Author. Recovering attorney. Writes espionage fiction & nonfiction w/50-yr veteran field spook. SPYCRAFT & APEX PREDATOR Series. Tweets NatSec, Writing, Humor.
Everywhere/Nowhere
Joined October 2010
- Tweets59.6K
- Following8K
- Followers9.3K
- Likes77.8K
Pinned Tweet
Jay Holmes, my writing partner & 50-yr veteran of military and intelligence operations, states the following: :
"Iran was days away from completing a viable nuclear weapon. Israel did a job on Iranian nuclear sites, but they will have to keep the pressure on or Iran could deliver a dirty bomb.
"If Iran detonates a dirty bomb over Tel Aviv, Gaza and Lebanon will likely be impacted, as well. The Mullahs could not care less how many Muslims they kill. The Mullahs will say the dead were honored to be martyrs for the cause."
Fantastic! I'll be the first in line.
Today, @anduriltech and @qualcomm announced a new laptop that will eventually be 100% made in America, a “first step” toward creating a market for U.S.-manufactured components and total technological self-sufficiency.
Building computers in America should be a matter of “national pride,” says @PalmerLuckey.
@JonasYDu reports 👇
Piper Bayard retweeted
My family has a cute tradition every Columbus day where we also go to the Bahamas instead of where my boss sent me then move into somebody else's house.
Piper Bayard retweeted
BREAKING: Hidden camera captures Minnesota poll workers confirming alleged foreign terror organization members can vote if vouched for.
We put Minnesota’s voter “vouching” system to an extreme test by asking if it was okay to vouch for alleged Hamas militants who had recently come to America from the Gaza Strip.
An election worker said, “You can vouch for up to 8 people,” and added, “If you’re vouching for them, they wouldn’t need to show anything,” referring to the alleged Hamas members we asked about registering to vote.
We were also told that the person doing the vouching “is the documentation.”
Minnesota Secretary of State @MNSteveSimon continues to claim the vouching system is safe and secure. Our investigation shows the opposite.
We are calling for a formal audit of Minnesota’s voter vouching system.
This report was produced in partnership with @ctznjusticelg
Piper Bayard retweeted
How to Stop a Lab Leak From Starting the Next Pandemic
“Conversations about gain-of-function research have become so politicized that calls for greater oversight are painted as attacks on science itself. But nothing would cost science more than another pandemic traced to a laboratory or merely suspected of coming from one.”
nytimes.com/interactive/2026…
Piper Bayard retweeted
A woman from my building named Carla invited me to a honky tonk on a Thursday. She said there would be dancing.
I expected a celebration. What I found was a war.
Forty people stood in lines on a wooden floor, all facing the same direction, and when the music started, they moved as one body. Step, turn, stomp, turn. No one led them. No one counted. Every boot in the building knew the way.
Inside I said: IT IS A KATA. THE WHOLE BAR KNOWS THE KATA. THIS COUNTRY HAS BEEN HIDING KATA FROM ME.
I entered the formation like a spy. This was an error. The kata has a betrayal in it: every sixteen steps, the entire formation turns to face a new wall. I was not informed. I found myself face to face with a large man in a hat, alone, while forty people faced the other way.
The large man did not laugh. He turned me around by the shoulders, the way you turn a lost child, and said, "Just follow Boots."
"Who is Boots?"
He pointed at the woman in front of me. Her boots were red. I followed Boots.
I counted the steps out loud, in Japanese, with great intensity. Carla told me to stop. "Feel it," she said. I am a samurai. I do not feel formations. I learn them.
And then, in the second hour, something happened that I can report but not explain. The counting stopped. The music came in through my boots. I turned when the line turned. I stomped when the line stomped. For three minutes and forty seconds, I was not a foreigner. I was the third boot from the left.
When the song ended, the whole floor whooped. The large man clapped me on the back. His name is Tiny. I did not ask.
"Thursday," Tiny said. "Same time."
It was not an invitation. It was a muster.
