Except for timely election info, the extensive list of voting resources will now be at the end.

“There’s a reason why you separate military and police. One fights the enemy of the State. The other serves and protects the People. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the State tend to become the People.” ~ Commander Adama, “Battlestar Galactica” (“WATER”, Season 1 episode 2, at the 28 minute mark.)

MIKE: These were the good old says, when John F Kennedy could say with conviction: “The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. … But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. …” ~ John F. Kennedy, Commencement Address at American University, Washington, D.C., June 10, 1963 (VIDEO EXCERPT @ 25M 56S)  (Full Text: https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/american-university-19630610)

[1m 02s] Welcome to Thinkwing Radio with Mike Honig on KPFT Houston at 90.1-HD2, Galveston 89.5-HD2, and Huntsville 91.9-HD2. KPFT is Houston’s Community radio.

And welcome to our international listeners from Hong Kong, Singapore, Poland, Belgium and elsewhere.

On this show, we discuss local, state, national, and international stories that may have slipped under your radar. At my website, THINKWINGRADIO-dot-COM, I link to all the articles I read and cite, as well as other relevant sources. I try to fact-check myself and include the links I use to do so. Articles and commentaries often include lots of internet links for those of you who want to dig deeper.

It’s the 31st week of Trump’s military occupation of Washington DC; and 20 weeks since Trump deployed National Guard troops to Memphis, Tennessee and New Orleans, Louisiana, where they remain for now.

I’m providing a link in this show post at ThinkwingRadio-dot-com to a USA Today story that explains the current state of the occupations.

Due to time constraints, some stories may be longer in this show post than in the broadcast show itself.

1. From Primary Election Day: Some Key Results, courtesy of Charles Kuffner. Kuff published this on Thursday. It’s written in first person, so that’s how I’ll read it.
   1. We don’t have full turnout numbers yet, but as of Wednesday some 363,826 votes were cast in the Democratic primary for Senate in Harris County, while there were 197,389 votes cast on the Republican side. About 140K votes were cast on Tuesday for Dems, and about 70K for Republicans – so much for the thesis that they prefer to turn up on Election Day, at least in Harris County. This easily makes 2026 the second highest turnout for a Dem primary, trailing only 2008 and its 411K votes.
   2. Statewide, it depends on your source: the Texas Tribune tracker or the [Secretary Of State] Election Night page. [Both show] Dems tallied [about 2.3 million votes] … , in both cases with still a few more votes to count, mostly provisionals at this point. On the Republican side the numbers are [about 2.1 million] …
   3. Remember Greg Abbott’s threat to spend a ton of money to turn Harris County “dark red” this year? Well, he might want to shore up his support in the Republican Party first, as the candidates he endorsed had at best a mixed bag of results.
   4. In addition to Kelly Hancock getting squashed in the Comptroller’s race, Briscoe Cain trailed Alex Mealer in CD09, and John Lujan, for whom CD35 was drawn, underperformed against the Trump-backed Carlos de la Cruz, whose main qualification appears to be that he’s the brother of Rep. Monica de la Cruz.
   5. And my favorite result of the night, Abbott-backed Marty Lancton lost his hold on second place in the primary for Harris County Judge and fell behind Warren Howell to finish out of the runoff. Great job, Greg! Keep bringing that energy to these races!
   6. Hubert Vo not only faces a runoff against challenger (and Chron-endorsed) Darlene Breaux in HD149, he fell behind her in total votes, albeit by [only 9 votes out of over 3700 cast.] That doesn’t bode well for him in May.
   7. Abbie Kamin’s victory over Audrie Lawton Evans for Harris County Attorney was by just over one percentage point, 50.55% to 49.45%, which translates to just over three thousand votes out of over 310K cast in that race. Two strong candidates, only one could win. Congrats to Abbie Kamin, condolences and best wishes to Audrie Lawton Evans.
   8. Darrell Jordan finished just ahead of Alex Maldonado for District Clerk by an even smaller margin, 18.93% to 18.81%, a mere 365 votes out of almost 316K cast. Latino candidates overall did better on Tuesday than in early voting – County Judge third-place candidate Matt Salazar went from 14% in early voting to 16% overall. I still don’t understand that, but there it is.
   9. As noted yesterday, one incumbent Democratic judge, [Jim Kovach], lost their primary, … but I forgot to mention that one other (Brian Warren) is in a runoff. Justice of the Peace Sharon Burney is also in a runoff; she trailed Melanie Miles on Tuesday. Other incumbent judges all won, and one former judge (Ramona Franklin, sigh) made a successful comeback.
   10. As the Trib notes and as I mentioned yesterday, Rep. Dan Crenshaw lost badly to the terrible Steve Toth in CD02. Rep. Tony Gonzales is in a runoff with Brandon Herrera in CD23. Two incumbent Dems – Reps. Al Green in CD18 and Julie Johnson in CD33, both running in new districts because of redistricting – are in runoffs and were trailing on Tuesday, so a total of as many as four current members of Congress could be ousted before November. Add the new member (Frederick Haynes) in CD30, who will succeed Jasmine Crockett, and that’s a lot of turnover already.
   11. Kamala Harris made a late endorsement of Rep. Jasmine Crockett in the Senate primary. She has now endorsed Rep. James Talarico, and sent a fundraising email for him as well.
   12. Oh, and it looks like Donald Trump may be getting ready to endorse Sen. Cornyn in the runoff. Maybe, who knows with that guy. I’m sure Team Paxton will be magnanimous about it if that happens.
   13. Congratulations to Emerson College for nailing the Dem Senate race in their most recent poll:
   14. [MIKE: Kuff provides a LINK to that post on X. Continuing …]
   15. On the other hand, UT-Tyler, what in the world were you doing?
   16. I’ll have more when I get my hands on a fuller data set. In the meantime, here are various takeaways and roundups from TPM, the Trib, Daily Kos, The Downballot, the Texas Observer, Mother Jones, Lone Star Left, and Marc Campos.
