Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Jones”

An immigration misfire

August 3, 2026

Idaho’s Attorney General told us on March 31 that he and 23 other GOP state attorneys general were going to school the US Supreme Court on the issue of birthright citizenship. Even before the thirteen colonies gave birth to the United States, we have regarded all children born on American soil to be citizens, except for those of diplomats. That principle was written into the Constitution of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment, which was adopted in 1868. It has been the law of the land ever since.

Labrador got honked off when I wrote an opinion piece saying he was dead wrong. He responded with a column charging me with “credibility problems.” I’ll let readers make their own decision on that. However, even the rightward leaning Supreme Court did not buy the Labrador argument. Once again, those who gained US citizenship by having been born on American soil can rest easy. We have not heard a word from him about that spectacular loss or how much he spent on his wild goose chase.

Labrador is at it again with a July 23 Facebook post celebrating the 43,000 arrests made by ICE in June. He proclaimed that “every one of those arrests is a win for the person who’s been waiting their turn in line to immigrate legally.” That is not necessarily true because ICE has notoriously been arresting people who are citizens or otherwise legally present in the United States.

A Mexican national, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, who had lived in Houston for over 35 years, built a successful business, sent three sons to college and was waiting to get legal status, was killed by an ICE officer on July 7. He was not the person being targeted by ICE and was apparently not suspected of wrongdoing, but that did not seem to matter. His only offense was appearing to be Hispanic. A case of racial profiling.

Joan Sebastian Duran Guerrero, a food delivery driver from Columbia, was shot dead by an ICE officer in Biddeford, Maine, a week later. He was legally in the country, had a Social Security card and was not a target of ICE’s large dragnet. He, too, received the death penalty because of his looks. Guerrero’s executioner was a mentally troubled individual with a history of violence.

We have sort of gotten used to ICE’s brutal tactics. After all, Renee Good and Alex Pretti were killed by ICE agents in January. We have seen the bystander videos, which indicate the shootings were completely unjustified. ICE stonewalled the local prosecutors for months, only turning over evidence of the shootings on July 13.

It may be difficult for local authorities to prosecute ICE agents who perpetrate violent acts against immigrants and their supporters so long as Donald Trump controls the US Department of Justice. However, once a new president is elected in 2028, a new administration may be able to bring the perpetrators to justice. Thugs take heed!

Labrador may be misreading the mood of the public on the brutal tactics of ICE. We were told early on that ICE would target “the worst of the worst.” That was fine with many people, but it turns out that the ICE deportation machine is sweeping up substantially more law-abiding immigrants than dangerous criminals. In fact, an increasing number of detainees do not have any criminal history.

Focusing on Idaho, for years we’ve had a fairly stable population of about 35,000 undocumented immigrants. Most are here performing work that Idahoans will no longer do–working the fields and milking cows. Others are performing work where there are not enough workers to meet the demand–construction, child and elder care, landscaping and the like. Many have established community roots. They are our friends and neighbors. Their kids grow up as citizens and enrich our state.

We have witnessed the abusive tactics of ICE in Wilder, Idaho, where its agents and a host of supporting law enforcement swooped down on a festive crowd of over 500 people gathered to watch horse races. The purported objective was to arrest 4-5 people suspected of gambling, but the agents manhandled hundreds of attendees without grounds to suspect them of criminal activity. Children were zip-tied and frightened for no legitimate reason. Other than the 4-5 suspected gamblers, the only crime of the hundreds of others appeared to be their Hispanic heritage. There was no public statement from Labrador about the propriety of this obnoxious operation.

However, he has expressed full support for the 2026 Republican platform, which states: “We oppose supporting illegal aliens by way of free access to housing, healthcare, technology, voting rights, or an unearned path to amnesty…” Undocumented folks do not qualify for such benefits. On the other hand, the workers contribute substantially to the support of governmental programs.

A creditable calculation determined that they paid $96.7 billion in federal, state and local taxes in 2022, of which $70.9 million were paid in Idaho. $59.4 billion went to the federal government, with $25.7 billion going to Social Security taxes and $6.4 billion going to Medicare taxes. They are barred from receiving benefits from both programs.

My unsolicited advice to the Attorney General is to get your facts straight before badmouthing the people who put food on your table. And don’t stand silent while ICE targets people just because of their Hispanic heritage. Everyone in Idaho deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.