There is one kata called the Electric Slide that I have not mastered. It contains a move called the grapevine. My grapevine is dishonest. I practice it in my kitchen at night. The lamp judges me.
I have been back every Thursday. I know four katas now. The other dancers do not know I am a samurai. They think I am a quiet man who is serious about dancing.
They are not wrong.
Piper Bayard retweeted
I wrote this because we need to start asking a simple question: Who is funding Islam in America—and why?
From a $20M mosque in Dearborn Heights funded largely by Iraq to billions flowing from Qatar, foreign influence is hiding in plain sight.
A $20M, 60,000-sq-ft mosque just opened in Dearborn Heights — largely funded by the Iraqi government. Qatar has funneled billions into U.S. universities and mosques, often bypassing FARA disclosure requirements.
@Ayaan asks who's really funding America's fastest-growing network of mega-mosques, and why.
URL: ayaan.restoringthewest.com/r…
#RestoringTheWest #ForeignInfluence #NationalSecurity
Piper Bayard retweeted
If you’re not following this account of a Japanese man abroad in America, you should be.
I needed to move a sofa.
I mentioned this to an American. He said, "You know anybody with a truck?"
I did not know anybody with a truck.
He looked at me with real concern. Not pity. Concern. The way you look at a man who has told you he does not have a name.
"You gotta know somebody with a truck."
I asked how one acquires such a person.
He said, "You just do."
This is the third time I have received that answer in this country. It is the answer to everything here. You just do. There is no process. There is only the eventual fact of having.
He said, "Ask Kevin."
I do not know a Kevin. He said Kevin like I should. He said it the way you say a shared uncle.
I met Kevin four days later. Kevin owns a truck. Kevin does not own a truck for himself. Nobody owns a truck for themselves. Kevin owns a truck for a fifteen mile radius.
Inside I said: THIS MAN HAS TAKEN A VOW. HE DID NOT ANNOUNCE IT. HE SIMPLY PURCHASED A BED AND ACCEPTED THE CONSEQUENCES.
Kevin arrived on Saturday. He brought the truck. He also brought a second man.
I had not asked for a second man.
The second man's name is Tony. Tony came because Kevin came. Tony did not know me. Tony did not ask what we were moving. Tony brought gloves.
They moved the sofa in eleven minutes.
I offered them money. Both of them laughed at the same time, which felt rehearsed and was not.
I asked what I owed them.
Kevin said, "Buy the pizza."
That is the price. That is the entire economy. The truck costs one pizza and the pizza is not negotiable and the pizza is also not expensive and everyone knows what size.
Inside I said: THE FEE IS FIXED ACROSS THE ENTIRE NATION AND WAS SET BY NO ONE.
We ate on the floor because the sofa was against the wall and none of us wanted to be the first to sit on it.
Tony told me his daughter plays soccer. I asked if she is good. He said, "She's aggressive."
I still think about that.
Three weeks later, Kevin texted me.
"You free Sunday? Helping Tony move a fridge."
He did not ask if I wanted to. He informed me of a fridge.
Inside I said: I HAVE BEEN CALLED UP. I DID NOT ENLIST. THE PAPERS WERE FILED ON MY BEHALF.
I went. I moved the fridge. I have no truck. I contributed only arms.
Afterward, a man I had never met asked me if I knew anybody with a truck.
I said, "Yeah, I got a guy."
I have a guy.
I am somebody's guy now, too. Tony has told two people about me.
He describes me as "the guy who's strong for his size."
I have never been prouder of a sentence in my life.
Piper Bayard retweeted
Not the way I planned on spending my afternoon, but 7,600 comments should not be ignored! Bots, trolls and personal attacks notwithstanding, the critics of yesterday’s post were dominated by a large and vocal contingent who rushed to remind me that there’s “a difference between socialism and communism,” an obvious indication that they didn’t actually read the post.
Shelley Armour writes… “Mike! You know there is a difference between democratic socialism and communism, right?”
