MAMAW’S PORCH N POLITICS

Well, y’all, apparently we have reached the point in American politics where a midterm convention can include a president leading thousands of people in a pledge that begins not with allegiance to the United States, not with the Constitution, and not even with the Republican Party — but with praise for Donald Trump.

At the Republican midterm convention in Dallas, Trump instructed the audience to raise their right hands and repeat after him.

The pledge began with Trump describing himself as the “greatest president in the history of the United States.” He then instructed the crowd to promise to bring their families and friends to vote and, in one of the strangest moments of the convention, had them repeat his words about trying to “cheat like hell.” Trump has repeatedly alleged widespread Democratic election cheating without substantiating those claims.

Now Mamaw has a question.

When did an American political convention start looking like a loyalty ceremony to one man?

The presidency is an office. Congress is an institution. The Constitution is the law governing both.

No elected official is supposed to be the object of the system itself.

Trump also told supporters that if they did not vote, they would “go to hell,” and urged them to “pretend I’m on the ticket,” saying that, in a sense, he was.

Then came the money.

Trump promised a $5,000 “Trump Dividend” for American adults if Republicans retain control of Congress. The proposal has not been enacted, its funding mechanism remains unresolved, and Speaker Mike Johnson has acknowledged that congressional approval would be necessary. Estimates put the potential cost above $1 trillion.

So the voters heard a remarkable combination:

Vote Republican and Trump says you could get $5,000.

Don’t vote and Trump says you could go to hell.

And please raise your right hand while we discuss it.

Mamaw has attended church suppers with less pressure.

While the convention was making headlines, something far less theatrical — and potentially far more consequential — was happening in the federal courts.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s position that broad categories of immigrants could be subjected to mandatory detention without bond hearings. The ruling is part of a wider legal fight: nine federal appeals courts have rejected the administration's interpretation while two have upheld it, making eventual Supreme Court review increasingly possible.

What caught Mamaw’s attention was the historical comparison made by the court.

The majority invoked the detention of Japanese Americans during World War II while discussing the danger of allowing the government to deprive enormous numbers of people of liberty without individualized review.

That comparison should make Americans uncomfortable.

Due process isn't supposed to be a prize the government hands out to people it likes.

It is a constitutional restraint on government power.

You can support stronger immigration enforcement and still ask a fundamental American question:

How much power should the government possess to imprison a person without giving that individual a meaningful opportunity to challenge the detention?

That question does not disappear because immigration is politically contentious.

In fact, that is exactly when constitutional protections matter most.

On the 25th anniversary of September 11, Trump spoke at the Pentagon.

There are places and moments in American life that carry a weight beyond ordinary politics. The Pentagon on September 11 is one of them.

Trump honored the victims, military personnel and first responders, but he also connected the post-9/11 struggle against terrorism with today's conflict involving Iran. He praised service members currently working to ensure Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.

Mamaw believes September 11 commemorations should first belong to the dead, the survivors, the families and the Americans who answered their country's call afterward.

The policy debate over Iran deserves its own scrutiny: What are the objectives? What is the legal authority? What constitutes victory? What will it cost? What is Congress's role?

Those are questions worthy of Congress and the American public.

September 11 should never become shorthand that prevents Americans from asking them.

There is another story developing ahead of November, and it may ultimately matter more than all the convention theatrics.

House Democrats are preparing extensive oversight plans should they win control of the House.

Reporting indicates that Democratic leaders are considering hearings, subpoenas and document demands rather than immediately making another Trump impeachment their central strategy.

And one person positioned near the center of that effort is Rep. Jamie Raskin, currently the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

Raskin and Judiciary Democrats have already pursued investigations and legislation involving presidential pardons, taxpayer payments, the Epstein files, foreign influence and the Emoluments Clauses. He has said that a Democratic House majority would have additional powers to conduct hearings, take depositions and compel documents and testimony through subpoenas.

Democratic oversight plans reported so far include scrutiny of possible presidential and family financial conflicts, government contracts and companies connected to Trump's political or business orbit, immigration enforcement, Justice Department actions and the handling of Epstein-related records.

Raskin has separately launched an inquiry concerning information in Epstein records suggesting possible contacts involving foreign governments, and House Judiciary Democrats have been investigating financial and constitutional questions surrounding Trump's family and businesses.

The Trump administration and its allies dispute many of Democrats' allegations and characterize the planned investigations as partisan. Some companies targeted by Democratic inquiries have also challenged their premises.

And that is precisely why congressional investigations matter.

Investigations are supposed to establish facts.

Get the documents.

Put witnesses under oath.

Follow the money.

Give the public the evidence.

And let Americans decide what it means.

Mamaw doesn't want a Congress that spends every waking minute staring backward.

If Democrats win congressional majorities, they will also have to decide what they intend to legislate.

So here is Mamaw's proposed First 100 Days discussion list.

Voting rights. Congress should debate nationwide protections for ballot access and election administration.

Campaign-finance reform. Citizens United v. FEC is a Supreme Court decision, so Congress cannot simply “repeal Citizens United” with an ordinary statute. But lawmakers can pursue disclosure requirements, public-financing reforms and other campaign-finance legislation within constitutional limits.

PAC and dark-money transparency. Americans should be able to understand who is spending enormous sums attempting to influence their government.

Congressional term limits. This raises serious constitutional questions and would likely require a constitutional amendment rather than an ordinary federal law.

Supreme Court and federal judicial ethics. Congress can debate stronger disclosure, recusal and ethics requirements while respecting the constitutional independence of the judiciary.

Age or tenure limits for Supreme Court justices. Because Article III provides federal judges tenure during “good Behaviour,” imposing mandatory age limits would raise major constitutional issues and could require an amendment.

Bodily autonomy. Congress can debate federal statutory protections concerning reproductive and other medical decisions, subject to the constitutional boundaries ultimately determined by the courts.