   17. MIKE: Kuffner is pretty thorough. You might keep up with him at OffTheKuff-dot-com.
   18. MIKE: There is one weird thing I’ve noticed that’s still the case as of Sunday morning. When I go to HarrisVotes-dot-com, the vote tallies for Talarico and Crockett are reversed, showing Crockett as the winner. At VoteTexas-dot-gov, the numbers are correct, with Talarico as the winner.
   19. MIKE: These kinds of errors, especially days after the election, are troubling. It affects one’s confidence in the ability of the Harris Couty Election office to get things right.
2. Next up … There’s a Special Election coming up for City Council District C on April 4^th:
   31. Early Voting Centers will be open from Wednesday, March 18 – Tuesday, March 31. All centers will be open 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.; except on Sundays from 12:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
   32. Vote Centers will accept voters from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Saturday, April 4, Election Day.
   33. The deadline to apply for a mail ballot is March 24, and your application MUST ARRIVE by snail mail by the end of business on March 24. Click on the link provided in this show post for the application. Please fill it out, print it, and mail it to the address oin the form before the deadline.
   34. As always, if you’re on line to vote by 7PM, you CANNOT be turned away.
3. From the VIRGINIAMERCURY-dot-COM — Bill to require factual teaching about U.S. Capitol attack clears Va. General Assembly; By: Nathaniel Cline | VIRGINIAMERCURY.COM | March 4, 2026 5:26 am. TAGS: Virginia, Attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, 2020 Presidential Election, Donald Trump,
   1. Virginia lawmakers on Monday passed a proposal that would require schools, if they teach students about the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to relay the facts of what actually happened, without including misinformation that the 2020 presidential election was stolen or that the attack was just a peaceful protest. 
   2. Since both the Senate and House advanced the measure, if Gov. Abigail Spanberger approves, it would take effect immediately and would dictate what and how Virginia’s public schools can instruct pupils regarding the Capitol attack, a major political event in the country’s recent history.
   3. The attack, waged by supporters of then-Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in response to Congress certifying that Joe Biden won the election, had wide-ranging impacts on law enforcement, public discourse about democracy, and ongoing institutional, legal, and social repercussions.
   4. [House Bill 333 sponsor Del. Dan Helmer, D-Fairfax, said to the Mercury earlier during the session,] “There is real concern that the President of the United States is trying to rewrite the history of January 6, (that is) borne out by the fact there’s a whitehouse.gov site that presents a false history of what happened that day. … We just want to make sure that if school boards choose to teach [about] January 6, that they’re not presenting the false narrative that is out there.”
   5. … Helmer’s bill does not ban schools from teaching about Jan. 6. Instead, it requires a specific framing and bars presenting alternative interpretations or election fraud claims as credible in public schools.
   6. Despite the seeming consensus in the legislature, the bill drew some opposition from the public. The Virginia Assembly of Independent Baptists argued that it lacked educational value and pushed a “left-wing” narrative.
   7. [MIKE: I’ll again quote Stephen Colbert here and note that “reality has a well-known liberal bias.” Continuing …]
   8. [Said Michael Huffman, the Baptist assembly’s executive director, during a Senate subcommittee meeting on Feb. 19,] “I don’t know that I agree that it is necessary to take one of the darkest days in American history and teach our young people and glorify to our young people when adults act badly. … True education equips children for life, not political agendas, and glorifying or mandating … the dark day serves only short-sighted partisanship, not our kids’ future.”
   9. Sheila Fury, another speaker who opposed the legislation, called it another “reason why everyone in the commonwealth should pull their children from public education” during a Jan. 27 House Education subcommittee hearing.
   10. [Fury said,] “This is explicit indoctrination.”
   11. [Once more, “reality has a well-known liberal bias.” Continuing …]
   12. Helmer, in response, emphasized the need to teach the truth about the event and counter widespread false narratives about it. Some lawmakers, including Senate Education and Health Committee Chair Sen. Barbara Favola, D-Arlington, pointed out that the proposal is permissive.
   13. [Favola said,] “I don’t see anything wrong with this bill. … I think the January 6 episode, unfortunately, is something that our children should be aware of, and I think the framework is reasonable.”
   14. In the House, Del. Jessica Anderson, D-Williamsburg, supported the legislation, [saying during a Jan. 27 House Education subcommittee hearing,] “Our courts have proven that it was an insurrection, and I want to make sure that our students are also taught those facts.”
   15. The Senate and House supported the legislation on mostly party-line votes.
   16. … Spanberger will decide whether to sign the proposal into law. Her position on it is currently unclear and her office did not respond to questions about whether she will support the measure.
   17. Before her election as governor, Spanberger represented Virginia in Congress during the attack. She called for investigations and measures to prevent similar attacks in the future.
   18. She wrote, “This day did not happen in a vacuum. Jan. 6 marked the continuation of a trend of falsehoods — and tragically, the lies that spawned this act of insurrection are still present in American politics.”
   19. The governor’s office said she will “review all legislation that comes to her desk.”
   20. MIKE: One of the premises under which this show operates is a quote often attributed to the late NY Senator Patrick Moynihan: that you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
   21. MIKE: This Virginia law sounds like a model for an analogous federal statute in order to avoid the kinds of deceptive and disingenuous history lessons that were taught about the Civil War in Southern States of the old Confederacy.
   22. MIKE: There is ample evidence that January 6, 2021 was part of a conspiracy to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election. The only questions that have remained unresolved about this conspiracy are how high up it went among government officials, who planned the logistics, and who funded it.
   23. MIKE: Hopefully, with time, more of that information will be determined in court with evidence.
   24. MIKE: But it’s essential that any lessons on the January 6^th Conspiracy be taught with the best facts
   25. MIKE: For over a century, the States of the old Confederacy taught history lessons in school that obfuscate or even lie about the underlying causes of the Civil War, up to using neutral names for it like “The War Between the States”, or the even more provocative name, “The War of Northern Aggression”.
