Commentary Culture Investigations

“The Lunar Cycle,” editorial cartoon by Yogi Love for The American Spectator on Apr. 8, 2026.

Pundits are already putting pencils to paper about who might be the Democrats’ nominee for president in 2028, and how each might fare in media coverage. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore might be the next Obama model in the race, much like previous campaigns featured people posing like the new JFK, from Gary Hart to John Edwards.

Maxwell Tani, an alumnus of the leftist Daily Beast website, worried out loud about Moore in a story at Semafor that they headlined in an email “The Sinclair Sun vs. Wes Moore.” Beware, Democrats: “Investigative journalists with The Baltimore Sun and the local TV station that shares the same owner are digging into Maryland Gov. Wes Moore’s records — and keeping their owner in the loop.”

Liberals worry about non-liberal outlets investigating Democrats – especially when the politicians make up details about their life story. Wait, that is the Obama model – he made up a bunch of details in his memoir Dreams From My Father.

One funny Tani line suggests The Sun only recently became opinionated, that it made a “transformation from a well-known, fairly old-school, by-the-book regional newspaper to a new, more ideological local media hybrid.”

More ideological? A few days before Barack Obama became president, the Sun posted a story headlined “Obama Traces Lincoln Steps On Way to Presidency.” In 2019, the Sun was the toast of the liberal media by attacking President Trump as “vermin” after he claimed no one wanted to live in Baltimore. In 2021, Sun media reporter David Zurawik suggested Fox News should be removed from the White House press corps. “Let’s take them on the word, let’s not let them on the plane. You want to let Proud Boys on Air Force One, no, I don’t think so. These guys are doing the same thing.”

Tani relayed the governor doesn’t like reporters poking around about his dishonest biography: “Moore’s team has complained both publicly and privately that the investigation is needlessly hostile and politically motivated.” Democrats are used to reporters who are politically motivated to support their election prospects, especially in deep-blue Maryland. A conservative paper in Baltimore is as undesirable as a conservative congressman in Maryland (Andy Harris).

In a statement to Semafor, Moore’s team lamented the scrutiny from “ultra-wealthy, right-wing media owners using their platforms to put their fingers on the scale and protect their power while hiding behind the credibility of legacy institutions…. this is right wing propaganda wearing the masthead of a formerly trusted news brand.”

Once again, liberal equals “trusted,” conservative equals “propaganda.”

Then Tani suggested that while the Sun’s focus on accountability is “legitimate,” it’s not original. Moore’s biographical claims were “the subject of serious stories several years ago by The New York Times and CNN,” so “they’re following reporting broken by the mainstream media.”

In August of 2024, The Times reported that Moore claimed to have received a Bronze Star for his service in Afghanistan, but he had not received the award. This came up at a very predictable time – when Moore was being considered as a running mate for Kamala Harris. Liberal outlets break out their investigative reporting when Democrats are shopping negative information on other Democrats. Moore then succeeded in having a friend and mentor (Lt. Gen. Michael Fenzel) push him for the Bronze Star again, so he obtained one – for his next campaign.

In the last few months, Moore has performed interviews with CBS, CNN, and NPR, but none are like those “Sinclair Sun” people who pester Moore about his mangled biography. Semafor must think of them as “old-school, by-the-book mainstream media.” 

