Category: Unpresidential

trump cancels October Jobs Report

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has announced the cancellation of its October jobs report due to the ongoing government shutdown, marking a significant and troubling departure from standard protocol. This decision means that vital employment situation data for October will not be published, which is the first such occurrence since 2013. The BLS confirmed on its website that the inability to collect necessary household data led to this unprecedented move.

Originally scheduled for release on November 7, the jobs report was expected to provide critical insights into the nation’s employment landscape. However, the BLS cited the government shutdown as the reason for not being able to gather the requisite data for both the establishment and household surveys. As it stands, the household survey data will not be retroactively collected, further complicating the situation and diminishing transparency in economic reporting.

The announcement was made shortly after White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt indicated that the likelihood of the jobs report being released was slim, attributing blame to Democrats for the impasse. This politically charged environment has cast a shadow over the figures that are crucial for understanding economic trends and the overall labor market health.

Market analysts and observers, including the global tracker The Kobeissi Letter, have expressed alarm at the implications of this cancellation, which undermines public trust in economic data that the administration should be providing. The absence of these statistics leaves many unanswered questions about employment trends and economic recovery, especially as other key economic data is set to release under uncertain conditions.

Following the cancellation, the BLS plans to include the October data with the November report, which may prolong the wait for clarity on employment statistics. As the administration continues to grapple with the effects of the government shutdown, the fate of future reports hangs in a precarious balance, leaving the public and analysts with limited information on America’s economic recovery.

Authoritarian Trump White House Blasts ABC News as Democrat Spin Operation

The White House criticized ABC News on Wednesday, accusing the network of being “a Democrat spin operation masquerading as a broadcast network.” This statement emerged in a press release that emphasized the White House’s long-standing grievances against the media organization, claiming that it engages in hoaxes and character assassinations targeted at President Donald Trump and his supporters.

The accusatory remarks outlined numerous instances where the White House alleged ABC News had disseminated misinformation or exhibited bias against Trump. The press release highlighted past events, including suspensions of reporters for inaccurate reporting and instances where the network allegedly failed to cover significant stories that could reflect positively on Trump.

ABC News’s so-called history of bias was presented with examples, such as George Stephanopoulos’s failure to ask about Hunter Biden’s controversial laptop, along with claims about unfair portrayals of Trump’s legal difficulties and cabinet nominees. The press release insinuated that ABC News had systematically mischaracterized Trump’s policies and initiatives, thereby attempting to manipulate public perception against him.

A significant portion of the White House’s accusations revolved around accusations of partisan coverage. They noted how, following Trump’s victory in the 2024 election, 90% of ABC’s coverage of his cabinet nominees was allegedly negative. Specific claims included a distortion of Trump’s administration’s intent, presenting legitimate governmental actions as hostile or corrupt.

Ultimately, this vehement attack on ABC News seemed to serve a broader narrative that casts the Trump administration as a victim of media bias, reinforcing his ongoing narrative against perceived enemies in the media landscape. As Trump consolidates power, these tactics exemplify a strategy aimed at delegitimizing news narratives deemed unfavorable to his objectives.

(h/t: https://www.mediaite.com/media/tv/white-house-lashes-out-at-abc-news-democrat-spin-operation-masquerading-as-a-broadcast-network/)

Trump Told a Woman, ‘Quiet, Piggy,’ When She Asked Him About Epstein

During a recent interaction on Air Force One, President Donald Trump demonstrated a disrespectful attitude toward female journalists, specifically targeting Bloomberg’s Catherine Lucey. When Lucey inquired about the release of Jeffrey Epstein’s files, Trump’s condescending response included the phrase “Quiet, piggy,” showcasing a pattern of derogatory remarks towards women in the media.

This is not an isolated incident but part of a broader trend where Trump consistently undermines female journalists. His past comments, including vile insults directed at Megyn Kelly and Yamiche Alcindor, further illustrate his long-standing theme of belittling women who challenge him. Such behavior signals not only an attempt to silence dissent but also a perpetuation of misogyny in the highest office of the land.