   26. MIKE: It was agreed by both sides at the time that the Civil War started with the first shots fired at Fort Sumpter in North Carolina. President Lincoln had ordered that the first shots of a war were not to be fired by the Union. And it was in fact the Confederacy that fired the first shots on April 12, 1861. While events leading up to this outcome are not in dispute, their interpretations are.
   27. MIKE: States of the Old Confederacy often claim that the war was fought over the question of “States Rights” and not slavery.
   28. MIKE: The lie is put to this claim early in the documented history of the Confederacy by what has come to be called Cornerstone Speech. This was a speech given by then-Acting Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens on March 21, 1861, about three weeks before the first shots of the war were fired at Fort Sumpter.
   29. MIKE: The speech, which is believed to have been at least largely extemporaneous, is described in Wikipedia as one that, “… defended slavery as a necessary and just result of the supposed inferiority of the black race, explained the fundamental differences between the constitutions of the Confederate States and that of the United States, enumerated contrasts between Union and Confederate ideologies, and laid out the Confederacy’s rationale for seceding.”
   30. MIKE: The Wikipedia article explains that, “The Cornerstone Speech is so called because Stephens used the word “cornerstone” to describe the “great truth” of white supremacy and black subordination upon which secession and the Confederacy were based, in contrast to the Declaration of Independence‘s “all men are created equal.””
   31. MIKE: So if the Civil War was fought over the issue of “States’ Rights”, then the State Right in question was one of perpetuating and even spreading the institution of slavery.
   32. MIKE: So if the history of January 6, 2021 is to be taught, it must — as is now law in the Commonwealth of Virginia — be taught honestly based on the known facts.
   33. MIKE: The federal government cannot legislate or mandate what is taught in schools in the various States, but perhaps at some point, Congress can mandate that the federal government will — using the various legal and financial levers it possesses — encourage states to teach history rooted in provable facts.
   34. MIKE: I’ll note here that these comments include numerous links for those who are interested.
4. Next from PBS-dot-ORG — Trump said he’s pro legal immigration, his policies say otherwise; By Maria Ramirez Uribe, PolitiFact | PBS.ORG (Nation) | Mar 1, 2026 2:07 PM EST. TAGS: President Donald Trump, Immigration, U.S. Southern Border, Mass Deportation Efforts, Department Of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship And Immigration Services (USCIS), Illegal Immigration,
   1. During the State of the Union, President Donald Trump lauded his administration’s success in reducing the number of people trying to illegally cross the U.S. southern border as he assured that he is in favor of legal immigration.
   2. [Trump said on Feb 24,] “In the past nine months, zero illegal aliens have been admitted to the United States. … But we will always allow people to come in legally, people that will love our country and will work hard to maintain our country.”
   3. But Trump’s words about allowing legal immigration don’t line up with his actions.
   4. During the first year of his second term, Trump has terminated programs that let people legally live in the U.S., limited legal ways to get here, barred people from certain countries from entering the U.S. and paused processing of certain applications for visas and immigration statuses for legal permanent residency.
   5. Immigrants living in the U.S. legally have also been wrapped up in Trump’s mass deportation efforts. Spouses of U.S. citizens have been arrestedwhile attending mandatory interviews to be granted permanent residency. People seeking legal status also have been detained during routine Immigration and Customs Enforcement check-ins and court appearances.
   6. [Citing 2020, when the global COVID-19 pandemic restricted migration, David Bier, associate director of immigration studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, wrotein December that] The administration’s actions “will lead to the largest restriction in legal immigration — setting aside 2020 — since the 1920s.”
   7. Here’s a sampling of how the Trump administration has restricted legal immigration.
   8. … Former President Joe Biden had significantly expanded the use of humanitarian parole, a way that people can [legally] come into the U.S. to temporarily live and work. Trump revoked the two programs that let people receive humanitarian parole and stripped the protections from people who entered that way.
   9. As part of this, he ended the CBP One app that let people make appointments at official ports of entry to begin requesting asylum and canceled 30,000 pending appointments. Under U.S. law, people are allowed to apply for asylum if they fear persecution in their home countries. To apply, people must be on U.S. soil.
   10. The Department of Homeland Security has also [tried to end the Temporary Protected Status of several countries], which allows people from certain countries experiencing war, environmental disasters and epidemics to temporarily live and work in the U.S. Several terminations are being challenged in court and are paused while the cases are pending.
   11. A federal judge on Feb. 2 temporarily blockedTPS termination for Haiti saying it “seems substantially likely” that the administration decided to terminate TPS “because of hostility to nonwhite immigrants.”
   12. Ending humanitarian parole and TPS could affect about 2.5 million people currently legally in the U.S., Bier wrote.
   13. … As he did during his first term, Trump has implementeda travel ban on several countries including Haiti, Afghanistan and Somalia. The ban restricts people from 19 countries from getting temporary visas, such as for tourism and education, and restricts people from seven of the countries from staying permanently for work.
   14. [According to a Cato Institute analysis,] “Over the next three years, 400,000 legal immigrants and nearly 1 million tourists, business travelers, international students, foreign workers, and other temporary visitors will face this ban.”
   15. Alongside the travel ban, the State Department on Jan. 21 pausedissuing non-tourist visas for people from 75 countries. And U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has pausedprocessing immigration applications from 39 countries, including for asylum, permanent residency and citizenship.
   16. Nearly half of the world’s countries, more than 90, have some form of immigration restriction.
   17. … One of the limited ways people can legally migrate to the U.S. is through the refugee program.
   18. Refugees, as defined by U.S. law, are people outside of the U.S. who fled their home countries because of persecution related to race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.
   19. Trump has nearly entirely halted the U.S. refugee program. On his first day in office, he enacted an indefinite pauseon refugee resettlement. In the weeks that followed, he canceledtravel for people who had already been granted the status.
   20. From February 2025 to October 2025, the Trump administration resettled 506 refugees, a majority of whom were white South Africans, according to the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. Trump has repeated the unfounded claimthat white South Africans are the target of a genocide.
