Tuesday, May 12, 2026. Chump loses it overnight posting one crazed conspiracy theory after another, he continues his war on Iran and on the economy, Petey at the Defense Dept continues to lament the fact that he'll never measure up to Senator Mark Kelly, and much more.
As Ben notes this morning on MEIDASTOUCH NEWS, Donald Chump went crazy last night posting whack job conspiracy theories.
He makes a fool of himself and a fool of the country. He really needs to be removed from office. The 25th Amendment should have been implemented long, long ago.
He is not safe to the country or for the world. He goes on these nutso benders where he screeches lies and just looks like a raving loon.
The
combative tirade comes as independent analyses have repeatedly found
that Trump's broader economic agenda has failed to deliver on its
promises for American workers.
The U.S. has
shed roughly 80,000 manufacturing jobs since Trump took office last
year, according to employment data, with economists pointing to the
administration's own tariff policies as one driver of rising input costs
and factory uncertainty.
The gap has widened
between Trump's manufacturing promises and economic reality, with his
"Liberation Day" tariff promise — that he would bring jobs and factories
"roaring back" — has instead coincided with steady job losses.
A
separate analysis found that Trump's tariffs have functioned as a
regressive tax costing American households an average of $1,300 last
year, with working-class families bearing the heaviest burden.
Democratic
National Committee Deputy Executive Director Libby Schneider said in a
Thursday statement that “America’s farmers were already struggling to
get by under Donald Trump and Brooke Rollins and now Trump’s war with
Iran has pushed farmers to a breaking point.”
“Trump
tanked the agricultural economy with his reckless trade war, causing
family farms to go bankrupt at record levels, and now his deadly and
costly war with Iran has caused prices on everything from diesel to
fertilizer to skyrocket,” Schneider added. “Farmers are scraping by to
make ends meet under Trump — and Trump and Rollins have done nothing but
turn their backs on them.”
Rep. Betty
McCollum, a Democrat from farm-heavy Minnesota, said “the closure of the
Strait of Hormuz has made energy prices go up globally, and it’s
increased the cost of living,” adding: “Everything from what my farmers
are paying for fertilizer, to the fuel that they’re putting in their
tractors as they go out to the field, let alone what everyday Americans
are doing gassing up.”
“The president says we
can’t afford to help American families with daycare or funding of
Medicaid or Medicare because we’re fighting wars,” she said during an
April 30 House Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing. “Well, I
strongly disagree with the president on this analysis.”
Another
Democrat from a farming-rich Midwest state, Sen. Gary Peters of
Michigan, said during an April 30 Armed Services Committee hearing that
“the number one question I get when I’m back home from people is,
basically, very simply: ‘When will this war end?’”
“Our
farmers are paying because of fertilizer costs. We know that the whole
world economy is paying a great deal for this war,” Peters said.
It's
an interesting economic climate, one where those who just a couple of
years ago were decrying the high cost of gasoline now duck their heads
and try to stay silent. Travis Gettys (RAW STORY) reports:
Congressional
Republicans are struggling to defend rising gas prices after years of
using fuel costs as a political weapon against Democrats, with some
lawmakers reversing previous messaging while others remain silent on the
issue.
Gas prices have surged nearly 50
percent since President Donald Trump launched the war with Iran on Feb.
28, and the spike presents a sharp reversal for Republicans who spent
years blaming former President Joe Biden for rising fuel costs, reported NOTUS.
“Isn’t
that the only argument you can have right now?” said one Republican
operative involved in midterm contests. “It affects our voters more than
their voters. We live farther apart from each other ... You hope and
pray it’s temporary.”
Some Republicans have
attempted to minimize the current price increases by comparing them to
higher prices under Biden. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA)
claimed on CNBC that gas prices under Biden reached "almost $6 a
gallon," a figure that even conservative host Joe Kernen disputed as
inaccurate.
Vulnerable Republicans facing
reelection are employing various strategies. Rep. Tom Barrett (R-MI),
who previously warned Michigan families about high gas prices, now
redirects questions about current prices to Iran's nuclear program.
