Now coming into view are the specifics of EPA’s strategy to end the Obama/Biden efforts to strangle the energy sector of the economy in the name of “saving the planet” from climate change. A document released by EPA last week on June 11 lays out the plan for repeal of the absurd (and dangerous) regulation that would have ended use of fossil fuels to generate electricity by some time in the 2030s. This EPA document is particularly interesting for the way it treats — and effectively sidelines — the so-called Endangerment Finding, the 2009 regulatory action that is the basis for all of the Obama/Biden fossil fuel suppression efforts.

President Trump made it clear from the first day of his new administration that he intended to undo as many as possible of the Obama/Biden era burdens and restriction on American energy production and use. Among the Executive Orders that Trump signed on “Day 1” (January 20, 2025) was one titled “Unleashing American Energy.” All agency heads were directed to review existing energy regulations for potential rescission as being overly burdensome. Excerpt:

Sec. 3. . . . (a) The heads of all agencies shall review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, settlements, consent orders, and any other agency actions . . . to identify those agency actions that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources — with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, biofuels, critical mineral, and nuclear energy resources. . . .

On March 12, EPA followed through with an announcement of what it called the “biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history.” The announcement identified and listed some 31 EPA regulations and programs as unduly burdening the American economy, and therefore targeted for extinction. These ranged from rules designed to eliminate fossil fuel-fired power plants (called “Clean Power Plan 2.0,” or CPP 2.0), to rules restricting automobile emissions (and effectively mandating electric vehicles), to the massive “greenhouse gas reporting program,” and many, many more. The first item at the top of the list for elimination was CPP 2.0. However, at that time, the actual process for rescinding these various rules had not yet begun, and it remained unclear what approach EPA might take to effect the rescissions.

As regards CPP 2.0, that ambiguity ended on June 11, when there appeared on EPA’s website a “pre-publication” version of the document intended to initiate the rescission of CPP 2.0. The title is “Repeal of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units” The actual regulatory rescission process formally begins when this document gets published in what is called the Federal Register. Apparently, that will occur tomorrow, June 17.

There are several notable things about this document. First, it signals that CPP 2.0 will be eliminated through a process of formal “notice and comment” rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. Second, it lays out the schedule and procedures for the rescission, thus giving an indication of when the process will be concluded (and ripe for judicial review). Third, it provides the rationale for the rescission, grounding that rationale in the language of the relevant statute (here Clean Air Act Section 111). And fourth — and most significant in my view — it uses a rationale that implicitly undoes and undermines the Biden-era “Endangerment Finding” that underlies all of the government’s greenhouse gas regulations. And it does that without ever confronting the so-called “science” of greenhouse warming. I’ll take these points one at a time.

The first seven or so pages of EPA’s document set forth the procedure and schedule of the prospective rescission. There will be a virtual public hearing 15 days after Federal Register publication (thus, in early July). Comments will be due 45 days after Federal Register publication. That means that the comment period can be closed by some time in early August. After that, EPA must respond to the comments before finalizing its action. They will want to be careful in doing that. (Any slip-up can give an opening to a court to enjoin its action.) However, relative to other rule makings, there will be no occasion in this one to modify the rule’s language in response to comments, since the rule is being eliminated entirely. I highly doubt that any commenter is going to dissuade the current EPA from rescinding this rule. While this is somewhat speculative, I expect that the rescission can be finalized by early fall. And then, on to the litigation!

Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian

The Islamic Republic has come to its end and is collapsing. What has begun is irreversible. The future is bright, and together we will turn the page of history. Now is the time to stand up; the time to reclaim Iran. May I be with you soon.

Reza Pahlavi

Fort Cavazos is returning to its original name, Fort Hood

In 2023, President Joe Biden chose to rename posts across the country that honored Confederate soldiers

Now, President Donald Trump is erasing that recent change

FORT HOOD, Texas – The United States Army reinstated the names of seven posts, including one historic site in Central Texas.

Fort Cavazos is returning to its original name, Fort Hood.

Why is the post changing back to Fort Hood?

