MAGA update: Christian nationalism sinks its poison claws in very deep

From the we expected something like this files:

Feb. 6, 2025 E.O.

The EO says anti-Christian bias to be exterminated includes (i) denial of religious accommodations (e.g., for vaccines or religious holidays), (ii) mistreatment for refusing to participate in events or policies (such as those involving personal pronouns) that conflict with religious beliefs, (iii)  opposition to displays or content in government spaces due to religious objections, and (iv) retaliation for exercising religious rights. The amount of that going on in the State Department? Probably little to very little.

Politico reports that djt and his thug MAGA enforcer Marco Rubio, nominally our Secy. of State (whatever the hell that means), is openly promoting bitter divisions and deep distrust in the State Department using Christianity as the weapon against everything else deemed objectionable: 

The Trump administration has ordered State Department employees to report on any instances of coworkers displaying “anti-Christian bias” as part of its effort to implement a sweeping new executive order on supporting employees of Christian faith working in the federal government.

The department, according to a copy of an internal cable obtained by POLITICO, will work with an administration-wide task force to collect information “involving anti-religious bias during the last presidential administration” and will collect examples of anti-Christian bias through anonymous employee report forms.

The cable encourages State Department employees to report on one another through a tip form that can be anonymous. “Reports should be as detailed as possible, including names, dates, locations (e.g. post or domestic office where the incident occurred,” the cable reads.

Note that various federal laws (and this) prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), national origin, disability, age (40 or older), genetic information (including family medical history), disability, and retaliation for reporting or opposing discrimination, or participating in an investigation. 

Why are they sowing discord and hate?

So, should we expect a djt EO to report bias against people of a certain race, sex, national origin, members of a non-Christian religion, atheists etc.? Hell no. Why? That would be woke! MAGA elites hate DEI and they are gonna kill it as much as they can, as soon as they can. That is the start of hypernormalizing theocratic CN bigotry and racism.

But why is goon djt and thug Rubio doing this? djt isn't remotely close to Christian. Because CN (Christian nationalist) elites want to weaponize Christianity and put it above all other things, including all secular laws. CN elites** are open, not conspiratorial, about their intent to make America into a Christian theocracy. For example, they oppose secular education, church-state separation, pluralism, and civil liberties that God opposes (abortion, access to contraception, same-sex marriage, LGBQT rights, voting rights, etc.). They also want to force taxpayers to pay for religious institutions. All of that is documented fact, not opinion.

** From what I can tell, CN elites are openly theocratic, but most of the rank and file frame their goals as something like preserving "traditional Christian values", not imposing theocracy. There is a huge gulf in understanding between the elites and the R&F. The elites use dark free speech and demagoguery to keep their theocratic and kleptocratic intentions shrouded in confusion, disinformation, distrust and irrational fear and anger.

 

Also note that the EO focuses on bias, not discrimination. Bias is not illegal unless it rises to the level of discrimination. The distinction between lawful bias and illegal discrimination hinges on actionable harm, intent, and the context in which behaviors happen. Harassment or pervasive conduct that creates an abusive environment based on protected characteristics can amount to illegal discrimination. To be actionable, the behavior must be severe or pervasive (e.g., racial slurs, sexual advances). Isolated incidents or minor slights generally do not qualify. 

Obviously, overt discrimination, e.g., racial slurs, is a lot easier to prove than expressions of bias. Bias is difficult and usually requires pattern evidence. Anyone with half an ounce of brain can avoid creating a pattern against a targeted person or group. Pattern evidence requires showing of thinks like (1) statistical disparities in promotions or discipline, or (2) inconsistent application of policies between protected and non-protected employees.

In other words, it is usually very hard to prove illegal discrimination. It is almost impossible to show that bias amounts to illegal discrimination. By implementing this policy, which one can expect to apply everywhere in the federal government, CN MAGA elites openly encourage and fully weaponize CN bigotry to go after people and groups that God hates and demands to be suppressed. There are going to be purges of innocents in the federal government and we are powerless to stop it. All a MAGA or CN adherent has to do, is make up examples of anti-Christian bias and anonymously submit them. 

We all know where this is going. Straight to hell.

Q: How much more evidence of authoritarian elite CN theocratic intent and power would be needed to convince those with open minds that the CN wealth and power movement is a deadly serious threat to our democracy, secular law, pluralism and civil liberties? 

(Nearly all of the closed-minded, CN-sympathetic crowd will never see a threat, no matter how much evidence there is -- they are trapped in MAGA's/CN's fake-reality world) 

MAGA bits: The cost of djt's policy; Hypernormalization: djt's anti-reality coup; Misc. darkness

The SCMP reports about a analysis of economic impacts of djt's insults and threats to foreign countries:

The US economy is set to lose billions of dollars in revenue in 2025 from a pullback in foreign tourism and boycotts of American products, adding to a growing list of headwinds keeping recession risk elevated.

Arrivals of non-citizens to the US by plane dropped almost 10 per cent in March from a year earlier, according to data published on Monday by the International Trade Administration. Goldman Sachs Inc. estimates in a worst-case scenario, the hit this year from reduced travel and boycotts could total 0.3 per cent of gross domestic product, which would amount to almost US$90 billion.

Other reporting notes that Canadian flight reservations for the summer tourist season are down 70% after djt repeatedly insulted Canadians and threatened to annex the country to make it the 51^st state. 

A comparison of this cost assessment with prior djt trade wars indicates that over time, this will probably be more costly than past anti-trade moves by djt.

Impact/Event	Estimated Economic Loss	Timeframe	Source/Notes
2025 Trump policy (Goldman Sachs)	$90 billion 0.3% of GDP	1 year	Lost tourism/export revenue
2018–2019 retaliatory tariffs	$27 billion	2 years	Direct export losses[9]
2018 tariffs (real income loss)	$7.2 billion	1 year	Net of revenue/producer[10]
2018–2019 trade war (GDP impact)	0.25% of GDP	2 years	Tax Foundation[7][8]
2018–2020 trade war (total cost)	$316 billion	2–3 years	Bloomberg Economics[11]

7. https://www.statista.com/chart/34081/estimated-effect-tariff-action-us-economy/

8. https://www.wita.org/atp-research/tracking-impact-trump-tariffs/

9. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/

10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_the_first_Trump_administration

11. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/more-pain-than-gain-how-the-us-china-trade-war-hurt-america/

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

CONTEXT

Arendt argued that persistent lying doesn’t merely replace truth with lies but destroys the "sense by which we take our bearings in the real world." When societies lose shared factual ground, they become susceptible to authoritarianism, as citizens "default to tribal identifications" rather than reasoned debate. This "trembling wobbling motion" of reality, as she describes it, leaves populations vulnerable to demagogic exploitation and authoritarianism.

Experts collectively warn that propaganda and demagoguery thrive in environments where truth is fragmented and institutions are politicized. Combating these forces requires reinforcing epistemic guardrails—independent journalism, civic education, and transparent governance—to preserve the shared reality essential for democratic functioning.

djt's attack on reality

An article by Foreign Policy In Focus writes: 

Trump’s Soviet-Style Coup Against Reality

Trump's whitewashing of January 6 and pardons of the insurrectionists are examples of a terrifying hypernormalization of U.S. society

American democracy faces an unprecedented crisis. Trump’s second victory represents more than a mere political setback or symptom of political polarization—it constitutes a systemic assault on shared reality and a gradual erasure of objective truth.

America is experiencing what scholars call “hypernormalization”—a quiet coup against reality, replacing it with an artificially engineered alternative, leaving citizens disoriented within an increasingly surreal existence. Mass societal delusion in which millions of citizens believe in “alternative facts” due to propaganda outlets and industrial-scale disinformation is novel to Americans, but there is a historical parallel: the manufacturing of a fake reality in the Soviet Union.

During the Soviet Union’s final decade, citizens found themselves living in a strange contradiction: they knew their government was lying about the country’s implosion, yet understood the futility of resistance. Despite endemic corruption and nearly half the population living in poverty, the state continued to pretend that everything was fine. Citizens participated in this collective fiction, not from authentic belief, but because confronting collapse was more terrifying than maintaining the charade.

