The Kanye West Situation is Pathetic, Vance Sparks Constitutional Crisis Concerns, & Today's News
PDS Published 02/10/2025
-
The Super Bowl happened last night, and a lot of different people had a lot of different feelings about a lot of different things.
As far as the actual game, Chiefs versus Eagles, pretty much everyone except Chiefs fans were very happy with the results. It was just a brutal beating.
Even the score of 40 to 22 made it look closer than it actually was—one of the Chiefs' touchdowns even happened after the coach of the Eagles got doused with Gatorade.
That also made the game kind of boring for a lot of people who didn't have a dog in the fight.
Then separately, there was the Taylor Swift of it all. She was there to watch her boyfriend, Travis Kelce, play. When her face got put on the jumbotron, she got booed like crazy.
A number of reporters said that largely came from the Eagles fans that were there. In addition to that, even the president of the United States piled on, writing on social media:
"The only one that had a tougher night than the Kansas City Chiefs was Taylor Swift."
"Got booed out of the stadium. MAGA is very unforgiving."
Though not everyone on the political spectrum was on the same page about that. For example, conservative commentator Tomi Lahren tweeted:
"I see this differently than a lot of my conservative friends, but I didn’t like nor do I celebrate the booing of Taylor Swift. What did she do to any of y’all? I get that she endorsed Kamala, but that’s her right. Are we supposed to hate someone because they have different political opinions? Overall, she is a wholesome and talented performer who, by all accounts, is kind to her crew and a nice person. I don’t celebrate that kind of thing—being booed just because she voted for someone that I didn’t."
Then, of course, there was the Kendrick Lamar halftime show. Depending on where you looked on social media, there were drastically different reactions.
On YouTube, the official NFL halftime show video was filled with praise:
"Kendrick Lamar is the GOAT."
"Samuel L. Jackson as Uncle Sam was genius."
"Kendrick was so kind to let some football teams play during his concert."
"Considering the beef with Drake started in March 2024, this is the longest funeral I've ever seen."
Some people even hyped up his cardio. Others highlighted moments like Kendrick bringing out Serena Williams, with one user commenting:
"A quick walk after Drake stalked that woman publicly for years and obsessively threw shots at her for turning him down is so wild. Man is the definition of chaotic good."
But then you go to Twitter, and you see headlines like:
"Was this the worst halftime show in history?"
As far as negative reactions, they seemed to fall into three categories: everyday folks who just didn’t vibe with it, political right-leaning critics, and, of course, Drake fans.
On the political side, some called it the "D.C. Halftime Show." Congressman Matt Gaetz chimed in, saying:
"The halftime show you just watched is clearly the regime’s response to Trump’s historic gains with Black men."
Which is a strange take, considering Kendrick was announced as the performer before the election. You’d also think Gaetz would know better than to walk into this trap, since half the responses to him were just people posting the lyrics to Not Like Us.
Beyond politics, some viewers simply found it unentertaining, saying they couldn't understand what Kendrick was saying. Others argued that Drake would have put on a better performance.
That leads to another big question: Would Kendrick perform Not Like Us at the Super Bowl? While his performance of the song was seen as a victory lap, Drake is actually suing UMG for defamation over it.
He claims the label released and promoted a song that included false pedophilia allegations. In fact, before the game even kicked off, Drake’s legal team issued a statement accusing UMG of "masquerading as a champion of artistic freedom" and saying:
"There is nothing entertaining about pedophilia or child abuse in the real world."
Now, shifting to another big Super Bowl-related moment: Kanye West.
Kanye did another one of those self-shot Super Bowl commercials, this time sitting in a dentist chair, telling people to go to Yeezy.com. Last night, there were a number of different things you could buy there. But as of this morning, Kanye West is just straight-up selling swastika shirts. It’s a white shirt with a swastika on it, labeled "HO1"—which the ADL says is code for "Heil Hitler."
The ADL issued a statement condemning Kanye, and they weren’t alone. Tons of people were outraged, not just at him, but also at Fox for even allowing him to buy a Super Bowl ad for Nazi merch. Some pointed out:
"Obviously, Kanye is an idiot and deserves any backlash, but Fox sold him advertising space during the biggest TV event. They should be catching flak too."
