Political Thread in memory of David Reid. (R.I.P.)

[The Bedlington Terrier]

BREAKING: Trump turns the Easter Egg roll into a demented horror show by trashing Biden, using swears, and rambling about the military in front a crowd of confused and upset children!
The president of the United States turned a nonpartisan event for children into yet another show of partisan hatred and insanity with a speech about the military and insulting former presidents.
“So today is a very special day. It's a day where we celebrate Jesus. It's a day where we celebrate religion. And it's an honor to be the President of the United States. Our country is doing so well like it has never done before. You'll see that very shortly. And things that we've done have not been done before. We've broken every record on the stock market. We've broken every record in our military,” rambled Trump, nonsensically.
"One year ago -- a little bit more -- our country was dead. We had a dead country. We had an administration that didn't know what the hell they were doing. Today we have the hottest country anywhere in the world."
Using the word “hell” in front of a bunch of children is wildly inappropriate, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg when it came to the nonsense vomiting from the President’s lie-hole.
"I just want to say we have a great military. We're the most powerful military anyplace in the world. You saw what happened with Venezuela, and it's an honor. I built it in my first term and I didn't know I would be using it so much in my second term."
“Iran… You don't mind when the enemy is weak but that enemy is strong. Not so strong like they were about a month ago. I can tell you, right now they're not too strong at all in my opinion but we will soon find out, aren't we?”
Later on, he took to insulting Kamala Harris and President Biden, again, telling the media and children “Did anybody in the egg industry vote for Kamala? A low IQ person. She's a low IQ person. Who's a lower IQ person, Biden or Kamala? That's probably the toughest question!”
What is he talking about? What does this have to do with Easter, or bunnies, or eggs? Why is he rambling to children about his illegal war and his war crimes?
It’s because his mind brain is leaking out of his head like an egg smashed on the sidewalk.
Every day is a new disgrace for our demented pedophile rapist grifter criminal murderer president.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

Even the Yanks have had enough...
Open Letter to My GOP Congressman: Yes, President Trump Threatened to Order the U.S. Military to Commit Genocide
A combat veteran and extremism expert’s warning about what Donald Trump’s words mean under the law—and what your responsibility is now
Congressman Lawler,
My name is Kris Goldsmith. I’m a constituent in your district, a former United States Army sergeant, a combat veteran of the Iraq War, and the founder of Task Force Butler Institute and Veterans Fighting Fascism.
I was born and raised in New York, and I’m now raising my daughter here.
And that is why I am writing to you.
My work today focuses on identifying and holding violent extremists accountable—often through evidence that leads to criminal convictions. That includes securing felony convictions in hate crime cases and helping victims win civil relief and restitution in judgments against neo-Nazi organizations. This work carries real risk to me and my family, but I do it because human rights are sacred and worth fighting for.
So when I use words like fascism, war crimes, or genocide, I am not reaching for shock value. I am using those terms with precision, grounded in law, history, and lived experience.
What the President Actually Threatened
On Tuesday, the President of the United States publicly stated that “an entire civilization” would “die” if Iran did not comply with his demands.
That is not ambiguous language. The White House repeatedly confirmed when journalists sought clarity that this was an official communication from President Trump, and that it should be taken seriously. It was a threat to indiscriminately destroy a civilian population, made by the Commander-in-Chief, in the name of every American.
Iran is home to roughly 93 million people. Threatening the complete destruction of that population is, by definition, a threat of mass extermination.
Under international law, that matters.
What “Genocide” Actually Means
After World War II, the world created a legal framework to define and prevent the kinds of atrocities that had just taken place.
Under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which explicitly criminalizes not only genocide itself but also direct and public incitement to commit it, genocide includes acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
Those acts include:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm
Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction
The law does not require that the killing has already happened.
It explicitly criminalizes conspiracy, incitement, and attempts to commit genocide.
So when a president threatens the destruction of “an entire civilization,” he is not speaking loosely. He is articulating criminal intent.
And intent is the central element of the crime of genocide.
Threatening Civilian Infrastructure Is Also a War Crime
In a CNN interview on April 7, 2026, when asked about Trump’s threats, you dismissed them as if his words did not matter—as if they did not carry the weight and seriousness of the Office of the President of the United States. You went on to say that while you “don’t support making a whole civilization die,” that the “next step” in Operation Epic Fury “is to take action against their oil and civilian infrastructure.”
That advocacy, in the context of President Trump repeatedly threatening to ‘blow up’ Iran’s power, water, and transportation systems, aligns directly with conduct that international law prohibits.
The deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure like critical energy sources, water systems, and civilian transportation infrastructure would, in most cases, constitute a war crime because it causes widespread suffering to civilian populations.
The laws of war—codified in the Geneva Conventions and related frameworks—require distinction and proportionality.
You cannot:
Target civilians directly
Destroy infrastructure essential to civilian survival as a method of coercion
Use collective punishment against an entire population
When the President publicly promises to “hit each and every one” of a country’s power plants—which includes the Bushehr nuclear plant on the coast of the Persian Gulf—he is not describing a lawful military operation.
He is describing collective punishment at national scale.
Furthermore, the legal and humanitarian consequences of striking a nuclear reactor would have devastating consequences not just for Iran, but for the entire region around the Persian Gulf. The government of Qatar, our ally which houses critical U.S. military infrastructure, ran a simulation of what would occur if that Iranian nuclear reactor were to experience a meltdown and found that their entire country would be devoid of potable water within three days. Desalination plants throughout the Persian Gulf would have to be shutdown, perhaps permanently, triggering a cascading humanitarian crisis that would extend far beyond Iran.
The long-lasting radioactive pollution would completely destroy fishing and commercial use of the Persian Gulf, making the issue of reopening of the Strait of Hormuz completely irrelevant.
Your Oath Requires Allegiance to the Rule of Law
The United States has already carried out strikes that have killed civilians, including children, in this conflict.
And the President has made clear—repeatedly—that he intends to escalate.
He has also stated, on the record, that he does not believe he is bound by U.S. law or international law.
That is not normal.
That is not defensible.
And it is not compatible with the oath that you, and I, and every service member have sworn—to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
How Far Is Too Far?
Congressman, you said you do not support “making a whole civilization die.”
But you did not confront the reality of what was said.
Instead, you pivoted to supporting expanded attacks on infrastructure that would inevitably devastate civilian life, and still mean ordering American troops to commit war crimes.
So I am asking you directly:
How far is too far?
At what point does the President’s stated intent to order American troops to commit war crimes weigh on your conscience? At what point does the President’s threat to make the U.S. military complicit in genocide begin to bother you? How many murdered Iranian children are an acceptable loss in a conflict that Congress has not authorized, let alone had the decency to declare as a war? At what point does loyalty to a political party give way to your duty under the Constitution?
Your Responsibility Under the Constitution
The Constitution is clear: the President is not a king.
When a President threatens actions that would constitute:
War crimes
Violations of international law
Or the incitement of genocide
Congress does not get to look away. You do not get to insulate yourself from responsibility by refusing to act as a coequal branch of the federal government.
The mechanism for accountability for such high crimes and misdemeanors is impeachment.
If threatening to order the U.S. military to conduct war crimes and genocide is not a high crime or misdemeanor, what is?
Impeachment is a constitutional safeguard against exactly this kind of abuse of power.
A Final Appeal
As I wrote earlier, I am raising my daughter here, in the district you represent.
And I know you are a father too.
History remembers those who acted—and those who had power and chose not to use it.
So I will ask you plainly:
Will you support the impeachment and removal of a President who has threatened genocide?
Will you defend the rule of law?
Will you abide by your oath, and do your duty—not with loyalty and allegience to a political party, but to the Constitution, and to the people you represent?
Because our children will have to live with the consequences of this moment—and your choices.
History will not be kind to those who refused to stand up when any head of state threatens genocide or orders their troops to commit war crimes.
What legacy will you leave?
Sincerely,
Kristofer Goldsmith
Constituent, NY-17

[The Bedlington Terrier]

Even the Yanks have had enough...
Open Letter to My GOP Congressman: Yes, President Trump Threatened to Order the U.S. Military to Commit Genocide
A combat veteran and extremism expert?s warning about what Donald Trump?s words mean under the law?and what your responsibility is now
Congressman Lawler,
My name is Kris Goldsmith. I?m a constituent in your district, a former United States Army sergeant, a combat veteran of the Iraq War, and the founder of Task Force Butler Institute and Veterans Fighting Fascism.
I was born and raised in New York, and I?m now raising my daughter here.
And that is why I am writing to you.
My work today focuses on identifying and holding violent extremists accountable?often through evidence that leads to criminal convictions. That includes securing felony convictions in hate crime cases and helping victims win civil relief and restitution in judgments against neo-Nazi organizations. This work carries real risk to me and my family, but I do it because human rights are sacred and worth fighting for.
So when I use words like fascism, war crimes, or genocide, I am not reaching for shock value. I am using those terms with precision, grounded in law, history, and lived experience.
What the President Actually Threatened
On Tuesday, the President of the United States publicly stated that ?an entire civilization? would ?die? if Iran did not comply with his demands.
That is not ambiguous language. The White House repeatedly confirmed when journalists sought clarity that this was an official communication from President Trump, and that it should be taken seriously. It was a threat to indiscriminately destroy a civilian population, made by the Commander-in-Chief, in the name of every American.
Iran is home to roughly 93 million people. Threatening the complete destruction of that population is, by definition, a threat of mass extermination.
Under international law, that matters.
What ?Genocide? Actually Means
After World War II, the world created a legal framework to define and prevent the kinds of atrocities that had just taken place.
Under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which explicitly criminalizes not only genocide itself but also direct and public incitement to commit it, genocide includes acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
Those acts include:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm
Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group?s physical destruction
The law does not require that the killing has already happened.
It explicitly criminalizes conspiracy, incitement, and attempts to commit genocide.
So when a president threatens the destruction of ?an entire civilization,? he is not speaking loosely. He is articulating criminal intent.
And intent is the central element of the crime of genocide.
Threatening Civilian Infrastructure Is Also a War Crime
In a CNN interview on April 7, 2026, when asked about Trump?s threats, you dismissed them as if his words did not matter?as if they did not carry the weight and seriousness of the Office of the President of the United States. You went on to say that while you ?don?t support making a whole civilization die,? that the ?next step? in Operation Epic Fury ?is to take action against their oil and civilian infrastructure.?
That advocacy, in the context of President Trump repeatedly threatening to ?blow up? Iran?s power, water, and transportation systems, aligns directly with conduct that international law prohibits.
The deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure like critical energy sources, water systems, and civilian transportation infrastructure would, in most cases, constitute a war crime because it causes widespread suffering to civilian populations.
The laws of war?codified in the Geneva Conventions and related frameworks?require distinction and proportionality.
You cannot:
Target civilians directly
Destroy infrastructure essential to civilian survival as a method of coercion
Use collective punishment against an entire population
When the President publicly promises to ?hit each and every one? of a country?s power plants?which includes the Bushehr nuclear plant on the coast of the Persian Gulf?he is not describing a lawful military operation.
He is describing collective punishment at national scale.
Furthermore, the legal and humanitarian consequences of striking a nuclear reactor would have devastating consequences not just for Iran, but for the entire region around the Persian Gulf. The government of Qatar, our ally which houses critical U.S. military infrastructure, ran a simulation of what would occur if that Iranian nuclear reactor were to experience a meltdown and found that their entire country would be devoid of potable water within three days. Desalination plants throughout the Persian Gulf would have to be shutdown, perhaps permanently, triggering a cascading humanitarian crisis that would extend far beyond Iran.
The long-lasting radioactive pollution would completely destroy fishing and commercial use of the Persian Gulf, making the issue of reopening of the Strait of Hormuz completely irrelevant.
Your Oath Requires Allegiance to the Rule of Law
The United States has already carried out strikes that have killed civilians, including children, in this conflict.
And the President has made clear?repeatedly?that he intends to escalate.
He has also stated, on the record, that he does not believe he is bound by U.S. law or international law.
That is not normal.
That is not defensible.
And it is not compatible with the oath that you, and I, and every service member have sworn?to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
How Far Is Too Far?
Congressman, you said you do not support ?making a whole civilization die.?
But you did not confront the reality of what was said.
Instead, you pivoted to supporting expanded attacks on infrastructure that would inevitably devastate civilian life, and still mean ordering American troops to commit war crimes.
So I am asking you directly:
How far is too far?
At what point does the President?s stated intent to order American troops to commit war crimes weigh on your conscience? At what point does the President?s threat to make the U.S. military complicit in genocide begin to bother you? How many murdered Iranian children are an acceptable loss in a conflict that Congress has not authorized, let alone had the decency to declare as a war? At what point does loyalty to a political party give way to your duty under the Constitution?
Your Responsibility Under the Constitution
The Constitution is clear: the President is not a king.
When a President threatens actions that would constitute:
War crimes
Violations of international law
Or the incitement of genocide
Congress does not get to look away. You do not get to insulate yourself from responsibility by refusing to act as a coequal branch of the federal government.
The mechanism for accountability for such high crimes and misdemeanors is impeachment.
If threatening to order the U.S. military to conduct war crimes and genocide is not a high crime or misdemeanor, what is?
Impeachment is a constitutional safeguard against exactly this kind of abuse of power.
A Final Appeal
As I wrote earlier, I am raising my daughter here, in the district you represent.
And I know you are a father too.
History remembers those who acted?and those who had power and chose not to use it.
So I will ask you plainly:
Will you support the impeachment and removal of a President who has threatened genocide?
Will you defend the rule of law?
Will you abide by your oath, and do your duty?not with loyalty and allegience to a political party, but to the Constitution, and to the people you represent?
Because our children will have to live with the consequences of this moment?and your choices.
History will not be kind to those who refused to stand up when any head of state threatens genocide or orders their troops to commit war crimes.
What legacy will you leave?
Sincerely,
Kristofer Goldsmith
Constituent, NY-17

[sinkov]

Even the Yanks have had enough...
Open Letter to My GOP Congressman: Yes, President Trump Threatened to Order the U.S. Military to Commit Genocide
A combat veteran and extremism expert?s warning about what Donald Trump?s words mean under the law?and what your responsibility is now
Congressman Lawler,
My name is Kris Goldsmith. I?m a constituent in your district, a former United States Army sergeant, a combat veteran of the Iraq War, and the founder of Task Force Butler Institute and Veterans Fighting Fascism.
I was born and raised in New York, and I?m now raising my daughter here.
And that is why I am writing to you.
My work today focuses on identifying and holding violent extremists accountable?often through evidence that leads to criminal convictions. That includes securing felony convictions in hate crime cases and helping victims win civil relief and restitution in judgments against neo-Nazi organizations. This work carries real risk to me and my family, but I do it because human rights are sacred and worth fighting for.
So when I use words like fascism, war crimes, or genocide, I am not reaching for shock value. I am using those terms with precision, grounded in law, history, and lived experience.
What the President Actually Threatened
On Tuesday, the President of the United States publicly stated that ?an entire civilization? would ?die? if Iran did not comply with his demands.
That is not ambiguous language. The White House repeatedly confirmed when journalists sought clarity that this was an official communication from President Trump, and that it should be taken seriously. It was a threat to indiscriminately destroy a civilian population, made by the Commander-in-Chief, in the name of every American.
Iran is home to roughly 93 million people. Threatening the complete destruction of that population is, by definition, a threat of mass extermination.
Under international law, that matters.
What ?Genocide? Actually Means
After World War II, the world created a legal framework to define and prevent the kinds of atrocities that had just taken place.
Under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which explicitly criminalizes not only genocide itself but also direct and public incitement to commit it, genocide includes acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
Those acts include:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm
Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group?s physical destruction
The law does not require that the killing has already happened.
It explicitly criminalizes conspiracy, incitement, and attempts to commit genocide.
So when a president threatens the destruction of ?an entire civilization,? he is not speaking loosely. He is articulating criminal intent.
And intent is the central element of the crime of genocide.
Threatening Civilian Infrastructure Is Also a War Crime
In a CNN interview on April 7, 2026, when asked about Trump?s threats, you dismissed them as if his words did not matter?as if they did not carry the weight and seriousness of the Office of the President of the United States. You went on to say that while you ?don?t support making a whole civilization die,? that the ?next step? in Operation Epic Fury ?is to take action against their oil and civilian infrastructure.?
That advocacy, in the context of President Trump repeatedly threatening to ?blow up? Iran?s power, water, and transportation systems, aligns directly with conduct that international law prohibits.
The deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure like critical energy sources, water systems, and civilian transportation infrastructure would, in most cases, constitute a war crime because it causes widespread suffering to civilian populations.
The laws of war?codified in the Geneva Conventions and related frameworks?require distinction and proportionality.
You cannot:
Target civilians directly
Destroy infrastructure essential to civilian survival as a method of coercion
Use collective punishment against an entire population
When the President publicly promises to ?hit each and every one? of a country?s power plants?which includes the Bushehr nuclear plant on the coast of the Persian Gulf?he is not describing a lawful military operation.
He is describing collective punishment at national scale.
Furthermore, the legal and humanitarian consequences of striking a nuclear reactor would have devastating consequences not just for Iran, but for the entire region around the Persian Gulf. The government of Qatar, our ally which houses critical U.S. military infrastructure, ran a simulation of what would occur if that Iranian nuclear reactor were to experience a meltdown and found that their entire country would be devoid of potable water within three days. Desalination plants throughout the Persian Gulf would have to be shutdown, perhaps permanently, triggering a cascading humanitarian crisis that would extend far beyond Iran.
The long-lasting radioactive pollution would completely destroy fishing and commercial use of the Persian Gulf, making the issue of reopening of the Strait of Hormuz completely irrelevant.
Your Oath Requires Allegiance to the Rule of Law
The United States has already carried out strikes that have killed civilians, including children, in this conflict.
And the President has made clear?repeatedly?that he intends to escalate.
He has also stated, on the record, that he does not believe he is bound by U.S. law or international law.
That is not normal.
That is not defensible.
And it is not compatible with the oath that you, and I, and every service member have sworn?to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
How Far Is Too Far?
Congressman, you said you do not support ?making a whole civilization die.?
But you did not confront the reality of what was said.
Instead, you pivoted to supporting expanded attacks on infrastructure that would inevitably devastate civilian life, and still mean ordering American troops to commit war crimes.
So I am asking you directly:
How far is too far?
At what point does the President?s stated intent to order American troops to commit war crimes weigh on your conscience? At what point does the President?s threat to make the U.S. military complicit in genocide begin to bother you? How many murdered Iranian children are an acceptable loss in a conflict that Congress has not authorized, let alone had the decency to declare as a war? At what point does loyalty to a political party give way to your duty under the Constitution?
Your Responsibility Under the Constitution
The Constitution is clear: the President is not a king.
When a President threatens actions that would constitute:
War crimes
Violations of international law
Or the incitement of genocide
Congress does not get to look away. You do not get to insulate yourself from responsibility by refusing to act as a coequal branch of the federal government.
The mechanism for accountability for such high crimes and misdemeanors is impeachment.
If threatening to order the U.S. military to conduct war crimes and genocide is not a high crime or misdemeanor, what is?
Impeachment is a constitutional safeguard against exactly this kind of abuse of power.
A Final Appeal
As I wrote earlier, I am raising my daughter here, in the district you represent.
And I know you are a father too.
History remembers those who acted?and those who had power and chose not to use it.
So I will ask you plainly:
Will you support the impeachment and removal of a President who has threatened genocide?
Will you defend the rule of law?
Will you abide by your oath, and do your duty?not with loyalty and allegience to a political party, but to the Constitution, and to the people you represent?
Because our children will have to live with the consequences of this moment?and your choices.
History will not be kind to those who refused to stand up when any head of state threatens genocide or orders their troops to commit war crimes.
What legacy will you leave?
Sincerely,
Kristofer Goldsmith
Constituent, NY-17

Another fecking bedwetter, is there no end to them ?

[sinkov]

Even the Yanks have had enough...
Open Letter to My GOP Congressman: Yes, President Trump Threatened to Order the U.S. Military to Commit Genocide
A combat veteran and extremism expert?s warning about what Donald Trump?s words mean under the law?and what your responsibility is now
Congressman Lawler,
My name is Kris Goldsmith. I?m a constituent in your district, a former United States Army sergeant, a combat veteran of the Iraq War, and the founder of Task Force Butler Institute and Veterans Fighting Fascism.
I was born and raised in New York, and I?m now raising my daughter here.
And that is why I am writing to you.
My work today focuses on identifying and holding violent extremists accountable?often through evidence that leads to criminal convictions. That includes securing felony convictions in hate crime cases and helping victims win civil relief and restitution in judgments against neo-Nazi organizations. This work carries real risk to me and my family, but I do it because human rights are sacred and worth fighting for.
So when I use words like fascism, war crimes, or genocide, I am not reaching for shock value. I am using those terms with precision, grounded in law, history, and lived experience.
What the President Actually Threatened
On Tuesday, the President of the United States publicly stated that ?an entire civilization? would ?die? if Iran did not comply with his demands.
That is not ambiguous language. The White House repeatedly confirmed when journalists sought clarity that this was an official communication from President Trump, and that it should be taken seriously. It was a threat to indiscriminately destroy a civilian population, made by the Commander-in-Chief, in the name of every American.
Iran is home to roughly 93 million people. Threatening the complete destruction of that population is, by definition, a threat of mass extermination.
Under international law, that matters.
What ?Genocide? Actually Means
After World War II, the world created a legal framework to define and prevent the kinds of atrocities that had just taken place.
Under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which explicitly criminalizes not only genocide itself but also direct and public incitement to commit it, genocide includes acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
Those acts include:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm
Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group?s physical destruction
The law does not require that the killing has already happened.
It explicitly criminalizes conspiracy, incitement, and attempts to commit genocide.
So when a president threatens the destruction of ?an entire civilization,? he is not speaking loosely. He is articulating criminal intent.
And intent is the central element of the crime of genocide.
Threatening Civilian Infrastructure Is Also a War Crime
In a CNN interview on April 7, 2026, when asked about Trump?s threats, you dismissed them as if his words did not matter?as if they did not carry the weight and seriousness of the Office of the President of the United States. You went on to say that while you ?don?t support making a whole civilization die,? that the ?next step? in Operation Epic Fury ?is to take action against their oil and civilian infrastructure.?
That advocacy, in the context of President Trump repeatedly threatening to ?blow up? Iran?s power, water, and transportation systems, aligns directly with conduct that international law prohibits.
The deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure like critical energy sources, water systems, and civilian transportation infrastructure would, in most cases, constitute a war crime because it causes widespread suffering to civilian populations.
The laws of war?codified in the Geneva Conventions and related frameworks?require distinction and proportionality.
You cannot:
Target civilians directly
Destroy infrastructure essential to civilian survival as a method of coercion
Use collective punishment against an entire population
When the President publicly promises to ?hit each and every one? of a country?s power plants?which includes the Bushehr nuclear plant on the coast of the Persian Gulf?he is not describing a lawful military operation.
He is describing collective punishment at national scale.
Furthermore, the legal and humanitarian consequences of striking a nuclear reactor would have devastating consequences not just for Iran, but for the entire region around the Persian Gulf. The government of Qatar, our ally which houses critical U.S. military infrastructure, ran a simulation of what would occur if that Iranian nuclear reactor were to experience a meltdown and found that their entire country would be devoid of potable water within three days. Desalination plants throughout the Persian Gulf would have to be shutdown, perhaps permanently, triggering a cascading humanitarian crisis that would extend far beyond Iran.
The long-lasting radioactive pollution would completely destroy fishing and commercial use of the Persian Gulf, making the issue of reopening of the Strait of Hormuz completely irrelevant.
Your Oath Requires Allegiance to the Rule of Law
The United States has already carried out strikes that have killed civilians, including children, in this conflict.
And the President has made clear?repeatedly?that he intends to escalate.
He has also stated, on the record, that he does not believe he is bound by U.S. law or international law.
That is not normal.
That is not defensible.
And it is not compatible with the oath that you, and I, and every service member have sworn?to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
How Far Is Too Far?
Congressman, you said you do not support ?making a whole civilization die.?
But you did not confront the reality of what was said.
Instead, you pivoted to supporting expanded attacks on infrastructure that would inevitably devastate civilian life, and still mean ordering American troops to commit war crimes.
So I am asking you directly:
How far is too far?
At what point does the President?s stated intent to order American troops to commit war crimes weigh on your conscience? At what point does the President?s threat to make the U.S. military complicit in genocide begin to bother you? How many murdered Iranian children are an acceptable loss in a conflict that Congress has not authorized, let alone had the decency to declare as a war? At what point does loyalty to a political party give way to your duty under the Constitution?
Your Responsibility Under the Constitution
The Constitution is clear: the President is not a king.
When a President threatens actions that would constitute:
War crimes
Violations of international law
Or the incitement of genocide
Congress does not get to look away. You do not get to insulate yourself from responsibility by refusing to act as a coequal branch of the federal government.
The mechanism for accountability for such high crimes and misdemeanors is impeachment.
If threatening to order the U.S. military to conduct war crimes and genocide is not a high crime or misdemeanor, what is?
Impeachment is a constitutional safeguard against exactly this kind of abuse of power.
A Final Appeal
As I wrote earlier, I am raising my daughter here, in the district you represent.
And I know you are a father too.
History remembers those who acted?and those who had power and chose not to use it.
So I will ask you plainly:
Will you support the impeachment and removal of a President who has threatened genocide?
Will you defend the rule of law?
Will you abide by your oath, and do your duty?not with loyalty and allegience to a political party, but to the Constitution, and to the people you represent?
Because our children will have to live with the consequences of this moment?and your choices.
History will not be kind to those who refused to stand up when any head of state threatens genocide or orders their troops to commit war crimes.
What legacy will you leave?
Sincerely,
Kristofer Goldsmith
Constituent, NY-17

Another fecking bedwetter, is there no end to them ?

[The Bedlington Terrier]

Cuba next - "It may be a friendly takeover, it may not be a friendly takeover," the Evil Orange Emperor of the New World Order told an assembly of news journalists.

Someone PLEASE put this Mad Dog down.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

The Pope tells Trump to pfhuck off...

Pope Rejects July 4 Visit
The controversy centres on the Pope's decision to decline an invitation to attend the United States' 250th anniversary celebrations. Instead of travelling to America, Pope Leo XIV is expected to spend 4 July in Lampedusa, a location widely recognised as a gateway for migrants entering Europe.

The move is being widely interpreted as a powerful statement. Lampedusa holds deep symbolic meaning within the Catholic Church, particularly in highlighting the struggles of displaced communities. By choosing this destination, the Pope appears to prioritise compassion over ceremony.

No Clear Commitment From the Pontiff
Reports suggest the invitation had been formally delivered during an earlier meeting involving J.D. Vance, but the encounter was described by observers as awkward, with no clear commitment given by the pontiff.

Amid the growing row, Pope Leo XIV has continued to deliver pointed messages about global conflict, diplomacy, and the use of force.

I'm not going either.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

01.03.26 we jetted off to Fuerteventura petrol was 1.22 a litre. We got back 31.03.26 it was 1.67 a litre. Thanks very much you pfhucking stupid orange W@nkpuffin.

BREAKING: Trump’s SHOCKING admission — no backup plan for war, no concern for global economic fallout.
Donald Trump gave a press gaggle at Joint Base Andrews today that should terrify every American who has been paying attention to his Iran war — because in the space of just a few minutes, he revealed that he has no backup plan, doesn't fully understand why the Strait matters, and believes a war that has killed American troops and sent inflation soaring is basically already won.
Let's go through this carefully, because every sentence is a revelation.
On the Strait of Hormuz — the waterway that has been closed for weeks, sending oil to $100 a barrel and gas over $4 — Trump's analysis was breathtaking in its casualness: "We don't use the Strait. Other countries use the Strait." He's right that America is less dependent on Gulf oil than it used to be.
But the Strait carries roughly 20 percent of the world's oil supply. When it closes, global oil prices spike. When global oil prices spike, Americans pay more for gas, diesel, jet fuel, and everything that gets shipped by truck. The Strait of Hormuz isn't other countries' problem. It's everyone's problem. Including the American families paying $4 at the pump right now.
When asked what a good deal looks like, Trump's answer was: "No nuclear weapon. That's 99 percent of it." The Strait — the thing that's actually causing immediate economic pain to Americans and the entire global economy — is apparently the other 1 percent. And his theory on how it opens? "If we just left, the Strait's going to open anyway. Otherwise, they make no money." So, Trump’s strategy for the global shipping crisis is: we'll leave eventually, and it'll sort itself out.
When asked what the backup plan is if it doesn't sort itself out, Trump's answer was the most alarming of all: "You don't need a backup plan."
You don't need a backup plan? For a closed international strait carrying a fifth of the world's oil during an active war with inflation already rising? Yeah, right.
Then came Trump’s version of a victory lap. "Their military is gone. The Navy's gone. The Air Force is gone. All anti-aircraft is gone. The leaders are gone. The whole place is gone." This is the same military that shot down two American fighter jets last weekend. The same military that has been launching missiles and drones at U.S. bases across eight countries. The same military that Pete Hegseth has reportedly been systematically lying to Trump about — feeding him highlight reels while internal documents contradict his claims of total dominance.
And who's handling the negotiations tomorrow? "J.D. and Steve and Jared." Trump is referring to the Vice President, Stephen Witkoff — a New York real estate developer with no diplomatic experience prior to the Trump administration — and Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, who received a $2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia.
American troops are dying. Gas is over $4. And the president's diplomatic team is the least qualified bunch imaginable.
Please like and share this story if you think "you don't need a backup plan" is not an acceptable answer when American lives and the global economy are on the line.
#BreakingNews #Trump #USA

[sinkov]

The Pope tells Trump to pfhuck off...

Pope Rejects July 4 Visit
The controversy centres on the Pope's decision to decline an invitation to attend the United States' 250th anniversary celebrations. Instead of travelling to America, Pope Leo XIV is expected to spend 4 July in Lampedusa, a location widely recognised as a gateway for migrants entering Europe.

The move is being widely interpreted as a powerful statement. Lampedusa holds deep symbolic meaning within the Catholic Church, particularly in highlighting the struggles of displaced communities. By choosing this destination, the Pope appears to prioritise compassion over ceremony.

No Clear Commitment From the Pontiff
Reports suggest the invitation had been formally delivered during an earlier meeting involving J.D. Vance, but the encounter was described by observers as awkward, with no clear commitment given by the pontiff.

Amid the growing row, Pope Leo XIV has continued to deliver pointed messages about global conflict, diplomacy, and the use of force.

I'm not going either.

I remember going to stay with friends in Belfast in the late 50s, it was the family who had looked after my dad when he was stationed in Belfast towards the end of the war. My dad's ship had been sunk in the Med by the Italian navy, blown in half by one of their mines, but he survived. I don't think the navy knew what to do with him until they found him another ship, so they sent him on guard duty to Belfast Docks. What I can vividly remember is whole house sides with NO POPE HERE writ in huge letters. I don't think the good people of that part of Belfast gave a FF about the Pope's pointed messages, neither does President Trump and neither do I.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

“This is a victory for the US,” Trump says at the start of his latest missive. “Because our goal from day one was for Iran to open the strait that didn’t close until after we attacked, which was completely controlled by their military that we had total dominance over. And it was a waterway that we could have taken over, but instead we asked for help that we didn’t need, but we’ll remember our allies did not give us.”

And this guy is still threatening to nuke Iran. Be afraid, be very afraid.