 

Too many candidates

July 27, 2026

The mood of Idaho voters is changing. Regular folks are starting to realize that culture war politicians have no concern about the lives of ordinary people. It is easy to scare up votes with fake fear and outrage. It is a completely different matter for dedicated public servants to dig in and figure out how to help average folks deal with unaffordable housing and healthcare or just put enough food on the table to keep their families healthy.

Voters in the Gem State have seen the danger of placing their fate in the hands of extremists who are more interested in perpetuating their grip on power than solving problems. Culture war legislation does not address any of the real problems facing Idahoans. The outcome of the May primary election demonstrated that Idaho voters have had their fill of those who won’t get serious about making life better for the people. The overall results favored reasonable candidates. The November election promises to be even more challenging for extremists.

The ground is fertile for the top Republican officials on the November ballot to be defeated. The Governor and members of Idaho’s Congressional delegation are in drastic need of replacement. The Governor has essentially given in to the culture war crowd, failing to advocate against their mind-numbing legislation or utilize his veto stamp to kill it. Our entire Congressional delegation is too frightened of the president to perform their constitutional duty to act as a check on harmful executive decisions.

There are good candidates for these offices. But there are too many candidates, both Independents and Democrats, to get the job done. It is time for the candidates running for those offices to wake up and smell the coffee. Those who have little chance of prevailing in a race should stand back so the strongest candidate can have the stage. Political party should not matter, because the platforms of most of the challengers are largely the same. It is a matter of who has the best chance of winning.

Take the Governor’s race. Either John Stegner or Terri Pickens would be a refreshing change from Governor Little. The fact is, though, that if both are on the November ballot, Little will win. I’m not suggesting who should bow out, but it should be the one with the least voter support by the end of August. This year, a candidate must withdraw by September 4. If not, they will appear on the ballot, handing victory to Brad Little.

Todd Achilles, an Independent, has an excellent chance of beating Senator Jim Risch. Greg Casey, a highly influential Republican, tells why in his must-read Lewiston Tribune opinion piece–”As an Idahoan, I cannot be a ‘go along’ Republican anymore.”

David Roth, the Democratic candidate, seems to be a fine fellow. But he lost a 2022 campaign against Senator Crapo by a wide margin (61%-29%). He lost a 2024 campaign against Congressman Simpson, by a margin of 61%-31%. Natalie Fleming is running as an Independent. She is a good person but has less of a chance of prevailing than Roth.

The question is whether Roth and Fleming will step aside and let Achilles, the candidate best positioned to replace Risch, have a clear field. By hanging in there, with no chance of winning, they risk being regarded as spoilers who enabled Risch to have another term to continue his dereliction of duty. Two things are certain–Risch will be forever thankful if they stay in the race, while most Idahoans will be grateful if they withdraw.

There are several candidates running against Congressman Simpson. Ellie Gilbreath, the Democratic candidate, seems the best positioned to succeed, although it will be extremely tough for any of them. There are two Independents, Emre Houser and Tripp Hutchinson, both of whom appear to be short on finances and political knowhow. It would be great if the three could decide who has the best chance of winning and clear the field.

Much the same situation exists in the First Congressional District. The Democratic candidate, Kaylee Peterson, is a remarkable young woman. She has run two unsuccessful challenges against Congressman Fulcher, who is in desperate need of replacement. The situation is further complicated by an Independent, Sarah Zabel, a retired Air Force Major General. She is also a remarkable candidate. I hope they can make a pragmatic decision on who has the best chance of retiring Fulcher.

These challengers have gut-wrenching decisions to make. In my estimation, personal pride and party affiliation should not play a part. With the future of Idaho at stake, the candidates with the least chance of bringing positive change should withdraw and allow the strongest to have the field to themselves.

 

Limiting court terms

July 20, 2026

The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has certainly been remaking the American legal landscape in recent years, but not in a good way. The GOP majority has just finished gutting the Voting Rights Act of 1965, has allowed billions more to be spent on political campaigns, and has given a green light to political gerrymandering. The majority seems to regard itself as an unaccountable super legislature. It may well be.

Longevity in these exalted positions of unchecked power often breeds arrogance, a sense of entitlement and the temptation for political activism. We have witnessed too many instances in recent years where SCOTUS members have misused their positions to advance the interests of themselves or their political friends.