The article goes on to point out that the term hypernormalization was coined by anthropologist Alexei Yurchak in his book Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More. Hypernormalization goes past regular dark free speech by institutionalizing deception and crackpottery. Lies are methodically integrated into society and its institutions. The lies are so blatant that even MAGA political elites know, but everyone just continues pretending there is normalcy. Over time, reality and reason becomes weaker influences while fundamental dysfunctions and moral rot fester.

The article asserts that America now shows all the classic symptoms of hypernormalization. Objective truth is increasingly elusive. Important content and reality are tossed out and replaced with crackpot conspiracy theories, lies and slanders. The US information ecosystem has degenerated to the point where deception is commonplace and structurally essential to MAGA's authoritarian agenda. 

During his first term, djt epitomized reality distortion of reality by repeating major lies, ,e.g., claiming that the legitimate 2020 election was “stolen.” He lied about criminal indictments of his supporters, calling them “political persecution.” He lied by calling climate science a Chinese “hoax.” Each lie was more brick and mortar to construct a powerful and debilitating mind-trapping morass. Many people who could see past the thick layers of deceit felt powerless to tear it down. They just watched it happen. 

Unfortunately, because public opinion usually does not influence policy, they were and still are mostly powerless. Researchers have shown evidence that in US politics, economic elites and organized interest groups have a substantial influence on U.S. public policy, while the general public has "little or no independent influence." The rise of unlimited political spending and lobbying, especially after the 2010 USSC decision in Citizens United, further entrenched the power of economic elites at the expense of the public interest and civil liberties. With some exceptions, the overall trend is clear. Special interest money usually outweighs majority opinion in shaping policy.

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Other MAGA-related news is deeply threatening and aggressive and uniformly grounded in ugly dark free speech, especially outrageous lies and slanders. Most of the MSM continues to be insane by treating what is going on as some form of pro-democracy conservate normalcy. The MSM is still afraid to call djt and MAGA things like authoritarian, autocratic, kleptocratic, plutocratic, theocratic or anti-public interest. The MSM has been cowed by scared corporate ownership or subverted by ownership that is complicit and sympathetic to one or more forms of authoritarianism and kleptocracy. I think the latter is more common than the former.

Over the last 3-4 weeks, I've sent to NPR and PBS multiple news topics about authoritarianism that are very important but grossly under-reported. So far, no response from anyone. I ended my suggestions with comments like these:

And for what it’s worth, if anything, if you don’t want to report on this kind of authoritarian mind manipulation content out of fear of angering Trump or MAGA elites, I believe that ship sailed the day Trump and MAGA elites were put back in power in the 2024 elections. Neither silence nor subservience by NPR and PBS can appease an aggravated Trump or MAGA elites. They want vengeance, including taking public funding from both. That was made explicit in MAGA's Project 2025. Your own reporting on that point has been quite clear.  

In a bit of evidence that NPR and PBS may be starting to see the seriousness of their plight, an NPR broadcast yesterday on 1A (I think) discussed why public funding of CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) was important and socially useful. The head of NPR was trying to justify public funding to its audience. 

In a 3/26/25 hearing on NPR and PBS, Marjory Taylor Greene (chairman of the House Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency (DOGE)) said that (i) NPR and PBS were attacking MAGA and America, and (ii) doing that on the public's dime would not be tolerated. MTG ranted and lied incoherently, falsely claiming that their programming was “radical left”, “communist” and was “grooming and sexualizing children” using taxpayer money for “attacks on Americans who love this country.” She also lied, saying “for far too long, federal taxpayers have been forced to fund biased news. This needs to come to an end and it needs to come to an end now. We look no further than the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as the culprit for US debt.”

For context, total public funding of CBP amounts to ~$0.55 billion/year (~$550 million/year). Federal funding constitutes about 1% of NPR’s budget and about 16% PBS’s budgets. The CPB is not the culprit for US debt.

Q: Is this an instance of MAGA's authoritarian hypernormalization of lies, slanders and crackpot conspiracy blither, or are MTG and MAGA elites basically right that NPR and PBS are communist, grooming and sexualizing children, and other horrors?

American election integrity is being challenged in court

An important and frightening federal court case is playing out in North Carolina. It has deadly implications for state and federal elections if it turns out the wrong way. Slate reports in an article authored by election law expert and UCLA law school professor Rick Hasen:

We’re Getting Dangerously Close to a Losing 

North Carolina Candidate Being Declared the Winner

In a preliminary order issued over the weekend likely designed to split the baby, a federal district court in North Carolina has told North Carolina election officials that they should follow a state court’s ruling to figure out which of thousands of military and overseas ballots cast by North Carolina voters should be thrown out in a dispute over the winner of a November state Supreme Court election. But the federal court also told election officials not to certify the winner of that election until it can decide if the state court–ordered remedy is unconstitutional.

This is a recipe for disaster. The federal court should have heeded the advice of Justice Antonin Scalia in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case about not allowing a questionable redo of vote totals to be announced before there’s been a ruling on the legality of the redo. The judge’s order in North Carolina could well lead people to believe the state Supreme Court election was stolen no matter what happens.

Incumbent North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs is 734 votes ahead of Judge Jefferson Griffin, a Republican, in November’s race for Riggs’ spot on the state Supreme Court. Griffin contested the election, calling over 60,000 ballots into question. He argued that some of these ballots did not comply with North Carolina law because the registration record of these voters did not contain certain information like a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number. He also argued that certain military and overseas ballots were cast without requiring a photocopy of a photo ID. North Carolina election officials never asked voters for the information that Griffin said was required.

This lawsuit needs to be explained for its subtle importance to become apparent. The case is complex and messy.

This case echoes the 2000 Bush v. Gore lawsuit, but with more far-reaching implications for election administration and democratic governance. This case raises fundamental questions about equal protection, due process, and the integrity of American elections. The Republican candidate in NC (North Carolina), Griffin, wants the federal court to change the voter qualification rules in a state election after he found out he lost. In the election, voters followed the state's established voting procedures. NC's administrative regulations explicitly exempted military and overseas voters from needing to provide photocopies of ID when voting absentee. 

The 2000 Bush v. Gore precedent: In that case, the USSC halted a recount in Florida partly because the state court had ordered recounts in only certain counties using inconsistent standards. The USSC majority found that using inconsistent standards to accept or reject votes violated the equal protection clause of the 14^th Amendment. 

In this NC lawsuit, four Republicans on that state's supreme court said that votes in four Democratic-leaning counties need to be recounted using a different standard than applies to all the Republican-leaning counties. One legal analyst, Ian Millhiser, pointed out the obvious: He says the four Republican NC judges have "ordered the disenfranchisement of voters in just four counties in North Carolina—again, all of which lean Democratic—while leaving voters in other counties unaffected." 

Worse yet, changing the rules for ballot eligibility after an election violates the due process clause of the 14^th Amendment. In state court cases like Roe v. Alabama, federal courts have prevented state supreme courts from retroactively changing election rules so the state court judges' candidate wins despite losing a free and fair election. By altering the rules after an election to try to disenfranchise thousands of the wrong kind of voters, the NC supreme court is openly trying to break the Bush v. Gore precedent and blow off both equal protection and due process. 

Suspiciously, the federal trial judge did not simply say that what the NC supreme court judges did was blatantly unconstitutional. That strongly signals to me that he probably is a political partisan and sympathetic to authoritarianism. But being ignorant, I asked Pxy:

Q4: Therefore, if state court’s rule changes are highly likely to be deemed unconstitutional under Bush v. Gore, then why did the federal court not say so? Is the federal judge a Trump judge sympathetic to MAGA and/or loyal to Trump or authoritarianism? What evidence is there that the federal judge is acting in good faith or bad faith based on the existing applicable rule of law?

A4: .... long analysis .... 

Conclusion
Judge Myers’ conduct reflects a mix of procedural caution and ideological alignment with Republican election-administration priorities. While there is no “smoking gun” evidence of corruption, his procedural choices—deferring to a GOP state court, delaying a constitutional ruling, and enabling targeted disqualification of Democratic-leaning votes—suggest a willingness to tolerate election subversion tactics. This aligns with broader trends among Trump-appointed judges, who have often prioritized partisan outcomes over strict adherence to voting rights precedent 4 17 19.

The federal court’s inaction on the Bush v. Gore issues thus far likely stems from institutional deference rather than explicit bad faith. However, Myers’ failure to halt the state court’s unconstitutional remedy creates a dangerous precedent for post-election manipulation, echoing the anti-democratic strategies seen in Trump’s 2020 efforts.

Note the self-contradiction that Pxy asserts. On the on hand what NC did was (1) unconstitutional, and (2)  created a dangerous precedent for post-election manipulation, but OTOH it could be due only to institutional deference rather than explicit bad faith. Explicit bad faith? Gimme a break Pxy.[1] We're never gonna see explicit bad faith from any MAGA judge. It's all gonna be implicit.

The bottom line: Welp, as we all know around here, Germaine resolves any and all plausible, non-trivial doubt against corrupt MAGA authoritarianism and its corrupt authoritarian elites. That is especially true for Trump judges engaging in dangerous, outrageous, legal fuckery like this. In essence, the federal trial court judge here is a MAGA authoritarian because he acts like one. He is begging the USSC to overturn the Bush v. Gore precedent so the Republican can win and Republicans take control of the NC supreme court. He is acting in bad faith. That's the bottom line.

Q: Is the bad faith argument being made here just crackpot conspiracy theory, or something worse, or is it plausible, or likely, in view of the track record of demagoguery, mendacity, slander and crackpot reasoning that authoritarian MAGA elites routinely use to describe reality and justify getting what they want?

I think it is likely.

Footnote:

1. I followed up with Pxy about the matter of explicit vs. implicit bad faith from MAGA judges:

Q: What would lead any rational, evidence-based person to believe that judge Myer or any other MAGA judge would ever act in "explicit" bad faith? All evidence of bad faith would be implicit and circumstantial. That is not different than a MAGA judge gutting national abortion rights on the basis of their religious belief, i.e., God and Christian nationalism, but telling us they based it on a neutral assessment of existing law and the Constitution. Consider the public track record of demagoguery, colossal mendacity, cynical slander and crackpot reasoning that authoritarian MAGA elites routinely use to describe reality and justify getting what they want.

A: The belief that MAGA-aligned judges might act in implicit bad faith—even absent explicit admissions of improper intent—rests on patterns of behavior, institutional incentives, and legal doctrines that allow circumstantial evidence to demonstrate improper motives. While explicit bad faith requires direct proof of intentional misconduct (e.g., a judge admitting partisan bias in emails), implicit bad faith can be inferred from systematic deviations from legal norms, selective application of principles, and alignment with broader anti-democratic strategies. Below is a structured analysis of why rational observers might question MAGA judges’ neutrality:

.... long analysis .... 

Conclusion
While explicit bad faith is rare, systemic patterns and asymmetrical jurisprudence provide rational grounds to question MAGA judges’ neutrality. Their rulings frequently align with GOP electoral strategies, religious nationalism, and Trump’s authoritarian rhetoric—all while invoking legal principles they disregard in other contexts. This selective fidelity to law, combined with the broader GOP’s rejection of democratic norms, sustains credible concerns about implicit bad faith. As Judge Boasberg noted in 6 9, when officials "act with reckless disregard for whether their conduct is lawful," bad faith can be inferred even absent a confession.

I infer bad faith. Period.

MAGA update: djt plans to kill hundreds of regulations (and thousands of people)

As part of the massive shift of power from the federal government and the public interest, NYT reports (not paywalled) about djt's planned repeal or freezing of hundreds of regulations of public health, food, workplace safety, transportation and other critical government functions:

At the Department of Health and Human Services, Trump administration officials want to reverse a regulation that has required nursing homes to have more medical staff on duty.

At the Mine Safety and Health Administration, powerful lobbying groups have asked the administration to eliminate a rule to protect miners from inhaling the dust of crystalline silica, a mineral that is used in concrete, smartphones and cat litter but that can be lethal in the lungs.

And at the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates radio and television broadcasting and satellite communications, President Trump’s appointees published a seemingly exuberant notice asking for suggestions on which rules to get rid of, titled “DELETE, DELETE, DELETE.”

DELETE, DELETE, DELETE

Across the more than 400 federal agencies that regulate almost every aspect of American life, from flying in airplanes to processing poultry, Mr. Trump’s appointees are working with the Department of Government Efficiency, the cost-cutting initiative headed by Elon Musk and also called DOGE, to launch a sweeping new phase in their quest to dismantle much of the federal government: deregulation on a mass scale.

