on the burner back then, or not, we are left to only guess.

      And the war drags on, pump prices elevated with Hormuz shut down.

     

    Hat tip to Daily Beast for this graphic.

     Lest people forget, "Four weeks" promising - a DB reality check - now and counting.

     https://infogram.com/iran-war-clock-1hnq41oygy1nk23

     

    Some news in a nutshell, same in HCR needed detail, and with this new slush fund - get out of jail free on tax cheating - and the "much needed" Trump ballroom. Ted Cruz, vocal. And todd blanche is acting, not Senate Confirmed AG. And is all this distraction stuff to cover losing the war with Iran but dragging it out while Horuz remains closed and Trump domestic-oil cronies are shortage-exploiting bandits? And - this is Crabgrass speculation. did Bondi quit to stay credible while Trump was pushing slush/tax stuff earlier and she said, "Not me," and took a hike? She does have a career path still to worry over; blanche appearing to not care - to salute and follow odious orders.

     Long headline. Start with short video. Then HCR long but deep one.

    Ted Cruz, talking as if he's thinking of a 2028 run, and let Trump - JD twist in the wind --

    Republican Senators yesterday are reported to have had a private meeting with todd blanche, that went not well for blanche bassing any upcoming Senate confirmation hearing, unless --- you tell me. I was not there. Cruz was, and he talked.


    Ted Cruz says GOP senators were ‘screaming' at Todd Blanche during ‘anti-weaponization' fund briefing  --- The private meeting came hours before the Senate postponed a critical vote to advance a partisan funding bill for ICE and Border Patrol.

    By Brennan Leach and Kyla Guilfoil | NBC News • Published May 22, 2026 • Updated on May 22, 2026 at 9:07 pm

     [with an embedded video of disingenuous Trumpstering - but don't let it segue to other stuff]  

    Screaming, yelling and accusations of self-dealing.

    That’s how Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on Friday described a closed-door meeting with Senate Republicans and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on the Trump administration’s $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund that’s drawn bipartisan opposition.

    On his podcast “Verdict with Ted Cruz,” the Texas senator described the meeting as “one of the roughest meetings I’ve seen in my entire time in the Senate.”

    “Fiery does not begin to cut it,” Cruz said. “My guess is there’re probably 45 senators in the room, at least half of them were blasting the attorney general, and they were pissed.”

    Senate Republicans met with Blanche on Thursday to discuss the fund, which ultimately derailed a vote on a Republican bill to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, NBC News previously reported.

    You tell me, why did Cruz speak when others stayed silent? Out of decency? Cruz? No.

    After a second embedded video, the item continues -

    Cruz said several of his GOP colleagues felt that they could not politically defend the fund because it appeared as though President Donald Trump “cut a deal with himself.”

     [...] Cruz said on his podcast that if the Senate had gone forward with planned series of votes pertaining to the ICE and Border Patrol bill Thursday night, roughly half of the Republican caucus would have voted with Democrats in favor of amendments seeking to rein in the fund.

    He emphasized “the degree of the jailbreak of Republicans who were bolting, who were saying we’re going to vote with the Democrats.”

    Cruz warned that if the administration does not modify the anti-weaponization fund by the time Congress comes back into session, “they’ve got a full-on revolt in the Senate.”

     [...] The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Cruz’s remarks.

    A growing number of Republicans have raised concerns over the fund.

     MSN carried a Raw Story item on the theme -

    "There were fireworks at an epic level," Cruz said on a Friday episode of his podcast. "I got to say it's one of the roughest meetings that I've seen in my entire time in the Senate. There are a lot of Republican senators who were just p---ed." 

    The Thursday meeting took place to discuss Trump's proposed $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund. [actually $1.776 billion - why that symbolism?] During and shortly after the meeting, reporters shared that GOP senators poured outrage on Blanche.

    Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), fresh off a primary defeat to a Trump-endorsed candidate, and retiring Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) in particular were "p---ed" and "angry," Cruz said.

    "Fiery does not begin to cut it," Cruz went on. "The senators I mentioned, they were p---ed, but almost every Republican senator was there."

    He estimated that "probably 45 senators" were in the room, "blasting the attorney general, and they were p---ed," Cruz repeated.

    "There were multiple senators who were yelling at the Attorney General, and it was not calm," Cruz described. "It was yelling, and they were saying, 'This feels like self-dealing.'"