Justice Thomas has had almost 35 years to build up a record of bad behavior, including the acceptance of more than $2.4 million in “gifts” since 2004 and the refusal to comply with simple disclosure requirements. During his 20 years on the Court, Justice Alito has become increasingly arrogant, politically motivated and intolerant of sound jurisprudence. Chief Justice Roberts has done his level best during his almost 21-year tenure to remove all limits on campaign contributions. He has consistently resisted efforts to place reasonable ethical restraints on the Justices.

All of this has resulted in an historic drop in public confidence in SCOTUS, which constitutes a serious danger to the rule of law in the United States. These longest-serving Justices make a compelling case for dramatic reforms to this vitally important American institution.

There are any number of things that Americans could demand to restore honesty, competence and impartiality to SCOTUS but many of them–a rational appointment process and an enforceable ethics code–are unlikely to happen with the current make-up of Congress. However, a SCOTUS term limit, which has strong public support and might help keep the Justices from misbehaving, would be a great place to start. Recent polling indicates more than 70% public support for term limits for these unaccountable officials.

There has been an increasing tendency of Presidents to appoint people in the infancy of their legal careers in hopes they will serve until they draw their final breath--sort of a cradle-to-grave system. By removing the incentive to appoint youngsters who would serve until they die, a term limit would likely result in the appointment of older, tested, more-experienced lawyers or jurists. Some of the most qualified lawyers and judges are effectively excluded from consideration simply because politicians want appointees to serve as long as possible. The last four SCOTUS appointments were ages 49-51.

Some term-limit naysayers tell us the US Constitution calls for the lifetime appointments of SCOTUS members. In other words, Justices may serve throughout their entire lifetime unless they commit some sort of serious infraction. However, there is an easy answer. Don’t limit their tenure, but merely change their status from full-time active Court members to “senior” members once they have reached the term limitation. Many states, like Idaho, provide that a cadre of senior justices can fill in when an active justice recuses on a case. Senior justices also participate on court committees and help with proceedings in the state’s lower courts.

Congress can and should enact legislation to limit SCOTUS members to a maximum term of active service of 15 years and then switch them to senior status where they could remain as long as they wish. That would give SCOTUS a group of senior Justices who could step in and serve by random selection when an active Justice recuses on a case or is unable to act because of illness or whatever else. The senior Justices could also be deployed to reduce backlogs in crowded US Circuit Courts of Appeal around the country, as well as serving on various Court committees. The senior Justices would still receive full pay while continuing to provide service beneficial to the court system. That would be a small price to pay for the substantial benefits to be received.

It is time to end the system that fosters a cradle-to-grave SCOTUS membership. A term limit would open up the possibility for older, more experienced lawyers and jurists to serve on the high Court. Presidents would no longer have an incentive to pick less experienced youngsters to serve for numerous decades. There are too many well qualified individuals who would be a real credit to SCOTUS and the rule of law, were it not for the sad fact that they are deemed ineligible because of their age. Periodic turnover would be a good thing. The longer a Justice sits in the ivory tower of the Court, the greater the likelihood of losing touch with the real world.

 

Voting in the rearview mirror

Voting in the rearview mirror

July 6, 2026

Voting rights in America were a Republican thing for over 100 years, but the GOP made an about-face on the issue beginning with President Nixon’s southern strategy. The Republican regression has reached a fever pitch with the GOP push for passage of the preposterously-named SAVE America Act (Save Act). It would make it infinitely more difficult for women, minorities and military personnel to participate in our elections. Thankfully, the Save Act is not likely to become law, due to strong opposition from affected voter groups, including many traditional Republicans.

President Abraham Lincoln set the stage for extending voting rights to formerly enslaved African Americans in a speech delivered at the White House on April 11, 1865. Following Lincoln’s assassination, his Republican Party was able to obtain ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. It granted voting rights for the first time to Black males. Voting rights for females of any race were not on the table until ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. Again, Republicans were behind that effort.

Despite the Fifteenth Amendment, southern Democrats were able for almost 95 years to prevent Black Americans from fully exercising their voting rights. That was accomplished by intimidation, poll taxes, literacy tests, and a variety of other insidious stumbling blocks. Those tactics came to a halt with the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Act). The Act would not have passed without strong support from Republican Members of Congress.

I was working as a legislative assistant for former GOP Senator Len Jordan (R–ID) during the summer of 1965 and recall being proud of his support for the Act. Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D–MT) and Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R–IL) strongly pushed for the Act, overcoming fierce opposition from southern Democrats. Its passage made a dramatic change in the composition of Congress.