Ban individual stock trading by senior federal officials. Members of Congress, senior executive officials and others exercising public power should face clear rules designed to prevent public office from becoming an investment opportunity.

Clarify the 25th Amendment. Congress can examine the unresolved statutory questions surrounding the body contemplated by Section 4 of the amendment and whether additional implementing legislation is appropriate.

And finally:

Restore Congress's power of the purse.

Article I gives Congress the power to appropriate federal money. The executive branch administers those appropriations, but presidents should not be able to treat congressionally appropriated money as a personal checking account.

Raskin and other Democrats have already introduced the Protecting Our Democracy Act, which includes provisions addressing presidential profiteering, transparency, implementation of congressional spending laws, whistleblower protections, election safeguards and payments connected with presidential pardons.

Those ideas deserve hearings, debate and votes.

Republicans should offer their alternatives.

Then put everybody's name on the board.

That is the lesson Mamaw keeps coming back to.

Presidents come and go.

Parties win and lose.

Congress changes hands.

Supreme Court majorities change.

But the Constitution has to survive whichever individual happens to occupy the Oval Office.

That is why the image from Dallas matters.

Thousands of Americans with their right hands raised while a president dictates a pledge praising him should provoke a broader discussion about what political loyalty means in a constitutional republic.

Americans are free to love Donald Trump.

They are free to despise Donald Trump.

They are free to vote Republican, Democratic, independent or none of the above.

But the government itself belongs to none of them.

It belongs to the people.

So Mamaw's suggestion for the next Congress — whichever party controls it — is pretty simple:

Stop governing by personality.

Start governing by law.

Use oversight.

Demand records.

Protect due process.

Write legislation.

Make presidents obey appropriations passed by Congress.

Strengthen ethics rules.

Protect elections.

And remember something every elected official should have learned before taking the oath of office:

Your oath isn't to Donald Trump.

It isn't to Jamie Raskin.

It isn't to the Republican Party.

It isn't to the Democratic Party.

It is to the Constitution of the United States.

And unlike a political convention, the Constitution doesn't need an applause line.

— Mamaw

Pull up a chair, pour yourself something strong enough to get through another day in American politics, and welcome back to Mamaw’s Porch n Politics.

Today was Conniption Thursday, and apparently we have reached the portion of the American political program where some folks have finally figured out something Mamaw has been saying for quite a while:

You do not have to become a Democrat to decide you've had enough of Donald Trump.

You don't have to change parties.

You don't have to put a Democratic bumper sticker on your pickup truck.

You don't have to announce anything to your neighbors.

And you certainly don't have to ask Taco's permission.

You can simply walk into that voting booth and decide:

Nope. Not this time.

And THAT may become one of the most important stories of the midterm election.

There are Republicans who are not going to vote for a Democrat.

Fine.

But there are also Republicans who may look at certain MAGA candidates and discover they simply cannot bring themselves to vote for them anymore.

And here's the part Taco isn't going to like:

They don't have to.

You are not required to vote in every race on your ballot.

A voter can show up, vote in some races, and leave another race blank.

Think about what that could mean.

The number of people who turn out to vote could be considerably larger than the number of votes actually cast in a particular race.

And somewhere, Taco will be staring at those numbers trying to figure out where all his votes went.

Mamaw will save him some time.

Some of them may have stayed home.

And some of them may have walked right into the voting booth and decided:

I just can't vote for this anymore.

That's not a prediction of what every Republican will do. It's something Democrats ought to understand is possible—and something Republicans ought to think seriously about.

Now, before anybody gets comfortable, let Mamaw make something perfectly clear.

Republicans staying home will not save democracy.

Democrats posting memes will not save democracy.

Complaining on Facebook will not save democracy.

And yelling at your television—while occasionally therapeutic—does not count as voter turnout.

We have to vote.

I want Democrats to vote for Democrats.

I want people working for candidates now—not three days before Election Day when everybody suddenly discovers democracy has a deadline.

Find the candidates in your state.

Learn who they are.

Talk about them.

Volunteer.

Donate if you can.

Put up a sign.

Make phone calls.

Knock on doors.

And for heaven's sake, VOTE.

Because elections aren't won by the people who are the angriest.

They're won by the people who actually fill out the ballot.

One of the places Mamaw has her eye on is South Carolina.

There are people working hard there, including Democrats trying to challenge a political establishment that has spent years behaving as though certain offices belong to Republicans by inheritance.

They don't.

No Senate seat belongs to Tim Scott.

No Senate seat belongs to Lindsey Graham.

No governor's office belongs permanently to one political party.

Those offices belong to the people.

And if voters decide they want somebody else sitting in them, there isn't a darn thing the current occupant can do about it.

That is one of the beautiful things about elections—provided we actually participate in them.

So South Carolina, work those races.

Talk about your candidates.

Make people know their names long before Election Day.

And don't let anybody tell you a state is "unflippable."

Political maps are not carved into granite.

They change because people change them.

I said it during the show and I'll say it again:

I think Texas could surprise people.

Do I have a crystal ball hidden somewhere on the porch?

No.

If I did, I probably wouldn't be wasting it on politics. I'd be picking Powerball numbers and buying a porch with an ocean view.

But politics changes when demographics change, populations move, younger voters enter the electorate, and longtime voters finally decide they have reached their limit.

And there is another group nobody should underestimate:

Republicans who are tired.

Not Democrats.

Not progressives.

Republicans.

People who may disagree with Democrats on plenty of things but are exhausted by the chaos, the personality cult, the endless grievances, and the demand that loyalty to one man come before practically everything else.

Some may vote Democratic.

Some may stay home.

Some may vote Republican down the ballot and simply skip one race.

Every one of those possibilities matters.

What struck Mamaw again today is just how much of modern MAGA politics has stopped being about conservative policy and become a test of personal loyalty.

