A new kind of online attack; Biden's arrogant cluelessness; Regarding the prospects of significant civil unrest

Social media just keeps getting more toxic. The NYT reports:

Students Target Teachers in Group TikTok Attack, 

Shaking Their School

Seventh and eighth graders in Malvern, Pa., impersonating their teachers posted disparaging, lewd, racist and homophobic videos in the first known mass attack of its kind in the U.S.

In February, Patrice Motz, a veteran Spanish teacher at Great Valley Middle School in Malvern, Pa., was warned by another teacher that trouble was brewing.

Some eighth graders at her public school had set up fake TikTok accounts impersonating teachers. Ms. Motz, who had never used TikTok, created an account.

She found a fake profile for @patrice.motz, which had posted a real photo of her at the beach with her husband and their young children. “Do you like to touch kids?” a text in Spanish over the family vacation photo asked. “Answer: Sí.”

In the days that followed, some 20 educators — about one quarter of the school’s faculty — discovered they were victims of fake teacher accounts rife with pedophilia innuendo, racist memes, homophobia and made-up sexual hookups among teachers. Hundreds of students soon viewed, followed or commented on the fraudulent accounts.

The biggest fallout has been for teachers like Ms. Motz, who said she felt “kicked in the stomach” that students would so casually savage teachers’ families. The online harassment has left some teachers worried that social media platforms are helping to stunt the growth of empathy in students. Some teachers are now hesitant to call out pupils who act up in class. Others said it had been challenging to keep teaching.

“It was so deflating,” said Ms. Motz, who has taught at the school, in a wealthy Philadelphia suburb, for 14 years. “I can’t believe I still get up and do this every day.”

The Great Valley incident is the first known group TikTok attack of its kind by middle schoolers on their teachers in the United States. It’s a significant escalation in how middle and high school students impersonate, troll and harass educators on social media.  

“Move on. Learn to joke,” [one] student said about a teacher. “I am 13 years old,” she added, using an expletive for emphasis, “and you’re like 40 going on 50.”

Ah yes, insightful wisdom from a foul mouthed 13 year old monster. Learn how to take a joke, you dumbass adults. See what SM-DFS (social media and dark free speech) hook-ups can do to innocents? But of course, these are just children expressing their inner child. For them, SM-DFS hook-ups are fun and easy. For American society and democracy, those toxic hook-ups are harmful.

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

I have been arguing that it is probably too late to replace Joe Biden. For example, radical right authoritarians are threatening lawsuits if he is replaced. Those lawsuits and appeals cannot be settled before the election. But Joe's shockingly arrogant comments in the ABC interview got me to dislike him even more:

President Biden indicated in an interview with ABC News Friday that he would be at peace if he lost to former President Trump "as long as I gave it my all."  

"If you stay in and Trump is elected and everything you're warning about comes to pass, how will you feel in January?" Stephanopoulos asked Biden."I'll feel, as long as I gave it my all, and I did as good a job as I know I can do, that's what this is about," the president responded.

At other points in the interview, Biden repeatedly denied that his approval rating could be as low as 36%, that elected Democrats want him to step aside, and that the presidential race is anything but a "toss-up."

Apparently Joe still doesn't get it. This election isn't about him. It is about democracy, the rule of law and our civil liberties. If he loses, we lose far more than just a bump against his ego and thick skin. We lose everything if he loses. Feeling good about doing one's best and failing to Trump is a total oxymoron for normal people. Our democracy hangs by a thread and arrogant Joe still doesn't get it. 

Update: The news articles calling for Joe to step down are relentless and numerous. It is starting to look like his candidacy is no longer tenable. I'm still not sure that a candidacy by another Democrat is tenable either, but that seems to be a non-issue with the often snotty cognoscenti. The asymmetry in reporting about Biden vs DJT remains galaxy-sized. Everyone is calling for Joe to get out, but almost no one is calling for the far more unfit DJT to get out. The Hill comments:

“I wimped out in today’s column and deleted a line saying he should formulate a plan to transition the presidency to [Vice President] Harris within 30-60 days, but I’m there now,” Silver said. “Something is clearly wrong here.” .... “The most generous way to put it is that he doesn’t seem in command, and that’s an extremely hard sell when you’re Commander in Chief,” Silver said.

