A TTKP platform reveals a mountain of dirty laundry; Going woke about Christian nationalism

The intercept reports about unpopular and damaging TTKP (Trump Tyranny & Kleptocracy Party) policy proposals that are revealed in a 180-page austerity manifesto entitled Fiscal Sanity to Save America: 

HOUSE REPUBLICANS WANT TO BAN 

UNIVERSAL FREE SCHOOL LUNCHES

The Republican Study Committee’s annual budget also calls to permanently defund UNRWA and eliminate the National Labor Relations Board

ON WEDNESDAY, THE Republican Study Committee, of which some three-quarters of House Republicans are members, released its 2025 budget entitled “Fiscal Sanity to Save America.” Tucked away in the 180-page austerity manifesto is a block of text concerned with a crucial priority for the party: ensuring children aren’t being fed at school.

Eight states offer all students, regardless of household income, free school meals — and more states are trending in the direction. But while people across the country move to feed school children, congressional Republicans are looking to stop the cause.

The budget — co-signed by more than 170 House Republicans — calls to eliminate “the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) from the School Lunch Program.” The CEP, the Republicans note, “allows certain schools to provide free school lunches regardless of the individual eligibility of each student.”

This year, the Biden administration further expanded the CEP, allowing another estimated 3,000 school districts to serve students breakfast and lunch at no cost.

Instead of universality, the RSC suggests sending block grants for child nutrition programs to states, to give them “needed flexibility” to “promote the efficient allocation of funds to those who need it most,” while avoiding “widespread fraud.”

Republicans however view the universal version of the policy as fundamentally wasteful. The “school lunch and breakfast programs are subject to widespread fraud and abuse,” reads the RSC’s proposed yearly budget, quoting a report from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. The Cato report blames people who may “improperly” redeem free lunches, even if they are technically above the income cutoff levels. The “fraudulence” the think tank is concerned about is not some shadowy cabals of teachers systematically stealing from the school lunch money pot: It’s students who are being fed, even if their parents technically make too much to benefit from the program. In other words, Republicans’ opposition to the program is based on the assumption that people being “wrongly” fed at school is tantamount to abusive waste.

“If the program is designed to offer free meals to all students,” FitzSimons said, “that question about fraud really disappears if you’re allowed to serve every single child.”

Regarding global warming, the manifesto actually uses the words “climate” and “environment” indicating a major shift that at least acknowledges the existence of a disputed issue. Nonetheless, none of those mentions has anything to do with addressing climate change or protecting the environment. The manifesto opposes a carbon tax and proposed (i) giving oil and gas companies deductions for labor and safety costs and increasing oil, and gas projects on federal lands, and (ii) defunding the Environmental Protection Agency.

The TTKP intends to undercut or block a slew of gun regulations such as “defunding the constitutionally dubious red flag provisions in the so-called Bipartisan Safer Communities Act” (gutting gun safety laws). More bullets will be flying free and wild in American society. 

Other radical TTKP budget priorities include (i) eliminating all future funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which provides aid to Palestinian refugees and getting rid of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau  (gutting consumer’s protections); (ii) reducing funding for the famously under-supported Occupational Safety and Health Administration (gutting worker’s protections); and (iii) eliminating the National Labor Relations Board (gutting worker’s protections).

No wonder the TTKP has been reluctant to publish a document like this. Most of its policy goals are opposed by most Americans, including most pro-democracy and pro-civil liberties citizens.

I am just a happy guy gutting school lunches and 

gun safety laws while promoting more global warming!!

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

Mother Jones has apparently gone woke about Christian nationalism, unless it already was woke and I missed it:

It’s a Good Time to Start Worrying About Christian Nationalism

In response to rising concern among liberals and others about the spread of Christian nationalism, conservative voices have been pressing a counterattack, claiming all this fretting is just lefty hysteria from secularists who are not willing to acknowledge the role of Christianity in American society and who want to brand all politically active Christians as extremists. Last year, the far-right Heritage Foundation published an article declaring that Christian nationalism is a term “mostly used as a smear against conservative Christians who defend the role of religion in American public life” and that the “lack of standard definition allows critics to bundle evils like white supremacy and racism with standard conservative views on marriage, family, and politics.”

