Tag Archives: Lindsey Graham

Where is the trust?

That is most of the time the setting, so as ABC gives us (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-17/middle-east-live-updates-march-17-2026/106462358) “A tanker has been struck by an unknown projectile while anchored near the Strait of Hormuz. Earlier, US President Donald Trump turned his ire on European allies who he claimed “weren’t that enthusiastic” about helping the US secure the passage. The threat of Iranian missiles and drones targeting oil tankers in the strait has effectively closed the shipping channel, amid the country’s conflict with the US and Israel.” With the added ‘Rockets and drones fired at US Embassy in Baghdad’ an hour ago. Consider that President Trump gave us (on march 8th, Politico) ‘Trump says Starmer seeking to join Iran war ‘after we’ve already won’’ so, that was 9 days ago? What changed? Then yesterday, the Guardian gives us (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/mar/16/iran-war-live-updates-news-oil-trump-hormuz-dubai-airport-israel-targets) “As Donald Trump expresses frustration with countries declining to send warships to reopen the strait of Hormuz, the response remains muted among those he directly called upon.” And this happened a mere 4 hours ago. Where are the vessels of the United States? Where are their minesweepers? Simple questions and it defies knowledge why this is not front and centre everywhere. So when the Sydney Morning Herald adds spice to the setting (at https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/with-10-damning-words-pete-hegseth-says-the-quiet-part-out-loud-20260314-p5oafr.html) with ‘With 10 damning words, Pete Hegseth says the quiet part out loud’ where we see “US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth believes the media has not been sufficiently effusive about the success of the American military operation against Iran.

He had just finished speaking about the massive damage inflicted upon the regime in Tehran – its leadership, its missile stocks, its navy, its weapons infrastructure – when he turned his attention to the Pentagon press pack.” Now, I am willing to accept that I have not been part of any defence department for 43 years. I can assure you that a certain clarity is required in communication (from the defence side) and whilst I feel ready to blame the press on several matters, they are massively without blame here. The March 8th setting was the first damning setting. Then as I yesterday lighted on the ‘Just for fun’ setting that President Trump gave us and whilst the tactical setting that Kharg Island provides a sea port for the export of up to 90% of Iran’s oil products, as well as supplying storage for up to 30 million barrels. Bombing the hell out of it might have been essential, but it is a mere export point. There are 10 refineries doing the bidding of capturing oil and whilst I was able to device methods of stopping those settings, the clear message is to bomb those 10 locations to really put pressure on Iran. So when were they done? No, As I personally see it, President Trump what’s that oil this is the clear setting that is tactically seen and now that 2,500-5,000 boots are getting on the ground, that setting becomes the pressure point that Iran can put on the United States. So whilst I created IP to close harbours and disable trains, stopping the bulk of oil transits, it was merely one stage that Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE could do to take pressure away from themselves and as such I gave Saudi Arabia and the UAE that IP. I did my thing to stop the war to go towards the gulf states. 

Well, the SMH also takes care of that. We are given “As former CNN Pentagon reporter Barbara Starr noted, it’s possible that Ellison will be none-too-pleased about Hegseth’s implications.

Starr, a 21-year veteran of the defence beat, pointed out on X that CNN has sent personnel to combat zones for decades, with some even losing their lives. “You have a legal and moral obligation to defend the free press, even the ones you don’t personally like,” she told Hegseth.

As a former TV presenter before he was tasked with running the world’s most powerful military, press freedom should be Hegseth’s instinct. His comments today – and his vainglorious move to banish press photographers from his briefings – suggest he sees the media more as a vassal to serve his interests.” I can get behind that thought. As such there are sides to this entire setting that aren’t reported on this enough. The first one was that no formal declaration of war was ever given by the United States. As such we were given: “the Trump administration officials have offered various and conflicting explanations for the war, such as to ward off an imminent Iranian threat, to pre-empt Iranian retaliation against US assets after an expected Israeli attack on Iran” My issue here is that the international courts in The Hague might side with Iran concerning the seemingly unprovoked attacks by Iran (I know that is hilarious), Iran has been waging proxy wars for decades and that is the power of a proxy war. I reckon that the attacks by Israel and the United States give a bitter taste in the eyes of the law. Israel is decently clear because of all the attacks by Iran via Hamas and Hezbollah, but the idea given “to ward off an imminent Iranian threat” is laughable. It is like New Zealand attacking Australia, the Sopwith Camel doesn’t have the range to cross that distance and as far as I know New Zealand does not have an aircraft carrier. The same applies to Iran. There is no way that an attack can result from Iran. Even Lone Wolf attacks are unlikely to succeed and the United States still has their boy-scout organisations (FBI, CIA, DIA) in place, as such they can either do their job or they cannot. 

