More photos from Artemis

The New Neo Posted on by

You can find them by clicking here. Once you get there, you can get information on each photo by clicking on the image.

My favorite:

The lunar surface fills the frame in sharp detail, as seen during the Artemis II lunar flyby, while a distant Earth sets in the background. This image was captured at 6:41 p.m. EDT, on April 6, 2026, just three minutes before the Orion spacecraft and its crew went behind the Moon and lost contact with Earth for 40 minutes before emerging on the other side. In this image, the dark portion of Earth is experiencing nighttime, while on its day side, swirling clouds are visible over the Australia and Oceania region. In the foreground, Ohm crater shows terraced edges and a relatively flat floor marked by central peaks — formed when the surface rebounded upward during the impact that created the crater.

Predicting Trump; predicting the Iran War

The New Neo Posted on by

It continually astounds me how many people make predictions about what will happen in Iran, when in many cases they don’t even seem to know what’s already happened. There’s an awful lot of garbage in and garbage out.

A tremendous amount of garbage, period.

If a person hates Trump already and thinks him a dangerous clown, of course that person will interpret everything that happens in the worst light. For the rest of us, there’s an acknowledgement that much has been accomplished already with a stunningly low casualty figure on our side, but the situation is inherently very tricky – and that Trump is well aware of that and is trying to navigate through the perils by using his considerable bobbing and weaving skills.

I keep saying I certainly don’t know what will happen. But hey, like so many, I think about it a lot. And I try to recognize patterns.

So here’s what I see:

World War II featured a great deal of bombings of civilian populations with huge death tolls. The culmination was Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which brought about the surrender of a heretofore implacable enemy. However – despite the rantings of Trump-haters on Twitter and the like – I don’t see Trump contemplating anything like that. He’d much rather make a deal of some sort. And besides, he doesn’t see the people of Iran as the enemy; au contraire. He threatened infrastructure, not the population – although the population would suffer from the bombing of power plants and the like.

Trump also has no intention of a long war, both temperamentally and because he reads the American people (correctly, I think) as no longer having any stomach for a long slog. However, I can’t say what his definition of “long” is, except that I doubt the war will last more than a couple more months. He will stop when he believes he’s gotten enough from it, although not everything. But he’ll remain willing to start the war again. Therefore I predict he will never promise Iran not to attack again if conditions warrant it, and especially he will not allow Iran to keep its enriched uranium (unless it’s buried so deep it’s unrecoverable, which I don’t believe).

The enriched uranium issue is paramount; it was the stated reason for the war, not regime change. I don’t know how it could be settled by negotiation, because the regime can’t be trusted. Perhaps we – or the Israelis – have some intelligence as to where it is and how much there is, and that would help in terms of either snatching it or negotiating a meaningful surrender.

Trump’s enemies – and they are legion – will sharply criticize and mock any solution to any of this. If there’s no regime change, they’ll say he failed. If there is regime change and it’s imperfect, they’ll say he failed. The bottom line is that they will never credit him, just as they haven’t credited him for what’s been accomplished. Nor will they acknowledge the extreme danger Iran has represented, and the perils of doing nothing.

Commenter “huxley” mentioned this commentary from General Keane:

–Fox News, “Gen Jack Keane: I don’t like this…”

Keane argues, persuasively IMO, that the Iranians are just playing for time as usual and hoping that after traffic flows in the Strait, Trump won’t have the stomach to keep pushing for the other demands:

* the enriched uranium
* guarantees that Iran won’t pursue nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles,
* not continue to foment violence with proxies

It will be harder, after a two-week ceasefire, to muster the energy to threaten the end of a civilization.

I’m not a general, but I disagree with those points. I don’t think Trump will give the first and second up. Those are his bottom lines. Those are why he went to war in the first place. If he can’t get some guarantee or substitute for a guarantee, it will be an obvious failure (as lack of regime change wouldn’t be, because even though he wanted it he made it clear that regime change was up to the Iranian people).

I also think that the Israelis might have some tricks up their sleeves regarding regime change.

But I don’t even know if the Iranians will keep their side of the present bargain – or even if the people “in charge” of Iran are the ones who made the bargain. Even as I write this, you can get conflicting reports on whether the Strait is open. For example, this is datelined just few minutes ago:

Iran is accusing Israel of violating the conditional ceasefire announced by President Trump by continuing its war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iranian media outlets say Tehran is suspending tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and considering pulling out of the deal with Washington over Israel’s actions.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said President Trump is aware of reports saying the strait has been closed, but said the reports “are false.”