Civil rights opponents immediately geared up efforts to marginalize the effects of the Act. Perhaps the most important development was President Nixon’s adoption of his “southern strategy,” which sought to capture the support of white southern voters by appealing to racist themes. The strategy proved wildly successful, eventually turning southern segregationist Democrats into newly minted Republicans. In recent years, a number of western states, including Idaho, have followed suit.

Former Governor Phil Batt, who exemplified traditional Idaho Republicans, was a life-long supporter of civil rights until he passed on March 4, 2023. His successors, Dirk Kempthorne and Butch Otter, both respected the rights and voices of Idaho voters. Governor Brad Little, determined to keep his Trump endorsement, has bought into the MAGA narrative. Idaho’s entire Congressional delegation and Attorney General strongly support the Save Act, despite any credible evidence of voter fraud in our elections. They know better but are fearful of straying from the Trump agenda.

If passed, the Save Act would likely be struck down as a flagrant violation of the US Constitution, which gives states the power to control elections. If the MAGA-influenced Supreme Court should bow down to MAGA, the SAVE Act would seriously impact important voter groups. Those voters who have changed their names from that on their birth certificates, particularly married women, would have to dig up birth certificates, divorce decrees, passports, or a variety of other documents proving their identity and citizenship in order to vote.

Members of the military, particularly those overseas like the more than 50,000 currently located in the Middle East, would likely be unable to find documentation proving their citizenship. Many service personnel would find it nearly impossible to register and vote. Our military forces deserve better than this. After all, they are responsible for defending all of our freedoms. Their military identification should, in and of itself, be the key to allowing their vote and they should be allowed to send their ballots by mail, as has been the case for decades.

I’ve been registered to vote in Idaho since 1963 and have voted in every election since then. Between that time and 1973, when I physically moved back to Idaho from out-of-state school, military service and work in the Senate, I voted by mail. The 1968 election was particularly difficult because the election occurred when I was fighting communists for my government in South Vietnam. If the requirements of the Save Act had been in place at that time, there is no chance I could have reregistered and voted in the 1968 election. Even with present-day communications, it would be nearly impossible for today’s overseas military to gather the citizenship documents necessary to participate in elections.

Idaho’s Members of Congress and Attorney General Labrador do not have much regard for the voting problems the Save Act would heap on our military. None of them ever stepped forward to serve. Senator Risch lamely claims that he did not serve in Vietnam because he “had an ongoing ulcer and they didn’t want” him.

Quite frankly, the military was not very picky during the Vietnam buildup about who they allowed to serve. Practically anyone who could stand on two feet was fair game. Despite having broken both legs in a horrific auto accident, spent 14 weeks in the hospital with my left leg in traction and my right leg in a full cast and being unable to walk unaided for almost a year, the Army was happy to honor my request for Vietnam service.

Our elected officials should stand up and speak out in favor of voting rights and against the ill-named Save Act. If they can’t find the courage to do so, they should step aside.

Abraham Lincoln set the stage for expansion of voting rights to all US citizens.

 

Pay it forward in Ukraine

June 29, 2026

As Americans gear up to celebrate the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence, we must never forget those stirring words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The signers knew that full equality did not reign at the time, but the words gave inspiration and direction to future generations to accomplish that goal. We are still a work in progress.

King George III and Great Britain were highly incensed by the Declaration and were not about to acquiesce. They moved to put down the rebellion, increasing their forces and the ferocity of the violence as time went by. The Ken Burns six-episode series, recently aired on Public Television, gives a remarkable narration of the struggle. It is well worth watching during this time of celebration.

The Patriots were aware that they needed powerful allies for the revolution to succeed and sent Benjamin Franklin to Paris to enlist the French in our cause. The colonials had fared rather poorly in the early stages of the war. The French were reluctant to commit until it could be shown that we had a reasonable chance of winning. The Patriot victories at the two battles of Saratoga in the Fall of 1777 provided that showing.

The French officially entered the war early in 1778 and declared war on Great Britain later that year. France’s main contribution to victory was the fact that it was contesting the British in many areas across the globe, particularly the lucrative sugar-producing Caribbean islands. The cost of defending its wide-spread territory became too great for the British, causing them to lose enthusiasm for continuation of the American hostilities.

The Revolutionary War provides a powerful narrative. A feisty little wannabe nation tirelessly fighting to throw off the yoke of a powerful oppressor and willing to risk it all for freedom and self-determination. Just the right opening for a benevolent world power to step in and help out.

