There was an interesting decision from the Ohio Court of Appeals last week on parental rights and transgender identity. In In re S.B., Judge Matthew R. Byrne (joined by Judges Robert A. Hendrickson and Robin N. Piper) ruled that the state was wrong in suggesting that the failure to accept a child’s gender change was evidence of being unfit parents. It is a notable conclusion given our recent discussion of a case out of Iceland where a father was stripped of his custodial rights after criticizing the gender transition of his minor child.
The court held:
There is no requirement in Ohio law that parents must unquestioningly accept and support their minor children’s claims of transsexual identity or preferred pronouns. In fact, this issue remains hotly-contested socially, politically, and legally. As an example, the State of Ohio has banned so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors because of the inherent risk of providing such treatments to minors, whose minds are developing and may change. That statute is currently being litigated. Meanwhile, the United States Supreme Court has upheld a similar ban in Tennessee. Quite recently, Justice Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, emphasized that “the doctrine of substantive due process has long embraced a parent’s right to raise her child, which includes the right to participate in significant decisions about her child’s mental health.”
From a best-interest analysis perspective, we see no serious concern presented by Mother’s and Father’s cautious reactions to Sara’s disclosure of her perceived transgender status and preference for male pronouns. This lack of concern is particularly bolstered here, where both Karen and Sara’s therapist testified that Sara is struggling with gender identity and sexuality, and Karen explained that Sara tended to “change[ ] her sexuality every four to five weeks.” Children who struggle with these issues deserve sober and sensitive guidance, and Ohio law does not require parents unquestioningly to accept whatever their children say about their gender identity or sexuality at that particular moment.
There is also a possible suggestion in the state’s brief and in the juvenile court’s decision that Mother and Father should be faulted, in a best-interest analysis, for not unquestioningly supporting Sara’s turn away from their family’s Messianic Judaism. This is also not supported by Ohio law. Parents are free to assist and guide their children in the development of their religious faith…. “[P]arents have a fundamental right to educate their children, including the right to communicate their moral and religious values … and ‘direct the religious upbringing of their children.'” …
The court also discussed the failure of the parents to change the pronoun used to reference their child:
The record indicates that, during the pendency of the children’s services case, Sara repeatedly changed the pronouns that she prefers. We will refer to Sara accurately, as a female. See In re J.K (Ohio Ct. App. 2025); Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 1.2 (“A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary … “); U.S. v. Varner (5th Cir. 2020) (denying male litigant’s motion asking the district court and government to refer to litigant with his preferred female pronouns, based on the lack of legal authority requiring such usage, the need to maintain judicial impartiality, and the complexities associated with shifting and newly-created pronouns).
In the end, the panel still found that there were other elements supporting the denial of custody of the parents under the standard of the “best interests of the child.” Those factors involved drug use and other violations.
The court detailed the testimony of witnesses, including those who did not believe that a change in pronouns was necessary:
“Channell testified that Sara has struggled with her sexuality and gender identity, and preferred “they/them” pronouns at the time of the permanent custody hearing. But Channell referred to Sara as “she” and testified that she would feel comfortable calling Sara a “she” in front of her. Channell explained that while Sara thought she had gender dysphoria, Channell in her professional opinion denied that Sara has gender dysphoria and testified that it is not a major issue for Sara. She also testified that Sara’s self-harm and suicidal ideation are motivated by past trauma, rather than gender-related issues….
Karen testified that Sara “changes her sexuality every four to five weeks” and that she lets Sara work these issues out on her own. Karen testified that Sara “came out” to her parents. Karen was present when Sara came out to Father, and Father handled the conversation “really well” and was “calm.” Karen testified that Sara wanted to change her name, but not for gender-identity-related reasons; instead, Sara indicated she wanted to change her name because she associated her given name with being yelled at. Karen opined that Sara’s struggles with body dysphoria are actually related to her weight, rather than gender-related issues.”
The opinion shows how complex these cases can be with developmental, religious, and psychological issues. The panel felt that the state cannot treat the opposition of parents (particularly those with religious objections) as evidence of unfitness as parents.
The Supreme Court is considering a variety of claims involving parental rights this year. It recently delivered a preliminary win to parents in California in the granting of an emergency appeal in Mirabelli v. Bonta.
Here is the opinion: In re S.B
Hat tip: Gene Volokh
AI Overview
“The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention parents or children, but the Supreme Court has long interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause as protecting a fundamental right of parents to direct the “care, custody, and control” of their children.”
“The liberty interest at issue in this case – the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children – is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000)
After reading re S.B. what a horrible life for the child. Surprising perhaps there wasn’t a diagnosis of Aspergers Syndrome, autism. Karen sounds like a responsible person, how fortunate for Sara.
The transgender thoughts of Sara are a minor side issue in this case. Best wishes for Sara.
^^^ The mother drug addicted and father alcoholic. Sara and 2 stepsister were homeless with Sara’s mother. Sara was slip shod home schooled or didn’t attend school. She weighed 300 lbs but under the care of an older adult half sister she lost 70 lbs. Bathing wasn’t possible. Physical abuse present … the case is well explained in the document.
Karen wants to adopt Sara. This seems like a fine decision. Sara flaps her arms , doesn’t not look people in the eye and flinched if touched. Possibly other issues present. Truly sad case.
A. Human
Parents who favor biological truth over faddish psychological trends should not be deemed unfit on that basis. Even the esteemed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson claims to agree that gender is a matter of biology. She said so directly at her confirmation hearing when asked to define a woman.
It’s a start. I would be more comfortable if the opinion did not seem to rely on the child’s vacillating between identities. That leaves open the chance that the analysis would be different if the kid was “really sure”. Even if the kid is dead-set on being trans parental disapproval of this delusion should not cost them their rights.
AI Overview
In the United States, parents possess the primary fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and control of their minor children, a right protected under the Fourteenth Amendment.
AI told you so?
Children should exercise control over themselves.
Alternatively, the government should exercise control over the children of citizens.
Exactly. Children eventually must learn to govern themselves if they are to grow into citizens rather than dependents. The open question in cases like this is who does the forming along the way.
Either the people accept responsibility to form their own children for self‑government, with all the messiness that entails, or the state will do that work for them and call it “best interests.” The Ohio court’s narrow but important point is that reluctance to endorse a contested gender script cannot, by itself, be the trigger for handing that formative authority over to the state.
That was sarcasm.
Really. Then why can a contract with a minor be invalidated due to incapacity? This entire transgender movement is proof of how bankrupt the profession of psychiatry is and how authoritarian the state has become. If your kid thinks that they are Napoleon, a psychiatrist would merely confirm the child’s choice rather than admitting that the kid is delusional and the state would then take the child from the parents so that they could pretend to be Napoleon. Idiots
I no no
No o I
No k car no
You can see a lot of people in this thread talking past each other because two different questions are being blended into one. X is right that these particular parents lost on the facts, but that is not the only thing the opinion decided.
The first question is whether these parents were fit based on the actual record. The second is whether a parent’s refusal to affirm a child’s gender identity can itself be treated as evidence of unfitness. Those are not the same question, and they should not rise or fall together. From what I read, the court treated them separately. It still found against the parents on issues like drug use and other conduct, but it rejected the idea that disagreement alone can be used as the disqualifier. That distinction matters.
If the state can redefine parental judgment, religious belief, or even caution as “unfitness,” then parental rights are no longer grounded in conduct. They become contingent on agreement.
So before we argue conclusions, it might help to separate the questions and deal with each on its own merits.
Madame X got one point right but completely missed (or more likely deliberately ignored) Professor Turley’s main point, that “The panel felt that the state cannot treat the opposition of parents (particularly those with religious objections) as evidence of unfitness as parents.”