By now, you’ve heard of Project 2025, the enterprise established by the Heritage Foundation and other right-wing outfits to both set a radical-right agenda for a possible second Trump term and recruit Dear Leader loyalists for government posts in that administration. As I’ve noted, this venture has cooked up plans and measures with an authoritarian bent. It also has been preparing to inject Christian nationalist ideas into a Trump 2.0 presidency.

The anti-anti-Christian nationalists’ effort to cast libs as the-sky-is-falling worrywarts is either naive or a purposeful effort to deflect attention from this threat to civil society. And though it usually is best to avoid dependence on one data point, allow me to zero in on a single tweet that appeared recently to highlight the danger.

Following President Joe Biden’s recent State of the Union speech, William E. Wolfe, a midlevel official at the Pentagon and the State Department during the Trump administration and a Christian nationalism advocate, tweeted out his response. Here it is in full:

My response to the #SOTU:

We need to see the deeper spiritual realities at play. This ain’t just a political fight, it’s a spiritual war. Heaven and Hell are real. Demons exist.

And there are two main demons being worshipped in America right now:

1) Molech, who demands child sacrifice (abortion)

2) Baphomet, whose demonic goat-like representation is gender-bending (LGBTQIA+) The “Equality Act” and “Reproductive Rights” aren’t just “policies” that the radical Left/Democrats support

They are sacraments, acts of worship to their demon gods

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:12

It’s time for Christians to call on America to repent of our idol worship of demons and return to the One True Living God and His Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ

Maybe God raise up more idol smashers for our days yet. 

This tweet illustrates a basic component of Christian nationalism: spiritual warfare. That’s the notion that all that transpires in our world is a manifestation of the mammoth and eternal clash between God and Satan. The tussle over abortion is not an argument between fellow citizens with conflicting views on bodily autonomy or the question of when life begins; it is a battle between Jesus and Lucifer. Consequently, those who support reproductive freedom are demons or, at the least, in league with or controlled by demons. 

Wolfe sees the political opposition to Trump, Christian fundamentalism, and conservatism as literally a satanic force. How then can he and his comrades expect to have civil discourse with it?

Ah, Molech and Baphomet. They’re sneaky stinkers. We gotta watch out for ’em. 👀

Not really. We gotta watch out for freak TTKP Christian nationalists. 

Breaking news: DJT may have been bailed out by investors who now presumably own him

Various sources are reporting that DJT has probably managed to weasel his way out of economic collapse in the face of lawsuits. The Hill reports:

Shareholders of Digital World Acquisition Corp. (DWAC) approved a merger with former President Trump’s media startup on Friday, teeing up Truth Social’s stock market debut and a potential $3.5 billion windfall for Trump.

The long-delayed merger between the blank check company and Trump Media & Technology Group received regulatory approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) last month.

Trump stands to make about $3.5 billion from the deal, given the nearly 79 million shares he would control in the newly merged company.

It is reasonable to think that relevant investors now own DJT, including if he gets re-elected. The deal seem to be bogus because the underlying asset, Truth Social, is worthless crap, as the WaPo reports:

The merger will net Trump Media $300 million that Digital World initially raised from investors. Trump’s allies and company executives will also be granted bundles of shares in the new company that could be worth millions of dollars. But trading on the stock market will also open the company to more public scrutiny, and any drops in share prices would affect the value of those stakes.

Critics have said Trump Media is a “meme stock” with a more than $6 billion valuation they say is out of sync with its financial outlook. Trump Media lost $49 million in the first nine months of last year and brought in $3.4 million in revenue, Digital World said in an SEC filing.

A lockup provision in the merger agreement will also prevent Trump and other major investors from selling their shares for six months unless he is granted a waiver by the post-merger company’s board.

That could limit Trump’s ability to use the windfall to help pay off the hundreds of millions of dollars he owes in legal judgments. Trump does not have the cash to secure a bond that would delay enforcement of the $464 million judgment in a New York fraud case, his lawyers said. If he does not post a bond by Monday, the state’s attorney general could move to seize his bank accounts, real estate and other assets.

Any lockup change or waiver will be decided by the post-merger company’s board, which will be stocked with Trump allies, an SEC filing shows. The board’s nominees include Trump’s oldest son, Donald Trump Jr.; Trump’s former trade representative, Robert E. Lighthizer; Linda McMahon, who headed the Small Business Administration under Trump; and Kash Patel, who served on Trump’s National Security Council.  

The post-merger company, which will be called Trump Media, could begin trading on the Nasdaq stock exchange as soon as Monday under the ticker symbol of Trump’s initials, DJT.

How on Earth could serious money be invested in this particular small, long-standing money losing social media asset? It lost $49 million on $3.4 million in revenue over a 9 month period. There very likely is a hidden quid pro quo going on here. It will be kept secret from us, very likely involving nepotism, cronyism, bribery, corruption and/or treason.

The company’s corrupt board will probably approve a waiver to allow DJT to sell stock now, presumably causing stock price to crash. Whether there is enough time for DJT to save his assets from court seizure is not clear to me. Today is Friday and DJT has to post a bond by Monday. Stock does not start trading until Monday, leaving DJT essentially no time to sell stock and post a bond to protect his real estate assets.

There is some speculation that DJT has raised bond money from people or sources he refuses to disclose. One source posits that corrupt Saudi thugs and/or corrupt Russian oligarchs are possible buyers of DJT.

A New York state trial court judge applies cognitive biology: The hunting humans analogy

The 14 minute video posted below presents the most cognitive biology and social behavior-attuned legal reasoning I am aware of in response to the poison that social media routinely promotes and spreads for profit. The legal argument is presented in the legal framework of products liability law (defective products liability). That is one of the few legal avenues available to try to attack toxic social media. 

This may be the first time a products liability attack has been tried. But the underlying rationale is science-based. The trial court speaks of minds and radicalization. Those are things not usually discussed in commerce and politics for damned good reasons in the eyes of the rich, powerful or ideologically radicalized. Social media hate speech and lies is the product that is defective when it radicalizes and weaponized minds and that leads poisoned minds to kill or injure others.

Key things to pay attention to in this video: 

• Legal reasoning: Hate and radicalizing speech are a product on social media platforms. That product is promoted to increase profit. The profit motive allows one to connect the product with defective products liability law, thereby avoiding a free speech defense by social media owners. The radicalizing content here is argued to be beyond protected free speech.

• Section 230 of the Communications Act has two key provisions. One is a shield that protects social media companies from liability for the content on the platform that social media users post. The other provision, and this one is widely ignored by social media and the MSM, social media is shielded by a Good Samaritan clause that shields it from liability for removing content that social media platform controllers deem to be objectionable. In other words, social media controllers are not obligated to take down hate or radicalizing speech (or any other kind of speech), but if they do they are protected from liability.

Will this hold up on appeal? It just might!!

The social media companies in this lawsuit tried but failed to get this case moved to federal court. That might be the basis on which this decision hold up on appeal. If  the case is based on state law, the USSC might not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal. The video says that this case is trapped in New York state courts and it cannot be appealed to the USSC due to federalism and jurisdiction limits.

Perplexity comments on this key point: The US Supreme Court generally does not have jurisdiction to review a state court decision that rests on an adequate, independent state ground, even if the state court incorrectly decided a federal question. This limitation is due to federalism principles and the jurisdictional requirements of Article III of the US Constitution, which mandate an actual "case or controversy" for federal courts to intervene. Therefore, when a state court's judgment is based on a nonfederal ground that is sufficient to support the decision, the US Supreme Court will not review it.

But, if this can be appealed to the USSC. My estimate is that there is about a 96% chance the decision will be reversed on appeal by at least a 5-4 majority. If nothing else, the six TTKP (Trump Tyranny & Kleptocracy Party)-dominated USSC will not tolerate legal reasoning that threatens social conscience-free capitalism. Those judges are plutocrats. Plutocrats hate all business regulations and any whiff of social conscience that gets in the way of profit.  I am unsure of how the three Dem judges on the USSC would decide if this case ever gets into the USSC for a decision.

In my opinion, the trial court judge here got it exactly right. But plutocratic, brass knuckles capitalist TTKP USSC judges will try hard to concoct a way take the case and protect huge social media corporations. If the radical USSC authoritarians can’t weasel their way into asserting jurisdiction, this state court decision could be a really huge thing. It could wind up saving lives, and maybe even our democracy and civil liberties.

My thanks to Larry Motuz for bringing this video to my attention.

House TTKP members shield Kushner; Christian criminality

Mediaite reports that House TTKP (Trump Tyranny & Kleptocracy Party) members blithely rejected a motion to investigate Jared Kushner business dealings with a murdering Saudi Prince:

Six months after exiting the White House, Kushner’s private equity firm Affinity Partners received a $2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund over the objections of the fund’s advisers. They were overruled by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who had developed a close relationship with Kushner.

