Potus – 1man1vote

The Party of One

What began as a supposedly nonpartisan national celebration appears to have taken a sharp detour into campaign-country.

The event’s original lineup looked like a strange but entertaining playlist assembled by someone spinning a giant wheel of nostalgia: Lee Greenwood, Christopher Macchio, Vanilla Ice, Flo Rida, Fab Morvan (still carrying the Milli Vanilli banner), military bands, drum corps, and armed forces choruses.

Then came the withdrawals.

One by one, artists including The Commodores, Morris Day & The Time, Martina McBride, Bret Michaels, and Young MC reportedly decided they would rather spend the weekend doing literally anything else.

Several states—including Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington—also declined to participate, citing cost concerns and discomfort with the increasingly partisan tone of the event.

At some point, attendees may have begun realizing they weren’t being invited to a national fair as much as they were being recruited as scenery.

With the exits piling up, the remaining roster began to resemble a game of musical chairs where most of the chairs had already left the building. Those still standing could reasonably be described as either committed performers, true believers, or people whose agents stopped answering the phone.

Notably absent from the discussion are several names observers expected to see. Some may be touring. Some may have wisely scheduled dentist appointments. Others may have simply decided that becoming a political talking point wasn’t worth the frequent-flyer miles.

In the end, President Donald Trump reportedly canceled the remaining concert schedule altogether and replaced it with what the event seems to have been evolving into from the start: a massive political rally headlined by himself.

Which raises the obvious question: If a nonpartisan celebration slowly sheds its musicians, loses participating states, transforms into a campaign-style rally, and ends with a speech by the politician at the center of it all—was it ever really nonpartisan in the first place?

Sometimes the most revealing part of a concert is not who’s on stage.

It’s who left before the show started.

“At some point, attendees may have begun realizing they weren’t being invited to a national fair as much as they were being recruited as scenery.”

But Not Today

During his first term, Trump successfully lobbied FIFA and secured the winning joint “United Bid” for the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to host the 2026 World Cup.The FIFA World Cup 2026 is officially underway in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Major city centers across the U.S. are hosting, and “watch parties” are circling the venues and perhaps portions of the world.

The image below is a different, yet important localized, but growing trend focusing on a “watch party” in Washington DC. This watch party stands at the scene of the Kennedy Center treasure. The tarp conceals the removal of Trump’s name from this national tresure, as dictated by the court.

More importantly, this removal of the illegal stain of what some people considered to be graffiti, marks the first step in the removal of the legacy that he has spent the last 18 months attempting to build.

But not today…

Dig and burn, baby. Dig and Burn

I won’t go as far as to say he’s lying when he claims that China is successful because they burn a lot more coal than we do in the states.

By comparison, China’s power consumption ratio is 51% while the US ratio is a mere 17%. So the big guy’s got me there… Sorta.

The US has proudly converted to renewable energy as a means of burning quieter wicks of coal – and the big guy doesn’t like progressive shenanigans when good old fashioned ancients will do. I won’t twist your arms today and get into a debate about pneumoconiosis. That’s another story about another day. Google it yourself.

I will argue that China’s use of coal has dropped from 70% down to 51% coal to renewable ratio, their population is 4x the size of ours in the US.

So as to avoid hurt feelings, I will spieak softly about looking at the world, through rose-colored glasses while China’s reliance on coal power is well in decline, as was ours until our guy decided again to dig and burn baby, dig and burn our way back into the cave man days. (did I mention pneumoconiosis?)

I get it. Competition. Without competition, we would be obliged to work together. We want to fire up the space race again and be the first ones to dig a hole on the moon, while at the same time we want to be the first ones to dig a deeper hole on planet Earth.

Sada Tay.

We?

Forbes/Reuters:
Oil Prices Hit $100 Again—Trump Touts Cost Hike Benefits

Trump touts oil price gains, saying ‘we make a lot of money,’ angering lawmakers

Oil Wealth and Public Benefit: The United States vs. the United Arab Emirates
On March 12, 2026, Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social that “the United States is the largest oil producer in the world, by far, so when oil prices go up, ‘we’ make a lot of money.” The statement came as gasoline prices in the United States climbed above roughly $3.60 per gallon following the escalation of the war involving Iran and disruptions to global oil shipping routes.
Forbes
Trump framed rising oil prices as manageable, even suggesting earlier in the week that higher prices were a “very small price to pay” if the conflict eliminated Iran’s nuclear threat.

Yahoo

However, the economic structure of oil wealth in the United States differs sharply from the system used in the United Arab Emirates. A comparison between the two reveals that while both countries produce large amounts of oil, the way oil revenue reaches ordinary citizens is fundamentally different.