   21. Trump set the fiscal year 2026 refugee resettlement cap at 7,500, a record low.  In fiscal year 2024, Biden’s last year in office, the U.S. resettled 100,000 refugees. ​
   22. MIKE: With these people — Trump, then-Noem, Bondi, and Trump’s other enablers and apparatchiks, the cruelty is almost always the point. I suspect that even when it’s not the point, they consider it a useful and desirable side-effect.
   23. MIKE: I certainly wasn’t the first to observe that arresting immigrants making their scheduled appearances in court flew in the face of the regime’s “immigrate legally” argument, but I think that this opinion piece crystallized the argument in a useful way.
   24. MIKE: This regime certainly opposes any immigrants who are not northern European-descended Whites, but even the exceptions are interesting.
   25. MIKE: For example, Ukrainian refugees have been ICE targets. These refugees could be seen as enemies of the Russian State, so of course they have to go.
   26. MIKE: Russian immigrants have also been targets. Well, as refugees from the Russia-Ukraine War and as Russia-defined draft dodgers, it would again make sense that their deportation back to Russia would be a goal of Vladimir Putin and the Russian State.
   27. MIKE: I used to sell extended service agreements. As both a buyer and a seller, I learned that the first thing you look for is not what is covered, but what is excluded. That’s always much more detailed and informative than what is covered, which may be subject to misunderstanding or distortion.
   28. MIKE: The same may be true of this regime’s immigration and expulsion policies.
   29. MIKE: In other words, who are ICE and the CBP not going after with any particular enthusiasm?
   30. MIKE: I asked that question to Google Ai, and I‘m including my link to that response.
   31. MIKE: To be fair, the answer did not reveal any particular ethnic bias, but it did lead me to an ICE webs site, and Ai summarized the ICE site this way: U.S. Citizens, Unaccompanied Children (UACs), Foreign Nationals with Valid Authorized Status (Temporary), Certain Sensitive Locations (via Case-by-Case Discretion), and Non-Foreign Nationals and Non-Unauthorized Immigrants.
   32. MIKE: History and experience tell us that even the listed exclusions do not necessarily apply in the real world of ICE and Trump, so we might take that answer with a grain of salt.
   33. MIKE: I’ll also add a caveat about searching the web and/or using Ai for answers to questions.
   34. MIKE: There have been times when I have searched for information or confirmation of some fact that I was either pretty sure of or definitely remember. One of those was the JFK quote I’ve been playing where he says that the world knows that the US would never start a war.
   35. MIKE: I was sure I remembered that, but it took at least a half dozen tries, phrased in many slightly different ways, before it finally turned up.
   36. MIKE: In other words, the absence of web results saying that there are de facto exclusions to ICE’s violent enthusiasm doesn’t mean there aren’t any. It may just mean that I haven’t yet found the proper specific search terms to validate that theory.
5. Next from ARSTECHNICA-dot-COM — RFK Jr.’s anti-vaccine policies are “unreviewable,” DOJ lawyer tells judge; By Beth Mole | ARSTECHNICA.COM | Mar 5, 2026 3:29 PM. TAGS: Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump administration, Vaccines, Infectious diseases, American Academy of Pediatrics, Vaccine Policy Changes, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
   1. A lawyer for the Trump administration told a federal judge Wednesday that anti-vaccine Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has such ample authority over the country’s vaccine policies that he is “unreviewable.” [That his] unfettered powers even allow Kennedy the freedom to recommend, if he chose to do so, that people ditch vaccines and actively expose themselves to infectious diseases, the lawyer argued, according to Reuters.
   2. The comments came amid a lawsuit filed against Kennedy by the American Academy of Pediatrics, several other medical groups, and three anonymous women. The suit challenges a number of Kennedy’s actions on vaccine policy since he took office, including his unilateral changes to COVID-19 vaccine policies, his firing of all 17 expert vaccine advisors for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — whom Kennedy replaced with hand-picked anti-vaccine allies — and his decision to dramatically overhaul the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule to match that of the small country of Denmark, dropping the total number of recommended vaccinations from 17 to 11, and making the US an outlier among high-income countries.
   3. The groups are seeking a preliminary injunction to block the vaccine policy changes and bar the new advisors from meeting. Their next meeting is scheduled for March 18–19.
   4. US Department of Justice lawyer Isaac Belfer argued that Kennedy has the broad authority to make all of the changes he has already made and more. He claimed that the AAP and other medical groups were asking the court to “supervise vaccine policy indefinitely.”
   5. US District Judge Brian Murphy overseeing the case in Boston appeared skeptical of the suggestion that Kennedy has seemingly limitless authority over federal vaccine policy.
   6. [According to Reuters, Judge Murphy asked DOJ lawyer Belfer,] “Is it your position that [Kennedy] is totally ​unreviewable? … If the secretary said instead of getting a shot to prevent measles, I think you should get a shot that gives you measles, is that unreviewable?”
   7. “Yes,” Belfer replied.
   8. Belfer, arguing on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, said the medical organizations were merely seeking to use the courts to enact their favored vaccine policy. But the lawyer for the groups, James Oh, countered that the vaccine policy changes — which were not carried out with typical processes and lack supporting scientific evidence — were done improperly and without reasoned decision-making.
   9. [According to Stat News, Oh said that] Kennedy’s vaccine policy changes are the “actions of someone who believes he can do whatever he wants.”
   10. [Judge] Murphy indicated he would issue a ruling on the injunction before the CDC vaccine advisors plan to meet on March 18, calling it a “hard deadline.”
   11. MIKE: In diplomacy, some government representatives are designated as “plenipotentiary”. This word is usually defined as being “ambassadors or envoys, [that can] act with absolute authority to transact state business.” Interestingly, there does not seem to be an adjective form of this word. Nonetheless, based on the standard definition, I’m going to create one.
