Trump’s Taylor Swift Problem is Pathetic & Bigger Than We Knew, Kristi Noem Goes Full Clown Mode
PDS Published 05/20/2025
-
So, Kristi Noem does not know what habeas corpus (hay-be-us corp-uss) means.
Right, she was answering questions during a Senate hearing today when habeas corpus came up, which, if you need a refresher, is the principle that people should be able to challenge their detention in court. []
And that the government would have to prove that a person’s detention is legally justified.[]
Right, it essentially exists to prevent illegal imprisonment, with the BBC calling it:
“a cornerstone of the legal system in the UK, US and other democratic countries around the world for centuries.”[]
The phrase actually translates to “you should have the body,” essentially saying that a person must be able to appear before a judge so the judge can determine if that person was lawfully detained.
And while not everyone in the country can probably define habeas corpus from the top of their head, the Department of Homeland Security oversees thousands of arrests and detentions in the country, so the hope would be that the person in charge of that department might know what it means.[]
But today, when New Hampshire Senator Maggie Hassan (Hass-in) asked DHS Secretary Noem about habeas corpus, we got this interaction instead:
“So, Secretary Noem, what is habeas corpus?...Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country, suspend…no, let me stop you ma’am, excuse me, that’s incorrect…President Lincoln used it…excuse me.”(0:22-0:39)
Right, so as you can see there, she just was not even close to getting that one, so Senator Hassan corrected her and explained what it meant, continuing:
“If not for that protection, the government could simply arrest people, including American citizens, and hold them indefinitely for no reason. Habeas corpus is the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea.” (0:48-1:04)
“So secretary Noem, do you support the core protection that habeas corpus provides, that the government must provide a public reason to detain and imprison someone?...Yes, I support habeas corpus, I also recognize that the President of the United States has the authority under the constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not…it has never been done without approval of Congress, even Abraham Lincoln got retroactive approval from Congress.” (1:11-1:39)
As for why Hassan was asking Noem about habeas corpus, well, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Steven Miller has recently said that the Trump Administration is considering suspending habeas corpus.
With Miller arguing:
“The constitution is clear, and that of course is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus could be suspended in time of invasion. So it is an option we are actively looking at.” (0:14-0:26)
And Trump has repeatedly insisted that the country is facing an “invasion” that requires undocumented immigrants to be deported. []
But that potential plan has sparked a ton of backlash and criticism.
Right, as for what the constitution actually says about habeas corpus, well, it says it:
“shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”[]
However, the legal consensus is generally that Congress is the one with the power to suspend it.
And courts have not been universally sold on the idea that the U.S. is actually under an invasion right now.
With tons of legal scholars slamming Miller’s claim that the Trump administration has the power to do this, with a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, writing on substack that Miller’s argument “factually and legally nuts.”[]
With him also calling the remarks:
“some of the most remarkable (and remarkably scary) comments about federal courts that I think we’ve ever heard from a senior White House official.”
“Miller’s comments strike me as a rather serious ratcheting up of the anti-court rhetoric coming out of this administration—and an ill-conceived one at that.”
So, that is how it came up at the hearing today, with Senator Hassan then asking Noem what she would do if Trump tried to suspend habeas corpus, but a court reversed the order.
“Will you comply with the court orders, or will you follow the president?...We are following all court orders and complying, as is the president…well that is obviously not true for anyone reading the news.” (2:01-2:18)
And so this interaction, especially the part where Noem gets the definition of habeas corpus completely wrong, has gone incredibly viral, with people saying things like:
“If this doesn't scare you. It should.”[]
“Really great that someone this ignorant of people's constitutional rights is in charge of removing people from this country.”[]
“I have never understood why more reporters and members of Congress don't just ask questions like this more often. We need to do a better job exposing the reality that many of the people currently in charge literally have no idea what they are talking about.”[]
So I would love to know your thoughts on this one here, on Noem’s answer, on the actual threat of habeas corpus being suspended in general, anything here.