What they’re saying

“We never served at Cavasos,” said Lee Opacki, who previously served at Fort Hood. “I never served at Fort Cavasos, but I did do two rotations at Fort Hood, so it’s kind of a mixed feeling.”

The army post in Killeen, Texas, has been operating under the title of Fort Cavazos since 2023.

“Originally, I was against the Cavasos name change from Fort Hood because I served here, and many of my soldiers and predecessors served here,” said Opacki. “As I started researching about General Cavasos and his lineage, I started to understand why it was important to name it that.”

Under the previous administration, President Joe Biden chose to rename posts across the country that honored Confederate soldiers. Now, President Donald Trump is erasing that recent change.

Although these stations’ initial titles will be restored, it will be in recognition of different service members with the same last names.

Katie Pratt, Yahoo News

The prospect of U.S. involvement in an increasingly volatile conflict between Israel and Iran has cleaved clear divisions within the MAGA movement – a rarity over the course of President Trump’s decade-long political career.

Top Trump allies have pleaded their case in recent weeks directly to the president and on social media for why the U.S. should fully avoid engaging in any dispute between Iran and Israel. On another side, other Trump allies are arguing it is in the president’s interest to take a more aggressive posture toward Iran.

Some have suggested the schism could fracture the president’s coalition. Sources who spoke with The Hill downplayed that notion, arguing Trump is the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes “America first.”

Here is who falls into each camp.

Advocating for non-intervention

A vocal group of influential MAGA voices have been banging the drum in recent days to argue against any kind of U.S involvement in a conflict with Iran.

Those figures have made the case that targeting Iran would contradict Trump’s “America First” foreign policy rhetoric and would echo the mistakes of the George W. Bush administration, which Trump has sharply criticized.

“This is exactly the same pitch as the Iraq war,” former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon said on Tucker Carlson’s show on X.

Carlson has also been an outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, going as far as to call out by name individuals he claimed were “warmongers” in the president’s ear.

The former Fox News host voiced frustrations after Israel late last week launched missile strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities and killed multiple top Iranian military officials. Carlson wrote that Trump was “complicit in the act of war” and said what occurs next in the region “will define Donald Trump’s presidency.”

Those comments did not sit well with Trump, who derided Carlson as “kooky” in a social media post.

Coming to Carlson’s defense was a typically staunch Trump ally: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). She posted on X that Carlson’s opposition to foreign wars did not make him “kooky.”

“Americans want cheap gas, groceries, bills, and housing. They want affordable insurance, safe communities, and good education for their children. They want a government that works on these issues,” Greene posted on Tuesday.

“Considering Americans pay for the entire government and government salaries with their hard earned tax dollars, this is where our focus should be,” Greene added. “Not going into another foreign war.”

Brett Samuels, The Hill

There are moments in history when the world needs more than a diplomat. It needs a man of action. A commander. A decider. A leader. This week, when Iran escalated the war with Israel, the rest of the globe issued statements and expressed “grave concern.” President Donald J. Trump left the G7 Summit early, stepped on Air Force One, and went home to get to work.

That’s the difference.

While the international elites clinked wine glasses and crafted nonbinding resolutions, President Trump did what he always does: led.

This was not a war he asked for. It wasn’t one he provoked. But it was one that carried consequences far beyond the Middle East—and President Trump understood that. Iran’s sustained campaign of terror, its deep-pocketed funding of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, and its nuclear ambitions have long threatened not only Israel’s existence, but the global order itself. There is no stability in Europe or Asia if Tehran becomes a nuclear power. Period.

And unlike the paper-pushers in Brussels and the Ivy League think tanks back home, Trump never waited around for the “perfect time” to act. There never was one. Whether it was taking out Soleimani in 2020, brokering the Abraham Accords, or cutting off Iran’s financial lifeline, Trump always understood that bold leadership shapes outcomes. Hesitation merely concedes the battlefield.

Iran crossed a line this week. Not just by striking Israel again, but by openly daring the West to respond. And while every other world leader scrambled for cover or PR statements, Trump made the call: the game had changed. The time to act had come.

