NYT editorial: The kleptocratic djt has normalized corruption

In a long opinion (1,902 words), the NYT editorial board (not paywalled) describes many examples of djt's open, now normalized corruption of government and its danger to democracy:

A Comprehensive Accounting of Trump’s Culture of Corruption

At the gala dinner President Trump held last month for those who bought the most Trump cryptocurrency, the champion spender was the entrepreneur Justin Sun, who had put down more than $40 million on $Trump coins. Mr. Sun had a good reason to hope that this investment would pay off. He previously invested $75 million in a different Trump crypto venture — and shortly after the Trump administration took office in January, the Securities and Exchange Commission paused its lawsuit against him on charges of cryptocurrency fraud.

The message seemed obvious enough: People who make Mr. Trump richer regularly receive favorable treatment from the government he runs.

If Americans shrug this off as just “Trump being Trump,” his self-dealing will become accepted behavior. It will encourage other politicians to sell their offices. The damage will undermine our government, our society and even our economy. Historically, when corruption becomes the norm in a country, economic growth suffers, and living standards stagnate. Under Mr. Trump, the United States is sliding down that slope.

The editorial presents an evidence-based indictment of what it characterizes as the most corrupt administration in American history. Through detailed analysis of the cryptocurrency scheme and broader patterns of self-dealing, the NYT editors argue that Trump has fundamentally transformed the nature of American governance. The opinion argues that this transformation extends far beyond simple financial corruption to encompass a systematic assault on democratic norms, institutional integrity, and the rule of law.

The editorial's central argument is that Trump's "culture of corruption" represents an existential threat to American democracy, one that will have lasting consequences long after his presidency ends. By normalizing the use of public office for private gain and systematically dismantling anti-corruption mechanisms, Trump has created a new paradigm for American governance that prioritizes personal enrichment over public service, fundamentally altering the relationship between citizens and their government.[1]

Q: At least for the ~40% of rank and file Americans who still support djt and MAGA politics, has corruption been normalized, whether most of those people believe it or not, or are they still deceived and see little to no corruption beyond what they have been falsely told was normal?

Footnote:

1. Pxy:

Q: Summarize the steps or actions that Trump and MAGA elites have taken to systematically dismantle anti-corruption mechanisms.

A: The Trump administration and aligned political elites have implemented a multi-pronged strategy to weaken anti-corruption frameworks, targeting enforcement agencies, regulatory structures, and oversight mechanisms. This analysis synthesizes documented actions from 2025 and prior years, demonstrating a concerted effort to prioritize political and financial interests over institutional integrity.

Clemency for Crypto Entrepreneurs and Political Allies: djt granted pardons to individuals convicted of financial crimes, particularly in the cryptocurrency sector. In March 2025, he pardoned BitMEX co-founders Benjamin Delo, Arthur Hayes, and Samuel Reed, who had pleaded guilty in 2022 to violating the Bank Secrecy Act by failing to implement anti-money laundering protocols 3 12. He repealed IRS reporting requirements for crypto transactions 4. He pardoned Trevor Milton, founder of Nikola Corporation, despite his fraud conviction, signaling tolerance for corporate malfeasance among political allies 3 13.

Pardons for Corrupt Politicians: djt granted clemency to Republican politicians convicted of corruption, including former Rep. Michael Grimm (tax fraud), Rep. Steve Stockman (misuse of charitable funds), and ex-sheriff Scott Jenkins (bribery) 6 13. The pardons allowed recipients to evade decades of cumulative prison time.

Gutting the Justice Department’s Anti-Corruption Units: The Trump administration systematically weakened the DOJ’s capacity to investigate corruption. In April 2025, the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team (NCET), tasked with prosecuting crypto-related crimes, was disbanded under an executive order framed as ending “regulation by prosecution” 8.

Neutralizing Independent Watchdogs: Trump removed David Huitema, director of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), in February 2025, eliminating oversight of financial disclosures and conflicts of interest among officials 5.

Rolling Back Financial Transparency Measures: In April 2025, Trump repealed an IRS rule requiring custodial crypto brokers to report user transactions via Form 1099s, a policy designed to curb tax evasion 4.

