Steve Hallstrom

Blessed to be President/Managing Partner/Head Cheerleader of Flag Family Media. Firm believer that anything is possible. #1percentbetter

[Steve Hallstrom @SteveHallstrom]

If anyone is looking to watch Team USA tomorrow our company is hosting a watch party at OB Sports Zone/Old Broadway. Drink specials and a bunch of USA peeps. Should be fun.

[Hosna ⚖️ בניטה @DOGEQEEN]

🚨 UPDATE: In a stunning development, the U.S. Supreme Court appears ready to deliver a devastating blow to the radical transgender agenda in sports! Experts and court watchers are reeling: a 5-4 or even 6-3 ruling upholding Republican state bans on men in women's sports.

[Northern News Now @NorthernNewsNow]

NATIONAL: Minor league team cancels game after players refuse to wear Pride-themed jerseys

https://t.co/ZiWwGbBM3w

[Mark R. Levin @marklevinshow]

I think it’s terrific that people who will likely seek the GOP nomination for president are revealing themselves.

Amazing how Iran is being talked about as increasingly reasonable and moderate as Israel is being smeared left and Woke Right.

[Jon Root @JonnyRoot_]

This is one of the best newspaper front pages I've ever seen.

Well done, @californiapost 👏

[zerohedge @zerohedge]

Infant Mortality Drops To All-Time Low In United States https://t.co/itqBEHDjJW

[Steve Hallstrom @FlagPrez]

Translation: We told you it wouldn't work then, and we're telling you it won't work now. Don't believe any of the people who tried it and found it actually worked.

[ABC News @ABC]

Ivermectin, which surged in popularity during the coronavirus pandemic amid unproven claims that it could help fight COVID-19 infections, has now found a new following among some cancer patients. https://t.co/TQnNJnGwyz

[Lawrence Jones III @LawrenceBJones3]

The only saving grace here is that the Iranian radical Islamists never change. They will do what terrorist do… and the president will do what he’s always done: respond with force. So we wait.

[James Lindsay, anti-Communist @ConceptualJames]

My logic here all starts with his seemingly rogue comment about Iran keeping rockets and missiles, which has freaked out many, particularly Israelis and their supporters.

I'm betting the Gulf States are really uncomfortable, like Israel is, with that statement. They're not stupid. They're also targets, like Israel is. Less, but a lot, and the IRGC are crazy bastards. Makes me think Trump made it for them.

The thing is, they didn't do their parts and aren't yet. And Trump's definitely pissed at them because they straight up didn't help during the war (so far…). They wouldn't even let us use their airspace and tried to close down our own military bases. Trump didn't like that and didn't forget. No way.

So Trump letting them feel some legitimate heat that can be resolved by accomplishing his primary goals makes a lot of basic sense.

If we remember Trump's goals and work backwards, it's actually a little easier to see how this makes sense, even the MOU with it's big carrot/big stick arrangement that basically nobody believes will stick (thus terrifying Israel but, I'll bet, also those Gulf States). So what are Trump's goals?

1) Expand Abraham Accords;
2) KSA allying formally with Israel, which was happening until October 7 disrupted it, thus restoring a pre-10/7 peace agenda;
3) Increase their overall security dependency on US and Israel, thus shifting some of their "hand" in the region to us;
4) Standard Trumpism 101: Make them active participants in their own security arrangements, just like what he's doing with the EU and Pacific countries (no more America carrying all the weight).

The MOU itself creates conditions by which Iran becomes agentic in this. If they behave (they won't), they get rewarded, which they actually want, bigly. If they misuse that (everyone expects they will), they get a well-deserved stick. Everyone in the region feels this fear and is vigilant about it. If they misbehave (they will), they bring hellfire on themselves. This breaks the strangest force in the known universe: responsibility never sticks to a Muslim who behaved badly, never.

It's very high-risk, but this is a very high-stakes game, one of the highest in decades. The fears people have are real and justified, but Trump's got them priced in, I think. He knows he holds cards (B-2s, specifically) that let him adjust later if things don't work right, and by the number of times he's said so in the last 36 hours, I think he's well aware he'll be playing those cards at least sometimes. Tough shit for Iran.