Not loyalty to the Constitution.

Not loyalty to the country.

Not even loyalty to the Republican Party.

Loyalty to Donald Trump.

Smile big enough.

Clap hard enough.

Tell him he's wonderful.

Tell him he's brilliant.

Tell him nobody has ever been treated so unfairly in the entire recorded history of mankind.

And whatever you do, don't be the person standing nearby when somebody points out the emperor might be missing a few articles of clothing.

That's not governing.

That's an "I Love Me" convention.

And sooner or later, voters get tired of being supporting actors in somebody else's reality show.

Stop assuming Texas is red.

Stop assuming South Carolina is red.

Stop assuming Pennsylvania will go one way or another.

Stop assuming somebody else will vote.

Stop assuming your neighbor has checked their registration.

Stop assuming everybody understands what is at stake.

And please stop assuming elections take care of themselves.

They don't.

People take care of them.

The midterms aren't some abstract political horse race being conducted for cable-news entertainment.

The people elected will vote on budgets, courts, veterans, healthcare, education, reproductive rights, Social Security, Medicare, national security, oversight and a thousand other things that eventually land right at your kitchen table.

That's why Mamaw keeps talking about elections.

Not because politics is a sport.

Because government matters.

Between now and Election Day, find somebody who doesn't normally vote.

Don't lecture them.

Don't insult them.

Don't tell them they're stupid because they voted differently from you ten years ago.

Talk to them.

Ask them what matters to them.

Then help them figure out who is actually running.

And if somebody tells you they cannot bring themselves to vote for the MAGA candidate but they also cannot bring themselves to vote for a Democrat?

Remind them of something simple:

Nobody owns their vote.

Not Donald Trump.

Not the Republican Party.

Not the Democratic Party.

Not Mamaw.

Their ballot belongs to them.

But Mamaw sure hopes they'll use it.

Because democracy doesn't require us to agree.

It requires us to participate.

And if Taco discovers on election night that thousands upon thousands of Americans showed up to vote but somehow couldn't bring themselves to put a check beside his chosen candidates?

Well...

Mamaw might have to pour another cup of coffee, pull her chair a little closer to the television and watch that particular conniption for herself.

Until next time—

Pull up a chair. Bring your coffee. Bring your common sense. And for heaven's sake, bring your voter registration card.

— Mamaw

Today on Wednesday Random Thoughts, I bounced around a little.

Meat inspection.

Tankers in the Strait of Hormuz.

Gas and diesel prices.

Trump's ballroom.

Trump's great big I Love Me midterm convention.

And finally, Arlington National Cemetery and an arch nobody asked for.

At first glance, these things don't seem connected.

They are.

The connecting thread is a presidency increasingly built around one man's impulses, one man's image and one man's desire to leave his name—or at least his unmistakable fingerprints—on everything he touches.

And Mamaw has had about enough.

First, About That Meat

On September 4, Trump signed an executive order supposedly designed to help American ranchers and increase competition in meat processing.

There are parts of that goal worth discussing. Small ranchers absolutely can get squeezed by giant processors.

But buried in all that rancher-friendly language is an instruction to USDA to “modernize” meat inspection and remove inspection reporting requirements and what the administration calls “overly prescriptive requirements” that supposedly don't advance essential food safety.

Well.

Mamaw has a question.

Who gets to decide which food-safety requirement is unnecessary?

Because when somebody in Washington tells me they're going to make meat processing cheaper by eliminating requirements, I don't immediately reach for my steak knife and celebrate.

I reach for my reading glasses.

Food inspection isn't glamorous. Nobody holds a parade for an inspector who catches a sanitation problem before contaminated hamburger reaches somebody's kitchen.

That's precisely the point.

Government sometimes works best when you never know what it prevented.

Cut paperwork that truly serves no purpose? Fine.

Help small processors compete? Absolutely.

But don't sell reduced oversight as “modernization” and expect Americans not to ask exactly what is being eliminated.

Mamaw would prefer her hamburger inspected rather than politically liberated.

Then We Have the Strait of Hormuz

Remember all that talk about strength?

We're getting a lesson in what happens when military escalation meets an energy chokepoint.

The United States sank five Iranian oil tankers Wednesday. Iran retaliated against shipping. Brent crude climbed above $100 a barrel, while disruptions through the Strait of Hormuz continue to squeeze energy supplies.

And eventually that bill finds its way to you.

At the gas pump.

In diesel prices.

In trucking costs.

In groceries.

In practically everything that has to travel from Point A to Point B.

Wars don't stay conveniently tucked inside television screens.

Neither do attacks on oil infrastructure and shipping.

They arrive at your neighborhood gas station with numbers spinning upward on the sign.

Maybe before politicians start blowing things up around one of the world's most important energy corridors, somebody should remember that ordinary Americans are the ones who eventually get handed the receipt.

Meanwhile, Back at the Ballroom…

While Americans worry about prices and the country is engaged in a widening conflict with Iran, Donald Trump remains fascinated with his construction projects.

Especially that ballroom.

That enormous White House ballroom has become almost a character in this administration.

Trump talks about it.

Trump tours it.

Trump shows off renderings.

Trump discusses its construction.

The Supreme Court recently allowed above-ground construction to continue while litigation proceeds.

Apparently governing the United States wasn't enough.

He needed a building project.

There is something almost surreal about watching a president deal with war, inflation, international instability and a midterm election while remaining intensely interested in granite, gold, ballrooms and monuments.

America doesn't need Versailles-on-the-Potomac.

We need competent government.

Welcome to the “I Love Me” Midterm Convention

And now Republicans are gathered in Dallas for what Mamaw has officially named:

THE DONALD J. TRUMP “I LOVE ME” MIDTERM CONVENTION.

Technically, it's a Republican midterm convention.