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

A couple of articles comment on prospects for civil unrest and violence violence. One comments:

Trump's Far-Right Army Is Threatening Bloodshed. 

Believe Them.

We must not only resist, but prevail. If we do not, it will be nearly impossible to reverse the course that America’s right-wing billionaires have set us on

Kevin Roberts, who heads the Heritage Foundation (largely responsible for Project 2025) just implicitly threatened Americans that if we don’t allow him and his hard-right movement to complete their transformation of America from a democratic republic into an authoritarian state, there will be blood in the streets.

“We’re in the process of taking this country back,” he told a TV audience, adding:

“The reason that they are apoplectic right now, the reason that so many anchors on MSNBC, for example, are losing their minds daily is because our side is winning. And so I come full circle on this response and just want to encourage you with some substance that we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”

Another source points out that threats from America's authoritarian radical right wealth and power movement are completely explicit (and just as irrational and unwarranted, IMHO):

MAGA Gov Candidate’s Ugly, Hateful Rant: “Some Folks Need Killing!”

“Some folks need killing!” Mark Robinson, [North Carolina’s] lieutenant governor, shouted during a roughly half-hour-long speech in Lake Church in the tiny town of White Lake, in the southeast corner of the state. “It’s time for somebody to say it. It’s not a matter of vengeance. It’s not a matter of being mean or spiteful. It’s a matter of necessity!”

Robinson’s call for the “killing” of “some folks” came during an extended diatribe in which he attacked an extraordinary assortment of enemies. These ranged from “people who have evil intent” to “wicked people” to those doing things like “torturing and murdering and raping” to socialists and Communists.

Despite Robinson’s contrary claims, what he argues for clearly is a matter of murder and vengeance, and being brutal and spiteful in the process. It is not a matter of necessity.

Analysis of the demise of the Chevron defense

Germaine: When people like Milton here get rid of regulations,

there are no pro-public interest rules of the game, 

only legalized greed, opacity, deception and fraud are left

A week or two ago, the USSC decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo nullified the Chevron defense that the USSC established in 1984. The “Chevron deference,” generally required courts to defer to the expertise of federal experts when regulations were challenged in court. Now after the Loper Bright decision, the USSC pushed federal experts and their regulations out of the picture. The USSC took power for itself to decide what regulations are acceptable and what regulations are invalid. This USSC will decide the fate of regulations in a political framework dedicated to establishing a plutocratic and Christian theocratic authoritarian kleptocracy.

With this radicalized Republican  court, Loper Bright constitutes a massive shift in power from the federal government and the public interest (consumer protections, worker protections, financial regulations, environmental regulations, health care regulations, marketing regulations, etc.) to radical right authoritarian elites and businesses. This USSC decision seriously empowers the rise of kleptocratic authoritarianism. 

Experts are starting to write about the consequences of Loper Bright. The WaPo writes (not paywalled):

Now legal scholars are unsure how much of the U.S.’s administrative framework — decisions made by legions of experts and bureaucrats responsible for the daily operations of the federal government — could fall in the months and years to come.

“It means chaos,” said Dorothy A. Brown, a law professor at Georgetown University. “This is the Supreme Court cutting back on agency power knowing that Congress can never pass a law that will answer all questions. But it limits what government can do to protect people, protect consumers and impose costs on big corporations.”

Items the radical right authoritarian kleptocrats probably intend to target include student loan forgiveness regulations, regulations that protect transgender youth, and worker rights regulations. 

Targeted workers’ rights will include nullifying expanded overtime pay eligibility, requirements for employers to accommodate pregnancy, guidelines on workplace harassment and standards holding franchised brands responsible for labor law violations.

Also likely in the kleptocrats’ crosshairs are (1) federal government help for electric vehicles (the oil companies hate electric cars), (2) a federal crackdown on emissions from gasoline-powered cars and trucks (the oil and car companies hate emissions regulations and gas mileage targets), (3) corporate climate disclosures (most corporations and businesses want to freely pollute in as much secrecy as their pollution will allow, i.e., usually a hell of a lot of polluting), and (4) a new regulation for diagnostic tests that some hospitals develop in-house but are not covered by existing medical laws and regulations (health care providers and insurers hate transparency, regulations and accountability for their disasters and cruel policies).

Regarding the quoted comment about congress not being able to pass laws that answer all questions, these comments in 1949 by former US Attorney General Edward Levy are spot on relevant (my book review is here):

“This is an attempt to describe generally the process of legal reasoning in the field of case law, and in the interpretation of statutes and of the Constitution. It is important that the mechanism of legal reasoning should not be concealed by its pretense. The pretense is that the law is a system of known rules applied by a judge; the pretense has long been under attack. In an important sense legal rules are never clear, and, if a rule had to be clear before it could be imposed, society would be impossible. The mechanism accepts the differences of view and ambiguities of words. It provides for the participation of the community in resolving the ambiguity by providing a forum for the discussion of policy in the gap of ambiguity. On serious controversial questions it makes it possible to take the first step in the direction of what otherwise would be forbidden ends. The mechanism is indispensable to peace in a community.”

Darts in defense of democracy; Cult language & thinking control tactics; A glimmer of hope?

Each day I send at least one email to an opinionologist or news reporter at a major outlet. One of my darts yesterday was this to reporter Peter Baker at the NYT in the comments section of his article, Varying Treatment of Biden and Trump Puts Their Parties in Stark Relief:

“Yet we hear crickets from Republicans after their presumptive nominee was incoherent, rambling and utterly divorced from the truth. Oh, and also a convicted felon.” 

Finally, someone in the MSM is starting to pay attention. A major omission from the list of DJT's accomplishments like chronic liar, sex predator and convicted felon, is his far more important achievement of kleptocratic dictator status. I mean that seriously. Just consider his blatant corruption, contempt of the emoluments clause and overt hostility to democracy. 

The MSM's failure to grasp the fundamental essence of DJT constitutes a betrayal of the public interest, democracy and the rule of law. Again, I am 100% serious about this. The evidence to back that up is in the public record and undeniable.

That was in response to the NYT article whining about Biden's bad debate performance. This was one of the few NYT articles since the debate that finally started to call out DJT to some extent:

One of America’s political parties has a presidential candidate who is really old and showing it. The other has a presidential candidate who is a convicted felon, adjudicated sexual abuser, business fraudster and self-described aspiring dictator for a day. And also really old.

One of the parties is up in arms about its nominee and trying to figure out how to replace him at the last minute. The other is not.

But the distinction of recent weeks has been striking. After Mr. Trump was found guilty of 34 felonies by a Manhattan jury in May — a verdict that came after civil judgments against him for personal and professional misdeeds — there was no significant groundswell within the Republican Party to force him out of the race in favor of a less-tainted candidate. Even though many Republican officeholders and strategists privately loathe him, they fell in line and made clear they would stick with him no matter how many scandals piled up.

“While Biden had the worst debate performance in all of presidential history, Trump’s was likely the second-worst,” said Jeffrey A. Engel, director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University. “Yet we hear crickets from Republicans after their presumptive nominee was incoherent, rambling and utterly divorced from the truth. Oh, and also a convicted felon.”

Even with some criticism of DJT, one can sense the restraint with which the MSM and most observers treat him. DJT was not called out as the kleptocratic authoritarian he really is. That is was is critically important for the public to come to understand. public knowledge of DJT's kleptocratic authoritarianism is more important than the knowledge of his chronic lying, business frauds, felony convictions, and sexual predator escapades. Kleptocratic authoritarianism (corrupt fascist, etc.) is what the MSM should be harping on every single day. So far very few in the MSM have had the guts to call him out in those terms. 

Update: Gadzooks & Oh My Dog! The NYT banned me! ☹️ They can't handle legit criticism. Or, is it illegit to call DJT and the GOP kleptocratic authoritarian? Hm, wonder how long it will be before the WaPo bans me. Anyway, at least I know know that at least one of my darts got through and pissed at least someone off.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

This 11 minute video discusses the tactics that cults employ to create a sense of belonging, cohesion and group superiority. A common cult rhetoric tactic is to employ us vs. them to help demonize targeted outside groups. A key goal of cult leaders is to distort reality into false narratives.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Salon writes about the possibility that when the kleptocratic radical right authoritarian wealth & power movement published Project 2025, it might be causing a bit of backlash:

Project 2025 was supposed to boost Donald Trump's campaign 

but it may be backfiring instead

Trump's authoritarian game plan is breaking through the post-debate noise and it's starting to scare people

When Project 2025 was released, a number of progressives expressed surprise that Donald Trump's army of authoritarian schemers would boldly publish their plan to destroy American government as we know it. The over 900-page document, commissioned by the people expected to run another Trump White House, is a laundry list of the far-right's most politically toxic ideas, from banning abortion nationwide to mass firing federal officials who believe in protecting public health and safety. One would think that Trump and his allies would try to keep their sinister plans out of public view.

The MAGA right learned years ago the value of hiding their wicked plans in plain sight. Authoritarian thought leader Christopher Rufo is the most prominent example. He frequently speaks loudly of his machinations, such as boldly announcing on Twitter that the right is trying to take away birth control, claiming women should not have "recreational sex." Recently imprisoned Trump ally Steve Bannon gloated openly on his podcast about his schemes. Before going to prison, he bragged to the New York Times, "This is a military headquarters for a populist revolt." Kevin Roberts, whose group Heritage Foundation is helping run Project 2025, recently spoke about how Trump will use violence to force the MAGA agenda on the public.

But the radical right authoritarians will be

happy to shoot people who peacefully protest

On Sunday, actress Taraji P. Henson took a break during the BET Awards, which she was hosting, to speak out about Project 2025. "The Project 2025 plan is not a game. Look it up!" she told viewers. "I’m talking to all the mad people that don’t want to vote. You’re going to be mad about a lot of things if you don’t vote."

"You’re going to be mad about a lot 

of things if you don’t vote."

Hm, that gets the Dissident Politics highly prized Understatement of the Week Award!! Congratulations Taraji! ⭐👏👏 

Good news, or not? 

Q: Is it just me hallucinating or dementating (the act of being demented), or are the wheels coming off the fabulous, luxurious American democracy donkey cart?

Settlers settling Utah in 1993

(well, not really, but whatever)

Settlers settling Gaza in 2024

(really, I think)

Laws influence perceptions of reality and thinking

Humans are social creatures. Most everything non-trivial can affect how we perceive reality and how we think about it. That applies to laws.

Perplexity:

Q: Do any laws influence thinking? 

A: There is evidence that laws can influence thinking and moral attitudes in several ways:

1. Changing perceptions of social norms: Laws can affect how people perceive social norms around certain behaviors. A study found that the introduction of lockdown laws during the COVID-19 pandemic helped correct misperceptions about prevailing social norms regarding social distancing measures.

2. Shaping moral attitudes: Laws can influence moral attitudes by recharacterizing previously harmless behaviors as problematic, signaling moral approval for certain actions, or developing a reputation for justice. For example, anti-discrimination laws can change how people view discriminatory practices.

3. Providing information: Laws can act as a source of information about prevailing social values, which in turn shapes people's thinking about what is socially acceptable or desirable.

4. Affecting personal norms: Some studies have found that laws can shift personal norms and beliefs about the appropriateness of certain behaviors.

5. Impacting thinking skills: One study found that education on the rule of law was associated with increases in students' thinking skills and self-assessment of adherence to the rule of law.

6. Legitimacy and procedural justice: When the legal system is perceived as promoting justice and using fair procedures, people are more likely to internalize its principles and comply with laws in general.

However, it's important to note that the effectiveness of laws in influencing thinking depends on various factors:

• Whether the law targets attitudes central to cultural identities
• The level of underlying consensus or disagreement about the behavior
• Whether the law aims to change the meaning of behaviors or just the behaviors themselves
• How well the law is communicated to the target group

Laws can change social norms in several ways. They can change behavior and norms. Laws that change material payoffs or incentives affect people's behavior, which in turn shifts the descriptive social norms (what people typically do) over time. The same applies to morals. Laws can influence moral attitudes by recharacterizing previously harmless behaviors as problematic or by signaling moral approval or disapproval for targeted behaviors or actions.