I think we need to stop freaking out and let this develop. We need to see how it cooks and how the chef does with it.

Plus, I think he just hosed JD, and that's alright too.

[Mohamed A. El-Erian @elerianm]

The new Federal Reserve Chair, Kevin Warsh, adopted a highly welcome change during his opening remarks at the press conference following today's policy statement.
Underpinning his emphasis on accountability, his delivery was noticeably more open, engaging, concise, and honest.
In addition to confirming that he did not submit "dots" given his well-founded (and correct) discomfort with the Summary of Economic Projections (SEP), he announced the creation of five task forces to take a fresh look at areas I have long argued are in deep need of reform:
Communication
Balance sheet management
Data sources and uses
Productivity and jobs in a transforming economy
The inflation framework
Bottom line: A much-needed, reform-oriented breath of fresh air.
#economy #markets #federalreserve #kevinwarsh @federalreserve

[Rand Paul @RandPaul]

I've spent my career warning against regime change wars, nation-building, and endless military entanglements. The same voices now attacking Trump's Iran deal are the architects of every failed intervention of my lifetime.

This war must end. I stand with President Trump on peace.

[Alex Bolton @alexanderbolton]

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) says Trump is getting "poor advice" on Iran deal.

"History teaches that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is not a good idea. I think the president is receiving some very poor advice on this deal," Cruz says.

[Peter Schweizer @peterschweizer]

3 options on Iran at the beginning of the year. 1. Do nothing, let Iran get closer and closer to deploying a nuke. 2. Regime change in Iran, which would require boots on the ground. 3. The option POTUS chose--significantly degrade their nuclear program and strike a new deal.

[Steve Hallstrom @FlagPrez]

Retweets do not imply agreement but this is the debate.

[Haviv Rettig Gur @havivrettiggur]

Welp, I think we're done here.

Trump himself is now saying he buckled under the pressure of Hormuz.

It's as bad as it could possibly be. He's saying aloud that Iran can have anything it wants because America can't afford the staring contest.

If this is his own explanation in his own words, then the fact that the sanctions relief is front-loaded...suddenly becomes important. The fact that the inspections regime that will verify compliance will be negotiated by an American side that has already admitted defeat, that needs this more than the opponent needs it...is now significant. And the fact that the proxy system is now recognized as legitimate by the United States -- is suddenly exactly the disaster you feared it might be.

And the fact that America has declared aloud that it's not actually capable of imposing its will even in the world's most vital energy chokepoints, causing its allies in the Gulf to already begin to seek a new accommodation with Iran -- makes all of this worse than Obama and worse than the JCPOA.

Remember: the great unfixable flaw of the JCPOA that none of its boosters ever had a good answer for was that it merely kicked the can down the road. It solved nothing.

Trump's deal, as of this moment, is not even close to accomplishing so much.

"Iran never won a war and never lost a negotiation," Trump famously said of Obama's deal (as a reporter reminded him at today's press conference). Ironic that the Iranians would win a negotiation most spectacularly against a man who styles himself the greatest negotiator to ever grace the White House.

So what does it all mean?

It means that in the coming years, nuclear programs will sprout like mushrooms after the rain throughout the Middle East. It means that many nations will now build out new and larger ballistic missile arsenals.

It means that the state system will give way before the march of the region's transnational ideological axes. Minorities will again be trampled, new wars will be fought by stronger states to dominate the power vacuums within weaker ones.

You're thinking of Israel in Lebanon -- but that's just a specific campaign against a specific enemy. Think Turkey, which right now occupies a region of Syria vastly larger than Israel's presence in Lebanon. Think heightened Iranian support for the Houthis in Yemen and a new influx of money and guns to the different sides in Libya.

It means, in other words, that we will have a few more wars to fight, a few more technologies to invent to deal with this new age of cheap missiles and drones -- and also of supersonic Chinese missiles bearing nuclear warheads that Iran will eventually, inevitably, be capable of deploying against us.

And it didn't have to be this bad. (And maybe, when he's heard all the criticism, it won't be.) He could have left something, anything, to concede later. He could have kept the Iranians a little bit in the dark, just a smidgen, as to just how defeated America feels.

