 You can hardly turn on the news or read an internet news feed without three or four pieces on the current state of President Trump’s Operation Epic Fury, what we’ve bombed, what they’re going to bomb, and how many have been killed or injured. I wanted to provide my take on what you are not hearing from President Trump or the White House that, to me, explains why this is part and parcel of Trump’s “America First” agenda.
It seems like Trump is on TV daily, giving his update on the bombing of Iran and how successful Operation Epic Fury has been and will be. He is getting pushback not only from the Democrats (no surprise there) but from MAGA supporters of his America First promise and numerous Republicans – really, too many to count. What also, to me, didn’t help Trump’s explanation of Operation Epic Fury was Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying why we went to “war.” Despite what Rubio has said to clarify those remarks, few seem to buy his explanation. Rubio’s specific remark was, “The second question I’ve been asked is, why now? We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.” Everyone up and down the political spectrum and news media has taken these remarks to mean Israel dragged America into this war. We are now at a time in our country where antisemitism is at its highest and leftist kooks are saying Israel drives what the United States does and will do – and Rubio’s remarks help their “cause.” I believe they are wrong – and here’s why. The war is not about Israel or for Israel’s sake. Sure, Israel is a beneficiary, like America and other Middle Eastern (and European) countries, and is a willing partner of the U.S. – but they are not the reason America has undertaken this fight. President Trump is playing a much bigger game. He is concerned first about the Middle East and how it may impact America’s safety and security. And second, the safety and security of America’s partners in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia are at play. President Trump is playing 3-D chess. One aspect is a regional chessboard, which includes Israel, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states. The players on this regional chessboard understand how Iran’s proxies, its funding of Hezbollah and the Houthis, its ballistic missiles and drones, and its nuclear agenda affects everyone on this regional chessboard. The other chessboard is much broader and larger. It is a chessboard in which America and China are the main players. This larger chessboard is looking 30 years ahead and answering the question of whether America will continue to be a global leader or China will replace it. Trump’s foreign policy decisions, be it tariff wars to America’s military posture in the Pacific, is a move on this chessboard. The United States is in this fight because of China. Iran has become China’s most significant forward operating base outside of East Asia. While Iran has been, for most of its history, an enemy of the U.S., it was really a small player. It harassed ships, threatened America’s allies, funded terrorism, and kept the Middle East unpredictable, but it was not a “real” threat to America. It was really a problem for Israel and the Gulf states, but only in a small way was it a problem for the U.S. But all of that changed when Iran made the strategic decision to align themselves with China. Iran was isolated and suffering under the decades-long sanctions imposed by the U.S. So they turned to China and that relationship flourished rapidly. Today, about 90% of Iran’s oil exports go to China and are processed through a network of Chinese refineries that are outside of the sanctions imposed by the U.S. The revenue Iran receives for these oil exports funds about 25% of Iran’s budget – a massive portion of which is invested in Iran’s military. Without Beijing, Iran could not pay its security forces, cannot subsidize basic goods, and would collapse internally without China’s support. In other words, Iran has made itself thoroughly dependent on China. China knows this and was not taking this action to be charitable to Iran…they knew exactly what they were doing. China plays a long-term strategy in everything it does. Iran has allowed China to build a strategic oil reserve of over a billion barrels – enough to sustain China for at least 100 days in the event of a U.S. naval blockade. China recognized America’s ability to interdict its energy imports and has planned accordingly. (Venezuela was also another of President Trump’s operations to contain China.) Iran’s oil was only part of China’s long-term strategy. China has been arming Iran with weapon systems specifically designed to be used against America’s military assets and threaten commercial shipping lanes, ships, ports, etc. In late February, intelligence reports talked about a nearly finalized deal for China to supply Iran with supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles engineered to evade the Aegis defense systems on American carrier strike groups. China has also been replacing Iran’s military and government software systems with a closed-loop Chinese software system that will resist cyber operations conducted by the CIA and Mossad. Iran has also replaced its GPS systems with the Chinese BeiDou system. Iran has provided China a port in Jask – which is a strategic port city near the Gulf of Oman and serves as a major naval base near the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz (remember that 20% of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas passes through the Strait of Hormuz and is the only sea route for much of the Middle East’s energy exports). Joint Chinese, Iranian, and Russian naval exercises have routinely been conducted in the Strait of Hormuz – building real-time operational familiarity between these three navies. This paints a picture of a Chinese forward operating base positioned at the throat of the global oil supply, with weapons designed to penetrate advanced American defenses and kill American soldiers and seamen. When Iran began to look like that, it became America’s problem, not just Israel and the Middle East. President Trump was crystal clear when he announced the operation in terms of destroying navy and missile production sites (which could serve as second front in a war with China – though he didn’t specifically state this fact). The first twenty-four hours of the operation focused on Iranian naval vessels, submarines, ports, and anti-ship missile positions along Iran’s southern coast. The U.S. also struck the Islamic Revolutionary Guard’s Navy and headquarters, as well as the ports in Jask (which China hoped would be their permanent naval foothold). Also bombed were the hubs of Iran’s ballistic missile production and drone assembly. American officials were explicit in stating the objective was not just to degrade Iran’s weapons stockpiles but to destroy the industrial base from which these weapons are produced (preventing China from quietly rebuilding these weapons stockpiles in the future). Most of the targets hit by the U.S. are no threat to Israel whatsoever but were a real and continued threat to the safety and security of the United States. One of the most revealing, but not talked about, subplots of this campaign has been the behavior of Iran’s so-called allies. Russia signed a comprehensive strategic partnership with Iran 14 months ago and China has been Iran’s economic patron and partner for years. BUT, when the bombs started falling, neither Russia nor China made a single move. Russia’s radar systems in Syria went dark – the transponders reportedly switched off to avoid accidently drawing American or Israeli fire. China issued statements. Neither fired a shot in Iran’s defense. These are important facts that go well into the future. An important piece of China’s plan, part of their Belt and Road Initiative, was to develop networks and relationships to show there is a credible alternative to partnering with America. But, this rests on the assumption that China is a reliable partner. Every government watching China’s behavior, from the Middle East to Central Asia to Europe to Africa to Latin America, is now watching China abandon its closest Middle Eastern partner and let it burn all by itself. This is not something Chinese diplomacy can fix anytime soon. It is an American success that will last for years, no matter how Epic Fury ultimately turns out. On the other hand, America has shown itself to have the will and capability to act decisively when its interests are threatened. Not Israel’s interests. Not some abstract liberal ideal. American interests. Everyone knows that combat operations are not without risk. Having served on active duty for 24 years, I’ve lost friends and colleagues in Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I mourn their loss to this day. That being said, I can see how Operation Epic Fury and the actions taken in Venezuela are important to America’s security and safety. Why hasn’t this story been told by President Trump or the White House? I think it is so that we don’t force China to take action they might otherwise not want to take. It’s often better to give an enemy an out than to push it into a corner on the world’s stage. We’ve given them this out by being silent. But…at some point, I think this story needs to be told to stop the naysayers here in America from questioning actions being taken by Trump’s administration to secure America. Jerry Hashimura Pahrump, NV
2 Comments
 You can hardly look at internet news feeds or the lamestream media without seeing another article, newscaster, or politician loudly supporting or opposing the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE Act) or voter ID laws…so, like always, I’ll try not to add to the noise but just give a few of my impressions and a few facts on this issue that you might find interesting.
