U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under the Trump administration continues to focus on apprehending and deporting the ‘worst of the worst’ illegal migrants.

In recent days, ICE officers arrested aliens who included “pedophiles, drug traffickers, abusers, and other violent thugs,” a senior Department of Homeland Security official told The Federalist in a statement.

“Day after day, ICE is going after the worst of the worst because under President [Donald] Trump and Secretary [Kristi] Noem DHS will always put AMERICANS first,” the senior DHS official said in the statement.

A DHS release provided exclusively to Newsmax last week said ICE had arrested Alejandro Lima-Ramirez, 46, a Mexican national and member of the violent Florencia 13 street gang.

Lima-Ramirez’s record includes 24 arrests across California and Oregon and 16 convictions for crimes ranging from drug trafficking and robbery to fraud and weapons charges.

Now comes news that ICE arrested Jung Choi, a 53-year-old California resident and South Korean national convicted in 2020 of voluntary manslaughter, according to DHS documents exclusively provided to The Federalist.

In 2017, Choi assisted a male companion who murdered his wife.

Choi was paroled Friday, when ICE agents apprehended her to begin the process of sending her back to South Korea.

“We are not going to allow this murderer and criminal illegal alien to remain in our country,” the DHS official told The Federalist.

DHS pointed out several other “worst of the worst” illegal migrants arrested during the past several days. They included:

• Marion Andres Gomez-Arenas, 41, from Colombia. His rap sheet includes 23 criminal arrests and 18 convictions in the state of Georgia, according to DHS. Charges against Gomez-Arenas included fraud, forgery, shoplifting, driving under the influence, and obstruction of a law enforcement officer.
• Zoilo Holguin-Tavarez, from the Dominican Republic. Convicted of possession of illegal substances with intent to deliver and carrying a firearm during the commission of a drug trafficking crime in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to DHS.
• Rigoberto Morales Hernandez, from Mexico. Convicted of illegal migrant smuggling in Albany, N.Y., according to DHS.
• Madai Perez-Perez, 33, from Guatemala. Convicted on a charge of willful poisoning of food on a person in Placer County, California, according to DHS.

Charlie McCarthy ✉

Charlie McCarthy, a writer/editor at Newsmax, has nearly 40 years of experience covering news, sports, and politics

David Harriman writes

The Democratic Party has become the Lunatic Party. Membership in the Party is evidence of a mental disease. The problem is more psychological than political.

We are witnessing hostility, envy, guilt, paranoia, and above all, indiscriminately directed hatred, on a scale that is shocking. If a person blames Hurricane Ian for “disproportionately affecting communities of color,” claims that “racism causes climate change,” that “white people have never invented anything,” and that “ownership is socially unacceptable,” are we supposed to debate these “issues”? Or should we simply recommend a therapist? When they advocate the sexual mutilation of children, transsexual strip shows for kindergarteners, abolishing fossil fuel energy, supporting militant Islam and MS-13 gang members, and defunding the police, are they expressing political views or hatred of America (and more generally, hatred of human life)?

I can’t believe that they will win future elections by public displays of hateful lunacy. But I’ve been wrong before.

I entirely agree. Only a therapist will not help. The lunatic will immediately fire any therapist who states or implies anything against the lunatic leftist Narrative. We cannot save the leftist. We must save ourselves.

LAFAYETTE, LA (KPEL) —A Lafayette woman says she was assaulted by a Popeyes manager when she requested a refund for her incorrect order.

Shena Decuir told KLFY News 10 that she suffered first-degree burns after the Popeyes manager allegedly threw freshly fried chicken at her during a disagreement about the mobile order she placed at the Johnston Street location in Lafayette.

I was assaulted. I was belittled. I mean, it was a horrible experience, and no one should have to go through that.

The shocking incident took place once Decuir returned to the drive-thru to inform staff about a mistake with her order.

The victim alleges that once she requested the correct order or a refund, that’s when the manager escalated the situation and became confrontational. Decuir says he was irritated because the store was nearing closing time.