As it turns out, the United States had an opportunity to return the favor by coming to the aid of France in two world wars in the last century. Although the US has been involved in many conflicts, skirmishes and wars since our revolution, there has not been another one that quite fits the narrative of the Revolutionary War. Well, not until Russia’s genocidal war against Ukraine.

There is an interesting parallel between our revolution and the war that Russia’s dictator, Vladimir Putin, has been prosecuting against the Ukrainians. The old Soviet Union gained full control over Ukraine in 1920 and maintained a tight grip over the country until the Soviet Empire disintegrated in 1991.

Putin, a devoted Soviet, has done all in his power to reconstruct the Soviet Union, to include the subjugation of Ukraine. The Ukrainians, much like the American Patriots in 1776, are not willing to live under those oppressive conditions. When Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, much of the world believed that he would succeed. But the people of that pugnacious country have consistently demonstrated that they will risk everything for freedom and self-determination.

The United States initially responded by providing substantial military aid to the Ukrainians, but with nonsensical limitations on how and where powerful weapons could be used. As the war slogged on, America’s leadership changed hands, resulting in severe cutbacks in lethal aid. The US government even pushed the Ukrainians to cave to Russian demands to cede territory and take other needless actions that would endanger its ability to maintain its freedom and self-determination. Their President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, was told in the White House that he had no cards to play.

Zelenskyy and his Ukrainian Patriots were having none of it. They essentially channeled Patrick Henry’s historic words, “Give me liberty or give me death.” They have intensified their efforts, innovated new battlefield strategies, used cutting-edge technology to develop remarkable new weaponry, and started to turn the tide against a lumbering, exhausted Russian military. They have indeed shown that they have the will and staying power to eventually maintain their freedom.

Ukraine is the epitome of that feisty collection of American colonies, risking all to preserve their way of life and showing they have the desire and ability to prevail. Now is the time for the United States to pay it forward by providing Ukraine the resources and support it needs to follow in the footsteps of our great nation–the nation that will be celebrating its similar journey to freedom on this Fourth of July.

That being said, the ultimate answer as to whether we should provide substantial support to Ukraine is if it will serve the national security interests of the United States. The answer is a resounding “Yes.” Russia and China are the most significant threats to America’s national security. China is a powerhouse, which threatens to eclipse the United States, both economically and militarily, unless we wake up and take appropriate action to keep that from happening. But that is another story.

Russia is a declining nation, but with its vast nuclear arsenal and malign attitude toward the US and our NATO allies, it is the greater immediate threat. Ukraine is grinding down Putin’s conventional warfare capabilities every day on the battlefield. That is occurring to our great advantage, without any risk to the personnel of America and our allies. The least we can do for Ukraine is to provide the support necessary to achieve a suitable outcome to the war.

The members of Idaho’s Congressional delegation, with the exception of Rep. Russ Fulcher, have in past years acknowledged that we need to provide Ukraine the support it needs to survive. During the last year or so, they have been too frightened of political retaliation from the top of our government to do anything about it. Chief of the cowards is Senator Jim Risch, who knows what is at stake and should be shouting from the rooftops of Washington about the critical need to help that beleaguered nation. We can only hope that the members of our delegation will find their voices and do what needs to be done to keep the US and our NATO allies safe from the Russian threat. Or that voters will replace them with people who have the courage to do the job.

 

Ignoring the constitution

Ignoring the constitution

June 15, 2026

It was astounding to observe the uselessness of Idaho’s Congressional delegation during the first week of June. Rather than fulfilling their Constitutional duty to act as a check on unlawful presidential action, they simply sat on their hands. They had sworn to uphold the Constitution but now appear to be cowering behind their desks instead of standing up for the nation. They are nothing but worthless bootlickers.

There is no higher calling for members of Congress than keeping the nation safe. Yet, Senators Risch and Crapo voted to let a totally unqualified individual run America’s top intelligence agency. The position of Director of National Intelligence (DNI) was established after the 9-11 attacks to prevent dangerous intelligence gaps from happening again. The position demands someone with deep knowledge in protecting the country from dangerous actors. Bill Pulte, who Trump picked for the job, has no knowledge or experience in the field. He poses a serious risk to the country, but that does not seem to be a problem for Risch and Crapo.

Trump told the Wall Street Journal he wants to gut the DNI office. It could be because his previous DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, correctly reported that there was no intelligence supporting a war against Iran. The all-knowing, all-seeing president obviously knew she was wrong, even though subsequent developments prove otherwise. You don’t survive telling truth to power in the Trump era. Risch and Crapo have gotten that message.

Our esteemed Senators also know that bootlickers are not allowed to exercise their Constitutional power to control the nation’s purse strings in the Trump era. That would explain their vote to allow Trump to set up a $1.8 billion slush fund to hand out cash rewards to those who attacked the Capitol and beat the daylights out of policemen on January 6, 2021. They even trashed a Risch office.

In addition to dishing out cash to those who were criminally convicted of the Capitol attack, but then pardoned, Trump and his family will get sweeping protection from IRS audits. Trump has notoriously paid little to nothing in federal taxes for many years. It has been estimated that the tax audit amnesty could benefit Trump and his family up to a total of $100 million. That does not seem of concern to our Senators.

To take his mind off of the Iran War and the devastating effect it has wreaked upon farm states with the dramatic rise in diesel and fertilizer costs, Trump has obsessed over building projects. Nothing seems to be more important than his billion-dollar ballroom. Not wanting to disappoint their boss, Crapo and Risch voted to green light the project. They will likely support his $100 million proposal to build a triumphal arch smack dab in front of Arlington National Cemetery. Since neither Trump nor any members of our Congressional delegation served in the nation’s armed forces, they don’t understand the affront to those who died to keep the country safe.

Congressmen Russ Fulcher and Mike Simpson also demonstrated contempt for the Constitution during the week. After the Iran War had been going for about 94 days, without a hint of congressional approval, they both voted to let it proceed unchecked. Thank goodness, a slim majority had read the Constitution and learned that the warmaking power rests squarely upon Congress. The resolution directing Trump to stop the war passed on a 215-208 vote.

Unfortunately, Risch and Crapo will most likely vote in favor of continuing the war when the matter gets to the Senate. They have been meekly silent about the war, even though they serve on committees that have jurisdiction over war-related issues. Risch chairs the Foreign Relations Committee and is a member of the Intelligence Committee. Crapo chairs the Finance Committee and is a member of the Budget Committee.

The House finally approved legislation to help our ally, Ukraine, defend against Vladimir Putin’s genocidal war. The vote was 226-195 to send $1 billion in security and reconstruction aid and provide $8 billion in defense lending to the beleaguered nation. The bill also approved additional sanctions on Russia. Both Simpson and Fulcher voted against the legislation. Fulcher has consistently voted against helping Ukraine, failing to understand that it is a small price to pay for protecting America and our NATO allies from Russian aggression.

Senator Risch repeatedly advocated for strengthening our NATO ties and providing massive assistance to Ukraine, at least until Trump made it clear that such was not permitted in the GOP ranks. Since then, Risch has basically kept his mouth shut. I fear that both he and Crapo will vote against the bill.

Because our bootlicking delegation has made it clear that they have no interest in performing their Constitutional duties, voters should send them out to pasture.

 

The path for Iran

June 8, 2026

President George W. Bush famously branded Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the “Axis of Evil” during his 2002 inaugural address. He claimed the three rogue nations were developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that would be used to carry out terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies. Bush vowed to use our military to stop that from happening.

When Bush followed through with his ill-advised war against Iraq, which did not actually have any WMD, it sent a resounding shockwave through the other two regimes. Both obviously concluded that a working atomic weapon was essential to their survival. As one North Korean official put it: “We are a part of the axis of evil….If we disarm ourselves because of U.S. pressure, then we will…be beaten to death.”

The North Koreans, already developing a nuclear deterrent with the help of Russian scientists, moved aggressively ahead with their program after the fall of Iraq’s dictator. They soon had a variety of nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them. Donald Trump told the United Nations in November 2017 that he would “totally destroy” North Korea if it did not halt its nuclear program. Yet, he failed to carry through with that and other threats. Instead, he began a love affair with its vicious dictator, Kim Jong Un.

The Iranian regime was watching and learning. It had entered into a comprehensive nuclear agreement with the Obama Administration in July 2015 that effectively blocked its path to a nuclear weapon. However, Trump abrogated the agreement in his first term, even though the Iranians were certified by inspectors to be in compliance with its requirements. The Iranians obviously concluded that the only way to preserve their cruel regime was to resume their quest for a nuclear weapon.