President Donald Trump has once again confounded his many critics by agreeing to a two-week ceasefire in the war against Iran, after threatening to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age and end a civilization.
On the right, former Trump supporter and former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene said that Trump had gone “insane.” Andrew Day in The American Conservative suggested that Trump might use nuclear weapons against Iran. Bruce Fein characterized Trump’s attacks on Iran as “unconstitutional” and “criminal.” Steven Simon in Responsible Statecraft accused Trump of threatening genocide in Iran. (RELATED: The Real Risk to Trump’s Coalition Over Iran)
On the left, Sen. Chuck Schumer said Trump resembled “an unhinged madman.” Sen. Bernie Sanders called Trump “dangerous and mentally unbalanced.” Representative Ro Khanna accused Trump of “threatening war crimes.” Charlie Savage in the New York Times called Trump’s threats “self-incriminating statements” for a future war crimes trial. Some critics have suggested invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office. (RELATED: The Illusion of Victory: Trump, Iran, and the Limits of Military Power)
Trump’s threat was to bomb Iran’s infrastructure — bridges, desalination plants, power plants. These are the kinds of targets that were routinely bombed during World War II, yet Trump’s critics claim that deliberately striking them would be a war crime. All of those targets affect Iran’s ability to make war. Judged by this standard, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman were war criminals — after all, they oversaw and countenanced the deliberate bombing of civilians in Germany and Japan. (RELATED: Trump: A Real Commander-in-Chief)
And if the current Iran war is unconstitutional because Congress did not declare war, so was the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the first Gulf War, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the early 2000s, and many other lesser conflicts that have been waged by American presidents without a congressional declaration of war. The Constitution, after all, does not mention congressional resolutions or authorizations that previous presidents have used to wage war.
Those same critics warned us last June that Trump’s authorization to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities would lead to a quagmire and another “endless war” in the Middle East that Trump had campaigned against. Trump confounded the critics then by stopping the war after 12 days once the objective was accomplished.
If we have learned anything about Trump during his presidencies, it is that he does not bluff.
Now, Trump has confounded the critics again. One hour before the attack that could end Iran’s civilization was to begin, Trump announced a two-week ceasefire to allow for peace negotiations to continue. Presumably, those negotiations are making some progress, otherwise Trump would have ordered the civilization-ending bombing to start. If we have learned anything about Trump during his presidencies, it is that he does not bluff.
Writing in Foreign Policy, hardly a MAGA journal, Rand strategic analyst Raphael Cohen takes a more balanced and less unhinged view of the progress of the Iran war than Trump’s many critics. Cohen writes that the Iran war is not a “debacle,” rather it is a “dilemma” like all wars. Operationally, he writes, the war is going reasonably well, noting that the U.S. and Israel “have made significant progress toward achieving [their] objectives” of destroying Iran’s missiles and missile industry, destroying Iran’s navy, degrading Iran’s proxy network, and further degrading Iran’s ability to obtain a nuclear weapon. Diplomatically, the Gulf states have sided with the U.S. and Israel against Iran.
The major dilemma is the Strait of Hormuz, the closure of which is wreaking havoc on the world’s energy markets. Trump’s ceasefire agreement is designed to resolve that dilemma. If the diplomatic route fails, Cohen writes, the U.S. has three options: walk away and declare victory, which would leave Iran in control of the Strait; continue the air campaign, which might bring Iran’s leaders back to the negotiating table; and escalation, which could topple the regime but risks increased costs and “unintended consequences.” (RELATED: Five Quick Things: Hormuz)
As in most wars, there is likely no perfect solution. But, Cohen writes, the war “is not the catastrophe that some make it out to be, nor is the United States stuck in a quagmire.” Iran’s threat to the region has been scaled-back. Any solution — military or negotiated — is likely to be temporary — that is the way international relations usually work.
READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa:
When Generals Pray and Popes Object
Is John Fetterman Channeling Scoop Jackson?
Calling the Iran War a Quagmire Now is Ludicrous

The decision by the Department of Homeland Security to scrap the $100,000 contract approval requirement is being framed by some as a return to “efficiency.”
But in reality, it marks a return to the very contracting culture that defined DHS for more than two decades — one that too often failed taxpayers, diluted accountability, and empowered entrenched bureaucracies over outcomes.
First, let’s be clear about what just happened.
“Streamlining” is often Washington shorthand for something else entirely: decentralizing oversight…
Under former Secretary Kristi Noem, DHS implemented a strict policy requiring senior-level approval for contracts above $100,000 — an attempt, however imperfect, to impose visibility and discipline on a sprawling procurement system. That policy has now been rescinded by her successor, with DHS arguing the move will “streamline” operations and empower agencies to act more quickly.
But “streamlining” is often Washington shorthand for something else entirely: decentralizing oversight back into a system that historically lacked it.
For 23 years, DHS operated under precisely this model — where thousands of contracts flowed through layers of career officials with limited top-level scrutiny. The results were predictable: cost overruns, opaque vendor selection, and a procurement culture that rewarded process over performance.
That is not conjecture; it is a matter of public record across administrations of both parties.
Questions then linger… Such as, how many billions of dollars historically moved through DHS without sufficient scrutiny — and to what end? (RELATED: Uncovered: The Power of the Citizen Journalist)
And isn’t the duly sworn secretary supposed to be the last line of defense against fraud, waste, and abuse?
Why give this power back to the bureaucracy?
The policy change we see implemented this week ultimately represents one thing: a reversion.
Under the new framework, contracts below $25 million will largely bypass secretary-level review. In practical terms, that creates a powerful incentive structure. If you are a contractor — or a bureaucrat managing procurement — you now know the ceiling. Keep contracts just under that threshold, and they avoid the highest level of scrutiny.
That is how Washington works. And it is why critics are already warning that the system will quickly normalize around contracts priced at $24,999,000.
This is not efficient. It is a fragmentation of accountability.
We are indeed witnessing, albeit quietly, a broader institutional shift: power moving back to the bureaucracy. Career officials — many of whom are highly capable, but none of whom are elected — will once again control the bulk of contracting decisions with minimal political accountability.
That may speed up processes, but it also diffuses responsibility when things go wrong.
Taxpayers have seen this movie before.
For years, DHS has been one of the largest contracting agencies in the federal government, with billions flowing annually to private vendors for everything from border infrastructure to disaster response logistics.
The argument that removing oversight will somehow fix the Department’s longstanding issues is, at best, optimistic. At worst, it is willfully blind.
The decision made this week signals, simply put, the reassertion of the status quo before the Trump Administration sought to and indeed accomplished an effective draining of the swamp.
The “swamp,” as critics often describe it, is not a partisan construct. It is a structural one — a system that defaults to self-preservation, resists disruption, and thrives in complexity.
By removing centralized oversight of contracts, DHS risks reinforcing exactly those dynamics.
And taxpayers will ultimately bear the cost.
Because when oversight weakens, spending rarely shrinks — it just becomes harder to track.
And that is a trend the American public is starting to take note of and rebuke.
READ MORE from Duggan Flanakin:
Nordic Hydro Solves Europe’s Data Center Dilemma
Can de Wever Wake Up Europe’s Sleeping Giant?
Nigeria Is a Quiet Test of Trump’s ‘America First’ Foreign Policy

