Trump is getting ruthlessly ROASTED over this humiliating photo of his makeup & we’re giggling

Pride

Trump is getting ruthlessly ROASTED over this humiliating photo of his makeup & we’re giggling

Ariel Messman-Rucker – January 25, 2024

Donald Trump
Donald Trump

Talk of Trump wearing makeup resurfaced this week when a photo of the former president with a face full of melting makeup started circulating online.

The photo going viral features Trump wearing what looks like orange makeup nearly dripping off of his face — he clearly needs someone at Sephora to teach him about undertones — and was taken at a campaign rally in Iowa in the lead-up to the state’s caucuses, LGBTQ Nation reports.

Mary, this is what happens when you don’t have any gays in your life — or you do and they really don’t like you.

Yesterday, the Lincoln Project, a group of moderate conservative Never Trumpers, posted the photo on X asking people to “Name this foundation shade.”

Image

Apparently the library is open because even conservatives are reading Trump for filth!

The photo has been so widely circulated on social media that Snopes looked into it. The fact-checking site found that the image is real and was taken by photojournalist Tannen Maury, who confirmed that the shot was “authentic” and was taken on January 6, 2024, at a Trump rally in Clinton, Iowa, for Agence France-Presse (AFP).

“I suppose that Trump could look worse, but it wouldn’t be easy,” Psychologist Dr. David A Lustig wrote on X, sharing a different photo of Trump in ridiculous makeup. “You’d think that a claimed billionaire could hire a makeup artist who wouldn’t make him look like a dirty old shoe.”

Image

People took to X in droves to mock the Republican front-runner for his sloppy makeup job, with some pointing out the inherent hypocrisy of Republicans passing drag bans while also worshiping at the altar of a presidential candidate who piles on the makeup.

“Quick question: How much more makeup & wig work will Trump need before he is officially in drag?” one person quipped on X.

“Seriously the Republicans are against LGBITQ but love a fellow who wears more makeup than a drag queen and claims $70,000 a year in Tax deductions for maintaining and dying his hair,” another person wrote.

Image

Between Trump wearing makeup and Ron DeSantis trying to cheat his height with heels, you’d think that Republicans would be in favor of drag, not trying to villainize it. But that would require conservatives to not be GIANT hypocrites, and clearly, they are incapable of that.

While there are countless photos that show Trump’s poor foundation application, both former National Security Advisor John Bolton and former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson have talked about the MAGA leader wearing makeup.

Even comedian Patton Oswalt took the time to mock Trump’s makeup in the mostly hilariously patronizing way possible. “I’m not his biggest fan, but these are adorable,” he wrote on X. “Like a well-meaning, slow-witted lunkhead who couldn’t resist when he saw an open jar of Nutella. He should not be president again but he should be allowed to have goofy adventures like this.”

The ironic thing is that if he made friends with drag queens instead of accusing them of grooming children, Trump would have flawless makeup because no drag queen would ever let a friend go out in public looking like such a fool.

Check out the most hilarious reactions to Trump’s photo below!

Image
Darryl Ellis: Seriously the Republicans are against LGBITQ but love a fellow who wears more makeup than a drag queen and claims $70,000 a year in Tax deductions for maintaining and dying his hair. If we did not know Trump sleeps with prostitutes the line could be blurry.
Make sure the stain really sets in before you apply the lacquer, otherwise we won't get that deep Colonial Pine we're going for
Li’l: I found a picture of someone applying Trump’s makeup before the rally:
Image
The Lincoln Project: Name this foundation shade.
Image
Image

Gary Arthur: I think it’s safe to say that Trump wears more makeup than Nikki Haley.

Abandoning Ukraine could be a multitrillion-dollar mistake

Yahoo! Finance

Abandoning Ukraine could be a multitrillion-dollar mistake

Rick Newman, Senior Columnist – January 24, 2024

While Republicans in Congress block further aid for Ukraine, Russia is gaining an edge in its bid to extend its territory right up to the NATO military alliance’s eastern border. Ukraine is running short of crucial weapons while Russia’s economy is now mobilized for war and cranking out more artillery shells than the United States and Europe combined.

The United States may yet buck up Ukraine, but if it doesn’t, the isolationist obstruction of some Republicans in Washington could turn out to be an epic mistake that costs Americans vastly more than it saves. History is replete with examples of pennywise decisions that led to disastrous outcomes — and many analysts think China, North Korea, and Iran could follow Russia’s expansionary example if America goes soft on Ukraine, with devastating economic consequences.

So far, the United States has provided about $46 billion in military aid to Ukraine, plus another $29 billion in financial assistance. The military aid amounts to less than 5% of the US defense budget, which exists in part to counter Russia. President Biden wants another $60 billion for Ukraine, and a bipartisan group of senators has crafted legislation that would provide much of that aid, while also funding immigration reforms and other priorities.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addresses the students during Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk visit to Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, Jan. 22, 2024. (AP Photo/Efrem Lukatsky)
Worth the investment: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. (Efrem Lukatsky/AP Photo) (ASSOCIATED PRESS)

The snag is a faction of House Republicans who say they won’t vote for Ukraine aid unless it’s coupled with draconian immigration changes Democrats are dead set against. Cheering them on is Donald Trump, the likely Republican presidential nominee, who has suggested he’d end US support for Ukraine altogether.

The Republican withdrawal on Ukraine suggests Russian president Vladimir Putin has guessed right. Putin obviously hoped for a quick Ukrainian surrender after Russian forces invaded in February 2022, which he didn’t get. But Putin’s Plan B was a long war in which Western resolve to help Ukraine would fade well before Russia’s ability to keep the war going.

That seems to be happening. While a majority of Americans still want to help Ukraine, Republican support has dropped from 80% when the war started in 2022 to just 50% now, giving conservative Republicans in Congress plenty of leeway to cut off Ukraine. As Putin well knows, a small group of naysayers can block US policy if the minority party controls just one chamber of Congress, as Republicans do in the House.