As such my speculative view was that the United States needed the oil that Iran has (for now). After failing to get to Canada’s rare earths (the 51st state attempt), Greenland resources (through failed annexation) and Venezuela oil (which is seem simply useless to the United States) the United States are now going for the Iranian oil. After that merely Russian oil remains (and Ukraine is doing something about that too) so what is left? I might be wrong in all this and there is a simple way to show me I am wrong. Merely bomb the 10 refineries. Several sources seemed to side with me on this as we are given ‘GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham Brags ‘We Are Going to Make a Ton of Money’ on Iran War’, which was given to us on March 9th. So as we were given “Graham seemingly suggested that the conflict with Iran as well as President Donald Trump’s abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro aim to help the United States take control over major oil reserves. “Venezuela and Iran have 31% of the world’s oil reserves. We’re going to have a partnership with 31% of the known reserves. This is China’s nightmare. This is a good investment,” he said.” As well as ““We’re going to blow the hell out of these people,” Graham said, adding that “nobody will threaten [the U.S.] in the Strait of Hormuz again.” He also said there could be a collapse of Iran’s leadership. “This regime is in a death throe now, it is gonna be on its knees, it’s going to fall, and when it falls we’re going to have peace like no other time,” he added.” It seems that after 9 days he was proven on nearly all fronts and now that it is out in the open that the United States needs oil (because they have so little at present) there is now the setting that the United States are too broke to seemingly pay their bills and as I see it, the moment the boots come on the ground, the media will report on nearly everything and that will put team Trump/Hegseth in a new folly and in the limelight, Because if I can figure this out in the last decade and now we get that Dave Kelly (JP Morgan, as per OCT2025) can figure this out, you should wonder why others couldn’t figure this out. I get that I am a no one in all this, but David Kelly is the Chief Global Strategist and Head of the Global Market Insights Strategy Team of JP Morgan and he is a voice to consider no matter how you slice it. 

So whilst we now get the Guardian (read: recently) give us “March 2026, Hegseth stated during a press briefing that US forces in Iran would show “no quarter, no mercy” to enemies. Analysts and Sen. Mark Kelly pointed out that a “no quarter” order—meaning to take no prisoners and kill them instead—is a direct violation of international law, specifically Article 23(d) of the 1907 Hague Convention IV.” All whilst media like the Conversation give us “Legal scholars have argued that Hegseth’s actions, particularly regarding the Venezuelan boat strikes and statements on the Iranian conflict, could expose him to investigations for violations of international and U.S. criminal law.” As such I reckon that both President Trump and Pete Hegseth fear the international courts. Iran optionally have a case here (I rely on optional as they have done plenty of bad things, among them attack Saudi Arabia without a formal declaration of war), so it makes sense that Pete Hegseth is in the stage that he wants to trivialize the international courts of law in the Hague, which is set through “The International Court of Justice, or colloquially the World Court, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It settles legal disputes submitted to it by states and provides advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by other UN organs and specialized agencies. The ICJ is the only international court that adjudicates general disputes between countries, with its rulings and opinions serving as primary sources of international law. It is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations.” It was established in 1945 and it should now confuse all the readers on why António Guterres remains silent on this. It merely gives my thoughts on the United States being broke seeming validity. The person who attacks Israel at any option he gets, remained silent on too many settings we are seeing here. Even the rebuke on the settings of Pete Hegseth ‘attacking’ the international courts should have put him up in arms. There is the smallest notion that the media had not covered it, but I doubt that. As I see it, the seat that António Guterres hold is seen as one of the 100 most powerful seats in the world. It might not be as powerful as that uncomfortable seat that the pope has, but that would be a buttock conversation. 

So I think I have given you something to think about and consider why the bulk of the refineries are left untouched, because that creates the wealth of Iran and isn’t that the superiority of any army? We are given “Sun Tzu’s The Art of War emphasizes that the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting, making the destruction of an opponent’s economic base (or wealth of a nation) a superior strategy to direct physical conflict. Sun Tzu advises that a protracted war exhausts a state’s resources, dulls weapons, and dampens morale, meaning attacking an opponent’s economic ability to sustain a fight is crucial.” And I wrote about that on March 8th (and before that too, at https://lawlordtobe.com/2026/03/08/ones-creative-process/) the story ‘Ones creative process’ gave you the setting that the harbours and railway of Iran should be destroyed and I was happy to hand the IP that could set that in a certain view of certainty to both Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Because I am just that sort of guy. It is never about personal profit in some stage of war and these two countries were hammered with drones and missiles. As such I did more than talk (are you watching this Pete Hegseth), I delivered. 

