The “Hasan Piker Problem” is Bigger Than You Think & The Truth About Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill
PDS Published 05/13/2025
-
Federal agents detained and questioned Hasan Piker at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago.
Right, Hasan? He is one the biggest political streamers out there,
He’s got millions of followers across Twitch, Youtube, and X and he is especially known for speaking out on behalf of Palestine as well as against the actions of the U.S. government.
And with that, you have him claiming his detention and interrogation were not random.
Right, saying he was questioned about his political views – including whether he supports Trump and whether he’s connected to Hamas or affiliated groups in the region – and ultimately, accusing the administration of trying to silence dissent with intimidation.
And with that, one thing to note, Hasan? He was born in New Jersey and is a US citizen.
Right, he says he was coming back into the country on Sunday after travelling to France with his family to celebrate Mother’s Day.
Notably, with hopes though not expectations that everything would go smoothly since he was accepted for the government’s Global Entry program, which normally speeds up security checks for pre-approved, low-risk travelers returning to the US.
But what happened, he said on X, was that he was stopped for “additional questioning” – saying that “....it wasn’t that bad” but that it was a “very strange experience overall.”[]
With him then yesterday talking about this experience in detail on stream:
“They knew who I was and they were ready to receive me, let’s just say, and it wasn’t a very warm welcome.” (1:39-1:46)
“I get to the Global Entry line and they're processing everybody expeditiously. You walk up, boom, you walk up, immediately they take a photo of your face, and you walk in.” (7:03-7:16)
“It gets to me, takes a photo, boom, I walk in. Instantly, instantly the Customs and Border Patrol agent goes ‘step aside sir." (7:25-7:34)
And from there, Hasan says he was taken to a detention area to wait, saying the others he saw included “terrified families” and “an old lady in a wheelchair” and that none of those he spoke to were US citizens.
Right, and then, eventually, he was called in for questioning:
“Let me tell you folks, the TikTokkers that talked about being detained, they were right. It was an insane situation.” (12:37-12:48)
“It's very obvious that they knew exactly who the fuck I was. It's very obvious that they knew how to navigate the conversation.” (12:50-12:57)
And with that, Hasan described that conversation as surprisingly cordial but also claimed that that feeling was kind of undermined by the fact that “the entire process is supposed to be intimidating.”
But he also said he wanted to see exactly how far CBP would go, noting he was in a position of privilege to be able to do so.
And with that, saying rather than pleading the fifth as maybe would normally be a good idea, he was very candid about some things, including his views on Trump:
“There were definitely areas where I was very revealing about my position knowing full well that they know exactly what they're looking for. I saw no reason to hold back on certain things so I said ‘I don't like Trump.’ I was like ‘What are you going to do? It's protected by the First Amendment. I don't like Trump.’” (17:23-17:43)
And there, he said the interrogator seemed sympathetic, with him also noting that the agent identified himself as Iraqi, which Hasan said might have been part of it, and saying he might have lucked out in that regard.
That said, when he asked why he was being detained, the agent reportedly told Hasan it was “routine.”
And then, he said, rather than questions about Trump, there were a lot about his views in connection to Israel: (22:13-22:25
“They’re asking me about Trump, they're asking me about Hamas, and he kept saying stuff like: "Do you like Hamas? Do you support Hamas? Do you think Hamas is a resistance group?”
“ I kept saying a couple different things. One, in terms of Israel and all the wars, I'm on the side of civilians, I want the endless bloodshed to end, I am a pacifist, I want wars to end. I just kept repeating that over and over again every single time he asked me a question. I just kept repeating that. And every single time he asked me a question leading to a leading question about Hamas I kept saying the United States State Department recognizes Hamas as a terrorist organization. The United States State Department recognizes Hamas as a terrorist organization.” (22:39-23:07)
And from there, Hasan says, the questions went from being about his views to asking if he had any contact or involvement with Hamas, as well as the Houthis, or Hezbollah:
“Straight up, that’s literally what the conversation was about. It’s not even a joke. They literally – they straight up tried to get something out of me that I think they could use to basically detain me permanently, which is insane, because there is no direct connection or direct involvement.” (19:12-19:35)
But with that, while Hasan speculated they were looking for a reason to hold him, what it was really all about was intimidation:
“I think they did it because they know who the fuck I am, and they wanted to put the fear of God into me.” (26:08-26:18)
“Obviously, the reason for why they’re doing that is, I think, to try to create an environment of fear for people like myself or, at least others who would be in my shoes who don’t have the same level of security, to shut the fuck up. And for me I'm going to use the privilege that I have in that moment to try and see what they're doing, okay, because every single thing that they ask me, trying to get me to say something like ‘Oh I support Hamas or whatever’ is literally not allowed. Like they are not – What do you mean? Like why is this denying me entry into the country of my birth? Like this is my birthright. I'm an American citizen. You can't just stop me at the border and be like ‘What's your opinion on Donald Trump? You're not allowed to enter the nation.’” (30:39-30:31:28)
“The goal here is to put fear into people’s hearts, to have a chilling effect on speech that the government is unafraid of intimidating you in illegal ways. The government is now officially willing and able to intimate you for speech, for your speech. That is a direct violation of the first amendment.” (38:58-39:20)
Now with all that, officials have denied that Hasan was targeted over his beliefs during the "routine and lawful" inspection.
With DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin accusing the streamer of "lying for likes" – and going on to say:
“Claims that his political beliefs triggered the inspection are baseless. Our
@CBP officers are following the law, not agendas.”
“Upon entering the country, this individual was referred for further inspection — a routine, lawful process that occurs daily, and can apply for any traveler. Once his inspection was complete, he was promptly released.” []
Notably, Hasan responded to the Trump administration’s defense in a statement to NBC, saying:
“What part of a 'lawful routine inspection' requires DHS to question me about my political views, my opinions on Donald Trump, or my stance on Israel and Palestine?” []
And then that’s been echoed by others as well.
Right, Alex Peter, better known as Lolo, for example, is an attorney who’s popular online, and you had him writing:
“DHS flagging and detaining one of the US’s largest leftwing voices for their political opinions while the Trump admin suggests they might suspend habeas corpus does not portend well for the future.” []
And then actually, Hasan’s uncle, the co-founder of The Young Turks, where Hasan briefly worked? You had him saying:
“Border agents detaining and interrogating [Hasan] proves two things. They are targeting US citizens as well.”
“And they asked him about his policy positions on Israel and Trump. This is a frontal attack on freedom of speech. This is when you show if you have principles or not.” []
But with that, I now gotta pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts on all this?
-
Republicans have unveiled the text of Trump’s “big, beautiful” tax bill — and there’s a lot to unpack.
Right, yesterday, we talked about how Republicans released their plan to pay for Trump’s legislative agenda by making cuts to Medicaid that will force millions of poor Americans to lose their health insurance and pay higher healthcare costs.
But that was just one element of a much broader package — literally named “THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’’ in all capital letters — which has now been published in full.
Now, notably here, the proposal that House Republicans made public yesterday is nearly 400 pages long, so obviously, we can’t touch on everything.
But I want to hit on some of the key elements Republicans are proposing here.
Right, first off, as expected, a huge part of this legislation is the more than $4 trillion in tax cuts — and specifically, the extension of 2017 tax cuts made under the first Trump administration.
And while Americans from nearly all income levels will see the impacts, it is the wealthiest people and corporations that will reap the biggest benefits.
Right, according to the Center for American Progress — aka CAP — the bill would, quote:
“give millionaires a $68,000 tax cut and give households in the top 0.1 percent a $300,000 tax cut while raising taxes or doing nothing for 33 million working-class households.”
But there are also several new policies aimed at helping more working-class families.
Like giving newborn babies a $1,000 tax-free savings account called “money account for growth and advancement” — aka the “MAGA account” — that can hold up to $5,000 in contributions until the beneficiary is 31 years old.
Another provision that would help middle-class families is a $2,000 increase to the standard deduction — which is the baseline amount of income that filers can collect tax-free.
With that bumping the total number to $32,000 per household.
The bill would also boost the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,500 for four years — but only for some families.
But, according to Brookings, because of how the credit is designed based on family income, the lowest-income children are left out entirely or given partial credits, while wealthier families are given full credits.
And, what’s more, the GOP bill would add a new requirement that limits eligibility to only parents and guardians with Social Security numbers — essentially requiring people to be citizens in order to receive the benefit.
A move that one think tank estimated would impact 4.5 million children who themselves are citizens or legal residents.
Beyond that, the legislation also includes some significant new tax breaks — though, VERY notably here, all of these are temporary, lasting only for the next four years.
This including a pause for taxes on tipped wages and overtime pay — with exceptions for “highly compensated employees.”
But, like the child tax credit, people will be required to have a Social Security number to qualify, functionally making noncitizens ineligible.
Other new temporary tax breaks include a bonus deduction of $4,000 on Social Security wages for seniors with adjusted incomes no higher than $75,000 per individual.
As well as a provision that would allow people who purchase American-made cars to deduct up to $10,000 in car loan interest payments for four years, though the amount that can be deducted decreases as incomes increase.