Hi, Shelley. Yes, I know there’s a difference, and I understand what the difference is. The larger point, and the fundamental flaw with your comment, is that you seem to believe the candidates within the Democratic Socialist Party are both “democratic and socialist" simply because that’s the name of their club. Well, maybe some of them are. I really couldn’t say. What I can tell you for sure is that more than a few have called for the complete dismantling of capitalism, free markets, representative government, property rights, borders, police, prisons, and the Constitution in general. My post referred to them, as well as a number of elected Democrats who have agreed to campaign on their behalf – including Gavin Newsom, who said, "The Democratic Party must accept the DSA in order to take back the Congress.” His words, not mine.
Tracey Steele writes…“Wow! I cannot believe Mike Rowe said this. He has a huge reach, and he is actually spouting the word “communism” like it’s the 1950s! Wow Wow Wow!”
Wow indeed, Tracey, and thanks for noticing the size of my reach! (Contrary to popular belief, size does matter!) To say it again, I am not the one “spouting” communism or conflating socialists and communists. The word is being “spouted” by members of the DSA who are using it to describe themselves. I am not accusing them; I am quoting them.
John Engles… Hey Rowe, what’s the difference between the Communists who want to run the country and the Nazi/fascist who currently is?
Several differences, John, but the only one relevant to this conversation is the fact that the communists currently running for office have clearly identified themselves as such. They do not dispute or reject the label. They embrace it. It is who they are, who they claim to be, and who they want to be. The president, on the other hand, has never claimed to be a Nazi or a fascist. That doesn’t mean he isn't, but it is worth noting he has rejected the accusation outright. Obviously, you are entitled to that opinion and the right to share it publicly, thanks to our Constitution. Unlike in a fascist, Nazi, or communist regime. (Also worth noting, Nazis and fascists are not the same thing.)
Chris Tomaloff writes… “Kinda like how the political right didn’t shout down the extreme rhetoric coming from their candidates?”
No, Chris, not like that at all. In the video I shared, we saw examples of prominent Democrats saying things like, “We need to elect more communists!” (Cea Weaver, Director of the NYC Mayor’s Office.) Mamdani himself literally tweeted, "Each according to their need, each according to their ability." That’s a direct quote from the Communist Manifesto.
But what exactly is the corollary from the right? Are prominent Republicans tweeting, “We need to elect more Nazis! We need to elect more fascists! Eat the poor!” I don’t think so. John Engles may think Trump is fascist and a Nazi, but Trump disagrees, and so do a majority of voters. Communists, on the other hand, say it loud and say it proud. I’m inclined to take them at their word.
Beto Ojeda… “Mike has always leaned to the Trumpian view of things but never states it, so as not to alienate anyone, but we know how to read between the lines. This “communist” talk is McCarthyism 2.0.”
I wasn’t around in the 1950s, Beto, but from what I’ve read, it was indeed a very difficult time to be a communist in this country. Lots of private citizens were dragged before Congress, made to take “loyalty oaths," and blacklisted in their places of work. I can’t justify it or condone it, but I can explain it. We had just fought a hot war against fascism and Nazism and just begun a Cold War against a communist regime. The existence of an organized Communist Party in this country at such a time strained the limits of tolerance. But do you really think we’re less tolerant today than we were seventy-five years ago? Do you really believe my comments about communists who claim to be communists are synonymous with another Red Scare? If you haven’t noticed, Chris, no one in the DSA, including the communists, is being dragged before Congress and made to swear a loyalty oath to the Constitution. Today, a communist in America can run for office…with the endorsement of the governor of California! And the tacit approval of a major political party! Seems to me we’re about as far from McCarthyism as we can get.
As for my desire not to alienate anyone, I suppose I am guilty of that. I run a foundation that is open to people of all political beliefs, and we’ve assisted lots of Americans who lean to the left. I also know for a fact that many Democrats have supported mikeroweWORKS historically, and I have no desire to run them off. But do you really have to “read between the lines” to understand where I’m coming from?