Decuir says the manager demanded she give the food back and then requested a receipt for her order.

He was like, ‘well, give me the chicken’ and I was like, ‘can I have the receipt?’ Because I will be back for my money and to complain, and I don’t think he liked that I said that.

That’s when the manager threw the hot chicken at her, causing burns to her neck, chest, arms, legs, and feet. Decur called Lafayette Police, who arrived on scene with EMS.

According to KLFY News 10, Decuir is already recovering from an unrelated incident and said she felt alone and helpless, but also thankful that the confrontation was caught on camera.

What would’ve happened if there wouldn’t have been cameras? It’s unacceptable.(snip)

The Lafayette Police Department arrested and charged the manager with simple battery.

The Director of Human Resources told KLFY that they are preparing a formal statement in response to the incident.

For now, anyone looking for a job can apply for the manager position that is now listed.

KPEL and KLFY

Just days into his federal takeover of Washington’s police force, President Trump declared the problem solved.

“D.C. was a hellhole and now it’s safe,” he said. On Monday, he said he expected the same results in Chicago, the next city on his list for a federal crackdown on crime.

“We will solve Chicago within one week, maybe less, but within one week, we will have no crime in Chicago,” Trump told reporters on Monday.

Mr. Trump’s bold (and misleading) pronouncements expose a key strategy behind his tough-on-crime swagger. For the president, the idea of sending federal forces into American cities — exclusively in states or jurisdictions led by Democrats — is not so much about the complex and time-consuming work of rooting out crime.

Instead, experts on policing say, it’s about being seen as fighting crime, then reaping the political benefits. Mr. Trump is far from the first politician to use crime as a political issue in an attempt to gain leverage over rivals. But few have done it before in such a way that is so often disconnected from crime statistics on the ground or without a long-term strategy to keep crime down after the show of force goes away.

“He’s not really taking on street crime,” said Jeffrey A. Butts, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. “He’s using the crime issue for political posturing and political gain. He’s not alone doing that — a lot of politicians do that. He’s just doing it in ways that are much more dramatic and potentially harmful than other politicians.”

Mr. Trump is approaching the issue of crime with his typical rapid-fire style: issuing orders, deploying law enforcement officers and National Guard troops, taking on Democratic mayors and governors, all while making false and inaccurate statements.

He has claimed that crime in Washington is worse than ever, when statistics show crime has been falling. Mr. Trump claimed those statistics were rigged, but, days later, took credit for the drop in crime. He now says there is no crime in D.C. at all, which also is not true. The city continues to see robberies and motor vehicle thefts, among other crimes.

The problem of crime is all too real for residents who live in violent neighborhoods, but criminologists say the largest problem with Mr. Trump’s strategy is that he has shown little patience for addressing deeply rooted and complex problems or recognizing what cities and states have already achieved.

The Trump administration has canceled grants to local jurisdictions worth more than $800 million for hundreds of justice-related programs, including violence prevention and support for law enforcement — the very type of funding that local leaders say is necessary to keep crime down in the long term. And he has threatened to withhold other funding from leaders who publicly oppose him.

Still, many see Mr. Trump’s actions as smart politics or even long-overdue necessary steps. Adam Gelb, the president and chief executive of the Council on Criminal Justice, a policy think tank, said Mr. Trump’s actions could have a short-term effect, because “removing dangerous people and putting more eyes on the street can help.”

But he cautioned that without a long-term strategy, “whatever gains we’re seeing now will be fleeting.”

High crime rates have persisted in Washington, Baltimore and Chicago for decades. And while homicides in all three cities are down this year, residents readily acknowledge that crime is still too high.

The D.C. Police Union has backed Mr. Trump’s takeover of the police force.

“This town averaged one murder every other day for the last 20, 30 years,” Vice President JD Vance said in the Oval Office, “which means that in two short weeks, the president and the team have saved six or seven lives.”

The Trump administration said its operation in Washington had thus far produced 1,000 arrests, including the seizure of 111 firearms.