Social engineering via changing laws is core strategy for America's radical right authoritarian wealth and power movement. The authoritarian elites intend to completely socially re-engineer the US from a secular, pluralistic democracy operating under the rule of law, to a bigoted, intolerant authoritarian kleptocratic state with limited or no rule of law for the elites. But rest assured, there will be plenty of iron fist law for the rest of us.

Some poll data; Court decision fallout; Defending democracy; Thinking about the constitution

Some early poll data indicates that Biden's bad debate performance is costing him some support. USA Today writes:

Republican Donald Trump has edged ahead of Democrat Joe Biden, 41% to 38%, in the aftermath of the candidates' rancorous debate last week, according to an exclusive USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll.

That narrow advantage has opened since the previous survey in May showed the two contenders tied, 37% to 37%.

The findings still signal a close contest, not a decisive lead. The difference in support and the shifts since the spring are within the polls' margins of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. The new survey of 1,000 registered voters was taken Friday through Sunday by landline and cell phone.

There was little change in the standing of third-party candidates, with independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr., at 8% and three others at about 1% each.

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

That Trump vs. US USSC decision that converted a president loosely bound by the rule of law, to a corrupt dictator bound by nothing, is starting to have serious ramifications. Here is a two page letter DJT's lawyers wrote to judge Merchan asking to have the business fraud convictions against DJT set aside:

The letter reads in part:

We respectfully submit this premotion letter seeking leave to file a motion to set aside the jury’s verdicts, pursuant to CPL § 330.30(1), based on today’s decision from the Supreme Court in Trump v. United States, 2024 WL 3237603. As explained below, the Trump decision confirmed the defense position that DANY [New York District Attorney] should not have been permitted to offer evidence at trial of President Trump’s official acts. We respectfully request until July 10, 2024 to submit a memorandum of law in support of the motion. Because of the complexity of the issues presented, President Trump does not object to an adjournment of the July 11, 2024 sentencing date in order to allow adequate time for full briefing, oral argument, and a decision. See People v. Turner, 222 A.D.2d 206, 207 (1st Dep’t 1995).

By way of background, on March 7, 2024, President Trump filed a motion in limine to preclude evidence of his official acts based on the presidential immunity doctrine. In that filing, we objected to anticipated testimony from certain potential witnesses, evidence of President Trump’s social media posts and public statements, and a 2018 filing with the Office of Government Ethics (OGE). ....

Under Trump, this official-acts evidence should never have been put before the jury. Consistent with arguments that we made before and during the trial, the Supreme Court held in Trump that President Trump “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.” 2024 WL 3237603, at *25. The presumption applies “unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’” Id. at *12 (quoting Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731, 750 (1982)). DANY cannot make that showing here.

The rationale the USSC gave to allow a US president to break laws as he desires boils down to this: The president will be subject to lawsuits by the political opposition, so we need to protect the president's ability to perform "official acts" by (1) granting absolute immunity of all official acts, (2) not defining what an official act is, (3) not allowing evidence of any wrongdoing to be submitted to the court for consideration of motive, and (4) erecting a presumption of immunity of all presidential acts. The only thing left, is for persecutors to prove something was (i) not an official act, and (ii) it broke a law. The presumption of immunity makes the burden of proof of law breaking so high that is it practically speaking, impossible to meet.

The USSC simply swept aside the facts that no president has ever been seriously harassed or prosecuted for any non-corrupt official acts and sitting presidents are not subject to prosecution for law breaking anyway. 

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

In defense of democracy, the rule of law, civil liberties and actual reality: Today, I wrote to six opinion writers at the NYT complaining about all the whining and hair on fire about Joe Biden and his bad debate performance, but no comparable whining and hair on fire about DJT, his far worse debate performance, his kleptocratic authoritarian supreme court or his morally rotted Republican Party and its kleptocratic authoritarianism. I wrote to one NYT journalist complaining about wrongly calling DJT supporters conservative when they in fact are undeniably radical right authoritarians who support kleptocracy over democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties.

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

In some recent comments, ulTrax raised a major point (thanks) about what radical right authoritarianism has done with the law. This point needs to be understood. Really.