Oil Production vs. Public Benefit in the United States
The United States is currently the world’s largest oil producer, generating millions of barrels of crude oil per day through a combination of conventional drilling and shale production.

FactCheck.org

Yet the financial gains from oil production primarily flow through private industry rather than directly to citizens.

Most U.S. oil production is carried out by private corporations. Revenue from oil sales is distributed to shareholders, corporate executives, and investors, while governments receive tax revenue and royalties. Those funds then enter general federal and state budgets rather than being distributed directly to individuals.

Economists frequently note that because oil is traded on a global market, American consumers still pay global prices even if the country produces large amounts of oil domestically. If companies can sell oil at higher prices abroad, they will do so, leaving U.S. consumers exposed to the same market forces affecting other countries.

PBS

As a result, rising oil prices generally mean higher costs for American households—especially for gasoline, transportation, and goods whose production relies heavily on petroleum.
The United States does provide some indirect public benefit from energy production through tax revenues, infrastructure spending, and employment in the energy sector. But there is no national program that distributes oil revenue directly to citizens. In practice, higher oil prices tend to benefit energy companies and investors more directly than ordinary consumers.

The UAE Model:
Oil Revenue as Public Welfare
In contrast, the system used in the United Arab Emirates distributes oil wealth to citizens through a government-funded welfare structure.
Although the federation includes several emirates such as Dubai and Abu Dhabi, roughly 96 percent of the UAE’s oil reserves are located in Abu Dhabi. Oil revenue from these resources forms a major pillar of the country’s public
finances.
Rather than distributing cash payments directly, the UAE government channels oil wealth into extensive social benefits for Emirati citizens. These include:

Free or heavily subsidized healthcare
Government-funded education through university
Subsidized utilities
Land grants and interest-free loans for housing
High employment in the public sector
No personal income tax
About 90 percent of working Emirati citizens are employed in government jobs, reflecting the state’s central role in distributing economic benefits.
Dubai itself now relies less on oil and more on tourism, finance, and trade, yet Emirati citizens there still benefit from the broader national system funded in large part by oil revenue.
Two Different Economic Models

The contrast between the United States and the UAE illustrates two very different approaches to natural resource wealth.
In the United States, oil production operates largely through a market-driven private sector model. Oil companies produce and sell energy on global markets, and profits flow primarily to investors and corporations. Government receives tax revenue but does not distribute oil income directly to the population.
In the UAE, oil production is tied closely to state-managed wealth distribution. The government uses oil revenue to fund social programs, infrastructure, and employment that directly benefit citizens.
As a result, when oil prices rise globally, Americans generally experience higher fuel and consumer costs, while in the UAE the financial gains from oil exports more directly support the welfare system that benefits citizens.
Conclusion
The United States and the United Arab Emirates are both major oil producers, yet their citizens experience the results of that production very differently.
Statements suggesting that higher oil prices mean “we make a lot of money” reflect the macroeconomic reality that the United States produces large amounts of oil. But the distribution of that wealth depends on how the industry is structured.
In the American system, oil revenue primarily strengthens corporate profits and government tax receipts, while consumers continue to pay global energy prices. In the UAE’s model, oil income is used more directly to finance public benefits for citizens.
The difference highlights how the management of natural resources—not just the amount produced—determines whether national oil wealth translates into tangible benefits for the public.

While citizens of the UAE are beloved members of the nation’s largesse, sharing in the wealth and bounty of the country, including free health care and higher education,citizens of the United States are scorned and often put upon, should they fall upon the mercy of the state.
When Donald trump smiles, boasts and posts about the bountiful position that the “excursions” of war are raining down – he ain’t talking to or about you, peasant.

On This Hill, We Shall Die

On This Hill, We Shall Die.

“He” moves forward with his “MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY, AMERICA” threat. In the middle of a war, he threatens to do nothing for the next nine months, forcing the Constitution to bend to his will, changing voting laws in the middle of the stream, ahead of existing law, hoping to end the established practice of mail-in voting, amidst any other changes that he can institute as a means of complicating the upcoming midterm elections. That “he is certain”, will spell the end of his reign of terror.

Then, “nothing we shall do”. But, wait him out.

VAN (Vote America Now)

👇

Full Text from: The Hill

Politics Over Participation

Why the United States Remains an Outlier on Universal Health Care

Roughly 70 percent of the world’s nations provide some form of universal health coverage to their citizens, according to data compiled by the World Health Organization and the World Bank. These systems vary widely in structure — ranging from single-payer models like Canada’s to regulated multi-payer systems like Germany’s — but they share a core principle: access to essential medical services is treated as a public good rather than a market luxury.

