Working hard so my cat can have a better life

Here’s the general art style Chinese mountains are drawn in:

And here’s how some of them actually look:

i’m speechless

This is how the system of white supremacy  operates. The media is used 2 create stereotypes like blk on blk crime.They need black men to fill jail cells for the Prison Indstrial complex

You know what? I’m tired of this. I do not know what exactly they are waiting for. I mean our government comes up with “reasons” to invade other countries, such as Syria, like their government is allegedly violating human rights or something like that. but… I mean for other countries, they do not even have to go deep to bomb the fuck out of this place, they can just look at our media. And this has been happening to people of color since the media has existed.

I’ll never forget this 👇🏾

Pearls for tears 🌊

The Supreme Court embraces Trump's anti-immigrant agenda

June 26, 2026

Robert B. Hubbell

On Thursday, the reactionary majority in the Supreme Court issued two opinions that validated the racist, anti-immigrant, white supremacist agenda of Trump and his enablers. In doing so, the majority pretended that Trump was not motivated by racial animus, ignoring Trump’s vile statements about immigrants seeking asylum in the US.

The majority found an easy path to upholding Trump’s mass deportation orders by ignoring the true facts and making up an imaginary political universe in which Trump did not repeatedly utter vile, racist slurs to justify his decision to end protection for Haitians and Syrians seeking asylum in the U.S.

We know that we must expand the Court to end the death grip of the reactionary majority. Anyone still harboring doubts about the wisdom and the urgent need for that remedy must ask themselves this question: Which is worse? An enlarged court packed with pro-democracy justices seeking to uphold the Constitution or the current majority that is willing to fabricate whatever factual record is necessary to reach a predetermined result without regard to the Constitution, precedent, or the rules of jurisprudence?

The question answers itself. We do not have time for half-measures or proposed constitutional amendments that will never pass a 2/3 majority in Congress or be ratified by 3/4 of the states (38). The decisions in Dobbs and Callais have demoted women and Black Americans to second-class citizens by denying them rights and liberties available to all other Americans. We cannot condemn them to a generation (or more) of diminished status because we lack the courage or compassion to act boldly to vindicate their rights.

We should expect more bad news from the Supreme Court this week. Before looking at today’s batch of opinions, let’s focus on positive developments that offset the losses at the hands of the Roberts’ reactionary majority.

Federal district courts continue to limit Trump’s voter suppression efforts.

US District Judge Indira Talwani ruled that Trump’s executive order authorizing the Post Office to act as an arbiter of which citizens were eligible to vote by mail was unconstitutional. See Democracy Docket, Judge blocks Trump order that would have let USPS refuse to deliver mail ballots.

Per Democracy Docket,

District Judge Indira Talwani, a Barack Obama appointee, found that major parts of Trump’s March 2026 anti-voting executive order were “legally void” for exceeding the president’s power and violating the separation of powers by encroaching on states’ authority to administer elections.

“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Talwani wrote. Her order also significantly prevents the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA) from effectively creating a nationwide voter registration list by compiling lists of verified U.S. citizens eligible to vote.

In a related development (on Wednesday), a US District Judge in Massachusetts permanently enjoined parts of Trump’s executive order requiring specific types of ID when voting. See NBC News, Federal judge bars Trump’s proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting.

Per NBC,

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Denise Casper in Boston effectively converts a preliminary injunction she issued a year ago, in which she temporarily blocked many of Trump’s efforts to overhaul elections, into a permanent ban. Casper rejected the Republican administration’s argument that the lawsuit to block the changes brought by Democratic state attorneys general was premature because the rules had yet to be put in place. Instead, she agreed that the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to regulate elections, and that Trump’s requirements violated the separation of powers. Echoing Judge Talwani’s decision, Judge Casper also wrote that “the Constitution “does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.”

Both Massachusetts federal court decisions will be appealed to the Supreme Court. If ordinary appellate rules are followed, neither will be heard by the Court until after the midterm elections, and possibly not before the 2028 elections. Of course, the Supreme Court could always use its shadow docket to effectively overrule the district court rulings in the absence of an appellate record.

We must steel ourselves against any outcome and be prepared to overcome voter suppression rules or regulations that survive legal challenges. Trump may be able to affect the outcome at the margins in some districts, but he isn’t going to be able to stop the tsunami heading his way. Indeed, decisions by the Supreme Court that validate voter suppression efforts by Trump will cause the blue wave to swell to historic proportions.

Supreme Court issues two decisions supporting Trump’s racist, anti-immigrant agenda.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued two decisions that backed the administration’s racist, anti-immigrant agenda. In the first case, Justice Alito effectively upheld the efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to revoke the temporary protected status of Haitian and Syrian refugees. (The ruling by Alito turned on whether courts had the power to review decisions by DHS to revoke TPS and whether refugees could remain in the country pending judicial review. The net effect is to make TPS refugees subject to immediate deportation. See MSNow, Supreme Court sides with Trump over Haitians and Syrians on TPS.

Justice Alito upheld DHS’s revocation of TPS on the ground that there was a “race-neutral explanation for the revocation.” But Justice Kagan’s dissent demolishes Alito’s claim that the revocation of TPS status was “race-neutral.” She writes, in part, (I have omitted citations to the record for ease of reading):

The evidence they have offered includes statements by the President so repellent and racially inflected that the majority declines to put them in print. (Indeed, one measure of the President’s way of speaking about Haitians is to compare it with the majority’s, which is unfailingly respectful. So here are some of those statements. Haitians are “eating the dogs . . . . They’re eating the cats. They’re eating—they’re eating the pets of the people that live [in Springfield, Ohio].” And: Haitians are also eating “other things too that they’re not supposed to be.” And: Haitians in the United States “probably have AIDS.” And: Haiti is a “shithole country,” which is “filthy, dirty, [and] disgusting.” And: Haitian immigration is “like a death wish for our country.” And: Haitians, along with some others, are “poisoning the blood“ of our country. And: “Why is it we only take people from shithole countries“ like “Haiti [and] Somalia“? “Why cannot we have some people from Norway [and] Sweden?” The majority briefly replies that those remarks are not “overtly racial,” but it is hard to know what that means. Haitians are Black. (Norwegians and Swedes not so much.)

The willingness of the reactionary majority to invent (or ignore) facts to support Trump is disgraceful and beneath the dignity of the Court. Both Trump and Kristi Noem were motivated by racial animus based on any objective review of the evidence. For Alito to suggest otherwise is dishonest; indeed, Alito’s reasoning on the racial animus ground was so disingenuous that Barrett and Gorsuch refused to join in that section of the opinion.

The Supreme Court’s decision was itself a slur against refugees who have followed the law for a decade or more. See Elora Mukherjee’s op-ed in the NYTimes, This Decision Is a Slap in the Face to Immigrants Who Followed the Law. (Gift article, accessible to all.)

Mukherjee writes:

This was among the most insidious examples of the second Trump administration’s cruel treatment of immigrants. It seemed, as well, an effort to turn legal immigrants into undocumented migrants. After Thursday’s decision, some one million T.P.S. holders — out of nearly 1.3 million people who hold T.P.S. protections — are at risk of immediate arrest, detention, and deportation.

The TPS revocation decision set the stage for the Court’s other 6-3 opinion. In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the reactionary majority ruled that the government may turn back asylum seekers who are still on the Mexican side of the US-Mexico border, reasoning that they have not “arrived” in the United States. By torturing the meaning of the word “arrive,” Alito concluded that asylum seekers who make it to the US border are not eligible to request asylum.

Justice Sotomayor highlighted the hypocrisy of the reactionary majority’s reasoning, which encourages the administration to physically block asylum seekers at the border, thereby preventing them from “arriving” in the US:

The Court today holds that the Executive Branch may circumvent all these mandatory procedures by having U. S. immigration officers stand at the border and physically block noncitizens from setting a foot onto U. S. soil. They may do so even if the asylum seeker is at the threshold of a port of entry designated to receive all noncitizens who seek entrance into the country. Even if the port of entry has ample capacity to inspect that person, including an available asylum officer trained to process asylum applications. Even if the asylum seeker is certain to be persecuted, or killed, if she is turned away.

The two decisions issued on Thursday reek of bad-faith, motivated reasoning designed to support Trump’s racist, anti-immigrant agenda. America deserves better from its Supreme Court. When we gain our trifecta in 2029, we must move with urgency and purpose to reform the Court in short order.

Concluding Thoughts

After briefly standing up to Trump on Wednesday at the GOP Senate weekly luncheon, Senator Bill Cassidy folded like a wet noodle on Thursday.

On Wednesday, Cassidy told Trump in a raised voice that he would continue to vote in favor of War Powers Resolutions until Trump explained to the public what was happening in the war against Iran.

On Thursday, Cassidy reversed his position on the War Powers Resolutions. See ABC. Senate Republicans reverse war powers vote after Trump berates them at Capitol meeting.

What happened?

Cassidy claims that he received a private briefing at the White House that answered his questions. When confronted by a reporter about his demand for a public briefing, Cassidy said the negotiators need space for the talks to proceed in private, without pesky briefings to Congress—which is what Cassidy was demanding.

Here’s the point: congressional Republicans are cowards; they are single-handedly responsible for Trump’s rise to power. Before Trump captured the nomination in 2016, Senate Republicans portrayed him as an existential threat to democracy and to the Republican Party. They were right on both counts.

SCIENCE WINS: A group of former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration employees who had been fired by Elon Musk's DOGE have launched a new climate science website documenting global climate change.

The new site, climate.us, is a effectively a copy of climate.gov, the website shuttered by the Trump administration last June.

With the launch of the website, these bold climate scientists and experts—once silenced by Trump and Elon Musk—will now have a place to share insights on hurricanes and other significant weather events happening because of climate change.

I got there and her daughter or granddaughter came out and was like omg her phone died we were worried

And then the older lady said something and the younger lady translated.

"She knew she could trust you because you have pink hair"

I thought it was funny at the time. But when I think back on it I think she was basically saying "you had a visible sign of not vibing with the system I was afraid of"