    The "anti-weaponization" fund was created as part of a settlement of Trump's lawsuit against the IRS, an agency he controls as president. Blanche's primary talking point in the meeting was that the Trump family isn't eligible for payments through the fund.

    Cruz said that "unhappy" senators demanded to know if January 6 rioters would get payments.

    "Todd Blanche was adamant, and he said, not just no, but 'hell no,'" Cruz recalled. "And he said this, not just to one senator. This was to three or five or 10. I mean, it was over and over again. He said, 'No, no, no, nobody who committed an act of violence, nobody who assaulted law enforcement.'"

    No mention of the get out of jail tax thing Blanch, himself, signed. And there was no case and controversy pending when DOJ dropped the shit onto the table. HCR's video gets into that major detail. 

    MSN also carried two parallel reports on the Cruz statements about the blanche - GOP Sen meeting; here and here. The second of those carried reports noted:

    “Nearly 2-hour meeting with Acting AG Todd Blanche and Senate Republicans was incredibly hostile, per multiple attendees,” Punchbowl News senior congressional reporter Andrew Desiderio reported.

    “As many as 25 GOP senators spoke (this is very rare for these meetings), all in opposition to weaponization fund,” he noted.

    For their part, Republicans “pitched specific ideas such as dictating how the 5 commissioners are chosen,” and “not allowing people convicted of violence against cops to be eligible for a payout.”

    One prominent Senate Republican, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, confronted Blanche “about the weaponization fund at the Senate GOP meeting,” reported Semafor congressional bureau chief Burgess Everett.

    “Meeting being described as a ‘s——’ per people familiar with it,” Everett noted. He added that the senator “hates the fund” and called it “stupid on stilts” earlier today.

    Not only did the meeting not go well, the D.C. Examiner’s Ramsey Touchberry said that he hasn’t heard that any Republican changed their minds. The D.C. Examiner’s David Sivak described the Senate GOP as “super tight-lipped after the Blanche meeting.”

    A third of the Senate will be up for reelection this November and can you see any of them, GOP in particular, running while explaining why Trump and offspring want to sanitize tax detail? What's there that worries them about a shitshow that was unleashed after Bondi had left? Something, many things?

    And Trump's losing Bibi's war. Inflation rages against the public. Gax prices feed profiteering over the Iran situation being dragged out. And DOJ selling a smokescreen deal that is Trump contracting with himself for perks Congress never considered funding (including the bunker-ballroom).

    HCR in her video does talk about Trump approval ratings in the 30% range - go figure why.

    And he's looking as if he's moving for extrodorinary powers and perks, where we're yet to see a Reichstag fire. 

    Expect one? You figure that out on your own.

    _________________UPDATE_________________ 

    Tom Emmer, House whip and who other people like me live in MN6 with them keeping the crypto oracle guy in office and building House seniority, put out a glossy two-side full page mailer on delivering pork for two Minnesota counties. Crude, yes, but my concern is awaiting his two-side glossy on the 1776 slush fund and Trump and his mirror image acting AG crooking up a skip tax crime liability package, the two together.

    Surely Mr. Emmer knows of this, and has an opinion, so when/if he shares that via campaign literature know now, Crabgrass will post about it. 

    Mr Emmer, what is your conscience saying to you about this, and how are folks in the district to gas their cars? Your full page two side did not explain that, so obviously the explanation is coming. Thank you.

     

    Friday, May 22, 2026

    Dem Autopsy Reporting on the lost election of 2024. When the Soviet Union broke up someone called it "a third world country with a big army." That description is the Trump USA, and Harris lost to it.

    The thing Ken Martin did not want to release was released because Martin was pressured by unidentified people pressing for its release. Found online, perhaps online elsewhere, MARTIN WAS RIGHT, a mish mosh of money sucked out by consultants doing mainly TV ads and who watches TV?

    https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/28139793/democratic-report.pdf 

    It was/is a soulless set of conclusory shit and tables where toward the end, who took the money out is tabled. Bless spread sheets, if you like the packaging. Sample page, from that posting, 174 of 192, captioned ?Where did the money go?" Names are named, but who the fuck are these consultant hold-out-an-empty-sack-please-put-in-money stiffs? 

    Outside of the cash-suck, I can criticize that way. But, TV advertising a big suck? Who the fuck watches a lot of TV, and for the football games etc, the household here starts recording and then after time is built up, start watching and when the ads come on, fast forward through them. Advertising Harris as a commodity between Lexus and beer ads, tell me why? Read the sorry thing yourselves, you will scan read and see no heavyweight answers to don'f fuck up again.

    Harris, never moved the needle enough - and why? If you conclude that report is a professional thing, bless you, and the Harris campaign was sort of the same. And lost.

    ===========================================

    A Roots Action report exists, only 28 pages, and it kind of has a soul. Text, not charts and tables, but on a different level than the pile handed to Martin

     https://democraticautopsy.org/wp-content/uploads/Autopsy-2024-How-Democrats-Lost-The-Whitehouse.pdf

     Posting that with only scan reading of it and the first linked thing.

    Now, here is the one image report - but with supplemental two pages, more to the core of truth (taken from some earlier content - this blog):

    https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhEKO-IC8iWU2VGoSkSRoLsditqoPFhNfrwZPU30AockDRawcViXRUXE8b57SlzBhyckVPTfCW4vSZzG5E2MunNUcBl4EhQI1IiCuFLhH8Be773UvOTQNkdymlFxhKfiBBpAEGrK09XijilfYacg-0AFbQFSoMvGvlGvo2Ljq6rVaOdFhDL8y4=s407 

    Supplemental two three images:


     Click it to enlarge it to read. That NYC mayor, the item is not current, the mayor before Mamdami. M's election proved the whole DWT item true, and losing Howie Kline is a big loss. The item is true and Harris was in the class with those who repackaged Romneycare and said, Look, wow!!!

    Next analytical item - astute readers might see a theme emerging - 

    Saluting a triumph of will. 

     Yes, it is after Trump hoodwinked enough of the nation to be able to grift at will. But it fits this -

    https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbD3tWsNrXoP_CpY1mktKsZVl6vDUsJ2qE1iMyCQwC8WO_2lF9l1CJFRHgtjVCtQnKdPsYoPvTJlWuXpAK6icldbtSYnLVPCVnEGt5qoozjh-ZAgS4k79erWpVKjmsAap5AvcCyQ/s1600/SpreadTheWealth.png 

     Where the Biden family and the Harris family, as with the Trump family, are in the class at war with the rest of us.

    The dem leadership picks clones of themselves to run, and will not deliver what people want. Martin knows that is the problem. That 192 page obscene thing says as much. This 2026 midterm; Trump's been so bad that Dems may do okay, but Schumer and Jeffries are not paycheck to payckeck folks facing inflated prices because Trump is such as he is while oil barons and Musk are satisfied with him.

    The first image, without supplementation, tells it. Give the people what they want and win. Dem established money currently makes that difficult, but Martin is better than Wasserman was in heading DNC .

    The Roots Nation thing seems worth attention. The 192 page thing Martin wanted buried but which arose from the grave? Who's going to read cover-to-cover that thing? It's window dressing of DC beltway bullshit. As if money management in handouts to consulting class bandits stands above message with hearts and minds and ambition for a good nation and basic truth irrelevant. 

     UPDATE: If the tons of money had been managed differently is a part of  things, but the heart of the matter is run honestly for bettering things as Mamdami did, or keep fucking the prols and expect them to not catch on. Harris and spouse, the Bidens, are not enough. Reform or die.

    FURTHER: The Roots Nation thing did link here

    FURTHER: That item in turn linked here. The young are not facistic. Anchored elsewhere if anchored at all. Buying into false fascistic answers, that must grow with age. Myself, being a part of the Vietnam awakening to actual political practice, I understand the young understanding their plight, but having no power to answer against it. Bless AOC and others. If only mobilization worked against emdbeded evil. There are too many Marco Rubios, too few AOCs.

     FURTHER: There is this about that. Or is there nothing in that interview related to Harris, and her losing the election? Being VP and then losing the election? A past transcript. I did vote for Harris but she had too low a turnout. She did not push medicare for all. She should have. Incremental is an excuse, not a policy.

    Thursday, May 21, 2026

    A friend in Seattle was born in Venezuela because her dad was in the oil trade back then. He'd commanded a munitions ship during WWII, and made Captain grade in the Naval Reserves. Few do that.

     So I naturally put more emphasis on the Venezuela oil capture exercise than most would.