So you all have a great day and enjoy the day because Vancouver just joined us this Tuesday. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics, Science

Doubtful settings

Yup, some settings are doubtful, they are so for any number of reasons, the jobseeker hopes that the Coronavirus continues, because with over 2,000,000 deaths and optionally another million by the end of March, that person feels that their chances of a job increases. It is a play on ‘One man’s death is another man’s living’ reminiscent of the national anthem of grave diggers ‘I’ve got no body’, even as we do not see it that dark, there is an upside towards recent events. As the YouTube continues to make way to the larger populous of cope opening the gates to the US Capitol mob, they too will be seeking a job and in their case Uber, the fast-food industry or Barber is all that remains. Even now we see ‘US Capitol rioter Jacob Chansley asks for presidential pardon, saying he was ‘answering the call’ of Donald Trump’ (at ABC News) we need to realise that these people are at the end of their party time, even if his name is within the list of 100 pardons, the soon to be fired President Trump is on dangerous grounds. He needs to keep stupid people like Ted Cruz and John Hawley in some kind of position of power, they overstepped and the US Senate will have its pound of flesh, Senator McConnell is already on the fence to avoid too much splatter and President Trump is also facing a $400,000,000 tax bill and without a second term as well as the Republican Party Shunning him, he might have to look forward to (see below)

The stage is however not yet set, not completely, in this I will state upfront that I have always been a decently proud Republican, but I have never been so ashamed to be one as we see ‘Sen. Lindsey Graham calls for Senate to reject impeachment trial for “national healing”’, in addition we see: “While the vice president and Senate Republicans rejected unconstitutional actions, you seek to force upon the Senate, what would itself be but one more unconstitutional action in this disgraceful saga — the impeachment trial of a former president”, no not the impeachment of the former president, of the current one, unless you can stall for along enough, and there we see it, bitches like Lindsey Graham is exactly why people hate republicans, and at present I cannot blame them. A setting of lawless actions, a setting of open lies directly from the White House and from the Press Secretary and this polarisation could continue for years and soon no one wants to do business with republicans, because if they cannot have their way, the sulk like little children.

As I see it, the Republican Party lost again and again by Accepting Donald Trump as a republican. Perhaps you forgot (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brGK5fcnm9o), but here it is again.

A setting of intentionally setting out confusion with the American people, or perhaps we consider how the police opened the gates to rioters in the US Capitol, which is opposite of the picture we see below.

Apparently the police fears Black Lives Matter, but that could just be me. The danger that I see is the one that ABC News gives with ‘Corporate donors flee Republican Party following Capitol Hill riot, and it’s only the beginning’ (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-16/us-political-donations-dry-up-after-capitol-insurrection/13062376), there we see “Some companies say those Republicans will receive no donations for the rest of their political lives. “The insurrection at our nation’s Capital was a direct assault on one of our country’s most revered tenets: the peaceful transition of power,” a Disney spokesman told Politico this week.” This is important, because if President elect Joe Biden does a decent job, it implies that the Republicans are out of options for 12-16 years. How does that help anything? A nanny state that has nowhere to go, is buckling under debts and will see a dark stage for at least half. Decade, all because we facilitated to a stupid man with delusions of megalomania. A stage we all created (those who voted for him the first time), and now that the party is over, we see even less intelligent people than President Trump (yes that is possible) giving us “he was ‘answering the call’ of Donald Trump”, it is a doubtful setting and there is no turning back, not at this time. As I personally see it, we need to go back and get rid of a whole range of elected republicans. In my view, the only decent Republican at present is former governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger. That is seen (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_P-0I6sAck), NOT ONE REPUBLICAN SENATOR was able to equal what the governator told the American people. 199 seats in the house, 53 seat in the senate and NONE of them equalled Arnold Schwarzenegger. It is that repugnant, as I personally see it Mitch McConnell has one option, to find a high visible position for Arnold Schwarzenegger, and hope that he is willing to lend a hand and clean the republican houses, because with the donors gone and the bad taste of Trump in everyones pallet, he is about to see what more than 8 years on the sidelines look like. It will be the direct result of letting stupidity ride and override common sense, now that lesson is about to hit the republican side, there is no option. The 152 way to silent seats will have an impact, perhaps a larger stage than ever thought possible, but that is the setting we all face, some will say that it is doubtful that it goes that far, but the amount of these so called friends sticking with President Trump are showing that I am right. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