Weakening International Anti-Kleptocracy Efforts: Attorney General Pam Bondi disbanded the DOJ’s Kleptocracy Initiative in 2025, which had recovered billions in assets stolen by foreign officials.

Dropping Corporate Investigations: djt dropped, suspended, or declined to pursue enforcement actions against 109 corporations in its first two months of 2025, including 45 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) cases and 14 SEC crypto investigations 7. Notable beneficiaries included GEO Group (private prisons), JPMorgan, and Elon Musk’s SpaceX 7.

djt attacks and insults California to provoke civil war

djt and MAGA elites are actively engaged in major provocations for open civil war. Politico reports:

Newsom floats withholding federal taxes as Trump threatens California

SACRAMENTO, California — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday suggested California consider withholding tens of billions in annual federal tax dollars amid reports Donald Trump is preparing funding cuts targeting the state.

Newsom’s suggestion came after CNN reported the president was considering a “full termination” of federal grant funding for California’s universities.

“Californians pay the bills for the federal government. We pay over $80 BILLION more in taxes than we get back,” the Democratic governor said in an X post Friday afternoon, referencing a recent analysis from the Rockefeller Institute that California contributed about $83 billion more in federal taxes in 2022 than it received back from Washington.

“Maybe it’s time to cut that off,” he added.

White House spokesperson Kush Desai, asked to comment on Newsom’s post, threw cold water on mass funding cuts but blasted California for what he said were “lunatic anti-energy, soft-on-crime, pro-child mutilation, and pro-sanctuary policies.”

It is getting very hard to take the constant insults and increasingly aggressive direct threats of large-scale destruction of California from bigoted, corrupt djt and MAGA thugs, liars and slackers. 

Analysis and data from the Rockefeller Institute of Government for federal fiscal year 2022, indicates that California contributed $83.1 billion more to the federal government than it received back in federal expenditures. For 2022, CA was the largest "donor state" in the nation by a significant margin. In other years, CA gets back more than it pays, but so do nearly all other states. That's been part of the ongoing federal deficit problem. MAGA states like Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Kentucky and Florida are chronic slackers, taking in more federal tax dollars than they send to to federal government almost every year. 

On a per capita basis, CA ranked fourth among donor states in 2022 at $2,129 per capita, trailing only Massachusetts ($3,873), New Jersey ($3,123), and Washington State ($2,289). In 2022, CA's $83.1 billion negative balance far exceeded the second-largest donor state, New Jersey, by nearly three-to-one due in part to its large population compared to NJ.

Q: Is it hyperbolic, irrational or counterproductive to see civil war provocation by what djt and elite MAGA thugs want to do to California?[1]

Footnote:

1. I asked Pxy:

Q: Is it hyperbolic, irrational or counterproductive to see civil war provocation by what djt and elite MAGA thugs want to do to California?

A: Central to this debate is the Trump movement’s increasing openness to deploying military force against domestic populations, particularly in contexts such as immigration enforcement, protest suppression, and political dissent.

The Trump administration and its allies have repeatedly advocated for unprecedented domestic military deployments, challenging long-standing legal and normative boundaries. In May 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requested 20,000 National Guard troops to assist with immigration enforcement, a move that would federalize the National Guard and bypass state authority 3. This proposal followed Trump’s 2020 threat to deploy “thousands of heavily armed soldiers” against protesters near the White House, marking a pattern of leveraging military assets for domestic law enforcement4. Such actions directly contravene the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which restricts the use of federal troops for policing unless explicitly authorized by Congress 9.

The Insurrection Act of 1807, a rarely invoked statute, has emerged as a focal point for Trump-aligned policymakers. The Act allows the president to deploy troops domestically during “rebellion or insurrection,” but its broad language creates ambiguity.

Labeling MAGA’s actions as “civil war provocation” is neither entirely hyperbolic nor baseless.  