Israel's position in all this is simple, and more or less unchanged from last week. America gave us more than we had a right to ask for. But we may be going it alone from here out.

Dust off the nukes. Maybe test one somewhere far away from anywhere. Quadruple the interceptor production lines, double the size of the Mossad and the Air Force. And no, don't let Hezbollah breathe, not for a second.

It's the 1960s again. And Israel will have to defeat a couple more enemies before it can once again eke out a few decades of peace.

[Acyn @Acyn]

Gowdy: I read this MOU about 48 hours ago and I didn't believe it. I thought somebody was spoofing me when I saw it.

[Ari Fleischer @AriFleischer]

Iran War One was in June 2025.

Iran War Two was in February 2026. It could have been the last and final war. That’s no longer the case.

Unless Iran changes and becomes a normal nation, Iran War Three is inevitable.

[The Post Millennial @TPostMillennial]

Ben Shapiro believes the US-Iran agreement is a disaster and puts blame on VP Vance:

“In my opinion, the Vice President of the United States, the chief negotiator on this particular project, has not well served the president”

[Mark R. Levin @marklevinshow]

MORE ON THE MOU ...

This is the second part of my comments regarding the MOU. I post the first part this morning.

President Trump ordered this military operation to prevent Iran from getting and using nuclear weapons. And the early days of this war was a spectacular success. For some reason, an ceasefire was quickly ordered, and it lasted for over 2-months, despite the scores of violations by Iran and Hezbollah. Great damage has been done to Iran's military. And the president deserves enormous credit for having the courage to do what no other president did before him. My fear is that no other president after him will have the same courage to act should the terms of any agreement be violated.

The president ordered a 2-day return to military operations when the Iranian regime was dragging its feet. That was quickly ended on a promise by the regime that it would sign on to an MOU.

From day one, I have underscored that no deal will be honored by the Iranian regime. Its political-theocratic ideology fuels a revolution that compels the catastrophic destruction of the West. Presumably, the president knew this as he repeatedly warned it Iran got a nuclear weapon, it would use it against us. Moreover, Iran's pattern of conduct over the last 47-years makes clear that it uses negotiations as a tactic to further its aims. Yet, we abandoned the military destruction of Iran and did not use all of our capabilities to destroy the regime, including not arming the Iranian people due, in part to polling and gas prices. To be clear, there was never a plan to use ground forces or be involved in a "forever war." Indeed, in my view, if the MOU is not drastically altered during the 60-day negotiation period, a forever war -- a continuation of Iran's war on the West -- is not in doubt.

So, what does this MOU involve? I am working from the closest draft of the MOU publicly available, which I believe is fundamentally accurate.

Item 1. Upon the signing of the MOU there is an immediate and permanent end to the war, and that specifically includes Lebanon.

This doesn't even make any sense. There are 60-days (or more) to negotiate a deal. Therefore, before a deal is finalized, we just declared a cessation of military action -- permanently. And we committed to not even threatening force. Why would we agree to immediately drop the most important leverage we have over the regime in advance of it complying with MOU requirements and whatever else is decided in 60-days?

On top of this, we do the unthinkable. We capitulate to Iran's demand to protect Hezbollah. As I explained earlier: Hezbollah, which has brutally murdered hundreds of our fellow citizens, is essentially protected by our government in alliance with the Iranian regime, and free to continue to kill Americans, Israelis, and others as the most potent terror weapon of the Iranian regime not only survives but is immunized. And since Israel is the only country that actually fights this enemy with its soldiers and airmen, and whose citizens are in the direct line of fire from missile and drone attacks, nobody in their right mind will tolerate this. No amount of berating our ally or pressuring the PM, which is shocking, changes anything. I want to underscore Hezbollah has killed our people and we've done next to nothing to deal with it. In and of itself, that is shameful. Israel must not and will not adhere to such an egregious capitulation.

Item 2. We refrain from interfering in Iran's sovereignty and they will not interfere with ours. Who believes Iran won't interfere with our internal affairs. We spend tens of billions on counterterrorism against, among others, Iran. Does anyone believe Iran will drop out of its axis with China, Russia, and North Korea? And how do we enforce any deal against these other countries. And if we catch them, then what?