Par for the course for X…
The panel’s holding, as Turley notes, is that the state cannot treat a parent’s opposition, even if religious, as proof of unfitness to raise that child. X has never met an inalienable natural right he was not prepared to attack, and parental freedom of conscience is no exception.
Aren’t we being Karen today. You are not a lawyer, in fact, you lie here constantly. When X criticizes you you go into full Karen mode and call him a liar and mock him. You are a pathological liar Olly.
That’s a misreading of the ruling. The court isn’t punishing ‘opposition’; it’s evaluating whether a parent’s choices meet the Best Interests of the Child standard. There is no such thing as an ‘inalienable right’ to neglect a child’s health or safety under the guise of religion. Calling a legal balancing act an ‘attack’ is just a rhetorical distraction from the actual welfare of the child involved.
You are assuming the very thing the court refused to assume, namely that not affirming is the same as neglect. It is not. The panel goes out of its way to say there is “no requirement” that parents blindly accept a minor’s claimed identity or pronouns and that there is “no serious concern” with these parents’ caution, especially when the therapist herself says Sara does not have gender dysphoria and that her suicidality is driven by trauma and body‑image, not gender.
The neglect findings here are about meth, homelessness, school problems, and unresolved health and mental‑health issues. That is what cost these parents custody. That would be neglect in any case.
The narrow right the court protects is the right not to have disagreement over a contested diagnosis automatically rebranded as “child neglect.” You do not have a right to neglect your kid. You also do not lose your rights just because you will not sign on to the latest contested theory about gender.
The court didn’t say parents have a ‘narrow right’ to ignore a diagnosis; it said the state must prove harm. If a child’s trauma and suicidality are worsening because the parents refuse to engage with a recommended clinical path, that is a ‘serious concern’ whether you like the terminology or not. You can’t claim to protect a child’s ‘natural rights’ while simultaneously blocking the very mental health support their own therapist says they need.
You claim the parents didn’t lose custody over gender issues, but then claim a ‘victory’ for parental rights regarding gender. So, which is it? There seems to be a circular logic present.
You are shoehorning into this case facts the court never found. The therapist in In re S.B. does not say “these parents are blocking the treatment Sara needs.” She says Sara has PTSD, is in ongoing therapy, is doing better on suicidality and self‑harm, does not have gender dysphoria, and that gender is “not a major issue” compared to past trauma and body‑image. That is the opposite of the scenario you are describing.
The parents lose custody because of meth, homelessness, educational neglect, unresolved health and mental‑health issues, and destabilizing contact, not because they refused to parrot a gender script. The “victory” is narrow and legal, not biographical. The court tells the State it may not treat non‑affirmation, standing alone, as proof of unfitness. That protects other parents in other cases from exactly the kind of automatic “you disagree, therefore you neglect” move you are trying to smuggle in here. There is nothing circular about saying these parents lost for traditional reasons while the law they leave behind clips the State’s wings on using disagreement itself as the charge.
I do not expect this to change your mind, X. But your argument depends on facts this case does not contain, and I am not obliged to play along with a hypothetical you have substituted for the record the court actually decided.
Olly, you’re trying to extract a ‘clean’ victory for conscience from a ‘dirty’ case of total parental failure. The court’s holding that non-affirmation ‘standing alone’ isn’t unfitness is a legal truism, not a revolutionary shield.
Neglect is never ‘standing alone’; it’s a cumulative assessment of harm. You admit these parents failed on ‘traditional’ grounds—meth, homelessness, and medical neglect—yet you claim their specific disagreement on gender is magically protected. It isn’t. If a parent’s ‘sincere disagreement’ contributes to a child’s suicidality, it’s not an ‘ideological script’—it’s evidence of a life-threatening environment.
You keep repeating a scenario this case does not contain. The court does not find that these parents’ “ideological script” is contributing to suicidality, and the treating witnesses do not say that either. They say Sara’s suicidality and self‑harm come from past trauma and body‑image issues, that gender is not the main driver, and that she does not meet criteria for gender dysphoria. If you had a line in the opinion tying her suicidality to her parents’ refusal to affirm, you would have quoted it by now. You do not because it is not there.
Once that invented “suicidal because of non‑affirmation” premise is gone, your argument collapses into a different case you wish the court had decided. In the real case, the parents lose for meth, homelessness, and neglect; the law that comes out of it tells the State it cannot simply relabel disagreement over a contested diagnosis as neglect. I am willing to argue about what the court actually held. I am not going to pretend your fictional record is what the judges and witnesses actually wrote.
A parents refusal to engage with some “experts” recomendations is NOT sufficient to remove a child from those parents.
You continually engage in this delusion that “experts” are always right – when in FACT they are usually wrong.
Regardless, failure to follow the advice of “experts” is not alone sufficient evidence to intergere in parental rights.
It is RARE that courts have clear cut choices. We must ALWAYS err on the side of courts staying out of things when we do NOT have that clarity.
There is little debate when there is compelling evidence of child sexual abuse.
But we have myriads of instances were the state sticks it nose in where it does not belong over issues that do not have clear answers.
YOU fixate on suicide. Rates of teen suicide are high. They are even higher for “trans” teens.
But there is no evidence that there is any difference in suicide rates when a teens claimed sexuality is accepted, and when it is rejected.
All to often you left wing nuts see a problem like “Teen Suicide” – presume there must be a clear cause, and that you KNOW what it is, step in waste money, ruin peoples lives and accomplish nothing.
We have no magic bullet cure for teen suicide. “Experts” have offered opinions, but have not provided solutions that definatively work
I am using suicide here as an example – if we REALLY knew how to reduce teen suicide then parents who failed to act might meet some standard of neglect allowing interfering in their rights.
But the FACT is that we DONT.
And if we can not get something like Teen suicide right – why is it that you beleive you can be right about anything else ?
LEFT wing nuts like you constantly try to meddle in other peoples lives.
Your time would be better spent on the problems in your own life.
Sunshine go away today
I don’t feel much like dancing
Some man’s gone, he’s tried to run my life
He don’t know what he’s asking
When he tells me I better get in line
I can’t hear what he’s saying
When I grow up, I’m gonna make it mine
These ain’t dues I been paying
Well how much does it cost?
I’ll buy it
The time is all we’ve lost
I’ll try it
And he can’t even run his own life
I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine, sunshine
And you are distorting reality.
There is no right to neglect a child period.
The courts have ZERO role in evaluating religion. Religion should never be an issue.
Only whether the child is getting minimal standards of care.
I do not know enough about the details of this case – nor care to evaluate the other conclusions.
Except to emphasize that the standard of reuired care is MINIMAL – and it should NOT be the highly subjective “best interests of the child” – that is only the standard when the conflict is between two parents. Not parents and the state or parents and a third party or other relative.
The state must stay out of things except in instances of real, clear and significant harm to the child.
We do not want courts of government EVER making subjective decisions about other peoples lives.
There are very real instances in which the state is obligated to intervene – but these are RARE.
The history of the state in stepping in to deal with “vulnerable” people is absolutely abysmal.
Every day in various communities “protective services” are stepping in to F#$K over the elderly or children accross the country. Overall they do more harm than good.
We hear about the cases in which children are removed from homes where they are physically or sexually abused – these often make national news. We rarely hear of the cases in which “protective services” F$%Ks up.
Biden commuted the sentence of a PA judge who was taking bribes to send kids merely accused of discipline problems to child care facilities. There is an industry of people who swoop in an take guardianship’s of reasonably well off competent elderly people who have no relatives and make small fortunes pillaging their wealth.
There is far more abuse by protective services than protective services corrects.
Olly you are playing lawyer, but you are not a lawyer and have no details of case except what Turley wrote. Stop, you are lying here.
Olly, you say the questions “should not rise or fall together,” but the court issued a prior restraint (gag order) that barred the parents from discussing gender with their child outside of therapy.