Conclusion: Rational Vigilance in the Face of Escalation
Concerns about civil conflict provoked by Trump and MAGA elites are not irrational but require precise contextualization. The movement’s explicit calls for military deployments against civilians, combined with erosion of democratic norms, create tangible risks of localized violence and constitutional crises. MAGA actions so far do not amount to the inevitability of a civil war, but are nonetheless concerning. 

The Trump-MAGA project represents a hybrid regime model combining electoral legitimacy with authoritarian legalism (an anocracy). While not yet a full dictatorship, the administration’s systematic dismantling of checks on executive power, militarization of civil society, and cultivation of paramilitary alliances have crossed critical democratic thresholds.

Crossed critical democratic thresholds? That’s an understatement. 

The Gaza Debate Has Ended—It’s Time for Explanations

In a recent video essay, Peter Beinart—editor of Jewish Currents—delivers a crucial message for those following the ongoing debate over Israel’s war in Gaza. Beinart argues that, while it is emotionally tempting to scold politicians and pundits who belatedly distance themselves from Israel’s conduct, doing so is politically counter-productive. Instead, he insists, we must engage these voices, hold them to account, and encourage them to publicly explain why they initially supported the war and what changed their minds. Such public reckoning, Beinart contends, is vital—not only for historical clarity but also for shaping future policy and accountability as international legal judgments loom

.

“Over the last week or two the debate over Israel's assault on Gaza in the kind of mainstream western circles...has in some fundamental sense ended...It's now very rare to find people with any credibility in kind of mainstream circles vocally arguing that Israel...can a) destroy Hamas, b) free the hostages, and c) do so without committing massive war crimes, including perhaps genocide...The voices that were arguing those three propositions...have really, really faded.”

The Temptation to Scold—and Why to Resist It

Beinart acknowledges the understandable anger on the pro-Palestinian left, who watched as previously supportive public figures now quietly abandon their earlier positions. He notes:

“One of the reasons that people don't publicly go out and say that they were wrong is because people have a tendency to pillory them when they do...There's a bit of a tendency to kick people when they're down...I really understand that sentiment, especially when it's coming from people on the left...who are so used to getting kind of beaten up rhetorically and marginalized themselves...But I think...it's important to resist that tendency and...encourage people to come out and say that they were wrong.”

Rather than shaming these “defectors” from the Israeli government’s narrative, Beinart urges activists and commentators to create space for public admissions of error. This, he argues, is not about absolution, but about creating a record and fostering accountability.

Why Public Reckoning Matters

Beinart draws on historical analogies to illustrate the dangers of letting debates end in silence rather than reckoning. He points to the Iraq War, where many of its most prominent supporters simply “crept away from the scene of the catastrophe,” only to later resurface in influential roles without ever having to explain or learn from their mistakes. He warns:

“One of the problems with America's foreign policy debate...has been that many people who supported military interventions that were disasters like Iraq were able to kind of resurface...and not be actually...really forced...to publicly reckon with why they got this first military intervention wrong...So it didn't have an impact on how they saw things in the future.”

Beinart names figures like John Bolton and, by implication, others such as Fred and Robert Kagan and Victoria Nuland—individuals who, despite their roles in previous foreign policy blunders, continued to shape U.S. policy in subsequent administrations.

The Stakes: Legal and Political

As the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and International Criminal Court (ICC) prepare to issue rulings on Gaza, Beinart stresses the importance of having public statements on record. Only by compelling former supporters to articulate their reasoning can we ensure that future policymakers are held to account, and that the historical record reflects not just a change in consensus, but the reasons for that change.

“It's especially important that Biden administration officials...be invited and encouraged to come out publicly and say that they were wrong...as opposed to basically do what I think they're doing now, which is...try to avoid the subject...I think it's much better for people to say, 'We would rather you publicly come out and reckon and say why you're wrong,' than...just pretend this didn't happen, because I think that will have an impact on the next Democratic administration...”