The United States stands apart0 mfroml most other high-income nations by not guaranteeing universal health coverage at the national level. While programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Affordable Care Act marketplaces have expanded access, coverage remains fragmented and conditional. As of recent estimates, tens of millions of Americans remain uninsured or underinsured, often delaying care because of cost concerns.

What makes the U.S. case particularly unusual is not only the absence of universal coverage, but the cultural and political framing that often accompanies it. Unlike many peer nations that treat public healthcare as foundational infrastructure — similar to roads, public schools, or emergency services — healthcare in the U.S. is frequently debated through the lens of individual responsibility, market competition, and ideological resistance to government involvement.

This resistance has deep historical roots. Employer-based insurance expanded during World War II due to wage controls, entrenching private insurance as the dominant access pathway. Subsequent reform efforts, from President Truman’s proposals in the 1940s to the Affordable Care Act in 2010, faced strong opposition from insurance industry groups, political coalitions, and segments of the electorate wary of government expansion.

Ironically, despite rejecting universal coverage, the United States spends more on healthcare per capita than any other country in the world. Yet this spending does not consistently translate into superior health outcomes. Metrics such as life expectancy, maternal mortality, and preventable hospitalizations often lag behind those of nations with universal systems. Administrative complexity, profit-driven pricing structures, and fragmented billing systems contribute to inefficiencies that inflate costs without proportional public benefit.

Public opinion also reflects contradiction. Polling consistently shows that large majorities of Americans support protections for pre-existing conditions, Medicare for seniors, and expanded public health programs. However, support drops when proposals are framed as “government-run” or labeled with politically charged terminology, illustrating how messaging shapes perception more than policy substance.

Ultimately, the U.S. healthcare debate is not simply about economics or logistics — it is about national priorities. Countries that implement universal coverage make a collective decision to pool risk and guarantee baseline care for all residents. The United States, by contrast, continues to operate within a hybrid model that blends public programs with private profit, leaving coverage uneven and access dependent on income, employment, and geography.

As global health systems evolve and demographic pressures increase, the American outlier status becomes harder to justify. Whether the country chooses reform through expansion of public options or structural overhaul, the fundamental question remains unchanged: should healthcare function primarily as a marketplace commodity, or as a shared public necessity?

FINAL WORD: Without a doubt, every human being needs some form of medical guidance and care, while the conservative party of the United States is proud of the pain that they inflict.

You Is What You Eat

Years ago, I worked with a young man from the Arab world. I never asked which country he was from, but he once explained something that stayed with me. He said that in his country, if a government commits harm against its own people or others, and citizens openly support that government’s actions, then those citizens share responsibility. In his view, there was no meaningful separation between “civilian” and “state actor” when civilians actively endorsed injustice. Supporting wrongdoing made you complicit in it.
I think about that conversation often, especially now. Because what we are seeing today should concern everyone. This current administration is taking actions against people who do not fit the stereotypes many expect. These are not only people of color. They are not only immigrants or foreigners. In many cases, they are ordinary citizens — people who look like you, live like you, and work like you — but who simply do not agree or fall in line politically.
That is why awareness matters. Silence matters. Support matters. When harmful policies are normalized or excused, history shows that the impact rarely stops with the original targets. It expands. So as we move forward, it is important to consider not only what is happening, but who we choose to stand with, and what our support — or lack of resistance — ultimately represents.

Believe what you want to believe but. You Is What You Eat.

Venezuela: Domestic and International Backlash

U.S. Military Strike in Venezuela and Maduro’s Detention Sparks Domestic and International Backlash

On January 3, 2026, the United States conducted a large-scale military operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and their transfer to the United States to face criminal charges. President Donald Trump publicly announced the success of the operation, which involved coordinated strikes in and around Caracas and culminated in Maduro’s removal from power. U.S. officials characterized the mission as necessary to enforce federal indictments against Maduro related to narcotics trafficking and terrorism-linked allegations. Maduro and Flores were subsequently arraigned in a federal courthouse in Manhattan, entering not guilty pleas to the charges they face.

The operation has provoked a profound political crisis in Washington, across the Western Hemisphere, and within social media networks. The Trump administration did not notify Congress in advance of the military action, citing concerns that prior notice could jeopardize the mission. This decision has intensified an ongoing debate over executive war powers and congressional authority under the U.S. Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Resolution. According to multiple sources, lawmakers from both parties have expressed significant concern about the unilateral nature of the strike.

