Congress and Trump sell out the US to Israel

Fusing the US taxpayer and US military with the Israeli military

Something new has gone terribly wrong. This is just as bad as most awful things Trump and MAGA are these days. In its cowardice, corruption, staggering incompetence and seething hostility to democracy and the rule of law, our MAGA congress has quietly started a horrible, taxpayer-funded process of aggressively integrating the US and Israeli militaries.

An article by Responsible Statecraft, Congress quietly moves to integrate US and Israeli militaries, reports that buried in the House 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), there is a section entitled “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative”. The provisions there do more to intertwine the US and Israeli militaries than anything the $200 billion+ in inflation adjusted military assistance Israel has received from the US since its founding in 1948. 

Section 224 provides for expanded bilateral research and development, co-production of weapons, joint ventures, licensing agreements, and basically all kinds of US-Israeli military-industrial complex cooperation. That greatly expands already major cooperation on missile defense. In essence, 224 greatly expands coordination to all areas of defense tech. That includes AI, quantum, and autonomous systems (drones, weaponized robots), directed energy weapons, cyberwar, and biotech (WTF, germ warfare???). Section 224 also proposes “network integration” and “data fusion”. US military data will also be Israeli military data.

Worse than all of that, the MAGA House bill strips away political and diplomatic oversight mechanisms that make the US-Israeli relationship publicly accountable. Section 224 guts the current visible annual aid vote into an opaque, basically secret machinery of taxpayer-funded defense acquisition. Section 224 limits oversight, and meaningful, honest political accountability is minimal to non-existent. The result is a defense deeper defense relationship that is basically run in secret.

Unlike other weapons agreements where the US supplies weapons and the buyers sometimes make some parts for them, Section 224 is nothing like that at all. This deal fuses US and Israeli defense sectors in multiple areas that are vital to future battlefields, e.g. autonomous systems and cyberwar. The House has also tucked provisions in 224 that would create extraordinary Israeli influence in the US, far beyond what it already has through the Israel lobby and its social media influencers. Section 224 gives the Israeli government the option to greatly expand one of the most powerful levers of influence in US politics, namely jobs. By expanding or starting new co-production facilities like it already has in Mississippi and Arkansas, the Israeli government could boast of providing jobs on US soil (at taxpayer expense), thereby corrupting members of Congress who represent the districts where those jobs are.

The US political system is already highly susceptible to the whims of the Israeli government. This proposed deal would secretly entangle the US with the Israeli war machine which has no qualms about drawing the US into military conflicts in the Middle East, whether it makes any sense or not for America and its interests. In essence, the MAGA House is proposing a full-blown secret sellout of American interests, its military independence, and the taxpayers to a brutal Israeli government. 

One has to wonder what payoff to Trump Netanyahu has promised, and how much of it has already been delivered. Also, what did MAGA House members get in return for their sellout, and how will Trump/Israel bribe the Senate? Enquiring minds want to know.

Not to worry, corporal Bone Spurs 

is on the job and in charge 

What could possibly go wrong?

Oh yeah, that could go wrong

Christianity's greatest enemy? Christian zealots

 This 1:20 video explains the threat to Christianity. I find the argument convincing.

Mindless zealots like that, along with corrupt oligarchy and corrupt autocracy, now also constitute the greatest threat to what is left of American democracy, our fading rule of law and our fading civil liberties. 

A glimpse of Trump griftology

CNBC reports that the US DoD has awarded Dell a $9.7 billion contract to supply software. DoD spokespersons defending the deal are both Trump appointees and their jobs depend in saying whatever is deemed needed to protect Trump and his myriad grift businesses. Dell won the contract after a "competitive process", according to Defense Department Chief Information Officer Kirsten Davies and acting Navy Chief Information Officer Barry Tanner. 

Since both Davies and Tanner are presidentially appointed and thus politically exposed senior officials. Keeping their jobs depends on staying in good standing with Trump and his MAGA goons. Both are quoted defending the deal is competitive, cost‑saving, and compliant with federal procurement rules. Of course, that is exactly what one would expect them to say no matter what.

In today’s Trump‑dominated GOP, the rule of law at the federal level and in red states has been repurposed into a weapon against the powerless and the opposition. Elite corruption aligned with Trump is effectively protected by decriminalization by non‑enforcement and pardons. Trump's personal DoJ and FBI aren't going to touch any of his criminal activities. State leaders in places like Florida, Texas, and Georgia pour resources into "election crime" theatrics that mostly net confused or marginalized voters, while long‑standing studies flag these same states as among the most corrupt in both illegal and legal terms. Trump has gutted federal anti‑corruption capacity at the DoJ, purged inspectors general, and deployed clemency as a loyalty tool. That sends a very clear message that those who grift for the boss can expect protection while his perceived enemies face maximal punishment. Link, link, link, link, link

The result is a structurally rigged law enforcement landscape. Captured state attorneys general and prosecutors decline to pursue powerful Trump allies, while hollowed‑out federal watchdogs lack the capacity and political backing to investigate fraud and abuse. Worse, blanket or targeted pardons mop up the rare cases that slip through and do get prosecuted. Under these conditions it is rational, not cynical, to believe that major government deals Trump’s political interests are presumptively corrupt grifts unless proven otherwise. The traditional legal and institutional safeguards that once deterred or punished a lot of bad behavior have been deliberately neutered or completely wiped out of existence. Link, link

Right now, governments and the law are generally badly corrupted. Unfortunately, the situation is going to get a lot worse.

Trump is a bitcoin grifter

Trial court forces the USSC to reject racist gerrymandering, but will it? Probably not.

 

Geez, thought this was settled years ago,

but apparently it wasn't

Context

In it’s recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, the 6 radical authoritarian MAGA judges on the USSC (US Supreme Court) held that gerrymandering for partisan purposes was legal. That decision allowed the voting districts to be drawn to block minority candidates from winning elections provided that the people doing the gerrymandering claimed it was only for partisan purposes, not because of racism. The USSC simply said, (1) gerrymanderers can be trusted to not be racist, and (2) people who claim racism must prove their case. Since no one can read minds, proving racism is close to impossible. In practice, racists are now 100% free to gerrymander any way they want, as long as they simply claim it was just partisanship, not racism.

After that decision, some red states instantly started to redraw voting districts to lock out Black and other minority candidates. Red state gerrymanderers always said was it was just for partisan purposes, not racism. In Callais, the USSC set up a claim of partisanship as an all‑purpose shield, despite solid evidence of racial targeting. So, Callais marks the end of many (most?) elected red state non-white politicians.

Some people have noticed the Callais decision and they don’t like it

Obviously, there is no way to disentangle a racist motive from partisanship. The only at least somewhat objective way to assess it is to see what impact a gerrymander has. People lie about their own bad motives all the time, so taking people’s word for it is nonsense when evidence points to non-trustworthiness, i.e., lying. In the case of red states, the post-Callais gerrymanders had the effect of getting rid of non-white candidates.

When about 55% or more of voters in a voting district are registered with one political party, candidates of that party almost always win. The district is considered safe for the dominant party. In our winner‑take‑all system, 51% of the vote yields 100% of the representation in voting districts. Therefore, even small changes for partisan dominance locks in control for the party with the dominant voter registration. Those districts are non-competitive. That is seen by many people as anti-democratic, which is exactly what it is. Link, link

A pissed off trial court says really, why should we should trust?

Some federal judges do not buy the USSC assertion that everyone who gerrymanders is purely partisan. Those skeptics have many decades of evidence of racial gerrymandering in the US to back up their very reasonable suspicion that the USSC is aiding and abetting racism. Racism is a core moral value in MAGA’s authoritarian dogma, i.e., racism/white supremacy is central to MAGA ideology. There is decades of evidence of documented, intentional racial line‑drawing that cannot plausibly be explained away as neutral partisanship. The evidence is clear that racist gerrymandering still exists, despite the MAGA USSC says it doesn’t. Link, link

In an ongoing Alabama lawsuit over racist gerrymandering, Allen v. Milligan, a recent 3-judge trial court panel decision flat out rejected the USSC’s reasoning in Callais that says we have to trust gerrymanderers to not be racist. The three judges sounded really pissed off at the USSC’s racist “legal reasoning”. In the Allen case, the 3 judges blocked Alabama from using its racially gerrymandered 2023 congressional map, finding (1) it was drawn to dilute Black voting strength (racist), and (2) that made it “impossible” both to remedy dilution and to respect the Black Belt as a community of interest. The judges ordered Alabama to draw a new map that actually gives Black voters a meaningful opportunity to elect their preferred candidates, rather than a nominal second district engineered to preserve white Republican dominance. Link, link

In essence, those three judges are forcing the USSC to stand by its decision in Callais and clarify whether it truly allows states to entrench racial gerrymanders as blatant as the map that the Alabama legislature drew a few years ago. The judges bluntly said that Alabama “cannot use Callais” as a license to intensify discriminatory vote dilution. Now the USSC is forced to say it meant what it said, finally fully shafting non-white voters in Alabama.

How will it play out?

Given the racist track record of the 6 MAGA judges that dominate the USSC, including the Black judge Clarence Thomas**, it seems highly likely that the USSC will say it meant what it said in Callais and the Alabama gerrymander is legal. White supremacy is a powerful moral value in MAGA dogma.

** There is no law or requirement for federal judges to be rational or coherent. That includes USSC judges. In recent times, Trump has picked some judges who make that painfully clear.

What about democracy and the voters?

Voters elect state legislators. Those voting districts are usually gerrymandered. If those legislators choose to be racist, or do things that have adverse racial impacts, isn’t that the way it is supposed to be? America has a representative democracy. Elected representatives are supposed to reflect the will of the voters. When those elected politicians are racists, what does that say about those voters, if anything? Are voters responsible for what their representatives do, regardless of what’s in the voters’ minds?

Social science is clear that in modern democracies, most politicians are usually not particularly responsive to public opinion. That’s especially true at the federal level where the amount of special interest money is gigantic. Politicians do respond to existing incentives, e.g., serving special interest demands in return for “campaign contributions”. Politicians want power so they are highly incentivized to get elected and stay in office. Special interest money feeds that incentive. Voters, the public interest, and the will of the people are all secondary concerns. Research indicated that the opinions of ~90% of Americans have essentially no impact on public policy because organized economic elites and business groups dominate. Money talks, everything else walks. That includes democracy and the rule of law. Link, link, link

So, should we just trust our elected gerrymanderers to be purely partisan and not racist? Or, does it even matter if they’re racist or not (or corrupt grifters who screw us or not)? We elected them to do whatever they can do, so they’re just doing what the incentives compel them to do. Is gerrymandering anti-democratic as many people think, or is racial bias just a natural human thing (which it really is) that democracies have no business messing with? Do voters bear no moral responsibility for what their elected politicians do?

Disclaimer: Not all elected politicians are corrupted by special interest money, racist or otherwise bad. Unfortunately, they are operating in a system that is shockingly bad. Their pro-democracy good influence is swamped out and weak compared to the corrupting, authoritarian and bigoted bad influences. That’s a core problem with fucked up incentives in politics. Unless the incentives change, our system will remain enslaved to service to corrupting special interests and base human impulses at the expense of the public interest and general welfare.