If Republican isolationists get their way, the ramifications could stretch far beyond Europe. As Hal Brands and many other foreign policy experts argue, the American abandonment of Ukraine could be a green light for China, North Korea, and Iran to attempt their own land grabs on the premise that they’d be able to outlast Western resistance led by a fickle United States.

China may be the most unnerving scenario. President Xi Jinping seems more determined than any Chinese leader of the last 25 years to “reunite” communist China with democratic Taiwan. That would have to involve military intervention, given that Taiwan has no interest in a reunion.

The idea that an isolationist United States could stand on the sidelines and remain unscathed is folly.

recent analysis by the Rhodium Group found that a Chinese blockade of Taiwan, without an outright invasion, could cost the world economy $2 trillion, mainly from disrupted trade with both Taiwan and China. A Bloomberg analysis finds that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would raise the cost to $10 trillion, “dwarfing” the economic cost of the war in Ukraine, the COVID pandemic, and the 2008 financial crash.

In an invasion scenario, the Taiwanese and Chinese economies would crater while US GDP would plunge by 6.7% — the worst wipeout since the Great Depression in the 1930s. In a milder blockade scenario, US GDP would still drop by 3.3%, also unprecedented since the Depression.

China would likely try to take control of Taiwan’s advanced semiconductor industry, which could cause acute shortages of electronics, cars, and more sophisticated products that would make the empty shelves of the COVID pandemic look like a time of plenty.

En esta foto difundida el domingo 31 de diciembre de 2023 por la agencia de noticias Xinhua, el presidente chino Xi Jinping ofrece un mensaje de Año Nuevo, en Beijing. (Ju Peng/Xinhua vía AP)
Eyeing Taiwan? China’s Xi Jinping. (Ju Peng/Xinhua vía AP) (ASSOCIATED PRESS)

Loss of trade with China would be devastating, too. Donald Trump and other nationalists want to “decouple” the US economy from China’s, but that’s facile and naive. Despite efforts by both US political parties to pull away from China, the two countries hit a record level of trade in 2022 and remain deeply intertwined, with China still supplying huge amounts of pharmaceutical ingredients, auto parts, lithium-ion batteries, lower-end computer chips, and hundreds of other things. In many cases there’s simply no other reliable source for the quantity of stuff Americans consume. Reestablishing US supply chains for all of those goods could take decades and be prohibitively expensive.

Iran and North Korea are lesser economic problems, given that the United States has no meaningful direct trade with those countries. Yet North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un has renounced his nation’s longstanding goal of peacefully reuniting with South Korea. Some analysts see unusual signs of preparation for war, which would endanger the world’s ninth-largest exporter, whose commodities include Samsung electronics and Hyundai automobiles.

Iran aims to be the dominant power in the Middle East. Its main leverage over adversaries would be the ability to interdict Persian Gulf oil shipments, plus a nuclear weapons program that may soon be able to threaten Israel and maybe Europe. The United States is less dependent on Middle East oil than during the energy crises of the 1970s, but an energy crunch could still reignite inflation and cause a recession.

In all of these scenarios, the aggressor nation would pay a steep price in treasure, blood, and possibly prestige. So maybe they wouldn’t try it. But the same rationale applied to Putin before he ordered an invasion that has damaged the Russian economy and caused several hundred thousand Russian deaths. Yet Putin still faces no serious domestic opposition. The Russian economy is faring better than many expected and Putin seems to be finding the resources to wage his war indefinitely.

History suggests that billions of dollars in prevention is way better than trillions in triage. The United States tried to stay out the mayhem that led to both world wars, but got dragged into them anyway. The result was 117,000 American deaths in World War I and 407,000 dead in World War II.

Many historians think American suggestions that it would not defend South Korea after World War II influenced the communist North’s decision to invade in 1950 — which brought the United States into the war after all, leading to 37,000 American deaths. Anybody who feels sure the United States can stay out of big faraway wars probably needs to do a little more research about what happened the last time we tried to stay out.

Arizona GOP Chair Jeff DeWit resigns after release of Kari Lake audio

Deseret News

Arizona GOP Chair Jeff DeWit resigns after release of Kari Lake audio

Madison Selcho – January 24, 2024

In this Nov. 15, 2016, file photo, Arizona State Treasurer Jeff DeWit steps into an elevator at Trump Tower in New York. Jeff DeWit resigned as Arizona GOP Chair after release of Kari Lake audio.
In this Nov. 15, 2016, file photo, Arizona State Treasurer Jeff DeWit steps into an elevator at Trump Tower in New York. Jeff DeWit resigned as Arizona GOP Chair after release of Kari Lake audio. | Carolyn Kaster, Associated Press

Arizona Republican Party Chairman Jeff DeWit announced his resignation following the release of audio of DeWit trying to persuade Kari Lake to take a step back from politics.

The leaked audio recording, obtained by the Daily Mailallegedly reveals DeWit trying to convince Lake to stay out of the Arizona Senate race.

He announced his decision to resign Wednesday in a press release that stated, “This morning, I was determined to fight for my position. However, a few hours ago, I received an ultimatum from Lake’s team: resign today or face the release of a new, more damaging recording.”

DeWit continued, saying he is “unsure” of what the other audio recording may contain, but “considering our numerous past open conversations as friends, I have decided not to take the risk.”

The press release issued by DeWit said further, “I am resigning as Lake requested, in the hope that she will honor her commitment to cease her attacks, allowing me to return to the business sector — a field I find much more logical and prefer over politics.”

The Deseret News has not been able to verify the authenticity of the audio recording allegedly leaked to the Daily Mail.

Why is Kari Lake calling for Jeff DeWit’s resignation?

The Independent reported that in the audio at the center of his resignation DeWit tells Lake that GOP leaders wondered if anyone could find “any companies out there or something that could just put her on the payroll to keep her out” of the 2024 race.

The Daily Mail also shared the audio recording, where DeWit says to Lake, “There are very powerful people who want to keep you out.”