Democratic leaders, including long-serving California Representative Maxine Waters, have strongly condemned the strike as an unlawful use of military force without congressional authorization. Waters and other critics likened the operation to previous controversial U.S. interventions and argued that bypassing Congress undermines constitutional checks and balances. Discussions of possible legislative or impeachment responses have gained traction among congressional Democrats, reflecting profound unease within the party over executive overreach.

According to Congresswoman Waters,

“Just last month, Congress repealed two separate authorizations of military force in Iraq, but Donald Trump once again chose to unilaterally attack, and ignore Congress’ Constitutional role. It is Congress that authorizes such force, and Trump’s abuse of power demands a serious and immediate response from Congressional members of both parties. Donald Trump has now gone so far as to publicly boast about his detention of Nicolás Maduro and his wife and to suggest that he can unilaterally determine who governs Venezuela or even claim authority to run the country himself. That is not strength. It is reckless, delusional, and extremely dangerous.”

“During Donald Trump’s first term, I called for his impeachment under then Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He was impeached twice, yet escaped accountability due to a lack of Republican support. Today, many Democrats have understandably questioned whether impeachment is possible again under the current political reality. I am reconsidering that view. Even if Republicans refuse to act, Democrats cannot remain silent or passive in the face of actions this extreme from this Administration.”

Several Republican lawmakers have also voiced reservations, though fewer in number. Some expressed discomfort with the lack of prior consultation, even as others hailed the operation as decisive action against a regime accused of human rights abuses and criminal conduct. A bipartisan war powers resolution intended to restrict further military action in Venezuela was brought before the Senate but was ultimately blocked, underscoring the narrow and contentious nature of congressional responses.

International reactions have mirrored this polarization. Many governments, especially in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, condemned the intervention as a violation of international law and of Venezuela’s sovereignty. Observers highlighted that capturing a sitting head of state through military force sets a contentious precedent and could undermine longstanding principles of non-intervention enshrined in the United Nations Charter. A U.N. emergency session underscored these concerns, with representatives from major world powers sharply divided over the legality and implications of the U.S. action.

Public discourse on social media has amplified these debates. Posts widely circulated on platforms such as Reddit described conflicting narratives about the operation’s motives, legality, and aftermath. Some users reiterated the official U.S. government position that Maduro’s capture was a lawful enforcement action tied to criminal indictments, while others emphasized that independent verification of details has been limited and contested by Venezuelan officials. There is also content reflecting concerns about a broader expansion of U.S. military interventions in the region, including speculation about additional strikes if foreign governments fail to cooperate.

Domestically, the operation has sharpened the longstanding debate over presidential war powers. Legal analysis indicates that while presidents have broad authority as commander in chief, longstanding legal frameworks—such as the War Powers Resolution—require consultation or reporting to Congress within specified time frames when hostilities occur. The absence of prior notification in this case has drawn pointed criticism from lawmakers who argue that the constitutional balance of power has been sidelined.

The Venezuelan political landscape remains unstable in the operation’s aftermath. Venezuelan leaders loyal to Maduro’s government have challenged the U.S. narrative of his capture and legitimacy, resulting in competing assertions of authority within the country. This persistent ambiguity has fueled ongoing international concern about the risk of further conflict and humanitarian consequences for Venezuelan civilians.

In summary, the January 3 military operation and Maduro’s detention mark a critical juncture in U.S. foreign policy, intensifying domestic constitutional debates and triggering widespread international criticism. The long-term legal, diplomatic, and geopolitical ramifications of this unprecedented intervention in Venezuela are likely to unfold over the coming months.

The Fight For Food

Congresswoman Maxine Waters, on Friday sharply condemned the federal government’s handling of food-assistance payments as part of the ongoing funding standoff, and directed families in her district to local relief resources while the legal fight over SNAP continues.

Ms. Waters — the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee — issued a statement in early November criticizing the administration’s move to withhold or limit November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits during the partial government shutdown and urging residents to seek immediate help from community programs. Her office emphasized that people who rely on SNAP should also look to local food banks, school districts, and municipal services for emergency assistance.

The dispute over November SNAP funding has been resolved only temporarily by the courts, leaving many households uncertain. The U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency order earlier this month that briefly paused a lower-court mandate requiring full SNAP disbursements; the administration has continued to press the matter in the appeals courts. At the same time, appeals judges and lower courts have issued competing rulings and injunctions, meaning distribution practices have varied by state and some jurisdictions moved quickly to process full payments while others provided partial benefits or used state funds to fill gaps. These legal developments have affected roughly tens of millions of recipients nationwide.

