In case you can’t remember, here are three stories that will clarify everything:

 

1) “U.S. Withdraws from Iran Nuclear Deal, Re-Imposes Sanctions.”

Summary:
On May 8, 2018, President Donald Trump announced that the United States was ending its participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — the 2015 multinational nuclear agreement that capped Iran’s uranium enrichment and subjected its nuclear facilities to international inspections.

Trump called the deal “defective at its core” and said it failed to prevent Iran’s nuclear ambitions, while also arguing it did not adequately limit Iran’s missile program or regional proxy activities.

Following the U.S. exit, sanctions were re-imposed on Iran’s energy, petrochemical, and financial sectors, aiming to pressure Tehran into renegotiating a stricter deal.

European allies and other signatories criticized the withdrawal, warning it undermined diplomatic constraints on Iran’s nuclear work.

---

2) “U.S. and Israel Bomb Iranian Nuclear Facilities, Trump Says Program ‘Obliterated’”

Summary:
In June 2025, the United States — alongside Israeli forces — carried out airstrikes on multiple Iranian nuclear sites, including the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, Natanz facility, and the Isfahan nuclear center, after diplomacy faltered.

President Trump publicly claimed these strikes effectively destroyed Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and said they had “totally obliterated” Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium at threat-level scales.

However, independent analysis and Iranian reports later indicated that while the facilities were damaged or abandoned, no complete destruction of underground infrastructure could be independently verified.

Following these strikes, Iran suspended cooperation with UN inspectors and negotiations stalled, contributing to heightened tensions.

---

3) “Why Is the U.S. Attacking Iran? Trump Cites Nuclear Threat, Missiles, Extremist Support”

Summary:
By early 2026, escalating U.S. military action against Iran — culminating in a major joint offensive with Israel — was justified publicly by the Trump administration primarily on national security grounds.

Officials cited Iran’s continued nuclear enrichment and alleged attempts to restart weapons-related capabilities as key threats, asserting that an Iranian nuclear arsenal would destabilize the Middle East and possibly endanger U.S. allies and interests.

They also pointed to Iran’s development of long-range missiles, support for militant groups (including Hezbollah and Hamas), past attacks on U.S. forces and regional sites, and human rights abuses as contributing to the decision to use force.

Critics, including foreign policy analysts, have questioned some of the intelligence assessments and the clarity of the rationale, noting the absence of imminent attack evidence and drawing parallels to prior disputed war rationales.

======================

In summary, we had a deal with Iran that allowed us to inspect all their facilities. Trump didn’t like the deal, so he cancelled it, but had nothing to replace it (This reminds us of his attempts to cancel Obamacare, and still has nothing to replace it.)

So, with no one to oversee Iran, it began again to create the materials for nuclear bombs.

So we bombed them, and Trump claimed we had obliterated their nuclear bomb-making facilities.

Less than a year later, Trump discovered that Iran had been doing what everyone but Trump knew it was doing. When he discovered this, he went to war — a war that could have been avoided had he not, in 2018,  cancelled the agreement.

Everyone who is related to those who are wounded, maimed and/or killed in today’s war can lay the blame right at Trump’s feet, for his senseless actions in 2018 and thereafter.

Trump’s MAGAs and the billionaire suckups will not understand the shame of all this. Instead, they will cheer the deportations of innocent, hard-working, valuable-to-America immigrants and join draft-dodger Trump in shedding crocodile tears for the war dead.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Florida has third most measles cases in the US, and the number is growing

By News Service Of Florida

PUBLISHED: February 27, 2026 at 1:04 PM EST | UPDATED: February 27, 2026 at 3:33 PM EST

Florida has the third-most measles cases in the country and is on track to be the second-highest.

According to the Florida Department of Health’s Reportable Diseases Frequency Report released this week, the number of diagnoses for 2026 jumped almost 25%, from 92 on Feb. 14 to 114 on Feb. 21.

Currently, Florida is the third state with the most measles cases so far this year, according to the U.S. Measles Tracker, a dashboard hosted by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

But the state is only nine cases behind Utah, which has 123 confirmed measles diagnoses for 2026. Florida’s numbers lag by 5 days and are updated every Thursday; Utah’s cases are updated at least every Tuesday.

South Carolina, which has been the epicenter of an outbreak that originated in Spartanburg County, has the most confirmed cases with 653, according to the tracker.

In Florida, about three-quarters of this year’s cases, 82, are in Collier County, according to DOH. A measles outbreak was reported at  Ave Maria University in the county in late January.

The “vast majority” of the university is vaccinated, and DOH is currently “on-site providing care and guidance,” according to the school’s website.

Other counties with reported measles cases this year are: Alachua, Broward, Duval, Escambia, Hillsborough, Lee, Manatee, Miami-Dade, Pinellas and St. Johns.

According to DOH data, approximately 81% of reported measles cases are among people 15 to 24, and 76 of the 114 cases were acquired within the state.

DOH’s reportable disease tracker does not display the vaccination status of measles cases.

