I was just taking a gander at our sample ballots for next Tuesday, and lo and behold, Ohio’s finally getting with the program that 23 other states have already adopted.
Yes, we are voting on legalizing marijuana.
Do you think it will pass?
“If passed, the new law would take effect a month after
the election.”
Merry Christmas?
Mike Johnson is the first person to become speaker of the House who can be fairly described as a Christian nationalist, a major development in American history in and of itself. Equally important, however, his ascension reflects the strength of white evangelical voters’ influence on the House Republican caucus, voters who are determined to use the power of government to roll back the civil rights, women’s rights and sexual revolutions.
“Johnson is a clear rebuttal to the overall liberal societal drift that’s happening in the United States,” Ryan Burge, a political scientist at Eastern Illinois University, wrote by email in response to my query. “His views are far out of step with the average American and even with a significant number of Republicans.”Robert Jones, president and founder of the Public Religion Research Institute, described Johnson in an email as “the embodiment of white Christian nationalism in a tailored suit.”
What is Christian nationalism? Christianity Today describes it as the “belief that the American nation is defined by Christianity, and that the government should take active steps to keep it that way. Popularly, Christian nationalists assert that America is and must remain a ‘Christian nation’ — not merely as an observation about American history, but as a prescriptive program for what America must continue to be in the future.”
Johnson’s election as speaker, Jones went on to say, “is one more confirmation that the Republican Party — a party that is 68 percent white and Christian in a country that is 42 percent white and Christian — has embraced its role as the party of white Christian nationalism.”
The MAGA movement, in Podhorzer’s view, was unleashed with the Tea Party movement in 2010, well before Donald Trump emerged as a dominant political figure, and the elevation of Johnson marks the most recent high point in the movement’s acquisition of power: “Mike Johnson becoming speaker is better understood in terms of the ongoing white Christian nationalist takeover of the American government through MAGA,” he writes.
White Christian nationalists, Podhorzer contends, “were once reliable votes and loyal foot soldiers for almost any Republican candidate since the 1970s,” but they “rebelled when John McCain and other establishment Republicans treated Obama’s win as legitimate.”
If one looks at the tactic here, it is clear that the ARR can keep setting up loser scenarios for Dems on many occasions, maybe most of the time. All the ARR forces need to do is package something they like or are neutral to with something they dislike. By forcing Dems to save one thing they want by being forced to sacrifice another, the ARR ratchet takes another step toward its ultimate goals.GOP sets political trap for Democrats with Israel billHouse Democrats will face a tough vote this week when Republicans, led by newly minted Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), consider a $14.3 billion Israel aid bill that includes cuts to IRS funding to pay for the package but no assistance to Ukraine.
The vote is sure to highlight the long-standing chasm between Israel’s staunchest Democratic allies, including President Biden, and pro-Palestinian liberals who have accused Israeli leaders of human rights abuses and war crimes in Gaza. Illustrating that divide, 15 Democrats last week declined to endorse a nonbinding resolution proclaiming U.S. support for Tel Aviv following Hamas’s deadly attacks last month.
But Republicans’ inclusion of the IRS cuts adds an additional complication, forcing the bulk of Democrats into the no-win scenario of sacrificing one priority in defense of another.
House Republicans on Monday unveiled a proposal to pay for emergency aid for Israel’s war against Hamas by cutting IRS funds aimed at cracking down on rich tax cheats and improving taxpayer service.
The legislation, released by the House Rules Committee, calls for approving roughly $14 billion primarily in military aid to Israel and cutting about the same amount from the IRS budget. President Biden has proposed giving Israel roughly the same amount in aid but did not call for offsetting cuts to other parts of the budget.
The legislation reflects the GOP’s ongoing determination to undo the IRS expansion that Biden secured in 2022 in the Inflation Reduction Act, which boosted the agency’s funding by $80 billion to improve taxpayer services and pay for more enforcement actions against wealthy tax cheats. Biden and House Republicans agreed to repeal roughly $20 billion of that $80 billion as part of a deal in May to suspend the U.S. debt ceiling. Now, Republicans are pushing for more reductions.
The GOP bill would pare back funds for most parts of the IRS expansion, including increased enforcement and a new online portal to allow taxpayers to file their taxes for free directly with the government.
Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) said he was disowned by his family after he left Congress and “lost the trust” of Fox News host Sean Hannity.
“So, I had family that sent a certified letter disowning me,” Kinzinger said in a CNN interview Monday. “They said I’ve lost the trust of great men like Sean Hannity, which is funny, but they believe that. They said I was a member of the devil’s army.”
Mike Johnson’s Wife Takes Down Website ThatCompared Being Gay To Bestiality, IncestHuffPost first reported on Kelly Johnson's counseling service that likens LGBTQ+ people to people who have sex with animals and family members
House Speaker Mike Johnson’s wife took down the website for her company, Onward Christian Counseling Services, a day after HuffPost pointed to documents on the site that compared homosexuality to bestiality and incest.
HuffPost reported Friday that Kelly Johnson, the wife of the Louisiana Republican and newly elected speaker, is owner and CEO of Onward Christian Counseling Services, which promotes Bible-based pastoral counseling. Her website featured a link to its 2017 operating agreement, which lays out the company’s corporate bylaws ― and states that the business is grounded in the belief that sex is offensive to God if it is not between a man and a woman married to each other.
Johnson is a Trump-loving, election-denying, abortion ban-supporting, gay rights-opposing, climate change-rejecting, and conspiracy-believing conservative. If House Democrats are smart, they will turn Mike Johnson into a household name — though not in a good way.
But in selecting Johnson, Republicans made one small error — they failed to vet him.