Usually, the legal process of repealing federal regulations takes years — and rules erased by one administration can be restored by another. But after chafing at that system during his first term and watching President Joseph R. Biden Jr. enact scores of new rules pushed by the left, Mr. Trump has marshaled a strategy for a dramatic do-over designed to kill regulations swiftly and permanently.

The approach, overseen by Russell T. Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, rests on a set of novel legal strategies [e.g., breaking the law] in which the administration intends to simply repeal or just stop enforcing regulations that have historically taken years to undo, according to people familiar with the plans. The White House theory relies on Supreme Court decisions — some recent and at least one from the 1980s — that they believe give them the basis for sweeping change.  

“Many people don’t realize how high the American quality of life is because of the competent and stable enforcement of regulations, and if that goes away a lot of lives are at risk,” said Steve Cicala, co-director of the National Bureau of Economic Research’s Project on the Economic Analysis of Regulation. “This affects airplane safety, baby formula safety, the safety of meat, vegetables and packaged foods, the water that you drink, how you get to work safely and whether you’re safe in your workplace.”

OK ladies 'n germs, prepare for tainted food, nursing home hell, lung cancer, poisoned babies, rotten meat, accelerating global warming, more air pollution, gigatons of MAGA bullshit, lies and slanders from MAGA radio and television broadcasting and satellite communications, and all kinds of fun-fill freedom (and profit) for deregulated special interests. It will be so much fun that some people are going to literally be deregulated to death. 

But not to worry. What could go wrong? As MAGA constantly tells us, paraphrasing, grunt, grunt, government bad, unregulated markets good, stop whining, pull self up by bootstraps, pain is good. 

Note the key dark free speech tactic here: djt and MAGA elites frame deregulation as one thing, namely benefits for industry, and at least by implication its also good for consumers. The propaganda never mentions the costs to the public and public interest. The problem is this:

Also accurately expressed like this:

So, waddabout those never, ever mentioned costs to consumers, workers and the public interest? I asked my friend Pxy to comment:

Q: Analyze this article, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/15/us/politics/trump-doge-regulations.html, and asses it for what impact it will have on the balance of power between the public interest, generally the things the targeted regulations are designed to protect, relative to the special interests that break free of eliminated or unenforced regulations. About how much will this be worth to the deregulated special interests and about how much will it cost consumers and how many people will it kill? On balance is this mostly pro-public interest politics or pro-special interest politics?

A: [Normal persons' reactions --- Pxy isn't a normal person]

 

[Pxy's calm response] This initiative presents "a significant opportunity for businesses and their advocates, who have long lobbied for a reduction in regulations and now find receptive allies within the administration" 4. Major industry groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Association of Manufacturers have provided lists of regulations they wish eliminated 4.

Costs to consumers and the public 

In stark contrast to industry benefits, the public faces substantial costs: 

• A Public Citizen report estimated that deregulation deprives consumers and the economy of more than $2.1 trillion in benefits 12.

• American households could lose approximately $17,000 over two decades, or about $840 annually 12.

• These figures substantially exceed the average annual costs of the rules to industry, estimated at nearly $21 billion 12.

The dismantling of consumer protections against hidden fees, reduced food safety inspections, and weakened environmental safeguards all represent direct costs to the public that are not captured in administrative savings calculations.

Health and Safety Implications
The health consequences of large-scale deregulation are potentially severe:

• During Trump's first term, The Lancet Commission found that his policies contributed to approximately 461,000 deaths in 2018 alone 16.

• Environmental protection rollbacks specifically resulted in about 22,000 deaths in 2019 16.

• Workplace safety rollbacks disproportionately affect vulnerable populations in hazardous industries 4.

In the context of the current deregulation agenda, experts warn: "Many individuals fail to recognize how high the American quality of life is due to effective and stable regulation enforcement, and if that disappears, numerous lives could be at risk" 4. This affects "the safety of airplanes, baby formula, meat, vegetables, packaged foods, drinking water, commuting safety, and workplace safety."