Additionally, one of the more contentious new temporary tax breaks would allocate up to $5 billion per year in tax credits for people who donate to school voucher programs that help families pay for private-school tuition or home-schooling.
With the bill specifically creating a 100% tax credit for donations to scholarship-granting organizations, meaning taxpayers will be fully reimbursed for their contributions, totally dwarfing the incentive for any other charity.
But you have many people arguing that this will essentially funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to private schools — including to pay the tuition of already wealthy families.
With The Washington Post reporting that households earning up to three times their area median income would qualify for vouchers.
So, for example, in D.C., that means that families that make more than $450,000 would be eligible.
And then the final tax cut I want to hit on is the state and local tax deduction — also known as SALT — which allows taxpayers to write off the amount they paid in local taxes when they file their federal tax bill.
Right, under Trump’s 2017 tax breaks, SALT deduction was capped at $10,000.
And while the GOP bill raises the cap to $30,000, that’s WAY less than the amount pushed for by GOP lawmakers in blue states and swing districts.
So much so that it’s been reported that the SALT deduction could “imperil the fate of the entire package because of House Republicans’ slim majority.”
With some GOP lawmakers already saying that they will not support the bill as-is.
Okay, so those are some of the major tax-related provisions included in the package, but it’s also important to note one very significant measure Republicans left out: a tax hike on millionaires.
Right, earlier this week, Trump flip-flopped on the idea, initially advising against it but then saying he would be “OK” with it.
But despite Trump’s tacit endorsement, Republicans ultimately decided against increasing taxes on the ultra-wealthy to help finance Trump’s sweeping agenda.
Instead making cuts to essential social safety net programs while taking other steps that will increase the cost of electricity, travel, and higher education.
Right, in addition to slashing Medicaid funds, the bill would also impose what has been described as the single-biggest cut to food stamps in American history.
With CAP reporting that Republicans have proposed cutting SNAP benefits by more than $290 billion.
That’s nearly 30% of the program’s current funding — a cut that would dramatically impact the roughly 1 in 8 Americans who receive nutrition assistance through SNAP.
And specifically, the bill would change eligibility requirements for older Americans, forcing able-bodied adults without dependents to work until they are 64-years-old — rather than 54 — in order to qualify.
It would also shift more cost burdens to states — a move that could force some legislatures to make painful cuts to their budgets, creating a spillover effect that could undermine public safety, education, and other important programs.
But there are other proposals Republicans have put forward to help pay for Trump’s wish list that could end up hurting low-income and working-class Americans.
For example, it would eliminate a federal tax credit of up to $7,500 that households previously could receive for buying an electric vehicle.
With CAP reporting that this move, alongside rollbacks in clean vehicle standards:
“will cause the families to spend hundreds more at the gas pump every year—a windfall of tens of billions of dollars in additional revenue for the oil companies over the next 10 years.”
Adding that, in addition to ending financial support that made both new and used cars more affordable, the legislation would also impose “an extra $250 annual fee on people who already own an EV and $100 for hybrid car owners.”
What’s more, Republicans are also trying to cut federal investment for alternative energy sources — a move that could increase household electric bills.
And then there are several provisions that could make college even more expensive.
Right, in total, CAP found that the GOP bill “cuts around $350 billion for federal programs that help to make higher education more accessible and affordable.”
Specifically, the bill would eliminate subsidized loans — a type of loan where the government covers interest while the student is still in school.
It also introduces new loan repayment plans that increase payments for the lowest-income borrowers.
And it slashes eligibility for Pell Grants — which are allocated to the highest-need students — including by forcing them to take more classes or lose funding, despite the fact that many may need to work part-time jobs to pay for college.
But, even beyond that, the Republican proposal further targets colleges by significantly raising taxes on private university endowments.
With rates increasing incrementally to as much as 21% for larger endowments.
And that’s super notable because private schools are able to provide generous financial aid and scholarships through their endowment earnings, so slashing that will impact the financial awards they can give to students in need.
But despite these deep cuts, experts say that the bill will still increase government deficits by trillions of dollars.
And that’s a concern that some Republicans have raised — right, one bipartisan committee found that the extension of the 2017 tax breaks would reduce revenue by $4.9 trillion over the next decade — and that doesn’t even include the new tax breaks.
Or the fact that the bill ALSO contains provisions that would distribute around $150 billion in new spending for the Defense Department and over $140 billion for Trump’s border and immigration crackdown.
