A representative dialog showing why I oppose twitter/tweets, online for everybody, is this.

Nicolle Wallace interviewing and sharing commentary with Heather Cox Richardson about now and the future:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCa6CmuQqNY&t=58s

While in agreement with the bulk of their discussion, others who might be less aligned still must admit that this is more worthwhile than a tweet about some high-strung ditz endorsing Mike Rogers. Where the only mystery or deep thought would be how did that ditz get to where anyone attributed gravitas to what she did or said. A tweet war over that endorsement is about all it deserves.

 

 

Hello Donald J. Trump. You have friends who like your never ending warfare, with cause to see it drag on. And on. And on.

 AJ reporting -

How US oil firms profit $130bn from Iran war as household bills surge

As energy from the Gulf and Russia take a hit, American oil and gas firms are the big gainers. The biggest losers: consumers around the world

 By Federica Marsi -- Published On 2 Nov 20262 Nov 2026

United States oil companies have earned more than $130bn in profits during the war on Iran, even as consumers pay much higher prices for key commodities, amid fears that US President Donald Trump may renew fighting after midterm elections.

The estimate, released by The New York Times, is a conservative evaluation based on the performance of 51 large US oil and gas companies in the six months from April through September. By contrast, in the same period in 2025 – when the prices of oil were lower prior to the launch of the US-Israel war on Iran – they collectively earned less than $47bn.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 items

• list 1 of 3Mediators continue US-Iran negotiations amid war rhetoric: What we know
• list 2 of 3Iran and US explore diplomacy amid rising threats of war
• list 3 of 3More than 50 million votes cast in US midterm elections: What does it mean?

end of list

But the gains come as burgeoning living costs are crushing consumers. Americans have spent an extra $150bn on petrol and diesel since the war on Iran began on February 28, according to an analysis by Brown University’s Climate Solutions Lab, which amounts to more than $1,150 per household.

The disparity has fuelled a political debate over who gains and who pays the price for the war. Responding to Trump, Democratic Representative Jim McGovern wrote on X: “We’re not making a ‘freaking fortune,’ we’re PAYING a ‘freaking fortune’.”

US Big Oil in position to profit where others lose

Naser al-Tamimi, a fellow at the Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI) in Milan, Italy, said US energy companies have benefitted from the war in different ways. “Crude producers gain from higher oil prices, while refiners capture exceptional margins as diesel and other fuel supplies tighten,” he said.

Additionally, “damage to Middle Eastern and Russian refineries, disrupted Strait of Hormuz shipments, and sanctions-related trade frictions have intensified shortages”, while “relatively secure US facilities and access to discounted crude strengthen these gains”.

ExxonMobil and Chevron, the biggest US oil companies, on Friday reported profits of between $10bn and $15bn. While the gains are considerable, The New York Times found they generally remained below 2022 levels, when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine caused oil prices to soar to roughly $100 a barrel and raised natural gas prices, compared with the current average of $90 from April through September.

[...] 

Continued pressure over cost of living

Analysts warned of continued volatility until a durable political settlement between the US and Iran is reached. Oil prices dropped briefly in the summer after a memorandum of understanding was signed in June, but prices quickly soared again when talks broke down.

A more recent escalation in fighting between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis has further compounded the crisis: the Bab al-Mandeb strait that connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, which Saudi Arabia uses to export oil, is now also a theatre of war.

“In the short term, windfall profits will only strengthen oil company balance sheets and shareholder returns,” Miller said. “However, the big profits come with a major caveat. That’s because over the longer term, high oil prices risk harming economic growth prospects and could even contribute towards the outbreak of a recession, which would in turn be likely to lead to reduced demand for oil” and accelerate the transition to renewable energy.

Florence Schmit, senior energy strategist at Rabobank’s global economics and markets team in London, said it was likely that the prices of key energy products would remain high given the uncertainty about the duration of the war in Iran.

“Prices in all markets that have an exposure to this global supply shock – which includes the US – will face high prices also next year, and consumers will continue to feel this price pressure unless governments step in,” Schmit told Al Jazeera.

