Skip navigation

Tag Archives: Posting From Others

Some Trump Supporters Are Finally Giving Black Folks Credit for This Most Obvious Reason…


Story by Phenix S Halley

Some Trump Supporters Are Finally Giving Black Folks Credit for This Most Obvious Reason…

In only seven months into President Donald Trump’s second term, public opinion is already starting to shift.

Between his own supporters turning their backs on Trump to American judges blocking questionable policies, it appears to be getting more difficult for Americans to support the president. Now Trump’s core demographic is starting to stray away too, and they’re speaking out about it.

Many white Americans are admitting what many have historically denied: Black people were right! One white man took to Instagram to explain what most Black people have known practically since the beginning of time.

“I never thought I would say this,” Matthew Pridgen began in a video. “We are beginning to see some good come out of the Trump presidency. What’s happening is people are waking up to the understanding of the American empire.” But just as Pridgen went on the say, Black Americans have been warning white folks about this since before November.

Since the peak of chattel slavery in the 19th century, Black folks have been outspoken about the federal government’s constant attacks on Black, brown and other minority communities. That’s why Black folks advocated for civil rights and for all people during the ’50s and ’60s. That’s also why Black folks were largely against Trump’s election… both times.

“Look at how similar the ICE raids are to the war on drugs,” Pridgen continued referring to the government’s tactical attack on Black communities during the ’80s and ’90s. “It’s the same tactic because it’s the same empire,” he added. “What Trump has done is he’s just shifted the target from the Black community to the Hispanic community because we needed a new enemy.”

White folks wouldn’t be the first to finally give credit to Black Americans. In fact, after Trump began his deportation mandate, many in the Latinx community admitted that they regret voting for Trump. As we previously reported, More than 50 percent of Latinx people voted for the Republican in November. White folks made up a whopping 57 percent of Trump voters too. But since the president has stepped back into the White House, many are beginning to see the light.

“Black people have been sounding the alarm bells. But Americans have just told them to comply with Police orders,” @barium_cobalt_nitrogen responded. According to a poll reported by Newsweek, only 11 percent of Black Americans approve of the current administration.

“We Are Finally Seeing What the Black Community Has ALWAYS Seen,” Pridgen added to the caption. Although many white people remain avid supports of Trump and his administration, others online are crediting Black folks for opening their eyes.

Other users like @colberpl1212 wrote, “Yep – always check Morality over Legality.” She added that examples such as Jim Crow laws were legal but “morally wrong.”

“Apartheid [was] Legal but Morally wrong; Segregation in schools [was] Legal but Morally wrong and Slavery [was] Legal but Morally wrong,” she continued, adding that Black people “have know[n] this for CENTURIES!!! Always check what is morally right first!”

Another user, @mouthofthesouth007 on TikTok declared, “It will be Black women who save us… AGAIN!! The most highly educated group in the US! Wait for it…. And IM HERE FOR IT. ALLLLL OF IT.”

Despite some white Americans sounding the alarms against Trump, the majority of folks are either keeping silent or condoning his actions. Time will tell just how much farther Trump can go before his core voter demographic switches up completely.

Charlamagne Tha God Responds To Trump, Calls Out His “Authoritarian Strategy,”


 But Adds, “I’m Rooting For You, But I Need You Focused”

Ted Johnson

Mon, August 4, 2025 at 8:58 AM CDT

Charlamagne tha God responded on Monday to Donald Trump’s attack on him, calling out the administration’s “authoritarian strategy” while reiterating that the president has failed to focus on what he promised during the campaign.

The Breakfast Club co-host appeared on Lara Trump’s Fox News show on Saturday, telling the president’s daughter-in-law that he thinks traditional conservatives would “take the Republican party back,” while pointing to Trump’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case.

“They know this is the issue that has gotten the base riled up. The MAGA base isn’t letting this issue go, and for the first time, they know they can probably take their party back and not piss off the MAGA base,” Charlamagne said on the show.

That set the president off. In a lengthy Truth Social post, Trump responded by calling Charlamagne “a low IQ individual” and a “racist sleazebag.”

On his show on Monday, Charlamagne went through each of the points that Trump made in his Truth Social post.

He noted that “sleazebag” meant “a disgusting or despicable person.”

“Depending on who you ask, that may apply to me,” Charlamagne quipped. “Okay, I personally prefer friendly neighborhood a-hole.”

“He said, ‘I’m a low IQ individual.’ I don’t know. I’ve never taken an IQ test. He said I have no idea what words are coming out of my mouth. Absolutely true. Okay, I’ve been surprising myself my whole life, like, damn, ‘I actually said that.’”

Charlamagne then went to other claims in Trump’s Truth Social post, challenging the president’s contention that he ended five wars, as well as his claim that the U.S. strikes on Iran had wiped out its nuclear capabilities.