    Out of curiosity, I asked the Duck.ai bot, "are us oil refineries refining venezuelan oil" and got an answer that included a link dated January 15, 2026 to https://news.oilandgaswatch.org/post/u-s-oil-refinery-investors-not-consumers-will-benefit-from-seizure-of-venezuelan-oil 

    Titled, U.S. oil refinery investors, not consumers, will benefit from seizure of Venezuelan oil, the January item stated in part:oil

    The U.S. military’s seizure of Venezuela’s oil exports is unlikely to lower gasoline prices for consumers – as President Donald Trump has claimed – but could funnel billions of dollars to American oil companies that donated to Trump’s election, according to industry analysts.

    “The refineries can benefit tremendously from this–not just from the free oil that they may be getting–but the type of oil,” said Paasha Mahdavi, an energy industry expert and professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara. “But that benefit will not be passed on to consumers.”

    Among the oil refinery owners who could benefit is billionaire Trump donor Paul Singer, founder of an investment management company that is buying Citgo Petroleum, a refining firm owned by Venezuela’s state oil company. Citgo has refineries in Texas and Louisiana that are already geared to process the kind of heavy crude oil produced by Venezuela. Singer donated about $8 million to Trump’s election campaign and $1 million to his inaugural committee.

    Also positioned to potentially cash in are ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Chevron, which also gave millions to Trump’s political campaign. The first two companies have been seeking a combined $32 billion in reparations from Venezuela for seizing their oil drilling infrastructure in the country in 2007, after the nationalization of the country’s oil resources.

    Chevron, based in Houston, could also benefit because it is the only U.S. oil company still drilling in Venezuela and also has a refinery on the U.S. Gulf Coast that is designed to handle heavy Venezuelan crude oil.

    [...]  Six Democratic U.S. Senators, including Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, announced on Jan. 8 that they are launching an investigation into the Trump Administration’s communications with oil company executives about military strikes in Venezuela before and after the capturing of President Nicolas Maduro. The lawmakers are seeking to find out if the administration launched the attack to benefit an industry that contributed heavily to Trump’s election. 

    [...] Patrick De Haan, lead petroleum analyst at GasBuddy, said that the international price of oil is fairly low right now (below $60 per barrel), while the risk and cost of extracting more oil from Venezuela is high. In this market, he does not believe that U.S. oil companies will find it profitable to step up and invest their own money in extracting more oil out of Venezuela. Some economists believe such investments would require a price above $80 per barrel.

    [...]  Abhi Rajendran, director of oil markets research at Energy Intelligence, said that oil production from Venezuela – already down substantially, in part because of sanctions imposed by the first Trump Administration in 2017 and 2019 -- could continue to drop in the short term. [...] “Definitely the refiners stand to benefit from this, like Valero and Phillips 66 that have refineries on the Gulf Coast,” Rajendran said. “They are the big winners. And the one company that has the boots on the ground and the capacity to invest and ramp is Chevron, because they are already there in Venezuela.”

    That was then. Now is now, with a 20% shrinkage in daily oil volume on the market with Hormuz shut.

    https://www.iea.org/reports/oil-market-report-march-2026 - noted:

    • The war in the Middle East is creating the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market. With crude and oil product flows through the Strait of Hormuz plunging from around 20 mb/d before the war to a trickle currently, limited capacity available to bypass the crucial waterway, and storage filling up, Gulf countries have cut total oil production by at least 10 mb/d. In the absence of a rapid resumption of shipping flows, supply losses are set to increase.

    • Global oil supply is projected to plunge by 8 mb/d in March, with curtailments in the Middle East partly offset by higher output from non-OPEC+ producers, Kazakhstan and Russia following disruptions at the start of the year. While the extent of losses will depend on the duration of the conflict and disruptions to flows, we estimate global oil supply to rise by 1.1 mb/d in 2026 on average, with non-OPEC+ producers accounting for the entire increase.

    • The conflict is also having a significant impact on global product markets, with export flows through the Strait at a near standstill. Gulf producers exported 3.3 mb/d of refined products and 1.5 mb/d of LPG in 2025. More than 3 mb/d of refining capacity in the region has already shut due to attacks and a lack of viable export outlets. Runs elsewhere will be increasingly limited due to feedstock availability.

    • IEA Member countries unanimously agreed on 11 March to make 400 mb of oil from their emergency reserves available to the market to address disruptions stemming from the war in the Middle East. Global observed oil stocks were 8 210 mb in January, their highest level since February 2021. The OECD accounted for 50%, Chinese crude stocks 15%, oil on water 25%, with the remainder in other non-OECD countries.