With Rep. Chip Roy, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, warning that the total price could hit $20 trillion, significantly adding to America’s deficits and debt.[]
So, as a result, you have him and other Republicans signalling that they may not support “THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’’ as is.[]
And as far as what happens next, we’ll just have to wait and see if this legislation can get passed within the timeframe set by leadership.
Right, House Speaker Mike Johnson has said he wants to get it through the House and Senate by Memorial Day, with the goal being to get it to Trump by July 4th.
And there are actually some hard deadlines here, because this bill ALSO raises the debt ceiling, which sets the amount of money the government can borrow to pay its bills.
But the Treasury Secretary has said that lawmakers have until mid-July to increase the debt limit or risk a catastrophic default — so the clock is ticking.
-
An 80-year-old man was just elected mayor of the third-largest city in the Philippines despite being locked up more than 6,000 miles away.
And that’s all while his daughter, who’s actually the country’s vice president?
She may have just won enough support to avoid impeachment and run for president in 2028.
But honestly, this whole situation? It’s messy, and a bit hard to follow, so let me back up a minute and explain.
Right, the current vice president is Sara Duterte.
That name may sound familiar because her father, Rodrigo Duterte, is the former president.
His war on drugs left thousands dead and is now also the reason he’s detained in The Hague by the International Criminal Court.
But moving on, the guy who replaced him?
And his father happened to be a dictator who tortured and killed his political opponents as well as stole billions of dollars from the country before eventually being ousted in a largely peaceful uprising.
But in any case, back in 2022, the younger Marcos ran with the younger Duterte as his running mate, both winning landslide victories in separate elections and calling for national unity.
Right, this is them smiling and holding hands during the inauguration ceremony back in 2022.
But since that time, they’ve clashed over a number of policy issues, with the feud only growing more bitter and more personal over time.
Right, Duterte has loudly and, let’s say, colorfully criticized Marcos, his wife, and the House Speaker – who is Marcos’s cousin – accusing them of corruption, incompetence and political persecution.[]
Right, once, she told reporters her relationship with Marcos had gotten so toxic that she wanted to “cut his head off.”
And then, not long after, she said she would dig up his father’s body and throw it in the sea. []
And in February, the president’s allies in Congress voted to impeach Duterte over claims she misused funds –
As well as in connection to comments in which she seemingly threatened to have Marcos and members of his family assassinated.
With that setting the stage for a trial in the Senate – where a two-thirds vote is needed for conviction.
And if convicted, she’ll be barred from public office, notably, killing her dream of replacing Marcos at the next presidential election in 2028.[]
But before that election, we had this mid-term election.
And of course, because of the looming impeachment trial, all eyes have been on the Senate.
Right, Senators are elected by a nationwide vote, and this time, twelve of twenty-four seats in the chamber were up for grabs.
And notably, Duterte has capitalized on the Marcos government’s decision to take her father into custody and send him to the Hague back in March, saying he was kidnapped.
And so now, according to the latest count, Marcos' allies appear to have captured fewer seats than expected.
Right, six of them went to candidates allied with the president, though notably, one of them also accepted an endorsement from Duterte. []
And beyond that, four of the winners are pretty firmly in Duterte’s camp – notably, including Marcos’s sister. []
And then, otherwise, Rodrigo’s win for the mayorship of one of the country’s major cities? That’s another sign of just how popular the Dutertes still are despite everything
Right, this time, he reportedly won eight times as many votes as his nearest rival – even though all voters got to see of him was a life-size cardboard cutout.[][]
And notably, this is a position he has already served in for 22 years, in three separate stretches, before assuming the presidency. []
And since his daughter Sara previously served twice, and his son has been in the position since 2022, there’s been a Duterte in charge of the city for 34 out of the last 37 years. []
And so, ultimately, an impeachment conviction is now looking a lot less likely, and Duterte is already being seen as the frontrunner in the presidential election that’s still several years away.
And if she does end up winning, it’s been reported that she would likely use the power of the office to seek vengeance against Marcos.[]
But of course, we have a long time before we can see how this ultimately plays out, and this could go all sorts of different ways in the meantime.
-
Put your nipples away.
That is the message the Cannes (can) Film Festival is sending in its new dress code, which was just updated to say that:
“For decency reasons, nudity is prohibited on the Red Carpet, as well as in any other area of the Festival.”[]
Right, the event, which kicks off today in the French Riviera, is one of the most prestigious events in film.
And it is also a pretty big event for fashion, it’s kind of where the global cinephiles and fashionistas come together to maximize their joint slay, if you will.
And this no nudity policy is not the only rule Can has just added to its dress code, as the event also banned “Voluminous outfits, in particular those with a large train, that hinder the proper flow of traffic of guests and complicate seating in the theater.”
Adding that:
“The Festival welcoming teams will be obligated to prohibit Red Carpet access to anyone not respecting these rules.”
And these might sound like common sense rules for a dress code, but because Can is such a high-fashion event, guests often sort of push the boundaries of formal wear.
So nude-adjacent attire frequently makes its way to the carpet.
Just last year, Bella Hadid wore a sheer dress that revealed her full chest.
And she followed in the footsteps of many other stars and models who have been flaunting usually-covered parts of their body at Can for years and years .
And then, regarding the rule about "voluminous" attire, well, again, it’s a major red carpet, so people have historically worn oversized gowns with dramatic trains.
So, why change the dress code now?
Well, that is kind of unclear.
The festival is known for having pretty strict red carpet rules, right, it previously banned selfies and at least on one occasion, turned women away for not wearing heels.
And when speaking to the Associated Press about this new rule change, a spokesperson said:
“The aim is not to regulate attire per se, but to prohibit full nudity on the red carpet, in accordance with the institutional framework of the event and French law.”[]
But some think that maybe Can was trying to get ahead of the fact that there has been sort of a trend of nudity on the red carpet as of late.
The most shocking example was what Bianca Censori wore to the Grammys red carpet with Kanye West, which was a dress so sheer and thin she looked fully nude.
But you also had the likes of Julia Fox, Olivia Wilde, and Megan Thee Stallion pushing the envelope at this year's Vanity Fair Oscar party.
So maybe the event feared even more people than usual would come in scantily clad attire.
But many have criticized Can for making this move, saying things like:
“this is so stupid lol. the cannes red carpet theatrics is part of what has revived people's interest in the festival. if they cared about 'decency', they'd stop inviting rapists and sex offenders.”[]
With that being a reference to the fact that Can has had a long history with many directors and producers accused of misconduct.
For years, Harvey Weinstein was a major figure at the event, and was accused of assaulting women at Can.
Can also screened movies by Roman Polanski as recently as 2017, and Polanski, if you did not know, was famously accused of raping a 13 year old in the 70s and later pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, but fled from the U.S. to France before his sentencing.[]
Right, so some think the festival should be more focused on those kinds of issues over policing dresses.
Others also wonder how fairly these rules will even be enforced.
Right, there will be big names attending who probably don’t want to be told what to do, some of the event’s sponsor brands like L’Oreal will also have guests of their own, so you had Vogue asking:
“will they, too, have to abide by this new dress code? I can see skimpily-dressed influencers being turned away from the red carpet, perhaps, but surely that could never be the case for Bella, Kendall and co.?”[]
But you also already do have the likes of Halle Berry saying she had to change outfits today because her train was too long.
Though, it seems it was a change-up she made before she got to the red carpet, it does not sound like she was turned away at the doors.
But we will have to see where this controversy takes us.
And in the meantime, I would love to know your thoughts on this one.
Go to Vessi for 15% off your first order.
-
Ms. Rachel is defending her choice to speak out for children in Gaza.
Right, Ms. Rachel, if you are unaware, is basically God to the under-five community.
She has a massively successful YouTube channel where she sings educational songs for young kids to help with language development.
And while her primary audience is not quite capable of understanding 2+2, let alone the Israel/Gaza conflict, she has still used her platform to speak about it, and has dealt with tons of controversy for doing so.
A lot of this started last year when she announced she was doing a fundraiser with Save the Children’s Emergency Fund to help kids in conflict zones, including Gaza.
But she faced backlash from those accusing her of not caring about the Israeli children who were impacted by October 7.[]
And she addressed this, writing:[]
“I care deeply for all children. Palestinian children, Israeli children, children in the US - Muslim, Jewish, Christian children - all children, in every country. Not one is excluded… I love every neighbor. Any child suffering is on my heart.”
And she has continued to speak out for children in Gaza by posting videos on social media advocating for them, writing captions like:
“This is precious baby Amal in Gaza. 💕 She deserves everything my baby has. They are no different. Her mom and I are no different. Our love for our babies is no different.”[]
But still, she has gotten heat for those posts, with the group StopAntisemitism labeling her an “antisemite of the week” for her posts about Gaza. []
And the group even asked the DOJ to investigate Ms. Rachel, accusing her of spreading pro-Hamas propaganda.
And she addressed all the backlash she has been facing during an interview with journalist Mehdi Hasan, (Med-ee Ha-sun) for his independent publication called Zeteo. (Zuh-tay-oh)
And there, she said:
“It’s sad that people try to make it controversial when you speak out for children that are facing immeasurable suffering. I think it should be controversial to not say anything.”