True, I’ve never endorsed a candidate or publicly encouraged people to vote. But I’ve been very transparent about the fact that I’m a registered Independent who favors policies and programs that often align with conservative principles. Obviously, I would not characterize those conservative principles as “Trumpian,” because a) they were around long before him, b) Trump is not a conservative, and c) I do not agree with or support everything the President says and does. So, is it possible, Beto, that your accusation is rooted in the fact that I have never publicly denounced the president to your satisfaction? Is it possible you think I'm a Trumper, simply because I've never called him a fascist, or a Nazi, or a liar, or a conman, or a traitor, or whatever else you believe him to be?
Gretchen Seipp… Mike, the fact that you still act as though you’re not political after all this time is a bit ridiculous. I still support your work and foundation because I believe in it, but the folksy act has worn thin.
Aw, shucks, Gretchen. Folksy? Lil' ole me?
Honestly, how am I acting as if I am “not political?” This entire conversation is the very definition of “political.”
Christopher Pugh… I would have voted for Mike Rowe and Freddie a few years ago before he went full-on MAGA, and I’m all in favor of his project, but it’s pretty clear the political direction that he’s moved in and the money trail that has influenced it.
It’s Freddy, not Freddie. (I don’t much care, but he’s a terrier and particular about such things.) As for the “full-on MAGA” moniker, is there something I did specifically to earn that designation? Is there some kind of general definition you can share? Or, are you coming from the same place as Beto? Is calling me “Full-On MAGA" your way of saying that I’ve failed to condemn Trump to your satisfaction?
For the record, MRW is supported by liberals and conservatives alike. I have no idea what “money trail” you are referring to. Also, regarding my personal politics, think about the implications of what I wrote. I said that the Democrats have been given a gift – an opportunity to appear reasonable by speaking the truth to their own party, just as Bill Maher has done. All they have to do is distance themselves from candidates who have called for the complete dismantlement of our Constitution. All they have to do is say, “Hold on, comrade. Our tent is not that big. We respect your right to hate America, but we don’t want you in our party, and we will not support your candidacy.”
If they say that, I think a lot of Independents would see them as they see John Fetterman, who has, in the eyes of many voters, become the most “rational” Democrat currently in office. If they don’t – if they actually welcome communist candidates into their party – then I’m afraid the Democrats, by default, will offer the American people a very simple choice in November – a party that disavows communism vs. a party that doesn’t. I think such a choice would be very positive for Republicans because I don’t think most Americans want to align themselves with a Democratic Party that welcomes communists. The question for you, Chris, is why would a “Full-On MAGA” like me encourage Democrats to act in a way that would disadvantage the Republican Party? And the answer is simple – it’s because I support the existence of a Democratic Party that believes America is still a fundamentally good place.
I think there’s a lot of room for improvement in our country, and I believe the best way to realize those improvements is for Democrats and Republicans to have continuous, robust and public debate about all the issues. But if one of those parties is affirmatively determined to transform our democratic republic into a communist state, then we’re no longer debating the various ways to make our country better; we’re debating the merits of destroying it. And really, what’s the point of tolerating that?
America is already a big tent, filled with hundreds of millions of people with wildly differing views and lots of political parties that represent those views. We’ve got the Green Party, the American Freedom Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the Constitution Party, and of course, the Communist Party USA, as well as the Democratic Socialist Party. America’s tent is so big, we can even tolerate fringe parties like the KKK, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and so forth. Why then, does Gavin Newsom want to make room in the Democratic tent for socialists and communists? There’s only one reason, and he’s already spelled it out for us – he believes the Democrats need them to win back the Congress. I think it’s a bad bet for the Democrats and for America. And if a prominent Republican reached out to the KKK with the same “big tent” offer, you’d better believe my vote would be in play.
Michael Tillman… When are you going to throw your hat into the ring, Mr. Rowe?
Ha! When it no longer fits my head!