The item continues, and earlier this graphic was part of the post -

 Dylan, early in his career, sang, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

You don't. So, are you happy with this war, or ready to vote Dem to have a better chance of ending the grotesque profiteering? It may drag on, but it may not. We shall see.

A hypothetical. When there is a bit of public bleating about "FRAUD!" can there be such a thing as a fraudulent war? One premised by public decree one way, but done to achieve a different outcome, from another direction? And if there can be, is there one, now since Feburary? A "four week" war? 

And, who'd do such a thing? Who'd be that sneaky? Over barrels of oil?

UPDATE: Sophistry. 

 FURTHER: A trillion dollar fraud war - an oil war disguised as a security threat war that can hit a trillion if lasting long enough -  dwarfs anything that any Minnesota Somali community rump groups may have committed, as a welfare fraud. War fraud has a lot of death and destruction to it. Welfare fraud just means an unduly inattentive bureaucrat or three asleep at the switch. No loss of life, no destruction. No Hegseth.

AJ reports on a Republican write-in effort in South Carolina.

 It is more against Donald Trump, than against Darlene Graham.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/11/2/write-in-ralph-south-carolina-republicans-challenge-trumps-senate-pick 

 

 

Abdul El Sayed needs to win the Michigan Senate race and nothing else happening there should matter. He is a Dem and he is a progressive. [UPDATED]

There's stuff happening (e.g., Dem's staff resigns as she 'sells her soul' to endorse swing state MAGA Senate candidate + Sanders feuds with AIPAC over last-minute Rogers donations). AIPAC has a lot of money, and buys what it can for political advantage. 

Days ago, Times of Israel published -

Michigan GOP Senate candidate Mike Rogers said to ask AIPAC not to campaign on his behalf

As pro-Israel lobby group becomes increasingly unpopular across US politics, Axios says aides for Rogers warned its involvement would be detrimental to defeating Abdul El-Sayed

By ToI Staff and Agencies 22 August 2026

 

That is like your money is green and welcome, but you're toxic. Not a position of power, but the money has bought something, presumably. Something that had its price and terms, which the money met. 

 

Those agitators need a slap-down. This is the election contest for it to happen. Reform will be set back if the money wins. Michigan will be a beacon for the nation, either way, and progressives know how the light should shine.

 

UPDATE: JTA has a balanced coverage item online.

 

FURTHER: AJ covers the situation.

 

Stevems does not come across as an entirely stable person. It is surprising she made the Michigan Dem primary a close race. Her allegiance seems more to genocide than to needs of the people in our nation. 

 

Rogers takes what he gets. Trump is solidly behind Rogers and has expressed joy over Stevens' action.

 

FURTHER: The Guardian covers the situation. 

 

FURTHER: The Hill, in part - 

Israel has been the center of attention in the days leading up to the midterm elections where El-Sayed has maintained a critical stance throughout.

The Senate race between El-Sayed and his GOP opponent Mike Rogers has been intense with a recent CNN poll showing 49 percent of respondents leaning toward the Democrat and 42 percent toward the Republican. Nonpartisan election forecaster Decision Desk HQ leans heavily in favor of El-Sayed, giving him a 74 percent chance of winning.

This latest Michigan development should not draw attention from the positions on issues. Rogers in the Trump camp, El Sayed focusing on healthcare, cost of living, and related issues. With his view in general being progressive, rather than establishment Dem.

FURTHER: This tweet appears to be the video ad that Stevens got her drawers in a bind over. It's theme is money the federal government gives Israel is taxpayer money that could go here. That taxpayers have not voted to approve as a U.S. of A. valid expense. 

Posed as it is, it stands against money given Israel for Israeli ethnic cleansing and war making. Readers should view it and judge it. Is Stevens' reaction to it over the top, or valid in kind and degree? Does Stevens' action seem extreme and self-centered? She lost the primary. The issue of Israeli conduct and the U.S. funding it in part, during both Biden's term and by Trump, is a real thing that will not go away. 