This order directly penalizes the expression of the parents’ beliefs, demonstrating that the court did not treat the “belief” as a separate, protected category as you suggest. The issue is not as neat as you want to make it.
X, a gag order is a prior restraint. It prohibits the parties from speaking about specified subjects, sometimes even to their own child, on pain of contempt. That is a direct regulation of speech and belief. That is precisely why the distinction I drew matters. On the merits, the appellate court still holds that Ohio law does not require parents to “unquestioningly accept and support” a minor’s claimed identity or pronouns, and that non‑affirmation, standing alone, cannot be treated as evidence of unfitness, while upholding loss of custody on separate grounds like drug use. The fact that a lower court also imposed a speech restraint does not collapse belief and conduct back into a single category. It simply shows how quickly “best interests” analysis can drift toward punishing disfavored views if courts do not keep those categories distinct.
You’re declaring a victory for ‘parental freedom’ in a case where the parents permanently lost custody. The appellate court didn’t ‘hold’ that these parents were fit; it affirmed they were unfit due to a total failure of care. The ‘narrow right’ you’re citing is a procedural footnote, not the ruling’s core. Furthermore, framing a welfare-based gag order as a ‘prior restraint on belief’ ignores the reality of family law: a parent’s speech is not a ‘natural right’ if it is clinically documented to drive their child toward suicide. The court isn’t punishing ‘disfavored views’; it is stopping parents from using their children as ideological battlegrounds at the expense of the child’s life.
A gag order in a custody case isn’t about “punishing disfavored views”; it is about preventing parents from using a child as a proxy in their ideological battles. If a child’s therapist determines that a parent’s speech is directly causing the child’s suicidality or trauma, the court has a duty to restrict that speech to ensure the child’s safety.
Furthermore, You cannot claim a victory for “parental freedom” in a case where the parents still lost their child. The court’s comments on pronouns were a procedural clarification, but they did not change the outcome: the parents were found unfit due to a pattern of neglect (including drug use and mental health issues) that made them incapable of providing a safe environment
The first amendment starts “SHALL MAKE NO LAW”. That is the most absolute assertion of a right and governments impotents to infringe on it that could possibly have been expressed.
While no right is absolute – most are very nearly so. There are very few instances in which govenrment can punish speech and even fewer in which it can a priori restrict speech.
Judicial gag orders for criminal and civil defendants in federal and state courts have been struck down by SCOTUS when they have gotten to the supreme court.
Unfortunately that rarely happens as the cases are usually decided before an interlocutory appeal gets to SCOTUS and lower court judges tend to be jealous of their power over other people. If the case is decided before the case gets to the supreme court – then the issue becomes moot. A judges power over a defendants ends with the final order of the court.
As to this case:
A therapist MAY NOT determine that a parents speech is harmful to a child – that is absolute idiocy.
Please provide the studies and science that established CLEARLY the actual causes of ANY mental health issues ?
Pretending that we KNOW the causes of mental health issues – or as the left is wont – more broadly – is an idiotic affectation of the left.
With respect to this case – it is my understanding that the transgendered aspect of this decision is part of the HOLDING – if that is the case then it is determinative, and precident within the jurisdiction of that court.
The presence of other reasons for finding against the parents does NOT alter the FACT that with extremely few instances a parents VALUES and their inculcation of those on their children can NOT be constrained by government. That would offend MULTIPLE clauses of the first amendment.
Addressing the other so called issues:
Drug use and mental health issues are also NOT grounds for interfering in parenting.
There are myriads of functional drug addicts and people with mental health problems who lead otherwise decent lives and are perfectly capable parents.
To interfere with a parents choices regarding their children that Courts MUST find ACTUAL HARM to the child. Not subjective mumbo jumbo from therapists.
Not moral judgements regarding the use of drugs or a parents values.
Is the child being fed ? Clothed ? Housed ? By the parents ? If so then there is no neglect.
If the child being physically or sexually abused by the parent ? If not there is no abuse.
Your “best interests of the child” subjective standard applies to adjudicating conflicts between parents – NOT state intervention because of abuse of neglect.
TACO Trump is backing down and conceding defeat.
Why?????
Iran threatened to obliterate Gulf State desalination plants. Desalination provides over 90% of fresh water in the Gulf States. Qatar gets 99% of its drinking water from desalination.
Without water the Gulf States collapse in days.
They begged Trump to stop. Total humiliation for Washington.
It means Trump never had a plan to finish this or any thing beyond a 3 day “decisive” strike he thought would force Iran to capitulate.
Iran is controlling the situation here. Not Trump or Netanyahu.
Iran has zero reason to believer Trump is sincere in his wish to negotiate. They learned that lesson. The U.S. is not a trustworthy negotiator. Trump is desperately wanting to turn off this war because all fingers are pointing at him for starting it and causing gas prices to soar. The Iranians can keep fighting and costing Trump and the world more in economic harm. Trump is capitulating to his own mistakes without openly admitting it. He wants to save face, but can’t.
I understand your need to cheer for Iran. Your tribe demands it and you don’t dare disagree.
Still, I don’t see how Iran is controlling the situation.
Iran is not in control of anything. They are desperate. No one in their right mind would of gone after the desalination plants, knowing how valuable water is. Iran should know this as they had their own water problems recently. None of the Gulf states thought Iran would be that crazy to attack desalination plants. Attacking their neighbors in desperation, Iran is making all kinds of enemies.
“Attacking their neighbors in desperation, Iran is making all kinds of enemies.”
They evidently also failed to think through the ramifications of launching two mile IRBMs at Diego Garcia, a target 2,500 miles away. Most of Europe had been trying to distance themselves from this conflict and appear to be neutral. The realization that Iran’s current missile technology could potentially reach them, along with the fact that some elements in control of Iran’s military appear to be more than willing to attack neutral targets, seems to be causing some major reassessment of positions.
Iran knows how to survive; it’s the Trump administration that’s drowning. By targeting neighboring desalination plants, Tehran is proving a simple point: the U.S. can’t protect its ‘allies’ as promised.
This is the war Trump started, and Iran is happy to let him choke on it. He’s desperate for a ceasefire to save his plummeting poll numbers, but why would Iran negotiate? Trump has everything to lose, and his ‘begging’ for help from the same allies he spent years calling ‘weak’ and ‘useless’ is getting exactly the response it deserves: a snub.
You know boys, I think she’s right. 2 dozen B83 nuclear bombs dropped on Iran don’t mean nuthin. She’s very astute.
Or, if Trump wanted to be gracious, he could fire a few hundred SLBMs from the Trident II D5 on its 14 Ohio-class submarines (each with 20 launch tubes). The U.S. has a total of 280 launch tubes across its fleet, maintaining a deployed force of roughly 220 SLBMs as of 2022, with plans to transition to the Columbia-class submarine. IRAN GONE IN SECONS
“Iran knows how to survive; ”
Correction – Iran knows how to survive, Bush, Obama, and Biden.
It remains to be seen whether they know how to survive Trump.
“it’s the Trump administration that’s drowning”
Because what ?
” By targeting neighboring desalination plants”
Iran has no CIC – they lost the ability to target anything long ago.
That would be obvious to anyone watching Iran’s supposed leaders tell us one thing while their missles did something different.
Iran constructed a “mosaic” defence that enables them to continue the conflict without CIC.
But it also means they are without any ability to impliment strategy
And that is ignoring the probability that Iran is NOT capable any more (if ever) of doing significant damage to the Gulf water salinization.
What Iranian threat has EVER been made good on ?
Why is it you constantly beeleive Trump will NOT do what he says, but that the unknownly to anyone leadership of Iran will be able to ?
“Tehran is proving a simple point: the U.S. can’t protect its ‘allies’ as promised.”
What does “protect” mean ? 50% of all Iranian Drones and missles fail at launch or in flight.
Most of the rest are taken down by defenses. Irans drone and missle capability has been attritted by 90% in 3 weeks.
They have been mostly ineffective at targeting the US military bases that we are attacking them from – why do you think they will do better at attacking desalinzation plants ?
Over in Ukraine – Russia has spend 4 years trying to destroy Ukraines energy grid and failed.
Ukrain has been targeting Russia’s oil infrastructure and it has taken 4 years to do noticable damage.
And you think Iran is going to be able to do better than either Russia or Ukraine ?
Why do you beleive that Iran has the ability to make good on threats when it has never been able to do so before ?
“This is the war Trump started, and Iran is happy to let him choke on it.”
You are stupid enough to beleive Iran is winning ?
By WHAT metiric ?
What are they more able to do today that 3 weeks ago ?
What will they be as able to do tomorow as today ?
” He’s desperate for a ceasefire”
He said NO to a ceasefire.
” to save his plummeting poll numbers,”
Rassmussen
16 nov 2025 Trump aproval 44%
26 mar 2026 44%
“but why would Iran negotiate?”
Not Iran, but the IRGC, Basij,m and ruling mulah’s
They should negotiate to survive.
They are weaker by the day.
At some point this will end – lets presume it ends in a fizzle – the US does NOT get what it wants.
The iranian people come back out onto the streets.
They have no water. The ability of Iran to fund its loyalists has been severely damaged,
The leadership has been seriously attritted,
The IRGC and Basij have significantly less power than before.
In January the people tried to overthrow a much stronger regime and many expected they would succeed.
Why do you think the regime will survive its own people when they return to the streets.
We do NOT know what will happen.
Trump wants a deal – because that is a KNOWN outcome.
If the US and Israel unilaterally stopped NOW. The regime of the Ayatolahs would likely fall from within.
But it is also possible that Iran would degenerate into civil war. or that the regime might survive.
A negotiated outcome is prefered because it has more certainty to it.
Trump wants a deal like he got with Venezeuala.
But that does not mean that is the only possible outcome.
The regime of the Ayatolahs MAY survive this – but the odds are not that good.
“Trump has everything to lose”
How so ?
“and his ‘begging’ for help from the same allies he spent years calling ‘weak’ and ‘useless’ is getting exactly the response it deserves: a snub.”
And yet, quietly most of europe has reconsidered and is preparing to provide military aide.
Not because they love Trump.
But because it is in their national interests – even more so than the US.
You keep ranting about gas prices – Europe DEPENDS on energy from the gulf.
The US does not.
You are not very aware of what is going on.
Trump does NOT have forever to end this – if this is still going on in november – republicans will lilely get wiped out in the midterms.
But November is far away. This conflict is not even a month old.
When it ends – and it WILL end
Gas prices will drop.
Further any result that meets the 3 requirements of a US iran deal, will result in a drop to LOWER than prior prices.
The worst outcome for Trump is “endless war” – that is highly unlikely.
The next worst outcome is the regime of the Ayatolah’s survives why takes a decade to rebuild – that is not good, but it is a weak win for Trump.
All other outcomes – even civil war in Iran are a win for Trump, and regime change or a deal are HUGE wins for Trump.
Iran still controls the strait of Hormuz. They effectively closed it to the majority of shipping. Trump didn’t believe Iran could do that even after being warned. He ignored that at his own peril and now he is learning the hard way why planning and heeding advice is important.
He was “shocked” that Iran attacked its neighbors. Because he, being the moron he is, anticipated a short three day conflict after decapitating the Iranian leadership. That clearly didn’t work. The Iranians have been planning for this for decades. They knew they could not defeat the U.S. militarily. But they could hurt the us economically and it’s working. Trump is begging to “negotiate” a cease fire so oil prices stop climbing.
a 10 megaton thermonuclear bomb detonated at 1,100 feet changes IRAN into vast desert sands
Trump will not permit these snakes a nuke.
This substandard and ignorant statement by GSX ignores reality. Iran doesn’t ‘control’ the Strait in a conventional sense; they merely possess the asymmetric means to disrupt it. It is a suicidal move, as the waterway is Iran’s economic lifeblood.
Trump recognized this vulnerability decades ago while other politicians remained oblivious. In 2011, he explicitly warned: ‘Iran is in the process of cutting off the Strait of Hormuz. Oil prices will skyrocket. The U.S. is asleep!’
To claim he is a ‘moron’ who expected a three-day war is a fabrication. Trump’s formal projection on March 2nd was four to five weeks, with the clear proviso that it could last much longer.
Finally, Trump is not ‘begging’ for a ceasefire. He has issued an ultimatum, a final demand. While he has allowed a five-day window for diplomacy, the military pressure remains unrelenting. We are dealing with an interlocutor who manufactures ‘facts’ and retreats when confronted with the truth.
We do not expect the truth from GSX.
S. Meyer, you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. Iran controls the strait of Hormuz. They have effectively kept ships from transiting unless they have their explicit permission.
“To claim he is a ‘moron’ who expected a three-day war is a fabrication. Trump’s formal projection on March 2nd was four to five weeks, with the clear proviso that it could last much longer.”
LOL! No, he expected a 3 day bombing blitz and Iran capitulating right after. Four or five weeks was the worst case scenario.
“He has issued an ultimatum, a final demand. While he has allowed a five-day window for diplomacy, the military pressure remains unrelenting”
Ultimatum? He caved and is lying about having negotiations with Iran. He screwed up and now he’s trying to save face.
“ou obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. Iran controls the strait of Hormuz. “
I guess my words were too big for you to understand. “in a conventional sense; they merely possess the asymmetric means… “
“LOL! No, he expected a 3 day bombing blitz and Iran capitulating right after.”
3 days was a possibility, but recognized as not likely a reality. You did notice the movements of our navy. That would have been unnecessary if 3 days was enough.
” He caved and is lying about having negotiations with Iran.”
I am sure there is some backchannel, but Trump hasn’t caved. Your mind may have, but I think that happened long ago, shortly after you joined the blog.
Meyer,
You really do live in a fantasy world of delusion where up is down, black is white and right is wrong.
Consider the absurdity of your statement that “Iran doesn’t ‘control’ the Strait in a conventional sense; they merely possess the asymmetric means to disrupt it.” If they can disrupt it, then they clearly have control over it.
Don’t you see the absurdity of that statement ?
You obviously belong to the Hegseth school of thought that the Strait would be open if the Iranians weren’t shooting at the ships passing by. Complete and utter insanity.
And your statement that, “It is a suicidal move, as the waterway is Iran’s economic lifeblood.” Is equally insane.
Iran has not blocked all traffic. They have blocked transit of ships from countries they have declared hostile, those being the US, Israel, and their European allies.
They allow ships from China, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Japan, Iraq, Syria, UAE to pass freely as long as they coordinate with Iranian authorities. Notably, many other countries including France and Italy are furiously negotiating to be declared as non-hostile nations so that they too will have unimpeded transit.
And Iran is absolutely allowing free transit of any ship bringing in their needed imports and carrying out their exports. China, most notably has free transit for its oil tankers, and China is by far Iran’s biggest purchaser of their oil, buying more than 80% of Iran’s export output. And Iran is demanding that China pay in yuan rather than US dollars so that transactions can bypass any US currency restrictions. Unsurprisingly, China is delighted to do so because that feeds into their long time goal of attempting to replace the US dollar as the world’s default currency with the yuan. In fact China has also told Iran that they should also demand payment in yuan from any other of the non-hostile countries, giving the Chinese yuan even more leverage.
There is absolutely no disruption to Iranian trade. They are doing just fine in terms of their trade.
So you claim that Iran is committing suicide with regard to trade is simply ill-informed idiocy based on delusional, and wishful MAGA thinking.
Iran has complete control of the Strait whether you like it or not, and no degree of bizarre semantics by you or the MAGA mob can change that.