The Oversight Committee convened on Wednesday for another hearing on Hunter Biden and his business dealings that Republicans say illicitly benefitted his father President Joe Biden. Despite investigating the matter for more than a year, the committee has turned up no proof.

During the hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said Kushner had done “good work” as White House adviser when he helped forge the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and the states of Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.

“Of course, the Democrats don’t wanna admit that,” Jordan said.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) followed by making a motion to subpoena Kushner.

“Mr. Chairman, I have a motion,” he told Chair James Comer (R-KY). “I have a motion. I would move… that the committee issue a subpoena to Jared Kushner to compel testimony related to the $2 billion collected from Saudi Arabia after his service within the White House.”

After the motion was seconded, Jordan moved to table – or kill – the motion.

“Move to table the motion,” he said.

Once again, we see TTKP hypocrisy in defense of indefensible corruption. The moral rot is deep and out in the open.

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Citing research that is behind a paywall, the Friendly Atheist reports about worldwide Christian criminality that recent research turned up:

Researchers say Christian leaders will 

embezzle an estimated $86 billion in 2024

In 2024, Christian leaders around the world will embezzle an estimated $86 billion from their followers.

That “ecclesiastical crime” will jump to approximately $390 billion by 2050, according to researchers Dr. Gina Zurlo, Dr. Todd Johnson, and Peter Crossing at the Center for the Study of Global Christianity, part of the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

The numbers are tucked away in a larger report about global Christianity published in the January issue of the International Bulletin of Mission Research.

The Christian ministry watchdog group Trinity Foundation summarized the problem this way:

Ecclesiastical crimes take on many forms such as skimming from an offering plate, restricted donation fraud (diverting mission donations to a personal expense account), and international cash smuggling.

Televangelists have transferred funds across international borders on private jets and failed to report these transactions resulting in “bulk cash smuggling.”

We know these sorts of shenanigans occur because, frequently, Christian leaders are arrested for financial crimes. It’s incredibly hard, however, to pinpoint exactly how much crime occurs under the veil of Christianity. That can be blamed on everything from the fact that churches don’t have to file financial reports with the IRS, to the fact that they often blame crime on everything but religion, to the fact that they may not want to go public about [fleecing the flock]. In many ways, it’s like tracking sales in a black market; the very nature of how they operate—out of public sight—makes it hard to quantify.  

[In an earlier 2015 paper, the researchers] calculated, if Christians around the world gave $850.9 billion to charity and $773.5 billion to Christian causes specifically, that would suggest about $50 billion and $46 billion, respectively, “lost to fraud and embezzlement.”  

In the newer 2024 paper, with updated numbers, the researchers say that Christians all over the world will give about $1.3 trillion to Christian causes… which would result in about $86 billion lost to ecclesiastical crime.

By 2050, they estimate, the $5.2 trillion given to Christian causes could lead to $390 billion lost to fraud.

I have pointed out repeatedly that core goals of the corrupt American Christian nationalism wealth and power movement includes (ii) get taxpayers to pay for all religious operations, and (ii) replace all (100%) secular public schools with religious schools, also paid for by taxpayers. This research on theft by Christians is in synch with the larger Christian nationalist goal of raiding the US treasury to pay for Christian operations and social indoctrination via schools. 

Like Austin Texas…

...I’m an out-of-place blueberry in a bowl of Ohio tomato soup… and I know it. 😁

Here’s my question: Why do they (my politically “deep red” Ohio district) make us, well me, vote at a church when there is supposed to be separation of church and state?   

Yes, I grant you, there is a workaround.  I could do mail-in voting to solve the (my) “separation” problem, if I find it that egregious.

But that’s not what I’m getting at here.  I’m honing in on the Constitution’s “separation of church and state” angle/clause.  Indeed, I’m talking about the unabashed opposite; the “adjoining” of the church (religion) and the state (government). Constitutionally speaking, the “merging of the two” doesn’t seem on the up-and-up to me, but…. 🤷‍♀️.