Rep.
Mike Lawler (R-NY) shifted from 2024 campaign messaging about
cost-of-living crises to claiming Washington brought prices down, later
telling CNN that higher prices were "absolutely worth it" for the Iran
war.
Other lawmakers have opted for silence.
Reps. Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ), María Elvira Salazar (R-FL), Mariannette
Miller-Meeks (R-IA) and David Valadao (R-CA) have largely avoided public
comments on the issue despite running 2024 campaigns emphasizing gas
and grocery costs.
President
Donald Trump on Monday said he planned to suspend the federal gas tax
to provide some economic relief as fuel prices have soared since the
start of the Iran war, CBS News reported, though the move would be a
drop in the bucket for consumers given the historic surge in gas prices
lately.
[. . .]
Removing
the federal taxes—totaling 18.3 cents per gallon of gasoline and 24.3
cents per gallon of diesel—would reduce the average price for a gallon
of gas to about $4.33, down from $4.52, according to the latest gas
price stats from AAA.
The cost for a gallon of diesel would drop to roughly $5.38, down from $5.63.
18 cents a gallon. And still well above the cost prior to Chump starting the Iran War. Remember, Chump didn't have to declare war on Iran. Bankole Thompson (DETROIT NEWS) observes:
No
matter what side you sit on in the war with Iran, the skyrocketing gas
prices, which have hit $6 in some parts of the country, are affecting
everyone. They are not merely an energy crisis but an economic
inequality question facing families across the nation, including
Michigan.
If the cost of fuel continues to
rise astronomically, it could interrupt the summer vacations of many
families, especially those who love to take long road trips because it
is more convenient and reasonable than any airfare.
Those
on fixed incomes and communities that are struggling to get by, as well
as families taking their children to school, are feeling the pain the
most. That includes the single mother in Detroit or the Upper Peninsula
who has to balance rent, utilities and childcare because the spike in
gas prices is exposing them to more financial hardship.
Republican
candidates running for office in the midterm cannot escape the fact
that such economic instability is being presided over by President
Donald Trump, the cornerstone of whose 2024 campaign was about bringing
down the inflation that took place under former President Joe Biden.
Instead
of concretely addressing the economic pressure that many are facing
from an unstable oil market, and as a result of the war, Trump seems
more focused on his new White House ballroom than anything else.
Florence Tan and Siyi Liu (REUTERS) note, "Oil
prices rallied on Monday, a day after President Donald Trump said
Iran's response to a U.S. proposal was "unacceptable," raising supply
fears as the Strait of Hormuz stayed largely closed, which kept the
global market tight. Brent crude futures climbed $4.04 or 3.99% to
$105.33 a barrel at 0614 GMT. U.S. West Texas Intermediate was at
$99.85 a barrel, up $4.43, or 4.64%." Sara Dorn (FORBES) adds, "President
Donald Trump’s approval rating hasn’t risen above 36% in Reuters/Ipsos
weekly polling since the start of the Iran war, as Americans on both
sides of the aisle blame him for rising gas prices and 80% expect gas to
become more expensive. [. . .] Three-quarters of respondents,
including half of Republicans, said his administration is at least
partly to blame for high gas prices, which have gone up 50% since the
start of the conflict, while 65% said they believe Republicans are more
responsible for the rise in gas prices versus Democrats, and 80% said
they expect gas prices to go up more." And John-Paul Ford Rojas (THIS IS MONEY) delivers this bad news that Chump's not just destroying the US economy, he's destroying the economies all over the world such as in the UK:
Consumer sentiment has seen its fastest slump in four years as 'Trumpflation' fears grip shoppers, a poll reveals.
The
quarterly survey by PwC revealed 90 per cent of UK consumers worry
about the cost of living as the Iran war stokes inflation.
The accountant's barometer of spending intentions was at minus-13 for April, down from minus-1 at the start of the year.
That
was its lowest since autumn 2023 and the sharpest fall since summer
2022 – a time when inflation was spiralling in the wake of Vladimir
Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Now
inflation is on the rise again after Donald Trump's war on Iran choked
off oil and gas supplies from the Middle East, driving fuel prices
higher.
Sam Waller, consumer markets spokesman
at PwC UK, said: 'Rising costs are prompting shoppers to pull back spend
across the board, and it's expected sentiment will get worse before it
gets better, as consumers face higher energy and food costs later in the
year.'
And as the economy crashes, Chump wants to spend more on ballrooms, on the Eisenhower Executive Office building, etc. Emily Burack (TOWN & COUNTRY) reports that the estimate to slap some paint over the granite building will cost an estimated $7.5 million:
“The
Eisenhower Executive Office Building is a National Historic Landmark.
Its distinctive granite exterior isn't just beautiful, it's historically
significant. Painting over it would trap moisture, damage the stone,
and create a costly, irreversible cycle of maintenance at taxpayer
expense,” the National Trust for Historic Preservation said in a
statement.
Rob Nieweg of the Trust testified
before the National Capital Planning Commission in opposition to the
proposal to paint the EEOB. “The Eisenhower Executive Office Building is
a contributing element of the Lafayette Square Historic District and,
importantly, this architecturally significant building is a National
Historic Landmark,” he said. “That is our nation’s most coveted historic
designation. It serves as permanent notice to all that the EEOB
occupies an important place in our collective story as Americans.
Accordingly, the EEOB’s federal steward should respect the aesthetic
characteristics that qualify the landmark for NHL designation.” He
added, “The historic EEOB has been preserved, un-painted, since its
completion in 1888.”
The building, built in the
1870s and 1880s as the State, War, and Navy Department Building, is now
the base for federal workers. Trump’s desire to repaint it has been
ongoing; in November, he showed a rendering of a painted building on Fox
News, “Look at that, how beautiful that is with a coat of paint.” He
complained, “It was always considered an ugly building” and added “gray
is for funerals.”
A nonprofit group trying to stop President Trump's
reflecting pool renovation on the National Mall claims the project
breaks federal law.
The Cultural Landscape Foundation filed a
lawsuit today, saying the National Park Service violated an historic
preservation act by repainting the pool -- quote -- "American flag
blue." The complaint says the new color -- quote -- "will fundamentally
alter the visual and experiential character of the pool."
The
president announced the project last month and drove through the pool's
construction site just last week. The New York Times is also reporting
that its initial cost of less than $2 million has now ballooned to seven
times that figure.
For more on the project, I'm joined now by one
of the reporters covering that story. That's David Fahrenthold of The
New York Times.
David, welcome back.
Let's begin with your
reporting on this that shows that initial cost estimate from the
president of $1.8 million now up to $13.1 million. What happened there?
David Fahrenthold, The New York Times:
Well, the -- President Trump has said multiple times that
this project is only going to cost $1.8 million or less than $2
million. That's never been right.
From the beginning, the federal
government had expected to pay $6.9 million for this contract. And then,
on Friday, that cost jumped again by another 88 percent. So now we're
talking about $13.1 million.
Amna Nawaz:
And the contractor for this project, your reporting also
showed, had no previous federal contracts. How unusual is that for a
renovation like this?
David Fahrenthold:
It's quite unusual for a renovation of this size and this sort of importance.
Remember,
this is not a swimming pool. This is a pool that's about 2,000 feet
long. It's been around since the 1920s. It has a lot of complicated
problems that come from both its age and its size. And the contractor
they chose to do it, not only is this their first federal contract, but
it's not clear this is a swimming pool contractor at all.
Their
Web site is more about lining pipes and culverts and fuel tanks. It's
clear this is a very different project than the ones that they appear to
be used to.
Amna Nawaz:
So folks will remember the images from last week that
showed the president and his motorcade driving through that pool area.
When we saw those, I know a lot of folks had the same question was, is
that going to impact the pool in any way? What does your reporting show
you on that?
David Fahrenthold:
Well, from folks we have talked to, it will not probably
make the pool look any different in terms of reflectivity. If you're
standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, you're standing at the
World War II Monument on the other end, and you're looking across the
pond at a low angle, it'll probably still be reflective.
The
difference, though, may come when you see it from a higher angle, from
an airplane or the top of the Washington Monument. This is a space
that's meant to sort of be invisible. It's supposed to reflect back the
gray stone and the trees all around it.
If what you see instead is
kind of an artificial blue, like a -- the water hazard at a mini golf
course, that could stand out in a very jarring way on the National Mall.
Amna Nawaz:
We know that the president has framed some of these
renovations as part of a broader beautification effort ahead of those
America 250 celebrations. What do we know about what that means about
who's paying for much of this?
David Fahrenthold:
Well, in the cases -- in this case and in the case we
wrote about recently about changes to the fountains around D.C., the
government is paying for it.
It's not private donors. And the
money they're using in this case is coming from people that go to
national parks. If you go to a national park and pay an entrance fee,
some of that money goes to the Park Service to pay for renovations. And
that's the fund they're using here.
Amna Nawaz:
I know as we reported earlier that at least one nonprofit
is trying to block this project. But this is one of several renovation
projects that we know the Trump administration is looking to at least
partially fund with taxpayer money.
We have seen the Kennedy
Center renovation, the White House ballroom, and others. As you track
this, as ethics watchdogs and other track this, what are some of the
concerns that are coming up here?
David Fahrenthold:
One of the biggest concerns about this project and others
around the area is that these are no-bid contracts. The government is
supposed to let multiple vendors bid on jobs like this so the taxpayers
get their best bang for the buck.
In this case, the Trump
administration used sort of a special power to block out all competition
and hand this job directly to a firm that President Trump says is close
to him. He says, this is a company that worked on the swimming pools at
his golf club in Northern Virginia.
And so what happens when you
give a contract directly to somebody with no competition, you don't
really know you're getting the best deal. You don't know that you're
getting the best person for the job. And so it raises questions about
why they're circumventing the normal contracting process and what we're
losing in the process in terms of quality or maybe overpaying.
The
line outside a suburban office building was already 15 people long when
Tiffany Hudson showed up with her 7-year-old son cradling his blanket.
It was 7 a.m. At the front of the line was a woman hooked up to an
oxygen tank who had arrived 90 minutes before the building opened.
Like
others there, Husdon had come to the Arizona Department of Economic
Security office in Surprise, a Phoenix suburb, to find out why the food
stamp benefits for her and her two children were cut off after the state
began implementing new eligibility requirements under President Donald
Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.”
“It’s been
really hard. We’ve been going to food banks every week,” Hudson said.
She’s a single mom who had received about $600 a month in food
assistance to supplement her income as a part-time caretaker. Her
benefits stopped without warning three months ago. “We’re eating less,
we’re eating more frozen stuff.”
Hudson
and her children have been swept up in a wave of new restrictions and
bureaucratic hurdles that have begun to ripple across the country as a
result of Trump’s marquee legislation, which he signed into law with
great fanfare nearly a year ago during a Fourth of July celebration. The
law extends tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations while cutting
$187 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, often
referred to as food stamps, over the next decade. Now, the consequences
of those cuts are showing up on Americans’ kitchen tables.
Since
the law was enacted last summer, about 3.5 million people have fallen
off the SNAP rolls nationwide as of January, according to federal data.
No state has seen a more dramatic drop than Arizona, which offers a
window into what may be in store for other states.
“It’s
a frightening time for the folks we serve,” said Natalie Jayroe, CEO of
the Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona, which has already been
struggling with limited food after the federal funding cuts from the
early days of the second Trump administration. “The overwhelming
uncertainty and anxiety that the folks we serve are facing — it’s hard
to describe.”
Turning to Petey Hegseth, Secretary of Defense. William Shoukri (BIG) reports on an April 29th hearing before the House Armed Service Committee:
New
Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander was one of the most effective
Democratic critics in the room, asking Hegseth multiple questions that
he fumbled. After Hegseth had bragged about his ‘crack economic team’
earlier in the hearing, Goodlander tested him, asking whether he knew
the average cost of gas on February 28. Hegseth (who clearly did not
know the answer) replied snarkily: ‘If you lived in California, it was 8
bucks’ (this is not true; the average price of gas in California was
$4.44 at that point). Goodlander ignored Hegseth, stating the national
average was $2.83. She then asked him if he knew the average gas price
today, to which Hegseth made another crack at California prices.
Goodlander smirked and told him the price of gas on April 29 ($4.23).
"Mr.
Hegseth, you said you’ve got a crack economic team that’s looking at
the impact of this war on the American taxpayer, and you can’t answer
this basic question – that should shock the conscience of every
American."
At the end of her
time, New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander asked Hegseth whether he
agrees with the statement “the military won’t follow unlawful orders.”
Hegseth immediately showed his annoyance with the question, snapping, “I
do but understand what you’re insinuating at a partisan point.”
Goodlander replied with a smile and revealed that she was actually
quoting Hegseth, not a Democrat talking point. Luckily for Hegseth, her
time was over after the question. Goodlander took to X to criticize
Hegseth after the hearing
Yes,
Hegseth did say that. On TV. On FOX "NEWS" and it wasn't a big deal
because that's what the US military is trained on: Don't follow unlawful
orders.
But when Senator Mark Kelly and others do the same, Petey pisses his diaper and loses it in front of everyone.
Petey
has already lost in one court. It appears that he will lose in the
court that heard arguments last week as well. But Petey can't let his
penis envy go. He's suffering from p.e. every time he looks at Senator
Mark Kelly.
Kelly appeared on CBS' FACE THE NATION Sunday.
In the appearance, Kelly noted the shortage of weapons as a result of
the Iran War. Back in early March, that was rarely noted. By the end
of March, the media was beginning to note it more often and by April?
It was hard to miss stories on this topic. Kelly raised this issue on
Sunday.
U.S.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the Pentagon is investigating
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) after accusing him of speaking about
classified information connected to the Iran war on cable news.
Hegseth's
threats come after a federal appeals court signaled Thursday that it
would turn down his efforts to punish Kelly and a handful of other
Democratic lawmakers for urging troops to refuse illegal orders. The
blow comes after a court blocked Hegseth's attempt to censure and demote
Kelly, a 62-year-old retired Navy captain and NASA astronaut, in
February.
The latest feud
came to fruition after Kelly warned about dwindling U.S. weapons
stockpiles following the U.S.-Israeli offensive against Iran,
criticizing the Trump administration's war strategy in the Middle East.
“Because
this president got our country into this without a strategic goal,
without a plan, without a timeline... because of that, we’ve expended a
lot of munitions. And that means the American people are less safe,”
Kelly told CBS News’ Face the Nation.
The
latest outburst from Hegseth came after Kelly spoke Sunday to CBS News’
Face the Nation about a classified briefing on the Iran War and U.S.
weapons stockpiles.
Kelly said it was “shocking
how deep we have gone into these magazines” amid the war in Iran and
that it would take years to replenish the stockpiles of Tomahawks, Army
Tactical Missile System weapons, Patriot missiles and other missile
systems. The U.S. spent weeks sending missiles and other munitions into
Iran before a ceasefire in the attacks.
In response, Hegseth lashed out.
“Captain’
Mark Kelly strikes again,” Hegseth posted on X. “Now he’s blabbing on
TV (falsely & dumbly) about a *CLASSIFIED* Pentagon briefing he
received. Did he violate his oath…again? @DeptofWar legal counsel will
review.”
Kelly immediately shot back on social
media, saying Kelly and Hegseth had this discussion in an open committee
hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The
threat of a new probe comes as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit appears likely to affirm that Hegseth's
disciplinary action against Kelly for telling service members they "can
refuse illegal orders" will fail.
President
Donald Trump accused Kelly and five other Democrats — Rep. Jason Crow,
D-Colo., Rep. Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H., Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy
Houlahan, D-Pa., and Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich. — of engaging in
"SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!" when they appeared in a video
in November and condemned lethal military strikes on alleged drug
smugglers' boats in international waters.
Kelly
himself replied to Hegseth with the video below and wrote: “We had this
conversation in a public hearing a week ago and you said it would take
‘years’ to replenish some of these stockpiles. That's not classified,
it's a quote from you. This war is coming at a serious cost and you and
the president still haven't explained to the American people what the
goal is.”
Washington Post
military affairs correspondent Dan Lamothe also joined the discussion,
writing: “Secretary Hegseth is again threatening Sen. Mark Kelly with
legal action here. In this case, the comments from Kelly that Hegseth is
claiming are an issue do not address specific munition numbers. That’s
generally where classification comes into play. No sign of that here.”
Let's wind down with this from Senator Patty Murray's office:
Washington, D.C. – Today—as Trump proposes to slash
domestic investments to help pay for a defense spending increase of
roughly half a trillion dollars—U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice
Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, released the following
statement after a new report found the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) program saves participating Washington state families over $19,000 a year on child care.
“Trump is asking Congress to increase his war budget by $500
billion dollars and even said: ‘’We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care
of day care.’ Well, as a former preschool teacher and mom, I think that
is just absurd,” said Senator Murray. “This is not a
question of what’s possible—it’s a question of priorities. President
Trump and congressional Republicans want to spend your taxpayer dollars
on costly wars and golden ballrooms, and I’d like to help more families
afford child care. Instead of dumping trillions of dollars into Trump’s
reckless wars, we could be expanding crucial programs like CCDBG—we
could be saving families thousands of dollars a year on child care. Half
a trillion dollars would make high-quality child care affordable for
every family that needs it, and it would mean employers wouldn’t have to
worry about their employees missing work because they couldn’t find
child care. The child care crisis is holding back families and holding
back our economy. But putting the kind of money Trump is talking about
for war into child care instead would make a world of change for all
families.”
A new report
has detailed how CCDBG subsidies help families in Washington state
afford child care for kids under the age of five. The average cost of
child care in Washington state is over $21,000 a year, or almost $1,800
per month. For families who qualify, CCDBG brings the cost of child care
down to a maximum of $1,980 a year, or $165 per month for a family of
three in Washington state. But, of the over 118,000 children who are
eligible in Washington state to be served by CCDBG, only 15,435 kids are
being served at the current funding levels—that means only 13% of kids
who have families who are struggling to afford child care, are receiving
support. Senator Murray has long pushed to change that and played a
critical role in securing historic funding increases for the CCDBG
program to help serve more families.
As Trump proposes spending $1.5 trillion on the defense
budget—roughly half a trillion more than this year—raising costs on
everyday essentials for working families, Senator Murray is leading
Democrats in Congress to continue their push to help working people make
ends meet—including by tackling the child care crisis. In the FY26
appropriations bills Senator Murray secured $8.8
billion for the Child Care and Development Block Grant program
(CCDBG)—an $85 million or increase over fiscal year 2025—and $12.36
billion for Head Start, an $85 million increase over last year’s funding
level. Sustained annual increases of federal investments in child care
and Head Start are critical in tackling the child care crisis and
helping to ensure more families can find and afford the quality,
affordable child care and early childhood education options they need.
Senator Murray also protected funding for Preschool Development Grants,
which President Trump and House Republicans pushed to eliminate.
Senator Murray is Congress’ top advocate for child care, and her Child Care for Working Families Act would
tackle the child care crisis head-on: ensuring families can afford the
child care they need, expanding access to more high-quality options,
stabilizing the child care sector, and helping ensure child care workers
taking care of our nation’s kids are paid livable wages. The
legislation will also dramatically expand access to pre-K, and support
full-day, full-year Head Start programs and increased wages for Head
Start workers. Under the legislation, which Senator Murray has introduced every
Congress since 2017, the typical family in America will pay no more
than $15 a day for child care—with many families paying nothing at
all—and no eligible family will pay more than 7% of their income on
child care.
