Trump says the U.S. government may reimburse oil companies for rebuilding Venezuela’s infrastructure

No healthcare subsidies, no money to feed poor people or kids who need government help to have lunch.  As a kid often the only meal I got was lunch at school.   No one monitored if I paid or not I was given food to eat like every other kid.   In Jr / Senior high school, say from 13 to 18 again my only meal was lunch or snacks at school.  But yes the tRump admin was cutting every safety net program and even halting child care so it hurts Walz, and stopping FEMA funds to states run by democrats among other cuts to already congress approved funding.   All illegally I will add but the republicans in congress are too scared of tRump to object to his being a tyrant.   But we have plenty of money for companies and businesses to extract oil.   

On The Majority Report I am listening to an oil person saying that the price of oil has fallen below $50 a barrel because of a glut on the market, and that Venezuelan oil is “sour oil” meaning it is hard to refine.  He says that to make a profit on that prices have to be over $80 dollars a barrel.   Which means this demented daydream of Rubio’s and Miller’s is not about oil so much as territorial control over other countries and Rubio has long wanted Cuba to fall to the US so his parent’s lands and money can be claimed from the rightful owners of it now.   Rubio’s family fled Cuba as refugees and lost all their holdings in Cuba, he has made a career of wanting it all back and toppling Castro.  But … well Rubio and the neocons claim that if we can make Venzualia fall into line then all the other Latin American countries will fall in line also and Cuba’s government will be destroyed.  Just like if we take out Saddam Hussein then the entire Middle East will embrace democracy.   Same story different location.   And it is all lies.  Just an excuse to use the US military might and have a reason to deny any public relief or safety nets at home.   Hugs


https://www.nbcnews.com/business/energy/trump-venezuela-oil-companies-reimburse-rcna252434

Big oil firms will either “get reimbursed by us or through revenue,” Trump told NBC News in an exclusive interview.

President Donald Trump said he believes the U.S. oil industry could get expanded operations in Venezuela “up and running” in fewer than 18 months.

“I think we can do it in less time than that, but it’ll be a lot of money,” Trump told NBC News in an interview Monday.

“A tremendous amount of money will have to be spent, and the oil companies will spend it, and then they’ll get reimbursed by us or through revenue,” he said.

Whether the U.S. government ultimately agrees to reimburse the oil industry’s costs in Venezuela, or alternatively, decides that future revenue is sufficient repayment, will likely be a key factor for the oil companies as they consider their options.

Trump declined to say how much money he believes it would cost companies to repair and upgrade Venezuela’s aging oil infrastructure.

“It’ll be a very substantial amount of money will be spent” by the oil companies, Trump said. “But they’ll do very well.”

“And the country will do well,” he added.

Despite Trump’s optimism, oil companies have appeared skeptical of quickly entering, expanding or investing in Venezuela. A history of state asset seizures, the ongoing U.S. sanctions and the latest political instability all feed into this caution.

Trump said he believed that tapping Venezuela’s oil reserves is “going to reduce oil prices.”

Gas prices are already at multiyear lows. The average retail gas price on Monday was $2.81, according to AAA. That’s the lowest since March 2021.

“Having a Venezuela that’s an oil producer is good for the United States because it keeps the price of oil down,” Trump also added.

While lower oil prices could make gas cheaper at the pump, it would likely also mean lower revenues for the same big oil companies that Trump is counting on to bankroll the rebuilding of Venezuela’s oil industry to the tune of billions of dollars in foreign investment.

Asked if the administration had briefed any oil companies ahead of Saturday’s military operation to capture deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, Trump said, “No. But we’ve been talking to the concept of, ‘what if we did it?'”

“The oil companies were absolutely aware that we were thinking about doing something,” Trump said. “But we didn’t tell them we were going to do it.”

Trump told NBC News it was “too soon” to say whether he had personally spoken to top executives at America’s three largest oil producers, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips.

“I speak to everybody,” he said.

ConocoPhillips declined to comment Monday on Trump’s plans for Venezuela’s oil reserves. Chevron told NBC News it does not comment “on commercial matters or speculate on future investments.” Exxon did not immediately respond to questions.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright plans to meet with executives from Exxon and ConocoPhillips this week about Venezuela’s oil industry, Bloomberg News reported Monday, citing people familiar with the matter.