A Call for Constructive Engagement

Beinart closes with a reference to Jewish tradition, emphasizing that the opportunity for repentance and public reckoning is a virtue, not a weakness:

“In the Talmud...Rab Abahu...says that in the place where penitents stand, even the most righteous do not stand...One of the reasons that human beings are considered better than angels is because angels don't sin, but human beings do and therefore have the opportunity to do repentance...We are much better off if people are encouraged to publicly come out and say they're wrong and grapple with why they're wrong so that it influences how they think in the future than if people...just quietly slink away from this debate altogether because they realize that their position has been disproven but they don't want to say so out loud.”

Conclusion

Beinart’s message is clear: the end of the Gaza debate in mainstream Western discourse should not be marked by silence and evasion. Instead, it must be an opportunity for public reckoning—a moment when those who once defended the war are pressed to explain themselves, to account for their change of heart, and to help ensure that the lessons of this catastrophe are not lost to history. Only then can there be hope for meaningful accountability and a future less prone to repeating the same tragic mistakes.

 

There Is No "Broligarchy:" What the Musk-Trump Feud Reveals About Authoritarian Trends in Trump's America

 

The Musk-Trump feud isn’t just a clash of egos—it’s a test of whether any elite can resist the gravitational pull of an autocratic presidency.

 

Political scientists call this kind of system “personalism”—where the power and preferences of a single leader override institutions, laws, and even their own party. In a personalist system, loyalty to the individual at the top matters more than rules, ideology, or established norms.

 

The Rise and Fall of the “Broligarchy” Narrative

 

In late 2024, pundits coined the term “broligarchy”—a mashup of “bro” and “oligarchy”—to describe what looked like a new tech-government power bloc. Trump’s return to the White House, paired with the high-profile support of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg, seemed to signal a stable alliance between Silicon Valley and Washington. Musk alone poured $300 million into Trump’s campaign and was rewarded with a powerful, quasi-official government role.

 

But as Trump’s second term unfolds, this narrative is falling apart. Trump’s willingness to sideline, punish, or ignore even his wealthiest backer—Elon Musk, who played a pivotal political and operational role in accomplishing (through DOGE and with his own employees) what Project 2025 had only envisioned: the rapid evisceration of federal agencies—reveals a system not of entrenched oligarchs, but of courtiers whose fortunes depend on the whims of a single leader.

 

How Trump’s Personalism Upended Tech Elite Power

 

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), originally created by Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy and later headed under Trump by Musk as a “special government employee” with quasi-official status, was supposed to bring technocratic discipline to federal agencies. Instead, it became a vehicle for purges and no-bid contracts to loyalists, with Musk’s companies at the center. But this favor was conditional.

 

Though tensions had been mounting for weeks—over tariffs, regulatory moves, and Trump’s abrupt firing of Musk’s handpicked NASA nominee—the feud boiled over when Musk publicly opposed Trump’s signature “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB), calling it a “disgusting abomination”. The fallout was so dramatic that Senator Mike Lee, caught between the two, likened the situation to a child forced to choose between divorcing parents: “But … I really like both of them”.

 

The rupture became unmistakable when Musk, in a post on X, openly called for Trump’s impeachment—a move widely reported and seen as a point of no return in the feud. Musk’s “Yes” reply to a call for impeachment was amplified across social media and news outlets.

 

Musk’s Leverage—and Limits

 

This standoff is more than personal drama. It echoes the early 2000s showdown between Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Vladimir Putin—a moment that defined whether oligarchs could challenge a personalist ruler. Unlike Khodorkovsky, Musk controls assets the U.S. government can’t easily replace: Starlink satellites, SpaceX launches, and a social media megaphone rivaling Trump’s own.

Trump threatened to pull federal contracts; Musk threatened to decommission the Dragon spacecraft, a move that would have immediate consequences for NASA and U.S. space operations. Musk later walked back the threat, but the message was clear: both sides have leverage, and both are willing to use it. As the New York Times put it, Musk’s pushback is “unprecedented in Trumpworld 2.0”.

 

Yet the government’s reliance on Musk is as deep as Musk’s reliance on government contracts. As political analyst Ian Bremmer notes, “Are they really going to [cancel the contracts]? I doubt it, because there aren’t good options.” Bremmer and the latest NYT analysis both point out that while Trump can ramp up regulatory scrutiny or suspend Musk’s security clearance, Musk has already demonstrated his ability to threaten government priorities in return. The result is a precarious mutual dependency, with no easy off-ramp for either side.