Asked whether he would send in the National Guard to cities located in red states, Mr. Trump said he would. “Sure, but there aren’t that many of them,” he said.

Several American cities, like Little Rock, Ark., and Virginia Beach, Va., have experienced a spike in homicides. But none of them, located in states with Republican governors, has yet been the target of federal force.

“The targeted cities are among the most violent in the country, but there are some very glaring omissions, especially Detroit, Memphis and St. Louis,” Mr. Gelb said. “It’s hard to escape noticing that the targets are in solidly blue states, but not in red or purple ones.”

Whenever Mr. Trump has found himself in a tricky political situation, such as blowback over a failure to release the so-called Epstein Files, he has tended to retreat to two issues he sees as political winners: immigration and crime.

Gregg Barak, an emeritus professor of criminology at Eastern Michigan University, called Mr. Trump’s actions “pretty transparent.”

“Crime is performance, crime is diversion,” he said. “If he was serious about crime, he’d restore the billion dollars he’s taken from the city; he would put in more law enforcement personnel; he would put in more local court judges, all of the things that you would do if you really wanted to address crime.”

Luke Broadwater covers the White House for The Times.

By Kevin Finn

These stories remind us that bankruptcy doesn’t have to be terminal — it can be a teacher. Rejecting discouragement unlocks potential. These examples should encourage us: from the depths of defeat, greatness awaits those who refuse to submit to failure.

Some leftists are now claiming that conservatives are foolish to expect President Trump, who once went bankrupt, to turn the economy around. As leftist claims frequently do, it shines a spotlight on their willful ignorance of history.

Our society glorifies overnight successes and flawless trajectories. But it’s worth refamiliarizing ourselves with the stories of individuals who have plummeted to financial ruin only to rebuild their careers and create successful businesses. These serve as powerful reminders of human resilience. Bankruptcy, a word synonymous with defeat, has marked the journeys of countless individuals who have refused to let it define them. Instead of wallowing in despair, they transformed catastrophe into catalyst, embodying virtues like perseverance and adaptability. When we examine the experiences of these figures, we see that failure is not a terminus but a forge for greatness. Learning from setbacks can propel one toward unprecedented achievements.

At the heart of these stories lies the virtue of perseverance — the refusal to surrender in the face of insurmountable odds. The early entrepreneurial venture of Abraham Lincoln, for example, crumbled in 1833. As a young storekeeper in New Salem, Illinois, Lincoln accumulated debts equivalent to about $28,000 in today’s dollars after his business partner died, leaving him solely liable. There were no bankruptcy protections at the time, yet he managed to repay his creditors over 17 grueling years. This ordeal did not deter him. Instead, it ignited his political ascent. From failed campaigns to eventual election as president in 1860, Lincoln’s steadfastness preserved the Union during the Civil War, cementing his legacy as one of America’s greatest leaders. His story demonstrates that perseverance can turn hardship into a foundation for enduring impact.

Similarly, Walt Disney’s story exemplifies perseverance and creative reinvention. Born into humble circumstances in 1901, Disney launched Laugh-O-Gram Studio in 1920, only to file for bankruptcy a year later after losing a financial backer. Despite being unable to pay staff or debts, he was undeterred. He borrowed from his family and began anew in 1923. His ambitious Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs project nearly bankrupted him again in 1937, ballooning to $1.5 million in costs — triple the budget. He acquired a last-minute bank loan that saved the project, which eventually grossed $6.5 million and launched Disney’s iconic empire. By the time of his death in 1966, his net worth soared to an estimated $5 billion (adjusted for inflation). Disney’s ability to pivot from animation failures to global entertainment dominance shows how adaptability — learning from missteps and innovating–can convert bankruptcy into triumph.

Entreprenurial risk taking, another key virtue, shines through in figures like Henry Ford and George Foreman. Ford faced bankruptcy in 1903 after his initial ventures floundered. Yet, this setback refined his vision, leading to the Model T and mass production innovations that revolutionized entire industries. His eventual net worth reached $188 billion (adjusted), proving that bold risks, even when they fail initially, pave the way for success.