The Jet joke

The old joke goes “How do you know the plane is full of politicians? When the engines shut down and the whining goes on”, I believe it should be followed by a da-dum-dum. Yet the stage is set and it has been going on for a while now. The BBC article ‘Amy Coney Barrett: Democrats attack ‘shameful’ Supreme Court hearing’ got the better of me and the whining (in an age where we we have actual problems) got on my nerves. OK, I will admit that I am mostly Republican in mind, the issue of this president is one that I am not happy about. From my personal point of view, this president is no Republican, I consider him a greed driven loon, yet he was elected and as I wrote earlier, the constitution allows him to nominate a Supreme Court Judge, and the senate gets to confirm the nomination, this is what the American constitution gives us, yet the BBC gives us “But one Democratic senator on the committee described the process as “shameful””, so which Senator was that BBC? Do the people not have a right to know? In addition, what legal premise is this senator working from? In addition, the BBC gives us “The Republicans – who currently hold a slim majority in the US Senate, the body that confirms Supreme Court judges – are trying to complete the process before Mr Trump takes on Democratic rival Joe Biden in the election”, which is correct, but what are the names in the panel? The BBC also gives us “this process has been nothing but shameful. Worse, it will almost certainly lead to disastrous consequences for Americans”, as such I wonder what evidence can Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy give us? So far he is giving us nothing but air, not even hot air. At what moment in time, has any supreme court judge been anything but legal? Yes, we get it, they all want to have liberal judges and no one denies that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a force to be reckoned with and she was a liberal judge. Yet the law was clear, the elected president gets to nominate a Supreme Court Judge during his tour as president of the United States, electing a Supreme Court Judge is one of the few long term policies he can set, and as such President Trump is allowed to do what is happening today, but the media is nothing if not ‘appeasing’, they will print the ramblings of Democrats, because the larger belief is that this president is most likely a one term president and the media needs brownie points. 

So when we see “Democrats demonstrated that they want Amy Coney Barrett’s hearings to be about the Republican rush to seat a new justice before the elections and the possibility that she could be a deciding vote to strike down the increasingly popular healthcare reforms passed under Democratic President Barack Obama”, so where does it state in the constitutions that this is about  “the Republican rush to seat a new justice before the elections”, all whilst all parties (except the Republicans) ignore the constitution that states “When a vacancy occurs, the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints a new justice”, that is the law and the law was abided to, it might not please the Democrats, but the is what it is, so now they all whine like little bitches (I meant like jet engines). Yet in all this we see no clarity on the panel, do we?

As such, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court , who exactly are these members?  Well there is a majority group which consists of Lindsey Graham (SC), Chairman,  Chuck Grassley (IA), John Cornyn (TX), Mike Lee (UT), Ted Cruz (TX), Ben Sasse (NE), Josh Hawley (MO), Thom Tillis (NC), Joni Ernst (IA), Mike Crapo (ID), John Kennedy (LA), Marsha Blackburn (TN). These 12 members are the majority, the 10 minority members are Dianne Feinstein (CA), Patrick Leahy (VM), Dick Durbin (IL), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Chris Coons (DE), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Mazie Hirono (HI), Cory Booker (NJ), Kamala Harris (CA). 22 members ‘interrogating’ the next Supreme Court Justice, but the confirmation is set when all senators vote and the Republicans have a majority, a very slim one, as such the Democrats have one option, to ask the right questions, as they pound on those, they can merely hope to sway 3 senators away from the ‘Yay’ vote when the confirmation vote starts and they need a majority to make it pass, if ALL democrats agree this will not happen. The is as good as it gets for the Democrats. Will this happen? I do not know, the previous confirmation was Justice Kavanaugh and took 48 hours as well as more than 1200 questions. Will we see a repetition of this? We are about to find out. 

I wonder how much media will actually be focusing on the questions the democrats asked, and why they were asked. A similar setting does apply to the Republicans, yet the setting of “Democrats are avoiding the divisive topic of abortion, which motivates political adversaries as much as it rallies allies, for what they feel is more favourable political ground”, as such we see the chance of finding a justice with a focus on law is low compared to the Democrat need to find a person that is politically convenient. I merely wonder why they want judges to begin with.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics