Category: Potus

Maxine Waters Condemns Trump’s Attempted Federal Funding Freeze, Applauds Court Intervention

January 29, 2025, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), Ranking Member of the House Financial Services Committee, issued a strong statement denouncing the Trump Administration’s attempt to freeze federal grants and loans. The controversial order, which would have halted crucial funding for housing, homelessness programs, and community development initiatives, was temporarily blocked by a U.S. District Judge. Waters praised the decision, warning that if the freeze were to be implemented, it would have catastrophic consequences for vulnerable populations and the broader economy.

Waters expressed gratitude to organizations such as the National Council of Nonprofits, the American Public Health Association, the Main Street Alliance, and SAGE for their role in filing the lawsuit against the order. She also applauded U.S. District Judge Loren Alikhan for intervening, arguing that the Trump Administration’s directive was a reckless and illegal maneuver inspired by the Project 2025 agenda. According to Waters, this order would have threatened trillions of dollars in federal funding, cutting off critical resources for housing assistance, mortgage lending programs, and small business support at a time when the nation faces a severe housing crisis.

The Congresswoman underscored the dire state of housing in the United States, citing that over 771,000 people are experiencing homelessness and nearly half of American families are burdened with rent costs exceeding 30% of their income. She warned that the Trump Administration’s attempt to freeze federal funds would exacerbate these problems, putting at risk programs that provide affordable housing, public housing assistance, and support for elderly and disabled individuals. Additionally, she highlighted how the freeze could disrupt the mortgage market, leaving thousands of families unable to close on home purchases and increasing financial instability across the housing sector.

Beyond housing, Waters raised concerns about the broader economic and financial consequences of the funding freeze. She pointed out that the uncertainty surrounding the Trump Administration’s order could create confusion among financial institutions, including Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs), credit unions, and community banks. These entities, which serve low-income and underserved communities, rely on federal support to provide financial access to small businesses and individuals. Without clarity on whether these institutions would receive continued funding, the freeze could trigger economic distress for many communities.

Waters did not mince words in characterizing the freeze as an attempt by the Trump Administration to benefit the wealthy at the expense of working-class Americans. She accused Trump of seeking to cut social and economic support programs to make way for corporate tax breaks and to enrich his billionaire allies. Furthermore, she likened Trump’s governance style to that of Elon Musk, claiming that Trump was borrowing from Musk’s playbook of deceiving workers with false promises and then denying them their rightful compensation. Waters warned that federal employees affected by the freeze might never be paid, drawing parallels to Trump’s long history of failing to compensate contractors.

In her closing remarks, Waters vowed that she and her Democratic colleagues in Congress would not stand by idly while the Trump Administration attempted to undermine federal assistance programs. She reaffirmed her commitment to holding the administration accountable, protecting congressional authority over federal spending, and prioritizing the needs of the American people. Despite the temporary pause granted by the court, Waters stressed that the fight was far from over, as Trump and his allies would likely seek ways to circumvent the ruling.

Waters’ statement reflected a broader concern about the Trump Administration’s policy priorities and its impact on everyday Americans. With the court’s intervention temporarily halting the freeze, the battle over federal funding for essential services remains a contentious issue, one that Waters and other Democratic leaders are prepared to confront.

For vision Impaired:

https://youtu.be/kcKsVJ8i5F0?si=hsceMY7GUMuTjpbS

 

By Charles Jackson

    Jill Stein, an American physician, activist, and politician. In another world, she might have been a democrat, but she tends to remain at arm’s length from party politics, making herself useful to the republican party as a spoiler, or a convienient protest vote for democrats and independents, leary of Republicans in the era of MAGA destructionary divisionist positions.

She is best known for her work as a Green Party leader and her runs for the U.S. presidency in 2012 and 2016. Stein’s political philosophy is rooted in progressive and environmental values, and her campaigns often focused on challenging the two-party system, advocating for a “Green New Deal,” and addressing issues such as climate change, social justice, healthcare, and economic inequality.

Stein’s background as a physician and environmental advocate has greatly influenced her political views. She was born on May 14, 1950, in Chicago, Illinois, and graduated from Harvard College and Harvard Medical School. Before entering politics, Stein practiced internal medicine and focused on treating and preventing environmental illnesses. Through her medical career, she observed the links between health issues and environmental pollution, which ultimately led her to environmental activism. She became involved in grassroots efforts in Massachusetts, advocating for environmental health and green policies, and she played a key role in various environmental advocacy campaigns. Her commitment to health and environmental causes ultimately paved her path into politics.

Iqn 2012, Stein ran for president as the Green Party nominee, receiving about 0.36% of the national vote. Her platform focused on reducing corporate influence in politics, implementing green policies to combat climate change, and ending U.S. military interventions abroad. Although her support base was relatively small, her campaign highlighted the Green Party’s goals and contributed to the national discussion on environmental issues and third-party representation. Stein’s political platform resonated with a segment of the electorate frustrated by what they perceived as the limitations and failures of the two-party system in the United States.

Stein’s most notable campaign came in 2016 when she ran against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, Republican nominee Donald Trump, and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. During this election, Stein received 1.07% of the vote, a significant increase from her 2012 performance. Her 2016 campaign emphasized a progressive platform with policies that included a “Green New Deal,” which aimed to transition the U.S. to 100% renewable energy by 2030, create millions of green jobs, and address social justice issues. Stein was also outspoken in her opposition to free trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, arguing that they benefited corporations at the expense of workers and the environment.

One of the controversies surrounding Stein’s 2016 campaign was her stance on voting strategy. She was criticized for encouraging voters to consider third-party candidates as a viable alternative to the two major parties, which some argued could inadvertently help Donald Trump by drawing potential votes away from Hillary Clinton. Additionally, Stein faced scrutiny for her participation in a dinner in Russia in 2015, where she was photographed seated at a table with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Though she maintained that her visit was part of her anti-war advocacy, critics questioned the optics and intent of her presence.

Despite the controversies, Stein’s campaigns had a lasting impact on the political landscape by amplifying issues like climate change, healthcare, and social equity. Her advocacy for a “Green New Deal” influenced later political discussions and policies, as seen in the work of progressive politicians who continue to push for green policies. While Stein did not win the presidency, her campaigns underscored the importance of third-party voices in the political system and highlighted progressive and environmental issues that continue to gain traction in the United States.

In sum, Jill Stein’s political career reflects the broader challenge of breaking through the two-party system and advancing environmental and social justice issues. Her contributions to the political dialogue in the United States, particularly on climate change and economic equality, continue to shape the discourse, even as she remains a polarizing figure in American politics.

Doctor Stein supports the right to abortion and advocates for free access to abortion services for low-income women. She believes in safeguarding the availability of safe, legal abortion and advocates for accessible contraception, including the “morning-after” pill without a prescription.

On the subject of immigration, Stein has called for humane immigration policies. She resists deportations, supports a path to citizenship for undocumented residents, and criticizes the criminalization of immigrants, particularly those contributing to the economy and society. Her policies focus on ending fear-based rhetoric around immigration.

With a side eye, one might suspect that she is a perfect foil on the payroll of right leaning advocates.

 

 

     As part of the United States–Taliban deal, the Trump administration agreed to an initial reduction of US forces from 13,000 to 8,600 troops by July 2020, followed by a complete withdrawal by 1 May 2021, if the Taliban kept its commitments.

     Joe Biden decided to uphold the “treaty/agreement” rather than making the US seem like an inconsistent group of welchors.

     Now he stands in a cemetery, puting on a show, where he plays the role of a solemn broken hearted former head of state, untouched by his own failed executive order. And he blames Biden for not detecting and putting an end to his madness.

     None of us have ever been under the illusion that the vice president is anything more than a figure and not a head. The Vice President carries out the orders of the President. He/she “might” be allowed to offer an opinion, but the president does as he/she wishes – as he/she should.   But 45 demamds that Vice president Harris take responsibility for her part in the way things worked out when his failed policy clouded the judgement of his predecessor.

     Madam Vice President Harris may well have been the last one in the room when President  Biden made his decisioñ to walk away from Afghanistan,  and whether she agreed or disagreed is hardly relevant to the outcome at hand,  since the deed has been done and the next president will  be charged with the next step in that saga.

     35 knows full well that the vice president has only one power, and it overrides the vision, will and even the evil wishes of leader, intent on holding on to power in the face of the truth. At that point in time vice president, Mike Pemce held more power than his president, when he certified the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

 

Continue reading “He Who Laughs Last”