After retiring to ministry and youth work, boxing legend George Foreman filed for bankruptcy in 1983. He staged a remarkable comeback at age 45, reclaiming a heavyweight title in 1994 — the oldest ever. After retirement, he pivoted to entrepreneurship with the George Foreman Grill, selling over 100 million units and netting $138 million from naming rights alone. The company is worth approximately $300 million today. Foreman’s journey celebrates risk-taking as a virtue that, paired with resilience, yields great prosperity.

These virtues can also be found in the entertainment realm, where financial mismanagement often precipitates downfall, only for determination to orchestrate revival. MC Hammer, the rapper behind the 1990 hit “U Can’t Touch This,” amassed $33 million at his peak but filed for Chapter 11 in 1996, burdened by $13 million in debt from lavish spending. Despite ongoing IRS woes, he rebuilt to a $1.5 million net worth through persistence in music and projects.

Cyndi Lauper’s 1981 filing preceded her $30 million music legacy, Willie Nelson settled a $16 million IRS debt through music and Elton John rebounded from a 2002 bankruptcy to $450 million.

Even modern icons like Donald Trump, who navigated multiple bankruptcies in the 1990s amid real estate turmoil, exemplify this. Trump’s tenacity rebuilt his empire to a $3 billion net worth, showing that strategic recovery from failure demands courage and vision.

The common thread among these individuals — from presidents and entrepreneurs to athletes and artists — is an early brush with poverty or dysfunction, which instilled determination. Perseverance, imagination, and willingness to experiment may be the “secret qualities” enabling phoenix-like rises. Bankruptcy, often stemming from tax issues or extravagant lifestyles, becomes a “bump in the road” when met with the refusal to quit. This resilience fosters innovation, benefitting not only the individual, but all of society. As these individuals expand their enterprises, they employ more people and ignite the economy.

These stories remind us that bankruptcy doesn’t have to be terminal — it can be a teacher. Rejecting discouragement unlocks potential. These examples should encourage us: from the depths of defeat, greatness awaits those who refuse to submit to failure.

In roughly three years, Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has established herself as one of the most recognized members of the Supreme Court — and not in a good way.

Despite being the most junior justice on the high court, Jackson has regularly gone out of her way to thumb her nose at her colleagues for upholding America’s constitutional framework. Whether it be through public comments or poorly written opinions, the Biden appointee has shown little respect for the longstanding traditions and collegiality that have defined SCOTUS for generations.

The latest example of this came on Thursday, when the Supreme Court temporarily stayed (in part) a lower court block on the National Institutes of Health’s bid to terminate DEI-related contracts. The court’s ruling was 5-4, with Jackson joining Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in siding against the Trump administration.

In addition to signing onto Roberts’ opinion, Jackson penned a 21-page screed — which is longer than all the other justices’ opinions combined — denouncing the majority’s decision to partially grant the Trump administration’s request to pause the lower court’s order. Employing the writing style of a left-wing activist, the Biden appointee claimed that her colleagues’ decision is the “newest iteration” of the high court’s “lawmaking on the emergency docket.”

“Stated simply: With potentially life-saving scientific advancements on the line, the Court turns a nearly century-old statute aimed at remedying unreasoned agency decisionmaking into a gauntlet rather than a refuge,” Jackson wrote.

While it’s not uncommon for justices to explain their disagreements and problems with the opposing side’s legal rationale in their opinions, Jackson’s dissent (and this isn’t the first time) takes on another level of snide that’s unbecoming of a junior justice. She went on to effectively accuse her colleagues in the majority of abandoning all semblance of proper jurisprudence and respect for the law in order to bend over backwards for the Trump administration.

“This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist,” Jackson wrote. “Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.”