This new product launch wasn’t exactly a surprise, considering it followed an hours-long antisemitic rampage on X, where Kanye said he was a Nazi, that he loved Hitler, and that:
"Some of my best friends are Jewish, and I don’t trust any of them."
"I’m never apologizing for my Jewish comments, and I don’t even know what the f*** antisemitic means. It’s just some bulls*** Jewish people made up to protect their bulls***."
And all of this comes after Kanye’s long history of antisemitic remarks—remember when he said he was going "death con three on Jewish people"?
With this latest bigoted attempt to get attention, people once again called for his account to be shut down. David Schwimmer even weighed in, posting on Instagram:
"Can’t stop a deranged bigot from spewing hate-filled, ignorant bile, but we can stop giving him a megaphone. Mr. Musk, Kanye West has 32.7 million followers on your platform. That’s twice as many people as there are Jews in existence. His sick hate speech results in real-life violence against Jews."
With that, Elon Musk actually did respond—but not about the Nazi stuff. Instead, he addressed complaints that Kanye was posting literal porn on the timeline. He said Kanye’s account was now classified as "not safe for work."
As of this morning, Kanye’s account just doesn’t exist at all. Most reports suggest that Kanye deactivated it himself, rather than Musk banning him. Before logging off, Kanye reportedly wrote:
"I’m logging out of Twitter. Appreciate Elon for allowing me to vent. Has been very cathartic to use the world as a sounding board."
But yeah, with all that said, this is a news show, but I also want it to be a conversation.
So, I gotta pass the question off to you: What are your thoughts here? Reactions, opinions, your reasoning—anything and everything. I’d love to see your comments down below.
-
JD Vance and Elon Musk are among those in the Trump administration now openly questioning the judiciary’s authority to serve as a check on executive power.
And with the courtroom being the main venue for challenging Trump's potentially illegal actions, it’s raising the scary question of what would happen if he simply started ignoring decisions he didn’t like instead of appealing them?
And with that, this whole conversation goes back to this battle over DOGE and whether or not it has the authority to access the Treasury Department’s payments system.
Right, Musk and much of the DOGE team?
They’re reportedly “special government employees” – which is a class of federal worker that face less strict rules on ethics and financial disclosures than other staff.
And with that, one nineteen-year-old DOGE employee?
He was reportedly fired from a prevoius internship with a cybersecurity firm for leaking internal information to the competitors.
Not to mention Trump has granted temporary security clearances to officials who have not been fully vetted.
With all that being part of the reason why alarm bells were ringing when DOGE demanded access to the payments system.
Right, which not only disburses trillions of dollars in federal spending every year, but also holds sensitive personal information about millions of Americans.
And so when DOGE came knocking, David Lebryk (Lee-brick), a lifelong civil servant then serving as the acting secretary of the department? He turned them away.
But he was then placed on administrative leave, with the Senate confirming Trump's pick as the new secretary, and Lee-brick resigning a few days later.
And very quickly, with Trump’s guy in charge, Musk’s team was given access to the payments systems.
With 19 Democratic attorneys general then suing the administration alleging that giving access to DOGE’s “special government employees” violated federal law.
Also arguing that DOGE's access to the Treasury records could interfere with funding already appropriated by Congress.
And there, notably, Musk had claimed his team had only “read-only access” to the system and just planned to review payments as part of an audit process
But reporting by the Associated Press has since contradicted that claim, with sources claiming DOGE officials originally sought in order to stop money from flowing to the U.S. Agency for International Development.
And with that, this weekend, you had a federal judge temporarily halting access to the payment system for all but a few, including civil servants who have passed background checks and need to access the system to keep it running.
Also ordering the destruction of any downloaded information from the payment system by anyone given access to it since January 20.
With the judge citing a, quote, risk of “irreparable harm.”
And adding: “the risk that the new policy presents of the disclosure of sensitive and confidential information and the heightened risk that the systems in question will be more vulnerable than before to hacking.” []
In response, you had Musk call the decision “absolutely insane!” and claiming:
“Something super shady is going to protect scammers.”[]
But from there, the criticism has gone from expressing disappointment or disagreement with the judge’s decision to questioning his authority and calling for him to be removed.
Right, Trump, for example, saying:
“No judge should frankly be allowed to make that kind of a decision. It’s a disgrace.”[]
And then, Musk sharing a reaction by conservative commentator Glenn Beck, and adding:
“A corrupt judge protecting corruption.”
“He needs to be impeached NOW!”[]
With Musk also sharing another post suggesting that the Trump administration may have no other option but to defy the judge’s ruling. []
And finally, JD Vance piling on, writing on X:
“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.
“If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal.”
“Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.” []
And notably, with that, Vance, a graduate of Yale Law School by the way, has suggested more than once in the past that presidents like Trump can and should ignore court orders if they think it infringes on their rightful executive powers.
And while this post didn’t go quite that far, it arguably carries more weight now that he’s vice president.[]
And with that, you have people like one NYU law professor highlighting Vance’s use of the words “legitimate powers” and pointing out that the judiciary is the branch with the power to decide what a president can “legitimately” do or not do, and going on to say: []
"The concern is that the vice president’s statement could be taken to suggest that the Executive Branch is prepared to refuse to comply with a court order based on the president’s own view that he has a power that the courts have concluded he does not.”
"A president who orders his officials not to comply with court orders would be creating a constitutional crisis."[]
And then, people like Liz Cheney putting it more bluntly, writing on X that if you disagree with a ruling, you can appeal, and adding:
“You don’t get to rage-quit the Republic just because you are losing. That’s tyranny.”[]
Now, with all that, I wanna be clear, at this point, the Trump administration is reportedly complying with the order and seeking legal recourse.
Right, today, for example, the DOJ filing a motion to have the judge’s order lifted –
Claiming the “remarkable intrusion” is unconstitutional and should be “dissolved immediately.”[]
And then, otherwise, there’s a hearing set for February 14th.
But of course, this is just one of Trump’s efforts that have already met legal roadblocks since he took office.
Right, judges have also stopped him, at least temporarily, from ending birthright citizenship, putting thousands of USAID workers on leave, and transferring transgender female inmates to male prisons.
And then, today, a judge will be deciding on the fate of the buyout offer sent to almost all federal employees.
And so, with Trump already having proven his willingness to push the envelope of presidential authority, you have people wondering how much he’s ultimately gonna let the legal system stand in his way.
-
We gotta talk about one of Donald Trump’s latest, probably least controversial, but still possibly illegal executive actions.
And that’s him reportedly directing the Treasury Department to stop minting new pennies, America’s one-cent coin, writing on social media:
“For far too long the United States has minted pennies which literally cost us more than 2 cents. This is so wasteful!” []
“Let's rip the waste out of our great nations budget, even if it's a penny at a time.”
And so this isn't something Trump talked about during his campaign.
But notably, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency raised the prospect in a post on X last month also highlighting the penny’s cost.
And with that, Trump, Musk, DOGE?
They’re absolutely right that pennies now cost more than they’re worth.
Right, last year, for example, it cost 3.69 cents to produce and distribute a penny according to the U.S. Mint.
This means that, accounting for their face value, each penny made a loss of 2.69 cents.[]
And with the Mint issuing over three billion pennies last year, total losses amounted to about $85 million.[]
And with that, experts and government officials of all stripes have been calling for something to be done about the penny for years.
Right, both Democratic and Republican members of Congress, for example, have introduced legislation to temporarily suspend the penny’s production, eliminate it from circulation, or require that prices be rounded to the nearest five cents.
And according to polling by Data for Progress, 58 percent of voters agree that the government should stop producing new pennies.
Now, that said, it’s not like there isn’t any opposition.
Right, with those who support keeping the penny claiming that getting rid of it would effectively impose a one-cent sales tax on consumers since prices ending in 99 cents are so common.
With supporters also saying the penny helps charities with fund-raising.
And finally, noting that the elimination of the penny might increase the demand for nickels, which notably, are actually even more expensive to produce.