    • Widespread flight cancellations in the Middle East and large-scale disruptions to LPG supplies are expected to curb global oil demand by around 1 mb/d during March and April compared to previous estimates. Higher oil prices and a more precarious outlook for the global economy pose further risks to the forecast. Global oil consumption is now set to increase by 640 kb/d y-o-y in 2026 – down 210 kb/d from last month.

    • Oil prices have gyrated wildly since the United States and Israel launched joint air strikes on Iran on 28 February. Disruptions to Middle Eastern supplies due to attacks on the region’s oil infrastructure and the cessation of tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz sent Brent futures soaring, trading within a whisker of $120/bbl. Prices subsequently eased with Brent around $92/bbl at the time of writing – up $20/bbl for the month.

    Dire straits

    The global oil market is contending with the ramifications of the war in the Middle East. Beyond the direct damage to energy infrastructure in the region, the crisis has led to a near halt in tanker movements through the Strait of Hormuz. With nearly 20 mb/d of crude and product exports currently disrupted and limited alternative options to bypass the world’s most critical oil transit chokepoint, producers and consumers globally are feeling the strain. Benchmark crude oil prices have surged by $20/bbl to $92/bbl since the outbreak of hostilities on 28 February, with even bigger increases across product markets.

     Trump professes a hope and intention for a quick end of Iran's chockhold on Hormuz. He references nuclear bomb concerns as a sticking point.


    Oil Refinery Statistics in US 2026 | Capacity, Output & Key Facts -  May 2, 2026 states:

    Oil Refining in America 2026

    The United States petroleum refining industry sits at a genuine inflection point in 2026 — one where decades of infrastructure dominance, record-breaking export performance, and some of the highest-capacity facilities on the planet are running alongside a wave of closures, shrinking margins, and a structural shift toward renewable fuels that is beginning to permanently reshape the domestic refining map. As of January 1, 2025, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Refinery Capacity Report — the most authoritative federal survey of domestic refining infrastructure — documented 132 operable refineries with total atmospheric distillation capacity of 18.4 million barrels per calendar day (b/cd), virtually unchanged from 2024. Yet that flat headline number obscures a more complex story unfolding beneath it: the LyondellBasell Houston refinery permanently ceased operations in January 2025, removing 263,776 b/cd of capacity; the Phillips 66 Los Angeles refinery began its phased shutdown in October 2025, eliminating a further 139,000 b/cd; and Valero’s Benicia, California refinery is targeting permanent closure by April 2026 — removing yet another 145,000 b/cd from the US fuel supply chain. Together, these three closures are cutting roughly 550,000 b/cd from US refining capacity — equivalent to wiping more than three mid-size refineries off the map in under 18 months.

    Understanding the US refining industry in 2026 requires holding two realities simultaneously. On one hand, the country’s refining complex remains the most productive in the world: US petroleum product exports set a new annual record of 6.6 million barrels per day in 2024, refineries are operating at utilization rates near 95%, and the Gulf Coast refining corridor — home to more than 50% of national capacity — continues to supply not just the domestic market but growing volumes of diesel, jet fuel, and gasoline to Latin America, Europe, and Asia. On the other hand, crack spreads — the critical margin between crude oil input costs and refined product selling prices — have been declining steadily since their post-pandemic peak in 2022, making marginal and mid-size refineries increasingly unviable. Refinery margins for gasoline and diesel fell approximately 26–29% year-over-year in 2024, and the EIA’s own forecasts project US refining capacity will shrink to approximately 17.9 million b/cd by end of 2025 — a 3% contraction driven entirely by closures. For the world’s largest refining nation, that is a significant structural adjustment — and it is happening faster than most market observers anticipated.

    [...] The record 6.6 million b/d in petroleum product exports in 2024 demonstrates the competitive strength of US refining infrastructure — American refineries are producing more fuel and refined products than the domestic market consumes, generating $102 billion in net trade income in 2022 alone. Yet the closure pipeline tells a different story: three major refineries removing a combined ~550,000 b/d of capacity in the span of 15 months represents the fastest contraction in US refining since the post-1982 downsizing that cut the industry from 301 facilities to under 200. The crack spread compression of 2024 — where gasoline margins fell nearly 27% and coking margins dropped 29% year-over-year — is the direct financial driver, and until margin recovery materializes, further rationalization of the bottom tier of US refining capacity cannot be ruled out.