It’s pretty telling that none of the other justices in the dissent signed onto Jackson’s tirade. While they may share ideological similarities, even Sotomayor and Kagan recognize the importance of respecting and getting along with their conservative-leaning colleagues — especially given that these are lifetime appointments.

But for Jackson, that seemingly matters very little.

What’s become vividly clear is that Jackson isn’t writing about her “feelings” to persuade her colleagues — or more importantly, the American people. She’s writing for a wholly unethical media that practically worships the ground she walks on.

The more ill-informed and incoherent her opinions get, the more fawning coverage the media provides her.

Contrast this apparent mindset with that of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, who has often spoken about how his primary audience when authoring opinions is the American public. During a 2018 interview at the Library of Congress, for instance, the George H.W. Bush appointee emphasized the importance of using language in his opinions that is accessible to the everyday American, as they have a right to understand how the Court is ruling on any given subject.

“One of the things I say … is that genius is not putting a … 10-cent idea in a $20 sentence. Genius is putting a $20 idea in a 10-cent sentence. It is to make it [as] accessible as possible to average people,” Thomas said. “I think we owe it to people.”

That’s an example Jackson would be wise to adopt if she ever wants to be taken seriously as a justice. Until then, Americans will continue to treat her rambling temper tantrums as the jokes that they are.

The more ill-informed and incoherent her opinions get, the more fawning coverage the media provides her.

Contrast this apparent mindset with that of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, who has often spoken about how his primary audience when authoring opinions is the American public. During a 2018 interview at the Library of Congress, for instance, the George H.W. Bush appointee emphasized the importance of using language in his opinions that is accessible to the everyday American, as they have a right to understand how the Court is ruling on any given subject.

“One of the things I say … is that genius is not putting a … 10-cent idea in a $20 sentence. Genius is putting a $20 idea in a 10-cent sentence. It is to make it [as] accessible as possible to average people,” Thomas said. “I think we owe it to people.”

That’s an example Jackson would be wise to adopt if she ever wants to be taken seriously as a justice. Until then, Americans will continue to treat her rambling temper tantrums as the jokes that they are.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

President Trump went on a late-night attack against NBC and ABC News on Sunday, deriding them for what, in his view, was “biased” coverage and said he would be in favor of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) revoking their licenses.

The Republican president said the news outlets had given him negative coverage on “97%” of stories.

It wasn’t clear from where Trump was citing the “97%” figure. A study released earlier this year by the conservative media watchdog group, Media Research Center (MRC), found that coverage of the president’s first 100 days in office was “92% negative.”

“IF THAT IS THE CASE,” Trump wrote in his characteristic use of all caps, “THEY ARE SIMPLY AN ARM OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND SHOULD, ACCORDING TO MANY HAVE THEIR LICENSES REVOKED.”

Trump said he would be “totally in favor” of the move because – according to him – these outlets are “so biased and untruthful, an actual threat to our Democracy.”

The president followed up with another post attacking both outlets as “FAKE NEWS” and “two of the absolute worst and most biased networks anywhere in the world.”

Trump questioned why both entities aren’t “paying Millions of Dollars a year in LICENSE FEES.”

“They should lose their Licenses for their unfair coverage of Republicans and/or Conservatives, but at a minimum, they should pay up BIG for having the privilege of using the most valuable airwaves anywhere at anytime!!!” Trump wrote. “Crooked ‘journalism’ should not be rewarded, it should be terminated!!!”

Fox News Digital has reached out to both ABC and NBC News for a response to Trump’s posts.

Being national networks, ABC and NBC News do not hold FCC licenses for news content but provide programming for local affiliates across the country.

TV stations pay fees and annual regulatory fees based on station type and market, while cable outlets pay their own regulatory fees. Only congress has the authority to impose and collect such fees, which are deposited in the U.S. Treasury. 

Any move to revoke licenses based on real or perceived news bias would run afoul of First Amendment protections. Similar attempts in the past have been struck down by the courts. 

This is not the first time Trump has attacked broadcast outlets or threatened to strip their licenses. Last year, Trump settled a defamation suit against ABC for $15 million, and he famously hosted “The Apprentice” on NBC before entering the world of politics. 

