Good question…Ask the British! 
Donald Trump’s secret meltdown over his failed birthday parade is revealed and he’s “reaming out” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and blaming the soldiers themselves.
And it gets so much more pathetic…
“He’s pissed off at the soldiers,” Trump biographer Michael Wolff told The Daily Beast Podcast. "He’s accusing them of hamming it up, and by that, he seems to mean that they were having a good time, that they were waving, that they were enjoying themselves and showing a convivial face rather than a military face."
Apparently, the so-called president was hoping for a “menacing” display but instead got a “festive” parade for the Army’s 250th anniversary and his 79th birthday. Meanwhile, the “No Kings” protests swept the country as millions took to the streets to protest his brutal ICE crackdowns and authoritarian policies.
The military parade was deeply underwhelming and the consensus outside of the Fox News bubble was that the soldiers were marching out of step, the audience turnout was low, and the entire affair had a depressing air about it.
Rolling Stone ran an article entitled “Trump’s Military Birthday Parade Was a Gross Failure.”
“He kind of reamed out Hegseth for this,” said Wolff. “Apparently, there was a phone call, and he said to Hegseth, the tone was all wrong. Why was the tone wrong? Who staged this? There was the tone problem. Trump, he keeps repeating himself.”
“It didn’t send the message that he apparently wanted, which is that he was the commander in chief of this menacing enterprise,” Wolff explained.
The administration reacted as they always do whenever Wolff strikes a nerve, accusing him of being a “lying sack of sh*t” with a “sick and warped imagination” and a “case of Trump Derangement Syndrome that has rotted his peanut-sized brain.”
While we have yet to receive a final cost analysis of the incredibly wasteful parade, Army estimates in the lead-up to the North Korea-style pageant pegged the cost at $16 million. Imagine if that money had instead been spent on providing healthcare for veterans.
It is honestly surreal to find myself agreeing with anything Tucker Carlson says or does, but his recent interview with Ted Cruz was one of those rare moments where the tables turned and Carlson’s questions actually made sense. Watching Carlson press Cruz on basic facts about Iran and biblical justifications for U.S. foreign policy felt like stepping into an alternate reality, especially for anyone on the left who is used to disagreeing with Carlson on almost everything.
During the interview, Carlson asked Cruz, “What is the population of Iran?” and Cruz admitted, “I don’t know the population”. Carlson did not let up, pointing out, “You don’t know the population of the country you wish to overthrow?” and highlighting the absurdity of advocating regime change without basic knowledge. When Carlson asked about Iran’s ethnic makeup, Cruz replied, “They are Persians and predominantly Shia—okay, this is cute. I am not the Tucker Carlson expert on Iran,” to which Carlson shot back, “You don’t know anything about Iran! You’re a senator who is calling for the overthrow of the government and you don’t know anything about the country!”.
The conversation shifted to U.S. support for Israel, where Cruz tried to justify his stance by referencing the Bible: “As a Christian raised in Sunday school, I learned from the Bible that those who bless Israel will receive blessings, while those who curse it will face curses. I want to be aligned with the blessings”. Carlson pressed him, “Are you referring to those who bless the government of Israel? Can you tell me where that is?” and Cruz, flustered, responded, “I can locate it for you. I don’t have the exact scripture memorized—just pull out your phone and Google it”. Carlson pointed out, “It’s in Genesis, but you’re quoting a biblical phrase without context. You don’t even know where it’s found. How can that be your theological stance? I’m perplexed. What does that mean?” The whole back-and-forth left Cruz looking unprepared and many on the left feeling strange about siding with Carlson, who, for once, was the one making sense.
Right-wing radio host Ben Ferguson caught the panel on CNN’s “NewsNight” off guard on Thursday with an anecdote about what he said to the undocumented wife of one of his best friends.
“One of my best friends married an illegal immigrant,” said Ferguson, who co-hosts the “Verdict” podcast with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). “We had this conversation at dinner, and I said to her, ‘I’m sorry that you decided to break the law. There are a lot of Americans that break laws, and they go to jail. And there’s a consequence for your actions.’”