DeWit is also heard saying, “So the ask I got today from back east was: ‘Is there any companies out there or something that could just put her on the payroll to keep her out?’”

Lake’s response is heard as, “This is about defeating Trump and I think that’s a bad, bad thing for our country.”

Later in the audio recording, DeWit says, “Just say, is there a number at which …”

Lake then appears to cut in, saying, “I can be bought? That’s what it’s about.”

DeWit continues, “You can take a pause for a couple of years. You can go right back to what you’re doing.”

Lake allegedly responds by saying she wouldn’t do it for a billion dollars and emphasizes, “This is not about money, it’s about our country.”

The Hill reported that in response to the audio recording surfacing, on Tuesday Lake called on DeWit to resign.

“He’s gotta resign. We can’t have somebody who is corrupt and compromised running the Republican Party,” Lake told a reporter at former President Donald Trump’s New Hampshire primary victory party.

Why I would bring a listening device detector to any chat with Kari Lake

AZ Central – The Arizona Republic – Opinion

Why I would bring a listening device detector to any chat with Kari Lake

EJ Montini, Arizona Republic – January 24, 2024

It’s beginning to look like the failed Arizona Republican governor candidate now running for U.S. Senate might be a Deep State unto herself.

First, Kari Lake came mic’d up for an ambush confrontation at the airport with Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego.

Remember that?

She was loaded for bear, scripted, wired and with a camera operator at the ready to bushwhack the congressman, who is also running for U.S. Senate.

Jeff DeWit was MAGA personified

Now comes the leak of a recorded conversation in which Arizona Republican Party chairman Jeff DeWit clumsily offers Lake a lucrative opportunity to step away from politics for a few years in exchange for … “is there a number … .”

The big story, for now, is all about DeWit’s ham-handed inducement, which took place back in March and is being released this week in what looks like a no holds barred effort to get DeWit ousted from his job.

He’s got to resign,” Lake said.

Bumbling GOP boss: Plays right into Lake’s hands

Interesting, because DeWit is MAGA personified.

He was the chief operating officer for Trump’s 2016 and 2020 campaigns. He was rewarded by Dear Leader, who made him the chief financial officer of NASA in the Trump administration.

He has been the head of Arizona’s GOP since January 2023.

Who else said something they shouldn’t?

If someone like that was recorded during a private conversation with Lake, how many other good and loyal MAGAs are now wondering if they might have said something in private they should be worried about?

Arizona is a one-party consent state, meaning our law allows any conversation to be recorded so long as one party in the conversation is aware it is being recorded.

Lots and lots of big-time MAGAs have trooped through Arizona over the past couple of years. I’d guess most of them didn’t know about Arizona’s one-party consent law.

I’d also guess that more than a few of them are now thinking that maybe they should have brought along an electronic listening device detector.

Would Trump ask about other recordings?
Candidate for U.S. Senate Kari Lake arrives at the caucus night party hosted by Republican presidential candidate former U.S. President Donald Trump at the Iowa Events Center on Jan. 15, 2024 in Des Moines, Iowa.
Candidate for U.S. Senate Kari Lake arrives at the caucus night party hosted by Republican presidential candidate former U.S. President Donald Trump at the Iowa Events Center on Jan. 15, 2024 in Des Moines, Iowa.

Lake spent a lot of time at Mar-a-Lago as well. But Florida is a two-party consent state, requiring everyone in a conversation to know if they’re being recorded.

Of course, Trump has spent a lot of time in Arizona. In fact, he’s coming back this week. I can’t imagine Lake won’t be with him on the stage, or that the two of them won’t have a few quiet minutes together to chat.

The former president is known to be a suspicious guy. He envisions Deep State plots all around him.

If you were Trump, would you ask Lake if she was aware if any of their previous conversations were recorded?

Would you trust her answer if she said no?

What we can learn about Kari Lake

Would you ask her if she was aware of any other recorded conversations that might make MAGA folks look bad?

Would you trust her answer if she said no?

Would you have your Secret Service detail electronically sweep the room (with her in it) for bugs?

There is no doubt that in the leaked recording between Lake and DeWit, the chairman of the Arizona Republican Party comes off as the clumsiest of corruptors.

But in the long run, it may have been Lake’s character that was most plainly exposed.

Back in the USSR: New high school textbooks in Russia whitewash Stalin’s terror as Putin wages war on historical memory

The Conversation

Back in the USSR: New high school textbooks in Russia whitewash Stalin’s terror as Putin wages war on historical memory

Anya Free, Arizona State University – January 23, 2024

Hey, kids, meet Josef Stalin.

New Russian high school textbooks – introduced in August 2023 on the instruction of President Vladimir Putin – attempt to whitewash Stalinist crimes and rehabilitate the Soviet Union’s legacy. While schools and teachers previously could pick educational materials from a variety of choices, these newly created textbooks are mandatory reading for 10th and 11th graders in Russia and occupied territories.

As a scholar of Russian and Soviet history, I see the new books as just another example of state-sponsored efforts to use history and scholarship to serve Putin’s agenda and goals.

Other recent attempts along these lines include the establishment in November 2023 of the National Center of Historical Memory, tasked with preserving “traditional Russian spiritual and moral values, culture and historical memory”; the creation of a sprawling network of historical parks called “Russia: My History,” with new branches in occupied Ukrainian cities Luhansk and Melitopol; and the 2023 publication of a collection of archival documents called “On Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians.”

These projects not only demonstrate Putin’s desire to control the historical narrative but to serve the goal of promoting Russian cultural and educational imperialism.

Putin’s efforts to redeem the Soviet past may help explain why Stalin is up in the polls, with 63% of Russians asked in June 2023 expressing a positive attitude toward the Soviet dictator behind widespread purges, mass executions, forced labor camps and policies leading to the deaths of millions of his own compatriots.

But Stalin’s place in history remains divisive within the nations he once ruled over, especially where Russia retains significant political and cultural influence.

Russian President Vladimir Putin walks by the grave of Soviet leader Josef Stalin on June 25, 2015, in Moscow. <a href=
Russian President Vladimir Putin walks by the grave of Soviet leader Josef Stalin on June 25, 2015, in Moscow. Sasha Mordovets/Getty Images

In January 2024, a newly installed icon honoring Stalin in his homeland of Georgia was defaced – an act exposing deep divisions.

The number of privately funded monuments to the dictator is increasing, while the memorials to victims of political repression in Russia are disappearing. Yet, activists are still fighting to commemorate those who perished.

Whitewashing history

Putin, famously obsessed with history, has been talking about the creation of national history textbooks since 2013. In August 2023, Putin’s wish was finally granted when one of his closest associates, former Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky, presented new textbooks for 10th and 11th grade students: two in Russian history and two in World history. Medinsky co-authored all four.

The 10th grade textbooks cover the period from 1914 to 1945. The 11th grade textbooks cover history from 1945 to the present day and include sections on the current Russian-Ukrainian war, called in Russia a “Special Military Operation” as an official euphemism.

Warping historical narratives

The new school textbooks maintain some nuance in their coverage of Stalinism, yet that nuance can be described as “yes, but,” which makes it even more effective in warping the historical narrative.

The 10th grade Russian history textbook, for example, briefly mentions the dramatic consequences of collectivization of Soviet agriculture, including the 1932-33 man-made famines in UkraineKazakhstanNorth Caucasus and other regions. Yet it puts the blame exclusively on the poor harvests and mistakes of the local leadership rather than the Stalinist policies that caused and exacerbated the famines. Ukraine’s great famine, or Holodomor, in particular is considered by many historians and international organizations to be a genocide.

Mugs decorated with images of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Soviet leader Josef Stalin are seen on sale among other items at a gift shop in Moscow on March 11, 2020. <a href=
Mugs decorated with images of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Soviet leader Josef Stalin are seen on sale among other items at a gift shop in Moscow on March 11, 2020. Dimitar Dilkoff/AFP via Getty Images

Additionally, in the section on World War II, the students learn that the “collective feat of the peasantry” during the war would have been “impossible in the case of the domination of the private landholdings” – in other words, it was only possible under the Soviet system.

The Russian history textbook briefly mentions the “Great Terror” of 1937-38, in which millions were arrested and an estimated 700,000 to 1.2 million were executed. Mention is also made of the personal role of Stalin, while also emphasizing the role of private denunciations and authorities of various Soviet republics and regions. But the creator of the Soviet secret police and an architect of the post-revolutionary “Red Terror,” Felix Dzerzhinsky, is praised for his role in “combating counter-revolution,” “creation of the professional educational system” and “restoration of the railroads.”

All national histories are inherently biased, even in democratic societies. Medinsky’s textbooks are, however, a distortion of history. The authors lose any attempt at objectivity while discussing Soviet foreign policy as always defensive and serving to protect everyone whom the USSR occupies and annexes.

The whitewashing of Stalin and his crimes is, I believe, crucial for understanding Putin’s creep toward ever more imperialist ideology and goals. In 2017, Putin participated in the opening ceremony for the memorial to the victims of political repressions in Moscow, during which he acknowledged the violence of Stalin’s terror and argued that it cannot be “justified by anything.” Yet his obsession with World War II led him to just that.

Putin and ideologists in the Russian leader circle have increasingly asserted that Stalin’s foreign policy and his leadership in World War II supersede his crimes against his own people. In his 2020 article in the U.S. journal National Interest, Putin praised Stalin for his great “understanding of the nature of external threats” and actions that he undertook to “strengthen the country’s defenses.”

The war on historical memory

The more aggressive Russia’s politics are, the more protective the state is over the Soviet historical legacy. Since 2020, Moscow authorities have not allowed demonstrations traditionally held in Moscow on Oct. 29 to commemorate victims of the Great Terror of the 1930s.

In December 2021, Russian authorities ordered the “liquidation” of the human rights group Memorial , fully unleashing the war on historical memory. The organization, which was among the three recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2022, was blamed by the Russian Supreme Court for “distorting memory about the War,” “rehabilitating Nazis” and “creating a false image of the USSR and Russia as terrorist states.” It is not a coincidence that an attack on the organization that for decades documented the Soviet terror came in the midst of the anti-Western and anti-Ukrainian hysteria and right before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Memorial, however, still stands, despite immense pressure from the authorities, attesting to the great power of resistance.

In the newly written Putinist narrative of history, the state and its expansion is always at the center, just as it was during Stalinism. The people are treated according to a proverb favored by Stalin, which sums up his attitude toward the ruthless and brutal measures he imposed: “When the wood is cut down, the chips are flying.”

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and analysis to help you make sense of our complex world.

What’s Going On With Brett Kavanaugh?

Slate

What’s Going On With Brett Kavanaugh?

Mark Joseph Stern – January 23, 2024

On Monday, the Supreme Court affirmed the federal government’s supremacy over the states, a principle established explicitly in the Constitution, enshrined by centuries of precedent, and etched into history by the Civil War. The vote was 5–4. Four dissenting justices would have allowed the state of Texas to nullify laws enacted by Congress, pursuant to its express constitutional authority over immigration, that direct federal law enforcement to intercept migrants crossing the border. These justices would have allowed Texas to edge ever closer to a violent clash between state and federal forces, deploying armed guardsmen and razor wire to block the president from faithfully executing the law.

It was no surprise that three of these dissenters—Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch—sided with Texas, given their overt hostility to the Biden administration’s immigration policies, which verges on rejecting the president’s legitimate right to govern. It was, however, deeply alarming to see who joined them: Brett Kavanaugh, the justice who expends tremendous energy assuring the nation that he is reasonable, moderate, and inclined toward compromise. Kavanaugh’s vote on Monday was none of those things; it was, rather, an endorsement of a state’s rebellion against federal supremacy.

Really, though, should we be shocked that Kavanaugh sided with the Texas rebels over the U.S. president? Maybe not. After spending his first few years on the bench role-playing as a sometimes-centrist, Kavanaugh appears to be veering to the right: His votes over the past several months have been increasingly aligned with Alito and Thomas rather than his previous ally, Chief Justice John Roberts. This shift is still nascent, but it grows more visible with each passing month. And it bodes poorly for the country as we careen toward an election that Donald Trump openly seems to hope the Supreme Court may rig for him.

Start with that jaw-dropping vote on Monday. It’s difficult to overstate how dire the situation had become in Eagle Pass, Texas, where Gov. Greg Abbott mounted his insurgency against the federal government. Migrants frequently cross over at Eagle Pass, so Border Patrol has a major presence in the area. Federal law grants border agents the right to access all land within 25 miles of the border and requires these agents to inspect and detain unauthorized migrants. Yet Abbott defied these statutes: He ordered the Texas National Guard to erect razor wire at the border, a barrier that ensnared migrants (to the point of near death) and excluded Border Patrol. Federal law enforcement was thus physically unable to perform the duties assigned to it by Congress, or to rescue migrants drowning in the Rio Grande. In response, border agents began cutting through the wire, prompting Texas to sue. The far-right U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit dutifully issued an injunction prohibiting any federal destruction of the wire fencing.

The 5th Circuit’s injunction effectively allowed Texas to nullify federal law, in direct contradiction of the Constitution’s supremacy clause. Some of the oldestmost entrenched Supreme Court precedents forbid states from interfering with the lawful exercise of federal authority. It should have been easy for SCOTUS to grant the Biden administration’s emergency request by shooting down the 5th Circuit. Instead, the justices spent a baffling 20 days mulling the case—and, presumably, debating it behind the scenes. In the end, all the court could muster was a 5–4 order halting the 5th Circuit’s injunction, with Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the liberals. There were zero written opinions. The dissenters, including Kavanaugh, felt no obligation to explain their votes.

In a sense, Kavanaugh’s silence makes his vote even worse: Having lodged a protest against the single most important principle governing the relationship between the federal government and the states, the justice kept mum, forcing us to guess why he voted in support of nullification. Kavanaugh evidently felt that he owed us no explanation, no reasoning behind his desire to subvert executive authority in favor of a Confederate-flavored conception of state supremacy. His extremism was therefore compounded by an arrogant refusal to justify power with reason, an attitude fit more for a king than a judge.

And not for the first time: Just last month, Kavanaugh cast another silent, startling vote that aligned him with Alito and Thomas. On Dec. 11, the court refused to take up a challenge to Washington state’s ban on LGBTQ+ “conversion therapy” for minors, dodging a case that imperiled similar bans in nearly half the states. Even Gorsuch, Barrett, and Roberts wouldn’t take the bait—perhaps because the case was entirely bogus, cooked up by anti-LGBTQ+ activists despite the absence of a live controversy. But there was Kavanaugh, dissenting from the court’s rejection of the case, telegraphing his hunger to shoot down conversion therapy bans without even the fig leaf of a genuine dispute. Thomas and Alito each wrote angry dissents arguing that the court should’ve taken the case, while Kavanaugh stood alone in his reticence to explain himself. It seems the justice wants to establish a constitutional right to “convert” LGBTQ+ kids, an act that can amount to torture, but lacks the courage to even describe why.

Kavanaugh’s hard-right turn arguably began earlier, in an Aug. 8 order that flew under the radar. It emerged out of a conflict between the Biden administration and gun advocates over a new federal rule that restricts the sale of “ghost guns.” A ghost gun comes in a “kit” that’s almost fully assembled, and a buyer can easily finish putting it together with the help of a YouTube tutorial. Once completed, the gun fires like a semi-automatic firearm. To buy a regular handgun, you have to prove your identity, undergo a background check, and satisfy other federal requirements. To buy a ghost gun, you need only place an anonymous order online. These guns lack a serial number—which are mandatory for regular guns—rendering them untraceable by law enforcement. For this reason, ghost guns are overwhelmingly favored by criminals.

Federal law regulates the sale of “firearms,” the definition of which includes any weapon that “may readily be converted” to shoot a bullet. In 2022 the Biden administration issued a regulation clarifying that ghost guns fit this definition and may therefore be sold only by licensed dealers. This limitation neatly fit the federal statute, which, after all, encompassed partially assembled firearms. Yet, a federal judge halted the rule nationwide, and the 5th Circuit backed him up. The Biden administration sought relief at the Supreme Court, which granted it—by a 5-to-4 vote: Roberts and Barrett joined the liberals, while Kavanaugh joined Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch in dissent.

Once again, Kavanaugh gave no explanation for his vote. Had he prevailed, the justice would have freed criminals to anonymously purchase untraceable, almost-finished guns online and use them to maim and kill Americans without consequence. Doesn’t such a radical outcome cry out for an explanation? Apparently not to Kavanaugh, who likes to depict himself as a commonsense conciliator on firearms, except when it actually counts.

What’s going on here? One possibility is that Kavanaugh moderated himself during his early years on the bench in the hopes of salvaging his public image after furiously assailing Democrats during his confirmation hearing. After latching himself to the chief justice for half a decade, Kavanaugh may now be showing his true colors, breaking away from the chief’s tactical restraint to chart his own rightward course. Or maybe the justice is being pushed toward the MAGA fringe by contempt for Biden, whose policies he has routinely struck down. Kavanaugh was, after all, a Republican political operative in his past life; it has always been doubtful that he truly slipped his partisan moorings when donning the robe. (Trump’s lawyers put this less subtly, saying that Kavanaugh will soon “step up” for the man who appointed him.)