Trump’s remarks reflect a toxic view of women’s roles in society, implying they should not speak up or question authority. The term “piggy,” used previously to demean Alicia Machado, reinforces his history of sexist language, which is compounded by numerous allegations of sexual misconduct against him that he has vehemently denied.

The Trump administration’s response to Lucey’s question was dismissive, claiming she was “inappropriate” without providing evidence to support such a claim. This narrative promotes a dangerous environment where journalists are bullied for doing their jobs, severely undermining press freedom and democratic values.

Ultimately, Trump’s comments highlight how he degrades not only the dignity of women but also the position of the presidency itself. As public disdain for his methods grows—particularly among educated women—his actions risk tarnishing the integrity of both his administration and the nation’s political discourse.

Trump Demands ABC Pull Jimmy Kimmel Over Epstein Jokes

Trump demanded ABC pull Jimmy Kimmel from the late-night lineup after a monologue that tied the host to Jeffrey Epstein, signaling a direct clash over comedy and politics on a major network.

In a Truth Social post, Trump accused ABC of bias, called the network fake, and urged revocation of Kimmel’s program, framing the broadcaster as an enemy in his media confrontation.

Kimmel’s routine mocked Trump with Epstein references, including a hurricane metaphor about the investigation and questions about what the president knew and when.

ABC and Disney reportedly suspended Kimmel in September after a previous joke about conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin, illustrating a history of controversy around late-night satire in the Trump era.

The episode underscores a pattern of Trump publicly challenging media figures and outlets that criticize him, highlighting ongoing friction between the former president and entertainment press.

Trump Denies Threatening Democrats While Threatening Democrats

President Donald Trump attempted to clarify that he was “not threatening death” against Democratic lawmakers who criticized his call for military members to defy unlawful orders during a recent interview. This came after Trump faced bipartisan backlash for his incendiary social media remarks, which included accusations of “seditious behavior” that he claimed could be punishable by death.

Six Democratic lawmakers, including military veterans, condemned Trump’s statements, labeling them as dangerous threats that escalate the ongoing climate of political violence in the U.S. In a video spearheaded by Senate Democrat Elissa Slotkin, these lawmakers urged service members to obey lawful orders and uphold their constitutional oath, highlighting the gravity of Trump’s rhetoric.

In response to the uproar, Trump reiterated in a Fox News radio interview that while he was not specifically threatening violence, he deemed the lawmakers “in serious trouble” and referred to their actions as traitorous. His remarks followed a series of Truth Social posts where he demanded aggressive consequences for the lawmakers’ perceived disloyalty.

The political fallout has been widespread, with various leaders, including Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, disputing Trump’s choice of words while attempting to defend him. Despite the attempts to downplay Trump’s rhetoric, the top Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, asserted that the former president has uniquely encouraged political violence.

The rise in politically motivated violence has become a growing concern, with a Pew Research study indicating that 85% of Americans believe such violence is increasing. The public officials’ safety has been called into question following Trump’s provocations, as multiple reports indicate a spike in threats against politicians, underlining the fragility of political discourse in the current climate.

Trump Considers Airstrikes on Mexico in Drug War

Donald Trump has openly entertained the idea of launching airstrikes against Mexico as part of his aggressive strategy to combat drug trafficking. During a recent press briefing, he stated, “It’s OK with me,” when questioned about the potential military action. This remark emphasizes his willingness to escalate tensions with Mexico in pursuit of his anti-drug policies, which have already led to controversial military actions across the Caribbean, boasting significant reductions in drug inflow.

Trump’s comments arise amidst claims that the drug flow into the U.S. has decreased by 85%, citing military efforts without providing substantial evidence. He asserts knowledge of every drug lord’s location and expresses dissatisfaction with Mexico’s current cooperation. Trump’s blunt dismissal of needing Mexican permission for potential strikes showcases his disregard for international norms and diplomacy, further complicating already tense U.S.-Mexico relations.