Host Abby Phillip pressed for clarification, calling it a “very interesting anecdote” amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.
“And you said to her, ‘You need to be deported?’” Phillip asked.
Ferguson replied: “I said the same thing my dad said to me if I ever got arrested: ‘Don’t expect me to bail you out. You’re accountable for your actions.’”
He claimed he also told the woman, who has children with his close friend: “I think you’re an incredible human being. I love that you have this love with your family and your friends. It doesn’t erase your kindness or your love, the fact that you broke the law.”
When asked if he had reported the woman to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Ferguson said: “I’m not going to call ICE on somebody.”
Pressed on why not, he explained that she had actually appeared on his radio show to talk about her status. And he added: “Because they were working through the process with lawyers while this was happening. They already had an interaction with law. They were already going through the process.”
Other panelists pointed out that many of the people who have been detained by ICE agents in recent weeks are in a similar legal position.
russtbash camptown
funny how all these conservatives talk about being accountable for your actions while they serve at the feet of a convicted criminal and support the release of violent J6 insurrectionists. Accountability only applies to non white people in their world.
Iran’s parliament votes to close Strait of Hormuz after US attacks
Story by Peter Aitken
• 8h •
Following U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday, the Iranian Parliament has voted in support of closing the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical oil transit chokepoints, according to media reports.
Any final decision on retaliation, however, will rest with the country’s Supreme National Security Council and leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The parliament vote merely advises him of the option to pursue.
Why It Matters
The U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites—dubbed “Operation Midnight Hammer”—in Isfahan, Fordow and Natanz marks the first direct involvement of America in the escalating crises between Iran and Israel.
The action has received backlash, with many citing the lack of congressional approval for the military move.
The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. At its narrowest point, the strait is about 21 miles wide, with two shipping lanes that are 2 miles wide in each direction.
Around 20 percent of global oil trade passes through the Strait. Some experts have said that if Iran were to cut off access to the Strait, it could spike oil prices by 30 to 50 percent immediately, with gas prices likewise rising by as much as $5 per gallon.
During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, Iran targeted oil tankers and oil loading facilities. These actions did not fully block the Strait but caused sharp increases in shipping insurance premiums and delayed maritime traffic.
In this handout image provided by the Office of the Supreme Leader of Iran, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei addresses the nation in a state television broadcast on June 18, 2025 in Tehran, Iran. Office of Supreme Leader of Iran via Getty Images© Office of Supreme Leader of Iran via Getty Images
What To Know
Iran has long held that it can shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which it has held onto as a last resort for escalation. “Closing” the Strait would mean making it impossible to navigate, with the Iranian Navy possibly laying down mines in the water to deter ships or the military shooting missiles to harass tankers.
“The Parliament has reached the conclusion that the Strait of Hormuz should be closed, but the final decision in this regard lies with the Supreme National Security Council,” Revolutionary Guards Commander Ismail Kowsari, member of the National Security Commission of the Parliament, announced on Sunday, according to Al Arabiya and the Jerusalem Post.
The vote took place Sunday following “Operation Midnight Hammer,” in which seven B-2 stealth bombers flew into Iran and dropped 14 Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP) bombs on two of Iran’s nuclear sites, including the Fordow site. A third site was hit with Tomahawk submarine-launched cruise missiles.
President Donald Trump said the sites had been obliterated by the U.S. operation, which included 125 aircraft overall in an operation that took 25 minutes to complete. However, Trump’s Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Dan Caine said Sunday that it will take some time to assess the full extent of damage to the sites.
The MOP bombs used to hit the sites had never been deployed in a combat scenario prior to Saturday’s strikes.
What People Are Saying
Spencer Hakimian, founder of Tolou Capital Management, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Saturday: “There are close to 50 large oil tankers scrambling to leave the Strait of Hormuz right now. Looks like the oil industry is expecting the Strait to be blockaded in the coming days.”
President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday evening: “ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT. THANK YOU! DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.”