 

Why the “Broligarchy” Myth Fails

 

Some commentators, like Evan Osnos, still frame Trump’s America as an oligarchy—rule by billionaires buying access and influence. But the evidence suggests something more volatile: a system where alliances are transactional, outcomes are unpredictable, and even the richest can be discarded for dissent. This is crony capitalism and kleptocracy, yes—but above all, it’s personalism.

Bremmer puts it bluntly: “Rule of law plays no interest. It’s rule of man, rule of one man… That is how you get ahead.” The scale of self-enrichment is staggering, from meme coins to billion-dollar contracts. But as Musk’s experience shows, money alone can’t buy lasting protection in a system ruled by loyalty and personal favor.

 

Institutional Erosion and the Fragility of Power

 

Trump’s personalist style isn’t limited to tech. His administration’s campaign to defund universities and cultural institutions, often by executive fiat, is part of the same pattern. Accusations of “wokeness” or “antisemitism” justify billion-dollar funding freezes, while critics are fired or silenced. The message is clear: autonomy depends on loyalty.

 

Yet, as political science shows, personalist regimes—unlike entrenched oligarchies—are often more fragile. Their power is concentrated but brittle, lacking the deep roots and coalitions that make reversal difficult. Recent reversals in Brazil and Poland suggest that personalist projects, for all their dangers, can be undone if institutions and civil society push back.

 

Conclusion: The Real Stakes

 

The Musk-Trump feud isn’t just about two outsized personalities. It’s a test case for how much power one leader can wield in a system where loyalty trumps law, and whether any elite—no matter how rich or well-connected—can resist.

 

Whether Musk’s challenge sparks a broader elite defection or simply reinforces Trump’s dominance will help determine if America tips further toward personalist rule, or if this era proves reversible. For now, the “broligarchy” looks more like a court of courtiers than a true oligarchy—and the outcome is still very much in play.

 

Endnotes

 

1. Center for a New American Security. “Democracy under Threat: How the Personalization of Political Parties Undermines Democracy.” CNAS Report, June 2023.
2. Broadwater, Luke. “Trump Has Power, a Big Megaphone and Billions to Spend. So Does Musk.” The New York Times, June 6, 2025.
3. Bremmer, Ian. “Elon vs. Trump: Billionaire Fallout Goes Public.” GZERO Media Quick Take, June 6, 2025.
4. Fischer, Sara. “Musk Calls for Trump Impeachment.” Axios, June 5, 2025.
5. “Fact Check: Yes, Musk Shared Post Calling for Trump’s Impeachment.” Yahoo News, June 5, 2025.
6. “Trump’s Former NASA Pick Suggests He Lost Nomination Due to Musk Ties.” Axios, June 4, 2025.
7. “Understanding Personalism in Politics.” Number Analytics, May 24, 2025.
8. Osnos, Evan. “The Billionaires’ Playbook.” The New Yorker, March 3, 2025.
9. “Washington Post Faces Backlash After Bezos’s Editorial Shift.” The Guardian, February 26, 2025.
10. Stelter, Brian. “Mark Zuckerberg’s MAGA Makeover Will Reshape the Internet.” CNN, January 7, 2025.
11. “How Musk Built DOGE: Timeline and Key Takeaways.” New York Times, February 28, 2025.
12. “Tech Giants Secure No-Bid Contracts Under Trump.” Forbes, April 10, 2025.

War spending increases; MAGA builds an American digital deep surveillance state

The Economist reports about global defense spending. The US outspends the next nine largest spenders together.

Budgets totalled $2.7 trillion in 2024, which was up by 9.4% from 2023. That is the biggest jump since at least 1988. But if one does the budget analysis based on military purchasing-power parity (military PPP) instead of raw dollar totals or share of GDP, the US is not so far ahead. A US dollar does not buy as much for the US military as it does for the military in other countries including China, India and Russia. The US gets less bang for its buck compared to other many other countries.