And this, also very recent:

Since the ceasefire was announced, conflicting accounts have emerged over whether Lebanon is included in the agreement. Pakistan and Iran said the pause in fighting would extend to Lebanon. Israel and the White House have denied this.

The White House on Wednesday announced that Vice President JD Vance will be leading in-person peace talks in Pakistan this weekend. He will be joined by Middle East special envoy Steven Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, Leavitt said.

I’ve also read that Rubio will be involved. But I don’t think much of most of the coverage these days. I know I’d prefer Rubio to Vance, but perhaps both will be there.

Trump is neither crazy nor stupid. But there are times when he wants to be seen as crazy. I believe that’s what his threat this past weekend was all about. The point is to make the enemy struggle to predict what he will do – which means that we will have the same struggle.

The Iranian regime exploits our compassion for the Iranian people – a compassion the regime lacks

The New Neo Posted on by

[See UPDATE at end of post.]

So, what will happen in Iran – to Iran – this evening?

Trump has issued an ultimatum, threatening various things such as that “a whole civilization will die”:

Pakistan, which is an intermediary between the U.S. and Iran, asked for a two-week delay in escalating attacks on Iran.

President Donald Trump sharply ramped up his threats against Iran on Tuesday, warning “a whole civilization will die tonight” unless a deal is struck.

The White House will respond to Pakistan’s request, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.

The left is extremely incensed at Trump’s threat, putting out the unified message that he’s insane.

Current Islamophile Tucker Carlson says Trump’s going to nuke Iran (despite Carlson himself having advocated nuking Iran not so very long ago), and also says that Trump is trying to “eradicate” Christianity by rescuing the downed airman on Easter [Ace has corrected his report to say that Carlson’s assertion about Trump and Easter was due to Trump’s threatening tweet using the F-word on Easter]. Read those links; it’s so far gone it’s hard to believe – and even if 99% of Carlson’s audience is bots and foreign Muslims, what he’s saying is horrendous and it does also reach many people in the US although it’s impossible to say how many.

I kid you not about his message:

Desecrating Easter was the first step toward nuclear war. Christians need to understand where Trump is taking us.

What is this “civilization” of which Trump writes? Those who think Trump is insane – or want to make others think Trump is insane – think it’s the Iranian people, although that makes no sense. I assume it’s his usual hyperbole, and that he means the mullahtocracy that’s been in control of that country for nearly half a century. But he likes to keep people guessing and seem like a wild man; whether that will work to his benefit in this case I simply don’t know.

And no, it’s not a war crime to bomb bridges and power plants – although there’s no dearth of leftist “experts” who are willing to say it is.

As for the Iranian regime, it’s threatened to destroy the economy of the Gulf States and the economy of the world by holding the Strait of Hormuz hostage.The leaders, past and present (if there are any now) do not care if there’s a great deal of destruction. It is part of their religious belief that this is necessary for the coming of the Mahdi. They don’t mind how much their own people suffer, but they count on the US and Israel to spare the people and the most important infrastructure for the people.

And that’s why they have asked their young people to surround power plants to “protect” them:

Iranian officials on Tuesday urged their people to form human chains around power plants as the country faces a deadline set by President Trump to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or risk major strikes on civilian and energy infrastructure.

The regime called on “all young people, athletes, artists, students and university students and their professors” to protect power plants threatened by Trump, according to The Associated Press.

These are more or less the same groups of people the regime killed by the many thousands when they protested. It’s a win/win situation for the Iranian regime: either the US and Israel desist because of their own compassion for the people (a compassion the regime lacks), or the regime can claim war crimes if and when the people are killed by the US or Israel.

The West has stood for decades in an extremely difficult position regarding Iran: let them be, while they arm more and more and become more and more dangerous, until they feel strong enough to attack. Or attack them now, when the hour is already late in terms of their missiles and drones and uranium, and bear the criticism of the left and much of the world.