As for Trump’s claim that he had closed the border, Charlamagne said, “You have definitely made the border harder to cross, but saying it’s closed is false and ignores everyone coming over seeking legal asylum. By the way, I want border security. I just want you to keep your promise of deporting illegals and criminals. But since Homeland Security started to work to deport more people, immigrants with legal status or no criminal history are being detained and deported too. That’s not right.”

Charlamagne then went on to dispute Trump’s claim that he has created the “greatest economy, where prices and inflation have come way down.” He pointed to Trump’s response to a weak jobs report on Friday, in which the president fired the head of the agency responsible for gathering the economic figures.

“We are in a strange time right now, a time we have never seen because authoritarian strategy is being used against anyone who speaks out against this administration,” Charlamagne said. “We saw what happened Friday, President Trump orders the firing of labor statistic chief, after data shows unemployment rates are higher. I don’t know if you know President Trump, but by firing this woman, you added to the unemployment rate. But that, along with his reaction to what I said on Lara Trump, shows how authoritarians will attempt to bully people into pushing false narratives.”

He also noted that on Lara Trump’s show, he didn’t mention race once, but Trump still called him a “racist.”

Trump, Charlamagne noted on Monday, “issued an executive order directing oversight of institutions like the Smithsonian, to remove suppress narratives about systemic racism in black history. They want to reframe cultural memory to eliminate discussions of historical racial injustice that, along with the termination of diversity and civil rights programs, are considered very racist by a lot of civil rights advocates. I didn’t even bring that up [on Lara Trump’s show], okay? I was just talking to your base, letting your base know that you haven’t kept the promises you made in regards to the economy. In fact, you’ve made things worse.”

He noted Trump’s enlistment of Elon Musk to make widespread cuts across the federal government, leading to the firing of federal workers.

“President Trump, now you’re doing exactly what the Biden administration did, trying to convince America the economy is all good when it’s not — maybe for people in a certain tax bracket, but for majority of your constituents who aren’t in the 1% it’s not all good,” he said. “So you can hire a new labor statistics chief to lie about the numbers. It won’t stop the reality of people being unemployed. You can tell falsehoods about inflation being down. It won’t stop the reality of the price of consumer goods being high because of tariffs you implemented.”

Charlamagne finished by saying, “I don’t care who’s in the White House. I want America to succeed. Believe it or not, I’m rooting for you, but I need you focused. And right now you’re not focused.”

“I need you to keep the promises of a great economy and the promises of transparency with the Epstein files. And I don’t want us as a people to be distracted.”

The Mystery of the Strong Economy Has Finally Been Solved


The Atlantic

Story by Rogé Karma • 14h • 5 min read

The Trump economy doesn’t look so hot after all. This morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released revised data showing that, over the past three months, the U.S. labor market experienced its worst quarter since 2010, other than during the first year of the coronavirus pandemic. The timing was awkward. Hours earlier, President Donald Trump had announced a huge new slate of tariffs, set to take effect next week. He’d been emboldened by the fact that the economy had remained strong until now despite economists’ warnings—a fact that turned out not to be a fact at all.

After Trump announced his first sweeping round of “Liberation Day” tariffs, in April, the country appeared to be on the verge of economic catastrophe. The stock market plunged, the bond market nearly melted down, expectations of future inflation skyrocketed, and experts predicted a recession.

But the crisis never came. Trump walked back or delayed his most extreme threats, and those that he kept didn’t seem to inflict much economic damage. Month after month, economists predicted that evidence of the negative impact of tariffs in the economic data was just around the corner. Instead, according to the available numbers, inflation remained stable, job growth remained strong, and the stock market set new records.

The Trump administration took the opportunity to run a victory lap. “Lots of folks predicted that it would end the world; there would be some sort of disastrous outcome,” Stephen Miran, the chair of Trump’s council of economic advisers, said of Trump’s tariffs in an interview with ABC News early last month. “And once again, tariff revenue is pouring in. There’s no sign of any economically significant inflation whatsoever, and job creation remains healthy.” A July 9 White House press release declared, “President Trump was right (again),” touting strong jobs numbers and mild inflation. “President Trump is overseeing another economic boom,” it concluded.

The seemingly strong data spurred soul-searching among journalists and economists. “The Economy Seems Healthy. Were the Warnings About Tariffs Overblown?” read a representative New York Times headline. Commentators scrambled to explain how the experts could have gotten things so wrong. Maybe it was because companies had stocked up on imported goods before the tariffs had come into effect; maybe the economy was simply so strong that it was impervious to Trump’s machinations; maybe economists were suffering from “tariff derangement syndrome.” Either way, the possibility that Trump had been right, and the economists wrong, had to be taken seriously.