-
Are we making America healthy again, or are we just policing the poor?
That’s the question Nebraska’s about to answer with it’s pioneering reform of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP.
Right, it’s the roughly 100-billion-dollar USDA program that helps feed some 42 million low-income Americans by subsidizing their groceries.
And while the federal government funds it, the states administer it, so the former can sign waivers approving reforms proposed by the latter.
Which is what just happened in Nebraska, with Trump’s Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announcing that starting next year, SNAP recipients will no longer be able to use food stamps to buy soda and energy drinks in the state. [Image, headline and B roll, 00:05]
Now for context, there already are some restrictions on what recipients can buy.
Namely exclusions for alcohol, tobacco and most controversially hot foods, meaning they can’t buy meals cooked for immediate consumption. [Quote, find “2008”]
And in the nearly 20 years since those rules were enforced in 2008, politicians have proposed restricting everything from bottled water and soda to chips, ice cream and so-called “luxury meats” like steak. [Quote same link]
But the USDA has consistently rejected those proposals, saying there were no clear standards to define certain foods as good or bad. [Quote same link, find “or bad”]
As well as arguing that restrictions would be hard to implement, complicated, costly, and wouldn’t necessarily change recipients' food purchases or reduce health problems. [Same quote]
But now, with Trump in office, what was once unthinkable is now becoming policy, and it’s expected to impact 152,000 people across Nebraska. [Quote, find “152”]
With six other states — Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Indiana, Iowa and West Virginia — also requesting waivers to ban certain foods and drinks, or expanding access to hot foods. [Quote, find “six”]
Now as far as the arguments on both sides, you have Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen saying:
[Clip, 02:05 - 02:19] Caption: “This is the first step to make sure that we help people that are in a lower socio-economic status to make sure they can eat healthy again. We’re not gonna use government dollars to make people unhealthy.”
Also, in a reference to RFK Jr.’s campaign to transform public health, you had Brooke Rollins calling it a “historic step to make America healthy again,” and making the financial argument as well.
[Clip, 00:48 - 00:56] Caption: “The number one cost driver in the SNAP program is sugary drinks. Junk food comes right behind it as well.”
With RFK himself writing back in September, “It’s nonsensical for U.S. taxpayers to spend tens of billions of dollars subsidizing junk that harms the health of low-income Americans.” [Quote]
But on the other side, apart from the arguments I already mentioned about these reforms being costly and ineffective, others argue they’re just simply cruel.
With Current Affairs Editor in Chief Nathan Robinson, for example, writing back in February: [B roll, 03:50]
“The rest of us will get guidelines, it’s people who can’t afford food that will get actual restrictions. Personally, I’m an egalitarian: I think if you’re going to say that the government should take on the task of forcing people to modify their diets, it should do it for everyone, not just those who can’t afford to eat.” [Quote and same B roll]
“Let them eat cake. No, really. People should have cake. And a Coke or a frappuccino, too, from time to time. If you want to make people healthy, there are better ways to do that, ones that don’t involve insulting them or punishing them. Give them healthcare. Increase their ability to walk or ride a bike or join a gym. Crack down on corporate polluters. And, most obviously, target the companies that make junk food, not the people who buy it.” [Quote same link and same B roll]
-
The 2024 election is long over, but Trump is still big mad at the celebrities who endorsed Kamala Harris in what feels like a whole lifetime ago.
So much so that he is now calling for an investigation into Beyoncé, Bruce Springsteen, Oprah, and Bono.
Alleging — without any evidence — that they were illegally paid for their endorsements.
Sharing a post on Truth Social questioning how much money Springsteen made for performing at a Harris rally in Atlanta, writing:
“ISN’T THAT A MAJOR AND ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION? WHAT ABOUT BEYONCÉ? …AND HOW MUCH WENT TO OPRAH, AND BONO???”