 

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

Multiple warnings have been posted here about the rise and power of China's deep surveillance dictatorship, e.g., here and here. The Chinese dictators are aggressively using aggressive digital surveillance to control (i) their population, (ii) what the Chinese people see, and (iii) what they think about what they see, real or illusion. As best I can tell, this represents the most serious long-term threat to democracy and the health of the human condition. MAGA elites are fully aware of what China has done and why it did it. MAGA elites want to duplicate that in the US and are now aggressively starting to build an equivalent here to what Chinese tyrants have done there.

Mashable writes about the MAGA effort now getting seriously underway to build an authoritarian American deep surveillance state to control us, what wee see and how we think about what we see:

What is Palantir? The secretive tech company behind 

Trump's data collection efforts

Last Friday, the New York Times published an explosive report on the Trump administration's work with Palantir, which could result in the creation of a master database with information on every single American. Per the Times, if this type of "master list" was created, it would give the president "untold surveillance power."

President Donald Trump signed an executive order earlier this year enabling the federal government to share data on Americans across U.S. agencies. However, we now know more about how the administration intends to do it.

djt selected the tech firm Palantir to carry out the government's data consolidation plan. Palantir's technology would will compile sensitive information from agencies like the DHS, ICE, IRS, SSA and other agencies Government databases that include information on bank account numbers, medical claims, disabilities, and student debt amounts will be centralized. Palantir was co-founded by Republican, djt megadonor and radical MAGA authoritarian Peter Thiel.

What MAGA elites intend to do is a lot like China's intrusive authoritarian social control systems. The US counterpart effort will integrate sensitive personal data from agencies into a unified AI-powered platform. MAGA elites ignore warnings from civil liberties advocates and political scientists about the erosion of democratic norms and privacy. They claim this is an effort to reduce waste, fraud and abuse. That is by now the standard excuse for essentially all of the damage to democracy and democratic institutions that djt and MAGA elites have caused since taking power last January.

Former Palantir employees and democracy advocates have cautioned that such platforms could surveil, target, and silence anyone the government disagrees with. The use of Palantir's advanced data analytics capabilities, Peter Thiel's explicitly anti-democratic ideology, and the documented authoritarian tendencies within MAGA politics creates conditions that enables the development of a surveillance state comparable to China's mass monitoring infrastructure.

Thiel's authoritarianism is well-documented. He criticized universal suffrage and advocated for "technological means" to bypass democratic processes, knowing that most Americans do not want what Thiel wants, i.e., a kleptocratic tyranny. He acknowledged his minority position in a 2010 speech (YouTube video of the speech):

"The basic idea was that we could never win an election on getting certain things because we were in such a small minority. But maybe you could actually unilaterally change the world without having to constantly convince people and beg people and plead with people who are never going to agree with you through technological means"

That quote aligns with Thiel’s long-documented objection to democracy. In a 2009 essay, he wrote: "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible." There, he advocated for technological solutions to bypass democratic processes. Make no mistake here, what djt and MAGA elites are doing is building the infrastructure for an authoritarian deep surveillance state just like China has done. This data centralization effort by MAGA elites has nothing to do with cutting waste fraud and abuse. It is only about cutting democracy, rule of law and civil liberties and accumulating wealth and power for chosen elites.

Making a case…

Observe the wonderment of Nature.  It can be an interesting, even educational guidepost to many phenomena we experience in this realm.

Take procreation.  We, in essence, clone a version of ourselves when we procreate.  Granted, the end product is a hybrid of the parent's DNA.  A little from this side, a little from that side, and voila!  You got yourself another person; a physical hybrid variation of yourself.  You could call this a form of reincarnation; to perpetuate, iterate, via procreation.

Many things in Nature "reincarnate/iterate" like that.  Maybe not exactly as before, a total duplicate, but the basics are there.  Organic things beget like organic things; a flower begets a like flower, an animal begets a like animal, etc.

When we humans talk about our definition of reincarnation, we think of a person's "soul" (i.e., who we are) as "moving on" to another version of itself.  Like with procreation, the same, yet different.  Some religions/philosophies believe that if you were a force for good (a human subjective notion) in this life, you ascend in the "hierarchy of existence," to a better "version" of yourself.  If not, you descend in the "chain of existence."  I believe the sages of old have looked to Nature as a guide to the workings of existence and came up with this idea of reincarnation.  IDK, just my suspicion.

We've heard of cases where people under hypnosis have experienced past life regression (PLR).  While "discredited by medical practitioners and experts" (a la Wiki), whether PLR is legit or not, who really knows? (see Copernicus) 😉

All this intro is by way of asking my question:

Question: Assuming the "soul" exists, do you discount reincarnation of the soul?  There are some philosophies that believe it's a real possibility.  Why not?

(by PrimalSoup)

News bits: Russian war toll; Ukraine update; American theocracy update

The Economist reports that Russian military deaths will probably reach 1 million this month, with injuries at ~4 million. The ratio of severely wounded to killed is estimated at about four to one, reflecting both the severity of injuries inflicted in Ukraine and the low priority Russia gives to medical evacuation or the prompt field-hospital treatment that saves lives.

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

On May 29, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth notified Congress that he blocked shipment of proximity fuses for AGR-20 rockets to the Ukraine. The fuses are needed by Ukraine to intercept Russian drones. The fuses are essential for Ukraine’s ability to counter drone attacks. This crippling decision shows djt’s ongoing hostility to the Ukraine, its people's suffering and democracy generally.

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

The Hill reports that the USSC unanimously voted to greatly expand church access to tax dollars, a cherished, high priority goal of American Christian nationalism. In this case, Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, the court allowed a secular charity with links to the Catholic church to avoid paying state unemployment taxes. That overturned a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that denied the tax exemption because the organization does not proselytize or restrict services to Catholics, making it secular. 

This decision is very important because it greatly expanded the scope of religious freedom under the First Amendment. The ruling (1) increases the autonomy of religious organizations to define their missions without state interference, and (2) expands the scope tax exemptions for faith-based entities. Wisconsin estimated that a ruling favoring Catholic Charities might lead 1 million workers to lose unemployment benefits if religious employers withdraw from state programs. That is sufficient to destabilize the state's unemployment fund. This holding decreases state authority to regulate entities claiming religious exemptions. It also potentially creates instability in social safety nets as more charities claim to be religious, whether they are or not, to avoid paying state unemployment taxes. 

The Court’s reasoning elevates religious intent over secular intent when evaluating charitable work. Now we have a two-tiered charity system. The exact same charitable act, e.g., feeding the hungry, is now constitutionally and officially “sacred” in a religious context, but merely “secular” in a secular context.** This legal privileging of religious identity, not the moral or social value of the act itself, defines the core of this theocratic ruling. This further erodes already very weak church-state separation. Overall, this is part of a concerted Christian nationalist effort to completely displace secular charity with religious charity, while undermining social safety nets.

** In other words, this decision looks at the claimed motivation behind charitable acts, not the acts themselves. So, feeding the hungry is deemed “sacred” under the First Amendment if done by Catholic Charities because it is claimed to flow from Catholic social teaching. By contrast, a secular food bank performing the exact same work lacks this legal shield from taxation, even if its commitment to alleviating hunger is equally profound. This is tax law favoring theocracy over secularism, pure and simple.

Q: Should all tax advantages for (1) all religions, (2) all religious charities, or (3) all secular and religious charities be withdrawn?

MAGA hiding inconvenient truth; Partisan chaos in gun safety law; 2024 election subversion?

Politico writes about MAGA elites hiding inconvenient truth, something that is not surprising: 

Trump administration officials delayed and redacted a government forecast because it predicts an increase in the nation’s trade deficit in farm goods later this year, according to two people familiar with the matter. The numbers run counter to President Donald Trump’s messaging that his economic policies, including tariffs, will reduce U.S. trade imbalances. The politically inconvenient data prompted administration officials to block publication of the written analysis normally attached to the report because they disliked what it said about the deficit.

“The report was hung up in internal clearance process and was not finalized in time for its typical deadline,” said USDA spokesperson Alec Varsamis in a statement. “Given this report is not statutory as with many other reports USDA does, the Department is undergoing a review of all of its non-statutory reports, including this one, to determine next steps.”

The published report, released Monday, June 3 but dated May 29. It includes numbers that are unchanged from how they would’ve read in the unredacted report, which is how we know about the redactions.

What might “next steps” be? Getting rid of formal analysis and reporting entirely and replacing that with stuff that MAGA thugs just make up.

There it is, hiding inconvenient truth from the American people, trying to deceive them. djt and MAGA elites have turned the federal government into a machine that whitewashes inconvenient facts and truths. And, they did it in less that 6 months. We can expect this to be the new normal.

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

In a 2022 gun regulation case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the USSC made up something one might call the history and traditions test. It requires gun safety laws to have 18th- or 19th-century analogs to survive 2nd Amendment constitutional challenges. In essence, the Bruen decision forces judges to act as historians rather than arbiters of public safety based on objective criteria such as passing a background check. Not surprisingly, chaos reigns supreme. Judges are not historians, they are judges.

Bruen exemplifies the Federalist Society’s and MAGA’s influence in reshaping judicial priorities. They have replaced replace pragmatic governance with subjective, radical ideological dogma. By requiring courts to litigate history rather than evaluate contemporary harm and social safety, the decision entrenches a form of legal authoritarianism where archaic norms override collective security.

Slate writes about the chaos, pointing out how highly politicized gun safety regulations now are. Courts face irreconcilable splits on age restrictions, felon disarmament, and assault weapon bans. Republican-appointed judges side with gun rights plaintiffs 48% of the time vs. 14% for Democratic appointees. Over 30% of post-Bruen Second Amendment cases resulted in laws being invalidated, including domestic violence restrictions and bans on firearms in post offices. 

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

In an obscure case, Access Newswire reports that a New York state judge is allowing discovery to proceed in a lawsuit that challenges the results of the 2024 election:

NEW CITY, NY / ACCESS Newswire / May 29, 2025 / A seminal case questioning the accuracy of the 2024 Presidential and Senate election results in Rockland County, New York, is moving forward. In open court last Thursday, Judge Rachel Tanguay of the New York Supreme Court, ruled that discovery must proceed, pushing the lawsuit brought by SMART Legislation into the evidence-gathering stage. The lawsuit seeks a full hand recount of the Presidential and U.S. Senate races in Rockland County.

SMART Legislation, the action arm of SMART Elections, is the lead plaintiff in the case. Both organizations are dedicated to ensuring fair and accurate elections.

"There is clear evidence that the senate results are incorrect, and there are statistical indications that the presidential results are highly unlikely," stated Lulu Friesdat, Founder and Executive Director of SMART Legislation. "If the results are incorrect, it is a violation of the constitutional rights of each person who voted in the 2024 Rockland County general election. The best way to determine if the results are correct is to examine the paper ballots in a full public, transparent hand recount of all presidential and senate ballots in Rockland County. We believe it's vitally important, especially in the current environment, to be absolutely confident about the results of the election."

Additionally, a statistician determined that the 2024 presidential election results were statistically highly unlikely in four of the five towns in Rockland County when compared with 2020 results.

Max Bonamente, Ph.D., Professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the author of the textbook, "Statistics and Analysis of Scientific Data," says in an upcoming paper on the Rockland data, "These data would require extreme sociological or political causes for their explanation, and would benefit from further assurances as to their fidelity."

Once again, we see an obscure report of 2024 election irregularity backed by statistical analysis. AP News also reported about this lawsuit. One can only wonder if the 2024 election wasn't rigged on a large scale. Since no one bothered to file dozens of lawsuits like djt did after the 2020 election, we will probably never know.

Q: Is it unreasonable to want to see at least as much effort put into challenging the results of the 2024 elections and there was put into challenging the 2020 elections? If so, why?