The critics were instantly breathless. “But the G7!” they shrieked. “Trump is abandoning America’s allies!” Nonsense. The G7 isn’t a wartime alliance. It’s a photo-op for bureaucrats who never put on a uniform. Our real allies—those who share our values, face our enemies, and actually carry the burden of freedom—are in Jerusalem, not Geneva.

Let’s be clear: Trump didn’t leave the summit in disgrace. He left it to do something the rest of the world’s leaders couldn’t—or wouldn’t—do: defend peace through strength.

That phrase may sound Reaganesque—and it is. But it’s also Trump’s foreign policy in action. Iran only understands force. During his first term, Trump had their economy on the verge of collapse. There were no uranium enrichment parties in Natanz. No missiles flying toward Tel Aviv. The ayatollahs feared the White House. But under the weakness of the previous administration, they had become emboldened—and alarmingly close to nuclear capability.

Which is why this moment matters so much.

No American president in recent memory had been willing to take the decisive steps necessary to prevent a nuclear Iran. Obama paid them off. Biden turned a blind eye. Even Bush let it simmer. Trump? He was never interested in kicking the can. He was interested in removing the threat—permanently.

And if that required stepping away from a summit of speechmakers to engage in actual statecraft, so be it. History will remember it as one of the most consequential—and courageous—moves of his second term.

What comes next won’t be easy. There will be resistance. The media will foam. Europe will protest. The usual suspects at the UN will wring their hands and pass toothless resolutions. But this isn’t about appeasing international bodies—it’s about securing international peace. And Trump understood something they didn’t: peace through weakness is an illusion. Peace through dominance is reality.

Let’s be clear: Trump didn’t leave the summit in disgrace. He left it to do something the rest of the world’s leaders couldn’t—or wouldn’t—do: defend peace through strength.

That phrase may sound Reaganesque—and it is. But it’s also Trump’s foreign policy in action. Iran only understands force. During his first term, Trump had their economy on the verge of collapse. There were no uranium enrichment parties in Natanz. No missiles flying toward Tel Aviv. The ayatollahs feared the White House. But under the weakness of the previous administration, they had become emboldened—and alarmingly close to nuclear capability.

Which is why this moment matters so much.

No American president in recent memory had been willing to take the decisive steps necessary to prevent a nuclear Iran. Obama paid them off. Biden turned a blind eye. Even Bush let it simmer. Trump? He was never interested in kicking the can. He was interested in removing the threat—permanently.

And if that required stepping away from a summit of speechmakers to engage in actual statecraft, so be it. History will remember it as one of the most consequential—and courageous—moves of his second term.

What comes next won’t be easy. There will be resistance. The media will foam. Europe will protest. The usual suspects at the UN will wring their hands and pass toothless resolutions. But this isn’t about appeasing international bodies—it’s about securing international peace. And Trump understood something they didn’t: peace through weakness is an illusion. Peace through dominance is reality.

And here’s the kicker: a decisive strike on Iran’s nuclear capabilities doesn’t just protect Israel. It buys the rest of the world breathing room. Specifically, it delays—possibly by years—China’s appetite for aggression.

Make no mistake: the Chinese Communist Party is watching this conflict like a hawk. If the U.S. folds, they move on Taiwan. If we show resolve, they blink. And right now, President Trump is giving Xi Jinping a masterclass in deterrence.

The big tamale is always China. The entire geopolitical chessboard—from oil prices to Pacific shipping lanes—comes down to whether or not Beijing believes the United States is serious about protecting freedom. Taking Iran’s nukes off the table sends exactly the right message: poke the eagle and you get the talon.

So let the think-piece crowd moan. Let the diplomats drone on about “process” and “international consensus.” Trump is doing what the job requires. What the moment demands. What the future depends on.

He’s leading.

And the world is already safer for it.

Kevin McCullough, Townhall

President Donald Trump said he is considering a range of options on Iran, including a strike on the Islamic Republic, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

Trump was discussing those options with top security advisers in the Situation Room, according to the report. The Journal reported that the meeting concluded Tuesday afternoon after nearly 90 minutes.