This militaristic approach is not new for Trump, as he previously expressed a desire to “bomb the drugs” in Mexico during his initial term and has hinted at invasion plans. His administration has already faced pushback for previous military actions that lacked transparency and due accountability, leading to casualties among innocent civilians, including fishermen misidentified as traffickers. Such policies, criticized even by Republican lawmakers, risk exacerbating international relations and provoking further disapproval from allies.

Moreover, the possibility of striking Mexico raises significant ethical and legal questions regarding sovereignty and the implications of utilizing military force against a neighboring nation. The call for military action represents a troubling trajectory that could redefine U.S. foreign policy in a dangerous fashion. Trump’s history of prioritizing aggressive strategies over diplomatic solutions continues to alarm many within and outside the political sphere.

As Trump continues to manipulate public discourse around drug policy, it remains uncertain whether he will follow through on these bellicose threats, or if they are merely antics of a leader seeking to galvanize support amidst controversies of his governance. Ultimately, the ramifications of such decisions could resonate deeply, undermining U.S. standing in the global community.

Hegseth Launches Southern Spear Against Narco-Terrorists

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth unveiled “Southern Spear,” a military operation aimed at dismantling “narco-terrorists” throughout the Western Hemisphere. This initiative exemplifies the Trump administration’s aggressive stance on drug trafficking while claiming to safeguard American security. According to Hegseth, the mission is under the Joint Task Force Southern Spear and U.S. Southern Command (Southcom), emphasizing the need to protect the homeland from drug-related harms.

At a Thursday evening announcement, Hegseth stated that the Western Hemisphere is essentially America’s neighborhood, advocating for intervention to remove narco-terrorists from the region. The Pentagon’s response, merely redirecting inquiries back to Hegseth’s social media, highlights a concerning level of detachment from the gravity of U.S. military actions in such a volatile context.

This announcement follows military briefings earlier in the week, where top leaders, including Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Dan Caine, discussed potential military strategies for the region, including possible land strikes against Venezuela. Such aggressive posturing raises fears of further escalation in U.S. involvement in Latin America, especially as Trump’s administration intensifies its military influence in a manner reminiscent of historical imperial interventions.

Since launching its counternarcotics campaign in September, the U.S. military has reportedly killed downwards of 80 individuals, claiming to target illegal drug operations. However, when discussing these strikes, it is crucial to query the moral ramifications and the extent to which these actions genuinely address the root causes of drug trafficking.

The recent deployment of military assets, including the arrival of the USS Gerald R. Ford, underscores the administration’s prioritization of a heavy-handed approach over diplomatic solutions. These developments continue to reflect a troubling trend of militarization under Trump’s leadership, reinforcing concerns regarding the long-term implications for both U.S. foreign policy and regional stability, particularly in relation to leaders like Nicolás Maduro, described as illegitimate.

Trump Pardons Boca Raton Woman for Violent Threats Against FBI

A Boca Raton woman, Suzanne Ellen Kaye, has been granted a pardon by President Donald Trump after serving 18 months in prison for threatening FBI agents via social media. This case, stemming from her social media posts during an FBI inquiry into her potential involvement in the January 6 Capitol attack, highlights the troubling patterns of Trump’s pardoning powers being used to benefit individuals associated with extremist behaviors and threats against law enforcement.

Kaye’s social media threats included a video captioned “F*** the FBI,” where she claimed she would use her Second Amendment rights if agents approached her home. Despite her claims that the posts were intended as a joke, she was found guilty and sentenced in a trial that showcased her blatant disregard for law enforcement’s role in maintaining public safety.

After completing her prison time, Kaye received the pardon from Trump, who recast her as a victim of the Biden administration’s Justice Department. Trump’s pardon attorney described this action as part of “unwinding” the supposed damage caused by Biden’s DOJ, portraying Kaye as a martyr rather than someone who menaced federal officials.