The Iranian regime are not Nazis. But they resemble them in at least two ways: hating Jews and wanting to destroy them, of course. And not caring about their own people in the end – in fact, in that respect, Hitler wanted to destroy his people as having been ultimately unworthy of the task he’d set for them. Ever hear of
Hitler’s Nero Decree?:

Even as the Third Reich he had once prophesied would last a thousand years crumbled all around him, Adolf Hitler desperately clung to his racist vision of the world. In March 1945, Allied forces poured over the Rhine River after the Americans captured the Ludendorff Bridge on March 7. On March 16, the German army’s last offensive of the war, Operation Spring Awakening in Hungary against the Red Army, collapsed. For the Führer the impending defeat proved that Germans were simply neither strong nor ruthless enough to do what was necessary to achieve victory. Deeming Germany a failure of a nation, Hitler prepared a decree that would seal the country’s collapse with catastrophic finality. …

… Speer reported the German economy could only hold out another four to eight weeks. That was the absolute limit for the Third Reich’s war effort. In the text, Speer went on to urge Hitler to concentrate on doing everything possible for the country’s population to ensure their survival.Unmoved, Hitler did not yield an inch. In Gitta Sereny’s biography of Speer, Hitler is quoted as responding, “it is not necessary to worry about their [the German people’s] needs for elemental survival.” He stunned his Armaments Minister, accustomed to the Führer’s fulminations against the “inferior” peoples of the Soviet Union, by declaring “the future belongs entirely to the strong people of the East.” On March 19, Hitler then promulgated a special decree titled “Destructive Measures on Reich Territory.” Otherwise remembered as the “Scorched Earth Decree” or “Nero Decree,” for the brutal Roman Emperor Nero (ruled 54-68 C.E.), the order mandated the destruction of Germany’s infrastructure. …

The order applied to all production, communication, and transportation facilities. Railroads, bridges, communication lines, docks, public utilities, factories and mines were to be demolished.

Speer didn’t carry it out, however. But the impulse was there.

I don’t predict that the mullahtocracy will do this to the Iranian people – although if they really feel they are defeated, I bet they wouldn’t mind in the least. Then again, to accomplish their goals, they need something short of utter destruction.

UPATE 7:05 PM:

I started out this post with a link to something that mentioned Pakistan’s suggestion of a 2-week ceasefire, and that Trump’s press secretary had said that the White House will respond to Pakistan’s request. Sure enough, this announcement just came out a few minutes ago:

The U.S. has agreed to a two-week ceasefire with Iran proposed by Pakistan, President Trump said Tuesday night.

The big picture: The Pakistani proposal, which came hours before Trump’s deadline to launch massive strikes if no deal was reached, involves a pause on Trump’s threat and a commitment from Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz for two weeks.

Fancy that. He got what he wanted – if they comply. And if they don’t, he can always carry out his threat.

I seem to recall that Trump’s art of the deal involves always being willing to walk away.

And I continue to wonder with whom these negotiations are happening – negotiations the regime initially denied were taking place.

How much money does Jeff Bezos need, anyway?

The New Neo Posted on by

Says Liz Warren (who’s got a fair amount of money herself, although she’s nowhere near Bezos territory):

What a brilliant, never-heard-of-before idea, Liz! And while we’re at it, could I have some of your eight million or so? I’d only take maybe two million, leaving you with about six – more than anyone really needs. I’ll put it to good use, and I don’t think you’d really miss it.

Here’s a takedown of Warren’ proposal, with some details.

Some of the responses to Warren’s tweet are pretty good, too, such as:

Just stop, we all know your scam.

Democrats raise taxes.
Money flows to NGOs packed with Democratic operatives.
Those operatives take their cut, write a check to Democratic campaigns
Report back that the problem still exists and needs more funding.

And

Bezos spends $15B, develops a space program, creates new technologies.

California spends $15B to build high speed rail, zero miles delivered.

You’re proposing to move capital from the best capital allocator to the worst, one rife with fraud and overspending.

Big blue marble

The New Neo Posted on by

Here are photos of earth taken from Artemis, and an explanation for why they are somewhat darker than previous space photos of earth:

The differences in color between the two photos stem from the settings used to take them, and where in space they were taken from.

NASA’s Flickr page, where the Artemis II crew’s photos live, shows the type of camera and the settings used to take the picture. Most of the settings are usual for taking photos, except for one. The ISO setting, which controls the camera’s sensitivity to light, is set to a staggering 51,200. For context, a common ISO setting for pictures taken on Earth is around 200.

The reason Wiseman had to use such a high ISO was that his spacecraft was on the opposite side of the Earth from the sun, meaning to the astronauts’ naked eyes, the Earth appeared much darker than it does in the photo. The sun is actually what’s causing the bright light on the bottom right of the Earth.

And here’s a post of mine from February of 2005, very early in my blogging career, on the subject of first seeing photos of earth from space:

I’m not so very old, but when I grew up and artists or scientists drew conceptual drawings of the earth from outer space, the globe was always pictured as just that–a globe like those spinning ones in school, tethered to their metal stands (only, of course, without the metal stands). No clouds at all. Despite the fact that we all should have known better–all we had to do was look up at the sky most days to see those voluminous clouds–no one did seem to know better.