What should U.S. of A. policy be?

FURTHER; This tweet, of Stevens and Rogers. Generally Crabgrass is unimpressed with tweets. Too brief, too shallow, too strident, and distracting from more measured reporting. But it appears this Michigan thing is now tweet poisoned.

FURTHER: Try search =  reactions nationwide to Stevens endorsing rogers in michigan

One item that search returned to Crabgrass: https://www.ms.now/news/haley-stevens-mike-rogers-abdul-el-sayed-michigan-senate-race 

From the source, you can tell its likely direction. However, it did feature an embedded video interview of El Sayed, in which he basically said, So what? This race is about where I am on issues and what I'd hope to accomplish in the Senate. A Democrat vs a Trump Republican, what I've done and will do.

The Stevens endorsement of Rogers is a fact. It deserves some attention, but the basic question is El Sayed vs Rogers, and not who else is doing stuff. Michigan will vote, and we will see.

FURTHER: Anderson Cooper does a 15 min interview with Stevens.  Meanwhile, El Sayed's campaign is reported by Forbes to have had a record day for contributions to the campaign, with thousands of new donors.

 

Politico: "Space Force scrambles as Musk’s SpaceX retires its major rocket. Other rocket-makers have faced delays getting their vehicles up and running, leaving the Pentagon in a bind. "

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/10/22/space-force-spacex-rocket-musk-01131131 

The Crabgrass headline gives the item's own headline. In part -

SpaceX is by far the dominant player in the rocket business and indispensable to the military, dwarfing competitors and accounting for 85% of U.S. launches in 2025. The company is phasing out its Falcon 9 rocket to make way for Starship, a massive new vehicle that SpaceX says will be more efficient and profitable, but which many military satellites aren’t designed to fit.

The situation leaves the Space Force in a launch crunch that could affect the military’s ability to put its advanced satellites in orbit — and on time. The Pentagon has few alternatives to ferry its equipment, and SpaceX’s competitors are likely years away from being able to offer comparable services.

“Everybody’s having problems, so the Space Force is freaking out a little bit about launch,” said one former Space Force official, who, like others, was granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive issue.

It also highlights the scale of Musk’s company’s footprint and the way its business decisions can affect the security of countries including the United States. From the battlefield in Ukraine, where Kyiv is dependent on his Starlink satellite internet service, to cutting-edge artificial intelligence and SpaceX’s stranglehold over the pathways to orbit, the world’s first trillionaire has a direct hand in the technology that will shape the future.

The Space Force recently tried to book rides for three future satellite missions, but SpaceX declined to offer its services, according to two people familiar with the missions. No other rocket companies offered to take them either, the people said.

A top official at the Space Force downplayed the problem about finding rockets to launch military satellites.

“I wouldn’t say there [are] missions I’m worried about being able to fly; I would say we’re working through the right way to support those customers,” said Brig. Gen. Eric Zarybnisky, the Space Force’s acting portfolio acquisition executive for space access.

But Zarybnisky acknowledged growing pains for the government and space industry as demand for rockets increases. “Temporarily, there are some things we’ll need to work through, again, as we get new providers flying,” he said.

There is more detail in the original, again, here. 

 

 

Homeland Security Dept. is buying Boston Dynamics' robot dogs. Some BD employees have officially objected.

 https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/10/boston-dynamics-employees-want-to-block-sale-of-robot-dogs-to-ice/

 

In a 10/28/2026 overly long sophistry filing in the Fraud of the Century case DOJ begs a circuit court to overturn the sanctions they earned against themselves in putting a collusive case into a federal court - the $1.776 billion slush fund for Jan 6 offenders thing Trump tried to get away with but with the Court seeing through the egregious fraud. No real case or controversy. Just a stinker Trump cooked up from whole cloth. Todd Blanche dutifully going along instead of showing a spine.