Instead of a document that protects individual liberty by reining in government power, the radical authoritarian judges and lawyers say that the constitution protects government power by reining in individual liberty. It is not the job of the courts to determine what our rights are. The courts are to define what government powers are. If those powers don't exist in the constitution, all other the rights should be held by the people.

That is ass backward. This is the gigantic lie that underpins most or all of the anti-democracy, anti-civil liberties and anti-rule of law USSC decisions in the last few years. It will be the lie that underpins future anti-democracy, rule of law and civil liberties cases in the coming years.

Perplexity explains this critically important point of constitutional law like this:

Q: Does the constitution protect individual liberty by limiting government power, or does the constitution protect government power limiting individual liberty?

A: The Constitution primarily protects individual liberty by limiting government power, not the other way around. This is a fundamental principle of American constitutional law and governance. Here's a breakdown of how the Constitution achieves this: 

1. Limited Government Powers: The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances and separation of powers, which diffuses and limits the power of the federal and state governments. This structure is designed to prevent any single branch or level of government from becoming too powerful and infringing on individual rights.

2. Bill of Rights: The first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, explicitly protect specific individual liberties from government interference. These include freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly, the right to bear arms, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and due process rights, among others.

3. Additional Constitutional Protections: Beyond the Bill of Rights, other parts of the Constitution also protect individual rights, such as the right to trial by jury in criminal cases (Article III) and protections in the Civil War Era Amendments like the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

4. Fundamental Rights: The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to protect certain fundamental rights, even when not explicitly enumerated in the text. This has expanded the scope of individual liberty protections over time.

5. Restrictions on Government Action: Many constitutional provisions are framed as prohibitions on government action rather than grants of power to the government. For example, "Congress shall make no law..." in the First Amendment. 

 

6. Ninth and Tenth Amendments: These amendments clarify that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution does not deny or disparage other rights retained by the people, and that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people.

The founders believed that protecting individual liberty from government overreach was crucial to the American experiment in self-governance. As Thomas Jefferson stated, "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse." 

In summary, the Constitution's primary function regarding individual liberty is to limit government power in order to protect and preserve the rights and freedoms of individuals, not to empower the government to limit individual liberty.

For an example, consider abortion. The Constitution is silent about abortion. Because of that, government has no power to deny abortion access to anyone. Roe v. Wade was a workable compromise that allowed states to ban abortions in the 3rd trimester, which many states did. But now, governments in most or all red states have used state power to write and enforce forced birth laws. Before the rise of the American authoritarian radical right, those forced birth laws, arguably including Roe v. Wade, were unconstitutional. But now that the authoritarian radical right tells us the constitution protects government power limiting individual liberty, those laws are constitutional.

See the terrible, morally rotten sleight of hand here that most radical authoritarian legal reasoning stands on? We have been betrayed by traitors in our midst.

Christian nationalism gets hyper-aggressive with public schools; Fighting kleptocratic tyranny

This 6:48 video discusses a new requirement to teach Christianity in all public schools in Oklahoma. The requirement demands immediate and strict compliance, or teachers will be fired for failure to properly comply. Teachers must teach from the Bible itself. The administrator imposing this requirement arrogantly and blithely dismisses criticisms as nonsense coming from the left.

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

This morning in my defense of democracy efforts, I sent sharp criticisms to four NYT reporters for under reporting about the kleptocratic authoritarian threat of DJT, his hideous, lies-packed "debate" performance, recent Supreme Court decisions and the Republican Party in general. I pointed out that calling DJT, GOP elites and Republican Supreme Court judges "conservative" is unjustifiable and wrong. Those people are not conservatives. They are aggressive kleptocrats and authoritarians, i.e., autocrats, plutocrats and Christian theocrats. Calling them conservative softens the threat and normalizes both kleptocracy and authoritarianism at the expense of democracy, the rule of law, civil liberties and transparent, competent governance. It also insults actual pro-democracy, pro-civil liberties, pro-rule of law, pro-rationality conservatives.

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

To drive home the argument I keep making that Christian nationalism (CN) is kleptocratic, this video affords a glimpse of the scope of the lust for tax dollars that drives essentially all Christian theocratic elites. Getting access to tax dollars has always been a key goal of the authoritarian CN wealth and power theocratic movement.