Does anyone remember when measles was eradicated in America? No? Does the word “vaccination” ring a bell? Do the names Donald Trump, Robert F.  Kennedy, Jr., Florida’s Ron DeSantis, and Joseph Ladapo sound familiar?

The next time you hear about someone coming down with measles, you Floridians know whom to blame for this:

• Pneumonia. As many as 1 out of every 20 children with measles gets pneumonia, the most common cause of death from measles in young children.
• Hospitalization. About 1 in 5 unvaccinated people in the U.S. who get measles is hospitalized.
• Encephalitis. About 1 child out of every 1,000 who get measles will develop encephalitis (swelling of the brain). This can lead to convulsions and leave the child deaf or with intellectual disability.
• Death. Nearly 1 to 3 of every 1,000 children who become infected with measles will die from respiratory and neurologic complications.
• Complications during pregnancy. If you are pregnant and have not had the MMR vaccine, measles may cause a premature birth or a low-birth-weight baby.
• Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) is a very rare, but fatal disease of the central nervous system. It results from a measles virus infection acquired earlier in life.

In case you have forgotten: Before the vaccine (pre-1963), 3–4 million U.S. cases annually, 400–500 deaths per year; Nearly every child was infected by age 15.

The vaccine was introduced in 1963. Measles was virtually eliminated by the late 1990s, and was declared eliminated in the U.S. in 2000.

Now, we have returned to the dark ages of anti-vaxx superstition.

Get it? Vaccination = almost no measles, no hospitalizations, no scarring, no deaths.

Republicans = Anti-science medical decisions = Illness, scarring, childhood deaths, and unaffordable healthcare insurance.

This isn’t rocket science, folks. Vote for fools and you pay the price.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Guns South, Drugs North — and the Asymmetry We Don’t See

Public debate about the U.S.–Mexico border usually focuses on one direction: Drugs flowing north. American leaders routinely demand that Mexico (and tens of other less-wealthy nations) “do more” to stop narcotics from entering the United States. Tariffs are threatened. Pressure is applied. Blame is assigned.

But there is another flow — guns moving south. And when you examine both directions together, a structural asymmetry appears. This isn’t a moral argument. It’s a systems argument.

Two Flows, Two Harms, One Nation Controls
The United States is experiencing an extraordinary drug overdose crisis. In recent years, annual overdose deaths have exceeded 100,000, largely driven by synthetic opioids like fentanyl. That is an enormous public health catastrophe.

Mexico, by contrast, experiences relatively low overdose mortality. Its drug-related harm primarily manifests as violence — tens of thousands of homicides per year, the vast majority committed with firearms.

The pattern is clear: Drugs largely flow north and contribute to overdose deaths in the United States. Guns largely flow south and contribute to homicide deaths in Mexico.

Both countries suffer. Both countries export harm. Both countries are affected by forces beyond their borders. But that’s where the symmetry ends.

Upstream Control
Each country has authority over upstream variables within its own jurisdiction.

The United States has the ability, but not the willingness, to regulate firearm manufacturing and sales domestically. 

Mexico: Has the willingness, but not the ability to police its own territory. 

If a nation demands that another country suppress upstream factors affecting its security, while declining to address upstream factors within its own control that affect the other, that is a structural asymmetry.

The U.S. government regularly pressures Mexico to stop drugs at the source. At the same time, American law strongly protects domestic gun manufacturing and sales, including legal shields that limit manufacturer liability. Efforts to tighten bulk purchasing, tracking, or export leakage encounter political resistance.

Mexico’s government, for its part, has deployed military forces against drug cartels at enormous human cost. It has suffered assassinations of officials, police corruption, and institutional strain.

By contrast, America has done nothing to stop gun sales to Mexico. In fact, American law encourages gun manufacturing and sales.

The asymmetry lies not in suffering — both countries suffer — but in expectations about who must change.

Mexico wants to stop the drug trade. Its efforts have cost it money and lives. America does not want to stop the gun trade. 

Individual Choice vs. Structural Incentives

Drug harm in the United States is ultimately the result of individual choice. “Just don’t start.” Don’t take that first drug. Don’t become so addicted that stopping becomes impossible.

Gun violence in Mexico is not something the individual Mexican can prevent. Innocent people’s lives are destroyed in the gun wars.

If downstream outcomes are undesirable — overdose deaths in the U.S., homicide deaths in Mexico — then upstream stimuli must be examined.

Drug demand, harm-reduction policy, and treatment infrastructure in the U.S. Firearm manufacturing volume, distribution rules, and export leakage in the U.S.

The Blind Spot

That is why I have problems with the “both sides” equivalence, some may claim. A Mexican citizen can do everything possible to avoid gun violence and still be caught in the crossfire. By contrast, Americans are not born addicts. At some point, they decide to take drugs.

The American public often sees drugs as an external invasion, though it begins at home, with people haveing the option not to engage.. But Americans rarely see guns flowing south as an export of harm.

The United States demands aggressive suppression of drug flows from Mexico. Consistency would suggest a parallel willingness to address firearm flows that contribute to violence abroad.

The first step is recognizing where responsibility really lies. Contrary to President Trump’s claims, the American government is not an innocent party in the gun/drug exchange war.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY