Rapeseed Oil, Sunflower Oil and the “Seed Oil” Debate

 

Fact-checking common claims using UK and European evidence

In recent years, social media and YouTube have popularised claims that so-called “seed oils”, particularly rapeseed oil and sunflower oil, are unhealthy or were never intended for human consumption. Some videos even claim sunflower oil was designed for machinery.

This report examines those claims using UK and European evidence, with references to the institutions responsible for food safety and public health. EU food standards are among the strictest in the world, which is one reason some US food products cannot enter the EU market. While the UK has left the EU, many food standards remain closely aligned in practice, partly to ensure continued trade and export compatibility with European markets

Food safety regulations are built on decades of scientific research and monitoring, and are regularly reviewed as new evidence emerges.

---

1. What rapeseed oil and sunflower oil actually are

Rapeseed oil and sunflower oil are both vegetable oils extracted from plant seeds.

• Rapeseed oil comes from the plant Brassica napus.

• Sunflower oil comes from Helianthus annuus seeds.

Both oils are widely used for cooking throughout Europe.

Globally, sunflower oil and rapeseed oil are among the most produced edible vegetable oils.

Source
https://www.fao.org/statistics/highlights-archive/highlights-detail/agricultural-production-statistics-2010-2024/en
https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/seed_oils

---

2. Sunflower oil was historically produced for food

The claim that sunflower oil was created for machinery is not supported by historical evidence.

Sunflowers were introduced to Europe in the 16th century, and large-scale sunflower oil production began in Russia during the 19th century, where the oil became popular as a cooking oil.

One reason sunflower oil became popular in Russia was religious fasting. During Orthodox fasting periods, animal fats such as butter and lard were restricted, so sunflower oil became an accepted cooking fat.

This historical use for food predates modern industrial lubricants derived from petroleum.

https://www.britannica.com/plant/sunflower-plant
https://www.sunflowernsa.com/all-about/history/

---

3. UK dietary advice on cooking oils

UK public health advice does not support the claim that rapeseed oil or sunflower oil are harmful.

The Eatwell Guide, published by the NHS, recommends replacing some saturated fats with oils containing unsaturated fats such as:

• olive oil

• rapeseed oil

• sunflower oil

The NHS advice reflects a large body of research linking lower saturated fat intake with improved cardiovascular risk markers.

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/food-types/different-fats-nutrition/
https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/nutrition/ask-the-expert/rapeseed-oil

---

4. Fat composition of common cooking fats

The health debate often centres on the types of fat present in different oils.

Approximate composition:

Cooking fat	Saturated fat
Coconut oil	~86%
Butter	~51%
Ghee	~60–65%
Olive oil	~14%
Sunflower oil	~10%
Rapeseed oil	~7%

Rapeseed oil has one of the lowest saturated fat levels of any common cooking oil, and contains both monounsaturated fats and plant omega-3 fatty acids.

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/nutrition/ask-the-expert/comparing-cooking-fats

---

5. The historical erucic acid concern

One criticism of rapeseed oil comes from a genuine historical issue.

Older rapeseed varieties naturally contained relatively high levels of erucic acid, and animal studies in the mid-20th century suggested that extremely high intake could affect heart tissue.

Because of this, plant breeders developed modern low-erucic rapeseed varieties in the 1970s specifically for food use. These varieties contain dramatically lower levels of erucic acid than traditional rapeseed.

Today, rapeseed oil used in food production is produced from these low-erucic cultivars, and maximum limits for erucic acid in edible oils are regulated in Europe to ensure consumer safety.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/rapeseed-oil
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/nursing-and-health-professions/erucic-acid
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9962393/

---

6. Pesticide residues and food regulation

A common concern raised online is pesticide use in crop farming.

In Europe, pesticide residues in food are strictly regulated.

The UK sets maximum residue levels (MRLs) for pesticides in food, and monitoring programmes test food samples for compliance.

The Food Standards Agency reports that the vast majority of food samples tested in the UK are within legal safety limits.

Before the UK left the EU, pesticide regulations were harmonised across Europe, and the UK has retained many of those standards.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/pesticide-residues-in-food-results-of-monitoring-programme
https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/pesticides-in-food
https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/maximum-residue-levels

---

7. Processing myths

Many videos claim seed oils are unsafe because they are produced using chemical solvents such as hexane.

Industrial extraction methods can involve hexane, but the solvent is removed during refining.

Food law sets strict limits for solvent residues in edible oils.

Residue levels permitted in food are extremely small and monitored by regulators.

Cold-pressed rapeseed oil is also available for those who prefer minimally processed oils.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/1658/contents/made
https://www.eufic.org/en/misinformation/article/does-the-processing-of-seed-oils-pose-a-health-risk

---

8. The omega-6 debate

Some critics argue that oils rich in omega-6 fatty acids promote inflammation.

The scientific debate is more nuanced.

Many studies suggest that replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fats can improve cardiovascular risk markers.

Rapeseed oil contains a mixture of fats, including omega-3 fatty acids, giving it a relatively balanced fatty acid profile.

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/nutrition/ask-the-expert/comparing-cooking-fats

---

9. Why seed oil distrust increased online

Several factors helped fuel the modern “seed oil” controversy:

1. Reanalysis of older nutrition studies, such as the Minnesota Coronary Experiment.

2. Popular podcasts and YouTube channels promoting anti-seed-oil narratives.

3. Simplification of complex nutrition science into dramatic claims.

These discussions are ongoing within nutrition research, but they do not support the claim that rapeseed oil or sunflower oil are unsafe foods.

https://www.heart.org/en/news/2024/08/20/theres-no-reason-to-avoid-seed-oils-and-plenty-of-reasons-to-eat-them

---

Practical kitchen conclusions

Based on UK dietary advice and current nutrition evidence:

Good everyday cooking oils

• olive oil

• rapeseed oil

Acceptable cooking oils

• sunflower oil

Higher in saturated fat (best used occasionally)

• butter

• ghee

• coconut oil

This approach aligns with current UK public-health guidance aimed at reducing saturated fat intake.

---

Gary’s Soapbox Comment

The internet has made it easier than ever for dramatic claims about food to spread. In reality, most everyday cooking oils have been studied for decades and are regulated by food safety authorities. Rather than focusing on a single “good” or “bad” oil, the bigger picture is a balanced diet, reasonable cooking practices, and avoiding excessive saturated fat.

---

Joshua Leakey VC and the Lie That Insulted Every Ally Who Bled for America

Introduction

Some statements are not misunderstood. They are not clumsy phrasing. They are not taken out of context. They are simply wrong, and offensive enough that history itself has to step in and say no.

Donald Trump’s claim that European and NATO soldiers in Afghanistan stayed back from the front was not an insult that landed badly. It was a full-scale smear of every allied soldier who fought, bled, and in many cases died backing the United States during a twenty-year war.

If you want a single, documented, unimpeachable rebuttal, read the Victoria Cross citation for Joshua Leakey. It is not opinion. It is not myth. It is an official record of a joint UK US firefight where allied troops went forward under fire and saved each other’s lives.

---

Afghanistan was a coalition war, fought shoulder to shoulder

Afghanistan was not fought in national silos. British, American, Danish, Estonian, Canadian, Dutch, Polish, Australian, and other forces operated in mixed task groups. Patrol bases were shared. Quick reaction forces crossed national lines. Medics treated whoever was bleeding, regardless of flag.

Allied troops did not stay back. They held ground, ran clearance operations, manned isolated patrol bases, and responded to contact in some of the most contested terrain in Helmand, Kandahar, Uruzgan, and Kunar.

Coalition casualty lists exist for one reason only. Coalition troops were in combat.

---

Joshua Leakey VC: documented fact, not rhetoric

On 22 August 2013, in Helmand Province, Lance Corporal Joshua Leakey of the Parachute Regiment was part of a joint UK US operation led by the US Marine Corps.

The force was pinned down by intense Taliban fire. A US Marine Corps captain was shot and wounded. Enemy fighters were closing in. Communications were degraded.

Leakey did not stay back.

He ran across open ground under machine-gun fire to reach the pinned command group. He treated the wounded US Marine officer and helped initiate casualty evacuation. He then returned uphill under sustained fire to restore and reposition suppressed machine guns, repeatedly exposing himself to draw fire away from others.

The official citation states that his actions were decisive in preventing further loss of life and enabling the evacuation of the wounded US Marine officer.

That is what allied combat looks like. That is what backing the United States looks like.

---

The Gurkhas: alone, outnumbered, and under sustained attack

If Trump’s claim were true, it collapses completely when confronted with the actions of the Gurkhas.

Acting Sergeant Dipprasad Pun CGC

On 17 September 2010, Dipprasad Pun, of 1st Battalion, The Royal Gurkha Rifles, was on sentry duty at a checkpoint in Babaji, Helmand Province.

He was alone on the roof of a compound when it came under sustained attack by an estimated 12 to 30 Taliban fighters.

For over 15 minutes, Pun fought alone. He fired more than 400 rounds, threw 17 grenades, and detonated a Claymore mine as insurgents attempted to overrun the position. When his rifle failed, and ammunition ran out, he physically threw a machine-gun tripod at an attacker climbing onto the roof.

He prevented the position from being overrun and saved the lives of three comrades inside the compound.

For this, he was awarded the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, the second-highest award for bravery in the British Army.

There is no version of Afghanistan where this qualifies as staying back.

Lance Corporal Tuljung Gurung MC

In 2013, Tuljung Gurung, also of the Royal Gurkha Rifles, was awarded the Military Cross after close combat with insurgents during an Afghan operation.

When ammunition was exhausted, Gurung fought with his kukri knife, driving off attackers at close quarters.

Again, not staying back. Not symbolic. Direct, face-to-face combat.

---

It was not only British forces

British examples are among the best documented, but they are not unique.

Danish troops fought sustained combat operations in Helmand alongside British and US Marines, suffering heavy casualties relative to force size. Estonian infantry units operated in some of the most dangerous districts of Helmand under UK and US command, earning national gallantry awards for combat actions. Canadian troops fought major engagements in Kandahar and received numerous Stars of Military Valour, often during joint operations involving US units.

Across NATO, gallantry citations repeatedly reference:

• extraction of wounded US personnel,

• suppression of enemy fire to allow US manoeuvre,

• defence of joint patrol bases under sustained attack.

These medals were not handed out for presence. They were awarded for contact.

---

The insult to US troops is built into the lie

Trump’s claim does not just smear allies. It insults US forces as well.

US medals for valour frequently cite actions taken to rescue or reinforce NATO troops under fire. You cannot praise those US soldiers while pretending the people they were saving were not in combat.

If allies stayed back, then US troops were apparently risking their lives for people who were not there. That is absurd.

---

The backtrack does not repair the damage

After the backlash, Trump attempted to soften the fallout by praising British soldiers as brave and acknowledging UK casualties.

That does not undo the original statement.

It simply singles out one ally for damage control while leaving every other NATO partner implicitly accused of cowardice. It also avoids the core issue, which is that the original claim was untrue.

You do not get credit for partial praise after full erasure.

---

Leadership, sacrifice, and the right to speak

When a leader rewrites the history of a war like Afghanistan, they do more than fracture trust. They hand propaganda victories to adversaries, weaken alliances from the inside, and degrade collective defence by undermining the shared memory that holds it together.

And in Trump’s case, there is an added layer of hypocrisy that cannot be ignored.

Donald Trump and his family have no military service anywhere in their history. None. No enlistment, no combat, no command, no sacrifice. Yet he feels entitled to insult soldiers from multiple nations who went forward under fire, backed US forces in contact, and in many cases did not come home.

He has no such right.

Respect for military service is not conferred by holding office. It is earned through understanding, restraint, and humility. Trump shows none of those qualities. He speaks about war as if it were a business negotiation, and about soldiers as if they were contractors who failed to deliver value.

That alone disqualifies him from passing judgment on those who fought.

A real comparison of leadership

If anyone wants a real comparison between leadership and cowardice, it is not found in speeches or slogans. It is found in actions when everything is on the line.

When Russia invaded Ukraine and attempted within days to seize Kyiv, Volodymyr Zelensky was given clear options. He could flee. He could form a government in exile. He could survive.

Instead, he stayed.

Zelensky knew that if Kyiv fell, his capture or death was almost certain. Russian forces were advancing rapidly. Assassination teams were active. Yet he remained in the capital, rallied his troops, addressed his people, and made it clear that the leadership would not abandon them.

That decision mattered. It stiffened resistance. It bought time. It saved Ukraine from collapse.

Trump, by contrast, has never faced anything remotely comparable. And there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that, under similar circumstances, he would have done anything other than run. Loud men who belittle courage from a safe distance are rarely brave when the danger is real.

That is the difference between a snake oil salesman and a leader. One sells strength, lies and Misinformation. The other proves it when it counts with actions.

---

Soapbox Comment

This was not a gaffe. It was not careless phrasing. It was a lie that spat on the graves of allied soldiers and on the US troops who fought beside them.

Trump is not fit to lead a military alliance. He is not fit to lecture anyone on courage. He is not fit to be the shit stain on the boots of those who served backing the United States up, often at the cost of their lives.

How many times does someone get to demean the armed forces, rewrite wars, and fracture alliances before the US political system does more than issue statements and move on? There is always noise in Congress. There is always outrage on cue. Then there is silence, and the next disgrace follows.

That silence does damage too.

Wake up, America.

Coalition Casualties in Afghanistan

Trump, Farage, NATO and the Question Putin Never Had to Ask

 

Isn’t it funny. Funny strange, not funny haha.

Both Donald Trump and Nigel Farage have, time and again, taken positions that just happen to benefit one man above all others. Vladimir Putin.

Farage was the chief cheerleader for the UK leaving the EU. Brexit did exactly what the Kremlin wanted. It fractured Europe, weakened collective bargaining power, and made the continent less cohesive politically, economically, and militarily. Putin could not have scripted it better if he had written the campaign leaflets himself.

Trump, meanwhile, has spent years doing Russia’s work for it. He has undermined the relationship between the US and Europe, sneered at allies, and openly questioned the value of NATO. Is it still relevant. Will the US honour it. Would America actually step in if Article 5 were triggered? All now conveniently in doubt because Trump cannot go five minutes without lobbing a grenade into the alliance that has kept the West stable for decades.

And let’s be clear. When the US needed help after 9/11, Article 5 was triggered for the first and only time. European allies, including the UK, backed America without hesitation. No hand-wringing. No transactional bullshit. We showed up.

Trump, on the other hand, does not give a shit about that history. He treats alliances like a protection racket and loyalty like a subscription service. Miss a payment and you are on your own. That is not leadership. It is vandalism.

Right now, Putin is effectively having his birthday party every single day. Western unity weakened. NATO credibility questioned. Democratic systems under internal attack by their own politicians. Champagne corks popping in the Kremlin.

If Trump and Farage are not Russian assets, then frankly they are doing the job so well they might as well be.

And there is one question that has stuck in my mind ever since Trump first came out with it.

If Europe supposedly needs the US more than the US needs Europe, then why the fuck did America trigger Article 5 and ask for help when it needed it most?

Funny that.

Gary’s Soapbox Comment

What makes this so dangerous is not that Trump or Farage openly wave Russian flags. It is that they do not need to. The damage is done through doubt, division, and the quiet erosion of trust between allies. NATO was never meant to be a pay-as-you-go service, nor was democracy meant to be run like a grift.

Putin did not have to fire a shot to weaken the West. He simply had to sit back and watch as Western politicians did it for him, loudly, proudly, and in public. When alliances are questioned, when Article 5 is treated like a bargaining chip, and when unity is portrayed as weakness, only one side benefits.

The most damning part is this: when America needed help, Europe answered without hesitation. No invoices. No threats. No tantrums. That solidarity is now treated as optional by people who claim to be patriots.

Putin never had to ask whether NATO would survive. Others asked it for him.

Trump, Chess, Checkers, or Schoolyard Bully Chaos?

 

Trump, Chess, Checkers, or Schoolyard Bully Chaos?

For years, Trump supporters have insisted that Donald Trump is playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers. The phrase is used whenever his actions appear reckless, contradictory, or destabilising. The implication is simple: what looks like chaos is actually genius, and what looks like failure is merely a move several steps ahead.

But when you strip away the slogan and examine outcomes, incentives, and consequences, the chess metaphor collapses. What remains looks far less like grand strategy and far more like leverage-driven bullying with little regard for long-term cost.

---

The Chess Myth and Why It Persists

The chess narrative is powerful because it works backwards. Any outcome, good or bad, can be reframed as intentional. Allies unsettled? That was the plan. Institutions undermined? Clearing the board. Opponents angry? Psychological warfare.

Real chess players reduce uncertainty. They protect their king. They trade pieces only when the position improves. Trump’s approach does the opposite. It increases uncertainty, weakens alliances, and forces partners into defensive reactions.

That is not chess. That is disruption without structure.

There is also a simpler point. There is no evidence that Trump has ever played chess, publicly or privately. Chess requires patience, sustained concentration, and respect for constraints. None of those traits feature prominently in Trump’s documented behaviour. The metaphor survives because it flatters supporters, not because it fits reality.

---

Greenland: Security Theatre or Resource Play?

Greenland has been presented by Trump as a security issue, with claims of Russian and Chinese naval presence used to justify increased US control. Danish, Greenlandic, and NATO-linked sources have repeatedly stated that such claims do not match tracking data or intelligence reporting. There are no Russian or Chinese warships swarming Greenland.

What Greenland does have is oil, gas, and rare earth minerals, all of which matter enormously in future energy and technology supply chains.

Crucially, Denmark has already stated that the US can expand its military presence in Greenland without any change in sovereignty. If security were the genuine concern, the issue would already be resolved.

That leaves resources. And leverage.

When security arguments are made where the threat is unverified and the assets are very real, scepticism is not only justified, it is necessary.

---

Venezuela: Drugs, Democracy, or Oil?

Venezuela has been framed as a drugs and democracy problem. Yet most narcotics entering the US flow through Mexico, not Venezuela. What Venezuela does have is the world’s largest proven oil reserves.

The language of enforcement masks the economic reality. Control of energy assets is power. The question is not whether intervention can be dressed up as law enforcement, but who benefits once the oil flows.

History suggests it will not be ordinary Venezuelans.

---

Russia, China, and Who Really Benefits

There is no proven evidence that Trump is a Russian asset. That claim requires a level of control and direction that has not been demonstrated.

But a more uncomfortable truth remains. Trump’s actions repeatedly benefit Russia without requiring coordination.

NATO cohesion weakens. The EU fractures. Alliances are strained. Democratic institutions are questioned. These outcomes align neatly with Russian strategic objectives, regardless of intent.

If someone behaves exactly as a hostile power would hope, intent becomes almost irrelevant. Outcomes matter.

Putin does not need to control Trump. He merely needs to watch him work.

---

Brexit and the UK’s Shrinking Leverage

Brexit removed the UK as a bridge between the US and the EU. That role mattered. It gave Britain influence and gave Washington insight and access.

Post-Brexit, the UK is less useful as an intermediary and more exposed as a strategic outpost. American airbases remain, but political leverage has diminished. If the US pursues aggressive unilateral moves, such as coercion over Greenland, the UK faces an uncomfortable choice.

Europe or unquestioning alignment.

Legally, the UK can restrict US operations launched from its bases. Politically, doing so would test the relationship like never before. That is not strength. It is vulnerability.

---

Deutsche Bank, Debt, and the Business Genius Illusion

Trump’s reputation as a business mastermind does not survive scrutiny.

He inherited enormous wealth, yet repeatedly ran major ventures into bankruptcy. Casinos, one of the most forgiving businesses imaginable, failed under his control.

When US banks lost patience, Deutsche Bank stepped in. This does not prove foreign influence, but it does show that Trump survived not through exceptional performance, but through continued access to credit when others would have been cut off.

Trump’s wealth model is not value creation. It is leverage, refinancing, branding, and survival. That is legal. It is not genius.

---

America’s Debt and the Temptation of Asset Thinking

The US faces rising interest costs on its national debt. There is no easy fix. Cutting spending is politically painful. Raising taxes is unpopular.

In that context, the temptation to think in terms of acquiring external assets is obvious. Oil fields. Minerals. Strategic territory.

But nations are not corporations. You cannot solve sovereign debt by grabbing resources. Those assets require stability, investment, and cooperation. Coercion raises costs, not value.

---

So What Is Trump Actually Doing?

Trump is not playing chess.
He is not playing checkers either.

He is playing schoolyard dominance politics on a global scale.

Push hard.
Create fear.
Force submission.
Declare victory.
Move on.

That approach can work briefly. It does not build systems. It does not create durable power. It leaves behind resentment, resistance, and strategic holes others are eager to fill.

---

Conclusion

Trump’s greatest skill is not strategy. It is narrative control.

He survives by reframing chaos as brilliance and leverage as strength. But when measured by outcomes rather than slogans, his actions weaken alliances, empower adversaries, and trade long-term stability for short-term dominance.

That is not chess.

It is noise, pressure, and spectacle.

And history is rarely kind to leaders who mistake those things for strategy.

---

Gary’s Soapbox Comment

Real strategy reduces risk and builds resilience. Bullying creates fear but leaves nothing solid behind. When power is mistaken for genius, the bill always arrives later.

TRUMP - Now Is The Time For Peace

 

Shortly after launching airstrikes on Iran, Donald Trump took to his platform of choice to declare, "Now Is The Time For Peace." The irony should not be lost on anyone paying attention.

The Hypocrisy of Trump’s Peace Rhetoric

Trump’s brand of diplomacy is theatre. He struck Iranian targets without warning, then asked for calm. But history shows religious hardliners rarely respond to violence with submission. Iran's leadership thrives on external threats. Military aggression only serves to entrench them further and rally support against the "Great Satan."

Obama’s JCPOA Was Working

The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) wasn’t perfect, but it was effective. Iran agreed to cut its uranium stockpile by 98%, limit enrichment to 3.67% (far below weapons-grade), and dismantle thousands of centrifuges. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed compliance repeatedly between 2015 and 2018. Daily inspections ensured transparency.

Yet in 2018, Trump unilaterally tore up the deal, despite no evidence of Iran breaching it. He called it "the worst deal ever negotiated," but had nothing to replace it with. Predictably, Iran resumed higher-level enrichment and reduced IAEA access. Trump created the very crisis he claimed to solve.

Was Iran Close to a Nuclear Weapon?

No, not at the time Trump withdrew. US and Israeli intelligence assessments, IAEA reports, and even Netanyahu’s own 2018 "nuclear archive" presentation all confirmed Iran had halted its weapons programme in 2003 and had not restarted it.

The CIA’s National Intelligence Estimates (2007 & 2012) concluded Iran had the technical knowledge but was not building a bomb. Trump's withdrawal lifted the lid on the pressure cooker.

Who Benefited? Russia.

While the West was distracted by Iran, Putin gained breathing room. Escalating tensions in the Middle East pushed Ukraine off the front pages, strained NATO unity, and drove oil prices higher – all favourable outcomes for the Kremlin.

This wasn’t the first time Trump’s actions curiously aligned with Russian interests. He'd previously delayed aid to Ukraine, questioned NATO's value, and undermined US intelligence. If Trump isn't a Russian asset, he might as well be.

Bypassing Democracy

Worse, Trump launched the strikes without Congressional approval. In a functioning democracy, war powers lie with the legislature. Trump once again acted like a strongman, not a statesman. It's a pattern: rule by decree, not by debate.

Crypto and Influence?

Layer in the bizarre detail that Trump profits from a meme cryptocurrency ($TRUMP) and questions emerge. Could foreign entities theoretically use these tokens to influence him? Israel is one of the few nations openly backing his return – would they benefit from US strikes on Iran? It’s speculative, but troubling.

Blowback Is Inevitable

The idea that the US can strike without consequence is dangerously naive. History tells us that military aggression breeds retaliation, not submission. From 9/11 (partly motivated by the US presence in the Middle East) to the rise of groups like ISIS, unintended consequences have defined American interventions abroad.

Trump's strikes on Iran all but guarantee a long-term cycle of revenge. Not just in direct military terms — but through cyberattacks, terrorism, proxy wars, and asymmetrical strikes targeting US allies and civilians.

As of now, America has likely put a target on its back for decades to come. Iranian hardliners — and those they influence across the region — won’t forget this. They’ll wait. They’ll build alliances. And they’ll retaliate when least expected.

Ordinary Americans, both at home and abroad, may face the consequences of this decision long after Trump has left the stage. Just like post-Iraq and post-Afghanistan, the damage will outlast the politician who caused it.

---

Gary’s Soapbox Comment: Trump talks peace while dropping bombs, tears up agreements that were working, and gives Russia a smokescreen. He governs by impulse, not principle. And the world is more dangerous for it.

If it acts like a dictator, then it is a dictator. The military is acting at the direction of the President, not Congress. And when Congress is no longer in charge of authorising war, democracy itself is under threat. Trump talks peace while dropping bombs, tears up agreements that were working, and gives Russia a smokescreen. He governs by impulse, not principle. And the world is more dangerous for it.

The Blog of All Time: Ode to the Fart

(A noxious tribute to the Mango Menace and his gassy gang)

Donald is a Duck and a Trump is a Fart,
How do you fix what should never start?
He waddled through lies in a golf cart parade,
Where empty chairs cheered and facts were afraid.

The Fanta Führer, orange and loud,
Babbled like rainclouds yelling at clouds.
Commander in Queef, spraying ego and spit,
While democracy slipped down a gold-plated pit.

Taco Don, munching through grievances old,
Wrapped in a flag and dipped in fool’s gold.
The Tangerine Turd, tried to rule by tweet,
But logic and grammar both chose to retreat.

From Donny Two Dolls to DJ Chump,
He danced on the truth with a Mussolini hump.
The Flunky Bunch, so arse licking and loyal,
Turned the White House lawn into autocratic soil.

Sphincter Face, snarling, red in the jowls,
Still hears applause in imaginary prowls.
Kim Jong Loon the Taco, dictator cosplay,
With Putin and Xi smirking miles away.

Musk the F-Elon, Trump the Felon,
Two gas giants with nothing worth sellin’.
X and Truth, both twisted and frayed,
Their legacy? Lies in a bot-fuel parade.

Manchurian Cantaloupe, Kremlin-fed tweet,
Would sell out the West for a Big Mac and seat.
Coppertone Caligula, tantrum-prone,
With bronze skin peeled from a spray can alone.

Shitler, Adolf Orange, history’s itch,
With all the delusion and none of the pitch.
Agent Orange, poisoning discourse and debate,
Yearns to smash courts and rid the charade.

Cheeto in Chief, reality’s blight,
Turning facts into fear in the cold Foxlight.
Velveeta Voldemort, cheesed-off and grim,
Casting bad spells with words that really don’t swim.

Barron Von Grabbersnatch, crude to the core,
Grabbing headlines like he grabs the decor.
Donnie Gump, slow-footed and frail,
A Forrest with lawsuits hot on his tail.

Kim Jong Buffoon, chest puffed and sore,
Still feeling important while others laughed more.
He posed with his finger like some war-time sage,
But history booked him as sideshow, not stage.

Drowsie Donnie, asleep on parade,
As the tanks rolled past in a vacant charade.
The jester in chief, the courtroom nap champ,
While subpoenas and fines stack like gas at a camp.

Little Squeaky Tank Man, Churchill cosplay,
Grimacing hard but wilting away.

He mimicked the greats while history watched—
A poundshop Nero, bloated and botched.
So Musk and The Felon, the Fart and The Stink,
A bromance of chaos in digital ink.

They dreamed of empires, of rule by decree,
But ended as memes in democracy’s feed.
So flush what's untrue, let justice restart—
And mark this disgrace with an Ode to the Fart.

© Gary's Soapbox 20th June 2025

---

Gary's Soapbox Comment:
This piece isn’t just satire—it’s a civic fart in the face of authoritarian cosplay. Trump and Musk’s toxic bromance has polluted politics, discourse, and social media with hubris, hate, and hot air. If democracy matters, then we must keep mocking, fact-checking, and flushing. Never let a fart disguise itself as a founding father.

California Wins Temporary Legal Battle Over Trump’s National Guard Takeover

In a damning blow to Donald Trump’s blatant abuse of power, a federal judge has ordered the former president to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Gavin Newsom. The order follows a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer on June 12, 2025, concluding that Trump’s actions were not only unconstitutional but illegal, at this early stage.

Background

In late May 2025, Trump unilaterally federalised around 4,000 California National Guard troops and deployed 700 U.S. Marines in Los Angeles under Title 10 authority. This militarised response came in the wake of nationwide protests triggered by aggressive federal immigration raids. Trump’s move to seize control of California’s Guard—without the consent of Governor Newsom—was immediately challenged by the state as a violation of states’ rights.

The Court’s Decision

Judge Breyer's ruling was crystal clear. He wrote:

“At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not… His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment… He must therefore return control of the California National Guard… forthwith.”

Breyer emphasised that while federal forces may protect federal property, the use of the National Guard as a domestic police force without state approval amounts to unlawful militarisation. He warned that unchecked executive power “evoked the founders’ fear of a monarchy.”

Not a Final Ruling

It’s important to note: this is not a final legal victory. The judge issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), not a permanent injunction. The federal government has already filed an appeal, and the case will continue. A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for June 20, 2025, and could result in either a firmer legal block or a reversal.

No other judge previously ruled that Trump’s deployment was lawful. This is the first judicial response to the crisis, and it sets the tone for the legal battle ahead.

Immediate Impact

The TRO takes effect at noon Pacific Time on Friday, June 13, 2025, requiring Trump’s federal forces to stand down and allowing Governor Newsom to regain full command of California’s National Guard. Whether this holds depends on the next stage of the legal process.

Wider Implications

This ruling sends a stark message: the president is not above the law. He cannot override the Constitution to impose military force on states that don’t bend to his will. Legal experts hail this decision as a powerful reaffirmation of democratic checks and balances, state sovereignty, and the rule of law — but it’s far from over.

Gary's Soapbox Comment: This wasn’t just an overreach—it was an authoritarian power grab, plain and simple. Trump treated the National Guard like his own private militia, deployed to crush dissent and intimidate political opponents. It’s exactly the kind of behaviour the Founding Fathers warned against. Judge Breyer called it what it was: illegal. Trump’s dictatorial aspirations need to be combated at every turn or this could slide into something far worse.