Among many other things, the SAVE Act would require Americans to provide proof of citizenship (a birth certificate, passport, or other citizenship document) to register or re-register to vote, would require those voting by mail to submit documentary proof of citizenship, and would require states to run their voter rolls through the Systematic Alien Verification of Eligibility system to identify potential noncitizens on their voter rolls. Voter ID laws merely require voters to show ID when voting (though the implementation varies among the 36 states with voter ID laws already being enforced). The SAVE Act would preempt state voter registration processes for federal elections. Spoiler alert: I’m in favor of both. The Democrats’ biggest opposition to the SAVE Act seems to be that it will “marginalize” a segment of the population from voting as many of the “less privileged” (whatever that means) do not have access to documents proving citizenship or do not have proper ID at all. They say it is racist, with Chuck Schumer referring to it as Jim Crow 2.0 (and I would invite you to look up the definition of Jim Crow laws, which shows Schumer to be the idiot he is). They all say these further requirements to vote will disproportionally affect Black Americans – yet 76% of Black Americans favor showing photo ID to vote (82% of Latino Americans and 85% of white Americans favor photo ID to vote). I have seen a fairly large number of Black politicians and celebrities criticize those Democrats opposing the SAVE Act and voter ID laws, asking if they believe the Black community is too stupid to be able to get ID or citizenship documents. If requiring photo ID or proof of citizenship to vote marginalizes our citizenry, aren’t they being even more “marginalized” by the fact that they can’t get a driver’s license, rent or buy a home, apply for social benefits, open a bank account, get a credit card, fly on a commercial airline, pick-up certain mail, or buy alcohol or tobacco products without an ID or proof of citizenship? The far-left news outlets continue to report that there is no “widespread” voter fraud. They always characterize it that way…no widespread voter fraud. Isn’t any voter fraud bad, widespread or not? If we can eliminate fraud in our voting systems, why is that such a bad thing? I would point to a California woman who wanted to show how easy it is to game the voter system. She registered her dog to vote and cast ballots for her dog in two elections. Sad, but true. While sorta funny, I expect she gave the Democrats a new idea and a boatload of Democratic dogs, cats, goldfish, and bunnies have now registered themselves to vote. By party line (rather than race), the U.S. population breaks out this way: 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats favor voter ID laws. An overwhelming majority support showing ID to vote. So, why are Democrats so vocal in their opposition? I would say that it is because illegal immigrants’ votes are keeping a lot of Democrats in office or getting Democrats elected. What is most revealing to me about the hidden Democratic voting agenda is this nugget I recently heard from Senator John Barrasso (a Republican representing Wyoming). He reported on one of the new demands the Democrats have come up with regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Democrats want to ban immigration enforcement at so-called “sensitive locations.” These Democratic sensitive locations include schools, places of worship, courts, and hospitals. I can’t raise a huge objection to those sensitive locations – limiting immigration enforcement, in my opinion is a bad thing but, okay, places of worship, schools, courts, and hospitals don’t seem outrageous. However, their newest “sensitive” location is “polling places.” That’s right, they want to ban immigration enforcement at polling places. WTF? What possible motive could they have to restrict immigration enforcement at polling places? Illegal immigrants should not be at these places to begin with since they have no right to vote in federal elections (and yes, certain blue states have enabled illegal immigrants to vote in state elections; it seems the only way to make sure they get elected). Democrats want to protect illegal immigrants at polling places because they know illegal immigrants are casting votes for Democratic candidates in elections when they should not. You just can’t make this stuff up. Along the same vein of the “you can’t make this stuff up,” the socialist/communist mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, was recently on TV complimenting himself on hiring thousands of additional “snow shovelers” to get NYC out from under all of the recent snow. This is the same socialist mayor who, along with his NY Democratic colleagues, opposes showing ID to vote – but to get hired as a snow shoveler, you had to show two forms of ID and a social security card. Apparently, it’s more important to be sure that snow shovelers are American citizens and lawfully in this country than ensuring illegal immigrants aren’t voting for our elected officials. Hypocrisy at its finest! Both of Nevada’s Democratic senators oppose the SAVE Act. On the flip side, Nevadans overwhelmingly voted in favor of voter ID laws in 2024 (72% in favor/28% opposed). This will return to the ballot in November (remember that such issues must pass two election cycles to be officially voted in). If it passes again, it will be added to Nevada’s Constitution before the 2028 elections. Fingers crossed. Whichever side of the argument you might fall on, it’s important to get involved, have your voice heard, and vote when you can on critical issues like this. That’s right, I even support those that don’t agree with me and urge them to participate in our political process to the extent they can. That is why this country is great. Everyone may express their opinions and vote their conscience, unlike some countries who suppress the opposition or outright kill them because of their opinions, party affiliation, or sexual preference. Let’s make and keep America great! Jerry Hashimura Pahrump, NV  I was reading about the results of a recent trial involving a young woman who sued her surgeon and psychologist for malpractice after they performed a double mastectomy on her when she was 15 years old. Before you skip over this article, thinking it’s just an analysis of some convoluted legal theories – it isn’t. I’m going to briefly recap the high points of the trial, of course, but also talk about gender dysphoria and gender transition surgery done to minors.