Adding that he was calling for “a major investigation” and arguing:
“Candidates aren’t allowed to pay for ENDORSEMENTS, which is what Kamala did, under the guise of paying for entertainment.”[]
With him then sharing another post several hours later where he claimed:
“According to news reports, Beyoncé was paid $11,000,000 to walk onto a stage, quickly ENDORSE KAMALA, and walk off to loud booing for never having performed, NOT EVEN ONE SONG!”[]
And again reiterating his claim that Harris illegally paid for her endorsement, adding:
“THIS IS AN ILLEGAL ELECTION SCAM AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL! IT IS AN ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION! BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN, OPRAH, BONO AND, PERHAPS, MANY OTHERS, HAVE A LOT OF EXPLAINING TO DO!!!”
Okay, so, a few things to unpack here.
First of all, again, there is absolutely zero evidence that Harris paid for endorsements.
Right, campaign finance law literally requires that campaigns pay the fair-market value to cover the costs of events they host in order to ensure that a company or individual is not giving donations that exceed the federal contribution limits.
And when rumors first started swirling about the Harris campaign paying celebrities for their endorsements last year, a senior campaign adviser told reporters that they had followed those campaign finance rules “religiously.”
Stating that all the money paid out by the campaign was for ancillary costs associated with the performance or event, but adding that, when it comes to celebrity endorsement:
“We do not pay. We have never paid any artist and performer. We have never paid a fee to that person.”
But even beyond that, some campaign law experts say that the Federal Election Commission has no regulations against federal campaigns paying celebrities or influencers for endorsements.
And those endorsements would not be considered illegal contributions as long as they are properly disclosed — which appears to be the case here.
Right, campaign finance records show that the Harris campaign paid Oprah’s company a total of $1 million for “event production” about a month after she interviewed Harris at a “Unite for America” event.
But Orpah said that she did not take any personal fee, stating that the money was paid out for the costs of putting on the event and paying the salaries of the people who produced it.
And for Beyoncé — who headlined an abortion-rights rally for Harris in her hometown of Houston — disclosures show that the campaign paid the singer’s company $165,000 in November for “campaign event production.”
Which is way less than the $11 million payment Trump falsely claimed she had been paid in his post.
With Beyoncé’s mother also issuing a statement calling the $11 million figure a “lie” and noting that the singer also paid for the flights she and her team took to and from the event.
And as for Springsteen, records indicate that the Harris campaign paid his production company roughly $75,000 for “travel and event production” following the Georgia rally.
Though, as of recording, he has not publicly addressed the payment.
But with Bono, it’s actually totally unclear why Trump looped him in here.
Right, the Irish U2 frontman is a friend of President Biden, who gave him a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
But, according to reports, he hasn’t appeared at any campaign events with Harris and literally never endorsed her.
Which is also a big part of the reason you have many people arguing that this is just Trump going after influential celebrities and big names who have spoken out against him.
A possibility that is further evidenced by the fact that he has been taking aim at multiple famous Harris-backers in recent days and weeks.
Right, on Friday, Trump made a very angry post personally attacking Springsteen and seemingly threatening him after the singer railed against the administration during a concert in England, writing:
“I see that Highly Overrated Bruce Springsteen goes to a Foreign Country to speak badly about the President of the United States.”[]
And then adding, “This dried out “prune” of a rocker (his skin is all atrophied!) ought to KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT until he gets back into the Country, that’s just “standard fare.” Then we’ll all see how it goes for him!”
And within the same hour he made that remark, he also took aim at Taylor Swift, who also endorsed Harris.
Though Trump’s latest attack was seemingly unprompted and unconnected to anything she has done recently, with him writing:
“Has anyone noticed that, since I said “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT,” she’s no longer “HOT?””[]
Though, with that, you have many pointing out that Taylor Swift is still as big as they fucking come, with Axios noting:
“Contrary to Trump's claims, Swift's wildly successful Eras Tour is estimated to have taken in more than $2 billion, the highest grossing tour ever. She has 14 Grammy wins on 58 nominations. Swift was also the most streamed artist on Spotify in 2024 with 26.6 billion global steams. Her most recent album was the first to have over 300 million streams in a single day.”