Here is a link about the letter Iran sent to international maritime authorities about their plan to allow only non-hostile nations to transit the Strait.
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/iran-hormuz-safe-pass-rules
” If they can disrupt it, then they clearly have control over it.”
Then the US and various other countries control the straits because all can disrupt it. I guess you couldn’t understand the multisyllabic words either.
The rest of your comments lack understanding of basic realities. Read carefully, my comment to GSX “in a conventional sense; they merely possess the asymmetric means… “ We do too. Many have the power to close off the straits, so for the time being, a few ships are being let through because they are presently permitted by all the nations that might have ‘control.’
You really are delusional!
“Control” does not just mean the ability to “disrupt” traffic and shut the Strait down. It also means the ability to allow safe passage. Iran can do both and they are in fact doing both. They are preventing certain ships from transiting and they are allowing certain ships to pass.
They decide absolutely who gets to pass unhindered through the Strait.
Therefore Iran has absolute control of the Strait.
The US has not been able to stop ships from transiting or provide for ships to safely pass. Chinese oil tankers are free to ship oil from Iran, in defiance of US sanctions, and the US has done nothing to stop them. The US may have the ABILITY to either allow or prevent transit, but in reality we have done neither. The US has absolutely no influence over who may or may not be allowed to transit. We have no “control” whatsoever over the Strait.
Your argument is completely delusional. You start with an insanely absurd premise that “control” actually means the ability to disrupt traffic. You then extend this insane premise even further by saying that, “the US and various other countries control the straits because all can disrupt it.” This is a profoundly absurd conclusion that is not based in anything even remotely resembling reality. Just because other countries MAY be able to disrupt traffic does not mean they have control. Unless they do actively disrupt traffic, then it is completely meaningless to say that they have “control” simply because they MIGHT be able to disrupt. And you take this absurdity even further by saying “the few ships are being let through because they are presently permitted by all the nations that might have ‘control.’”
The few ships that get through can only do so because Iran allows them to pass, and for no other reason.
The idea that other nations that “MIGHT” have control are the ones allowing ships to pass is complete and utter insanity.
Sure, they “MIGHT” have control, but they don’t.
You are simply playing with words in a completely absurd and totally meaningless diatribe of nonsense.
Navid Afkari Sangari was executed in Shiraz.
” It also means the ability to allow safe passage. Iran can do both and they are in fact doing both. “
Only because the US is allowing this to happen. Presently, the straits are experiencing only 5% or less of normal traffic. The US gave a 5- day period of grace, which ends shortly. None-the-less other targets are being bombed.
Take note, the rest of your note remains unread. Your understanding is too juvenile, and you change names too many times.
“Iran still controls the strait of Hormuz. ”
No, they have just terrified shipping of trying to cross.
We do not KNOW the extent they are able to impose that threat.
“They effectively closed it to the majority of shipping.”
That is true – for now.
“Trump didn’t believe Iran could do that even after being warned.”
Nonsense.
You are clueless. Trump does not beleive – NOR does any rational person that Iran CAN close the straits of Hormuz indefinitely.
Opening it has NOT been at the top of the list of military objectives – until NOW.
Short term closure of Hormuz is a MINOR problem.
B52’s have already started carpet bombing the iranian coast along he straights.
Several thousand marines are on their way to the gulf.
You are likely correct that Trump did not beleive he would have to use them.
But that does not mean he will not.
Do you really beleive that Iran is capable of closing Hormuz indefinitely if the US does not CHOSE to allow that ?
“He ignored that at his own peril and now he is learning the hard way why planning and heeding advice is important.”
Why would that be ?
Do you really expect this will continue to November ?
Do you really expect that Trump will allow the Straights to remain closed ?
Do you really think Iran is capable of closing them if the US is committed to opening them ?
“He was “shocked” that Iran attacked its neighbors.”
As was the world. Iran did more to bring about peace int eh mideast by attcaking its neighbors than diuplomacy ever could.
Further he has muddled european politics – this is NOT a West or Chritstians and Jews vs Isalam conflict.
It is Islam vs. Islam and the european left wing loons do not know how to sort out the victimhood calculus.
They can not figure out what side they are on.
“anticipated a short three day conflict after decapitating the Iranian leadership.”
Possibly.
If the Ayatolah’s sought to remain in power they should have taken the deal offered before the start.
“That clearly didn’t work.”
So ? You think the ONLY plan was 3 days and out ?
“The Iranians have been planning for this for decades. ”
Correct
“They knew they could not defeat the U.S. militarily.”
Mostly correct. The beleived that the US would NOT put boots ont eh ground in Iran as that would be atleast 3 times as costly as Iraq.
” But they could hurt the us economically”
That is a tactic – not a strategy – they can not hurt the US economically for long, nor very much.
The straights will be opened – one way or the other and soon.
Exactly how remains up for grabs – it is STILL possible for Iran to negotiate.
But the marines are coming, and contra your claim – other nations are sending resources.
BTW Trump rejected a cease fire.
The US DoD has war plans that is constantly updates against all foreseable conflicts.
It makes and updates these plans regardless of who is president.
Nor is this limited to DoD – other parts of the US government constantly evaluate the possibility of conflict with other nations – the available options, and the likely outcomes of each.
Claiming there were “no plans” is just idiocy.
I would further note that the difficulties regarding Iran have been publicly known for decades.
We Knew since atleast 2003 that an Iraq style invasion would be atleast 3 times as difficult in Iran. There has NEVER been any doubt of the US ability to take out the iranian regime if we want to. The question has ALWAYS been how badly do we want to – how many lives will we risk, what cost will we pay, and how long must we stay.
The fundimental issue in Iran is NOT any secret. It is that in a country of 90M about 1M are members of the IRGC or Basij and these have good reason to hold power and to fear the loss of power.
“Iran is controlling the situation here.”
False, one of the isues in Iran is that Iran has pent decades preparing for this and they expected their CIC to be targeted. As a result they have developed a mosaic or decentralized. response to a loss of CIC. That makes ending the conflict difficult – it also explains why the “Iranian leadership” promise things like they are not targeting civilians at the same time as those down the chain actively target civilians. It means negotiations are difficult – because no one is really in charge.
It means Trump’s demands often go unanswered – because NO ONE IS IN CHARGE – Irans CIC is pretty much destroyed.
The conflict is continuing on autopilot.
But just as peace negotiations are made more difficult.
So too are “war plans” – Iran can talk about targeting Water Desalinzation – but ignoring their inability to do significant damage even if they wanted to, the ability to communicate such a threat as a command down to the forces setting targets for missles and drones is near non-existant.
“Iran has zero reason to believer Trump is sincere in his wish to negotiate.”
What nonsense. US demands are CLEAR – No nukes EVER, No Missles threatening neighbors, no funding of Proxy terrorism.
Iran will agree to that, OR we will bomb them until it will be decades before they are able to pose a real threat again, or their will be regime change.
Those are the 3 possible outcomes.
“They learned that lesson. The U.S. is not a trustworthy negotiator.”
How so ? Trump has made his demands CLEAR. Most of the country – most of the world supporst those demands.
3 weeks ago the iranina government could have agreed and prevented this.
Today they can agree and end this.
There is a difference between trust worthy and manipulable.
Obama and Biden negotiated deals that were bad for the US and good for Iran – that kicked the can down the road a bit.
Trump is not going to accept a bad deal. He does not need to.
“Trump is desperately wanting to turn off this war because all fingers are pointing at him for starting it”
According to Rassmussen Trump’s approval is 43% – about the middle of where it has been since October.
There is no “war effect”.
“causing gas prices to soar.”
And they will drop dramatically when this is over – and it WILL be over – and you KNOW that.
“The Iranians can keep fighting”
They can ? How so ? We have attritted their missle and drone capability by 90% in the past 21 says. How long do you think they can continue to produce and launch more drones and missles ?