Just months ago, Trump’s Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified to Congress, in her opening statement, that the U.S. intel community “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon” and had not reauthorized its nuclear weapons program.
While Trump recently publicly disputed Gabbard’s testimony, according to two administration officials with knowledge of internal deliberations in recent weeks, the president’s decision to strike was not driven by any new U.S. intelligence on Iran.
“There is no intel,” says one of the officials, who were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive matters. “Nothing new, that I’m aware of… The president is protecting the United States and our interests, [but] the intelligence assessments have not really changed from what they were before.”
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, confirmed Saturday night that American intelligence assessments on Iran have not changed. “I was briefed on the intelligence last week. Iran posed no imminent threat of attack to the United States,” he wrote on social media. “Iran was not close to building a deliverable nuclear weapon.”
What Happens Next?
Khamenei will need to approve any final action that would see a “closure” of the Strait, which can happen as soon as Sunday now that the parliament has approved such measures.
Trump’s attacks on Iran constitute an act of war - and could set off a new, long-term conflict with potential to grow into something much larger. Unlike a previous time an American president preemptively initiated a war in the Middle East, when George W. Bush plunged America into a disastrous war in Iraq, he and his team spent roughly a year building a case of lies and propaganda to sell to a public that was already broadly supportive of post-9/11 military action.
The second Trump administration skipped the pretense, opting to speed-run the U.S. into conflict, at a time when public polling shows that the idea of war with Iran is spectacularly unpopular with the American people.
Trump did not claim on Saturday that he launched the attacks because Iran was close to having a nuclear weapon - as he had suggested earlier in the week. “I think they were very close to having one,” the president said Tuesday, as he disputed Gabbard’s testimony to Congress.
The Trump administration has since attempted to recast Gabbard’s comments before Congress, because, after she said Iran was “not building a nuclear weapon,” she had added: “Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.”
The attacks on Iran represent both a major escalation and a rapid shift in posture toward Iran. Not long ago, Trump was working to negotiate a nuclear agreement with Iran - a development that was somewhat ironic given Trump had withdrawn from Barack Obama’s Iran deal in his first term as president.
Trump Sends oil producers warning after Iran strikes
President Donald Trump issued a broad warning to “KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN” after his strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and urged his administration’s energy department to “DRILL, BABY, DRILL.”
“EVERYONE, KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN. I’M WATCHING! YOU’RE PLAYING RIGHT INTO THE HANDS OF THE ENEMY. DON’T DO IT!” Trump posted on Truth Social on Monday morning.
The Iranians have touted the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a key commercial shipping channel through which a significant portion of the world’s oil supply passes daily, as a potential retaliation for the strikes. Iran is a major oil producer and would also suffer from a closure.
A spike in oil prices would likely feed back into higher inflation for American consumers, a potentially big political problem for Trump, who ran on a campaign to cool prices.
It would also complicate his efforts to reenergize the U.S. economy by increasing business costs, which could hinder investment and job growth. Trump also wants the Federal Reserve to lower rates, another goal that would be set back by higher inflation.
'Doesn’t Take An Einstein’: Crockett Hits Trump With Sharp Melania Swipe In House Hearing
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) took a swipe at Donald Trump and Republicans during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday by throwing some pointed shade at first lady Melania Trump and her immigration path to the U.S.
Crockett, during a hearing titled “Restoring Integrity and Security to the Visa Process,” argued that “the idea that Trump and my Republican colleagues want to restore integrity and security in the visa process is actually a joke.”
The lawmaker first slammed Trump-era immigration tactics, saying:
“Integrity isn’t snatching lawful visa holders off the streets and throwing them into unmarked vans. Integrity is not revoking visas based on social media posts that hurt somebody’s little feelings, because kids decided they want to go after Trump or this administration. We have a thing called free speech in this country.”
Then she got personal about the president: Watch from the 2:09 mark there:
“And since we’re talking about integrity, I’m confused as to why my Republican colleagues aren’t talking about the lack of integrity when it comes to the president’s family’s visas. Melania, the first lady — a model, and when I say model, I’m not talking Tyra Banks, Cindy Crawford or Naomi Campbell-level — applied for and was given an EB-1 visa.”
To gain an “Einstein visa,” as the EB-1 is also called, noted Crockett, “you’re supposed to have some sort of significant achievement, like being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize or a Pulitzer, being an Olympic medalist, or having other sustained extraordinary abilities and success in sciences, arts, education, business or athletics.”
“Last time I checked, the first lady had none of those accolades under her belt,” she said. “It doesn’t take an Einstein to see that the math ain’t mathin’ here.” 
Libertarian Cato Institute analyst Alex Nowrasteh attempted a lighthearted defense of the first lady.
“Not everybody could marry Donald Trump and I think that’s quite an achievement, so I think she deserves credit for that,” he quipped, adding: “Nobody up here could have done it.”
Crockett laughed. “You sure are right,” she replied. “I couldn’t do it.”
‘Rambling Incoherence’: Trump Bizarre ‘Word Salad’ Blows Up X
President Donald Trump got verbally sidetracked on Thursday as he tried to promote his “big beautiful bill” at a White House event.
Trump hit on a number of topics, eventually attacking trans athletes.
“I don’t wanna have transgender for anybody that happens to leave the house at a young age,” he said, then shifted mid-thought to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), suggesting a different kind of transition.
“It’s crazy and it’s so demeaning, and they don’t wanna change, I seen it the other day. Guys like Schumer, our great Palestinian senator, this guy,” he said of Schumer, who is Jewish. “He’s changed. He used to like Jewish people. Now he’s totally against Jewish people. It’s the most incredible transformation I think I’ve ever seen.”
Then he returned to trans athletes.
“But who would allow this to happen? In other sports, the same thing,” he said. “Try the weightlifting numbers some day, you wanna see some big differences. In a million years the women will never catch these numbers. It’s not gonna happen. And it’s very demeaning to women. And I don’t like it when it’s demeaning to women.”
Trump has repeatedly attacked Schumer as “not Jewish anymore” and claimed “he’s a Palestinian now.”
Trump’s critics on social media put him on blast:
A 30-year-old woman in Alabama, married to an immigrant from Iran, said that her family no longer supports President Trump after ICE detained her husband.
Morgan Karimi told Newsweek that President Trump’s immigration policies led to her husband, a Trump supporter, being arrested by ICE, and she and her family are no longer supporting President Trump.
“We believed in his [Trump’s] immigration policies and were completely blindsided and truly believed that only criminals were being detained,” Morgan said to Newsweek.
Morgan’s husband, 26-year-old Ribvar Karimi, was one of 11 Iranian nationals detained by ICE as part of a round-up on Sunday by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Morgan and husband smiling© THE KNOT
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stated that ICE arrested those 11 people as a “commitment to keeping known and suspected terrorists out of American communities.”
Ribvar Karimi entered the country on a K-1 fiancé visa in October 2024, but did not adjust his immigration status as required, leading to his removal, according to ICE.
DHS is claiming that Karimi is a threat to national security, saying he was a sniper in the Iranian army from 2019 to 2021 and had an Islamic Republic of Iran army ID.
“We have been saying we are getting the worst of the worst out—and we are. We don’t wait until a military operation to execute; we proactively deliver on President Trump’s mandate to secure the homeland,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin wrote in a statement.
Garder told WIAT that Karimi never “fought any American forces or our allies”, detailing that he “actually fought ISIS himself and was captured at one point” during his time in the army.
“I understand that they’ve got a job to do, immigration, but I just feel like he was specifically targeted because of what’s going on where he’s from, his home country,” Gardner told WIAT.
“My heart is broken,” Gardner, who is seven months pregnant, said to the outlet.
“Our baby shower is going to be next weekend, and he’s not going to be at home to go to that with me.”
Gardner told Newsweek that if Karimi is sent back to Iran, he could be killed by the government for his support for America and President Trump.
“My husband himself, even being from Iran, supported Trump, his immigration policies, and understood he was trying to protect the American people and was praying he helped free the Iranian people,” Gardner told Newsweek.
Gardner said that her family members feel “like a fool” and regret voting for Trump, stating that she herself didn’t vote in the last presidential election.
“Everyone feels like a fool and regrets the decision. I personally didn’t vote in the last election, and neither did my parents. At this point, I believe there are bad people on the left and the right,” Gardner added.
Jermaine Thomas, whose very citizenship was once the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court case a decade ago, was forcibly removed from the United States last week and deported to Jamaica-a nation he had never seen-leaving him unequivocally stateless. Thomas, born on a U.S. Army base in Germany to a U.S. citizen father who served nearly two decades in the military, now faces a desolate future without a recognized nationality.
“I’m looking out the window on the plane, and I’m hoping the plane crashes and I die,” Thomas confided to The Chronicle from a hotel in Kingston, Jamaica, to his despair. He was reportedly shackled at his wrists and ankles during the journey to this unfamiliar land.
According to court documents, Thomas is not a citizen of Germany, where he was born in 1986, nor of the United States, despite his father’s extensive service. He also holds no citizenship in Jamaica, his father’s birth country.
Continue reading
Back to Home
Thomas’s perplexing status stems from his birth abroad to a military parent, a legal grey area that led to his case reaching the nation’s highest court. The complexities of his origins ultimately led to his expulsion from the country he had known mainly, despite his father’s sacrifice.
His harrowing odyssey, he recounted, began with an eviction in Killeen, Texas, a locale approximately an hour north of Austin. To expedite the removal of his belongings, he transferred them to his front yard, accompanied by his rottweiler, Miss Sassy Pants, whose leash was secured to a pole.
Killeen police arrived, reportedly responding to a call about the dog. Thomas claimed he was arrested for suspected trespassing, a misdemeanor, after refusing to identify himself without being told the reason for police presence. Killeen police corroborated his arrest for suspected trespassing, stating no other charges were filed.
Transported to Bell County Jail, Thomas said a court-appointed lawyer advised he could face an eight-month incarceration if he opted for a trial. After approximately 30 days, which led to the termination of his janitorial job, Thomas signed paperwork for conditional release. However, instead of regaining his freedom, he was transferred to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Waco, Texas, then quickly moved to an ICE detention camp in Conroe.
Thomas stated he endured two and a half months of detention in Conroe, grappling with a lack of clarity regarding his case. A deportation officer, he alleged, repeatedly informed him his case was “very unique” and had been escalated to “Washington, D.C.”
“You keep explaining to me that I’m being detained in suspended custody, in detention, but if I don’t have a release day and I don’t get to see a judge, that’s pretty much a life sentence,” Thomas articulated, conveying his profound frustration.
Feeling a palpable lack of progress, Thomas said he contacted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to formally report what he perceived as unlawful detention. In his case, he claimed, only grew more convoluted thereafter. A guard informed him of an impending release, providing him with a mesh bag for his personal effects, including paperwork from his citizenship case and a non-functional phone.
Thomas was then escorted to a room populated by Spanish speakers, where he learned from one man that they were all slated for deportation to Nicaragua. “So I get to banging on the door, and I’m like: Hey, why am I in here with them?” Thomas recounted, his voice rising in incredulity. At that moment, Thomas resolved that should officers instruct him to place his hands behind his back, he would steadfastly refuse. “I thought, I’m not gonna do it,” he affirmed. “I’m gonna refuse to do it: Respectfully, I don’t mean to be a problem or anything like that, but you’re not gonna just kidnap me and traffic me across the lands and international lines and deport me like I’ve been seeing y’all do on the news.”
The Back of the Airbus: A Desolate Arrival
Tanya Campbell, a fellow deportee, observed his arrival in Jamaica. While Jamaica was a country Thomas had never physically stepped foot in, and his presence there, as she candidly put it, was due to his “appearance,” at least the prevalent language was English.
Campbell, a Jamaican native, had been incarcerated for manslaughter in New York. Upon her recent release, ICE detained her, and on May 29, she stated she was among approximately 100 individuals transported to a waiting plane on a Miami tarmac, their destination, Kingston.