“Our compassion doesn’t have boundaries or borders. We just love kids.”
She also said being a mother herself and having studied and worked in child development made her all the more impacted by the images she was seeing from Gaza, explaining:
“I do think being a mother makes you put yourself in that situation and I think my background in early childhood makes me think about that crucial brain development time of zero to three. So, if you are being malnourished and you are seeing trauma and losing your family, that is a really crucial time of brain development, so I think about all that.” (6:41-7:04)
Even getting emotional while discussing some of what she has seen, and how some of the kids in Gaza remind her of her own kids, and also adding:
“And it just doesn’t make sense because as grownups we know what children need and what they deserve and what will help them grow into happy and healthy adults, and it will benefit us all. It’s right to speak out because it is wrong. But it is also right to speak out because it is going to benefit everyone.” (1:20-1:40)
And those who have criticized her in the past continued to do so for these remarks, but you also had people online praising her for using her platform, when, as a children’s educator and entertainer, it is not expected of her.[][]
And I would love to know your thoughts on this, on the backlash she has faced, on her response to it, anything here.
-
In breaking international news, German officials just arrested the King of Germany.
As dramatic as that sounds, the reality is that the King of Germany doesn’t actually rule the country. He’s not even a figurehead.
He’is just some dude named Peter Fitzek -- and his arrest comes as part of today’s crackdown on the far, far right “Reich’s Citizen” movement, which included a few other arrests as well.
Fitzek’s “Kingdom of Germany” is the largest single faction within the movement and has about 6,000 members and has assets worth millions.[]
That includes real estate and offices, which were raided by German police for being a potential threat to democracy, with the Interior Minister saying:
“These extremists created a counter-state in Germany and ran criminal financial operations.”
“They reinforce their bogus claim to power with antisemitic conspiracy theories.”
“A constitutional democracy cannot tolerate this.”
This “counter-state” does things like issue their own IDs and proclaim themselves to be the legitimate German government and that the current Republic has no claim to power.
So therefore their members don’t need to listen to the German government and do things like pay taxes.[]
For Americans a good way to think of it is like a weird mashup of Sovereign Citizens and Monarchists.
And I say "monarchists" because the Reich’s Citizen claims that Germany is still a monarchy and that the current government is part of an “Allied Occupation.”
As to who the “monarch” is that depends on which faction within the movement.
In this situation it’s Fitzek, but in the past it’s been other guys.
Such as in 2022 when members of another faction of the Reich’s Citizen movement were arrested for plotting a violent takeover of the government to install their “king.”
We actually talked about it at the time and until then the movement was kinda just laughed at.
But after that plot, the movement was placed in the crosshairs of the German government, which can ban parties and groups that are deemed to be a threat to the Constitutional Order.
In this situation, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of drama about banning parts of the movement because they explicitly want to remove the current government and some are willing to do it violently.
But there has been A LOT of drama around banning certain parties within Germany, and most notably the AfD.
They’ve been gaining a lot of steam over the last few years and are SUPER popular in Eastern Germany, but many within the party push for extreme, far-right policies that are criticized as flirting with Nazism -- which is explicitly banned in Germany.
Because of this there’s an ongoing debate about whether to ban the AfD, and it doesn’t seem like there’s an answer that will make everyone happy.
Doing nothing leads to criticism that it will just let the AfD grow into something dangerous, while banning them has been decried as trying to save democracy by being anti-democratic.
On the practical side, the bar for banning a party is EXTREMELY high in Germany and requires things like actual pushes for violence -- such as what the Reich’s Citizen movement has tried. []
And notably, the AfD at large hasn’t, which leads many to fear that trying to ban it will actually just strengthen the movement.
We’ll have to keep an eye on that because regardless of what they decide to do it will be a massive deal.
And I guess the lesson of this story is that Fitzek is a real idiot.
He had the perfect grift getting millions of dollars each year by pretending to be King.
The problem was he actually believed it too much and got on the radar of the German government.
So completely unrelated to all of this I’d like to proclaim myself as the King of Georgia (the state), please feel free to donate to the cause by buying my merch.
-
Is the left-wing British government moving to the right?
On the surface that seems like it might be a possibility after Prime Minister Keir Starmer laid out new plans to crack down on immigration which could be summed up in this tweet he made this morning:
“Settlement in the UK is a privilege that is earned, not a right.” []
That sentiment was echoed in a speech from earlier today where he promised that the new policies should lead net migration to fall "significantly" over the next four years.
He didn’t give exact numbers, but the Home Office estimated that there could be as many as 100,000 fewer immigrants per year by 2029.[]
Starmer went on to say that "Every area of the immigration system, including work, family and study, will be tightened up so we have more control.”