“costing Trump and the world more in economic harm.”
There is some small economic damage from this conflict to a world that is relatively fragile economically.
But that damage is SMALL comparred as an example to the nearly 10% inflation under Biden.
Further unlike Bideflation – the harm fromt he conflict with Iran will END, and when it does economic recovery for the whole world – except for Iran will be rapid.
“Trump is capitulating to his own mistakes without openly admitting it. He wants to save face, but can’t.”
Trump is behaving As trump always does.
That has worked very well for him in the past.
Why do you think it will be different this time ?
One way o the other gas prices will drop soon enough,
All those european countries that pooh poohed helping, have quietly rethought and are now helping.
Most can not contribute consequentially. But the FACT remains – Opening the Straight of Hormuz is in THEIR interests.
It is not crystal clear what needs to be done to open Hormuz – Trump has been trying a number of different approaches to do so.
But not knowing what the “easy way” is does NOT mean doing so is not possible. Marines are headed to the Gulf.
Either there will be a peace deal first – or they will be used. The forces being sent are NOT sufficient to conquer Iran. They ARE enough to seize the portions of Iran along the straights of Hormuz, or to seize Karg island and 90% of Iran’s oil.
Opening the straights does not require defeating Iran.
But it solves nearly all the negative economic impact.
Sure Jan, whatever.
She is the lovely chick who wrote to Laken Riley’s mom expressing how she couldn’t care less that an immigrant here illegally took a large rock and smashed in her skull.
Bombs are still falling on Iran.
Thousands of Marines are still headed to the gulf =- Who has backed down ?
“Iran threatened to obliterate Gulf State desalination plants. Desalination provides over 90% of fresh water in the Gulf States. Qatar gets 99% of its drinking water from desalination.”
Iran has threatened lots of things – that it can not deliver. Irans ability to target its neighbors has dropped 90% over the past 3 weeks.
50% of Iran’s missles fail at launch or in flight. more than 50% of the rest are brought down by the allies.
Can Iran try to damage Gulf water desalinization ? It can try. The odds of actually being able to destroy 100% of desalinzation irrecoverably is near Nil.
“Without water the Gulf States collapse in days.
They begged Trump to stop. Total humiliation for Washington.”
Absolutely without water the Gulf states will collapse in days – but why do you think Iran si capable of destrying 100% of all the gulf states water supply ?
Is there ANY promise of destruction that Iran has actually lived up to ?
Children only know about trans and pronouns because of grooming by teachers, media, and probably various “health care professionals.” The modern trans craze bears all the hallmarks of a psy-op using a synthetic mental virus – language is our operating system, it creates opportunity and vulnerability. China is probably licking its chops eyeing the rich NA continent.
In high school there was one kid who was clearly gay, so less than 1%. I vaguely recall hearing that he went to the more accepting city of SF and died of AIDS. I have no idea how his life could have been made easier but I do know that conducting psychological grooming warfare to create millions of screwed up kids is not a solution.
All you geriatric MAGA morons better hope that you do not need an MRI in the foreseeable future.
MRI scanners need liquid helium to cool their superconducting electromagnets.
Helium is produced as a by-product of the process used to liquefy natural gas. The largest facility in the world producing LNG is in Qatar, which supplies 35% of the total world supply.
Iran attacked the LNG plant with missiles causing extensive damage and all production has ceased. It is estimated that it will take 3 to 5 years to repair the damage.
US medical facilities have been advised by their suppliers that their helium allocation will be cut in half.
Maybe not!
Helium production in the United States totaled 73 million cubic meters in 2014. The US was the world’s largest helium producer, providing 40 percent of world supply. In addition, the US federal government sold 30 million cubic meters from storage. Other major helium producers were Algeria and Qatar.
DustOff,
Thank you for putting facts to the situation.
Also of note, Amid Shortage Fears, ASP Isotopes Completes Drilling For Helium Project Ahead Of Schedule
“Shortly after we posted a breakdown on the incoming helium supply disruption from Qatar for our premium subscribers, ASP Isotopes announced that they had completed the well drilling required for Phase 1 of the Renergen Helium Project approximately four months ahead of schedule.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/asp-isotopes-completes-drilling-helium-project-ahead-schedule
Dustoff you will state your sources, or shall we assume you made it all up?
And, what does US production have to do with anon’s claim about Qatar?
T
Ever hear of Goggle fool.
Yeah it’s that easy to find the info.
Dustoff
Simply copy/pasting from Wikipedia is not an answer.
You do not seem to understand that the US government sold the entire US National Helium Reserve and production infrastructure to a private company in 1996. The Republican Congress at the time wanted to privatize everything. Up until then the government controlled the production and sale of US helium reserves. The entire system was sold to a German company, Messer, which now has complete control of the system.
The US government and other US users are now simply customers of a foreign company that controls helium produced in the US. They no longer own the supply chain. Messer exports a lot of US helium because they make more money that way. They also import foreign helium to supply US coastal customers because it is cheaper than shipping it from the reserves in Texas, Oklahoma and Wyoming across country to the coasts where most people live and where most helium is used.
Messer imports most of the helium used by its US coastal customers. In September 2025 Messer signed a deal with Qatar to supply 100 million cubic feet of helium. That helium was supposed to be shipped to Long Beach on the West Coast and New York and New Jersey on the East coast in order to supply their biggest customers. That supply chain has been cut, leaving coastal customers with no reliable supplies. Messer actually exports a large proportion of US helium through Texas rather than shipping it to the coasts because it is more profitable, and they are not inclined to divert those exports to the US coasts.
So the US helium supply is at the whim of a foreign company that is trying to maximize profits.
The net result is that helium prices have doubled in the past few weeks, and the US users on the coasts are left high and dry.
Messer has announced that the allocations to US customers have been cut in half.
Try again.
Top Helium Reserves by Country
United States: 20.6 billion cubic meters
Qatar: 10.1 billion cubic meters
Algeria: 8.2 billion cubic meters
Russia: 6.8 billion cubic meters
Canada: 2.0 billion cubic meter
Goggle.
Dustoff
You really are an ignorant semi-literate fool.
If you even bothered to read what I posted, you clearly do not comprehend what I said, and what it actually means.
No one is disputing that the US has major helium reserves. The point is that all of the US reserves are owned by Messer, a German company that exports a large proportion of US helium because it is more profitable than selling it to US customers. They import helium from Qatar to supply most of their US customers because it is cheaper and they make more profit than if they used helium produced in the US to supply the US market. They make more profit selling US helium to other countries and importing it from Qatar for US customers.
Airgas, together with Linde supply half of the US market.
Airgas has just announced an across the board cut of 50% of allocations to US customers.
Messer has not yet officially announced across the board cuts, but they are having difficulty supplying their US customers.
You do not seem to understand that all the US reserves are controlled by foreign companies and they are simply trying to maximize their profits. They have absolutely no incentive to sell helium to US customers if they can make bigger profits elsewhere.
Ano
Messer has not yet officially announced across the board cuts.
So you have no idea, what is going on.
Dustoff
As I said you are an ignorant, semi-literate fool and you continue to make that abundantly obvious.
Airgas and Linde who supply half of the US market have instituted rationing and will only supply 50% of the normal allocation to their customers.
Messer has not made an official announcement of rationing, but their customers have said that supplies have been disrupted and Messer has not been able to guarantee the usual supplies. Messer continues to export US produced helium, because they are making huge profits and have no incentive to divert supplies to US customers.
I don’t know why you are so invested in claiming that there is no problem with helium supplies.
Actually that is not true. It is obvious. You simply cannot admit that Trump is to blame for the shortages.