That brings us to the present day. Trump began his war against Iran on February 28, claiming it was in the final stages of developing a nuclear device. He said that the device could be used against Israel or other US allies. Let’s just stop right there. US intelligence did not and does not support those claims. Even if Iran could have enriched sufficient fissile material to weapons grade, it would have taken many months to actually weaponize it. Even then, Iran’s desire to obtain such a weapon was totally for defensive purposes–to ward off an attack by the United States.

It would be insane for Iran to attack another country with a nuclear weapon, if it actually possessed one. It would be one and done. The regime would be incinerated in response and that would be that. The whole point of seeking to have a bomb is to ensure the preservation of the country’s rulers. It might be different for a stateless terrorist organization, but a country with an established government is not likely to choose suicide.

The war has opened the eyes of Iran’s rulers to a weapon of self preservation more powerful than a nuclear device. It has always been a theoretical possibility that being able to choke off about 20% of the world’s petroleum supply would cause world wide agony. Trump has managed to demonstrate to Iran’s leaders the tremendous pain they can inflict on the US and other nations by simply closing off the Strait of Hormuz. There is practically nothing Trump can do, short of sending in legions of ground troops to secure a wide swath along Iran’s shoreline, to open the way for passage of oil tankers.

Iran is a ruthless regime that cares little about the welfare of its citizens. It can hold out much longer than the Trump regime. It is obvious that Trump is caught in a dilemma of his own rash making. If he does not come out with some sort of deal better than before his shots were fired, he will suffer a great loss of face. The Iranians know they have him over the barrel. The same realization has dawned upon Trump’s supporters.

With every passing day, the high cost of petroleum products creates economic havoc around the world, as well as political pain for Trump’s compliant GOP Congress. Iran now has a sixty-day ceasefire that will not likely end with a deal Trump can live with politically. The Iranians can merely feint constructive negotiations and extend the talks further down the road. Trump dares not resume his bombing campaign because its results will not be any more positive than before and the economic pain suffered in the US, along with rising inflation, will only get worse. The Iranians are fully aware that they are in control. The Iranian regime no longer needs a nuclear deterrent. Trump has shown it a much more effective means of ensuring its survival.

 

Hope for better days

June 1, 2026

Reading the tea leaves of GOP primary elections in Idaho and across the country should give far-right MAGA warriors the heebie-jeebies. It is a near certainty that Donald Trump’s MAGA puppets will lose the US House and quite likely the Senate. While Idaho’s primary results were slightly in favor of the State’s traditional, problem-solving Republicans, the outcome will be decidedly in their favor by November. The 2027 Legislature will have a more moderate mix of Republicans and Democrats than in 2026. There will likely be surprises in some statewide races–Governor, US Senate and Attorney General.

North Idaho was a problem for reasonable Republicans. Two excellent legislators in District 1, Sen. Jim Woodward and Rep. Mark Sauter, lost to MAGA warriors who waged extremely nasty campaigns. Rep. Elaine Price, an extremist legislator in District 4, turned away a spirited challenge by Christa Hazel, who was viciously attacked by the forces of Kootenai County GOP’s Brent Regan. Regan is Chair of the County GOP and also serves as Chair of the ill-named Idaho Freedom Foundation, which is about as enlightened as Genghis Khan’s war council. Hazel is a remarkable person who got 40.5% of the vote with a campaign based on real issues.

The good news is that Regan lost his race for precinct committeeman and there is a possibility that the traditional, reasonable North Idaho Republicans will take over the official GOP central committee. This could be a turnabout from the notoriously extreme GOP machine in the County. Regan’s allies lost the Bonneville County GOP committee in the 2024 primary. The MAGA crowd will lose their grip on other counties in 2028.

There was not much change in the election results between GOP extremists and traditional Republicans in the western side of the state from Moscow to the Treasure Valley. However, the extremists lost big in the Magic Valley. Senators Glenneda Zuiderveld and Josh Kohl, two of the most extreme legislators, lost by large margins. The reasonable Republicans on the Eastern side of the state easily shrugged off challenges from culture warriors.

The atmosphere for Idaho’s GOP extremists will become more troubled with each passing week as voters become increasingly aware of the consequences of the mindless budget cutting that extremists committed against important state programs. The fallout from national MAGA policies, including tariffs, the Iran War, inflation, and the pervasive grift, will erode away the support for extremists everywhere. The farm community will be ready for a change because of rising prices for fertilizer, diesel, machinery and about everything else necessary for making a living on the farm–all a result of blundering MAGA policies.