This incident reflects a wider trend under Trump’s administration of excusing or forgiving violent rhetoric and actions that threaten democratic institutions. By granting pardons to individuals like Kaye, Trump not only undermines the serious nature of her threats but also signals a continued allegiance with those who challenge the rule of law and threaten FBI personnel.

As Kaye returns to society freed from her sentence, the implications of her pardon raise questions about the accountability of individuals expressing violent sentiments towards the Justice Department. This action may embolden similar threats, further complicating efforts to instill faith in governance and law enforcement.

Trump Dismisses MTG’s Danger Amid Threats, Scorns Her Critique

Donald Trump has dismissed concerns about the safety of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who reported a pipe bomb threat to her office following his recent disparaging remarks. As the congresswoman has increasingly criticized Trump, particularly regarding the release of Jeffrey Epstein’s files, he has reacted with scorn rather than support, labeling her “Marjorie Traitor Greene.” This dismissal raises alarming questions about Trump’s responsibility in inciting threats against public figures through incendiary language.

In response to an inquiry about Greene’s safety, Trump displayed blatant indifference, questioning who she was and asserting that he did not believe anyone cared about her well-being. His cavalier comments come after Greene accused him of effectively putting her life at risk by encouraging radical elements, suggesting that Trump’s rhetoric is a dangerous signal to extremists. Greene’s post on X illustrates her fears, stating Trump’s attacks serve as a “dog whistle” to incite violence against her and her family.

This situation underscores Trump’s pattern of turning against allies who voice dissent. Greene’s previous allegiance to Trump has deteriorated significantly, prompting her to criticize him publicly, which has sparked Trump’s ire, evident in his derisive social media posts. He has mockingly referred to her with a twisted version of her name and branded her a “Fake politician,” further contributing to her isolation within the party.

Greene’s assertion of receiving threats corroborates a troubling trend fueled by Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric, which has historically undermined the safety of those whom he targets. The consequence of his words and actions cannot be overlooked, as they may embolden radical elements within his supporter base. Greene’s claim of being threatened highlights the severe risks that come with entrenching political divisions and inciting extreme sentiments among supporters.

The ongoing conflict between Trump and Greene reflects a broader concern in the American political landscape where dissent is met with hostility rather than introspection. As Trump continues to cling to authoritarian tactics that threaten to undermine political discourse, accountability for inciting violence remains crucial in ensuring public safety and upholding democratic principles.

Kash Patel Girlfriend Receives Controversial FBI Security Detail

Kash Patel, currently serving as FBI Director, has drawn intense scrutiny following the assignment of an elite FBI security detail for his girlfriend, country singer Alex Wilkins. This unprecedented move has raised serious ethical concerns as it showcases a misallocation of government resources. The protection unit, previously part of a SWAT team in Nashville, is unable to fulfill their primary duties in their designated area, including responding to significant threats like mass shootings, potentially compromising public safety.

The unusual decision marks a historic first in which a high-ranking FBI official’s non-spousal partner receives such extensive security, drawing criticism from seasoned law enforcement professionals. Christopher O’Leary, a former senior FBI agent, openly condemned the action as an “abuse of position,” emphasizing that there exists no reasonable justification for this allocation of resources, especially given Wilkins does not share a residence or city with Patel.

This controversy sharply contrasts the Trump administration’s recent decisions to revoke security for several political figures under threat, such as former Vice President Kamala Harris and ex-national security adviser John Bolton. This inconsistency in security protocol exposes a blatant disparity in protecting individuals based on political affiliations and imperils the integrity of national security measures.

Moreover, Patel has faced additional backlash regarding his reported use of a $60 million FBI jet to attend Wilkins’ performance at Penn State University. His dismissive response to the criticism, labeling it as “noise from uninformed internet anarchists,” demonstrates a troubling dismissal of public concerns regarding accountability and responsible use of federal assets.

The continuous controversies surrounding Kash Patel’s leadership raise significant concerns about the politicization of the FBI under his oversight. His management has prompted fears of preferential treatment within the agency, further straining the credibility of law enforcement institutions during politically charged times.

1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 424