Some more interesting questions:

• Do you know if churches bid on the right to be a voting precinct/location?  How does that work exactly?  Are some of them in cahoots with/have special connections to the Board of Elections or whomever decides on the designated polling places? Could it be a case of, “Friends don't let friends drive drunk go churchless?” 😉

• What if the voter is a Christian and their designated voting site in a Mosque or Synagogue?  Would there be any need for the Christian to be “riled up” over that?  How about a Muslim or a Jew voting in some Christian-denomination church?  No one should be offended in any way?  It’s just one of the “bad brakes” in life (win some, lose some)?  Or, is the discomfort one may feel (of having to go into a facility that is against their own belief/non-belief principles) just being overly sensitive/overreacting?  Not being woke enough?

• If you are an atheist, which many here claim to be, how do YOU feel about having to vote in a church environment?  Not give it any serious thought?  Or, just hold your nose and do it, no questions asked?  Be an in-and-out burger (in…vote…out ⚡) as fast as you can.  No lollygagging and you’ll emerge unscathed from any unwelcomed influence. Whew!  Dodged that one!!

• If a religious facility hosts a voting location, should that facility be allowed to lay out guilt-riddled, religion-related pamphlets right by the front door, so you can’t possibly miss them (as the church I voted at Tuesday did)?  Or say, hold a bake sale in the lobby all during voting hours, as a (let’s call it) reward/perk for hosting the voting event?  Is it a kind of “to the victor go the spoils” thing, allowing/permitting the church site to take monetary advantage of the situation, in order to “bulk up/pad” the church's coffers)? 😮

**** 

Okay, okay, that was just a bunch of rhetorical grouchbox-ery, and I know that too; my mind working overtime, making a political mountain out of a little pile of religious molehill dirt, and probably more like something I posted for your reading “amusement.”  (It was. 😊)

Life is complicated and full of complicated people and situations. IOW somebody, somewhere, isn’t gonna like the outcome of “whatever the case may be.” That’s never going away.  As a doctor once told me about my TMJ, “Why don’t you just learn to live with it?”  And that’s what I’ve done.  It’s like learning to live with left-handedness in a mostly right-handed world.  Whaterya gonna do?

No, I post this OP mostly as food for (your) thought, and not to stir up trouble.  Answer the questions if you like, no pressure or expectations.  Your prerogative.  Else, just think about them in private.  That’s good enough, as far as I’m concerned.  "Thinking" is a great benefit/blessing/perk/etc. for those of us with full bellies.  Take advantage of our luck-of-the-draw birth situation.

Just some more FWThey'reW concepts to ponder, in our never-ending struggle for that elusive “more perfect union.”

(by PrimalSoup)

Misinformation & birth control: What are the deceivers called?

The poisonous influence of dark free speech on social media is finding its way into seemingly unexpected things. The WaPo writes (not behind paywall) about social media exploiting public ignorance to trick women into making sometimes catastrophic mistakes:

Women are getting off birth control amid misinformation explosion

Search for birth control on TikTok or Instagram and a cascade of misleading videos vilifying hormonal contraception appear: Young women blaming their weight gain on the pill. Right-wing commentators claiming that some birth control can lead to infertility. Testimonials complaining of depression and anxiety.

Instead, many social media influencers recommend “natural” alternatives, such as timing sex to menstrual cycles — a less effective birth-control method that doctors warn could result in unwanted pregnancies in a country where abortion is now banned or restricted in nearly half the states.

While doctors say hormonal contraception — which includes birth-control pills and intrauterine devices (IUDs) — is safe and effective, they worry the profession’s long-standing lack of transparency about some of the serious but rare side effects has left many patients seeking information from unqualified online communities.

The backlash to birth control comes at a time of rampant misinformation about basic health tenets amid poor digital literacy and a wider political debate over reproductive rights, in which far-right conservatives argue that broad acceptance of birth control has altered traditional gender roles and weakened the family.

Physicians and researchers say little data is available about the scale of this new phenomenon, but anecdotally, more patients are coming in with misconceptions about birth control fueled by influencers and conservative commentators.

“People are putting themselves out there as experts on birth control and speaking to things that the science does not bear out,” said Michael Belmonte, an OB/GYN in D.C. and a family planning expert with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). “I am seeing those direct failures of this misinformation.”

How many people are out there willing to knowingly lie on social media and mislead ignorant people into making tragic mistakes like this, ~5% of the population? What are those people called, disinformers or just liars? What about people who think they know things, but are wrong and unknowingly spread falsehoods that lead others to make tragic mistakes, misinformers or fools?