So… yeah… of all the unimaginable things Trump has convinced people to believe, I don’t think that “I single-handedly made Taylor Swift unpopular” is going to stick…
-
The Trump administration’s about to hand the family of a January 6 rioter five million dollars.
Right, her name was Ashley Babbitt; she’s the 35-year-old woman who was infamously shot and killed at the Capitol that day. [Image]
With her trying to climb through a smashed glass panel on the doors to the barricaded Speaker’s Lobby, a Trump flag draped around her neck. [B roll, 00:15]
Doors which were the final security perimeter for a group of police defending lawmakers in the House chamber just down the hall. [Same B roll]
And as she crawled through the hole, Capitol Police Lieutenant Michael Byrd fired a single shot, striking her in the shoulder and killing her. [Same B roll]
Making her the only January 6 rioter to die that day, and a martyr for the American right, so her death was a flashpoint in U.S. politics.
But in 2021, the Justice Department found that there was insufficient evidence to prove Babbitt’s civil rights had been violated, and that it was reasonable for the officer to have believed he was firing in self-defense or in defense of fleeing lawmakers. [Headline]
Then, later that same year, after finishing an internal investigation, the Capitol Police also cleared Byrd of any wrongdoing. [Headline]
Saying his actions at the height of the riot “potentially saved members and staff from serious injury and possible death from a large crowd of rioters who forced their way into the U.S. Capitol and to the House Chamber where members and staff were steps away.” [Quote same link]
In fact, Byrd’s attorney went as far as arguing that not only was he justified, what he did was positively “heroic.”
Saying, “He stopped the final surge of rioters that were mere steps from members of Congress. It is not hard to imagine the impact on our democracy had these rioters been able to reach their intended targets: sitting members of Congress.” [Quote same link]
And Byrd himself defended his actions in an interview with NBC: [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 15:38 - 15:44, 16:13 - 16:20, 16:21 - 16:23, 20:28 - 20:34] Caption: [Michael Byrd:] “There was no way to retreat, no other way to get out. … You’re the last line of defense, and it’s up to you to take the appropriate action based on the circumstances. … And that’s where I found myself.” [Interviewer:] “What made you pull the trigger?” [Michael Byrd:] “Last resort. I tried to wait as long as I could.”
But in the years since January 6, Babbitt’s name has become a rallying cry for the right, with people plastering her face on flags and signs, holding vigils and protests, creating hashtags on social media, and selling merch in support of her. [Image, image]
Hell, the American Conservative magazine even published an article comparing her to George Floyd.
And pundits and politicians alike painted her as a harmless, innocent patriot, and Byrd as a murderer.
[Clip, 03:22 - 03:29] Caption: [Tucker Carlson:] “If they think it’s okay to kill Ashley Babbitt when she posed no mortal threat to anybody, not even conceivably, then they’ll be happy when I die.”
[Clip, 00:28 - 00:38] [Tim Pool]
[Clip, 03:22 - 03:24] Caption: [Paul Gosar:] “Who executed Ashley Babbitt?”
[Clip, 00:46 - 00:51] Caption: [Marjorie Taylor Greene:] “There’s never been a trial. As a matter of factt, no one has cared about the person that shot and killed her.”
[Clip, 00:00 - 00:08] Caption: “Ashley Babbitt was shot by an out-of-control police officer that should have never, ever shot her. It’s a disgrace.”
So early last year, Babbitt’s family filed a wrongful-death lawsuit seeking 30 million dollars.
With them arguing that Byrd was negligent in killing Babbitt, who was unarmed, and according to them, had her hands in the air. [Quote, find “in the air”]
But Byrd claimed he couldn’t fully see her hands or what she was carrying in a backpack. [Quote same link, find “backpack”]
Saying what he did know was that there had been police radio reports of pipe bombs on Capitol Hill, that officers were down and that rioters were using weapons against them. [Same quote]
So the Justice Department, having already concluded that Byrd’s shooting was justified, dug in for a trial in July 2026.