Donald Trump’s latest messages are the kind of tweets I write after 10 beers on a relaxed day. Around the world, a single response echoes: “He’s crazy.” We’ve known Trump for decades. We saw him tweet in all caps during his first term, and we’ve also witnessed his verbal incontinence when speaking to the media at any hour, in any place — something unprecedented in a president, and something journalists don’t even acknowledge. We’ve seen him laugh in the faces of prime ministers from around the world, joke at state dinners, and raise his fist in victory immediately after being shot. And yet, in April 2026, people are still discovering that Donald Trump is crazy. Of course he is. So what?
Newton was completely mad. Van Gogh was mad, too. Beethoven had extreme mood swings compatible with almost any psychiatric disorder. Cioran went mad from chronic insomnia. Dostoevsky wasn’t the sanest of his generation. Hunter S. Thompson did everything to go mad — and succeeded. And Hölderlin, one of my favorite poets, ended his days profoundly detached from reality, only seeming to regain his sanity when he sat down to write.
Aristotle once said that “No great mind has ever existed without a touch of madness.” Don Quixote himself was a magnificent madman with a good heart. And Chesterton liked to remind us that “The madman is not the man who has lost his reason; the madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.”
People forget that the only dangerous madman is the one who doesn’t seem mad.
History is full of brilliant madmen. It’s almost impossible to tell where genius ends and madness begins. Extreme lucidity allows some people to see far more than the rest of us: they find incredible rhetorical figures, brilliant words to describe everyday events, philosophically outstanding arguments; they can create unmatched advertising campaigns or devise flawless war plans that no one had ever conceived before. (RELATED: Trump Delivers Europe’s Much-Needed Wake-Up Call)
People forget that the only dangerous madman is the one who doesn’t seem mad. The typical guy who appears on the evening news after murdering his entire family, while neighbors testify: “He was normal, polite, a good person; he always said hello when you passed him.” On the other hand, a madman who doesn’t hide his madness isn’t dangerous at all. And Donald Trump makes no effort whatsoever to conceal his remarkable degree of madness. In fact, he exploits it with brilliant quips because he knows it makes others laugh, and he also uses it as a negotiation tool with terrorists and tyrants. (RELATED: Trump: A Real Commander-in-Chief)
On Tuesday afternoon, he said he would wipe out an entire civilization — and if someone else said that, or if you took it out of context, it might sound terrible. The truth is, if you read the full message, it’s actually quite funny. I’m not saying his threat was a joke, but he adopts that movie-thug pose, like: “I don’t feel like killing you right now, so you’d better get out of here and make it easy for me.”
I’m writing this just hours before the famous ultimatum deadline. Many of the ayatollahs are also mad, but not in the amusing way Trump is; their madness stems from pure hatred of the West. Trump, by contrast, doesn’t seem to hate the Iranian leaders in the slightest — probably because he simply finds them ridiculous.
[F]or your enemy to think your leader is crazy is an extraordinary diplomatic maneuver to intimidate him.
I don’t know how this verbal showdown will end, but for your enemy to think your leader is crazy is an extraordinary diplomatic maneuver to intimidate him. They know Trump isn’t pretending to be crazy; he is. So his threats, however amusing they may seem, shouldn’t be taken lightly. At least, if my head were on the line, I wouldn’t. The last person to openly laugh at Trump’s threats, publicly dancing and giggling, was Nicolás Maduro. And you know how that ended. A crazy and brilliant operation finished him off.
I suspect that everyone saying Trump is being rude or politically incorrect in his way of addressing the ayatollahs has no idea what kind of scum they’re dealing with. You don’t speak to a hyena with the courtesy and respect you give your mother.
Now that so many conservatives seem terrified to realize that Trump is, in fact, quite crazy, my bet — and that of another famous madman, Javier Milei — is that this madness is the best thing to happen to the West in decades. Madmen in power lead the world. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they fail. But they try. Boring sane people only manage to lull everyone to sleep while what’s wrong with the world becomes chronic.
READ MORE from Itxu Díaz:
The Happiest Religion on Earth
The Mysterious Solitude of Christ in His Passion and Death on the Cross
How to Keep Your Job When Robots Take Over