And that "Enforcement will be tougher than ever and migration numbers will fall."[]
One big change is that British firms will no longer be allowed to hire overseas nationals in health or social care.
Instead they’ll need to either hire a British person or extend the visa of someone already in the UK.[]
Which is a scheme that the sector has criticized as unworkable, with some claiming that some facets of the healthcare industry would suit down without foreign help.
Another change is that companies will be required to pay more to bring on foreign staff by up to 32%.
So a small company wanting to hire foreigners will need to pay 2400 pounds to sponsor them while a big one will pay 6,600 pounds.[]
And keep in mind, that’s on top of their salary and is likely meant to close the gap in “Savings” that a company could get by hiring a foreigner within the UK.
That’s not all.
There’s going to be stricter English proficiency requirements moving forward,
Those who want to apply for their version of permanent residency would need to have lived and worked in the UK for ten years -- which is double the current standard.
Keeping a visa for that long is extremely difficult and would also likely help curb immigration.
Additionally, Starmer is looking to bring back stricter qualification requirements for those who want to come under a “skilled worker” visa.
And actually speaking of “bringing back” policies -- a lot of what Starmer is pushing for here is actually just reversing changes made by Boris Johnson’s government a few years ago.[]
In a speech about this, Starmer justified the move to crack down on immigration by saying that the system is:
“almost designed to permit abuse. That encourages some businesses to bring in some lowered paid workers rather than invest in our young. Or simply one that is sold by politicians to the British people on an entirely false premise… then you're not championing growth, you’re not championing justice or however people defend the status quo then you’re actually contributing to the forces that are pulling our country apart.” @0:17
So essentially he thinks the system is broken all around.
But he also said that societies are shaped by “rules” which are often explicitly written out or just dictated by societal norms.
And that “in a diverse nation like ours -- and I celebrate that -- these rules become even more important. Without them we risk becoming an island of strangers and not a nation that walks forward together.” @0:27
He probably should have chosen his words more carefully because those on the left drew parallels between him and Enoch Powell -- who was a politician in the 50s and 60s who made an infamous speech called “Rivers of Blood.”
The short version is that he heavily criticized the rate of immigration from former colonies and warned that “they found themselves strangers in their own country.” @0:09
Other left-wing leaders -- such as the former leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn, criticized the plan by saying:
“The problems in our society are not caused by migrants or refugees. They are caused by an economic system rigged in favour of corporations and billionaires.
If the government wanted to improve people’s lives, it would tax the rich and build an economy that works for us all.” []
And many claimed that this was a reactionary move by Starmer after the recent successes of the far-right Reform UK party, which is run by Nigel Farage.
Starmer denied those claims, but at the same time it certainly hasn’t hurt him in parliament or with voters it seems.
Right, because the Conservatives largely promised to support the plan, although at the same time they wished Starmer had gone further and claimed his policies were just watered-down versions of what they’ve proposed.
So stuff like a hard cap on migration on top of raising requirements to get in, whereas Starmer has just raised the requirements.
And polling by YouGov found that British people were overwhelmingly okay with Starmer’s statements -- including his use of the phrase "becoming an island of strangers.”
So is this the new status quo for the UK?
We’ll have to wait and see how it plays out and whether the Labour party as a whole will revolt against Starmer or whether it’s just a few politicians within it that feel Starmer is out of line.
-
Imagine getting kicked out of the home you’ve lived in for years because you were accused of committing a very minor crime you may not even be guilty of.
That may have happened to hundreds if not thousands of people in Illinois, if this investigation is true.
And it all starts over two decades ago with the destruction of Cabrini-Green [Pronounce 00:14]. [B roll, 01:39]
A sprawling public housing complex in Chicago that was home to some 15,000 people at its peak. [Same B roll]
But also a concrete jungle that earned a reputation as one of the most notorious urban crime havens in the United States. [Same B roll]
[Continue B roll but play audio, 00:01 - 00:19] Caption: “Picture a no man’s land with broken windows, dark, abandoned buildings, no law and order. There are carefully demarcated areas controlled by rival bands of armed militia fighting over the rubble. Nearly every night there’s sniper fire. It sounds like BeiRut but in fact it’s America.”
So in 2000, the Chicago Housing Authority began tearing it down, and by 2011, the last highrise was demolished. [B roll]
But all the people living there had to go somewhere; they weren't just gonna disappear. [Same B roll]
And the small municipalities surrounding Chicago got nervous that all these poor people, drug addicts and criminals would flock to their towns instead.
So one by one they adopted what are known as crime-free housing laws.