Right, with each 5 cent coin costing nearly 14 cents to make. []
But with all that, proponents of eliminating the coin say the cost savings are worth it and they also point to potential benefits like speedier checkouts at cash registers.
And notably, they point to a lot of real-world cases where low-value coins have been discontinued without major consequences.
Australia, for example, withdrew its one- and two-cent coins from circulation in 1992.
And even earlier, countries like Sweden and New Zealand stopped minting their one-cent coins.[]
More recently, in 2012, Canada stopped minting its penny.
And last year, the UK actually opted not to produce any new coins at all after officials decided there were already enough in circulation.
And besides those examples from abroad, this actually wouldn’t even be the first time the U.S. eliminated its least valuable coin – with the half-cent coin getting discontinued by Congress in 1857.[]
And that’s actually a key thing.
Right, Congress discontinued the coin.
And it's unclear whether Trump can do the same with the penny by himself.
Right, currency specifications -- including the size and metal content of coins -- are dictated by the House and the Senate.
Now with that, one economics professor at Northeastern University, for example, has argued that there might be wiggle room, saying:
"[Discontinuing the penny] would likely require an act of Congress, but the Secretary of the Treasury might be able to simply stop the minting of new pennies.”[]
With him adding:
“It will be important to have rules in place regarding how cash transactions that are not divisible by 5 cents should be handled, most likely by rounding to the nearest 5 cents, and also regarding how existing stocks of pennies can be used and exchanged.” []
And so with everything else going on, if there’s any legal challenges here, they’re probably not gonna be getting as much attention.
But it is possibly one more way that Trump is testing the limits of his power.
But with that, I gotta ask: penny for your thoughts?
Kickstart your passion project with a free trial today: go to Squarespace & enter offer code “Phil” to get 10% off your first purchase!
-
Y’all can kiss the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau goodbye, at least for right now.
Because over the weekend, Trump’s Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought [Vote] sent an order to the CFPB, for which he is also the acting director, [Image]
Instructing all of the agency’s staff not to come to the office and flatly stating: “Please do not perform any work tasks.” [Tweet]
Which is effectively tantamount to shutting down the entire agency.
Now for some context, the CFPB is an agency tasked with protecting consumers against unfair, deceptive or predatory practices by large financial institutions.
Right, it was created in 2010 after the subprime mortgage lending meltdown of 2008.
But it’s authority covers more than just housing loans; you’ve got credit cards, medical debt, auto loans, student loans, digital currencies, payment apps and other financial products.
And ever since then, Republicans, tech executives and financiers have bitterly fought to repeal the agency.
With them arguing that it’s unaccountable, accusing it of overreach, and claiming that its regulations hurt business.
But if they can’t do that, simply making it impossible for the bureau to do its job also works.
So not only did Vought order staff to cease all “supervision and examination activity” Saturday, [Quote]
His officials announced that the agency's D.C. headquarters would be closed from Monday through Friday this week. [Quote and Image]
Mirroring what the Trump administration did to the USAID headquarters last week.
And also like what happened to USAID’s website, the CFPB’s website and X account appeared to be shut down this morning. [Website and X]
Moreover, Vought said he told the Federal Reserve that the CFPB would not accept its next draw of federal funding for the upcoming quarter. [Tweet]
With him explaining that “it is not ‘reasonably necessary’ to carry out its duties. The Bureau's current balance of $711.6 million is in fact excessive in the current fiscal environment. This spigot, long contributing to CFPB's unaccountability, is now being turned off.” [Same tweet]
So now in the meantime, we can expect the CFPB to get the USAID treatment from the Department of Government Efficiency headed by Elon Musk.
Because on Friday, DOGE staff reportedly entered the bureau’s building and gained access to its computer systems. [Quote, find “internal”]
With Musk posting on X that afternoon, “CFPB RIP.” [tweet]
Which, in case his intentions weren’t clear enough, he also said back in November that he wanted to “delete” the CFPB. [Tweet]
And as many have pointed out, there’s arguably a conflict of interest there.