Balance of Power Analysis
The deregulatory agenda fundamentally shifts power from the public to special interests in several ways:

Procedural Changes Favoring Special Interests

• Bypassing public comment periods eliminates crucial opportunities for citizen input 4.

• Rapid implementation timelines prevent thorough analysis of impacts.

• Sunset provisions create constant uncertainty about regulatory protections 10.

• Direct industry participation in drafting deregulation proposals.

Institutional Power Shifts
The administration has simultaneously weakened the government's capacity to protect public interests:

• Federal worker unions fighting against DOGE have been targeted with executive orders stripping them of representation rights 20.

• Whistleblowers reporting concerns about DOGE's activities have faced intimidation, including one who received "physically taping a threatening note" to his door with sensitive personal information 3.

• Scientists at agencies like the NIH report "chaos and confusion" with restrictions on communications and research 18.

This systematic weakening of institutional safeguards amplifies the power imbalance created by deregulation itself.

Conclusion: Pro-Public or Pro-Special Interest?
The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the Trump-DOGE deregulation agenda primarily serves special interests rather than the public interest. While portrayed as eliminating "waste" and increasing "efficiency," the targeted regulations predominantly protect public health, safety, consumer rights, and environmental quality. The beneficiaries are clearly industries seeking reduced compliance costs.

The significant economic costs to consumers, projected loss of life, and procedural changes limiting public input all suggest a substantial shift in power away from the public interest. As one expert notes, this initiative is not about eliminating mere bureaucratic inefficiencies, but dismantling "an extensive network of regulations perceived by many as protective measures, but regarded by [the administration] as impediments to industry" 4.

Q: Is that loud sucking sound we all hear the huge flow of wealth and power from the people and the public interest to special interests and corrupt, cruel elite MAGA freaks and djt, whatever he might be?

More opinion on the collapse of the rule of law: Now we're all under threat

CONTEXT: THE MONSTER TELLS US WHAT HE THINKS OF US

djt called American military personnel who died in war "losers" and "suckers." When asked to visit the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery in France, reportedly said, "Why should I go to that cemetery? It's filled with losers." He referred to marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as "suckers" for getting killed. And he said that Senator John McCain was "not a war hero" because he'd been captured during the Vietnam War, adding that he likes "people who weren't captured." He said that he didn't want to be seen with wounded veterans because "it doesn't look good for me."

djt said "I don't want to shake hands with those dirty people, those disgusting people," referring to his supporters.

djt told his supporters that they had to send a message to Ms. Harris: “We can’t stand you, you’re a shit vice president.”

Yesterday, djt said to El Salvadore's dictator Bukele, that "the home-growns are next, the home-growns. You gotta build about five more places", referring to US criminals he wants to illegally deport to death camps in El Salvador and the need of El Salvadore to build 5 more death camps to house them.

☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️

The Atlantic writes:

The Constitutional Crisis Is Here

Between the path of outright defiance of the Supreme Court and following its order to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from El Salvador’s infamous Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), the Trump administration has chosen a third way: pretending it is complying while refusing to do so.

During an on-camera Oval Office meeting with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, whom the Trump administration has paid to imprison immigrants deported from the United States it claims without evidence are gang members, President Donald Trump deferred to Attorney General Pam Bondi, who said the decision was Bukele’s.  

“That’s up to El Salvador if they want to return him. That’s not up to us,” Bondi told reporters. “That’s not up to us. If they want to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane.” Bukele, for his part, called Abrego Garcia a “terrorist,” saying to a reporter who asked if he would return him, “I hope you’re not suggesting that I smuggle a terrorist into the United States.” He added, “The question is preposterous.” (emphasis added)

The Trump administration is pretending to comply with the Supreme Court’s order to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from El Salvador’s infamous Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT) while refusing to actually do so, Adam Serwer writes.

During an on-camera Oval Office meeting with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele today, President Donald Trump said the decision to return Abrego Garcia was Bukele’s. Bukele, for his part, called Abrego Garcia a “terrorist,” saying to a reporter who asked whether he would return him, “I hope you’re not suggesting that I smuggle a terrorist into the United States.”