Wright will be a point person for the Trump administration’s broader campaign to rebuild Venezuela’s oil infrastructure, a White House official said Monday.

The Trump administration has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. oil industry is eager to return to Venezuela, nearly two decades after the country last nationalized billions of dollars’ worth of oil company assets.

“They want to go in so badly,” Trump told reporters Sunday evening.

Despite Venezuela’s massive reserves of crude oil, large U.S. oil firms have a good reason to pause before committing to expand operations in Venezuela.

In the 1970s, the Venezuelan government nationalized energy assets there, including those owned by Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips. In the years since, the companies have tried unsuccessfully to recover billions of dollars.

In 2006 and 2007, the Venezuelan government nationalized even more assets. Then-President Hugo Chávez allowed foreign oil firms to remain, but on less favorable terms, leading to the full departure of Exxon and Conoco.

Chevron, however accepted the terms and remains to this day, thanks in large part to a limited waiver exempting it from U.S. sanctions on Venezuelan oil.

Exxon Mobil CEO Darren Woods recently expressed caution about re-entering Venezuela.

“We’ve been expropriated from Venezuela two different times,” he told Bloomberg News in November, replying to a question about whether Exxon would be interested in Venezuela’s oil or gas. “We’d have to see what the economics look like.”

This Is EXACTLY How Trump Wanted Schumer To React…

Let’s talk about Trump, chess, Venezuela, Ajax….

 

Political cartoons / memes / and news I want to share. 1-6-2026

Image from Assigned Male

Image from Assigned Male

Image from Assigned Male

 

 

 

#Samwise Gamgee from What Are You Really Afraid Of?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#ManChildTrump from What Are You Really Afraid Of?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#DOGE from Progressive Power

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#public libraries from Library Journal

 

image

The progressive comic about Trump's idiot voters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image from What Are You Really Afraid Of?

 

#cat from Catasters

 

 

 

Image from Making Donald Drumpf Again

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Al Goodwyn for 1/5/2026

 

 

 

 

image
image

A curtained off section of a larger room is NOT a SCIF. The incompetence of this administration knows no bounds.

And the fact that X is pulled up on the screen behind them is just…embarrassing.

Who thought this was a good photo to release?

Looks like Pete Hegseth is either checking the online cocktail menu or lurking for exes on Facebook. Both can be true.

 

#politics from Cartoon Politics

 

image

 

 

 

 

 

THE HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS CONFLICT IN THE UNITED STATES: REVOLUTION TO SEPTEMBER 11TH

Roger sent this to me and I thought it was so grand and important that I want to share it before I shut down my blogging computer.    Hugs

https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297a/The%20History%20of%20Religious%20Conflict.htm

 Throughout its history, the United States has characteristically remained a country of two things: a country of immigrants, and a country of unmatched religious diversity.  And yet when compared with the rest of the world – where these two very factors alone have so often engendered horrible religious wars and decades of enduring conflict – the history of religious conflict in the United States seems almost nonexistent.

That is not to say the United States has been immune to its share of conflict explicitly rooted in religion.  This paper explores the various manifestations of religious conflict throughout the history of the United States, from the Revolutionary War to the attacks of September 11th and their fallout.  A distinction is drawn between religious intolerance, which is not the focus of this paper, and outright religious persecution or violence.  Similarly, the paper reflects efforts made to de-conflate religious conflict from ethnic and racial conflict, which has been much more prominent throughout the history of the United States.  In examining the history of religious violence, intolerance, discrimination, and persecution in the United States, we arrive at some possible explanations for why the United States has seen such minimal religious conflict despite being so religiously diverse.

The Revolution

It has been said that the United States is a nation founded on religious conflict.  The colonies were settled by those escaping religious persecution in Europe.  There is even some evidence that religion played a major role in the American Revolution and that revolutionaries believed it was willed by God for the Americans to wage war against the British.[1]

As the Church of England was striving to establish one, uniform religion across the kingdom, colonial America was divided, each of the colonies being dominated by their own brand of Christianity.  Due to the distance from England and the room in the colonies, many religions were able to establish themselves in America, colony by colony.  For example, Anglicans, who conformed to the Church of England, populated Virginia. Massachusetts was home to the Puritans.  Pennsylvania was full of Quakers.  Baptists ruled in Rhode Island.  And Roman Catholics found a haven in Maryland, where they could establish themselves amid the other colonists’ protestant majority.  Each of these colonies maintained a distinct religious character and favored one religious denomination’s power.

The American colonists saw the revolution not only as a war for political independence, but to protect the religious diversity of the thirteen colonies.  Put in other terms, it was a war for religious independence and freedom.  To sever ties with Mother England would be to ensure that the various Christian denominations could co-exist on the American continent.  The conflict was, in part, a conflict that pitted the various American religious denominations against the Church of England, who wanted to impose a uniform, Anglican religion on the colonies.

Early Religious Persecution

The period after the Revolutionary War saw a lot of infighting between the various states and Christian denominations.  Virginia, which was home to the largest portion of Anglicans loyal to the Church of England, was the scene of notorious acts of religious persecution against Baptists and Presbyterians.  Anglicans physically assaulted Baptists, bearing theological and social animosity.  In 1771, a local Virginia sheriff yanked a Baptist preacher from the stage at his parish and beat him to the ground outside, where he also delivered twenty lashes with a horsewhip.  Similarly, in 1778, Baptist ministers David Barrow and Edward Mintz were conducting services at the Mill Swamp Baptist Church in Portsmouth, Virginia.[2]  As soon as the hymn was given out, a gang of men rushed the stage and grabbed the two ministers, took them to the nearby Nansemond River swamp, and dunked and held their heads in the mud until they nearly drowned to death.

The period during and soon after the Revolutionary War also saw abundant political manifestations of religious conflict.  At the time, some states abolished churches, while supporting others, issued preaching licenses, and collected tax money to fund and establish state churches.  Each state constitution differed in its policy on religious establishment, or state-supported religion.  It would not be until well after the adoption of the Constitution of 1789 and the First Amendment religion clauses that the disestablishment for which the United States is so recognized became the de facto practice.

1800s

The early part of the 19th Century was relatively quiet in terms of religious conflict in America.  The religious conflict that stands out in this period involves tensions between Catholics and Protestants, culminating in violence directed at Irish Catholic immigrants.  The surge in immigration from Europe during the 19th Century coincided with and influx of Catholics and the rise of activist Protestantism in the U.S.  As strong Protestant values permeated the country, immigrants who were Catholic also became viewed as outsiders and undemocratic.  These views are separate from, but on top of, the harsh anti-Irish sentiment that also spread during the period.

In the 1830s and 1840s, anti-Catholic violence broke out in the Northeast and elsewhere.  In 1835, one incident was ignited by a speaking tour by Lyman Beecher, who published Plea for the West, a book about a Catholic plot to take over the U.S. and impose Catholic rule.  After Beecher’s speaking tour passed through Charlestown, Massachusetts, a mob set fire to the Ursuline convent and school.[3]  In Philadelphia in 1844, pitched gun battles broke out between “native” Americans and mostly Irish Catholics.  Martial law had to be declared in order to end the violence.[4]

The Mormon War, the Utah War

Around the same time as anti-Catholic violence broke out in the Northeast, another religious group was being chased out of the same area.  The Mormons, who emerged after the 1830 discovery of The Book of Mormon, were a religious community chased out of New York, out of Ohio, out of Missouri, and out of Illinois, to Utah, where they finally settled.

In Illinois in 1839, the Mormons settled Nauvoo and built a thriving Mormon town there, complete with a large Mormon temple.  In the short period of three years, the Mormons prospered, announced the doctrine of polygamy, and founder Joseph Smith announced his candidacy for president of the United States.  Locals were intimidated and envious.  Smith and his brother Hyrum were arrested on morals charges and held in jail.  On June 27, 1844, an anti-Mormon mob attacked Nauvoo and burned it to the ground.[5]  They also invaded the jail cells where Smith and his brother were being held, and executed them.

Shortly after the sacking of Nauvoo, Brigham Young announced his leadership of the Mormons and led them to Utah, where they flourished.  In 1857, fears of a religious state of Mormons grew and the president ordered federal troops to enforce the installation of federal judges and a new non-Mormon governor.  At some point in the interim, this is still a subject of debate, the infamous Mountain Meadow Massacre happened – in which local Mormons slaughtered a group of 120 California-bound pioneers who were openly hostile toward their religion and making threats to return from California to attack them.[6]

The massacre only fueled anti-Mormon sentiment.  Tensions escalated. The Mormon army, also known as the Nauvoo Legion, was called out to respond to the imminent arrival of 2,000 U.S. Army troops.  Salt Lake City was evacuated on standing orders to burn the city should an invasion occur.  No violence was to break out, as attention was diverted to the Civil War.

As the federal government focused its energies on fighting the Civil War, legal sanctions and political oppression of the Mormons continued that virtually dissolved the church by 1887.  It wasn’t until the 1890s, when the Mormons ended the practice of polygamy, that Utah finally achieved statehood in 1896.[7]

The Jewish Experience

At the end of the 1890s, the U.S. began seeing the first wave of anti-Semitism, just as the federal government began restricting immigration from Europe.  While concentrations of Jews have lived in America since colonial times, they were largely tolerated and discriminated against in localized incidents.  By the 1920s, immigration quotas had taken effect and limits on the basis of national origin.  These quotas were not repealed during the Holocaust, even as Jewish refugees were fleeing Hitler’s Europe.

Between 1933 and 1939, the period of the Great Depression, anti-Semitic fervor reached heights never before seen or later seen in entire the history of the Jewish experience in America.  In urban areas such as New York and Boston, Jews were violently attacked.[8]  Most anti-Jewish sentiment was manifested in social and political discrimination.  Assaults, propaganda and intimidation were mostly carried out by special societies, such as the Silver Shirts or the Ku Klux Klan.

Overall, the experience of Jews in America has been encouragingly free from the violent persecution seen elsewhere in the world.  Indeed, racial and social intolerance persisted since the colonial days until the 1950s, as Jews were not allowed membership in country clubs, excluded from colleges, banned from practicing medicine, and from holding political office in many states.  However, religious conflict rooted in anti-Semitism has been largely non-violent.

Hate Crimes as Religious Conflict

The incidents of violence against individual Jews that characterized the anti-Semitism of the Great Depression would have fallen under the category of religious hate crimes if the FBI, then known as the Bureau of Investigation, were collecting those statistics at the time.  Despite the diversity of the United States, in all aspects such as race, national origin, religion and sexual orientation, the federal government (by way of the FBI) did not start keeping tabs on hate crimes until 1992.  Religiously speaking, anti-Semitic hate crimes have always dominated the national hate crime statistics gathered by the FBI for the past ten years.  However, the current numbers paint a changing landscape.

According to the ACLU, the U.S. is home to more than 1,500 religions and 360,000 religious centers.[9]  Christianity has long dominated the country’s religious make-up, followed by Judaism.  According to the latest statistics released by the Harvard University Religious Pluralism Project, Islam has surpassed Judaism and is the country’s Number Two religion.[10]

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the FBI found that anti-Muslim sentiments spiked and verifiable, religiously motivated hate crimes against Muslims in the U.S. increased 1,600 percent in 2001 from the prior year.[11]

In fact, the FBI, which has tracked hate crimes since 1992, reports that Anti-Muslim hate crimes had previously been the second-least reported.  But in 2001, they became the second-highest reported, second only to anti-Jewish hate crimes.  It should be noted that these statistics are separate from crimes motivated against race, national origin or ethnicity – these are crimes against person and property in which religion was a motivating negative factor.

Conclusion

The U.S. has been fortunate in that it has not witnessed religious war and conflict of the scale seen in the Middle East and Europe.  Although the number of different religions in the U.S. has steadily grown over the decades, this diversity has not let to conflict.  Some propositions for why this may be:

The United States as a country of immigrants

This factor defuses historical and religious claims to territory, which are not as strong as they are in places such as the West Bank and Ireland.  It also may explain a greater likelihood for a system of conflict to eventually resolve itself in favor of tolerance rather than further conflict, as each new group of immigrants to America has generally shared a story of persecution.

Constitutional protections and religious disestablishment

The American tradition of the separation of church and state cannot be overlooked in mediating and possibly preventing religious conflict to erupt.  In many other parts of the world, religion is still highly influential and, in some cases, sponsored by the state.  However, in a country with such religious diversity, religious disestablishment has proved necessary so that the government could not take sides in a religious conflict.

Diversity creates tolerance

The argument also exists that the immense diversity in and of itself has promoted tolerance among religions.  Religious pluralism inspires attitudes that homogeneity is a natural part of the religious environment and that there is room for each religion to exist in America.

As the United States enters the 21st Century, these important factors will prove to be influential in the face of catastrophic events, and economic, social and political changes that challenge the level of religious tolerance the nation has maintained for over two centuries.

[1] Religion and the American Revolution. “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic.” Ed. James H. Huston.  1998.  http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html

[2] Ibid.

[3] Encyclopedia of American Religious History, Revised Edition, Vol. II.  “Religious violence.” Edward L. Queen II. Page 601. 2001.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Queen, 602.

[6] Emily Eakin. “Reopening a Mormon Murder Mystery.” The New York Times, section B, page 9, Oct. 12, 2002.

[7] Queen, 605.

[8] “Antisemitism in the Depression Era (1933-1939),” Leonard Dinnerstein. Religion in American History, A reader.  Page 413. 1998.

[9] “Religious Liberty.” American Civil Liberties Union.  http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibertyMain.cfm

[10] “Geographic Distribution of Religious Centers in the U.S” Committee on the Study of Religion. Harvard University, Jan. 2002. http://www.plurarlism.org/resources/statistics/distribution.php

[11] “Foreword.” Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01hate.pdf

A Great Info & Opinion Piece About The Rich, The Poor, Capitalism, & Socialism

A good explainer written with a sense of humor. Nice things are not always bad things. -A.

We Regret To Infomrm You Zohran Mamdani’s Wife Wore Nice Boots.

Ready, Boots? Start walking!

Robyn Pennacchia Jan 05, 2026

Since returning to office, Donald Trump’s personal wealth has nearly doubled, from $3.9 billion in 2024 to $7.3 billion this past September, which includes $2 billion from his cryptocurrency ventures that no one had been buying into prior to his reelection. Donald Trump Jr. is now worth six times what he was in 2024, also due in part to the family crypto scam.

But did you hear? Zohran Mamdani’s wife, Rama Duwaji, wore some cute boots to his inauguration like a common Imelda Marcos! Quelle horreur!

The New York Post breathlessly reported:

Their “affordability” agenda got off on the wrong foot.

New York City’s first lady Rama Duwaji appeared to wear $630 “artisan” leather boots from a high-end designer to her Democratic socialist husband Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral swearing-in ceremony — a luxury look that flew in the face of the politician’s “everyman” image, eagle-eyed critics said Thursday.

Duwaji, a 28-year-old artist, gave more socialite than socialist on New Year’s Day as she apparently rocked one of the fashion house Miista’s pricey boot designs — one which is said to be crafted from “vegetable tan cow leather” and feature an “ultra-cushioned memory foam insole.”

Not “vegetable tan cow leather”! NOT A MEMORY FOAM INSOLE!

Not that it matters, really, but $630 for boots is not “luxury.” I mean that technically. Obviously $630 is a good amount of money, but it’s not luxury. It’s what’s called “bridge” — meaning that it’s high quality and expensive, but not at the same level as actual luxury brands, which cost at least twice that. It’s not Chanel or Versace or Alexander McQueen or Louis.

Now, it turns out that the boots (and the entire outfit) were actually rented/loaned for the occasion, as her stylist Gabriella Karefa-Johnson explained in a blog post about the event:

Rama wore a vintage Balenciaga coat from Albright Fashion Library and archival earrings from New York Vintage, both rented during a single marathon day spent diving into the racks and cupboards of the city’s best small, circular fashion businesses. […]

C’mon formal shorts!! Those are from The Frankie Shop, and the boots are *ON LOAN* from Miista.

I’m just going to have to get comfortable with the fact that people on the internet do not understand what being lent a SAMPLE that has been borrowed before and will be borrowed again means but, you know what, that’s okay.

This is a big part of what stylists do. Most of the time, when you see a celebrity wearing something fancy on the red carpet or at an event like this, it’s not something from their own closet, it’s on loan from a designer (because cheap advertising) or something like the Albright Fashion Library. This is also how a lot of wardrobing for television and movies works.

But even if they weren’t on loan, the idea that “it’s hypocrisy for a Democratic socialist or even a regular liberal to wear nice boots!” is absurd. It only seems like “hypocrisy” to people who think socialism means everyone should be poor and miserable and standing in bread lines all day wearing cardboard boxes on their feet instead of shoes.

The reality is … that’s capitalism. Like, for most people, that is capitalism, except you don’t even get any free bread out of it. Indeed, most of the people in the comments on the Post’s tweet for the article were talking about how they, the proud capitalists that capitalism is definitely working out really well for, only spend $40 on boots at Walmart or Amazon. Actually, buying shoes that will only last a season (and will fuck up your feet) because that’s all you can afford, instead of boots that cost a lot up front but last forever, is a perfect example of why it costs more to be poor than it does to be rich. (This is not to say that you can’t get decent boots for a not-crazy price — I do very well at Nordstrom Rack and Marshalls, thank you very much — but you get my point.)

What we want is for people to not have to spend $2,000 a month on health insurance or on rent so that they can have nice things, so that they can buy a nice pair of boots or a warm winter coat. So that they can go out to dinner sometimes without worrying about breaking the bank. That is the whole damn point! That’s the “hearts starve as well as bodies; give us bread, but give us roses too” of it all.

Right now, 60 percent of Americans cannot afford $1,000 for an emergency expense. That’s not socialism that did that, that’s capitalism as practiced in the United States of America. Our economy literally has poverty built into the system. We literally cannot function without people to work the kind of jobs that currently do not pay enough for survival. Austerity is a way of life for a very large percentage of us, which also means that those whose income is dependent on other people having expendable income are also screwed.

New NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s affordability plans don’t just benefit the poor, they benefit everyone. If people aren’t taking certain jobs because transportation costs too much to make it worth their while or they can’t afford to live in the city, everyone’s quality of life goes down. A city where only rich people can afford to live is a city where rich people have absolutely nothing to do, which kind of defeats the whole point of being rich in the first place.

The commenters complaining about all the people they could supposedly feed with the $630 those boots cost are also missing the point. Besides clearly not being how socialism is supposed to work, caring for the poor by way of charity and philanthropy is lovely, but it’s not the most effective and efficient way of doing so. Taxes are. Social programs are. GoFundMe raises about $650 million a year for medical causes, with some people getting far more than they could ever need and others getting nothing. That is a stupid way of doing things. You want to spend less on healthcare? Make the entire United States one giant insurance group with a shit ton of leverage and bulk buying power, make medical school free and invest tax money into creating more internship programs. That is how you take care of people, not by not buying a pair of shoes.

Capitalists want philanthropy to replace taxation. Right-wing libertarians frequently argue that if you just didn’t tax the rich, they would happily give huge chunks of their fortunes away to the poor, which is patently ridiculous (and, again, not effective or efficient even if things did shake out that way).

Champagne socialists are good, actually. Why on earth would it be better to be a miserly rich person than a rich person who actually believes they should be taxed at a fair rate because they want to see everyone living well? The idea that the Left wants a world in which everyone lives like they’ve taken a vow of poverty and no one gets to be “successful” is a fantasy created by rich assholes who don’t want to share and don’t care if they live in a society where everyone has at least their basic needs met.

We actually love success, which is why we want more of it for more people, rather than just one percent of one percent of people. We love people, which is why we want a safety net that keeps them from falling so far they can’t get back up again. We love ingenuity, which is why we want people to be able to go into business for themselves without having to worry about what will happen to their kids if they can’t afford good health insurance on their own right away. We want their kids to feel like it’s not hopeless to try their best in school because they don’t think they’ll be able to afford to go to college without being in debt the rest of their lives. We don’t think it’s enough that people can “dream” of being billionaires but factually never be able to afford their own home.

And yes, we even want some people to be able to afford to actually buy $630 shoes, so that other people can get paid a fair wage for designing, making and selling those $630 shoes.

Hope that clears things up!

TIME: Trump’s Potential Next Targets After Venezuela

Trump’s Potential Next Targets After Venezuela
The U.S.’s stunning intervention in Venezuela puts several other countries in the region and around the world also on edge.

Read in TIME: https://apple.news/ApL7D2ttRTw-Ke5779hCD7A

Shared from Apple News

Best Wishes and Hugs,Scottie

The banana wars

 

 

News We Can Use In The Week Ahead

The Week Ahead

January 4, 2026 Joyce Vance

What is Donald Trump running away from so hard? Is it the fifth anniversary of his January 6 insurrection, which we will mark on Tuesday? It should be.

It could be Jack Smith’s newly released testimony, which is damning and damaging—and we haven’t even gotten the release date of Volume II of his special counsel report, due sometime in February unless Trump manages to hang it up in court. On balance, Congressman Jim Jordan’s “Weaponization” work is backfiring.