I still remember the shock of seeing those first photos …

By now we’ve incorporated the clouds into our mental image of the earth. Here’s one of those early photos, though – the “Big Blue Marble” one:

And here’s my very favorite so far, the “Earthrise” photo taken in 1968:

If you’d like to see a history of photos taken of earth, please go here.

The Iranian regime says no to a ceasefire

The New Neo Posted on by

Is anyone on earth surprised at this refusal? I don’t see how they can agree to anything reasonable. They are apocalyptic fanatics who do not care what happens to their people and believe that chaos and destruction will usher in the Mahdi they’ve been waiting for. It’s not a recipe for successful negotiation.

Excerpt:

Iran has rejected the proposal for a temporary ceasefire with the United States, Iranian state news agency IRNA reported on Monday.

According to IRNA, Iran is demanding a complete end to the fighting in the region, along with a protocol to ensure safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran’s response conveyed to mediators consists of 10 clauses, the report noted. “The gaps are very significant,” a source familiar with the details told The Jerusalem Post.

US President Donald Trump has threatened to rain “hell” on Tehran if it did not make a deal by the end of Tuesday that would allow traffic to start moving again through the vital route for global energy supplies.

While answering reporter questions outside the White House on Monday, Trump said that the war could end “very quickly” if Iran went along with the deal, adding that the people the US is currently negotiating with were “reasonable and not as radicalized.” He stressed that the Tuesday deadline he has set for Iran to make a deal is final, adding that Iran’s proposal was significant but not good enough.

I suppose it really does depend on the identity of the negotiators. I wouldn’t trust any of them if they’re part of the current regime (and if they’re not, what power would they have to fulfill any promises?). Hard to say what’s going on, but Trump’s deadline is tomorrow night.

Iran’s bravado and defiance is probably sincere if they believe in their own Twelver eschatology. It also plays to the left, as well as other Muslim countries.

I plan to write a longer post on the subject tomorrow.

Jonathan Turley seems to agree with me on birthright citizenship and a constitutional amendment

The New Neo Posted on by

Specifically, on the need for a constitutional amendment to deal with the problem, if SCOTUS won’t:

Those words from Chief Justice John Roberts during this week’s oral arguments signaled that the conservative justices are unlikely to reject birthright citizenship. Of course, nothing is certain until this summer when the Court issues its opinion in Trump v. Barbara. However, we need to consider the need for a 28th Amendment to reaffirm the meaning of citizenship.

As some of us stressed before the oral argument, the odds were against the administration prevailing in the case, given more than a century of countervailing precedent. There are good-faith arguments against reading the 14th Amendment as supporting citizenship for any child born in this country. It is doubtful that the drafters of the 14th Amendment could have envisioned millions of births to illegal aliens. They surely did not imagine foreigners coming to this country for the purpose of giving birth — or even, without ever entering the U.S., contracting multiple U.S. residents to carry babies to term for them as surrogates.

The historical record is highly conflicted. Some drafters expressly denied that they intended for birthright citizenship to be covered by the 14th Amendment.

The final word actually rests with the public. We can amend the Constitution to join most of the world in barring birthright citizenship. There is no more important question in a republic than the definition of citizenship.

We are becoming a virtual mockery as we watch millions game the birthright citizenship system.

It seems quite obvious to me, and as far back as 2014 I’ve said an amendment on this would solve the problem – if it could be passed. I see that in June of 2025, Republican House of Representatives member Andy Barr introduced such an amendment:

If passed, Barr’s amendment would clarify the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s clause that persons must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States to be citizens.

Barr’s amendment would clarify that “a person born in the United States may only be considered ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is — (1) a national of the United States; (2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien with lawful status under the immigration laws performing active service in the armed forces.”

Nothing seems to have happened on that. No surprise there; it’s very difficult to pass an amendment (or an amendment to an amendment, which Barr’s proposal seems to involve?):

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval.

Good luck with that; I don’t see it happening. There aren’t many things on which two-thirds of Congress can agree, and this is not one of them, IMHO – although it should be.

More details of the airman rescue in Iran

The New Neo Posted on by

There’s a host of information out there, so much that it’s hard to pick and choose what to link to or embed here. But I think this one is good in terms of details of the operation. In addition, it goes into a tie-in-with Operation Eagle Claw, Carter’s failed hostage rescue effort from 1980 (I wrote about that sad fiasco in this previous post):

ADDENDUM: Another excellent take:

King Charles: defender of which faith?