Right, because X and Visa are reportedly working on a new business partnership to offer direct payment solutions to customers of the social media app. [Quote, first line]
With “X Money” reportedly meant to allow users to instantly fund their X wallet and connect their debit cards for peer-to-peer payments, as well as to instantly transfer funds to their bank account. [Quote same link, find “X Money”]
So critics say this assault on the CFPB is essentially Musk seizing control of his own regulator.
Though Musk isn’t solely responsible for this latest push; I mean, Vought himself was an architect of Project 2025, which proposed abolishing the CFPB.
But now we’re seeing Democrats and consumer advocates mobilize to keep the bureau alive.
With Senator Elizabeth Warren, who was the architect of the CFPB in 2010, saying:
[Clip, 00:00 - 00:07, 00:23 - 01:02] Caption: “If you have a bank account or a credit card or a mortgage or a student loan, this is code red. I am ringing the alarm bell. … The CFPB is the little agency working to shut down scams and fraud on payment apps like Zelle and PayPal and Cash App. It’s the agency that steps in when the big bank trips up and repossesses your car. It’s the agency that’s working to cut those crazy fees that banks and credit card companies bury down in the fine print and then you gotta pay for them. Already, this little agency has forced giant banks and corporations to give back more than 21 billion dollars directly to families they cheated.”
You also have the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents the CFPB’s roughly 1,700 workers, filing two lawsuits against Vought on Sunday. [Quote, find “two lawsuits”]
With the first seeking to block DOGE's access to private and sensitive information at the agency.
Explaining, “the CFPB collects and maintains a vast amount of data, including sensitive information about individuals and businesses, including banks and other financial institutions.” [Quote]
And then the second suit alleges that Vought's orders "reflect an unlawful attempt to thwart Congress's decision to create the CFPB to protect American consumers.” [Quote]
Right, basically arguing that since the CFPB was created by Congress, the executive branch can’t legally just shut it down.
But unlike many other agencies, it receives its funding directly from the Federal Reserve, rather than through the congressional appropriations process.
Which is meant to shield it from political pressure, but it’s unclear whether that gives Vought more leeway to turn off the spigot, in his own words.
So we’ll have to see how all this lands in the courts, though if Trump’s efforts with USAID and the treasury are any sign, it’ll face a lot of resistance from judges.
Links:
https://www.axios.com/2025/02/10/cfpb-trump-doge-vought-lawsuit-union
-
What the hell is going on in South Africa? Because over the past few weeks it's gone from a fringe topic among the right wing into a major foreign policy priority for the Trump Administration.
At the center of this is a controversial land expropriation bill that South Africa signed into law late last month.
On the surface, the law gives the South African government a mechanism to take land away from owners without ANY compensation under limited circumstances.
These include property that isn’t being used and where there is no intention to develop or make money from it.
As well as land that might be a threat to people.
So what’s so controversial about the bill?
One issue that sticks out for many is that landowners won’t be getting anything for land that’s taken.
Which in many parts of the world just can’t happen, such as in the US.
Yes, the government here can forcibly take land for things like public roads, but under our Constitution, there has to be fair compensation for it.
(Technically the South African constitution has a similar clause, but there are arguments that “zero money” is fair considering the years of oppression).[]
But South Africa didn’t go straight to just taking people’s lands.
The entire policy stems from a Constitutional requirement that pushes the government to try and right the wrongs of White Apartheid rule; with land being one of the biggest points.
Because during Apartheid, laws favored White landownership to the point that it was almost impossible for non-Whites to own land.[]
After the Apartheid government was removed, the ruling ANC party has tried to tackle this issue under a “willing seller, willing buyer” policy; meaning it was always willing to buy white land to distribute to Black owners.
The government had expected to have 30% of the private land distributed by 2014, but they fell short of the goal, and by that year, only 4% of private land and 8% of private farmland had been transferred… []
All of these efforts have morphed into a narrative that White South Africans are being targeted despite the fact the land law doesn’t specifically mention race.