And earlier this year, Paramount Global and CBS agreed to pay out a settlement over the president’s election interference lawsuit against the network.

Bradford Betz, FoxNews

Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian

The accusation that Israel is committing a “genocide” in Gaza has become pervasive on the Left, and particularly in academia. I think that the accusation is absurd, so much so that until now I haven’t thought it worthy of a response. However, the accusation has recently arrived on my own website. In the comment thread on the prior post, one of the commenters (regular readers can guess who) has leveled against President Trump the charge that he “is sending weapons to Israel for the genocide in Gaza.” Really? It’s time for a response.

In my opinion, what’s going on in Gaza is not a genocide, but a war. Deaths in war are not a genocide. On October 7, 2023, the governing entity of Gaza, Hamas, conducted an unprovoked attack on Israel, killing approximately 1,200 people, and taking some 250 hostages. Israel has responded with a military action. This is a classic war. The norm in war is that the parties fight until one of the parties surrenders, or there is an armistice. When the parties are fighting, the whole idea is to kill as many of the enemy as possible. Hamas could end the war by surrendering. It has not done so. Moreover, it continues to hold hostages. Therefore, the normal expectation of war would be that Israel will continue to kill as many of the enemy as possible until there is a surrender.

You may disagree with my characterization that the October 7 attack by Hamas on Israel was “unprovoked.” It doesn’t matter. Assume that the attack was provoked. This is still a war. In war, it is entirely the norm that a party that has been attacked tries to kill as many of the enemy as it can until the enemy surrenders.

Is there any other example of the term “genocide” being applied to a full-scale military response to an armed attack by an enemy state actor that has not surrendered? If there is, I don’t know of it.

Consider, for example, the Russia/Ukraine war. In this case I would say that Russia’s attack and invasion were unprovoked. The Russian version of events of course differs, and accuses Ukrainian of provocations that caused the conflict. But again, even if Russia’s invasion was completely unprovoked, the conflict is still a war between enemy state actors, where neither has surrendered. Unlike Israel, which makes extensive efforts to minimize civilian casualties, Russia regularly sends drones to bomb civilian targets and residential buildings in Ukrainian cities. But does anyone call Russia’s conduct toward Ukraine a “genocide”? Not that I’ve seen. Contrast this with the conduct of the Soviet Union toward Ukraine in the 1930s, when it imposed an intentional famine in which millions of innocents starved to death. There was no war going on; Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. That was a genocide.

Or consider World War II. Today that conflict is quickly fading out of living human memory. But it provides some obvious guideposts to distinguish between “genocide” and deaths from combat in war.

During World War II, Hitler and his minions engineered the deaths of some 6 million Jews and others, selected largely by racial and ethnic criteria, who were noncombatants and residents of either Germany or conquered territories. That is the classic “genocide.”

But there were far more deaths from fighting in the war. Here is a quote from a famous speech given by U.S. General George Patton to the Sixth Armored Division of the U.S. army (under his command) on May 31, 1944 (a few days before D-Day and the Normandy beach invasion):

We’ll win this war, but we’ll win it only by fighting and showing the Germans that we’ve got more guts than they have or ever will have. We’re not just going to shoot the bastards, we’re going to rip out their living g[-]damned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We’re going to murder those lousy Hun c[***]suckers by the bushel-f[***]ing-basket.

(Quoted in Michael Walsh’s recent book A Rage to Conquer.)

In other words, with a war going on, we are going to kill the enemy, and as effectively as possible. And Patton was only talking about killing enemy soldiers. The U.S. and allied war effort was by no means limited to killing soldiers. For example, in 1943 and 1944 the U.S. and England carried out saturation bombing campaigns directed at German cities like Dresden, Bremen, Essen and even Berlin itself. There were many military targets, but these campaigns essentially leveled the cities, with very large numbers of civilian casualties. Indeed, a large part of the reason for these campaigns was the attempt to undermine civilian support for the Nazi regime. Nobody thought that the U.S. or England were under any obligation to deliver food aid to the suffering German civilians.