It could also be the Epstein Files. DOJ missed its reporting date to Congress over the weekend, and the full release of the files is still nowhere in sight.

Donald Trump has a lot to try to hide from. It could be all of the above, and it’s all closing in on him this week. In the past, he has always been able to delay or distract just long enough for the public to forget. But this week, the past seems to be catching up with the lame duck president.

That may be at least a partial explanation for Trump’s strike on Venezuela—distract, distract, distract. It’s a better explanation than Trump as a committed warrior against narcoterrorism. That one doesn’t work particularly well for Donald Trump, who pardoned Honduran ex-president Juan Orlando Hernández, a man who former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said in our Substack Live on Sunday morning, “personally trafficked tons of cocaine into the United States and actually said at one point he wanted to shove cocaine up the noses of the gringos.” When Trump pardoned Hernández, he said, “If somebody sells drugs in that country, that doesn’t mean you arrest the president and put him in jail for the rest of his life.” As Jake pointed out, and I agree, “the drugs excuse holds no water.”

This week, we’ll be watching Congress—and watching Trump watch Congress, which has been showing a few signs of life lately. I don’t want to oversell that, but this is definitely a week that warrants paying attention, particularly with the privileged War Powers Resolution I mentioned in last night’s post coming to the Senate floor this week. The ball is in Congress’ court.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, as well as to “make rules concerning captures on land and water.” Presidents before and including Trump, as experts at the Brennan Center explain, have tried to claim some of that authority for themselves, using “outdated and overstretched war authorizations like the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force.” Multiple presidents have also “asserted an inherent authority to undertake airstrikes, raids, and other military interventions without prior congressional authorization. When Congress has authorized conflict, such as the War in Afghanistan and Iraq War, presidents have overread Congress’s approval and expanded U.S. military involvement into countries that Congress never contemplated. Compounding the problem, presidents often fail to give Congress the information it needs to oversee these conflicts.” This is not a Trump problem—presidents since at least George H.W. Bush have claimed a share of Congress’ power. But Trump, who is uniquely interested in amassing presidential power, has the potential to move on from Venezuela and keep going, if Congress doesn’t step in and assert itself.

It’s possible for two things to be true at once: it’s possible that Maduro was a corrupt, dangerous leader and also, that our Constitution and the separation of powers demand preserving. Our country does not, and indeed cannot, remove every dangerous leader around the globe from office with in-country strikes. We could strengthen local populations with stability-enhancing programs like USAID (which the Trump administration, of course, has cut) to increase the ability of local populations to act on their own impulses. We can engage in vigorous law enforcement, like the prosecution of Honduras’ former president. But we can do so without permitting our president to freelance as a warlord, especially one with dubious motives. So don’t buy into the false equivalency that says the smash and grab in Venezuela that resulted in Maduro’s arrest was a righteous exercise of the president’s power.

The constitutional prescription for fixing this problem of presidential overreach is Congress. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker had something to say about that over the weekend, in light of the Trump administration’s strike on Venezuela.

Cory Booker@CoryBooker

Today, many leaders will rightly condemn President Donald Trump’s unlawful and unjust actions in Venezuela, and I join them. But just as glaring, and far more damning, is Congress’ ongoing abdication of its constitutional duty. For almost a year now, the legislative branch has

4:40 PM · Jan 3, 2026 · 70.8K Views


415 Replies · 523 Reposts · 1.93K Likes

“Today,” he wrote, “many leaders will rightly condemn President Donald Trump’s unlawful and unjust actions in Venezuela, and I join them.

But then, Senator Booker put the blame precisely where it is due. He continued, “just as glaring, and far more damning, is Congress’ ongoing abdication of its constitutional duty. For almost a year now, the legislative branch has failed to check a president who repeatedly violates his oath, disregards the law, and endangers American interests at home and abroad.”

He called out the Republican-led Congress for choosing “spineless complicity over its sworn responsibilities.” He condemned its inaction in the face of Signalgate, with Trump’s “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth escaping any censure for “the reckless leaking of classified information that put American troops at risk.” The senator also pointed to the “stunning absence of accountability” for the administration’s “illegal use of military force destroying vessels and killing people in the Caribbean and the Pacific without congressional authorization.”