You could have fooled me.

Trump is everywhere.

He's the centerpiece.

He's giving keynote speeches.

The midterms apparently aren't simply about electing members of Congress anymore.

They're another episode of The Donald Trump Show.

There is something important about that.

Midterm elections are supposed to be about representatives and senators answering to the people who elect them.

Congress is an independent branch of government.

It isn't supposed to be the president's backup band.

Republican candidates might want to remember that before the entire ballot becomes one enormous referendum on Donald Trump.

And Then There Is Arlington

This is where Mamaw stopped laughing.

Because some things aren't funny.

Arlington National Cemetery is sacred ground.

Not metaphorically.

Not politically.

Sacred.

More than 400,000 service members, veterans and eligible family members rest there.

And the landscape leading to Arlington wasn't thrown together because somebody thought it would look pretty on a postcard.

The great monumental plan for Washington grew out of the McMillan Commission of 1901, whose members included architect Daniel Burnham, architect Charles McKim, landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., and sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens.

Their vision deliberately connected the Lincoln Memorial, the Potomac, Arlington Memorial Bridge and Arlington.

McKim, Mead & White later designed the Memorial Avenue corridor.

That visual relationship has meaning.

The National Park Service explains that Arlington Memorial Bridge physically and symbolically connects the Lincoln Memorial with Arlington House and represents the reunification of North and South after the Civil War.

Think about that.

Lincoln.

The Union.

The Potomac.

Arlington.

The dead.

Reconciliation.

Architecture telling American history without saying a word.

And now Donald Trump wants to put a 250-foot triumphal arch into that historic landscape.

A monument promoted as honoring veterans that critics—including veterans challenging the project in court—argue would interfere with the historic sightline.

No.

Just no.

Arlington Doesn't Need Trump's Help

This is what I desperately wish somebody would explain to Donald Trump:

Not everything needs to be about you.

Arlington doesn't need more gold.

It doesn't need a Trump-sized monument.

It doesn't need a 250-foot exclamation point.

It doesn't need a president trying to manufacture grandeur.

It already has grandeur.

Walk those rows.

Read those stones.

Watch a family receive a folded flag.

Listen when Taps is played.

Then tell me Arlington needs a giant arch to make it more meaningful.

It doesn't.

The power of Arlington is its restraint.

Its uniform white stones don't scream, Look at me.

They quietly say:

Remember them.

That is the difference.

You Don't Get to Manufacture Heroism

Trump loves the imagery of military power.

He loves generals.

Parades.

Monuments.

Flags.

Gold.

Big things.

Things that look powerful.

And now, late in his political life, he seems determined to build physical monuments that will tell future generations how important Donald Trump believed Donald Trump was.

But heroism isn't something you pour out of concrete.

You can't gild it.

You can't put your name on it.

And you certainly can't manufacture it by planting a giant triumphal arch between Lincoln and Arlington.

The heroes are already there.

They're beneath those white stones.

Some were barely old enough to shave.

Some left husbands.

Some left wives.

Some left babies.

Some came home carrying wounds nobody else could see.

And some lived long lives before finally being laid beside the people with whom they once served.

They don't need Donald Trump to make their resting place impressive.

They made it sacred.

Mamaw's Final Random Thought

Maybe that's what bothered me most today.

Whether we're talking about food inspections, tankers in Hormuz, an enormous ballroom, a midterm convention built around one personality, or a massive arch beside Arlington, the question underneath all of it is the same:

Who is government supposed to serve?

The rancher?

The consumer?

The soldier?

The veteran?

The taxpayer?

The family standing beside a grave at Arlington?

Or the ego of the man occupying the Oval Office?

Donald Trump wants to look like a hero.

But heroes don't need to build monuments to themselves.

And strong leaders don't need every building, convention, military spectacle and skyline to remind us who's in charge.

Trump's proposed arch doesn't make Arlington more majestic.

Arlington makes the arch look petty.

Leave the sightline alone.

Leave the history alone.

And for God's sake—

leave Arlington alone.

— Mamaw

Well, pull up a chair and refill that coffee, because Mamaw covered enough territory today to require snacks and possibly a map.

We started somewhere very different from Washington politics—with a story I wrote and wanted to share.

And then we wandered into Washington.

Lord help us.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Pentagon has issued new clinical guidance involving hormone screening for service members.

Under the guidelines, men age 30 and older are to receive testosterone testing. For female service members, the guidance addresses evaluations involving fatigue, hormonal imbalance and menstrual irregularities.

Reuters reports that some medical professionals have questioned the scientific basis for broad testing and warned about unnecessary testing or treatment.

Now, Mamaw had a somewhat less clinical reaction:

NUNYA.

As in NUNYA BUSINESS.

There are legitimate questions about military health and readiness. There are also legitimate questions about medical privacy and whether every biological function of a woman wearing the uniform needs to become somebody else's policy discussion.

Women have been serving this country for generations.

Somehow they have managed menstruation, hormones, deployments, careers, families and military service without Mamaw needing a monthly Pentagon status report.

Imagine that.

President Trump continues pushing major architectural projects in Washington, including the enormous White House ballroom project and a proposed monumental arch.

These aren't little landscaping projects.

The ballroom project alone has become the subject of legal, financial, historical-preservation and political fights.

And Mamaw keeps coming back to one question:

With everything happening in this country and around the world, how did BALLROOM become such a prominent word in American political conversation?

We're dealing with military operations overseas, trade disputes, economic questions and Americans trying to figure out what their grocery bill is going to look like next week.

And somehow we're discussing arches and ballrooms.

Washington has always been weird.

Apparently it has decided to become architecturally weird, too.

This part wasn't funny.

President Trump was recently asked about the continuing U.S. conflict with Iran.

Eighteen American service members have been killed.