It’s unclear if any decision was reached during the meeting. The Journal reported that Trump’s goal is that Iran not be able to develop nuclear capabilities.

reported another option for Trump is enlisting the U.S. Air Force to help refuel Israeli fighter jets as they execute strikes in Iran. More than 30 refueling tankers have assembled in the region over the last several days, according to the report.

Earlier Tuesday, Trump called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender” and said the U.S. knew “exactly where” Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was hiding.

“He is an easy target, but is safe there — We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now,” Trump said in a post to Truth Social.

Trump prematurely left the G7 summit in Canada on Monday night, saying he had to get back for something “much bigger” than a ceasefire between Iran and Israel. He said he wanted “an end, a real end, not a ceasefire.” He also urged Iranian citizens to evacuate the capital city of Tehran, spurring speculation that action against Iran was imminent.

Early Tuesday morning, Trump said in a post to Truth Social that he had not reached out to Iran for peace talks “in any way, shape, or form.”

“If they want to talk, they know how to reach me. They should have taken the deal that was on the table — Would have saved a lot of lives!!!” he said in the post.

Mark Swanson ✉

Mark Swanson, a Newsmax writer and editor, has nearly three decades of experience covering news, culture and politics.

Trump threatens Iran’s leader, demands ‘unconditional surrender’

Trump threatens Iran’s leader, demands ‘unconditional surrender’

President Donald Trump on Tuesday warned Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that he is an “easy target” and “our patience is wearing thin,” before demanding Tehran surrender in its conflict against Israel.

“We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now,” he wrote after declaring “total control” over Iran’s airspace.

“But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin.”

Trump in a subsequent post made clear what he does want from Iran: “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!”

The threat from the U.S. president came two days after news outlets reported that Trump vetoed a plan by Israel to assassinate the ayatollah.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday downplayed his reported disagreement with Trump over

Khamenei, saying, “I wouldn’t rush to conclusions.”

The Trump administration has previously insisted that the U.S. was not directly involved in what Israel called a preemptive strike against Iran on Friday, which kicked off five days of missile fire between the two regional powers.

But Trump’s latest comments suggest the U.S. is now at least willing to threaten direct military intervention as it backs Israel’s effort to bring Tehran to heel.

U.S. stocks slid Tuesday afternoon as the geopolitical tensions mounted. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 300 points, or 0.7%, while the S&P 500 declined 0.8% and the Nasdaq dropped 0.9%.

Crude oil futures jumped more than 3% to above $74 per barrel around 2 p.m. ET.

The Pentagon, meanwhile, is moving more warships and another aircraft carrier to the Middle East, NBC News reported Tuesday. The U.S. previously deployed military assets to the region to help Israel shoot down Iranian missiles and projectiles, according to NBC.

Trump is expected to hold a meeting in the Situation Room on Tuesday afternoon to discuss the Israel-Iran conflict with his top national security advisors.

On Monday, Trump abruptly returned to Washington, D.C., from Canada, where he had traveled for a meeting of the Group of Seven nations.

Before he left, Trump criticized the G7 for kicking Russia out of the group in 2014 after its annexation of Crimea.

Trump teed up Tuesday’s threat against Khamenei with an earlier social media post declaring, “We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.”

Tehran “had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn’t compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured ‘stuff,’” Trump wrote.

“Nobody does it better than the good ol’ USA.”

The New York Times reported Monday that Trump is weighing whether to help Israel destroy Iran’s underground uranium enrichment facility at Fordo, which could only be accomplished with the U.S.′ biggest “bunker buster” bomb.

The White House did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment on that report, or on other questions about the latest developments in the Israel-Iran conflict.

Kevin Breuninger, CNBC

Within the span of a week, what was begun by Israel on June 13 could easily be a replay of Sept. 12, 1683 when Poland’s Winged Hussars, as led by King Jan Sobieski III, broke the siege of Vienna and saved Central Europe from Ottoman subjugation.

Israel is about to put an end to more than forty-five years of regional and worldwide state-sponsored terrorism by Iran’s theocrats, although the very people whom Israel saves are unlikely to thank them for it. Israel’s role is in fact similar to margraves, voyevodes, and similar border lords who, often at high costs to themselves, defended the ungrateful civilizations behind them from the barbarians and savages in front of them. We are, quite frankly, watching history in the making.