Nuke em, FOOL
You shouldn’t accuse others of being uninformed while peddling distorted claims to incite medical panic. Any rise in scan prices will be negligible compared to the actual cost of care; I think we can presume a marginal increase of significantly less than $10 per procedure. These indirect costs are largely managed through existing service contracts and market adjustments. Your sensationalism is unwarranted.
Learn how the marketplace works to reduce the chance of shortages and recognize the likelihood that medical institutions have long-term prices set for their supplies of helium.
S. Meyer
As usual you completely and utterly miss the point.
The point is not that the cost of MRI scans may rise. The point is that if helium shortages continue, then it may not even be possible to perform a scan.
The supplier who provides helium to half the US market has announced that overall allocations will be cut by 50%. They are trying to prioritize supplies for medical use but they are unable to guarantee that they will be able to do so for the long term.
The other major users are bearing the brunt of the reduced allocations. These users include semiconductor manufacturers, who need it for cooling and to provide an inert atmosphere to prevent oxidation during the etching process, and aerospace where helium is used to pressurize liquid hydrogen and oxygen tanks for rocket engines.
So if shortages continue then semiconductor production could theoretically grind to a halt, and the fact that helium prices have doubled means that it will be more costly to make them in the meantime. It is unlikely that semiconductor manufacturing will stop, but with reduced supplies of helium, its price will inevitably rise and then semiconductor prices will increase with all the subsequent downstream effects in a whole multitude of other industries.
And you say that I should learn how the marketplace works and that medical users have long term contract prices set for their supplies.
Unfortunately, in your ignorance, you are the one who does not understand how the marketplace works.
Airgas, the largest distributor of helium in the US declared a force majeure event for its helium contracts on March 17, 2026, effective at 12:01 a.m. Eastern time. By declaring force majeure, a major event beyond the control of both parties to the contract, Airgas is relieved of its contractual obligations to supply the full amount of helium agreed to in the contract and is free to add surcharges to the contract prices to recover all its increased costs. This effectively cancels any long term contracts and pricing.
So you see, it is you that does not understand the marketplace.
It is you that has absolutely no understanding of what is going on here.
The bottom line is that Trump has screwed up bigly.
The point is that Trump is an idiot acting on impulses.
He is totally incapable of understanding the multitude of unintended consequences of what he has done and continues to do.
Your supposed ‘gotcha’ falls short. To my knowledge, a temporary shortfall due to war doesn’t void a contract; it merely suspends liability for volume. Additionally, there are robust ways to recapture and recycle helium already in use within medicine and electronics, though companies without those recovery systems may indeed face a trenchant challenge. This is surmountable, not a catastrophe.
Remember: medical use, by law, takes absolute precedence over your frivolous birthday balloons.”
Again you miss the point and fly off on irrelevant tangents.
The point is not whether or not here will be enough helium for medical use, or whether it is recovered or not.
The point is that the supply chain has been disrupted and Airgas has invoked the force majeure clauses in their contracts. This allows them to suspend their obligations to supply the contracted volume of gas, and to increase the amount they can charge for the gas. They have done both. They have cut allocations by 50%, except for medical uses, and slapped a surcharge on their prices. So their customers are getting less helium and paying more for the lesser allocation.
While the invocation of force majeure does not usually cancel a contract, all such contracts usually have a provision for cancellation if the event lasts for a certain period of time. This can be as short as 30 days, but rarely more than 12 months. For the vast majority of contracts cancellation can be invoked after 60 to 90 days. The Qatar plant will be out of commission for 3 to 5 years, so it is inevitable that the contracts will eventually be cancelled.
But the point is not all these details of what is going on here.
The point is that Trump, in his stupidity and ignorance, has disrupted a vital supply chain that will have consequences for years, and will result in huge cost increases and supply shortages for many critical US industries.
“Again you miss the point and fly off on irrelevant tangents. … The point is that the supply chain has been disrupted”
Do you realize how many times hospitals have had a crisis due to a lack of helium? Of other essential materials and dyes? Apparently not. Do you understand the law? Apparently not. We have gone through this type of crisis many times before. This is not a new problem.
You have terminal TDS.
Here is just one example of how a potentially disastrous snowball effect could occur.
Western Digital is a leading manufacturer of high capacity hard drives that are essential for AI hyperscalers and data centers. Helium is a critical requirement for producing these drives. There is huge demand for their drives and they have been able to increase prices because of their limited production capacity. Their stock price is up almost 600% over the last year, and 75% in just the last 90 days. They recently announced that they have pre-sold their entire 2026 production capacity.
Now they face problems with helium supply.
Now they may not be able to supply the drives that they have already sold at contracted prices.
Even if they manage to meet their contracted production capacity they are obviously going to make less profit, and may even risk losses.
They may even have to invoke their own force majeure clauses and force their customers to pay more for fewer drives. This will in turn have a major impact on the major AI companies and data centers.
If this happens there will be major repercussions throughout the entire economy as industries that use AI and data centers face dramatically increased costs and/or limited availability of capacity.
I note your hysteria and incitement of medical panic are no longer the issue as you switch to industrial supply. What you are discussing now is essentially supply and demand. The loss of a helium supplier leads to an increase in prices industry has to work around. That will happen without your interference. This is a minor blip compared to the major catastrophes under Biden and the Democrats.
Trump discussed these problems for decades, and the Democrats did nothing. But let us take a major driver of our economy, oil. Trump has secured our oil supply while Biden and the Democrats did everything to destroy it.
Please. Please learn some critical thinking
Again has any Malthusian prediction since …. Malthus every come true ?
The largest single use of helium in the US is party balloons
And you still do not seem to get the US is a net Exporter of Helium
Why do east coast consumers buy helium from Qatar ?
The jones act
If tx shipped helium to nj it would have to be on a US flagged vessel and there are very few of those
The president can waive the jones act in emergency
It is unlikely he will
Because there will be no need to
And you entirely miss the point of fundamental economics
Helium is used a a cryogenic coolant for superconducting magnets in an MRI
Older MRI machines use 2000L of liquid helium
A small amount boils off over time
Probably less than one $38 party tank per month
The big cost is cooling the helium to 4K
Regardless newer MRIs use sealed systems that have only 7L of helium total
Why ? Because it is cheaper to keep 7L at 4K that 2000L
But you do not need to know any of yhe above to know you are full of Schiff
You just need to know that no Malthusian claim ever has proven true
Or you need to know the laws of supply and demand
This conflict is expensive and it will impact our economy
But do far the cost is LESS that the Somali fraud in Minnesota
Regardless if you had two brain cells to rub together you would realize two things
The straights of Hormuz will not remain closed for long
If there is a truly serious problem as a result
The marines will land and take over that part of Iran quickly
But let’s assume that is not true
The straights remain closed for a long time
Then the laws of supply and demand kick in
Prices start to rise
alternative supplies are found
Or substitute materials are used
Or conservation measures reduce demand
Or alternate means of transport are used
Or ….
Or combinations of the above
There is already an oil pipeline accross the Saudi peninsula bypassing the straits
It does not have the capacity to replace shipping
But for enough money it could
How do you think heliums is transported to Nebraska?
Last I checked not by ship
Do you think that Qatar can find a way to ship helium without ships ?
There have been plans to build a canal accross the Arabian peninsula for a long time
It is relatively easy as canals go
Not to long
Very few locks
Some solutions take lots of time and money
Others are relatively easy but raise prices slightly and have some limits
140L for party balloons from Amazon with free shipping
For under $40
https://a.co/d/05K1R8sh
There is a scene from “the battle of the bulge”
Where the German SS panzer general finds a fresh Boston cream pie among US POWs and says this is why Germany will lose the war
Because Germany can not afford fuel for tanks
But the US can provide fuel to fly a Boston cream pie to enlisted men
If we can afford helium for party balloons
We will not have problems with MRIs
Any idiot claiming there is a consequential problem with MRIs as a result of this
Is incapable of critical thinking
You go round in circles
But the gist of your argument is that US helium production is private
So what ?