“This rhetorical game the administration is playing, where it pretends it lacks the power to ask for Abrego Garcia to be returned while Bukele pretends he doesn’t have the power to return him, is an expression of obvious contempt for the Supreme Court—and for the rule of law,” Serwer continues. “The administration is maintaining that it has the power to send armed agents of the state to grab someone off the street and then, without a shred of due process, deport them to a gulag in a foreign country and leave them there forever. The crucial point here is that the administration’s logic means that it could do the same to American citizens.”

Trump is already contemplating this possibility. Aside from numerous public statements to that effect, Trump told Bukele, in an exchange posted on Bukele’s X feed, “Homegrowns are next. The homegrowns. You gotta build about five more places.” Loud laughter filled the Oval Office.

“If the Trump administration can defy court orders with impunity, and Congress is unwilling to act, there is no reason for it to respect the constitutional rights of American citizens either,” Serwer continues. “The Roberts Court will now have to decide whether to side with the Constitution or with a lawless president asserting the power to disappear people at will. This is not a power that any person, much less an American president, is meant to have.”

The insulting, cynical contempt that djt and his MAGA thug attorney general Bondi show for the rule of law cannot be clearer. The ghastly arrogance of the corrupt dictator-thug Bukele saying he refuses to smuggle a terrorist into the United States, shows an equal level of insulting, cynical contempt. He smuggles no one by letting them get on an airplane the US government knowingly provides to bring a non-terrorist back to the US under US court orders. This is how djt, Bondi, MAGA elites generally and Bukele all see the American people and their democracy:

How djt and MAGA elites respect us 

Well, that's not exactly true. I don't want to exaggerate. Bondi, being the civilized, gentle lady that she is, her expression of affection for all of us and our democracy and rights is more refined and genteel:

How Bondi respects us

Meanwhile as MAGA virtue signals its "respect" for us and our system of government and society, most Americans are standing by and do nothing as their morally rotted, authoritarian and kleptocratic MAGA votes and sympathies threaten us and destroy our democracy, civil liberties and rule of law. The American experiment in self-governance, which admittedly never was close to perfect, is ending with a whimper. But I never expected so many of the American people to (1) ever become so stunningly deceived by demagoguery, lies, slanders, crackpottery and mind manipulation, or (2) complacent about tossing away their precious democracy and powers to self-govern. 

It's no wonder that the overwhelming normal state of affairs for the human condition is living under thug-thief leaders like djt and Bukele with morally rotted, goon enablers like Bondi. Welp, the normal state of affairs what enough of the American people asked for. A plurality of voters (~49.8%) asked for it. Now that's probably what most of them and nearly all the rest of us are gonna get.

Q: Over the top (or worse) commentary by me, or reasonably justified and supported by facts and sound reasoning?

A history bit: Tax cheating in the second century

The papyrus, named Papyrus Cotton

A NYT article reports about what a recently analyzed 1,900 year old papyrus says:

It may not have been the tax-evasion trial of the century — the second century, that is — but it was of such gravity that the defendants faced charges of forgery, fiscal fraud and the sham sale of slaves. Tax dodging is as old as taxation itself, but these particular offenses were considered so serious under Roman law that penalties ranged from heavy fines and permanent exile to hard labor in the salt mines and, in the worst case, damnatio ad bestias, a public execution in which the condemned were devoured by wild animals.

[The papyrus] contains the prosecutor’s prep sheet and the hastily drafted minutes from a judicial hearing. According to the ancient notes, the tax-evasion scheme involved the falsification of documents and the illicit sale and manumission, or freeing, of slaves — all to avoid paying duties in the far-flung Roman provinces of Judea and Arabia, a region roughly corresponding to present-day Israel and Jordan.

This ancient legal drama unfolded during the reign of Hadrian, after the emperor’s tour of the area around A.D. 130 and presumably before A.D. 132. That year, Simon bar Kochba, a messianic guerrilla chief, led a popular uprising — the third and final war between the Jewish people and the empire. The revolt was violently suppressed, with hundreds of thousands killed and most of the surviving Jewish population expelled from Judea, which Hadrian renamed Syria Palestina.

Damnatio ad bestias? Now there's a tax law with literal teeth! I like it a lot!

Tax cheating from long ago. Some things never change.