Item 4. We lift the naval blockade 30-days after the MOU, rather than after final negotiations for a deal. That removes another major leverage we have over the regime. And we agree to remove our forces around that area within 30-days after the final agreement. We can always send our forces back, they say. But in all likelihood, we would not.

Item 6. Incredibly, we commit to helping create a comprehensive plan for the rehabilitation and economic development of Iran, while ensuring financing of at least $300 billion. We are told it will not involve any of our tax money. That's a shiny object. Who would have dreamt that after we went to war with this regime because it was within days of having a nuclear weapon, that we would have any role in helping coordinate or raise one dime for this regime. The VP says they don't a dime if they don't meet certain conditions. That's not what it says. Moreover, let's say they meet all conditions, receive the billions, and then tell us to go to hell. And who among us believe any of this money will go to assisting or improving the lives of the Iranian people, who have no rights and are slaughtered by the tens of thousands? In fact, as I write this, they're executing innocent young people. Honestly, this is too absurd to comprehend. It was clearly proposed in lieu of the regime's demand for reparations, which should have been dismissed out of hand.

Regardless of how this slush fund is collected or distributed, here we are committing to helping reconstruct the terror regime we presumably just destroyed. Besides, I thought we hit military structures and targets, not civilian locations.

Item 7. Get this -- we commit, as a nation, to not only lifting all sanctions we have on the regime, but we commit to helping lift all other sanctions, including by the UN, the IAEA, and all other primary and secondary sanctions, on Iran. So, we are now working in the service of the regime with other countries and before international organizations in this regard.

Item 8. "[Iran] reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons." We "have agreed that the fate of enriched material and the fate of all other mutually agreed nuclear-related issues, including Iran's nuclear needs, will be ..." dealt with in the final issue. Shouldn't this issue have been the first item on this list? That said, this actually says nothing. All the relief and other commitments, some which is immediate or in 30-days, comes before any serious effort to lay out with details and specifics the manner in which nuclear program will be permanently ended and enriched uranium will be destroyed? Now they're talking about degrading the uranium? This was supposed to be the core of everything. At best, it does not go beyond broad slogans.

Item 9. We agree not to strengthen our forces in the region pending a final agreement, and we agree not to impose any new sanctions on Iran -- thereby surrendering yet more leverage over the regime.

Item 10. As I go through the points, I just keep shaking my head. Here, with the signing of the MOU, we agree to immediately issue waivers of exports of Iranian crude oil, petro products, all related services, banking, insurance, transportation, and the like. In other words, the Iranian regime is back in business -- immediately. Before any final deal. Billions and billions will now flow into the regime.

Item 11. In addition, "frozen or restricted funds and assets of [Iran] will be released and made fully available. ... " Again, billions more will be flowing into the regime -- immediately.

What is not in this arrangement:

1. Not a word about ballistic missiles, the single most destructive weapon Iran has and has used, and which have the capability of killing tens of thousands and destroying cities if launched in a wave. This is a grave capitulation to the regime.

2. Not a word about promoting and funding terrorism and terror groups. I've no illusions the regime's terrorism and terror-funding will not be curtailed under any circumstances.

3. Not a word about the Iranian people, who we promised to help at the outset. Apparently, they've been abandoned.

4. Not a word about the regime paying reparations to our country, Israel, or the Arab countries for the massive damage cause by their ballistic missiles and other missiles.

AGAIN, DURING THE NEXT 60-DAYS THIS MOU REQUIRES SERIOUS CHANGES IF NOT OUTRIGHT ABANDONMENT.

MORE THOUGHTS LATER

[Mark R. Levin @marklevinshow]

WHAT TO THINK OF THE MOU AND MORE ...

I start from the proposition that this is among the worst places to have a reasoned and substantive discussion. It is one of the most uncivil places in our civil society. Not because of the platform itself, but because unbridled freedom, without some basic guiderails, attracts the good, the bad, and the ugly from all corners of the world, where the bad and the ugly are able to predominate. It's a form of hit-and-run anarchy. It's more French Revolution than American Revolution. From a governing perspective, that is why our Framers established a republic and not a pure democracy.