   12. MIKE: According to this story, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wants what I would call “plenipotential” powers that make him an absolute and unreviewable ruler of his domain at HHS, which enable him to commit the United States to particular health policies at his
   13. MIKE: Whether it’s tariffs, healthcare, the addition or deletion of funding, the elimination of agencies, or the initiation of wars-of-choice, if there is one continual thread running through the Trump regime, it is the constant contention that any decisions made by Trump or his cronies — I mean, officials — are absolute and unreviewable.
   14. MIKE: In other words, the Trump regime seemingly wants us to revert to a time not just before the US Constitution, but before the English Magna Carta!
   15. MIKE: The powers continually asserted and even usurped by this regime and it’s apparatchiks seem to me to be the dictionary definition of tyranny. (FYI, I’ve included a link to a discussion of the definition of “tyranny” in this show post at ThinkwingRadio-dot-com.)
   16. MIKE: It’s important — essential, even — to note that the Republican Party seems totally okay with this ongoing usurpation of power by the Trumpist regime based on both the stated opinions of many of them, as well as the failure to oppose it by elected and party Republican officials.
   17. MIKE: So when the Trump era ends, the investigative and purge era must begin.
6. From THEGUARDIAN-DOT-COM — US troops were told war on Iran was ‘all part of God’s divine plan’, watchdog alleges; By Sara Braun | THEGUARDIAN.COM | Tue 3 Mar 2026 16.21 EST. TAGS: US-Israel War On Iran, US Military, Iran, US politics, Middle East And North Africa, News, Biblical Prophecy, Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF),
   1. US military commanders have been invoking extremist Christian rhetoric about biblical “end times” to justify involvement in the Iran war to troops, according to complaints made to a watchdog group.
   2. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) says it has received more than 200 complaints from service members across all branches of the armed forces, including the marines, air force and space force.
   3. One complainant, identified as a noncommissioned officer (NCO) in a unit that could be deployed “at any moment to join” operations against Iran, told MRFF in a complaint viewed by the Guardian that their commander had “urged us to tell our troops that this was ‘all part of God’s divine plan’ and he specifically referenced numerous citations out of the Book of Revelation referring to Armageddon and the imminent return of Jesus Christ”.
   4. [The NCO added,] “He said that ‘President Trump has been anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth’”.
   5. The NCO’s complaint was filed on behalf of 15 troops, including 11 Christians, one Muslim person and one Jewish person. The complaint was first shared by MRFF with Jonathan Larsen, an independent journalist.
   6. [Mikey Weinstein, MRFF’s president, who is an air force veteran, told the Guardian,] “Anytime Israel or the US is involved in the Middle East, we get this stuff about Christian nationalists who’ve taken over our government, and certainly our US military.”
   7. [He added,] “Military members are not really able to stand up for themselves, because your military superior is not your shift manager at Starbucks.”
   8. In a statement, Weinstein suggested the reports indicate an increase in Christian extremism in the military, noting that the complainants “report the unrestricted euphoria of their commanders” who perceive a “‘biblically-sanctioned’ war that is clearly the undeniable sign of the expeditious approach of the fundamentalist Christian ‘End Times’.”
   9. He said that the complaints show a clear violation of the separation of church and state.
   10. Pete Hegseth, the US defense secretary, is known for his embrace of Christian nationalism. He previously endorsed the doctrine of “sphere sovereignty”, a worldview derived from the extremist beliefs of Christian reconstructionism (CR). The philosophy calls for capital punishment for homosexuality and strictly patriarchal families and churches.
   11. In August 2025, Hegseth reposted a CNN segment on X focusing on pastor Doug Wilson, a Christian nationalist who co-founded the Idaho-based Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). In the segment, Wilson says he does not believe women should hold leadership positions in the military or be able to fill high-profile combat roles.
   12. [Wilson said,] “I would like to see this nation being a Christian nation, and I would like this world to be a Christian world.”
   13. In response to a request for comment on the complaints, the Pentagon did not reply, instead sharing public clips of Hegseth discussing the operation in Iran.
   14. MIKE: It’s been a slippery slope ever since a Republican Congress under President Eisenhower added “In God We Trust” as the official motto of the United States in 1956.
   15. MIKE: Any commander who made these End-of-Times comments as justification for the Iran War should have their asses canned immediately!
   16. MIKE: These officers sound as insane as Jack D. Ripper in “Dr. Strangelove”. If you doubt me, listen to the following clip: [PLAY AUDIO: 1m 20s]
   17. MIKE: This is what happens when you have religious zealots of any faith in positions of power, and this is what Christian Nationalism is wreaking on our country.
   18. MIKE: Anyone in the US armed services who cites “the Book of Revelation referring to Armageddon and the imminent return of Jesus Christ”, let alone Donald Trump as the “anointed one” to lead us to Armageddon, has no place in a position of authority over the lives of our men and women in service. Simply put, they are dangerous.
   19. MIKE: Republicans and Rightwing religious extremists have been insinuating themselves into all levels of our government and armed forces for decades now, and this is what they have wrought.
   20. MIKE: Our nation needs to purge these kinds of leaders from positions of power and free us once and for all from those who make US public and international policy based on their religious beliefs.
   21. MIKE: And keep in mind that the Christian Nationalists who rail against Sharia Law often just want to substitute Old Testament Law in its place. In my mind, that is entirely a distinction without a difference.
7. I don’t usually read opinion pieces from Al-Jazeera on this show, but I think that this one puts some additional context into the possible outcomes of the US-Israeli attacks on Iran — OPINION: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s assassination will likely backfire. Here is why; By Daoud Kuttab | ALJAZEERA.COM | Published On 2 Mar 2026, 2 Mar 2026. TAGS: Middle East, US President Donald Trump, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Iran, Israel, United States, Iran War,
   1. A favourite tactic of war is to try to decapitate the enemy leadership. While such strategies might work in certain contexts, in the Middle East, they have proven to be a disastrous choice.