And then there were the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in these bombings. Shortly thereafter, Japan surrendered unconditionally, at which point the indiscriminate killings ended immediately.

I have no idea how it is that new rules seem to have emerged, applicable only to Israel (or maybe to only Israel and the United States) whereby any civilian casualties in war are now deemed “genocide.” The use of the term seems to be directed at appealing to soft-minded and historically ignorant students and academics in Western countries. But endless repetition of an inapplicable term cannot change a classic war into something else.

Hamas can end the deaths in Gaza by the simple expedient of unconditional surrender. Until then, it can expect large numbers of deaths, many of them civilians.

My office is exactly eleven steps from the waiting room. About a minute ago, I found myself standing out there; utterly clueless as to why I went in the first place. Whatever my perfectly good reason had been for taking those eleven steps simply vanished into thin air. I skulked back to my office and decided to turn my annoyance into something useful — like this week’s column.

Everyone has endured the elusive password, the vanishing keys or that pesky oven that might – or might not – be on. Or the front door that might or might not be locked. What is it about our mental storage and retrieval system that can be so exasperating?

As we try to do more and more in less and less time, what we call “multitasking” actually works against our ability to remember things. For something to be remembered, it has to be exciting or special. Throwing keys on the table is not exciting. Whatever I needed in the waiting room was, I guess, not very special. Based on this, we can come up with some useful tricks for improving our memory.

Dr. Zaldy Tan, author of “Age-Proof Your Mind,” offers a suggestion for episodes like my waiting room incident: Retrace your steps. By walking back to where you started, it’s possible you’ll remember what triggered your decision to go there in the first place. Indeed, pressuring yourself to remember something actually interferes with the recall process.

If I retrace my steps and still come up with nothing, I just tell myself, “Relax. It’ll come back.” This releases the immediate pressure and allows me to go back to other things.

As a mental health professional, I spend countless hours talking with people. In the course of these discussions, many clients will stop and say something like, “I don’t remember what I was going to say.” I remove the pressure by suggesting: “Don’t worry. It’ll come back.” It almost always comes back before the hour is over. Why? Because the stress is released and the subconscious has a chance to retrieve the lost thought, which most likely connects to our conversation.

What about situations where you lose your keys? Or your wallet? You don’t have the luxury to simply “forget about it.” In these more urgent circumstances you obviously have to retrace your steps. In this case, the resulting pressure helps you persevere in your search. If you constantly lose important items, then you’ll need to focus on prevention. Take psychologist Dr. Elizabeth Edgerly’s advice. “If you put your keys [or whatever] in the same place every day, you’ll always, without fail, know where they are.” The more you do something the same way, the more likely you are to remember it.

Association is another memory-enhancing technique. Do you ever worry that you didn’t lock the door? Or that perhaps you left the oven on? There are few things more annoying than going back, only to discover (in 99.99% of cases) that you did do what you thought you didn’t.

Associating something distinctive with an action can be helpful in remembering it. For example, singing a silly tune to yourself as you lock the door will help you remember it later. Dr. Edgerly points out that most people are visual learners, which explains why we rarely forget faces but often forget names. When you meet a new person, she suggests repeating the name to yourself and then using it at least once in conversation. “So, Murlene, how long do you plan to be in town?”

Memory problems can sometimes be a sign of increased stress. In these cases, you have to unlock the underlying causes to help open the door to a better memory and a less anxious life.

Door! Unlock! I just remembered why I walked out into the waiting room!

I left my keys in the front door.

Michael J. Hurd, Life’s a Beach

“How do we keep our inner fire alive? Two things, at minimum, are needed: an ability to appreciate the positives in our life – and a commitment to action. Every day, it’s important to ask and answer these questions: ‘What’s good in my life?’ and ‘What needs to be done?”

― Nathaniel Branden, psychologist & author