The New Neo Posted on by

One of the many differences between the US and England is that the latter has a state religion: the Church of England, originally founded when King Henry VIII wanted to jettison his first marriage and wed Anne Boleyn. We all know how that second marriage worked out, but the Church itself triumphed for many years although attendance has been declining for quite a while.

The monarch is supposed to be very much involved, although it’s somewhat complicated:

Although the monarch’s authority over the Church of England is largely ceremonial and is mostly observed in a symbolic capacity, the position is still relevant to the established church. As the supreme governor, the monarch formally appoints high-ranking members of the church on the advice of the prime minister of the United Kingdom, who in turn acts on the advice of the Crown Nominations Commission. Since the Act of Settlement of 1701, all Supreme Governors have been members of the Church of England.

In addition, the monarch is known as the “defender of the faith”:

In common with his predecessors for almost 500 years, The King is known as Defender of the Faith. This is part of his full formal legal title and appears in many official items such as proclamations and Parliamentary Writs of Summons. …

The Church of England is known as the “Established Church”, meaning that it is established by law and has a unique relationship with the state, forged in the settlement developed in the time of Elizabeth I and subsequent reigns intended to calm the upheavals of the Reformation period.

At the coronation King Charles III, like every monarch since George I, takes a special oath to maintain “the settlement of the Church of England and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established”. He also undertook a separate oath at his Accession to uphold the security of the Church of Scotland.

And yet neither England nor Britain is a theocracy, and all religions are allowed and protected. In fact, Elizabeth II emphasized this:

At her Diamond Jubilee in 2012, Queen Elizabeth II delivered a landmark speech explaining the concept of the Established Church in a multi-faith society.

She said: “The concept of our Established Church is occasionally misunderstood and, I believe, commonly under-appreciated. Its role is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country.

But not all religions are equally tolerant of other religions, and many (not all, but many) Muslims would like Islam to become dominant. What’s a faith defender to do?

King Charles doesn’t seem to be doing a lot of defending of the Church of England or even of Christianity these days, and his failure to issue an Easter statement, combined with his issuance of a recent statement for Ramadan, has a lot of Christians worried:

Buckingham Palace previously confirmed that the king would not be giving an Easter message. The palace told GB News that an Easter message from the monarch is not an annual statement, like the Christmas message.

It is expected that Charles’s silence would upset some Christians as he wished Islamic practicing people a “blessed and happy Ramadan” on social media in February.

It’s actually not a royal tradition to always give an Easter message, although it often occurs. This year, I think the sharp contrast between the Ramadan message and the lack of an Easter message has caused the intensity of the problem, plus a widespread perception that King Charles isn’t a believing Christian and hasn’t been one for a long time (including rumors that he’s a secret Muslim).

This has prompted Anglican Bishop Ceirion H. Dewar to issue this open letter to King Charles. A few excerpts:

His Majesty, Charles III,

King of the United Kingdom and the Realms,

Supreme Governor of the Church of England,

Bearer of the ancient title Defender of the Faith. …

For more than a thousand years the Crown of this realm has stood in solemn covenant with the Christian faith.

The laws of this land were shaped by it.

The liberties of our people were nurtured by it.

The conscience of our civilisation was formed by it. …

Yet today that inheritance is being quietly but deliberately eroded. Across the institutions of this nation there is a growing hostility toward the faith that built them.

Christian belief is mocked in the public square. Christian morality is dismissed as intolerance. Christian institutions are pressured to surrender doctrine in order to conform to the ideology of the age.

Within the very Church that bears the name of England, voices have arisen that appear more eager to mirror the spirit of the age than to proclaim the eternal truth of the Gospel. …

The Sovereign of this realm bears a title that is not merely historic but sacred in its origin and meaning: Defender of the Faith. Those words are not decorative. They are a charge.

They speak of a monarch whose duty is not merely to preside over the ceremonies of the Church, but to stand as a guardian of the Christian inheritance of the nation.

Yet many among your subjects now ask, with increasing anxiety: “Who will defend that inheritance today?” …

Your Majesty, may I be so bold as to observe that your coronation oath was not a poetic formality. It was a solemn vow made before Almighty God to maintain and preserve the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law.

Those words bind the conscience of the sovereign. They remind the Crown that its authority is not merely constitutional but moral. The monarch is not merely a symbol of national continuity, but a custodian of the spiritual inheritance that shaped this realm. …

The issue before us is not nostalgia. It is civilisation.

[NOTE: Please see also this post of mine on the decline of Christianity in Europe.]