 Trumpian putzery got what it deserved, and over 60 pages filed by DOJ assertinng otherwise is just fluff.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.97154/gov.uscourts.ca11.97154.89.0.pdf 

That link is to the court filing from whichever hat Trump filed it from, plaintiff or defendant, he being both in the sham. 

MSN republished an analytical text, here, titled Legal and factual errors: DOJ asks 11th Circuit to undo sanctions issued over Trump's failed effort to secure anti-weaponization fund

 That item stated in part:

The U.S. Department of Justice wants a federal court of appeals to unwind sanctions issued by a lower court over the Trump administration's failed gambit to collect $1.776 billion from taxpayers for President Donald Trump's planned "anti-weaponization fund."

In a 64-page appellate brief, DOJ official R. Trent McCotter complains that the sanctions issued in the case are "unprecedented" and "based on a bevy of clear legal and factual errors."

In January, Trump filed his original lawsuit against the IRS. By May, the case was closed — on the plaintiff's own request — with the 45th and 47th president opting instead for a publicly subsidized fund earmarked for pro-Trump stalwarts and others similarly situated.

[...] In July, Williams found the president's attorneys filed a "non-adversarial, collusive" lawsuit to "manipulate the judicial process" and improperly force the IRS into a settlement that "had no viable basis in law or fact." In turn, the court put Trump and his legal team on the hook for attorneys fees of nonparty amici who opposed the lawsuit.

Now, the DOJ is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to reverse the sanctions order — which the agency claims is "riddled with legal and factual errors" — and reassign the case to a different judge.

"To start, the District Court's theory—that Plaintiffs brought this litigation 'to provide cover for a collusive settlement'—makes no sense," the brief reads. [...] 

To hear the government tell it, "[m]uch of" the district court's order "consists of an incorrect analysis" that concluded the parties "were not sufficiently adverse" for constitutional jurisdiction.

The brief argues that Williams "brushed aside the facts" that Trump sued in his personal capacity but not his official capacity.

The government also says the fact that the anti-weaponization fund did not ultimately materialize works against the sanctions.

[...] The DOJ goes on to say that even "if there were anything to" the "collusion theory," sanctions would not have been proper.

Here, the government takes issue with a gag order that bars the IRS and Treasury Department "from referring to the purported" settlement "or using, offering, admitting, or citing any of its provisions in any judicial, administrative, regulatory, arbitration, or any other official proceeding as evidence of" a settlement.

"The IRS and Treasury never represented anything to (or otherwise took action in) the District Court," the appellate brief continues. "The court identified no authority to sanction them anyway—least of all in the form of a gag order—for entering a private settlement, which is a decision committed to agency discretion by law. There is none. The District Court's Order is unsupportable and must be reversed."

In light of what the government views as an "extraordinary" order that "cannot stand," the DOJ wants Williams off the case, accusing the judge of "seemingly intentionally" violating the rules of civil procedure "for the purpose of inflicting political damage on Executive Branch officials."

The thing seems so outrageous as to cite to a known idiot: 

The DOJ quotes Rep. Jim Jordan, a Republican representing Ohio, to argue that Williams' order "appears to be an abuse of judicial authority and motivated by partisan animus" and that the court "unnecessarily maligned Attorney General Blanche."

Blanche earned the scorn he got and Jim Jordan saying otherwise is worth a bucket of shit. 

"The District Court's actions have rightfully already given rise to the view among reasonable members of the public that the District Court was acting in an improper political manner," the brief argues. "This Court need not conclude that the District Court's actions were improperly motivated, but rather only that reasonable members of the public would view them that way."

Crabgrass has reasonable readers who are members of the public, and doubts any single one of them thinks the sanctions wrong. It was a bullshit move by Trump and he deserves all the scorn imaginable for doing such a dumb thing, while Blanche proved himself bereft of good judgment by not saying no to taking a part in the fraud.

(Crabgrass may have "opposition" readers who contend the sanctions were wrong, but that position is unreasonable and stinking of unfettered bias. The reasonable readers agree with me.)