Showing posts with label kubla don. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kubla don. Show all posts

Monday, July 13, 2026

Lindsey Graham Chose Evil

Lindsey Graham Chose Evil

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/lindsey-graham-obituary-trump/ 

Lindsey Graham Chose Evil

Conspiracy theorists liked to say that Graham’s Trump sycophancy was a result of blackmail. But the truth is worse: He stuck with Trump to keep the US war machine going.

Jeet Heer
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., left, gestures as President Donald Trump speaks with reporters while in flight on Air Force One, Jan. 4, 2026, as they were returning to Joint Base Andrews, Md.

Lindsey Graham gestures as President Donald Trump speaks with reporters on Air Force One, on January 4, 2026.

(Alex Brandon / AP)

Although Senator Lindsey Graham, who died unexpectedly on Saturday at 71, was one of the most odious figures in American public life, he does deserve a partial defense from a strangely pervasive calumny directed against him by liberal critics. In the last decade of his life, Graham underwent a dramatic political transformation. In 2015 and early 2016, Graham became a no-holds-barred foe of Donald Trump, whom he lambasted as “a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot” who “represents the worst in America.” But Graham started to warm to Trump once the insurgent candidate won the Republican primary on May 4, 2016. This process accelerated after Trump was elected president in November, when Graham became, against stiff competition, the president’s most obsequious lackey.

Graham’s metamorphosis was all the more startling because his earlier disdain for Trump sprang logically from his political history. Prior to 2016, Graham was best known as the ultra-hawkish ally of fellow war-happy senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman (their noxious nickname for themselves was the “Three Amigos”), which made him a natural opponent of candidate Trump’s isolationist foreign policy. Further, Graham had a history of bipartisanship, working with Democrats on immigration reform and campaign finance and casting the sole Republican vote on the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nominations. This gave Graham a profile, on domestic matters at least, more mainstream than Trump’s burn-it-down populism.

What explains Graham’s quick change of political identity? One theory popular among Resistance liberals and Never Trump conservatives was that the senator, who was widely rumored to be a closeted gay man, had been blackmailed by Trump, perhaps with kompromat provided by Vladimir Putin. In 2019, for instance MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle dropped a heavy-breathing hint along this line by suggesting that Trump knows “something pretty extreme about Lindsey Graham.”

Current Issue

Cover of July/August 2026 Issue
July/August 2026 Issue

The blackmail theory was never grounded in evidence and suffered the further disadvantage of making Graham seem like a victim rather than someone making affirmative choices about his life. The actual story of Graham’s ideological conversion is much worse than any conspiracy, because he gave us his principles for the worst of reasons: to stay close to the center of power, stave off MAGA primary challenges, and bring Trump around to Graham’s deeply militarist worldview.

More from The Nation

South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster, right, joined by US Senator Lindsey Graham, speaks to reporters on Tuesday, April 6, 2021, in Columbia, SC.

South Carolina’s Process to Replace Lindsey Graham Is What Democracy Should Look Like South Carolina’s Process to Replace Lindsey Graham Is What Democracy Should Look Like

The Palmetto State will let primary voters nominate Graham’s successor. Maine, on the other hand, is letting a party convention pick Graham Platner’s replacement.

John Nichols

Protecting Liberty, Protecting People

Protecting Liberty, Protecting People Protecting Liberty, Protecting People

On July 4, 2026, a large group of masked members of Patriot Front entered the Washington, DC, Metro system. This artwork is inspired by a Reuters photograph by Cheney Orr.

OppArt / Andrea Arroyo

Graham Platner’s video dropping out of the US Senate race in Maine.

The Graham Platner Fiasco Proves Messiah Politics Is No Alternative to a Failed Establishment The Graham Platner Fiasco Proves Messiah Politics Is No Alternative to a Failed Establishment

Democratic leaders have rightfully lost credibility. But that’s no excuse for political adventurers to seize the moment and pump up false saviors.

Jeet Heer

MAGA Murder Inc.

MAGA Murder Inc. MAGA Murder Inc.

ICE kills again.

Steve Brodner

Walls of Solidarity

Walls of Solidarity Walls of Solidarity

Street art in Barcelona expressing solidarity with Palestine, June 2026.

OppArt / Bob Bingenheimer

Candles are lit during a vigil for Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a Mexican national shot dead by a federal immigration agent, on July 8, 2026, in Houston.

What One Week of Trump News Says About Our New Normal What One Week of Trump News Says About Our New Normal

Trump’s constant cruelty can make it all seem routine.

Column / Sasha Abramsky

 

 

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, July 1, 2026

Trump refuses to move on after massive fail on birthright citizenship

 

Trump refuses to move on after massive fail on birthright citizenship

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2026/7/1/800063454/congress/trump-birthright-citizenship-congress/ 

Trump refuses to move on after massive fail on birthright citizenship

by Oliver Willis
Staff
34
Share:




51 Comments
Jenny Harris, of Baltimore, protests in support of birthright citizenship and the immigrant community, Thursday, May 15, 2025, outside of the Supreme Court in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
People protest in support of birthright citizenship on May 15, 2025.AP

President Donald Trump failed to get the Supreme Court to throw out birthright citizenship, a constitutional right for more than 150 years. So now of course, Trump is calling on Congress to undo the law. 

Join the Conversation
Have your say.Share your thoughts in the comments below.

But abolishing birthright citizenship is widely opposed by the American public.

Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, left, and Clarence Thomas look on during the 60th Presidential Inauguration in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Monday, Jan. 20, 2025. (Chip Somodevilla/Pool Photo via AP)
Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, two of the three votes against birthright citizenship.AP

In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court voted to uphold birthright citizenship, rejecting Trump’s executive order that would have rescinded citizenship from millions of Americans. 

The three who opposed were the court’s most conservative justices: Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas.

“Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship,” Trump wrote on Truth Social after the ruling. “They will have my Complete and Total Support!”

But Trump’s position is out of touch with most Americans. 

In a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, 55% of Americans said that they support birthright citizenship and oppose efforts to end it. Support was particularly high among Democrats at 72%, while 57% of independents and 38% of Republicans supported it.

Birthright citizenship was added to the Constitution by the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to establish—without question—citizenship of formerly enslaved people. It’s considered one of the pillars of American law repealing slavery.

Organizations like the NAACP, which was at the forefront of the Civil Rights movement, endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision.

“For over 150 years, the Fourteenth Amendment has guaranteed citizenship to everyone born in this country. Today, the Court rightly rejected efforts to undermine that core protection and instead upheld a principle that is essential to our democracy,” NAACP president and CEO Derrick Johnson said in a statement.

A cartoon by Clay Bennett depicting Lady Liberty holding a broken scale of justice.
Clay Bennett/Tribune Content Agency

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries echoed the NAACP’s sentiment. 

“The 14th Amendment was enshrined in our Constitution during Reconstruction to ensure that formerly enslaved Black people would not have their citizenship questioned on the basis of their race,” Jeffries said. “More than 150 years later, it has withstood the unconstitutional attack launched by Donald Trump and his most sycophantic and xenophobic enablers.”

If congressional Republicans follow Trump’s orders, they’ll find themselves further allied with America’s pro-slavery past—and against the tide of history.

We'll get straight to the point: The financial hardships that Daily Kos is facing this year are tough.

We continue to be paywall-free. We continue to be supported by our readers, not billionaires or corporations. But we need to bring in more revenue. We are leaning on our community more than ever to help make ends meet.

$
OR
Donate with
5 Tags

Was this story worth reading?

Recommending and sharing stories helps us decide which stories are most important to show our readers.

34
Share:




Conversation

|

All comments are subject to our Community Guidelines. The views expressed in comments are those of the individual authors and don't necessarily reflect the views of Daily Kos.

All Comments

  1. Comment by committed.

    watch Lawrence O'Donnell last night. it is the most concise info you need to know. This should have been decided last year and tossed out. It was just to recognize slavery. It was a recognition of a different society not based in race and a future country. really watch that episode! 06/30/2026

    • Reply by committed.

      wasn't just....

  2. Comment by SteveLCo.

    Kind of distressing this wasn't a 9-0 decision. If Barret and Roberts change their minds, bye bye BRC.

    • Reply by SteveLCo.

      To reply to my own post, doesn't Thomas's position mean he doesn't think he's a citizen?

    • Reply by Harvey Manfrenjensenden.

      Kind of distressing that the Court heard the case at all.

  3. Comment by richthetraveler.

    I pity the staff members who have to subscribe to Truth Social to report on Trump's misdeeds.

  4. Comment by athanase49.

    Reading a good chunk of comments at the National Review (which I do from time to time for entertainment) you would think the sky was falling!!! Claims of plots by China and that this is the end of the USA with calmer heads pointing out we've had birthright citizenship since 1868 and that it's not up to Rapist Felon 47 by executive order to declare the 14th amendment invalid. There is a wonder process called amending the constitution (and yes I know one of the justices mentioning there was a federal law passed enshrining some of the 14th amendment and claims it can be repealed by Congress). But I doubt our current Congress can do that seeing as the House is on early recess as some of their Repub members are having a hissy fit over the SAVE act and the Senate is already in recess over the holiday.

  5. Comment by BSpacific.

    Unable to man up and move on, just more childish displays of anger and rage from the malignant narcissist.

  6. Comment by bugman46.

    They oppose birthright citizenship, yet a birth certificate in sufficient to prove citizenship under the terms of the proposed SAVE Act.

  7. Comment by Sue Blue.

    Deport Donnie and Melania! Donny's the son of an immigrant (his mother), and Melania is an immigrant who came here under exceedingly shady circumstances. Oh, and Barron, too - he's her anchor baby, right?

    • Reply by KnaveOfSwords.

      4 of his 5 kids are anchor babies by the standards the right wants to apply to others.

  8. Comment by annieli.

    Trump will continue using it because his Project 2025 bosses demand it

  9. Comment by Stwriley.

    Check me if I'm wrong, but weren't the three dissenters Thomas, Alito, and 𝘎𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩? Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion in which he agree with the majority on the result but not with their reasoning (i.e., he thought this was just a matter of law rather than the Constitution.) Maybe that should be fixed in the story.

    • Reply by BMandeville.

      In some ways Gorsuch (although a dissenter) had a better position (from my perspective) than Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh ruled based on the statute not the Constitution, indicating he might vote differently if Congress changes the law. Gorsuch disagreed with the majority's Constitutional decision, while seeming to suggest that babies born to people here illegally should be citizens under the 14th amendment, but not babies born to birth tourists.

    • Reply by randym77.

      THIS. It was actually 5-4 on the constitutionality of it, 6-3 with Beer Boy saying it's not unconstitutional, it's just against an existing statute.

    • Reply by randym77.

      We have 4 justices who interpret the 14th Amendment differently.

      "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

      The key phrase is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The rightwingers argue that non-citizens are not subject to US jurisdiction.

    • Reply by committed.

      Kavanaugh stated that the constitution doesnt mean what is says

    • Reply by DrDiva.

      So - if a non-citizen robs a bank, we can't prosecute? Because how can we prosecute if the perp is not subject to our jurisdiction? Of course, IANAL, but this doesn't make sense to me.

      And, BTW, our illustrious (not) governor, Kevin Stitt, is of the opinion that the Court "got it wrong." Maybe he needs to read the 14th Amendment. But then, he's a Trump-fluffer, so I imagine that statement is jus another effort to get an appointment to something in Taco Don's administration, since he can't run for governor again.

    • Reply by Lisa Needham.

      Staff

      Yep. Kav somehow came up with the genius idea that Trump exceeded his authority because the exec branch can't do this by fiat, but it would be fine and dandy if Congress does it, because the 14th Amendment does not say what it says, basically.

    • Reply by KnaveOfSwords.

      From what I've read, the different counts are due to Kavanaugh.

      Roberts and Barrett, along with Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson (5), ruled that the 14th Amendment is the 14th Amendment and trying to overturn or ignore it is unconstitutional.

      Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch (3) wrote various flavors of "Nuh-uh!" in dissent.

      Kavanaugh's position (a concurrence in this case) was that reversing the 14th amendment is fine, but it requires an act of congress, not just an executive order.

      So, that's 6-3 against ignoring the constitution by executive order, and only 5-4 in favor of birthright citizenship.

    • Reply by KnaveOfSwords.

      It looks like I may be misunderstanding Kavanaugh's position, if someone with legal expertise wants to weigh in?

    • Reply by randym77.

      Hey, can you get this story corrected? It's flat out wrong.

    • Reply by randym77.

      Yeah, it's a dumb interpretation. That carveout has been been used for the children of foreign diplomats. It was clearly not meant to apply to immigrants.

  10. Comment by Whatsnuts.

    250 years and we haven't learned a damn thing.

  11. Comment by giovannigiorgio.

    Pure fascism. If you really think about it, what makes anyone an American. Right? Take away birthright citizenship, then, the authoritarians can define whoever they think should be "r34l Mericanz". Despicable.

    Blame the 77 million that voted for this shit, but also, the 90 million that stayed home.

  12. Comment by Whatsnuts.

    Let's remind Trump that his wife and kid should be deported.

    • Reply by BlueKS.

      Nearly all of us would be, since at some point, our first ancestor to set foot in the country was an immigrant. If they didn't become naturalized before having a child, that child wouldn't be a citizen, their children wouldn't be citizens, and on down the family tree.

    • Reply by Harvey Manfrenjensenden.

      Trump wouldn't miss them. He might not even notice they were gone.

    • Reply by Whatsnuts.

      There was one time in our history where immigrants had to work at least five years before they could even apply to be a citizen. Then they made the process to be a citizen very slow.

  13. Comment by FishOutofWater.

    Not a "massive fail". Kavanaugh indicated that the only thing stopping him was a law, not the 14th Amendment. 5 to 4 is a warning, not a big win. America is one vote and one law away from a catastrophe.

    • Reply by Robpos.

      I thought it was a 5-4 decision…

  14. Comment by BobRR.

    How is this president even relevant anymore? He's a waste of my time, and I resent having him dominate the news every stinking day. This is not a criticism of DK; the whole world thinks he's the most important person who ever lived.

    And how can you be "against" birthright citizenship? It's in the Constitution, FFS.

    • Reply by CaptainCharlie.

      Most of the world think he is a total c***. Sadly the consequences of this along with a giant military force mean dealing with said c*** is difficult. But I think you are right about the media. They don't need to report his opinion on any little thing. Or talk about his ignorant truth social posts.

  15. Comment by blue aardvark.

    If a birth certificate is not proof of citizenship - what is?

    Does anyone really want THIS administration to invent rules for determining who is a citizen, on the fly, with the election looming?

    The three dissenters have their heads so far up their asses they can see out their bellybuttons.

    • Reply by Harvey Manfrenjensenden.

      If you are born in a country that does not have birthright citizenship, are you not issued a birth certificate?

      I'm not sure that possession of a birth certificate makes you a citizen of the country in which it was issued.

  16. Comment by jprato.

    If they don't like the 14th amendment then the process is propose repealing it. That is how it works in our democracy not a decree from King Sir Tiny Hands.

  17. Comment by Robpos.

    It is truly a shame that 3 justices don’t know how to read the, plainly stated, clearly written, text of the constitution.

    It should have been a 9-0 decision.

    • Reply by A Noah Count.

      One would think, of the three, Thomas would not be opposed to birthright citizenship.

      I know he hates being black, but without the 14th Amendment, not only wouldn't he be on the Supreme Court, he wouldn't even be a citizen.

    • Reply by just ju.

      Agree. SHOULD have been a 9-0 vote!

      Strange and incredibly ironic, that the Black Thomas seems to want slavery in the USA again.

      That's hard to comprehend.

    • Reply by Robpos.

      Thomas is the kind of awful person who would, if he were in a lifeboat at sea, when finally getting rescued, would pull the ladder up after he got on the rescue boat.

    • Reply by FishOutofWater.

      Thomas is well paid by Harlan Crowe not to comprehend the implications of his votes.

    • Reply by Whatsnuts.

      Maybe we should count Thomas decision as only three-fifths of a vote.

    • Reply by DavidBooks.

      Be careful there. Thomas will not dney his own citizenship, just others!

    • Reply by DavidBooks.

      What a reply!

    • Reply by sagesource.

      He's already been bought so many times that he thinks it's no big deal.

    • Reply by BlueKS.

      Well, his dissent was exactly that—that the 14th Amendment applied only to former slaves not to immigrants (despite all historical facts to the contrary). So *his* citizenship is a-okay. It's just all those other unwanteds who shouldn't have rights.

    • Reply by A Noah Count.

      In other words, a true, modern American conservative.

      "I've go mine, you can go fuck yourself!"

Active Conversations

The following is a list of the most commented articles in the last 7 days.

Trending Conversations

The following is a list of the most commented articles in the last 2 days.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2026/7/1/800063454/congress/trump-birthright-citizenship-congress/ 

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)