Trump defended Vice President JD Vance's contention that the situation shouldn't necessarily be called a war and described it instead as a “military conflict.”

Then he called it “small potatoes.”

Trump's argument was that the number of American deaths was comparatively small when measured against wars such as Vietnam.

Mamaw didn't hear statistics.

Mamaw heard:

18 American service members.

Eighteen families.

Eighteen empty chairs.

Eighteen people who put on the uniform of the United States of America.

Whether politicians call what's happening a war, a conflict, an operation or something dreamed up by a communications department doesn't change the fact that American military personnel have died.

And that was where Mamaw's temper showed up today.

You can debate foreign policy.

You can debate military strategy.

You can debate whether America should have become involved in the first place.

But the people wearing the uniform deserve to be discussed with respect.

Every single one of them.

Fortunately, American politics rarely allows Mamaw to remain angry without providing something completely bizarre five minutes later.

While discussing trade with Mexico, Trump argued that America could potentially benefit by simply refusing to trade with certain countries.

Then came his list of things Mexico has that America might want:

“Hot tamales? Tomatoes? A couple of things?”

And Mamaw nearly lost it.

Now, whether he meant actual tamales or the cinnamon candy Hot Tamales, the mental picture had already formed.

Apparently the international trade system has been reduced to:

America: We have oil!

Mexico: We have tamales!

Mamaw: Somebody please find an economist.

Trade between the United States and Mexico involves an enormous range of agricultural products, manufactured goods, vehicles, machinery, electronics and interconnected supply chains.

So perhaps international economics requires slightly more explanation than:

But what about the Hot Tamales?

Then again, I'm starting to think Hot Tamales may be the least confusing part of Washington.

Yes.

That Sun Tzu.

The Art of War.

Because after discussing Iran, military leadership, trade wars and Washington's latest adventures, Mamaw figured we might as well consult somebody who's been talking about strategy for roughly 2,500 years.

Sun Tzu's central lessons repeatedly emphasize planning, understanding circumstances, knowing one's opponent and avoiding costly conflict when objectives can be achieved another way.

And maybe that's the larger question underneath everything Mamaw talked about today.

What exactly is the strategy?

Not the slogan.

Not the press conference.

Not the architecture.

Not the social-media clip.

The strategy.

Because presidents come and go.

Political parties win and lose.

Ballrooms get built.

Arches rise and fall.

Trade policies change.

But the consequences of decisions made in Washington land on ordinary Americans—and sometimes on the men and women wearing America's uniform.

Those consequences aren't “small potatoes.”

They never were.

— Mamaw

Pull up a chair. Bring your coffee. We may not agree on everything, but we're going to talk about it.

They were 18, serving in Vietnam, and falling in love when war suddenly tore them apart. Farmer was injured and sent home without a goodbye, leaving Sniper searching for the young soldier she loved.

Nearly 60 years, two separate lives, marriages, families, careers and grandchildren later, Farmer went looking for Sniper again.

And he found her.

Some love stories end. Some simply refuse to.

#VietnamLoveStory #VietnamWar #VietnamVeterans #MilitaryLoveStory #VeteranStories #MilitaryStories #Veterans #PodcastStorytelling #StorytellingPodcast

Well, grab your coffee, because apparently America has decided that normal is no longer on the menu.

We have 163 missing children recovered, millions of Epstein-related files reportedly still withheld, questionable Argentine beef making the social-media rounds, and a $400 million White House ballroom moving forward while Congress apparently searches the Capitol couch cushions for its constitutional authority.

So, you know—just another week in the “Golden Age of America.”

163 Missing Children Recovered in Florida

Let’s start with some genuinely good news.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced that 163 missing children, ranging from 2 months to 17 years old, were recovered through Operation Statewide Shield, described as the largest operation of its kind in Florida history.

The five-day operation involved multiple agencies and recoveries across Florida, other states, Puerto Rico and several foreign countries. The children were taken to specialized locations where they could receive medical care, social services and child-welfare support.

Three people were arrested in connection with separate cases, while other investigations remain open.

And THAT is the part that matters: 163 children were found.

Now comes my cynical Mamaw question:

Does anybody seriously believe three people tell the whole story?

Because I don’t.

And before we start polishing anybody’s halo, I’d also like the press to keep asking questions about Florida government, money and accountability. Politicians are perfectly capable of doing something good on Monday and deserving serious scrutiny on Tuesday.

Both things can be true.

And Speaking of Epstein...

Representative Thomas Massie is once again pushing for more Epstein-related government records to be released.

According to the material I reviewed, Massie said the government continues to withhold more than three million files and announced another effort aimed at forcing additional disclosure and accountability.

Good.

Release them.

I don’t care whether the names have an R, D, billionaire, prince, celebrity, former president or current president beside them.

If someone committed crimes, helped conceal crimes, facilitated crimes or knowingly protected people who committed them, investigate them.

ALL OF THEM.

Funny how Washington can investigate somebody's email habits until the sun burns out, but when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein, suddenly everybody develops a terrible allergy to paperwork.

And yes, Congress should be willing to question uncomfortable witnesses regardless of their last name or political connections.

Nobody gets a special exemption because an investigation might become politically inconvenient.

No, China Didn't Send Trump Its Rejected Beef

Now let’s clean up something making the rounds on Facebook.

You may have seen claims that China rejected contaminated Argentine beef, Trump bought that rejected meat, and now Americans are getting China’s leftovers.

That is not what the available evidence establishes.

China did reject a 22-ton Argentine beef shipment after testing reportedly detected chloramphenicol, an antibiotic prohibited in food-producing cattle. China then suspended imports from that particular plant.

Separately, the Trump administration has moved to increase Argentine beef imports as part of an effort to lower U.S. beef prices.

Those are two real stories.

What has not been established is that the exact shipment China rejected was rerouted to the United States.