But now, that seems to be called off, with The Washington Post reporting that Trump’s DoJ has agreed in principle to settle with Babbitt’s family for just under five million dollars.
Up to a quarter of which is reportedly going to their prior attorney to resolve a dispute with him over payment. [Quote, find “resolve”]
So for those who were horrified by the events on January 6, this news is as good as the DoJ signaling its support for anti-democratic insurrectionists.
And for Trump’s supporters, it represents a shred of justice for a peaceful protester who was wrongfully killed.
But the White House may be giving out money to more rioters than just Babbitt.
Because in March, Trump suggested to Newsmax that he’d be open to financial reparations for the Jan 6 defendants. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 02:39 - 02:59] Caption: [Interviewer:] “Is there any talk of — because they lost opportunity, they lost income — any kind of compensation fund or anything like that?” [Donald Trump:] “Well there’s talk about that. We have a lot of people talk about — a lot of the people that are in government now talk about it because they, a lot of the people in government really like that group of people. They were patriots as far as I was concerned.”
Go to Sunday for Dogs to get 50% off your first order of Sundays for Dogs!
-
We gotta talk about this Trump-Putin phone call and why it’s being seen as the latest sign that The White House may be getting ready to walk away from its efforts to end the war in Ukraine.
Right, last year as you may remember, Donald Trump promised he would end the war in "24 hours".
Last week, he said that it wouldn’t be resolved until he and Vladimir Putin could "get together" and hash it out in person.
And now, he seems to be saying there’s not really anything he can do at all.
Right, specifically, after his two-hour talk with the Russian president, you had him saying that a peace deal could only be negotiated between Russia and Ukraine – and maybe with the help of the Pope – []
Because “they know details of a negotiation that nobody else would be aware of.’
With him also claiming that the two sides would "immediately start negotiations toward a Ceasefire and, more importantly, an END to the War.”
But notably, that’s somewhat at odds with the Russian view.
Right, because Putin said after the call that Russia is only ready to work with Ukraine on crafting a "memorandum on a possible future peace agreement.” []
With a Kremlin spokesperson adding that there is “no timeline” for preparing this memorandum – and adding:
“It’s clear that everyone wants to do this as quickly as possible, but of course the devil is in the details.” []
And to that point, Putin is sticking to his demand that any resolution to end the war would address the so-called "root causes" of the war –
Which Russia has claimed in the past include the existence of Ukraine as a fully independent and sovereign nation aligned with the West.[]
And with that, as far as specific demands we’ve seen the Kremlin making again and again?
Well, they’ve included control over five regions of Ukraine – including large chunks of land it’s failed to seize despite the years of war.
With Putin having also demanded that Ukraine be forbidden from joining NATO and building up its military – as well as the suspension of all Western military aid.[]
And now, rather than pushing back, Trump is suggesting the US might step away.
Right, after posting on that Social about his call with Putin, for example, you had him also telling reporters that while’s he’s not doing so at this time he has "red line in his head” – adding:
"Big egos [are] involved, but I think something's going to happen."
“And if it doesn't, I'll just back away and they'll have to keep going."[]
Now, notably, with that, Vice-President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Trump himself have all already threatened to walk away in the past.
But then there was this brief moment it seemed like he might have woken up to the fact that the Russian president isn’t exactly a “good-faith” actor in this whole situation.
Last month, for example, Trump warned that he wouldn’t tolerate Putin "tapping me along" and said that Russia should not target civilian areas.
But that was seemingly just a blip…
Right, I mean, just a day before the phone call yesterday? Russia launched what may have been the single largest drone attack against Ukraine of the entire war –
Destroying homes and killing at least one woman all without any condemnation from Trump.
And afterwards? Trump's “deference” to Putin reportedly stunned European leaders.
With Axio reporting that Zelensky and others (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) were debriefed about the conversation on a conference call and had hoped to hear that Putin had agreed to a ceasefire — or least that the U.S. would impose penalties on him for refusing to do so.[]
But instead, Trump claimed that Putin had agreed to negotiate, stressed the U.S. wouldn't be involved in those negotiations, and even pushed back against the idea of imposing further sanctions on Russia. []
With the leaders on the call reportedly seeming surprised that Trump appeared to be relatively content with what he heard from Putin, and that he presented it as a new development –
Right even though Putin has seemingly not changed his position at all. []
And as far as sanctions? You have some outlets pointing out that while Trump has often talked about rolling back existing sanctions against Russia if it cooperates – as well as dangling the possibility of new trade deals…
He has rarely suggested there could be negative consequences if it doesn’t – such as new sanctions on Russian banking and energy exports. []
And so with that, this latest news is seen by some as confirmation that Trump is more interested in future business deals with Russia than using his influence to secure a ceasefire. []
Which may be why we’re now seeing the UK and Europe announcing major new sanctions against Russia without waiting for the US.
Now, that said, the German government is claiming that the White House agreed to "tightly co-ordinate" Ukraine talks with European partners.
But we also know Trump and them haven’t always been on the same page.
And if the White House does end up taking less of a role in the negotiations, one of the big remaining questions is whether that would also mean ending any military and intelligence support for Ukraine.
And that may be one reason why, despite the US arguably being pretty unhelpful to this whole situation, you have Zelesky writing on X:
“It is crucial for all of us that the United States does not distance itself from the talks and the pursuit of peace, because the only one who benefits from that is Putin.” []
With the Ukrainian president also accusing Russia of trying to buy time in order to continue its war and occupation.
But with that, we’ll ultimately have to wait and see where things go from here, right, as far as Trump and the US’s involvement, but then just the situation in general.
-
The Justice Department just slapped a congresswoman with federal charges!
Right, we’re talking about New Jersey Democratic Representative LaMonica McIver and according to Aline Habba, the interim US attorney for New Jersey, she’s been charged for, quote, “assaulting, impeding and interfering with law enforcement.” []
And these charges stem from an incident at an ICE detention center in Newark earlier this month.
Right, to set the scene, we’ve got to go back to May 9th when McIver, along with other lawmakers, went to the controversial Delaney Hall detention center in Newark as a part of a congressional oversight visit.
Where, notably, there was a group of people outside protesting the newly reopened federal immigration detention center.
Newark mayor Ras Baraka was reportedly refused entry into the facility and so he went back out to where the protest outside was happening. []
Then ICE officials come out onto the public property and arrest Baraka for trespassing and a scuffle breaks out. []
With video showing McIver moving towards the officials arresting him while shouts of “surround the mayor” can be heard.
Now, both sides of this situation are pointing to the chaotic videos of this mess as evidence that the other side instigated the altercation - which, thankfully, didn’t result in any injuries.
There are videos where McIver can be seen pushing and shoving a law enforcement officer as she finds her way to the gate. [B Roll 0:05-0:10] [B Roll 0:00-0:09]
But other videos also show her being shoved herself. [B Roll 0:20-0:35]
As for the charges, according to a statement from her attorney’s spokesperson, McIver has yet to receive any documents from prosecutors. []
With CNN reporting that there was an attempt to negotiate a plea deal that would have avoided charges. []
And Habba said that McIver “declined” the DOJ’s attempts to find a solution that didn’t involve charges.