A Margrave’s Lot is Not a Happy One

Science fiction writer Poul Anderson’s “Among Thieves” is highly instructive. It is set in the distant future, with an on-and-off “forever war” between the planets Norstad and Osterik (the first is reminiscent of Germany, and Osterreich is Austria) and Kolresh, a space-faring nation of what are essentially pirates and terrorists. Neither can really get at the other because the first side cannot match the other in space, while the second cannot match the first’s army.

Iran has similarly been a state sponsor of terrorism for more than forty years, while Israel has fought terrorists even before it became a country; hence the relevance of this discussion.

We can easily imagine ayatollah-ruled Iran as Mother Jihad, similar to Mother Ginger in the Nutcracker except she has terrorists instead of ballet dancers under her voluminous skirt.

In Anderson’s story, the Margrave of Drakenstane — draken is Swedish for dragon, and stane is Old English for stone — pretends to collude with Kolresh to invade Earth and its associates, who have done very little to protect the frontier or “march” regions. Margrave means, in fact, Mark-Graf or border lord. His own people berate him for siding with the enemies they have fought for generations, and throw stones at their own soldiers when they board the enemy troop transports and accompanying warships to attack Earth.

However, at an appointed time, the Drakenstane officers order their men to attack the crews of the “allied” warships and transports. They know they will die if they fail to capture the ships, and many do, but now the Kolresh fleet is in the hands of Norstad and Osterik, and the forever war is over. The pirates and terrorists are disarmed and will never menace civilization again, but the Margrave says in essence “Don’t bother to thank us” because he doubts the decadent inhabitants of Earth, who have been hiding behind his own people for decades — much as a good part of the civilized world has hidden behind Israel — will do so.

Israel will similarly put an end to the puppet master behind the Houthi pirates, Hezbollah terrorists who murdered U.S. Marines in Beirut, Hamas, Instagram moderators who work side jobs for the ayatollahs, and many domestic enablers of the terrorists in question.

I doubt Israel will get much in the way of thanks either, except from the Persian people themselves.

Anderson appears to have modeled his Margrave on very real people who held similar roles throughout history. These warlords all had the duty of defending the civilizations behind them against barbarians, robbers, and enemy countries like the Ottoman Empire.

Austria’s Grenzers (border guards) performed this function against the Ottomans, and the United States’ own history includes many people whose job was to protect settlements from hostile natives, hostile foreign countries, bandits, and outlaws.

Wikipedia explains: 

Margrave was originally the medieval title for the military commander assigned to maintain the defence of one of the border provinces of the Holy Roman Empire or a kingdom.

In England, a “marcher lord” guarded the frontier between Wales and Britain. Scotland and England both had a “Lord Warden of the Marches” who were responsible for dealing with criminal activity in the border region. The voyevodes of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had similar responsibilities on the Crimean and Turkish frontiers, and it is telling that voyna is the Slavic word for war.

Margraves, march-wardens, and voyevodes were all what Rudyard Kipling depicted as the “uniforms that guard you while you sleep,” and he pointed out that the soldiers who protected England were not well treated either.

Make no mistake; Israel is now the Margrave of civilized humanity, and the IDF’s personnel are now the uniforms that guard us all while we sleep.

We sit, quartered comfortably and safe out here, with two oceans between us and the terrorists, while some Israelis have about thirty seconds to reach bomb shelters when Hamas launches rockets. Students and faculty at our colleges, most of whom would be raped and/or killed if they fell into Hamas’ or Iran’s hands, bleat when Israel defends its own people. A Margrave’s lot is indeed not a happy one, but now the forever war and cycle of violence between Israel and the terrorists needs to come to an end.

Persians Must Topple the Ayatollahs

Everybody knows that, if one lets even a handful of cancer cells survive, the cancer will eventually return. It is not enough for Israel to disable Iran’s nuclear program. As Israel has already disrupted Iran’s military forces, this is the best time for the Persian people to take their country back from the medieval savages who hijacked it in 1979.

Israel’s name for its operation, Rising Lion, might in fact relate not to Israel’s Lion of Judah, but rather the Lion and Sun on the pre-1979 Iranian Flag. Reza Pahlavi has urged his people to rise up and depose the ayatollahs.

The jailers and torturers at Evin Prison, about which Amnesty International actually has something worthwhile to say, should take note of the following:

During the Second World War, Americans liberated the Dachau concentration camp. The Americans and some of the inmates put the guards up against the nearest convenient wall and shot them. The fate of Benito Mussolini, at the hands of his own people, meanwhile speaks for itself. Evin’s jailers and torturers should therefore unlock all the cells, leave the prisoners with the best available food and clothing, and decamp quickly to somewhere like Russia, Communist China, or North Korea before they get similar treatment from their victims and the victims’ families.

The same goes for the ayatollahs, religious judges, and police who have tortured, raped, and/or executed women for not wearing hijabs and hanged LGBT people and Baha’is. They need look no further than the Nuremberg defendants who were fitted with Pierrepoint neckties for similar crimes against humanity. That’s Pierrepoint, not Pierrepont; the extra ‘i’ makes all the difference between a fashionable garment and a broken neck, as in the Danny Deever treatment. Some have already seen the handwriting on the wall, and are fleeing the country.

When the ayatollahs go down, expect to see major changes throughout the world. The Houthi pirates, who produce nothing themselves, should dry up and blow away in the absence of their Iranian sugar daddies. The same might happen to Hezbollah and Hamas, which are totally dependent on foreign aid.

The same goes for many organizations that are causing trouble in our universities and on our streets — no Iranian oil money, no rioting or vandalism. Meanwhile, although the stock market fell on June 13 when Israel attacked Iran, I expect it to go up quickly once investors realize the Houthi pirates will be out of the picture and Iran will no longer be sponsoring violence around the world.

Civis Americanus is the pen name of a contributor who remembers the lessons of history, and wants to ensure that our country never needs to learn those lessons again the hard way. He or she is remaining anonymous due to being subjected to “cancel culture” for denouncing Black Lives Matter’s incitement of civil disorder.

Israel and Iran are not “trading blows” as some have phrased it. Israel is dealing strategic devastation on Iran, eliminating much of the terrorist regime’s military top brass and key nuclear scientists , and attacking nuclear weapons sites, air defence systems, and offensive drone and missile capabilities.

Meanwhile Iran is lashing out with drones and ballistic missiles, fired into Israel’s population centres, deliberately killing and wounding civilians in places like Tel Aviv, the most densely populated city in the country. Here, for the last two nights I have heard ballistic missiles roar overhead and seen Israel’s impressive air defences knock some of them out of the sky.

Those missiles that did get through told a terrifying story. What if just one of them had been armed with a nuclear warhead? Vast numbers would have been killed. That’s why Israel had to launch this pre-emptive assault on the Islamic Republic. Israeli intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency both saw that Iran was on the cusp of obtaining nuclear weapons capability.

Had they been allowed to get to that point we must assume they would use them in pursuit of their frequently declared intent of destroying Israel. That Jerusalem has nuclear weapons would not have deterred them.

fanatical ayatollahs in Tehran wouldn’t care how many of their own people were sacrificed in pursuit of their religious duty of annihilating the Jewish state. As for the rest of the world, it should be grateful to Israel because a nuclear armed Iran would have threatened us all.

The ayatollahs have repeatedly shown their unbridled thirst for violence before, including killing British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and attempting terrorist attacks in our country.

All wars are terrible but sometimes they have to be fought to prevent an even worse evil.

Colonel Richard Kemp

Realize where we are.” — Oilfield Rando on “X”.

Saturday morning, we toodled over to the next town, Salem, New York, (pop. 2,612, per capita income $19,499) fifty miles northeast of Albany, to catch one of the hundreds of “No Kings” demos across the nation sponsored by Shanghai-based software billionaire Neville Roy Singham, Walmart heiress Christy Walton, Paypal partner (and Linked-in founder) Reid Hoffman, and father-and son team, George and Alex Soros.