The sky’s refusal to fall likely influenced the Trump administration’s decision to press ahead with more tariffs. In recent months, Trump has imposed 25 percent tariffs on car parts and 50 percent tariffs on copper, steel, and aluminum. He has threatened 200 percent tariffs on pharmaceuticals. Over the past week, Trump announced trade deals under which the European Union, Japan, and South Korea agreed to accept a 15 percent tariff on exports to the United States. Finally, this morning, he announced a sweeping set of new tariffs, a sort of Liberation Day redux, including a 39 percent levy on Switzerland, 25 percent on India, and 20 percent on Vietnam. These are scheduled to take effect on August 7 unless those countries can negotiate a deal.

Then came the new economic data. This morning, the BLS released its monthly jobs report, showing that the economy added just 73,000 new jobs last month—well below the 104,000 that forecasters had expected—and that unemployment rose slightly, to 4.2 percent. More important, the new report showed that jobs numbers for the previous two months had been revised down considerably after the agency received a more complete set of responses from the businesses it surveys monthly. What had been reported as a strong two-month gain of 291,000 jobs was revised down to a paltry 33,000. What had once looked like a massive jobs boom ended up being a historically weak quarter of growth. 

Even that might be too rosy a picture. All the net gains of the past three months came from a single sector, health care, without which the labor market would have lost nearly 100,000 jobs. That’s concerning because health care is one of the few sectors that is mostly insulated from broader economic conditions: People always need it, even during bad times. (The manufacturing sector, which tariffs are supposed to be boosting, has shed jobs for three straight months.) Moreover, the new numbers followed an inflation report released by the Commerce Department yesterday that found that the Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of price growth had picked up in June and remained well above the central bank’s 2 percent target. (The prior month’s inflation report was also revised upward to show a slight increase in May.) Economic growth and consumer spending also turned out to have fallen considerably compared with the first half of 2024. Taken together, these economic reports are consistent with the stagflationary environment that economists were predicting a few months ago: mediocre growth, a weakening labor market, and rising prices.

The striking thing about these trends is how heavily they diverge from how the economy was projected to perform before Trump took office. As the economist Jason Furman recently pointed out, the actual economic growth rate in the first six months of 2025 was barely more than half what the Bureau of Economic Analysis had projected in November 2024, while core inflation came in at about a third higher than projections.

The worst might be yet to come. Many companies did in fact stock up on imported goods before the tariffs kicked in; others have been eating the cost of tariffs to avoid raising prices in the hopes that the duties would soon go away. Now that tariffs seem to be here to stay, more and more companies will likely be forced to either raise prices or slash their costs—including labor costs. A return to the 1970s-style combination of rising inflation and unemployment is looking a lot more likely.

The Trump administration has found itself caught between deflecting blame for the weak economic numbers and denying the numbers’ validity. In an interview with CNN this morning, Miran admitted that the new jobs report “isn’t ideal” but went on to attribute it to various “anomalous factors,” including data quirks and reduced immigration. (Someone should ask Miran why immigration is down.) And this afternoon, Trump posted a rant on Truth Social accusing the BLS commissioner of cooking the books to make him look bad. “I have directed my Team to fire this Biden Political Appointee, IMMEDIATELY,” he wrote. “She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified.” He then went on to argue, not for the first time, that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell should be fired for hamstringing the economy with high interest rates. These defenses are, of course, mutually exclusive: If the bad numbers are fake, why should Trump be mad at Powell?

In these confused denials, one detects a shade of desperation on Trump’s part. Of course, everything could end up being fine. Maybe economists will be wrong, and the economy will rebound with newfound strength in the second half of the year. But that’s looking like a far worse bet than it did just 24 hours ago.

Sen. Jon Ossoff: “Yes, This System Really Is Rigged — But Trump Is Not Unrigging It, He Is Re-Rigging It For Himself”


Real Clear Politics

“So Trump promised to attack a broken system. I get it; it’s a ripe target,” Ossoff said. “Yes, this system really is rigged, but Trump is not unrigging it. He is re-rigging it for himself.”

And it is worse than ever now. Citizens United was the worst court decision in modern American history. And when members of Congress aren’t begging for money from lobbyists, they’re trying to dodge getting carpet bombed by these super PACs. Senators get threatened every day with millions and millions of dollars of attack ads over the votes that we take.

SEN. JON OSSOFF: I get why people voted for him. Because even before he came on the scene, America had the most corrupt political system in the Western world. It’s been running on corporate money, secret money, billionaire money, on both sides.

And see, this is why nothing works for ordinary people. It’s not because of woke college kids or trans students, because there are interracial couples in cereal commercials. It’s because the people’s elected representatives don’t represent the people; they represent the donors.

And that corruption is why they just defunded nursing homes to cut taxes for the rich. Corruption is why you pay a fortune for prescriptions. Corruption is why your insurance claim keeps getting denied. Corruption is why hedge funds get to buy up all the houses in your neighborhood, driving you out of the market, and then your corporate landlord ignores your calls during a gas leak. Corruption is why that ambulance costs $3,000 after you just had to get your choking toddler to the hospital.

So Trump promised to attack a broken system. I get it; it’s a ripe target. But here’s the thing: he is a crook and a con man, and he wants to be king. Yes, this system really is rigged, but Trump is not unrigging it. He is re-rigging it for himself.

Opinion from M.A.: I have recently coined the phrase: Trumplestilskin: entity who can spin Gold into Shit!

Buried in Trump’s beautiful bill is a new $250 fee on travelers to the U.S. Estimates project it could cut the federal deficit by nearly $30 billion


Nino Paoli-Fortune

Sat, July 19, 2025 at 7:44 AM CDT

3 min read4.1k

Travelers on nonimmigrant visas will fork over $250 in a security deposit-like transaction when coming to the U.S.
  • A provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act states all visitors who need nonimmigrant visas to enter the U.S.—tourists, business travelers and international students, to name a few—must pay a “visa integrity fee,” currently priced at $250. Travelers who comply with their visa conditions will be eligible for reimbursement. The provision is estimated to bring in $28.9 billion over the next decade.

Visitors to the United States will need to pay a new fee to enter the country, according to the Trump administration’s recently enacted bill.

A provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act states all visitors who need nonimmigrant visas to enter the U.S.—tourists, business travelers and international students, to name a few—must pay a “visa integrity fee,” currently priced at $250. The fee cannot be waived or reduced, but travelers are able to get their fees reimbursed, the provision states.

All told, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the new fee could cut the federal deficit by $28.9 billion over the next ten years. During the same period, the CBO expects the Department of the State to issue about 120 million nonimmigrant visas.

In 2023 alone, more than 10.4 million nonimmigrants were issued visas, according to DOS data. CBO expects a “small number” of people will seek reimbursement, as many nonimmigrant visas are valid for several years.

CBO also expects the Department of State would need several years to implement a process for providing reimbursements. Still, the fee could generate billions, the agency estimates.

The fee is set at $250 during the U.S. fiscal year 2025, which ends Sept. 30, and must be paid when the visa is issued, according to the provision. The secretary of Homeland Security can set the current fee higher, the provision states. During each subsequent fiscal year, the fee will be adjusted for inflation.

Those eligible for reimbursement are visa holders who comply with conditions of the visa, which include not accepting unauthorized employment or not overstaying their visa validity date by more than five days, according to the provision.

Senior Equity Analyst at CFRA Research Ana Garcia told Fortune in an email she expects the “vast majority” of affected travelers to be eligible for reimbursement, as historical U.S. Congressional Research Service data indicates that only 1% to 2% of nonimmigrant visitors overstayed their visas between 2016 and 2022.

“The fee’s design as a refundable security deposit, contingent upon visa compliance, should mitigate concerns among legitimate travelers.” Garcia wrote.

Reimbursements will be made after the travel visa expires, the provision said. Any fees not reimbursed will be deposited into America’s Checkbook, or the General Fund of the Government.

When Incompetence Goes to War!


Bombing was the easy part
Dan Rather and Team Steady Jun 23    

    Watching Donald Trump deliver the news of an American attack on Iran Saturday night, I wondered how many viewers had the same reaction I did: How can the United States be going to war — and that’s exactly what it is — with advisers whose collective experience managing international conflict is see-through thin? There was Trump, a draft dodger who has long derided the military, surrounded by his war cabinet of second-rate choices, who owe their professional and political souls to him. Will any of them ever question Trump’s decisions? We know the answer to that. Trump did not have solid evidence Iran was building a nuclear bomb. Nearing the time when they might be able to build one is the best that can be said. Similar, although not identical, to the situation when George W. Bush didn’t have hard evidence that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction. Bad intel back then led to a war that lasted eight years and killed nearly 5,000 Americans and reportedly 200,000 Iraqis. No WMDs were ever found. Lessons learned? Hardly. Bombing Iran was easy enough. Did anyone at the White House think about what would happen on Day 2? Forty-eight hours after the United States launched bunker-busting bombs and dozens of cruise missiles at Iran, the Iranian regime retaliated. Iran launched missiles at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East. The Defense Department said there were no injuries because Qatari air defenses were able to intercept the Iranian attack. Also, the Iranians gave advance warning to minimize casualties. No one should be surprised by this escalation. And no one should think this is the end of hostilities. Forty thousand U.S. troops are stationed in the region. It is a consequence of going to war, which is exactly what Donald Trump did when he called for strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites. Even if Vice President JD Vance says otherwise. “We’re not at war with Iran. We’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program,” he said on “Meet the Press” Sunday. The Iranian people likely quibble with Vance’s semantics. Iran has other retaliatory options from which to choose. In an internal FBI email obtained by The New York Times, American officials warn that Iran and its allies have “historically targeted U.S. interests in response to geopolitical events, and they are likely to increase their efforts in the near term.” The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow strip of water between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, is one of the world’s most important strategic choke points. And Iran controls the north side of it. The 20 million barrels of oil produced daily in the region — a fifth of global output — must travel through the strait. Some influential Iranians are calling for Hormuz to be closed, including Hossein Shariatmadari, the editor-in-chief of a popular hard-line Iranian newspaper, who has the ear of the supreme leader. “It is now our turn to act without delay. As a first step, we must launch a missile strike on the US naval fleet in Bahrain and simultaneously close the Strait of Hormuz to American, British, German, and French ships,” Shariatmadari wrote in his newspaper. Mohammad Ali Shabani, an expert on Iran, told CNN that Iran’s control of global shipping lanes gives the government the “capacity to cause a shock in oil markets, drive up oil prices, drive inflation, [and] collapse Trump’s economic agenda.” If Hormuz is closed, oil prices will skyrocket. But perhaps the ayatollah will put his pocketbook before payback. China is the No. 1 buyer of Iranian oil. The money Iran earns from Chinese oil sales accounts for 50% of government spending, according to The Times. It has allowed the Iranian regime to fund terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. By the way, need we remind ourselves that China, not Iran, is the most potent foreign threat to American security? Also that Iran, along with China and Russia, has the ability to launch destructive cyber attacks. But now back to the strikes themselves. Trump claimed victory, saying the U.S. bombings “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program. No evidence has been given, and a bomb damage assessment has yet to be released. This administration is not known for truth-telling, so a wait-and-see approach is justified. Using satellite imagery, the Israeli military’s initial assessment is that Fordo, the main nuclear site, where the U.S. dropped at least six bunker busters, was damaged but not destroyed. Israeli intelligence believes Iran moved equipment and uranium from the site prior to the bombing. All this means that Saturday’s attack was not a one-and-done as the president would have us believe. Add to that Trump’s changing tune on regime change. Initially he said the goal of the bombing was “destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity.” Vance, Pete Hegseth, and Marco Rubio were reading from the same script as they made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows. The administration’s view “has been very clear that we don’t want a regime change,” Vance said. Perhaps the president didn’t get a copy of the talking points. Not four hours later, Trump took to social media. “It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!” he posted. No one thinks the Iranian government is made up of good guys. It has an abysmal human rights record and is the poster child for state-sponsored terrorism. These leaders have a long record of hating America and all for which we stand. They have been known to subvert our Arab allies in the region. But regime change seldom if ever works out the way the changers intend. See: Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan.   But calling for regime change versus seeking to destroy a country’s nuclear capabilities — no matter how spurious the intelligence — are very different goals with very different long-term prospects. It’s been widely reported that the U.S. defense secretary was not included in planning the Iran mission. Perhaps Hegseth’s Signalgate scandal has finally caught up with him. At least he was by Trump’s side as the president delivered his version of the war news. Meanwhile, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has been put on ice by Trump for testifying to Congress — in March — that the intelligence community did not believe Iran was close to building a nuclear weapon. So Trump needs advisers who will guide him by telling him the truth, rather than what he wants to hear; because they are beholden to him for jobs they aren’t qualified for, they never will. Trump learned from his first administration: Don’t hire the smart people, elevate the sycophants. A few closing notes from your reporter, who has spent a fair portion of his life covering wars: Truth IS the first casualty of war. The first things you hear often are untrue, and so are many of the things you hear later. Wars are by their very nature chaotic and unpredictable. What you most expect frequently does not happen; what you least expect often does. Up close and personal, wars are almost unbelievably savage. The television screen and the printed word do not come close to conveying their harsh realities. Stay Steady,
Dan

Jack Ohman’s You Betcha!


Wow, those military parades can’t even keep a totalitarian awake.
Jun 16

President Trump’s Shitstaffel Chief Stephen Miller, who is currently getting a busy signal from his wife, the New Musk GF Du Jour, has had a busy week rounding up school children, four year olds, and people who pick crops to feed his emaciated Goebbels face.

He had Trump send U.S. Marines, the California National Guard, and any loose Boy Scout troop to patrol the streets of Los Angeles, to no real effect, since what was, in fact, going on was 4,000,000 people getting ready to go to a Dodgers game, brunch, or Disneyland.

This cartoon features a device called “transmogrification”, which means that you make a human into some other weird, surprising object. I think. As I have previously noted here, I am always looking for a little phrase that I can turn into a drawing. They’re not puns, per se, they’re word play. So I kept thinking about the phrase, “Stephen Miller’s biggest fan,” which, of course ultimately called for me converting Trump into an actual fan, which was surprisingly easy to do. Sometimes, this doesn’t work, at all. This worked fine, as Trump’s mouth is open all the time when he’s not pouting. Throw in a whirling blade, build the face around it, and there you go.