Therefore, when it comes to discussing the MOU, there are some very good and thoughtful posts, including some I disagree with, but too much that has little to do with the substance of the MOU. I do not confuse legitimate criticism, even strongly worded criticism, with some of the vile bigotry and disinformation campaigns here, of which there is way too much. And the comment sections on many posts are of a kind that are truly hideous, and not all of it is from foreign bots. It is what it is.

Further prefacing my thoughts on the MOU, I understand that the Democrat Party media and Democrat politicians, like the Woke Right and others, are less interested in the substance of the MOU and legitimate engagement than uninhibited political exploitation, opportunism, and ambition. The intent by some of these actors is to squelch open debate not promote it. As a practical matter, others undoubtedly feel somewhat hemmed in by concerns over friendships, alliances, social circumstances, connections in the administration, etc. Again, it is what it is.

Understanding all of this, I urge those with serious and substantive opinions to keep at it. Don't be intimidated by any of it.

I want to address some of the basics about the MOU from my perspective. I'll do so in parts, given the nature of the platform:

1. The roll out was unhelpful. I am not sure why the MOU was not released when signed, with the appropriate level of explanation and engagement with the public, but the result was too much debate about the debate and admonishment of those commenting on available public information, including from legitimate media sources and administration leaks, not to mention the vice president's ubiquitous public appearances. As it turns out, much of what was discussed by serious people was fairly accurate. And since the MOU would eventually be released anyway, it was a mistake to start with the bravado before its release.

2. I start from the premise that there is a stubborn disinterest, by too many officials and media commentators, in truly understanding the nature of this enemy, its political-theocratic ideology, its history of negotiating techniques and objectives, and decades of manipulation of Western leaders and diplomats, which has infected every diplomatic engagement and outcome with it, in small ways and large, for nearly half a century. There is an abundance of publicly available information, including books, essays, speeches, and the like, explaining in detail the cause, revolution, and mindset of this enemy -- produced and circulated by the enemy itself as well as those who have studied its behavior in earnest. The enemy repeatedly defines itself. But beyond the usual sloganeering in the media about how bad the enemy is, I hear few explanations to the public with any depth.

I draw at least three conclusions from this (I'm sure more will come to mind as the day goes on): a) too few understand precisely what we are dealing with, and that is/was by choice; b) it is thought to be, or may well be, too difficult politically to, in the end, effectively tackle what is an existential threat once it is fully understood; c). few of those who do see clearly what is ahead understand what Winston Churchill meant by his wilderness years and choose to avoid it. This goes to a bigger issue of much greater concern: Do we, as a people, have the will to destroy an enemy that exists to annihilate us and do our politicians and diplomats simply reflect this. Polling suggests we do not and most of our ruling class lives and dies by polling.

3. Before commenting directly on the MOU, context here is critical. When President Trump decided to go to war with the Iranian regime, it was a courageous decision by every measure. He has known and made clear for decades that Iran poses a grave threat to our country and criticized the failure of presidents to deal with it. Indeed, I first met President Trump in September 2015 at a rally of the Tea Party Patriots on the steps of the Capitol Building. Several of us spoke that day to a crowd of many thousands against the Obama nuclear deal and urged Congress to defeat it. The most eloquent and inspiring speech was delivered by Donald Trump. He made the moral and national security case for defeating the Iranian regime and against Obama's sellout. He knew intuitively and by watching what the Iranian regime was doing and had done that it must be denied nuclear weapons no matter the cost. Despite the knowingly false allegations of very evil propagandists, the president has never wavered from this position and was not convinced or pulled dragging and kicking by Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, or "the Jews" to fight this war.

MORE TO COME ...

[NorthStarRight @NorthStarRight]

KTSP/Survey USA Poll for MN GOP US Senate: 👀

Michele Tafoya: 36%
Royce White: 15%
Adam Schwarze: 7%
Tom Weiler: 7%
Someone Else: 8%
Undecided: 27%

Tafoya's name ID gives her a continued lead, but there are interesting hints of other dynamics in this poll.

Royce being up there in second place tells you how Name ID driven these polls are, which historically doesn't align well with the final result.