Piper Bayard retweeted
Breaking News: Belgian Malinois disqualifies human after catching him cheating mid-challenge. 😂🐶
Piper Bayard retweeted
Also, to Roger Sherman. ☕️
A shoemaker with no formal education became the only person in history to sign all four founding documents of the United States. And the structure of Congress you live under today? He's the reason it exists. Meet Roger Sherman, the most important Founder almost nobody talks about.
Sherman's start could not have been humbler. Born in 1721, he grew up working with his hands. He was a cordwainer, a shoemaker, cutting and stitching leather for a living. There's a story of him working at his cobbler's bench with a book propped open in front of him, reading while he worked. He had almost no schooling. What he had was his late father's books, a sharp mind, and a bottomless hunger to learn.
So he taught himself. Everything. He became a surveyor, then he taught himself law with no formal training at all and passed the bar in 1754. A self-made shoemaker turned lawyer.
Then he just kept showing up at every single hinge point of American history.
He was one of the Committee of Five, the small group chosen to draft the Declaration of Independence, sitting alongside Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. And here's the record no one else can claim. Roger Sherman is the only person who signed all four of the great state papers of the founding: the Continental Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution. Nobody else signed all four. Just him.
But his single biggest contribution came at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, and you feel it every day whether you know it or not. The convention was about to collapse. Big states wanted representation based on population. Small states wanted every state equal. Neither side would budge, and the whole country nearly died in the crib right there.
Sherman proposed the fix. What if you did both? One chamber, the House, based on population. Another chamber, the Senate, where every state gets equal say. That idea, the Great Compromise, broke the deadlock and saved the Constitution. The two houses of Congress exist in that exact form today because a self-taught shoemaker talked everyone off the ledge.
Thomas Jefferson pointed him out to a visitor and said he was "a man who never said a foolish thing in his life." John Adams called him one of the strongest pillars of the whole Revolution.
He served his country right up until he died in 1793.
A poor shoemaker who read at his workbench, taught himself law, signed everything that mattered, and quietly designed the shape of American government itself.
Roger Sherman. The quiet genius who built the machine we still run on.
Piper Bayard retweeted
One of the richest men in all of America signed the Declaration of Independence knowing it could cost him everything. Then he left home to serve, died far away in a borrowed town, and never came back. Meet Philip Livingston.
This guy was not a scrappy underdog. Just the opposite. He was born in 1716 into the Livingston family, one of the wealthiest, most powerful dynasties in colonial New York. Manor lands, a Yale education, and a shipping empire he built into one of the biggest merchant fortunes in New York City. He had everything the British system was designed to reward.
And he spent that fortune building things that still exist. He helped found King's College, which you know today as Columbia University. He helped start the New York Society Library. He helped create the New York Chamber of Commerce. The man was basically constructing the civic backbone of New York with his own money and time.
Here's the thing though. He was not some hothead revolutionary. He actually feared independence. He worried it would bring chaos and disorder, and he was cautious about the whole idea for a long time. This wasn't a man itching to burn it all down.
But when New York finally gave its delegates the go-ahead, Livingston signed. He put the name of one of the great fortunes in America onto a document the crown treated as treason. A rich man betting his wealth against the empire that made him rich.
And the war came straight for him. When the British took New York, they seized and used his properties. He started selling off his holdings to help fund the fight, watching the empire he'd defied pick apart the life he'd built.
Then comes the ending that gets me. His health was failing, and he knew it. Congress had been driven out of Philadelphia and was meeting in the small town of York, Pennsylvania. Livingston could have gone home to rest. Instead he told his family he probably wouldn't see them again, and he went to York to keep serving anyway.
He died there in June 1778, in the middle of a session of Congress, far from home. He's buried in York, Pennsylvania to this day. He never made it back to the New York he spent his whole life building.
A man who had every reason to stay comfortable and loyal, who gave his fortune and his final months to a country he wasn't even sure would work.
Philip Livingston. He died at his post, a long way from home.
