By now, if you follow politics even casually, you’ve probably heard about what’s being called the “Sharpie Meeting.” This was a cabinet meeting—one that should have been focused on war, intelligence, and economic fallout—where President Donald Trump spent several minutes talking about Sharpie markers. Not as a quick aside, but as a detailed story about how he supposedly saved the government money by replacing expensive pens with $5 Sharpies. It’s a strange moment, and underst

The Shajareh Tayyebeh girls' elementary school in Minab, Iran, was destroyed in a missile strike on February 28, 2026. By now, the only folks who haven’t heard this are hermits. At least 175 were killed, over 100 of which were schoolchildren Yet, weeks later, with all the technology we’re told exists—satellites, surveillance, intelligence networks, precision-guided weapons—we still don’t have a clear explanation for how that happened. Not a real one. Not one that makes you s

When oil prices rise, Americans tend to notice it in one very obvious place: the gas pump. You don’t need an economics degree to understand what’s happening. You just drive past the giant glowing sign outside a gas station and watch the numbers creep upward. Unlike most prices in the economy, gasoline is advertised in big digits visible from half a mile away. When it goes up, people see it immediately. But the impact of rising oil prices goes far beyond the price of gasoline.

War has a tone. If you listen to the speeches and press conferences of American presidents during serious conflicts, you’ll notice something consistent: gravity. When lives are at stake, the language usually reflects that reality. But recently, some of the comments coming from Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth about the war with Iran have struck many observers as surprisingly casual. Not strategic. Not cautious. Casual. And that has raised an uncomfortable que

If you’ve spent any time in political discussions over the past several years, you’ve probably heard some version of this claim: that President Barack Obama “gave Iran pallets of American taxpayer money.” Sometimes the number attached to that claim is $150 billion. Sometimes it’s $400 million. Often the story is told with dramatic language about planes loaded with cash and secret deals. It’s a powerful narrative. The only problem is that it’s also deeply misleading. The actua

If someone told you in June that the threat was “completely destroyed”… that the danger was eliminated… that everything was handled… …and then six months later told you, “We had no choice. We had to strike. It was unavoidable”… You’d probably raise an eyebrow. Not because you’re rooting for Iran. But because basic logic still applies. Either the threat was destroyed — or it wasn’t. And if it was destroyed, what are we bombing now? If it wasn’t destroyed, what were we told? Th

For those of you who don’t geek out on history as much as I do — or who just weren’t around to remember most of these — I want to talk about something that keeps popping up in our national conversation: Regime change. It sounds abstract. Strategic. Clean. But the United States has a long history of attempting to remove, replace, undermine, or collapse foreign governments it viewed as hostile or destabilizing. Sometimes it worked. Sometimes it failed. And sometimes it “worked”