Governor Little is headed into troubled waters in November. His full-throated embrace of the MAGA program has turned off reasonable voters and failed to gain support from the extremists. He only received 59% of the vote in the primary. He has two viable challengers in the general election–John Stegner, who is running as an Independent, and Terri Pickens on the Democratic ticket. If both are on the ticket in November, Little will get a third term. If the one with the least support withdraws in a timely fashion, Idaho can have a more reasonable Governor.

Todd Achilles is likely to win his Independent campaign against our octogenarian Senator Jim Risch. The Senator is too self-entitled to hold public town halls with the common people. He has meekly surrendered the Constitutional power of Congress to set budgets and wage war. He claims credit for things he has opposed. Risch was front and center to bask in the glory of Micron’s $15 billion groundbreaking even though he voted against the CHIPS bill that made it possible. On the other hand, Achilles is a regular guy, a military veteran and a successful businessman. As an Independent, he’ll be able to work with both sides of the aisle to get things done for Idaho.

Lori Hickman is an accomplished lawyer, who will stand up for the rule of law as Idaho’s Attorney General. The current Attorney General gives priority to his extreme politics.

Raul Labrador endorsed a number of his culture war soulmates in the primary, including five losers–Senators Zuiderveld and Kohl, Rep. David Leavitt, and challengers running against Senators Jim Guthrie and Ben Fuhriman. His political instincts are as faulty as his lawyering. Hickman has pledged to keep politics out of the office and treat it like a real law office–giving honest, straight-forward legal advice and assistance that complies with the Constitution and laws of Idaho.

An issue that favors both Achilles and Hickman is the sale of federal lands to private interests. Both Risch and Labrador are vulnerable on the issue. Risch voted against a 2025 Senate budget amendment that would have explicitly prohibited the sale or transfer of public lands to offset the federal deficit. When it appeared this year that sale of those lands was a hot button issue in Idaho, he tried desperately to backtrack. Yet, he voted to confirm a land sale proponent as director of the Bureau of Land Management. Achilles has strongly opposed any form of disposition of public lands. Likewise, Hickman advocates keeping “public lands in public hands.” That sharply contrasts with Labrador’s efforts to force the transfer of Idaho’s federal lands to the state for disposal. He even joined a Utah suit in the US Supreme Court to accomplish that goal. The suit was dismissed but it may come back to haunt him.

I suspect the GOP MAGA warriors will become increasingly alarmed by the electoral landscape as November approaches. By then, it will be too late to backtrack on their extremist agendas. They won’t be missed.

 

Election day incoming fire

May 25, 2026

A Twin Falls Vietnam Veteran buddy was awakened by a telephone call at 4:49 in the morning on this primary election day. Thinking it might be a family emergency, he picked up just as a message was being recorded in voicemail. The recorded part of the message told him:

"This is Attorney General Raul Labrador. I’m fighting every day to keep Idaho safe, free and conservative, and I need the right people in the Legislature standing with me to do it. That’s why I’m urging you to vote for Glenneda Zuiderveld and Rep….”

My buddy did not recall any others that Labrador was boosting. It was a bit early in the morning to recall all of the details of the call. Labrador has publicly supported his like-minded friends in the Magic Valley branch of the notorious Gang of Eight—Rep. Clint Hostetler, Rep. David Leavitt, as well as Sen. Josh Kohl and Sen. Zuiderveld. They, like Labrador, are on the very farthest-right fringe of the GOP.

It is not entirely clear how the early-morning phone calls will boost the chances of the Gang of Eight candidates. Some, like my Vietnam buddy, may consider them as rather obnoxious and inconsiderate. An old artillery guy like me would classify them as harassing fire. We used to send out rounds at all hours of the night to harass the North Vietnamese forces. I’m sure they did not appreciate it any more than Magic Valley voters would.

The incumbents Labrador is supporting have much to be concerned about. Their hostility against the agricultural industry, particularly the dairymen, has put them in an electoral bind. The Gang of Eighters can’t seem to comprehend that the dairies, the farmers who grow their feed, the yogurt plant and the cheese factories are the economic engine of the Magic Valley. Instead of hampering the economic fortune of their voters and focusing their energy on meaningless culture war issues, Labrador’s friends have jeopardized their chances of retaining their offices. Annoying early morning phone calls will probably not enhance their chances.

This is an important election and every eligible voter should turn out to support reasonable, problem-solving candidates to replace the culture warriors who don’t seem to give a whit about the real concerns of their constituents.