Let me insert here what motivates me to write these articles. First, I am honored to have a platform to write these articles and they are, at times, cathartic. Second, I don’t write them to convince you my opinions are correct; I write them to, hopefully, have you think about issues you might not otherwise have considered and maybe give you some information you might not have seen. I try to write on issues in today’s news or, on some occasions, topics that just catch my attention. In any event, I’m hopeful that they just don’t add to the noise on the internet and you find them at least interesting and funny, when appropriate. So, on to today’s topic of gender affirming surgery performed on minors. “Gender dysphoria” is defined as a state of distress or unhappiness caused by feeling that one’s gender identity does not match one’s sex as registered at birth. This is a topic that has bothered me for awhile – gender transition surgeries performed on minors with gender dysphoria and medical support like hormone therapies for minors. Related to my having real problems with this type of permanent surgery done to a minor is the equally disturbing issue of parents, doctors, schoolteachers, school counselors, or many others within a child’s orbit enabling their gender dysphoria. Many parents enable their pre-pubescent child’s gender dysphoria rather than treat it as a mental condition and older studies have shown that 80-95% of children with gender dysphoria naturally stop, most when they reach puberty. I wonder if the remaining 5-20% would have stopped if they had not been enabled. I have seen what I consider sad and tragic Youtube videos of mothers saying their three-year old child was “born in the wrong body” and really identifies with another gender – which they’re fully supporting. First, they weren’t born in the “wrong body,” they were born in the body they have. Second, a three-year old barely knows which shoe goes on which foot, let alone the difference between male and female and which gender they are. And third, if you are a mother who has a son but wanted a daughter (or vice versa), please don’t try to imprint your twisted desires on an innocent child, seek professional help for yourself. There are some medical professionals who believe that early social transitioning, enabled by parents, can solidify a trans identity that might otherwise have gone away on its own. Sad. This is a subject that is impossible to accurately assign percentages to, for or against, in a “what if” situation and, I expect, much of it goes unreported. Even more disturbing to me (actually, it pisses me off) are schoolteachers and/or counselors who enable a child’s gender dysphoria through such things as letting the child go by another name at school that matches their “preferred” gender or referring to them by using pronouns that match their preferred gender and they keep it a secret from the parents. How did we get to a place in America where the school thinks it has superior rights over the parents? My personal opinion is that the Democrats and far left’s support and constant rallying behind gender-affirming surgery and medical support for gender dysphoria is to blame. It may go deeper than that and I could be wrong; but, as my beautiful bride likes to tell me, I’m not always right but I’m never unsure. The latest statistic I could find is that, as of early 2025, 25 states have banned or restricted gender affirming care for minors, which includes medical and surgical procedures. I haven’t done the state-by-state analysis but I would bet my usual dollars-to-donuts that we’re talking about the difference between living in a blue state versus a red state. The latest stats I reviewed showed the U.S. having 24 reliably red states, 19 reliably blue states, and 7 “purple” or swing states, so the math lines up pretty well on the number of states banning gender affirming surgery on minors and the number of red states – go figure! If you are in a position to vote on these issues, especially as it relates to parents’ right versus schools’ rights, or gender affirming surgery on or medical support for a minor, please vote your conscience…and by “vote your conscience,” I mean agree with me – okay, just kidding. The freedoms we enjoy in this great country allow each of us to vote our own opinions and beliefs; I just ask that you to get involved and vote. By not voting, you are basically letting the other side go unchallenged. I’ll end this article with a brief recap of what I consider are the important aspects of the trial I mentioned in the opening paragraph. The result, in my opinion, may cause some medical professionals to stop performing gender affirming surgery on minors because it will hit them in the pocketbook – and that, oftentimes and unfortunately, is the only way to change someone’s behavior. The young woman was awarded $2,000,000 ($1.6 million for past and future pain and suffering and $400K for medical expenses). Personally, I think it should have been $20,000,000 for two reasons. First, she deserves it. And second, it would send a much stronger message to the medical community. The young woman who is the