   2. For sure, the assassination of an enemy leader might give a quick boost of popularity amid war. Certainly, United States President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are basking in the limelight of their perceived “success” in assassinating Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
   3. But killing an 86-year-old man who had already been planning his succession due to his ill health is not that much of a feat considering the overwhelming firepower that the US and Israel together possess. More importantly, eliminating him does not necessarily mean that what follows would be a leadership or a regime that would accommodate Israeli and US interests.
   4. That is because leadership assassinations do not lead to peaceful outcomes in the Middle East. They can open the door for much more radical successors or for chaos that leads to violence and upheaval.
   5. A brief glance at recent history shows that whenever Israel and the US have tried the idea of leadership “decapitation” in various conflicts in the region, the results have been disastrous. In the case of Iraq, its leader Saddam Hussein was captured by US forces and handed over to allied Iraqi forces who executed him. This ended a regime that was openly antagonistic to Israel, but it also opened the doors for pro-Iranian forces to take power.
   6. As a result, in the following two decades, Iraq served as a launching pad for Iran’s regional proxy strategy, which saw it build a powerful network of nonstate actors that threatened US and Israeli interests.
   7. The security vacuum created by the US invasion triggered various insurgencies, the most devastating of which was the rise of ISIL (ISIS), which swept through the Middle East, killing thousands of innocent people, including US citizens, and triggering a massive refugee wave towards US and Israeli allies in Europe.
   8. Another case in point is Hamas. Since the early 2000s, Israel has repeatedly tried to assassinate its leaders. In 2004, it succeeded in killing its founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and then his successor Abdel Aziz Rantisi, who was considered a moderate. A few assassinations later, Yahya Sinwar was elected head of Hamas in Gaza and went on to plan the October 7, 2023, attack.
   9. Hezbollah has a similar history. Its late leader Hassan Nasrallah, who successfully led the expansion of the group to a formidable nonstate power, ascended to its leadership after Israel assassinated his predecessor Abbas al-Musawi.
   10. Two and half years of war and mass killing of leadership may now have devastated both armed groups, but Israel has failed to assassinate the idea behind them: resistance to occupation. The current lull in fighting may be the quiet before another storm.
   11. In the Iranian case, it is highly unlikely that whoever replaces Khamenei would be as open to negotiations as he was. The statements by the Omani interlocutors during the talks in Muscat and Geneva pointed to major concessions on the nuclear issue that Iran under Khamenei was prepared to make. It is unlikely that his replacement would have the political space to follow suit.
   12. If Israel and the US continue their campaign and really push for state collapse in Iran, what comes out of that ensuing chaos could be anyone’s guess. But if we are to go by recent experiences in Iraq and Libya, a security vacuum in Iran would have devastating consequences for US allies in the region and in Europe.
   13. That raises the pertinent question of what Israel and the US stand to gain from their “decapitation” strategy in Iran.
   14. For Netanyahu, the assassination of Khamenei is a major success. Facing crucial elections that could mean the possible end of his political life and maybe his imprisonment over four corruption charges, the short-term gain in popularity and votes is worth it. Israeli leaders do little thinking and planning on the mid- to long term and do not have to bear the consequences of military adventurism abroad. After all, Israeli society is very much in favour of it.
   15. But for Trump, the gains are not as apparent. He gets to brag about killing an 86-year-old ailing leader of a faraway country to a public that has no appetite for war. At a time of a continuing cost-of-living crisis in the US, he is spending billions of taxpayer dollars to fight a war against a country that posed no imminent threat, a war that many Americans are increasingly identifying as “Israel’s war”.
   16. Instead of projecting power, Trump risks showing weakness and being seen as a US president fooled into starting a costly war to ensure the political survival of the prime minister of a foreign country.
   17. It is clear for now that the US president has drawn a line at putting US boots on the ground. At some point, he will have to end the bombardment campaign and pull US troops. He will leave behind a disaster that US allies in the region will have to bear the brunt of. US regional alliances are sure to suffer. Domestic audiences are sure to ask questions.
   18. This will be yet another US military adventure in the region that will cost US taxpayers’ money, US soldiers’ lives and foreign policy clout and offer no return. The hope is that Washington may finally learn its lesson that assassinations and decapitation strategies don’t work.
   19. MIKE: One way of framing this argument is the old one that no battle plan survives contact with the enemy, but the larger frame asks the question of whether leadership assassination is a useful way of accomplishing a national objective.
   20. MIKE: History is full of attempted or successful leader assassinations or overthrows, so we have some examples to draw from.
   21. MIKE: Mr. Kuttab uses the example of Saddam Hussein and Iraq, and that certainly did not ultimately go well for the US or the Iraqi people, but we might go back further, even to WW2.
   22. MIKE: Much has been made of assassination attempts against Adolf Hitler, with the most famous being the Operation Valkyrie bomb plot of July 20, 1944.
   23. MIKE: What if this plot had succeeded?
   24. I asked Google Ai. “If the Valkyrie bomb plot had succeeded, how might that have changed the outcome of WW2?” Google Ai responded as follows:
   25. Google Ai: If the July 20, 1944, bomb plot had killed Adolf Hitler, WWII in Europe would likely have ended months earlier, significantly reducing casualties and preventing the final, most chaotic phase of the war. While Nazi Germany’s ultimate defeat was inevitable by 1944, a new government might have negotiated a faster surrender, though likely facing Allied demands for unconditional surrender regardless. 
   26. Google Ai: [Among the] Key Potential Outcomes:
   27. Google Ai: Early War End: The new leadership, likely led by military officials, would probably have prioritized an immediate truce, particularly with Western Allies, to avoid the total destruction of Germany.
   28. Google Ai: Reduced Casualties: A swift end to the regime could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives, including Jewish victims in remaining concentration camps, soldiers, and civilians.
   29. Google Ai: Internal Power Struggle/Civil War: The plot risked a mini-civil war, as SS units might have refused to follow the army’s orders, leading to, as one source notes, a potential “‘second stab in the back’ scenario” narrative if the coup failed to fully unify the military.