Booker cited a litany of Congressional failures:

No hearings.
No serious investigations.
No enforcement of checks and balances.
No accountability.

He called Congress cowardly and submissive.

We are long past due for someone to speak so plainly to the country about the Republican-led Congress’ failure to do its constitutional duty. The question is, who is listening, and will it lead to action this week? As my good friend Norm Eisen like to say, I am not optimistic, but I am hopeful.

Booker writes that “Republicans in Congress own this corrosive collapse of our constitutional order” and that their submission to Trump’s will “now stands as one of the greatest dangers to our nation and to the global order America claims to defend.” The fact that Maduro is “a brutal dictator who has committed grave abuses” does not, Booker concludes, suspend the Constitution. And so, he drives home the point of what must come next:

  • “The Constitution is unambiguous: Congress has the power and responsibility to authorize the use of military force and declare war. Congress has a duty of oversight. Congress must serve as a check, not a rubber stamp, to the President.”
  • “We face an authoritarian-minded president who acts with dangerous growing impunity. He has shown a willingness to defy court orders, violate the law, ignore congressional intent, and shred basic norms of decency and democracy. This pattern will continue unless the Article I branch of government, especially Republican congressional leadership, finds the courage to act.”
  • “What happened today [in Venezuela] is wrong. Congressional Republicans would say so immediately if a Democratic president had done the same. Their silence is surrender. And in that surrender lie the seeds of our democratic unraveling.”

“Enough is enough,” Booker concludes. With three years left in this administration, it’s time to stop the (constitutional) bleeding.

Senator Booker wrote at length at a time when many Americans have lost the will or the ability to take in an argument laid out like this. For some people, it’s easier to ignore common sense and stay in the fold of the cult. But Booker’s words are well worth our time and well worth sharing with others. His argument is not subtle or nuanced, and it’s accessible to anyone who has taken a fourth-grade civics class: Congress should do its job, not Donald Trump’s bidding. The future of the Republic depends upon it. They would demand it if a Democratic president had done what Donald Trump did—something that has been true over and over, but is all the more poignant with the anniversary of January 6 staring us in the face. Maybe Congress will remember what that day felt like and how they reacted. Maybe enough of them can muster some courage—if for no other reason than that the history books, and likely voters at the midterms, will condemn them if they don’t.

Make sure you share Senator Booker’s message with your elected officials this week. They need to hear it. They need to know you heard it.

A final note: a development we won’t be following this week, because it won’t be happening, is the federal criminal trial of former FBI Director Jim Comey, which was slated to start on Monday. This trial will not take place because the case was dismissed, in a serious blow to the credibility of Pam Bondi’s Justice Department. There are, in fact, some guardrails that remain in place. And this year, we’re going to rebuild more of them. Get ready to vote.

Where you get your news and analysis is a choice. I’m very appreciative that you’re here, with me, at Civil Discourse. Your subscriptions make it possible for me to devote the time and resources it takes to research and write the newsletter, and I’m very grateful for all of you. This is what community looks like.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

Political cartoons / memes / and news I want to share. 1-5-2026

 

Image from Assigned Male

Image from Assigned Male

 

 

 

 

 

#healthcare from AZspot

 

 

Political cartoon.

#OurProgressive from Progressive Power

Image from A sudden, violent jerk....

#OurProgressive from Progressive Power

 

 

Political cartoon

 

 

 

 

 

The cartoonist's homepage, citizen-times.com/voices-views

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The cartoonist's homepage, news-press.com/opinion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image from Liberals Are Cool

 

 

 

 

Political cartoon.

 

Political cartoon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chris Britt for 1/3/2026

 

 

image

The Trump administration wants it both ways.

On Saturday, it tells us that Nicolás Maduro is such a uniquely dangerous despot — so criminal, so destabilizing, so irredeemable — that the United States had no choice but to remove him from power by force. Maduro, we are told, is a narco-dictator, a human rights abuser, a menace to his own people and to regional stability.

On Sunday, the same administration will continue putting Venezuelan asylum seekers on planes and deports them back to the country that, according to its own rhetoric, was so dangerous it required regime change.

This is not just hypocrisy. It is a logical impossibility masquerading as policy.

Julie Roginsky

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Political cartoon.

 

 

 

 

Political cartoon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The cartoonist's homepage, knoxnews.com/opinion/charlie-daniel