subject of the lawsuit, Fox Varian, had a sad childhood. Her parents separated when she was seven and a three-year custody battle ensued which saw her, in the end, estranged from her father. She had a myriad of mental health problems, including depression, anxiety, and social phobia. By the time she was 13 or 14, she was completely lost. By age 15, she started questioning her gender when talking with her psychologist. She changed her name twice to align with her preferred gender, cut her hair, started binding her breasts, and started telling people she was transgender. In 2019, 11 months later, she had her breasts removed. She was 16 at the time. She was one of thousands of minors who underwent gender transition surgery over the past ten years. Three years after her double mastectomy, she stopped identifying as a transgender and began a process known as “detransitioning.” At age 22, she filed a lawsuit against her long-time psychologist and surgeon. Her case was the first malpractice case to go to trial from a detransitioner. The trial included emotional testimony from Varian and her mother. Varian testified that the psychologist served as an enabler, repeatedly assuring her that the double mastectomy would greatly improve her well-being. Varian’s mother testified that the psychologist browbeat her into consenting to the surgery, telling her that her daughter would commit suicide without the surgery. What parent wouldn’t consent after such a warning from a medical professional. While this may have been self-serving testimony at trial, Varian said she immediately regretted the surgery after removing the bandages. Her mother testified that Varian was still anxious, depressed, and had all the same issues post-surgery. After the surgery, Varian began cutting herself. Self-mutilation, usually cutting or burning yourself, is a harmful way that some people cope with emotional pain, stress, anger, and sadness. Varian said that shame and the mental discomfort she had for having conflicting beliefs kept her from openly expressing her remorse for three years. At 19, she stopped identifying as a male and considered herself a woman…but an incomplete one. She testified that “It’s so hard to face that you are disfigured for life.” She has physical scarring, lack of sensation, nerve pain where her breasts once were, and she will never be able to nurse an infant. She testified, “No amount of reconstruction is ever going to bring back what I lost.” Varian’s psychologist treated her for two-and-a-half years before her surgery. Varian’s attorney portrayed her psychologist as heedless, sloppy, and ill-equipped to handle a case as specialized as Varian’s. The attorney said the psychologist “didn’t know what the heck he was doing. His obligation was not to empower her with every crazy idea that came into the head of a 16-year-old kid.” The psychologist had received no formal training in transgender care. The referral letter the psychologist wrote to the surgeon made no mention of the diagnosis of gender dysphoria but, instead said that Varian suffered from “body dysmorphia” (a fixation on a perceived physical flaw) – a diagnosis that is widely accepted as a reason not to perform plastic surgery. There obviously was a lot more testimony concerning the two doctors’ actions in her case that convinced a jury to find for Varian and award her $2M. In my experience defending personal injury product liability cases, we were often faced at trial with not only monetary damages (awards) for past and future pain and suffering and medical expenses but punitive damages (an award of money to punish the wrongdoers malicious, willful, or reckless misconduct and to deter similar such misconduct in the future). In my experience, punitive damages awards can be huge (the largest reported punitive damages award was $145 billion (that’s “billion” with a “b” and other large awards in the $20 billion dollar range). The largest punitive damages award against my company, which was later reversed on appeal, was $60 million. I don’t know why punitive damages were not available to Varian as I am unfamiliar with medical malpractice litigation. In the end, a vulnerable and fragile young woman received exactly the wrong care and must now suffer the consequences. Her doctors failed her and I’m hopeful this case and others in the future will dissuade such surgeries on minors in the future. Very recently, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons announced new guidance recommending gender transition surgeries be reserved for those 19 years old and older. I’m also hopeful that other states will join those banning such surgeries and medical support for minors – but I doubt most of the far left blue states will do so. When I grew up, there were no issues of this type at all. I don’t know how America has arrived at a place where our children are undergoing life-altering, permanent gender affirming surgery. Jerry Hashimura Pahrump, NV  Since we’re only a few days until Valentine’s Day as I sit here writing, I thought it might be appropriate to talk a little about this “holiday,” its roots, and how we got to where we are today.