Speaking of Alex Soros, Saturday also happened to be his wedding day, to Huma Abedin, former Hillary Clinton sidekick and BFF (and ex-wife of disgraced congressman and convicted sex offender Anthony Weiner.) The nuptials happened at the Soros’s Hamptons estate. Cable news covered the fabulous cavalcade of black Escalade limousines conveying the super-elite of Progressive-Wokery to the glorious event. The New York Times, with its habitual lack of self-awareness, styled the event thusly:

“Liberal royalty?” Say, what. . . ? There is such a thing? In the party of No Kings? What’s the deal, then? Just princes and princesses, dukes and duchesses, earls, viscounts, baronets, lairds, marquis, knights and dames, and so on. Yet, no king? Well, if you asked the fortunate wedding guests, they might aver to Hillary Clinton as a sort-of Queen of the party, or maybe just Queen Bee. As for former president Bill, he appears to be undergoing slow-motion mummification, so he currently occupies an ambiguous zone between this world and the next, with no mojo left for kingly duties. Anyway, it rained that day down on the South Fork.

Meanwhile, back upstate, cloudy and cool but no rain, some two-hundred wrathful plebeian souls gathered at the one-stoplight-intersection in little Salem, these days mainly a farm community, the old railroad engine repair shop defunct, and many good non-farm jobs with it, the usual story in this corner of the country. The hopped-up crowd was well-supplied with signs and placards, many avouching Down with Oligarchs! — which, oddly, seemed a sort of backhanded reference to billionaires of the very type underwriting the day’s festivities, not to mention the super-rich “liberal royalty” gang gathered for the Soros-Abedin royal wedding.

But that was only one of the many incongruities haunting the mass protest against the abhorred president, Mr. Trump. For instance, one poor fellow on the southeast corner of South Main and East Broadway inveighed mournfully against the suppression of free speech, apparently unaware of the epic efforts 2021 to 2025 by “Joe Biden’s” underlings to censor the Internet and de-platform the regime’s critics (including yours truly, whose website was mysteriously destroyed in October 2024).

The moiling mob was overwhelmingly geriatric, perhaps reflecting the backwater demographics of a region with few job opportunities for young folk. A spirit of revival bubbled among them as they reenacted old rituals of the hippie halcyon, the grand old days of the Vietnam War protests, when thousands gathered to levitate the Pentagon. Only now, their sentiments and beliefs exhibit a striking and peculiar inversion of the ancient 1960s credos that drove the beloved Movement.

I know because I was there, on campus, between 1966 and 1971. Back then, the Left opposed the wicked “establishment” and all its nefarious operations, from the war in Vietnam to the FBI’s underhanded suppression of political dissent. These days, strange to relate, the Left stands in staunch defense of the Deep State, big government (and its prodigious corruption), and the politicization of the FBI and CIA.

Their placards lament the withering of “our democracy,” yet they were just fine with “Joe Biden” selecting a 2024 presidential candidate for them — with no customary vote by party delegates, or anything approaching an open democratic process. They shout for the “rule-of-law,” except when it concerns special persons such as the former president’s crackhead, bag-man son. They’re all for the colossal grift around the war in Ukraine. And don’t forget they supported vaccine mandates, the closing and ruination of small businesses (while Walmart and Taco Bell were allowed to thrive), and all the other hypocritical, fraudulent, lethal actions of Covid-19 policy.

The object of the “No Kings” shuck and jive, you might suspect, was to prepare so many friction-points around the country that violence was apt to erupt in order to create a George Floyd-type martyr figure, so as to re-energize the Left for another sustained summer of riots. There was plenty of mayhem around the country but, alas, no martyr emerged, no apotheosis of “progressive” victim-hood. . . only the peculiar murder of two Minnesota legislators by an apparently deranged Democratic party fringe character, the sometime evangelist and Tim Walz appointee, Vance Boelter.

$65-million is a plausible number for the money spent by billionaires and political NGOs on the nation-wide “No Kings” project. A lot of that was paid directly to protesters for just showing up. (They ran ads on Craig’s List to enlist players.) None of them showed up in the Hamptons, though, where “liberal royalty” assembled for their special event. You’ve got to think that they missed something rather bigly there.

James Howard Kunstler