Waters’ statement pointed constituents to concrete, actionable resources in Los Angeles County and in the cities that fall within California’s 43rd Congressional District — including Inglewood, Hawthorne, Gardena, Lawndale, Compton and Torrance — where municipal and nonprofit networks are expanding emergency assistance while the federal picture remains unsettled. Her office listed phone and web contacts for food help and programs that serve seniors, families and young children.

Practical options for Angelenos in need right now include dialing 2-1-1 (the county’s social-services directory) or visiting the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank’s online pantry finder to locate nearby partner agencies and pop-up distributions; the food bank’s locator lets users search by ZIP code for up-to-date pantry hours and contact details. City residents can also call 3-1-1 to learn about FamilySource Centers and weekly food distributions for qualifying low-income families.

Families with infants or young children are reminded that WIC — the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children — continues to operate separately from SNAP and may provide immediate nutrition support, breastfeeding assistance and referrals. California’s WIC program maintains a toll-free line (1-800-852-5770) and local WIC clinics where eligibility can be confirmed and enrollment expedited.

Congresswoman Waters’ release and multiple community partners underscored a final, practical point: while courts and officials litigate funding questions, many relief systems remain active at the county and city level. Residents in need are advised to contact 2-1-1, the LA Regional Food Bank’s pantry finder, their school district or local FamilySource Center, and WIC if they qualify — and to call municipal aging or social-service lines for senior-specific referrals. Waters’ office also encouraged community members to share information about local distributions, so neighbors know where to find food now.

UPDATE
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has given the Trump administration until 4 p.m. ET on Monday to submit an additional brief to support its request for a stay on a lower court’s ruling that it must pay the November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in full by using funds from other Child Nutrition Programs during the federal government shutdown.

Ms. Waters written Statement

Urgent Communication

Urgent Communication

The office of Maxine Waters (D-CA) has issued a strong condemnation of what it describes as a “mass firing” at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) during the current federal government shutdown. On October 14, 2025, Waters — ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee — released a statement asserting that roughly 442 HUD employees have been terminated, citing figures from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

According to the figures shared by Waters’ office, the breakdown of the terminations includes: 103 employees from HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing; 36 from Housing Counseling; 50 from Housing Operations; 114 from Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity; and 30 from Community Planning and Development.

The statement alleges that the firings occurred amid the ongoing “Trump-Republican shutdown,” linking the move to broader efforts by the federal government to reduce workforce numbers and weaken HUD’s ability to deliver on its mandate. Waters characterized the action as “cruel, dangerous, and disgraceful,” and argued that it jeopardizes assistance programs relied on by millions of Americans.

Earlier this year, Congresswoman Waters raised concerns about field-office closures at HUD, including allegations that the agency under Scott Turner may be planning to shutter a significant portion of its regional presence. In April 2025 she sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and HUD’s Office of Inspector General seeking inquiry into whether HUD was meeting its legal obligations to maintain regional offices.

A protest at HUD’s Washington, D.C. headquarters earlier in March backed the concerns. Federal workers and community advocates gathered to protest workforce reductions and warn that staffing cuts could delay housing assistance and negatively impact vulnerable households. Waters participated in delivering a letter to HUD, according to local coverage.

In her press release Waters emphasized that HUD’s key programs support extremely low-income households, noting that wide-scale terminations of staff would hamper the agency’s ability to carry out its mission: “Millions of Americans depend on,” she said, “federal assistance to keep a roof over their heads.”

While the press release makes strong claims about the legality of the action — stating that the firings were “illegal” because Congress has already appropriated funds and the President cannot eliminate mandated programs — external independent sources have not yet fully verified all aspects of the firings, such as the exact number or each affected office.

For Angelenos and other Americans who depend on programs administered by HUD — such as tenant-based housing vouchers, project-based rental assistance, and public housing — the staffing reductions, if accurate, could mean slower processing of claims, fewer enforcement actions for housing discrimination, and increased workload on remaining staff. Waters’ office places the number of Americans who rely on HUD programs at roughly 9 to 9.3 million, nationwide.

As the shutdown continues, and as congressional Democrats press oversight of HUD’s actions, the outcome of these staffing changes — including any legal challenges and operational impacts — will bear watching. Congresswoman Waters has pledged to “hold this Administration accountable” and to continue fighting for safe and affordable housing access “regardless of race, zip code, or income.”

Full Press Release

https://1man1vote.com/wp/full-press-release/