    [...] The US oil refinery capacity picture at the start of 2026 is defined by a combination of structural stability and accelerating contraction. The 18.4 million b/cd confirmed in the EIA’s 2025 Refinery Capacity Report reflects a system that has actually held its aggregate capacity more stable than historical patterns might suggest: the 2023 addition of ExxonMobil’s 240,000 b/cd Beaumont expansion — the single largest domestic capacity addition in recent memory — helped offset prior-year closures and brought total capacity to its highest level since 2019. But with no comparable large-scale expansion project in 2024, and with the loss of LyondellBasell, Phillips 66, and Valero capacity already underway or imminent, the EIA’s projection of 17.9 million b/cd by end-2025 represents the lowest US refining capacity level since the early 2010s.

    The geographic concentration of US refining capacity is one of the defining structural features of the industry and one of its most significant energy security considerations. With more than 50% of all US refining capacity concentrated in the Gulf Coast PADD 3 district — and Texas alone accounting for over 25% of national capacity — the US fuel supply chain is highly dependent on the uninterrupted operation of a relatively narrow geographic corridor. Hurricanes, extreme weather, and infrastructure disruptions in the Gulf Coast region have historically driven national gasoline and diesel price spikes, a vulnerability that the progressive closure of West Coast capacity only deepens. With California set to lose roughly 17% of its state refining capacity from the combined Phillips 66 and Valero closures, and given the limited pipeline connectivity between the West Coast and other US refining hubs, the EIA has explicitly identified the risk of West Coast fuel price increases and record gasoline import dependency in the 2025–2026 period.

    [...]  The geographic and corporate structure of America’s largest oil refineries reflects a century of investment decisions shaped by proximity to crude oil production, deepwater port access, and the logistics of the Gulf of Mexico energy corridor. All seven of the largest US refineries sit in the Gulf Coast PADD 3 district — four in Texas, three in Louisiana — and the concentration of capacity in this region is no accident. The Texas Gulf Coast, from the Houston Ship Channel through Beaumont, Port Arthur, and down to the Corpus Christi area, forms one of the most densely integrated petrochemical and refining complexes on earth. The Motiva Port Arthur refinery — owned by Saudi Aramco subsidiary Motiva Enterprises — reclaimed the title of largest US refinery by calendar day capacity in the 2025 EIA report, while Marathon’s Galveston Bay facility retains the top stream day position at 665,000 b/sd, capable of processing more crude oil per day than the entire national output of many mid-tier oil-producing countries.

    The ExxonMobil Beaumont facility deserves particular attention as the most consequential recent development in US refinery capacity: the 2023 expansion added 240,000 b/cd to the site, bringing total throughput to approximately 609,000 b/cd and making it one of the most significant single-site capacity additions in US refining history in the past two decades. At the other end of the scale, the closure column of the table tells the more structurally significant 2025–2026 story: LyondellBasell’s Houston facility — which before its January 2025 shutdown produced approximately 140,000 b/d of gasoline and 100,000 b/d of diesel — has been permanently removed from the US fuel supply chain, and the combined exits of Phillips 66’s Los Angeles complex and Valero’s Benicia refinery are eliminating California’s most significant integrated refining operations outside of the Chevron Richmond facility.

    [...]  The wave of US refinery closures in 2025–2026 represents the most concentrated capacity contraction since the industry downsizing of the early 1980s — and it is playing out in a distinctly uneven geographic pattern. The three major closures removing approximately 548,000 b/cd are not distributed evenly: two of the three are concentrated in California, and the third — LyondellBasell’s Houston facility — was the result of a seven-year failed sale process in which the company could not find a buyer willing to operate a refinery with its cost structure and crude slate. California’s situation is unique and increasingly severe. Six refinery plants have shut down or converted since 2008 in the state, driven by a combination of California’s strict environmental regulations, the state’s declared goal of reducing gasoline use to one-tenth current levels by 2045, rising operating costs, and the premium economics of converting petroleum refinery infrastructure to renewable diesel production — which qualifies for California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard credits worth approximately $3.70 per gallon in additional subsidy income.

    The human cost of these closures is concentrated in specific communities where refinery work has historically been the highest-paying blue-collar employment available. Union workers at the Phillips 66 LA complex earned approximately $115,000 per year plus pension and retirement benefits — compensation levels that, as CalMatters reporting made clear, are essentially impossible to replicate in alternative industries without years of additional education or retraining. The EIA’s explicit warning that the California closures risk driving fuel inventories to their lowest levels since 2000 and pushing West Coast gasoline imports to record levels from Asian suppliers underscores the real-world supply chain consequence of removing domestic refining capacity in a region with no pipeline connectivity to the Gulf Coast refining hub. For California motorists and the businesses dependent on West Coast fuel supply, the closure of these facilities will register at the pump.