So I'm not repeating that claim as fact.

See how easy that was?

You can criticize an administration without forwarding every Facebook meme Aunt Betty posted at 2:14 in the morning.

But there IS a legitimate question here.

If America is increasing food imports while federal agencies responsible for food safety and inspection are operating with fewer workers, who exactly is making sure the food is safe?

THAT is the story I want investigated.

Because “trust us” isn't a food-safety program.

Meanwhile, Emperor Taco Needs a Ballroom

And finally, because apparently subtlety died sometime around 2016, we arrive at the roughly $400 million White House ballroom project.

The Supreme Court allowed construction to continue while litigation proceeds, but—and this is important—the majority did not decide that the project itself is lawful.

The dispute includes a pretty significant little constitutional question:

Can a president construct something like this on federal property without express authorization from Congress?

Chief Justice John Roberts, joining the dissent, pointed directly to Congress's authority and federal restrictions on construction without congressional authorization.

Which brings me to Congress.

Hello?

Anybody home?

The Constitution gave you the purse strings for a reason.

They're not decorative.

Yet Congress repeatedly behaves as though its constitutional powers are optional accessories—something to pull out for special occasions and cable-news interviews.

So if congressional leadership refuses to exercise its authority while a president erects a gigantic ballroom, I have a naming suggestion:

The Thune-Johnson Outhouse.

Has a certain ring to it, doesn't it?

Trump says the finished ballroom and military complex will be something the entire country will be proud of.

I'm sure he does.

Nothing says “government of the people” quite like a $400 million ballroom.

Here's What Ties All of This Together

These stories look unrelated.

They aren't.

Accountability.

Find missing children—and investigate everyone responsible.

Release the Epstein records—and investigate people regardless of wealth, party or last name.

Import more food if that's the policy—but make damn sure somebody is inspecting it.

And if a president wants to dramatically alter one of America's most historically significant public buildings, Congress needs to remember that it is a coequal branch of government, not the White House homeowners association.

We don't need fewer questions because our “team” is in power.

We need more questions.

We don't need Facebook rumors presented as evidence.

We need facts.

And we sure as hell don't need another monument to Donald Trump's ego while Congress stands around admiring the drapes.

Because at this point, America doesn't need a $400 million ballroom.

America needs its checks and balances back.

Counting down to the midterms and lots of events coming up! Stay tuned and participate!

If you watched my “Random Thoughts” drop yesterday, you already know where my head is.

There is so much happening at once that it is almost impossible to keep up. And maybe that is part of the problem.

A new outrage arrives before we have finished processing the last one. A lawsuit is filed. A judge issues an order. Another investigation begins. Another billion-dollar project appears. Another public institution becomes the subject of a political fight.

Then everybody moves on.

I don’t want us to move on.

So today, I want to talk about the things we cannot afford to forget.

WE ARE STILL IN A TRADE WAR WITH CANADA

Yes, Canada.

Our neighbor. Our ally. One of our largest trading partners.

The U.S.-Canada trade fight is not some old story that quietly resolved itself. New U.S. tariffs are hitting billions of dollars of Canadian goods, and Canada is preparing retaliation. Canadian businesses are warning about lost sales and jobs, while American communities that depend on Canadian visitors are trying to lure them back.

This is what a trade war looks like in the real world.

It isn't presidents trading insults on television.

It is businesses wondering whether customers will disappear. It is workers wondering whether their jobs are next. It is families eventually discovering that political decisions made in Washington have followed them right to the cash register.

So, yes: we are still at economic war with Canada.

Don't forget about it just because another headline came along.

MORE THAN 60 TREES ARE GONE

Now let's head to Washington, D.C.

President Trump has promised a major overhaul of the historic East Potomac Golf Links.

But according to The Washington Post, an informal count found that more than 60 trees appeared to have already been removed in recent weeks — even though the administration's promised overhaul had not officially begun.

Among the removals was a cherry tree near the Blue Course's 14th green. Large sycamores were also removed.

The Interior Department says this is routine maintenance involving hazardous, invasive, declining or dying trees.

But here's where this gets interesting.

The administration still had not publicly released a final design, construction schedule or estimated cost for Trump's proposed overhaul. The Park Service also still had environmental, historic-preservation and planning requirements to complete before a redesign could begin.

And there is already litigation over the project.

So my question is simple:

Why are we cutting first and explaining later?

This isn't Donald Trump's private golf club.

This is public land.

And when public land is being dramatically changed, the public deserves to know exactly what is happening before the chainsaws arrive.

AND THE BALLROOM KEEPS GOING UP

Remember the White House ballroom?

Don't lose track of that one either.

Two lower federal courts concluded that above-ground construction could not simply proceed without congressional authorization. The D.C. Circuit wrote that decisions involving federal property belong to Congress rather than unilateral presidential action.

Trump took the fight to the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts subsequently allowed construction to continue temporarily while the Court considers the administration's request.

Meanwhile, construction continues.

The administration has argued that this isn't merely a ballroom but a highly secured facility incorporating national-security infrastructure.

Fine.

Then Congress and the American people deserve transparency about exactly what is being built, what it costs, who is paying for it, and what authority allows the president to build it.

Those are not partisan questions.

Those are basic oversight questions.

MEANWHILE, IN FLORIDA...

Oh, Ron DeSantis.

Or, as Trump himself once called him, Ron DeSanctimonious.

A Florida state grand jury concluded that the DeSantis administration “misappropriated” $10 million in taxpayer money connected to a Medicaid settlement.

According to the grand jury report obtained by CBS News Miami, the money was routed through the Hope Florida Foundation and other organizations before millions reached political committees and the Republican Party of Florida and were used in the campaign against Florida's 2024 marijuana legalization initiative.

The grand jury described what happened as part of a “sophisticated scheme to fund political activities.”

But there is an important part of this story that shouldn't be skipped: the grand jury also concluded there was insufficient evidence to criminally charge anyone.

DeSantis has rejected the report and called the controversy a “hoax.”

Those facts belong together.

But so does this question:

How does $10 million connected to a taxpayer settlement wind up helping finance partisan political activity without anybody being able to clearly identify who made the decision?

That deserves an answer.

NOW THEY'RE LOOKING AT YOSEMITE

This one should make every American pay attention regardless of political party.

Yosemite National Park belongs to us.

According to reporting from NOTUS, National Park Service officials have been working on a potential land exchange involving roughly a quarter-mile strip inside Yosemite National Park and interests connected with Kingsbarn Realty Capital.

The developer owns approximately 83 acres outside Yosemite and wants a shorter road connecting that property to one of the park's main roads.

The Park Service says no final decision has been made and that any proposal would have to comply with applicable federal law, environmental review and public-notification requirements.

That distinction matters: Yosemite has not simply been handed over to a developer.

But the proposal itself deserves enormous public scrutiny.

The previous owner of the neighboring property fought for years for similar access and lost in federal court.

National parks are not presidential real-estate portfolios.

They aren't Republican property.

They aren't Democratic property.

They belong to the American people.

And once we establish that pieces of national parks can be carved up to make neighboring private development more valuable, Americans ought to think very carefully about the precedent being created.

AND YES, WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT HAKEEM JEFFRIES

Democrats don't get a free pass in this column.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries recently met privately with Jared Kushner.

Kushner requested the meeting, and Jeffries says they discussed America's affordability crisis.

But even some Democrats reportedly wondered why their leader was privately meeting with a member of Trump's family who holds no official government position.

That's a legitimate question.

And Democrats should be able to ask it without being accused of disloyalty.

I have another question.

What exactly is the plan if Democrats win the House?

Jeffries has begun talking publicly about a Day One agenda centered on affordability and accountability. That's important.

But voters deserve specifics.

What legislation gets introduced?

What gets voted on during the first 100 days?

What investigations begin?

What subpoenas are issued?

What happens with allegations involving executive spending and congressional authority?

What happens with oversight of this administration?

Winning an election is not the finish line.

It is permission to govern.

If Jeffries becomes Speaker, Democrats should expect him to fight for their legislative agenda and exercise Congress' constitutional oversight authority.

Call your representatives and ask them what their expectations are.

Don't just ask whether Democrats can win the House.

Ask them:

What are you going to DO with it?

WE HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN EPSTEIN EITHER

And while all these other stories pile up, Americans should continue demanding lawful transparency regarding the Epstein records.

There are court fights, disclosure battles and arguments over what material can legally be released.

We should be careful here because allegations are not evidence, names appearing in documents do not automatically establish wrongdoing, and victims' identities and private information must be protected.

But legitimate questions about government records do not disappear because the news cycle changes.

Transparency and due process can exist at the same time.

AND THEN THERE'S ICE

This may be one of the most disturbing stories of the week.

Associated Press reported that ICE awarded a $16.7 million no-bid contract for 6,000 pairs of gloves capable of delivering electrical shocks.

ICE argues the technology could reduce the need for more serious uses of force and says officers will be trained and governed by agency policy.

Civil-rights advocates and lawmakers are raising serious questions about oversight, training and potential misuse.

And they should.

Congress should demand to know exactly what safeguards govern any new use-of-force technology purchased with taxpayer dollars.

DO YOU SEE THE PATTERN?

Here's what connects these stories for me.

Power. Public money. Public property. Transparency. Accountability.

Trees disappearing from public parkland while a controversial redevelopment remains under review.

A massive White House construction project proceeding while courts fight over presidential and congressional authority.

Taxpayer money in Florida being routed into organizations and ultimately political activity.

A potential Yosemite land exchange that could benefit private development.

A congressional leader holding a meeting that members of his own party want explained.

ICE spending millions on controversial new equipment.

And a trade war with Canada that continues while Americans become distracted by everything else.

Each story has different facts, different laws and different people involved.

But citizens should be asking the same questions every single time:

Who authorized this?

Who benefits?

Who pays?

What law allows it?

Who is watching the people making these decisions?

And maybe most importantly:

What happens if nobody stops them?

Because this is how accountability disappears — not necessarily in one dramatic moment, but through exhaustion.

There are so many scandals, controversies, lawsuits and investigations that eventually people throw their hands up and say, I can't keep track anymore.

Don't.

Keep track.

Write things down.

Save the articles.

Ask your representatives questions.

And when November arrives, remember what happened before the campaign commercials told you what they wanted you to remember.

We are not goldfish.

We remember.

And after the election, regardless of who controls Congress, we should demand something very simple from the people we send there:

Do your damn jobs.

— Mamaw

What is the “big deal” about Hakeem Jeffries privately meeting with Jared Kushner?

I’ll tell you what I think the big deal is: follow the money—and pay attention to who may soon hold the gavel.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries recently met privately in New York with Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law and influential outside adviser. According to reporting about the meeting, Kushner requested it, and the two discussed housing, immigration, affordability and possible areas of common ground. Kushner reportedly even suggested that Jeffries meet with White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.

Jeffries says there is a reasonable explanation. He says he took the meeting to discuss America's affordability crisis and has subsequently insisted that a Democratic House would hold members of the Trump administration accountable.

But that explanation doesn't make our questions disappear.

In fact, the timing of this meeting gives us more reason to ask them.

Follow the Money

Jeffries has received substantial support from pro-Israel political donors and organizations during his congressional career. Those financial relationships deserve scrutiny, just as the financial relationships of every powerful member of Congress deserve scrutiny.

Political contributions do not, by themselves, prove corruption. Nor is there public evidence demonstrating that Jeffries met Kushner because of AIPAC, Israel or Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

But political money buys something enormously valuable in Washington: access and influence.