Right, the details vary depending on the local ordinance, but basically they allow or even force landlords to evict tenants who commit crimes. [Image, image, image, image]
Thing is, they often don’t have to actually be convicted of the crime, or even investigated, for that matter; they can just be accused of it.
And the alleged crime itself can be serious, but very often it’s not, or sometimes even mind-numbingly trivial.
Like for example, not keeping a close watch on children, eavesdropping on a neighbor, shoplifting and driving while intoxicated. [Quote, find “shoplift”]
That’s just some of the alleged violations documented by The New York Times and The Illinois Answers Project, which investigated how these laws have been enforced. [Headline same link]
With them counting more than 100 cities that have crime-free housing laws, meaning one in four Illinois residents are subject to them. [Quote same link, find “100 cities”]
But the outlets only looked at 25 of those municipalities, and what they found even in that small sample was shocking.
With over 2,000 enforcement incidents being recorded over the past five years alone. [Quote same link, find “2,000”]
And we can’t know exactly how many of those ended in eviction, because the cities don’t track what happens after they send a violation letter, and landlords can choose to evict even if they don’t have to.
But the outlets did find nearly 500 cases where the cities ordered landlords to evict. [Quote same link, find “500”]
And as for what those people did, reportedly only about a third of the 2,000 incidents cited a serious crime, such as drug possession or a violent felony. [Quote same link, find “A third”]
With the rest for misdemeanors or noncriminal offenses, many of which were never even pursued by prosecutors. [Quote same link, find “pursued”]
So for example, Oak Forest police reportedly ordered a landlord to evict a man one day after they found him overdosing on the floor of his apartment. [Quote same link, find “overdosing”]
And at least four families were reportedly evicted after someone in the home was caught smoking marijuana. [Quote same link, find “smoking”]
Plus in hundreds of cases, the alleged crime didn’t even happen at or near the property. [Quote same link, find “traffic stops”]
With the outlets listing gas stations, stores, and traffic stops miles away as examples. [Same quote]
I mean, just take this woman who was evicted after police chased someone else speeding in her car, for example. [Quote same link, find “speeding”]
In fact, even if the person accused isn’t the leaseholder, like a visitor or a child, for instance, the entire family gets evicted. [Quote same link, find “entire families”]
Hell, reportedly even the person who called 911 was evicted in at least five cases. [Quote same link, find “flagged”]
With some towns that got reports of domestic assault just evicting everyone living there, including the victims. [Quote same link, find “2015”]
Leading Illinois state lawmakers to ban that specific practice in 2015, the only time the state government has done something to regulate these local laws. [Same quote and Image]
But even despite that ban, the outlets found hundreds of instances in which cities ordered landlords to evict tenants after a domestic violence call to 911. [Quote same link, find “reform”]
And in other cases, apparently no crime was committed by anybody at all.
Like this woman who was reportedly accused by police of drunk driving after they saw her swerving, was found not guilty by a jury, but had already been evicted. [Quote same link, find “swerving”]
Or this woman who reportedly lived in a townhouse for 20 years, raised her four sons there, but ran into trouble in 2023 when two of them started struggling with mental illness. [Image]
Right, one reportedly had a severe intellectual disability and constantly called 911 for stuff like losing his mother’s phone number or suffering a headache, and his family sometimes called 911 too when he had violent fits. [Quote, find “violent fit”]
And the other son, who was reportedly depressed, often threatened to take his own life, prompting the mother to call 911 as well. [Quote same link, find “depression”]
So according to police, the family racked up over 100 911 calls in a single year, and for that, they were given 10 days to pack up and leave. [Quote same link, find “more than 100”]
Now many of these cases are apparently so outrageous that the tenants team up with their landlords to fight the eviction order from the city. [Quote same link, find “four landlords”]
And several officials recognized how overzealous enforcement could be, telling the outlets they had modified their programs over the years. [Quote same link, find “modified”]
But officials in more than a dozen other municipalities doubled down, claiming the laws had reduced 911 calls and nuisance complaints. [Quote same link, find “more than a dozen”]
So now housing advocates are pushing for a bill on the state level that would regulate the local laws and make it harder to evict if nobody’s been convicted.
And that’s scheduled for a Senate committee vote this week, so we’ll keep our eyes peeled for that.
Get an exclusive NordVPN deal at NordVPN. Risk free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee!
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(999x0:1001x2):format(webp)/diane-kruger-2-2395daed707e451fbf8aa972c3ba1c6e.jpg){kind=link}
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/Parents-Rachel-4000-dd00ed924c114a828b329be94da0c8cd.jpg){kind=link}