If they had, they’d have discovered that he was Democrats’ dream speaker candidate. On practically every issue on which House Republicans will be vulnerable in 2024, Johnson takes an extreme, maximalist position. For any GOP candidates in a close race, and especially the 18 House Republicans running in congressional districts President Biden won in 2020, he will be a political albatross.
MAGA Mike Johnson Once Warned About Dangersof Living Under DemocracyRepublicans’ new House speaker tried to warn people about why democracy isn’t actually good
House Speaker Mike Johnson turned heads on Monday when a website hosting his podcast and church sermons suddenly vanished. Still, Johnson hasn’t been able to completely scrub his prior social media presence, with some evidence of his lectures still floating around online, including a three-hour sermon organized by his wife’s ministry that blasts the newly elected’s Christian fundamentalism.
The contents of his evangelical musings—which he apparently wants to hide—offer revealing details about the little-known congressman, including that he doesn’t really believe in democracy.
“By the way, the United States is not a democracy. Do you know what a democracy is? Two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. You don’t want to be in a democracy. Majority rule: not always a good thing,” Johnson said at the First Baptist Church of Haughton, Louisiana, in 2019.
Johnson has also attacked the idea of social services, claiming that the only entity entitled to provide care is the church, not the government.
A trademark fight at the Supreme Court will dredge up a viral moment during the 2016 Republican presidential primary.
WASHINGTON (CN) — A lawyer wants the Supreme Court to allow him to profit from making fun of former President Donald Trump.
This coming week, Steve Elster’s fight to trademark “Trump too small” on T-shirts will be argued in front of the nine justices — three of which were nominated to the high court by the very man Elster seeks to gibe.
The joke traces its origins to the 2016 U.S. presidential primaries, when the size of Trump’s hands turned into a national joke. Senator Marco Rubio was seemingly unimpressed with Trump’s characterization of him as “Little Marco,” throwing out his own insult.
“You know what they say about men with small hands,” Rubio quipped during a campaign stop.
Trump took the liberty of clearing the issue up at the next presidential debate.
“I guarantee you there’s no problem,” Trump said while showing his hands to the audience.
The viral moment inspired Elster to create shirts and hats emblazoned with “Trump too small.” Alongside the double entendre, Elster planned to include an illustration of a derogatory hand gesture as political commentary about “the smallness of Donald Trump’s overall approach to governing as president of the United States.”
Although those involved in the matter might appreciate the Supreme Court’s seal of approval over who bested the other, the justices are unlikely to comment on the debacle.
“Despite outward appearances, this case is really not about Trump or the size of his policies or (body parts),” Fara Sunderji, a trademark attorney with Dorsey & Whitney, said.
Instead, the justices’ arguments on Wednesday will cover the intersection between trademark law, the First Amendment, and rights to privacy.
Elster wanted to trademark his idea and although it was unique, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied his request. The government cited a section of trademark law that prohibits marks on public officials' names without their consent. According to the government, this is a way to avoid confusing customers who might think the shirt was connected to Trump himself.
Although Elster argued the message on the shirt should be enough to tell customers Trump had no hand in making the product, the appeals board still denied Elster’s mark because it needed to protect Trump’s rights to privacy and publicity.
The federal circuit did not see eye to eye with that reasoning, reversing and finding that Elster’s free speech rights had been violated.
The government appealed to the Supreme Court, asking if the First Amendment is violated when the patent office refuses to offer trademarks that contain criticism of a government official. According to the government, the patent office uses a viewpoint-neutral condition when offering trademarks.
“As a viewpoint-neutral bar on federal trademark registration, Section 1052(c) is a condition on a government benefit, not a restriction on speech,” U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote. “Refusal of registration under Section 1052(c) does not limit the rights of trademark owners to use their marks in commerce or to engage in whatever speech they wish. The only effect of the refusal is to deny an owner the benefits — i.e., additional mechanisms to prevent use of the same mark by competitors — that federal registration provides.”
Elster says Congress’ desire to protect important people’s names has allowed them to avoid criticism.
“So, under the clause, JOE 2020 has been registered, but not ‘No Joe in 2024,’” Jonathan Taylor, an attorney with Gupta Wessler representing Elster, wrote. “HILLARY FOR AMERICA has also been registered. But not ‘Hillary for Prison 2016.’ And BIDEN PRESIDENT is registered, while ‘Impeach 46’ was denied.”
Both sides of the aisle argue siding with the other stifles speech. The government says allowing these kinds of trademarks will chill speech by giving one person a monopoly over the criticism
“The anomalous effect of the court of appeals’ decision is to vest respondent with a First Amendment right to prevent others from speaking and to obtain the government’s assistance in that endeavor, notwithstanding Congress’s decision to exclude respondent’s own mark from eligibility for the benefits that federal registration confers,” Prelogar wrote. “And it is particularly strange to treat the political character of respondent’s message as a factor supporting that result.”
Elster argues that not receiving a trademark because of the content of his speech is itself an effort to chill speech.
“Because no one would ever consent to the registration of speech that insults them, the clause effectively precludes the registration of all marks that disparage or criticize living people,” Wessler wrote. “That viewpoint-based effect only further reinforces the need for scrutiny.”
The Motion Picture Association of America weighed in on the debate, urging the justices to avoid a broad ruling that could stifle its ability to create expressive works.
“If people could wield the right of publicity as a veto against their depiction in expressive works, then filmmakers would be required to obtain the consent of every living person they portray on film, likely by paying them for the privilege,” Susan Kohlmann, an attorney with Jenner & Block representing the group, wrote. “Some individuals wouldn’t grant permission at any price, rendering certain works about real people impossible to make.”
The justices will hear oral arguments in the case on Nov. 1.