And voters have every right to examine who has that access and what interests may be represented when powerful political figures meet behind closed doors.

Then There Is Jared Kushner

Kushner isn't simply Trump's son-in-law. He is a businessman, former White House adviser and current outside adviser to Trump who continues to operate at the intersection of international diplomacy, politics and private business.

That makes this meeting particularly unusual.

Kushner holds no formal position in the Trump administration. Even some House Democrats reportedly questioned why their leader would privately meet with him. One Democratic lawmaker described the choice of Kushner as “odd,” while Axios reported that Jeffries had not given the entire Democratic caucus a private explanation for the meeting.

So why is an unofficial Trump adviser establishing a private channel with the man who could become the next Speaker of the House?

That's a question Democrats should be asking—not dismissing.

This Is Also About Leadership

There is another uncomfortable part of this discussion.

We do not believe Hakeem Jeffries has yet demonstrated the kind of forceful leadership Democrats are going to need during the next Congress.

If Democrats take control of the House, this isn't going to be an ordinary congressional term.

The next Speaker may have to manage an enormous legislative agenda while simultaneously restoring meaningful congressional oversight of an administration facing serious allegations and questions concerning conflicts of interest, executive spending, use of taxpayer money and the financial interests of the president, his family and administration officials.

Democrats are already preparing potential investigations if they regain the House. Reported areas of interest include Trump family business dealings, federal contracts, administration spending, immigration enforcement and other potential conflicts and abuses of power.

That requires a Speaker willing to lead aggressively, publicly and transparently.

Jeffries has now said Democrats will “hold the crooks accountable,” and he has identified priorities including lowering living costs, healthcare, voting rights and investigating potential corruption. He has also said Judiciary and Oversight Committee Democrats would take the lead on accountability investigations.

We welcome those statements.

But we want specifics.

What legislation will Democrats introduce during their first 100 days?

What investigations will begin on Day One?

Will Congress investigate potential violations of the Constitution's emoluments provisions and conflicts involving presidential business interests?

Will committees investigate expenditures of taxpayer money that Congress did not authorize?

Will they investigate possible self-dealing or enrichment involving administration officials, the president or members of his family?

What documents will they demand?

Where necessary, will they issue subpoenas?

And what happens when the administration refuses to comply?

These aren't questions Democrats should wait until after the election to answer.

Perhaps Democrats Need a Different Kind of Leader

There are other members of Congress who may possess the fire, communication skills and determination necessary for the political fight ahead.

Democrats shouldn't automatically treat the speakership as belonging to anyone.

They should ask which member can actually get legislation through a closely divided House, keep the caucus together, communicate a clear agenda to Americans and oversee credible investigations without allowing them to become political theater.

Leadership isn't simply possessing the title of Minority Leader.

Leadership means telling voters before the election exactly what you intend to do with the power you're asking them to give you.

Jeffries has begun describing broad priorities. But broad promises about affordability and accountability aren't enough.

Show us the plan.

And That Brings Us Back to Jared Kushner

This is precisely why the private Kushner meeting bothers us.

The meeting reportedly occurred as Trump's allies were contemplating the possibility that Democrats could take the House and Jeffries could become Speaker. The New York Times reported that its timing underscored awareness within Trump's circle of that possibility and an effort to establish a working relationship before control of Congress potentially changes.

Think about that.

A future Democratic Speaker could possess subpoena power and oversee investigations touching the Trump administration and potentially the financial interests of the Trump family.

And before voters have even cast their ballots, Trump's son-in-law and outside adviser privately meets with that potential Speaker.

That doesn't prove a corrupt bargain.

But it absolutely justifies questions.

Jeffries says Kushner requested the meeting to discuss affordability. We accept that this is Jeffries's explanation. We also believe voters are entitled to ask why such a conversation needed to involve Jared Kushner, who isn't a government official, rather than elected officials or authorized representatives of the administration.

Transparency could resolve much of this.

Tell Americans precisely what was discussed.

Tell us who arranged the meeting.

Tell us whether future meetings were proposed.

Tell us whether Trump, Netanyahu, Israel, Gaza, Kushner's business interests, congressional investigations or Trump family financial interests were discussed.

And tell Democratic voters exactly what a Speaker Jeffries intends to investigate if Democrats regain control of the House.

Follow the Money. Follow the Power.

We aren't claiming that money bought this meeting.

We aren't claiming a secret deal was made.

Those would require evidence that currently isn't public.

What we are saying is that democracy requires skepticism when money, political power, private business interests and access to government collide.

Americans shouldn't be afraid to ask uncomfortable questions simply because the politician sitting on one side of the table belongs to their own party.

Republican, Democrat or independent—the standard should be the same.

Follow the money. Follow the access. Follow the power.

And when the person who may soon control the investigative machinery of the United States House of Representatives privately meets with the president's son-in-law and outside adviser just months before an election?

Ask questions.

Lots of them.

The Universe….Our beloved humanitarian Dolly and hero John McCain died on the same date, 8 years apart. Both showed us the best of us and who we SHOULD be, and Taco’s fragile, petty ego lives on to show us the worst of ourselves.

This episode we talk about the Supreme Court ruling on ballots and the mail; this ridiculous tariff war with CANADA, Jeffries “secret” meeting with Kushner; reporters winning for the Constitution and our food supply.

I take issue with Jeffries answer about his meeting with Kushner. Jared is NOT an elected official. He is NOT a Senate confirmed cabinet member, he is NOT an employee of the Government so the propriety of the Minority Leader meeting with Kushner is suspect. And, is Jeffries someone with the temperament to be the next speaker at this time in history; or is he the “old school” corporate democrat? Soul search. Maybe it’s time for Speaker Ocasio-Cortez?

Anyway, enjoy this episode. Thank you for listening and sharing.