Pretty much everything the US produces is produced privately
The fact that the US government does not have a national ground beef reserve does not mean I can not get a hamburger at McDonald’s
As to your digression into the economies of shipping
Again
So what?
As you note the supply from Qatar is temporarily disrupted
That alters your entire argument
Regardless there is enough helium that you can buy large tanks of it at party stores affordably for balloons
If there is enough for party balloons there is enough for MRIs
You are incapable of more than first order thinking
You can not think critically
You are clueless about the laws of supply and demand
And you are just plain wrong about global helium producers
In other words you are a typical left wing nut
You ranted at dust off whose facts were correct
For failure to provide sources or relying on Wikipedia
But you provided no sources for any of your claims and were wrong or misleading about all of them
Will a US producer ship US helium to the US if it can be purchased cheaper elsewhere ? No
But a slight discount ncrease in prices will change that
Please take Econ 101 and learn the laws of supply and demand
Deranged Dems: “You’re a bigot if you don’t let us sexually butcher your child into a Frankenstein semblance of the opposite sex!”
Gender dysphoria or homophobia? All homos are trans from viability around six weeks past conception. Not all trans are homos, some are sims through grooming, or surgical and medical corruption. Dreams of Herr Mengele with forward-looking profits. #NoJudgment #NoLabels #HateTrumpsLove #HateLovesAbortion
Uh Oh, the Blue Hair Nose Ring crowd is going to be screaming bloody murder at this ruling! As will the Woke Karen bunch who will call for impeachment of the judges because they are HATERS!!!! Don’t the citizens of Ohio realize their state bureaucraps and the wokie politicians they elected are the Illuminati for the hick voters? Parents are so OLD SCHOOL as the guardian for children – some fat lady in Child Welfare who has no children knows exactly what is needed to little Johnny to become little Jenny! Keep on Truckin Ohio – right over the cliff you morons!
Some State courts of appeal can clearly make rulings that align with both law and reason.
Regrettably, a Federal court at the same level, tasked with a comparable case and the necessity for a decision, is very unlikely to generate anything other than rhetoric that supports the allegations against the parents, framed entirely in woke terminology.
deck the halls with lots of money
fa la la la la la la la la
Nothing is more exhilarating that watching woke freak out
Turley presents In re S.B. as a major win for parental rights, yet he conveniently buries the most important fact that the parents still lost. The court ultimately ruled that they were unfit to have custody due to drug use and other violations.
Turley frames the case as a victory for “sane” parenting when, in reality, it involved a child being removed from an unsafe environment. He is dressing up a case of parental failure as a triumph of constitutional principle. It’s a nifty use of literal sleigh of hand that most of his readers will surely miss and that is clearly the intent.
Turley cunningly inserted the religious aspect which is often used to shield abusive parents from scrutiny. Turley often argues for the “rule of law,” yet here he suggests that religious dogma should shield parents from state scrutiny, even when that dogma contributes to a child’s mental health crisis.
Religious freedom is a right to practice faith, not a license to neglect a child’s well-being. This has been clearly established in court before. Using religion as a “get out of jail free” card for rejecting a child’s identity is a dangerous legal precedent that Turley is all too happy to cheerlead.
How is this different than religious parents refusing medical treatment of a child suffering from a medical condition that would endanger the child? Especially since the state has a mandate to look after the best interest of the child. Isn’t that how the abortion argument goes? Conservatives sure love the state dictating what is best for an unborn child but this is not ok?
“…he suggests that religious dogma should shield parents from state scrutiny…”
LOL
Goota luv George. He sure can spin a doozey.
An excellent choice for today. This case, in a small way, illustrates the complexity of psychiatric and psychological care in “gender dysphoria disorder”. Not allowing the parents to guide the child’s medical and psychological care is tantamount to allowing the inmate to run the Asylum.
Actually settling on gender dysphoria disorder seems to be the default position for many “modern” psychologists and psychiatrists, when, in fact, there are far more complex psychiatric pathologies at play and too many children are shuttled off to “gender dysphoria” when they have serious other problems such as major depression, dissociative personality, possibly bipolar disorder, or even schizophrenia (depending on the age), autism spectrum, et al..
Experiences teaches many physicians that psychiatrists and psychologists are not gods and are often wrong. Usually that means a change in medication approach or psychotherapy. In diagnosed gender disorder (if you don’t act quickly) the child may still turn out to be wrongly diagnosed but is already transitioned and mutilated. Thats criminal.
And your specialty is … let me guess… gender dysphoria?
Wouldn’t take your advice on anything you fool.
ATS 8:37-befouls himself again. Most psychiatric and psychological care in this country is delivered by non psychiatrists and non psychologists. The children often get into trouble when treated by the specialists who follow dogma and not science, hence the downturn and growing disfavor of this diagnosis. Actually our psychiatric training in medical school was often with th authors of the book “The 3 Faces of Eve”. Also studied under and worked with Hilde Bruch MD, who literally wrote the book on Anorexia Nervosa and Bulemia. Another psychiatric illness which affects older children and young adults.
And ATS- what is your expertise other than your daily clown show..
GEB
Astoundingly and disturbingly stupid comment.
Do you not understand the stupidity of your statement that “Most psychiatric and psychological care in this country is delivered by non psychiatrists and non psychologists”???
If the “care” is given by non-psychiatrists or non-psychologists it cannot be described as psychiatric care or psychological care. The “care” may be some sort of “care” but it obviously cannot logically be described as psychiatric or psychological care. It must be some other kind of “care”.
And this is what passes for logical, rational and reasoned comment on this pitiful blog.
GEB
In fact, this profoundly stupid comment suggests that you may be in urgent need of some kind of psychiatric care.
Or perhaps you are receiving psychiatric care from a non-psychiatrist, which would explain why it is not working.
Your parents want you to get some actual, professional, psychiatric care for your “failure to launch.”
Actually your attempt to smear GEB based off the one word, “care” is what is pitiful.
According to the failed state of CA, teachers can give “care” as in “gender affirming care” when keeping information from parents about the mental health of their children.
NotReallyaFarmer
Thank you for exactly proving my point.
You seem to think that teachers are providing some sort of “care”. Whatever they are actually providing, or whatever kind of “care” it may or may not be, it cannot be described as psychological or psychiatric care.
That is my point, and you are totally unable to comprehend it due to your low intellectual capacity, and you are totally unable to appreciate the stupidity of your own response.
The point that is obviously clear to any intelligent, rational observer is that anything that teachers, or non-psychologists, or non-psychiatrists provide in terms of supposed “care” cannot be described as psychological or psychiatric care as GEB so ridiculously states.
Ano
How many years of medical training do you have?
Re:”Dustoff’s “How many years of medical training do you have?’ I am once again appealing to the legally sane members of this forum to cease responding to braindead and inane retorts from an/or individual[s] who either seriously need to get a life beyond these pages, or are using this as an alternative to the treatment of psychological ill health. I understand the motivation to ‘hit back’ but do restrain yourselves please, in favor of well constructed and sensible debate.
LOL…
I’m quite sure john.
I have far more years in Medical than you.
UCSD medical center San Diego CA.
GEB,
They did seem rather eager to jump to the “gender dysphoria” diagnoses and get them on puberty blockers, chemical castration, or hacking off healthy body parts and not consider other possibilities/under laying problems.
Common sense, and the employment of a little recognized concept “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” have entered in to the judiciary. What’s a poor, colluding, conditioned judge do now?
Oh yes, calling ghostbuster Boasberg to the rescue!
Wrong district doc. You really a doc or just one of those paper doc’s?
You got any dogs?
How come the state of Ohio (red red for decades) was arguing in favor of the sex change nuts?
It was the judge, not the state population.
Sara … may she find help and contentment in her life.