If partisan discontentment is driving Kavanaugh’s growing alliance with the hard-right bloc, the development has ominous implications for the 2024 election. Already, one major Trump case has hit the court, forcing the justices to decide whether the candidate’s incitement of an insurrection disqualifies him from running for president. Another one is hurtling toward the court, asking whether the Constitution somehow grants Trump absolute immunity from prosecution for his involvement in that insurrection. More election cases will arise as the election draws nearer (presuming Trump is the nominee), many involving access to the ballot. And during the 2020 election, at Trump’s behest, Kavanaugh cast several dubious votes attempting to void valid mail ballots in swing states.

It is encouraging that Barrett has stepped up as an unexpected voice of reason when Kavanaugh defects to the MAGA wing of the court. But Barrett herself is also very conservative, and certainly not a reliable vote for democracy. If a principle as fundamental as federal supremacy can only squeak by on a 5–4 vote, no law is settled and everything is up for grabs. And that, of course, is exactly how Trump wants it.

Russian parliament examines plan to seize dissidents’ assets

Reuters

Russian parliament examines plan to seize dissidents’ assets

Reuters – January 22, 2024

Victory Day Parade in Moscow

(Reuters) – Russia’s parliament began considering a draft bill on Monday which would give the state the power to seize the property of people convicted for defamation of the armed forces or for calling publicly for actions that undermine state security.

The move has drawn comparisons with the witch hunts of the 1930s under Soviet dictator Josef Stalin with their “enemy of the state” rhetoric, and could affect thousands of Russians who have spoken out against Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.

Criticising what Moscow calls its “special military operation” in Ukraine has effectively been a crime in Russia from the day it began almost two years ago, but the new bill aims to make penalties for that even tougher.

It would allow the state for example, to seize the property of Russians who have left the country and have criticised the war but who continue to rely on revenue from renting out their houses or apartments in Russia.

The speaker of the State Duma lower house of parliament, Vyacheslav Volodin, a close ally of President Vladimir Putin, has dubbed the new bill “the scoundrel law”.

“Everyone who tries to destroy Russia, betrays it, must be pubished accordingly and repay the damage to the country in the form of their property,” he said at the weekend while announcing the submission of the bill.

(Reporting by Reuters; Editing by Gareth Jones)

Trump Chooses Absolutely Baffling New Topic For Latest Rambling Aside

HuffPost

Trump Chooses Absolutely Baffling New Topic For Latest Rambling Aside

Ed Mazza – January 22, 2024

Embedded video

Donald Trump’s speech on Sunday took an unexpected turn when he went on a tangent about the names of U.S. military installations.

“We won world wars out of forts,” he said at an event in Rochester, New Hampshire. “Fort Benning, Fort This, Fort That, many forts. They changed the name, we won wars out of these forts, they changed the name, they changed the name of the forts. A lot of people aren’t too happy about that.”

Trump then essentially repeated what he’d just said.

“They changed the name of a lot of our forts. We won two world wars out of a lot of these forts and they changed the name,” he said. “It’s unbelievable.”

Nine U.S. military installations named for Confederate generals have been renamed to honor people who didn’t fight against the United States.

The Fort Benning that Trump mentioned was named for Henry L. Benning, who NPR noted was not just a Confederate general but a “virulent white supremacist.”

The Georgia installation was renamed Fort Moore last year in honor of Lt. Gen. Hal Moore and his wife, Julia Compton Moore, whom Military.com called “one of the Army’s most influential couples.”

Trump’s critics on X, the former Twitter, noted the strange digression:

Paul Waldman: Understand that Trump is mad because military facilities named for treasonous white supremacist slavery advocates who waged war against the United States were renamed to honor actual American heroes. That’s what he and his audience are pissed about.

Sophie Persists: We can’t forget the brave soldiers stationed at Fort This.

Chris Taylor: I was stationed at Fort This in 2009. They wanted to transfer me to Fort That. Lol a commander in chief that can’t even remember the names of the bases, yet he’s so upset the names were changed.

Bryan: I know by now I shouldn’t be surprised at his ignorance. Yet here we are…

Rick Wilson: Grandpa Ranty’s Ahistorical Ignorance Tour, 2024 edition.

Ron Filipkowski: Attached to this post is an excerpt from the speech Henry Benning made at the Virginia convention with his reasons for secession. Trump is bemoaning not having a base named after him. https://t.co/c6HaYsrGa9

Wu Tank is for the Children: Stay in school kids…there is so much insanity in this clip

Pro Lib: “Where were you stationed?” “Fort This, you?” “Fort That!” “Oh weird!”

Sue Z: Good God. And you MAGA people still love him. He’s an incoherent buffoon.

Keith Edwards: Trump is experiencing huge mental decline. The media has to start taking this seriously.

McCarthy: Freedom Caucus has ‘stopped Republicans from being able to govern’

The Hill

McCarthy: Freedom Caucus has ‘stopped Republicans from being able to govern’

Emily Brooks – January 22, 2024

McCarthy: Freedom Caucus has ‘stopped Republicans from being able to govern’

Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) accused the House Freedom Caucus of preventing the Republican majority from governing.

Speaking to Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo Monday morning, McCarthy the ousted former Speaker who resigned from Congress at the end of December, said questions about why Republicans opted to “kick the can down the road” and avert a government shutdown should be directed at the hard-line conservative group.

The stopgap funding measure passed last week extends government funding levels originally set under Democratic control until March 1 and March 8.

“You really should be asking the Freedom Caucus. They are the ones who have stopped the Republicans from being able to govern,” McCarthy said.

The Freedom Caucus opposed the continuing resolution (CR) to extend government funding last week, which Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said was necessary to complete work on regular full-year spending bills.

But McCarthy’s comment was an apparent reference to members of the group and their allies opposing full-year funding deals that House GOP leadership struck with Democrats — such as a debt ceiling deal McCarthy struck last year — and blocking several funding measures from coming to the House floor over the past year, preventing the slim House GOP majority from approving some funding measures sooner.