While the exact origin of Valentine’s Day cannot be pointed to with any certainty, the best guessers believe its roots came from an ancient pagan festival of Lupercalia, which predated Christianity and was celebrated in the middle of February. It’s a Roman festival that involved feasting and pairing off of partners. However, unlike our Valentine’s Day, it was a bit wild and filled with debauchery, blood, and sacrifice. It was a tradition for the hide of a sacrificed goat to be cut into strips, dipped in blood, and priests would go around slapping woman with these strips. While the practice was welcomed because it was believed to make women more fertile, I can’t see it catching on today. This Valentine’s Day, I could take a strip of steak (only because I don’t know where to get goat) and slap my dear bride with it but then I’m sure my face would be on a milk carton in no time at all with a “Have you see this idiot?” caption. It is believed that as the Romans turned away from their pagan beliefs and embraced Christianity, the holiday evolved into honoring St. Valentine. In fact, Lupercalia was banned at the end of the 5th Century…though I can’t imagine why. Who was St. Valentine, you ask? Okay, maybe you weren’t asking but I’m going to try to explain it anyway. One account is that, during the 3rd Century, Emperor Claudius II of Rome executed two different men named Valentine on February 14th. One story says he was a priest who was arrested for defying a Roman order that prohibited soldiers from marrying and he was executed for continuing to marry soldiers in secret. Another story says that Valentine was a priest who was imprisoned, fell in love with one of his visitors, and started writing her letters. He apparently sent a letter before his execution that he signed, “From your Valentine.” Both stories have romantic undertones but neither can be verified. In the end, all we can say is that Valentine’s Day was named for a martyred St. Valentine. The renowned Romantic English poet Geoffrey Chaucer and William Shakespeare can both be credited with popularizing the romantic version of St. Valentine’s Day that we celebrate today. To me, Valentine’s Day is more than just buying some candy in a heart-shaped box or a bouquet of roses and going out for a romantic dinner – though I’ve done both of these on many a Valentine’s Day. For me, it’s honoring the love of my life. I wouldn’t be who I am or where I am today without by special Valentine. I’m blessed to have the life I have with my beautiful bride and give thanks to that fact every day. One more “official” day in the year to celebrate my Valentine is okay with me. For those that know us well, you know our story. For those that don’t, let me indulge myself and describe how we met. It would be too good to be true to say that we met on Valentine’s Day…it would also be a lie. I was assigned to Germany as my first assignment in the Army. I met Stephani through mutual friends at the very end of September of 1975 and we started dating a week or so later. We were married six weeks later and that “big” delay was because I had to process paperwork through the military and the German government, as well as get my birth certificate from California – which took some time. Back in those days (you know, when dinosaurs roamed the earth), I actually had to fill out an “Application for Permission to Marry” and have my company commander approve it. I was pretty confident he would approve it since his wife was German. At our German civil ceremony, I had to have a court approved interpreter with me – I guess to ensure a naive young American wouldn’t think he was signing up for a cruise but instead was getting married. As an aside, I spoke better German than the court approved interpreter (he was from some Eastern European country) so I wasted the 40 Deutsch Marks I had to pay him. In any event, last November saw us celebrate our 50th wedding anniversary. So, if anyone tells you that love at first sight isn’t real, I beg to differ…it’s real. This coming February 14th, really celebrate and honor the love of your life – and a final word to the wise: men, don’t slap your wife with a strip of bloody goat; it won’t go well. Jerry Hashimura Pahrump, NV |
Authors"The Grassroot Conservative" publication is a collection of Southern Nevada authors with strong independent voices writing on the issues that matter. Matt Sadler is the editor-in-chief of this new eMagazine and blog, Each author brings life experience, talent, and insight to each thoughtful article. Archives
March 2026
Categories |
RSS Feed