I am remiss in not featuring Miller more. I drew him a few times during Trump 1.0, but mostly haven’t done that much about him. I can see this needs to be done much more going forward. It’s my patriotic duty.

I can only imagine the chitchat between Miller and his equally odious wife when he found out she was going to join Musk and his 12 other wives in California.

X-wife, if you will.

Anyway, let’s move on, shall we?

I couldn’t resist doing this, even being part of the Resistance. I have always called The Home Depot “The Home Despot”, and even genius buddy Joel Pett, my colleague late of the Lexington Herald Leader (don’t get him started, either) said he calls it the same thing.

When I set out to do a storefront, I always have to take some care that it at least vaguely resembles the actual business. I drew Walmart the other day, for example, and carefully reproduced the Walmart logo. In this case, I noted that Home Depots usually have that orange lattice on the top of the building. Not exclusively, but usually. When I draw lattice (most frequently on NASA rocket launch gantries, I am usually kind of winging it. I suppose if you carefully examined the lattice, you would probably note that it isn’t technically correct, but I also know it’s unlikely you will give it that level of scrutiny, and thank God.

Then there’s the tank.

I almost never look at tank photos anymore, and just draw a tank the way I want it to look. I suppose that now I have brought this up, I also may have to do that, just to amuse myself. I remember looking at older cartoonists work in 1980, and noting that they would draw television cameras from 1950, with multiple interchangeable lenses sticking out. I would sigh, and draw them correctly, because I am so hip and with it.

I drew a camera a few years ago, and I got a note from a cameraman saying, hey buddy, you might want to check out the way cameras look now, which I did. Wow, were they off. I assume this means that there’s now a new generation of cartoonists looking at my cameras and shaking their heads about how out of it I am.

I’m 64, after all. You can’t keep up with everything. I used to listen to American Top 40 in 1976 and knew every single on the Billboard chart, and whether it was rising or falling. “Oh, Bungle in the Jungle has dropped to Number 24”.

Let’s resume the countdown. NUMBER THREE!

Normally, I don’t like to do cartoons like this, which are simply paens to someone. I’m not above it, but I was delighted to see and hear Gov. Gavin Newsom’s speech the other day where he acted like he wasn’t exactly setting the table for his political future. He sounded like a guy who actually was passionate and sincere about the direct threat of authoritarianism facing this country, California, and him.

Look, I know Newsom is, in fact, a politician likely lining up for 2028, if we have an election, which I do not assume at this point. But he showed a lot of courage and character, and I give him props for doing so.

When doing these types of cartoons, the subject is usually dead or leaving office. There is a fine line between interesting and cornball, so I kept thinking “beacon”. That’s when I saw Gav as a lighthouse. I also really enjoyed drawing this as:

  1. I enjoy drawing water.
  2. I enjoy drawing dark skies.
  3. I enjoy drawing blue and yellow drawings.
  4. I enjoy drawing Newsom.

Newsom is beyond good-looking, honestly. I’ve talked to him many times in person, and I find myself looking at him as an objet d’art—how did they do that? He looks better in person; he almost has an AI appearance to him. Obama: same. JFK: same. Reagan: same. When we have to tackle the good-looking politicians, male or female, it’s something of a challenge. Prior to television, it was perfectly normal to elect politicians who weren’t handsome or pretty. Radio faces, and all. Now most electeds look like weekend weathermen or saleswomen at Nordstrom.

Next?

This was kinda fun.

I’ve never drawn the iconic JFK birthday song by Marilyn Monroe, who was dressed in “skin and beads, and I didn’t see the beads,” according to historian and Kennedy guy Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.. Finally I got my chance here.

I had originally labelled Marilyn Monster as “FASCISM,” which would have fit better. Labeling is tough, people, and the only space I had was where you see it, although in closer examination I could have put it on the tail. I then decided to say “AUTHORITARIANISM,” which was still a bit more accurate than fascism, although I am very open to your counterarguments.

POLLHow best to describe the Trump Administration?Full-on fascistAuthoritarianIncompetent with a hint o’ fascism

The Audacity of Ignorance


MSNBC host Chris Hayes couldn’t contain his laughter on air Friday while reading a fundraising email from President Donald Trump. The email asked for donations for his Saturday military parade, which, as it turns out, most Americans aren’t that eager to fund.

“Donald Trump is holding a North Korean-style military parade, Soviet-style military parade through the nation’s capital, something that we just don’t do as a country,” said Hayes. “The last one we did was after the first Persian Gulf War, which was celebrating the end of the war.

more

He continued, “We don’t have that here. It just so happens to fall on his 79th birthday. He’s even fundraising from it, if you could believe it — well, you can, of course — sending out this email with the subject line, quote, ‘Please help me before my military parade!’”