With Habba saying,
“No one is above the law — politicians or otherwise. It is the job of this office to uphold justice impartially, regardless of who you are. Now we will let the justice system work.” []
With McIver pushing back against that narrative in her own statement - laying the blame on the ICE agents for escalating the situation and saying,
“The charges against me are purely political — they mischaracterize and distort my actions, and are meant to criminalize and deter legislative oversight.” []
And her lawyer echoed that sentiment in her own statement, saying,
“Rather than facilitating that inspection, ICE agents chose to escalate what should have been a peaceful situation into chaos. This prosecution is an attempt to shift the blame for ICE’s behavior to Congresswoman McIver. In the courtroom, facts – not headlines – will matter.” []
We’ve also seen this situation have a divisive impact within Congress - with House Democrats rallying a round McIver with a letter from leadership calling the charges against her, quote, “extreme, morally bankrupt and lacks any basis in law or fact.” []
Which is pretty starkly contrasted to those on the right both calling for and celebrating the charges - with the likes of Majorie Taylor Greene even calling for McIver’s expulsion.
With Republican Representative Buddy Carter even seeking to strip the committee assignments from McIver as well as two other New Jersey representatives present at the protest on May 9th.
Saying, “This behavior constitutes an assault on our brave ICE agents and undermines the rule of law. The three members involved in this stunt do not deserve to sit on committees alongside serious lawmakers.” []
It’s also worth noting that at the same time Habba announced these charges against McIver, she also announced that the trespassing charge brought against Newark mayor Ras Baraka was dropped.
With Habba saying that they agreed to dismiss the charge, quote, “for the sake of moving forward.” []
And Baraka responded to that news on X, saying he was glad the charge against him was dismissed but that he’s still backing McIver - adding,
"I want to be clear: I stand with LaMonica, and I fully expect her to be vindicated." []
So this is definitely something we’re going to be keeping our eyes on as it plays out from here.
In the meantime, I would love to know your thoughts in those comments down below.
-
And for some good news today, I’d like you to meet Ali Shirkhodaei (Ah-lee Shirk-o-dy-ee).
Ah-lee runs Lux Cleaners and Alterations - a family-owned dry cleaning place in Campbell, California.
And one of his newest services is offering free, fast outfit cleanings for anyone who is unemployed and on their way to a job interview - no questions asked and no limit. []
So if you’re headed to an interview and you notice that your one nice interview shirt has a coffee stain on it, you can take it into Lux and get it cleaned real quick - absolutely no charge.
With Ah-lee telling the local paper that the idea came to him when he was talking with other dry cleaners across the country about how they can support their community through tough times. []
He said he noticed the number of workers caught in Silicon Valley’s sweeping layoffs and he is intimately familiar with how difficult it is to be unemployed and scrambling for work.
You see, Ah-lee immigrated to the US from Iran in 2006 and he struggled finding a job - even with a molecular biology degree. [B Roll]
And then when he started his business in 2010, the community rallied around him and supported him.
So helping people in their hunt to find jobs, even in this small way, is his way of doing the same - saying,
“I think it will definitely give them some hope that the community they live in (cares) about them. It’s not about just getting, it’s about giving. That’s the part that brings all of us joy.” []
And people are absolutely taking advantage of Ah-lee’s offer here - he says that he gets between 5 and 10 people every week coming in for help with their interview outfits.
Including one customer whose shirt Ah-lee and his crew pressed in under an hour so she could head straight to her interview. []
With Ah-lee saying,
“We were able to help her and she left, she was very happy. And a few hours later, she came back - she said she got the job. She was very excited - we were excited, I think, even more than her!” 0:28-0:44
With that same customer leaving a review on Yelp with the message, quote, “Definitely felt the love of my community and the confidence that came with their great services.” []
With Ah-lee adding,
“That’s one of the things that I love about having a small business and dealing with people on a daily basis. I see many different faces every day and believe me, a small smile can change their day.” []
But Ah-lee’s kindness isn’t reserved for his customers - one of his employees added that he’s generous with time off for her kids important milestones and he even gets her a birthday cake every year. []
Telling the local outlet,
“He’s special because he always treats us as a family member. He’s the best.” []
So for his incredible desire to serve his community and just help people that need helping, Ah-lee is absolutely the DeFranco-certified BAMF of the Day.
Keep doing what you’re doing, man.
PDS Debt is offering a free debt analysis. It only takes thirty seconds. Get yours at PDS Debt.