“What they are doing is they’re locking in the Democratic policies,” McCarthy said. “They’re actually spending more money now than if we go to the debt ceiling numbers. That would mean government would spend less, we could put Republican policies in. But they continue to stymie this majority to be able to do anything.”

The Freedom Caucus opposes the top-line spending number that Johnson struck with Democrats and the White House, which is largely in line with the debt ceiling deal that McCarthy struck with Democrats that they did not think was low enough.

The top-line agreement includes a $1.59 trillion base top line, a number Johnson and McCarthy have highlighted. But it also includes around $69 billion in budget tweaks to plus-up nondefense dollars for most of fiscal 2024, which enraged the Freedom Caucus. Johnson, meanwhile, has touted additional funding clawbacks he secured beyond the original McCarthy agreement.

Freedom Caucus leadership had also made a last-minute pitch to Johnson last week to try to attach border and migration policies to the stopgap measure, which he rejected.

Just more than half of House Republicans voted with Democrats last week to extend part of government funding to March 1 and the rest until March 8. McCarthy, notably, was forced out of the Speakership after pushing through a continuing resolution at the end of September.

“It really comes down to, what’s a true conservative? And I look for Ronald Reagan. A conservative is one that can actually govern in a conservative way,” McCarthy said. “But what you’re finding now is, what they’re doing is doing nothing but locks in Democratic Pelosi policies.”

“I don’t think they should continue to move to CRs. They should actually follow the numbers that was in the debt ceiling, which is lower than what they’re spending today. You get to reform it with Republican policies, because you’re in the majority now in the House. You get to move forward and layout and show the American public why they should give you more seats in the House and actually capture the Senate,” McCarthy said.

China’s rapidly dwindling future will shape the world for decades to come

Business Insider

China’s rapidly dwindling future will shape the world for decades to come

Linette Lopez – January 21, 2024

2024 is the year of the incredible shrinking China.

The country’s growth has been treated like an inevitability for decades. Everything was getting bigger — its cultural influence, geopolitical ambition, population — and seemed poised to continue until the world was remade in China’s image. The foundation for this inexorable rise was its booming economy, which allowed Beijing to throw its might around in other areas. But now China’s economy is withering, and the future Beijing imagined is being cut down to size along with it.

The clearest sign of this diminishment is China’s worsening deflation problem. While Americans are worried about inflation, or prices rising too fast, policymakers in Beijing are fretting because prices are falling. The consumer price index has declined for the past three months, the longest deflationary streak since 2009. In the race for global economic supremacy, deflation is an albatross around Beijing’s neck. It’s a sign that the Chinese economic model has well and truly run out of juice and that a painful restructuring is required. But beyond the financial problems, the sinking prices are a sign of a deeper malaise gripping the Chinese people.

“China’s deflation is the deflation of hope, the deflation of optimism. It’s a psychological funk,” Minxin Pei, a professor of political science at Claremont McKenna College, told me.

The fallout won’t be contained to China’s shores. Because the country’s growth sent money stampeding around the globe over the past few decades, its contractions are creating a seesaw effect in global markets. The foreign investors who helped to power China’s rise are running to avoid catching the funk on their balance sheets, and governments the world over are starting to question the narrative of China, the dauphin. What Beijing does — or fails to do — to fight this malaise will determine the course of humanity for decades to come.

Flirting with disaster

It may seem counterintuitive, especially given the Western experience of the past few years, but deflation is in many ways scarier than inflation. Inflation occurs when there’s too much demand for too few products — people want to buy things, but there simply isn’t enough stuff to go around. By contrast, deflation happens when there are plenty of goods and services available but not enough demand. Businesses are then forced to slash prices to entice consumers to come out and spend. Every economy sees recessions or downturns — periods of declining demand and sinking confidence that force companies to put their wares on sale — but sustained deflation is what happens when those maladies make themselves at home and decide to stay.

China’s deflation worries started in earnest in the summer. Consumer prices contracted 0.3% in July compared with the same month a year before — something that hadn’t happened since the depths of the pandemic. While other advanced economies were taking off too fast, China was showing signs that it might be getting stuck. Prices seemed to stabilize in August — until pork prices started to decline dramatically, pushing down the aggregate price index in October, November, and December. There was some hope for policymakers, though, since much of the deflation was driven by pork prices, which are extremely volatile in China. But recent data shows that core inflation, which excludes more volatile categories such as food and energy, is similarly anemic, rising just 0.6% year over year in December.

Charlene Chu, senior analyst at Autonomous Research

Charlene Chu, a director and senior analyst at Autonomous Research, said the major question for Beijing was whether the price declines would continue into 2024 or whether the country could reignite some demand. She wasn’t hopeful for the latter.

“I lean toward deflationary pressures continuing to build, but the data continuing to go back and forth through the year,” Chu told me via email.

China’s primary problem, though, is debt, particularly in the real-estate sector, which makes up 25% to 35% of the country’s GDP. Years of overbuilding — by about double the population, according to some estimates — and slowing population growth caused prices to collapse. The real-estate trouble has ravaged the balance sheets of Chinese households — many of which have sunk a massive proportion of their savings into property — and cast a pall on the rest of the economy.

“Chinese people have 70% of assets in housing, so you can imagine the effect on confidence,” Wei Yao, the chief economist at Société Générale, told me. “This is the factor why this deflation could be long-lasting.”

Seeing their investments tank has led many people to stop spending. Fifteen years ago, Wall Street assumed that the Chinese consumer would ultimately become the dictator of the global economy. Now they’re in hiding. Even as the country emerged from the deep freeze of its “Zero COVID” policy, retail sales growth was disappointing compared with some analysts’ projections.

“I think it is unrealistic to believe that deflationary pressure will disappear when there is still so much pressure on property prices and consumers are in savings mode,” Chu said.