Hayes broke into laughter reading that last line aloud, as a screenshot of the email was displayed onscreen. He quickly composed himself and continued his coverage on the impending Washington, D.C., event.

“I’m sorry, that’s a funny sentence,” said Hayes. “‘My military parade.’”

Trump has never served in the armed forces and reportedly avoided the Vietnam War draft with a diagnosis of bone spurs in his feet. The daughter of the doctor who provided the diagnosis later said he had done so as a favor to his landlord — Trump’s father, Fred Trump.

The parade and surrounding festivities are meant to celebrate the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary, though the event notably also falls on Trump’s 79th birthday.

Turns Out, Trump’s Qatar Private Jet Wasn’t Even a Gift


The New Republic

Opinion

Edith Olmsted

Tue, May 20, 2025 at 9:15 AM CDT2 min read

There’s no such thing as a free plane.

Donald Trump’s administration specifically sought out the luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from Qatar’s government to replace Air Force One, despite the president’s insistence that the plane was a gift, sources informed CNN.

A senior White House official told CNN that Trump tasked Steve Witkoff, the president’s special envoy to the Middle East (and shady crypto partner), with tracking down a replacement for Air Force One, after Trump learned that Boeing would not have new jets ready for another two years. Witkoff ended up leading initial conversations with the Qatari government, according to the White House official.

Boeing provided the Pentagon with a list of other clients who might be able to help with America’s search for a new plane, three sources told CNN. One of those sources said that Qatar was included on that list of clients and that the U.S. reached out about purchasing the luxury plane from the Qatari Defense Ministry, which indicated it was willing to sell. There were also discussions about leasing the plane, said another source.

Legal negotiations over the plane’s transfer are still ongoing, and it’s unclear how the plane went from being a potential purchase to a $400 million gift. Trump and his administration have repeatedly stressed that the plane will be free of charge, a gift of goodwill from a foreign government—sparking major backlash on both sides of the aisle over concerns of foreign corruption.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the potential transfer a “donation to our country” on Monday, but the plane is much more of a personal gift to Trump himself than to the people of the United States, whose tax-paying dollars could end up funding the costly rebuild for the president’s supposedly free gift.

Trump reportedly toured a Qatari plane with aides in February and began lamenting how luxurious the plane was compared to his own transportation options. Last week, Trump whined that the current Air Force One is a “much less impressive” plane than the lavish ones dictators use.

CNN’s reporting upends a recent claim from Senator Markwayne Mullin—which was then repeated by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—that negotiations to receive a plane from Qatar began under Joe Biden’s administration.

Giving Trump $400m Boeing jet was his team’s idea not Qatar’s, report claims

Joe Sommerlad

Tue, May 20, 2025 at 8:39 AM CDT

President Donald Trump’s administration originally approached Qatar about the possibility of acquiring one of its Boeing 747 jumbo jets, according to a report.

The new claim reported in CNN contradicts Trump’s insistence that the controversial plane lined up to replace Air Force One was simply offered as a “gift.”

The $400m aircraft that the Qatari royal family intends to present to the United States, described as a “flying palace” due to its luxurious interior, has inspired a number of ethics complaints at home that cast a long shadow over the president’s visit to the Middle East last week.

Now administration sources cited by CNN claim it was the U.S. that first sought out the plane, rather than Qatar coming forward to offer it as a friendly gesture.

The network’s sources claim that, shortly after Trump returned to the White House in January, the Pentagon contacted Boeing for an update on the two new jets it is building as replacements for the current presidential plane.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks with the Emir of Qatar, Tamim bin Hamad al Thani, as he departs the Al Udeid Air Base in Doha on May 15 2025 (Win McNamee/Getty)

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks with the Emir of Qatar, Tamim bin Hamad al Thani, as he departs the Al Udeid Air Base in Doha on May 15 2025 (Win McNamee/Getty)

It was told that their construction would take another two years to complete, prompting a frustrated Trump to task his Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff with drawing up a list of potential alternatives already in service.

Boeing reportedly supplied Department of Defense officials with the names of its clients around the world. “Qatar was one of the clients,” one of the sources said, adding that the Pentagon then approached Doha, with introductions from Witkoff, offering to buy the plane. Qatar responded by indicating it would be willing to sell, it is claimed.

Another source, however, suggested those discussions were originally about leasing the Boeing, not buying it outright.

The account stands at odds with Trump’s own version of events after the president insisted throughout his trip to the Gulf that the plane was a present from one of America’s key regional allies, describing it as “A GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE” on Truth Social and saying that only a “stupid person” would have refused it.

His position was reiterated by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday. She described the jet as a “donation to our country,” saying that Qatar’s royal family “has offered to donate this plane to the United States Air Force, where that donation will be accepted according to all legal and ethical obligations.”