At the airport, as she disembarked a van and was shackled, Campbell observed Thomas encircled by between eight and 10 officers. He was the last to board the aircraft, a moment she described as resembling “a walk of shame.” He was positioned in the very last row, flanked by officers, which led her to infer that he was a fugitive. Thomas recalled his seat in the 31st row.
The landing itself felt “bizarre, too real,” he said, as “everyone just got up and got off the plane” in what he termed a “stampede.” Thomas remained in the last row, observing. He recounted an ICE officer boarding the plane and audibly stating, “I don’t have records for more than half of these people. There’s something wrong.”
ICE and DHS declined to comment on these specific allegations.
Thomas now faces an uncertain future in Jamaica. He finds local inhabitants difficult to comprehend, particularly those who speak Patois, a dialect unfamiliar to him. He lacks knowledge on how to secure employment. Furthermore, he is unaware whether the Jamaican or U.S. government is subsidizing his hotel accommodations or for how long, and he harbors profound questions concerning the very legality of his presence in the country.
Trump’s justice department issues directive to strip naturalized Americans of citizenship for criminal offenses
The Trump administration has codified its efforts to strip some Americans of their US citizenship in a recently published justice department memo that directs attorneys to prioritize denaturalization for naturalized citizens who commit certain crimes.
The memo, published on 11 June, calls on attorneys in the department to institute civil proceedings to revoke a person’s United States citizenship if an individual either “illegally procured” naturalization or procured naturalization by “concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation”.
At the center of the move are the estimated 25 million US citizens who immigrated to the country after being born abroad, according to data from 2023 – and it lists 10 different priority categories for denaturalization.
According to the memo, those subjected to civil proceedings are not entitled to an attorney like they are in criminal cases. And the government has a lighter burden of proof in civil cases than they do in criminal ones.
The memo claims such efforts will focus on those who are involved “in the commission of war crimes, extrajudicial killings, or other serious human rights abuses … [and] naturalized criminals, gang members, or, indeed, any individuals convicted of crimes who pose an ongoing threat to the US”.
The directive gives justice department attorneys wider discretion on when to pursue denaturalization, including in instances of lying on immigration forms, cases where there is financial fraud or medical fraud against the US or against private individuals; and cases referred by a US attorney’s office or in connection with pending criminal charges.
The memo’s focus on denaturalization comes as at least one person has been denaturalized in recent weeks.
On 13 June, a judge ordered the revocation of the citizenship of Elliott Duke. Duke is a US military veteran originally from the UK who was convicted for distributing child sexual abuse material and had not disclosed the crime during the naturalization process.
Immigration attorneys are concerned that denaturalization cases via civil litigation strips some rights from the individual, including rights to an attorney as well as lowering the threshold of proof, and speeding up the denaturalization process.
“It is kind of, in a way, trying to create a second class of US citizens,” said Sameera Hafiz, policy director of the Immigration Legal Resource Center, to NPR.
Trump says DOGE ‘monster’ may have to ‘eat it’s creator Elon’ as Musk vows primary ads for lawmakers who cross him on BBB
President Donald Trump points to electric vehicle subsidies as Musk attacks ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’
Musk shot back in response to a video clip of Trump’s remarks Tuesday morning that he would not continue escalating the feud “for now.”
“So tempting to escalate this. So, so tempting. But I will refrain for now,” Musk posted X.
Musk intensified his feud with former close ally Trump this week in a political warning to lawmakers that he will work to unseat them if they vote in support of Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.”
“Anyone who campaigned on the PROMISE of REDUCING SPENDING , but continues to vote on the BIGGEST DEBT ceiling increase in HISTORY will see their face on this poster in the primary next year,” Musk posted to X Monday evening.
Personally I think they should make minimum wage with no benefits. It might encourage them to actually do things that are good for our country. If congress made no more than the average wage in their home state, it would incentivize them to find ways to cut costs and provide for the common welfare. Maybe they would actually be of service to the people of this country.
…