That culminated last Sunday when Trump wrote on Truth Social:
“South Africa is confiscating land, and treating certain classes of people VERY BADLY. It is a bad situation that the Radical Left Media doesn’t want to mention. A massive Human Rights VIOLATION, at a minimum, is happening for all to see. The United States won’t stand for it, we will act. Also, I will be cutting off all future funding to South Africa until a full investigation of this situation has been completed!” []
This was followed up by news that Secretary of State Marco Rubio wouldn’t be attending the upcoming G20 summit being hosted there.
Although his statement took a step back from claiming there were explicit human rights violations and instead claimed that the G20 was a platform to promote “DEI and climate change.” []
Fast forward to this past Friday and Trump followed up on his threat by signing an executive order that blocks as much foreign aid “to the maximum extent allowed by law.” []
In it, the order highlighted “countless government policies designed to dismantle equal opportunity in employment, education, and business, and hateful rhetoric and government actions fueling disproportionate violence against racially disfavored landowners.”
We’ve covered a lot of that stuff in the past as well, but there’s a very big feeling among White South Africans that the ANC has gone too far in trying to make South Africa more equitable to the point of being anti-White.
And Trump seems to agree, because this order also states that:
“the United States shall promote the resettlement of Afrikaner refugees escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination, including racially discriminatory property confiscation.”
For many, Trump’s sudden concern about South Africa coincides with Elon Musk’s influence.
Right, he’s from there originally and his family benefitted from Apartheid.
And throughout all of this, he’s been in the trenches on Twitter arguing about this topic.
For example, after Trump first talked about the situation last Sunday, South Africa’s president tweeted out:
“South Africa is a constitutional democracy that is deeply rooted in the rule of law, justice and equality. The South African government has not confiscated any land.
The recently adopted Expropriation Act is not a confiscation instrument, but a constitutionally mandated legal process that ensures public access to land in an equitable and just manner as guided by the constitution.” []
He went on to highlight that the only foreign aid they get from the US is for 17% of their AIDS treatment program.
But Musk replied with:
“Why do you have openly racist ownership laws?” []
All of this was followed by a week’s worth of “proof” from the X right-o-sphere that South Africa is not only racist against White people, but actively calling for their genocide.
The poster boy for this proof is Julius Malema, the leader of the EFF party.
And yeah… he’s said some pretty crazy things like at a rally a few years ago he chanted:
“Kill the Boer… the farmer!” @0:15
In general, a lot of his speeches have talked about “slashing the throat of whiteness” and similar rhetoric.
Which is why some have defended Malema’s “Kill the Boer” chant as a long-standing rallying cry for anti-Apartheid activists against the system itself.
Leading to yesterday, where Musk tweeted out:
“Immediate sanctions for Malema and declaration of his as an international criminal!” []
Malema replied with:
“I really think you have entirely lost your left brain: a typical spoiled brat and direct beneficiary of Apartheid whiteness.”
He went on to say he was proud to be “an international criminal” if it meant “fighting for black people to be equal to white people.” []
What’s crazy though is that there’s been such a focus on Malema at all.
He’s part of a fringe Marxist-Leninist party that has some success but is nowhere near big enough to be in power.
It’s not even part of the ruling coalition and is actually an opposition party.
So while Trump and Musk are claiming South Africa is racist against White people, others have given their own examples of just the opposite.
There’s also been a lot of talk that Musk might be pushing the Trump administration to tackle South Africa because of a personal vendetta.
Right, his company Starlink has been trying to set up service there but has run into issues.
Notably, there are rules that 30% of the business has to be owned by “disadvantaged groups,” meaning Black or mixed-race people in South Africa. []
So we saw tweets like:
“Digging out Julius Malema's old videos to push white genocide propaganda because you were told black people need to own 30% of your starlink for it to operate in South Africa is diabolical.” []
Like every topic lately this one is constantly evolving.
For example, when we were prepping this the US Embassy and Consulates in South Africa released a “Fact Sheet” that added even more reasons the US was targeting the country.
Now on top of the land bill, there’s references to South Africa’s efforts at the International Criminal Court to target alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza. []
But let me know what you think down below.
Is this all getting blown out of proportion?
(And I wonder if White South African refugees coming here will have to wait at the border like everyone else…?)