   30. Google Ai: Different Occupation Lines: If a new German government surrendered earlier, Allied forces might have moved further east, possibly resulting in less of Germany falling under Soviet control.
   31. Google Ai: Impact on Japan: A faster end in Europe might have allowed the Soviet Union to attack Japan earlier, possibly leading to a divided Japan similar to Korea, rather than a primarily U.S. occupation.
   32. Google Ai: Unconditional Surrender: Despite the death of Hitler, the Allied “Unconditional Surrender” policy (demanded by Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt) was unlikely to change, meaning the war would still end with total Allied control. 
   33. Google Ai: Uncertainties: Some scenarios suggest that if SS leader Heinrich Himmler or other fanatics took over, they might have attempted to fight on, though this is considered less likely than a surrender effort. 
   34. MIKE: On the subject of the USSR joining the war against Japan after defeating Nazi Germany, it’s worth noting that according to my readings and understanding, one of the reasons that President Truman decided to drop the atomic bombs on Japan was to accelerate an end to the war and to hopefully prevent Stalin’s USSR from invading Japan at a point in the war where Japan’s defeat was looking increasingly inevitable.
   35. MIKE: This prospect, at least as much as the A-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was probably a factor in Japan’s decision to offer an unconditional surrender when they did. That’s a whole historical topic of its own, but for a different day.
   36. MIKE: Back to the subject of regime change through leadership assassination, does anyone seriously think that assassinating Cuba’s Fidel Castro 50 years ago would have led to a US-aligned regime taking power there? But we tried.
   37. MIKE: On November 2, 1963 — ironically, just 3 weeks before the assassination of Kennedy himself — South Vietnam President Ngo Dinh Diem was assassinated in a CIA-orchestrated coup. While his assassination was not of part of American plans, it had been foreseen as a possibility in the coup’s aftermath.
   38. MIKE: Diem’s assassination leads to one of history’s most interesting and important “what-if” questions: Did the coup against Diem and his subsequent murder lead directly or indirectly to the US’s eventual massive involvement in the Vietnam War? I think that the historical consensus is “yes”.
   39. MIKE: The US orchestrated a coup against the elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, on August 19, 1953. This coup plot did not lead to Mosaddegh’s assassination, but he was kept under house arrest for the rest of his life and ultimately died of cancer in 1967.
   40. MIKE: Whether that US-orchestrated coup was a success by US standards is an interesting question. The then-newly installed Shah of Iran was a strong ally of the United States for over 25 years, but that coup and the inter-generational anger over it was arguably a powerful factor in the ultimate rise of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the subsequent regional and global instability that has caused for almost 50 years. So how does one measure the success or failure of such things?
   41. MIKE: This is a long-winded way of saying that the air attacks that killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei are almost certainly not the end of this story, and we may not have a real inkling of that end for weeks, months, or maybe even years.
   42. MIKE: So it’s waaaay premature for Trump and Netanyahu to be patting themselves on the back over the short-term success of this objective.
   43. MIKE: But this is why I love alternate history fiction. It helps to explore all the different ways that history could have been better or worse, depending on different outcomes, Sam Beckett.
   44. REFERENCE: Search the question, “Did the coup against Diem and his subsequent murder lead directly or indirectly to the US’s eventual massive involvement in the Vietnam War?”
   45. REFERENCE: The long, sad history of U.S. regime change promises – From FDR to Bush, promises of Middle East freedom ended badly. — By Robert Satloff | WASHINGTONPOST.COM | March 2. 2026
8. France to increase nuclear arsenal and European weapons cooperation, Macron says; By Jon Henley Europe correspondent | THEGUARDIAN.COM | Mon 2 Mar 2026 14.41 EST. TAGS: France, Nuclear weapons, Emmanuel Macron, Europe, news, Force de’frappe,
   1. France will increase the size of its nuclear arsenal for the first time in decades and significantly intensify nuclear weapons cooperation with eight European allies including the UK as part of a “major” strengthening of its deterrence doctrine, Emmanuel Macron has said.
   2. Amid growing concern among European leaders about wavering US commitments to help defend the continent, the French president said on Monday that Paris could deploy nuclear-capable Rafale fighter jets to partner countries such as Germany and Poland.
   3. But there would be no sharing of decision-making on the use of the country’s nuclear weapons, he said, with the “ultimate decision” the responsibility of the French president and “the definition of [France’s] vital interests” also remaining “sovereign”.
   4. In a speech delivered from the Île Longue nuclear submarine base in Brittany, Macron said a “period of geopolitical upheaval, fraught with risk” meant France, the EU’s only nuclear power, must strengthen its deterrent “in the face of multiple threats”.
   5. An upgrade of the country’s arsenal was “essential”, Macron said, adding that he had decided to order an increase. France’s estimated 290 nuclear warheads, a number that has not changed since 1992, constitute the world’s fourth largest nuclear arsenal, after Russia, the US and China.
   6. [The French president, who is commander-in-chief of the country’s armed forces, said,] “My responsibility is to ensure that our deterrence maintains – and will maintain in the future – its assured destructive power.”
   7. He added that France would not stipulate how many nuclear warheads it had in its arsenal nor how many it planned to add, and that the increase was needed to maintain it.
   8. [Macron insisted,] “This is not an arms race. … It is essential that our adversaries, or combination of adversaries, cannot even glimpse the possibility of hitting France without the certainty of suffering damage they would not recover from.”
   9. Macron cited Russia’s war against Ukraine, which last month entered its fifth year, China’s expanding military power and recent changes in US defence strategy as reasons why Europe had to take more direct responsibility for its own security.
   10. Announcing the “gradual implementation of what I would call ‘advance deterrence’”, Macron said France must now also “consider our deterrence strategy deep within the European continent, with full respect for our sovereignty”.
   11. Under unspecified circumstances, French “strategic assets” could be deployed in other European countries, he said, referring to France’s nuclear-capable Rafale jets. Talks on enhanced cooperation had already started with the UK, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Sweden and Denmark, he added.