Now I’m trapped

In 2002, Ben Bernanke, who went on the chair the Federal Reserve, gave a seminal speech about how to combat deflation. As an economic historian, he spent his academic career studying the Great Depression — the mother of all deflationary events — and based on his research, he had come to a few conclusions. I’ll give you a few that are relevant to China’s current situation:

  1. Deflationary events are rare, but even moderate deflation — “a decline in consumer prices of about 1% per year,” as Bernanke put it — can zap growth out of an economy for years.
  2. In a deflationary economy, debt becomes more onerous to pay back because money is scarcer, a situation known as “debt deflation.”
  3. The “prevention of deflation is preferable to having to cure it.”Xi JinpingXi Jinping refuses to try the policies that could help pull Chinse out of its national economic malaise.Xie Huanchi/Xinhua via Getty Images

Japan is a more-recent example of the deflation trap. Japan is maybe, just maybe, getting out of a 25-year dance with the deflation demon. After decades of supercharged growth, the country’s economy collapsed in the 1990s because of heavy debt and an aging population. Together, those forces pushed the country into deflation, kept wages suppressed, and dampened consumer spending. Sound familiar?

What we learned from Japan’s years of stagnation is that once deflation sets in, the only way out is through a painful restructuring of debt. Société Générale’s Yao told me that if Beijing quickly embarked on such an anti-debt campaign, it could prevent the funk from setting in. The problem is we have yet to see evidence that the Chinese Communist Party is willing to do that.

Fire? What fire?

Of course, if the Chinese Communist Party asked Bernanke what to do about deflation, he’d probably tell them to take dramatic action yesterday. Spray the money gun, start dropping cash from helicopters, get people spending again. Deflation can only be slayed by boosting demand. But the CCP’s unwillingness to directly help Chinese households, even in the depth of the COVID-19 crisis, makes this kind of support unlikely.

“China gave no fiscal support during the pandemic,” Yao reminded me during our talk. “Every other large economy gave some kind of stimulus.”

Sure, Beijing has taken measures over the past year to loosen financial conditions for banks and state-owned businesses. It has also cut interest rates a little bit and given a $140 billion lifeline to struggling local governments. But wonky supply-side mechanisms take time to make their way into the lives of normal people and spur demand — if it happens at all. At best, they can keep deflation from taking hold, but they can’t turn it around to growth.

“Any true acceleration next year will require either a major global upside surprise or more active government policy,” analysts at China Beige Book, a surveyor of the Chinese economy, said in a recent note to clients.

It’s not as if the CCP is in the dark about the economy’s struggles. China’s leader, Xi Jinping, even made mention of the reality that Chinese people were suffering financially during his New Year’s speech — a first for him. And while the party’s apparatchiks may seem stoic as they announce that China’s GDP growth is meeting expectations, their softer tone and more aggressive courting of international business belies their concern. The question is, if Beijing knows how bad things are getting, why aren’t they doing more?

Analysts are split on why there’s been no fiscal support to households. In a research note published in August, Logan Wright, an analyst at Rhodium Group, argued that China’s ability to deliver fiscal stimulus was greatly overestimated. Beijing’s levers “are far more impaired than commonly understood,” Wright told me in a recent phone interview. “The problem is that China doesn’t collect much tax outside of its investment-led growth model,” he added. Up to its eyeballs in debt obligations and without a robust fundraising mechanism, Beijing doesn’t have the cash bazooka it once did.

But there’s another, perhaps bleaker, possibility. It’s not that Beijing can’t deliver stimulus, it’s that it simply won’t do it. Xi doesn’t believe in direct cash payments to people. And now, since all of China is run by a one-man band, that’s all that matters.

“I reached the conclusion that there is a bit of ideology,” Yao told me. “In a sense, Xi Jinping wants to develop his own economic order. He’s trying to avoid making the same mistake as the West, which is wasting money and spending things that don’t generate long-term returns. In that perspective, sending checks to households doesn’t generate long-term returns.”

Maybe it’s a little of both. There have been times in the history of the Chinese Communist Party when different factions — reform vs. anti-reform — had the space to debate and change the government’s course on policy. In Xi’s China, that space is gone, shrunk into whatever can fit in the palm of his hand.

It’s not just the economy

Under Xi, all kinds of spaces in China have gotten smaller. (OK, it’s not his fault that the population is shrinking.) But his government has led to the narrowing of any space beyond the reach of the CCP. That includes the arts and intellectual life, a variety of forms of individual expression, and private business. China before Xi was a place learning to handle a plurality of voices — as long as they weren’t brazenly attacking the country. China during Xi is a place where people online speak in code to express even their minor dissatisfaction, only to watch CCP censors rub their words away.

“Chinese people have to shrink their ambitions,” Claremont’s Pei told me. “People in the government should have their ambitions scaled dramatically.”

This ideological shrinking is taking many forms: Beijing’s nominally anti-corruption drive is back in full swing, ensnaring officials from all over the government who strayed from the Xi line. Billionaire businesspeople are on notice that their wealth will no longer protect them from the CCP’s harsh gaze. Foreign investors are running for the hills. Even China’s flagship One Belt One Road infrastructure loan program has been pared down. “They’re not bestriding the world anymore,” one former US diplomat posted in East Asia told me.

This doesn’t necessarily mean China poses no adversarial challenge to the US. It just means Beijing is prioritizing where it invests in that competition. Xi will not back off from investing in the military because reunification with Taiwan remains his paramount goal. The central government will continue to invest in technology and in advancing industries where it thinks it can press any first-mover advantages. Think: electric cars, batteries, and solar panels.

“We don’t think the US faces a growth challenge from China anymore at this stage,” Rhodium Group’s Wright said. “The concern from the US and Europe are the spillovers from excess capacity.” In other words, China will pick its fights more selectively and defend its economic advantages more fiercely. A world built larger through global financial connections will disconnect and disperse into smaller nodes.

Do not expect a shrinking China to be a shrinking violet. Outside loaning money, magnanimity has never been Beijing’s strong suit. The slights that smarted when it was a growing superpower will only hurt more in shrunken stature. Xi will never let go of saving face. That’s the nature of a one-man reign.