    And much more content in that report. It is a long item. Same source, shorter separate May 7, 2026 item:

    Global oil prices
    Global oil markets are in a period of heightened volatility and uncertainty due to the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a major world oil transit chokepoint through which nearly 20% of global oil supply flowed prior to military action that began on February 28. The strait has been effectively closed to shipping traffic since. The Brent crude oil spot price averaged $117 per barrel (b) in April, $46/b higher than the average in February. This monthly average price is also the highest since June 2022, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Daily Brent spot prices reached as high as $138/b on April 7. The closure of the strait has dramatically reduced the availability of oil supplies to global markets and has had cascading effects across oil supply chains.

    Daily Brent crude oil spot and front-month futures prices(February 1-April 27)

    Daily Brent spot prices increased significantly in April, reflecting the tightness and demand for physical barrels of crude oil for delivery in the very near term. At the same time, front-month Brent futures prices for delivery in June were highly volatile due to significant uncertainty around the length of the disruption. Fewer physical barrels available for near-term delivery helped widen the differential between spot and front-month futures to nearly $30/b early in April, as buyers bid to replace disrupted supplies. Although crude oil prices remained elevated in late April, the two prices trended closer as trade flows adjusted and refiners sourced new supplies.

    Brent crude oil implied volatility

    Since the conflict began in late February, crude oil implied volatility has averaged 78%, based on futures and options contract data from the CME Group, with daily Brent crude oil implied volatility reaching as high as 106% on March 12. Prior to the conflict, implied volatility was generally less than 30% since the beginning of 2024. Recent Brent crude oil implied volatility is the highest it has been since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020.

    As the conflict persists, we have adjusted our expectations around the duration of the disruption. We now assume that the Strait of Hormuz will remain effectively closed through late May, with flows slowly starting to resume in late May or early June. Even after flows resume, we expect it will take until late 2026 or early 2027 for most pre-conflict production and trade patterns to resume. However, we anticipate that some producers around the Persian Gulf will not see their production levels return to pre-conflict levels during the STEO forecast period.

    Disrupted crude oil production volumes in the Middle East have increased since our last forecast. We assess that production shut-ins averaged 10.5 million barrels per day (b/d) in April, and we expect they will peak at nearly 10.8 million b/d in May as storage levels reach maximum limits requiring producers to shut in additional volumes. One of the factors driving our increased expectations of shut-in production is that we now forecast Iran will have to reduce production in part due to the U.S. blockade, which has curtailed Iran’s ability to export oil.

    Making a long story shorter, without asking a bot to write a summarization - the war continues, the shortages worldwide continue, and despite the two highlighted projections, the Iran war may last longer than the NBA postseason. And then some. Ostensibly wanting a war's end, damn that nuke sticking point, the EIA estimate is Trump will not see a miracle economic rebound before the November vote.

    But his friends in refinery ownership and operation will see fat-city continue, bless their profiting hearts.

    It is confusing, in particular, should Trump negotiate in good faith into next year - presuming Iran will not compromise its asserted right to enrich uranium - he hangs to his script and hardships for voters will last beyond this year's election. 

    2028, how bright will things look for JD?

    Trump says so many contradictory things that his lasting motives, should he have any, are beyond forecasting; indeed beyond sane understanding unless he's channeling Yeltsin's ghost, or some such. 

    And, maybe, Yeltsen's ghost is telling him to be true to those who put you in power, and weigh more the money US Big Oil put into his election, than lives lost and economic dislocations resulting from Bibi and The Donald thinking a jolly war might be fun. Who knows how Yeltsen's ghost might advise, but Boris was true to his along-the-way benefactors, or seemed to be.

    _____________UPDATE____________

    It should be mentioned, I did a duckduck search = since Feb 28, 2026, what volume of oil has been refined to date, and what was the incremental profiting over what the price per barrel Feb 1, 2026, had remained in effect

    It's an interesting question, but I got no really helpful answer in the return list. But that's where I got the EIA items, and it explains the segue to the extensive quoting to show what petroleum truth at present is, domestically as to US interests, and worldwide. That part of the post is a bit inelastic and elastic together, so read it as seems best to you. It confuses me also.