A White House official has since told The Independent that CNN’s reporting is accurate.

Trump griped about the age of the current presidential plane repeatedly last week, boarding it at Abu Dhabi International Airport on Friday with the resentful words: “I leave now and get into a 42-year-old Boeing. The new ones are coming, new ones are coming.”

Amid a furor in Congress over the jet potentially violating the U.S. Constitution’s emoluments clause, Trump’s own Department of Justice lawyers moved quickly to rule that accepting it would break no laws.

Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House lawyer David Warrington said the donation of the aircraft would be “legally permissible,” given that its ownership would be transferred to the Trump Presidential Library Foundation before the end of his term.

But Columbia Law School Professor Richard Briffault questioned that assessment when he told NPR that if Trump retains ownership of the plane after leaving office, in spite of his claim that it will ultimately be given to the Department of Defense, “then it’s not really a gift to the United States at all” and instead amounts to a “pretty textbook case of a violation of the emoluments clause.”

A Boeing 747 bearing the color scheme of planes used by the Qatari royal family seen at San Antonio International Airport in San Antonio, Texas, earlier this month (Brandon Lingle/The San Antonio Express-News/AP)

A Boeing 747 bearing the color scheme of planes used by the Qatari royal family seen at San Antonio International Airport in San Antonio, Texas, earlier this month (Brandon Lingle/The San Antonio Express-News/AP)

Professor Briffault further warned that accepting any present leaves the recipient beholden to the gift-giver, an argument also made by Trump nemesis Hillary Clinton, saying that gestures like Qatar’s are “designed to create good feelings for the recipient and to get some kind of reciprocity.”

Another cause of concern is the eye-watering cost of retrofitting the jet to make it an acceptable substitute for the presidential plane.

Experts warn that it would take several years and require billions of dollars in further investment from the American taxpayer to ensure it meets the necessary security standards.

It would require secure communications, electromagnetic shielding, and in-flight refueling capabilities, to name just three necessary upgrades.

‘Andy, that’s not true:’ Texas Republican mocked after admitting he doesn’t know what intersex is


Ryan Adamczeski- THEADVOCATE

(we do not elect the smartest people so what makes them electable? MA.)

Mon, April 14, 2025 at 2:59 PM CDT

3 min read

Texas House Democratic Caucus video discussing intersex education

A Republican representative in Texas is proving what LGBTQ+ advocates have been saying all along — conservatives don’t know a single thing about the queer community.

The state House of Representatives voted 118-26 to approve a $337 billion budget Friday morning, but not without first killing several amendments targeting LGBTQ+ and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. One such amendment, proposed by Republican Rep. Andy Hopper, aimed to eliminate state funding for the University of Texas at Austin over its LGBTQ+ and DEI programs and degree plans.

In debating the amendment, Democratic Rep. Lauren Ashley Simmons prodded Hopper until he made a stunning admission. The moment, which has since gone viral after being posted by the Human Rights Campaign and Texas Democrats, began with Simmons challenging Hopper after he stated “when you’re born, you have a set of chromosomes.”

“Are you speaking about biological sex? Or are you speaking about gender? ‘Cause one is scientific, one is a social construct,” Simmons said, adding, “‘Cause I have a follow up question after.”

“They’re one and the same, ma’am,” Hopper falsely asserted, grinning smugly.

“That’s not true, but moving on. So, in the same vein, what about intersex individuals?” Simmons questioned.

To which Hopper responded: “I don’t even know what that means, ma’am.”

The crowd in the room responded with a mix of surprise and laughter. When the noise died down, Simmons continued.

“You are not sure what intersex people are, if they exist or not, but you want to defund a program about something that you don’t understand,” she said. “That’s why I’m seeking clarification. … Then again, you haven’t yet answered my question about where intersex people fall into that equation?”

“Those intersex individuals are still XX or XY,” Hopper replied. “So, you can’t change that.”

The incorrect claim prompted Republican Rep. Valoree Swanson, the lead author of the state’s transgender sports ban who had been standing next to Hopper at the podium, to tug on his sleeve and say to him quietly — but loud enough for the microphone to pick up — “Andy, that’s not true.”

There are currently over 40 known intersex variations, according to the Intersex Society of North America, which can cause individuals to make more or less estrogen or testosterone than average, be more or less sensitive to those hormones, have different sizes and appearances of their genitals, and have variations in their X and Y sex chromosomes.

The most common intersex variations are due to differences in chromosomes, such as Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), Turner syndrome (X0), and triple X syndrome (XXX). About 2 in every 100 births have an intersex variation, according to multiple sources — around the same as the number of people with red hair.

Not all intersex people identify as LGBTQ+. They may identify as straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual, female, male, both, or neither.

Simmons filed a point of order against Hopper, and after over an hour of debate, the House ultimately voted against the amendment.