   12. [Macron said] The new model would allow France’s strategic deterrent to be “spread across the European continent” to “complicate the calculations of our adversaries.” [Macron added that] The doctrine could also involve “the conventional participation of allied forces in our nuclear activities.”
   13. Bruno Tertrais, the deputy director of France’s FRS thinktank, said Macron’s speech was “the most significant update to French nuclear deterrence policy in 30 years” and a “major step forward”.
   14. Donald Trump’s rapprochement with Russia over the Ukraine war and his tougher posture towards the US’s traditional transatlantic allies have shaken European governments, which have long relied on the US for deterring potential adversaries.
   15. Macron’s long-planned speech was maintained despite the escalating conflict around Iran because, [a French official said,] the “violence in the Middle East shows the importance of France’s power and independence to face down growing threats.”
   16. Macron has previously floated a mutualisation of France’s nuclear arsenal, including at last month’s Munich Security Conference at which he said a “re-articulation” was needed to reflect “special cooperation … and common security interests” within Europe.
   17. Earlier this month the German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said he had held “initial talks” with Macron on the nuclear issue. France and the UK also adopted a joint declaration in July on the “coordination” of both nations’ nuclear forces.
   18. France and Germany said in a joint statement on Monday after Macron’s speech that they had set up a “high-ranking nuclear steering group” as part of an arrangement they said would “add to, not substitute for, Nato’s nuclear deterrence”.
   19. The two countries said they had “agreed to take first concrete steps, including German conventional participation in French nuclear exercises and joint visits to strategic sites, as well as development of conventional capabilities with European partners”.
   20. Poland’s prime minister, Donald Tusk, said in a social media post that he was in talks with Paris and European allies on the French proposals, adding: “We are arming up together with our friends so that our enemies will never dare to attack us.”
   21. Sweden’s prime minister, Ulf Kristersson, also confirmed Sweden’s intention to take part in the discussions. “Strengthening Europe’s overall defence capability has not been as important since the second world war as it is right now,” he said.
   22. Kristersson noted the talks would take place “in dialogue also with the US” and Nato, which Sweden joined in 2024. “As long as Russia has these weapons and threatens its neighbours, democracies must be able to deter” them, he said.
   23. MIKE: This is another example supporting my contention that the era of nuclear non-proliferation is effectively at an end. Countries that have nuclear weapons will be re-examining their usage doctrines. Countries without nuclear weapons but with the ability to acquire them will eventually do so.
   24. MIKE: Countries that can’t or prefer not to acquire nuclear weapons will partner with nations like France or the UK that are willing to provide a nuclear umbrella, and which are close enough to them geographically and politically, that they and any potential adversaries can rely on those nukes being a real and believable deterrent.
   25. MIKE: Trump, Putin, Ukraine and other circumstances, examples and developments have shown that — so far at least — having nuclear weapons is really the only deterrent to attack or invasion that has a chance of working.
   26. MIKE: Of course, there’s always the India-Pakistan example of how even that doctrine doesn’t always work.
   27. MIKE: We are living in dangerous and unpredictable times.
9. Along these same lines is this story from Reuters — Finland to lift full ban on hosting nuclear arms, government says; By Reuters | REUTERS.COM | March 5, 202610:46 AM CST. TAGS: Finland, Aerospace & Defense, Atomic ‌Bombs, Finland’s Nuclear Energy Act, Russia, Nuclear Weapons,
   1. Finland plans to lift a long-standing ban on having nuclear arms on its territory, the government said on Thursday, aligning with Nordic neighbours ​in a move that could open the door to deploying atomic ‌bombs on Finnish soil during times of war.
   2. Finland’s Nuclear Energy Act … prohibits the import, manufacture, possession and detonation of nuclear explosives on its soil, seen by some ​Finns as a clause that would benefit only Russia if there ​ever was a war.
   3. While Finland maintained neutrality during the Cold War ⁠era, the country in 2023 joined the NATO military alliance in response ​to nuclear-armed Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine the preceding year.
   4. [The Finnish Defence Minister told a press conference,] “The amendment is necessary ​to enable Finland’s military defense as part of the alliance and to take full advantage of NATO’s deterrence and collective defence.”
   5. The proposed ​change will next go to parliament where the right-wing coalition government holds ​a majority.
   6. Neighbours Sweden, Denmark and Norway have long-standing policies against nuclear weapons on their territories in ‌peacetime ⁠but do not have legislative bans during war. …
   7. Sweden’s ​doctrine is to ⁠station no permanent foreign troops or nuclear weapons on its soil in peacetime, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson told reporters last ​week, when asked about the possibility of his country hosting French ​nuclear arms. …
   8. Finland shares a 1,340-kilometre border with Russia and in 2024 ⁠signed ​a defence pact with the United States, allowing ​it to use 15 of Finland’s military facilities and zones.
   9. MIKE: I wish I could blame this new set of nuclear proliferation increments on our new multi-polar world order, but I don’t see it that way.
   10. MIKE: No, this new and growing reality is almost entirely due to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s neo-imperial revanchism, and Donald Trump’s conversion of the United States from a reliable and predictable partner into a capricious, aggressive, rogue nation.
   11. MIKE: Given the position of most nations between the rock of Putin and the hard place of Trump’s America, what else are weaker nations supposed to do?
   12. MIKE: In the meantime, China gets to mostly sit back, strengthen its military at unprecedented speed, and watch as the US destroys the rules-based world order it spend 80 years building and preserving.
   13. MIKE: A long time ago, long before I did this Thinkwing Radio, I observed that the rules-based order we had built, and which would be our nation’s greatest historical legacy to the world, would one day protect us when we were no longer the wealthy and powerful nation we’ve been since World War 2. Well, that’s shot to hell, and more’s the pity.
   14. MIKE: Trump and Putin have set the world back 100 years, verging on the worst time in its history. 

There’s always more to discuss, but that’s all we have time for today.