Books...

Other than books about math, science, or any other “settled facts” (i.e., schooling-type books), aren’t all other books just someone’s point of view; someone making an argument from their perspective? Might they even be seen as a form of attempted propaganda?

If so, can such books be seen as "dangerous," depending on the author’s motive? 

And who will be the check on their potential Dark Free Speech influence? Is a book full of subjective lies just another case for the promoting of free speech, much like social media’s threat of DFS?

Is a book “good” if you agree with it, and “bad” if you don’t?

Talk about “books.”

(by PrimalSoup)

News: MAGA's isolationism bites; Quantum baloney; Regarding the rank & file MAGA mindset

TNR writes: 

Rattling America’s longest-standing alliances is starting to cost the U.S. military industrial complex.

U.S. arms makers were shut out of the European Union’s enormous defense spending plan released Wednesday.

“We must buy more European. Because that means strengthening the European defense technological and industrial base,” said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

The U.K. was similarly frozen out of the deal. Instead, the EU tapped South Korea and Japan to join the military program, which aims to spend more than $800 billion by 2030 as the bloc prepares for potential conflict with Russia.

“We need to see not only Russia as a threat, but also … more global geopolitical developments and where Americans will put their strategic attention,” said European Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius, according to Politico.

This is probably just the start of all kinds of MAGA damage that is coming to America. MAGA is openly attacking and poisoning our economy, society, minds, pluralism, social tolerance, government, rule of law, civil liberties, reality, rationality and democracy.

In my mind, this raises a deeply troubling new thought. This was first first articulated by Ron yesterday (I think). Namely, in large part, is djt looking for mass destruction for the sake of all the chaos, damage and pain he can cause? Maybe he believes that as all kinds of damage increases, his own wealth and power will increase. Maybe he is enraged with the whole fracking world because of all the slights and insults, real or made up, he acts like he has suffered. Maybe he actually believes he has suffered horrendous persecution. 

I'm starting to sense something a lot worse than I have imagined up to now might be going on with djt and MAGA. Something a lot more malicious than mere wealth and power lust.

Q: Is Germaine being irrationally alarmist about this new destruction and chaos theory? Does anyone else sense that djt and MAGA are about a lot more than just wealth and power?

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

Sabina chats about quantum computers and Microsoft lying about it and their maybe quantum Majorana chip.

At the very least we can say that the Microsoft claims

suffer from a certain . . . . lack of coherence!

The physics joke: Quantum coherence is a fundamental property of quantum systems that enables phenomena like superposition and entanglement by maintaining stable phase relationships between quantum states. When coherence is lost quantum phenomena collapse into old-fashioned physics. Maintaining coherence is necessary for quantum computers. Microsoft lacks coherence, get it? It's a joke. Nyuck, nyuck, as the 3 stooges would say.  

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

Salon reports about what is starting to look like how rank and file djt supporters are rationalizing their continuing support for djt even when his policies bite them personally very hard:

Camila Muñoz overstayed her visa and got deported

Bradley Bartell voted for djt but does not blame djt for losing his wife

Initially, much of the reaction to this story was framed in terms of "regret," with some outlets claiming Bartell is "questioning" his vote. It's an understandable error. It should be that someone would regret taking an action that led directly to his wife being arrested. Careful reading of the story shows, however, that all Bartell would commit to was saying, "It doesn’t make any sense," without ever saying if he was reconsidering the wisdom of voting for a man who promised to deport everyone like Muñoz, starting "day one." I took to Bluesky and warned people that there was no evidence that Bartell had learned a lesson, gently predicting he would stand by Trump.

 

On Wednesday, that prediction came true, with Bartell telling Newsweek, "I don't regret the vote," even as he asked people to donate to GoFundMe to raise cash for Muñoz's bond. He twisted himself in knots to argue that this wasn't Trump's fault, insisting, "He didn't create the system, but he does have an opportunity to improve it. Hopefully, all this attention will bring to light how broken it is." This is, of course, delusional. ICE is acting Trump's orders, which his press secretary Karoline Leavitt clarified in January: "If an individual is overstaying their visa, they are therefore an illegal immigrant residing in this country, and they are subject to deportation." Bartell would have seen that, if he read the USA Today story about his and Muñoz's plight, but I'd bet he didn't. USA Today is the hated "mainstream media," and MAGA refuses to trust it, even if it has useful, fact-based information, such as how deadly serious Trump is about this deportation agenda.

None of this is to single Bartell out. On the contrary, the reason it was so easy to predict how he would react is that this is typical of most Trump voters, whose devotion to the MAGA cult reliably outstrips what should be more pressing concerns, such as the safety of their families. We saw this during the pandemic, as Republican voters — unable to admit liberals could be right about anything, including the germ theory of disease — refused to take precautions and even rejected the vaccines that Trump himself had authorized research funding for. The result was also predictable: death rates from COVID-19 among Republicans swiftly outpaced those of Democratic voters.  

Being willing to admit you're wrong is hard for most people. In June 2017, I first wrote about the decades of psychological research showing that "buyer's remorse" makes people feel bad about themselves. Most everyone has, at one point or another, tied themselves in rationalization knots to avoid uttering the phrase, "I was wrong." Republicans have been swimming in decades of propaganda telling them liberals are the most loathsome people on the planet, making it all that much harder to admit that liberals were right all along. In addition, the personalities most attracted to Trumpism are hostile to critical thinking and attracted to "my way or the highway" attitudes that make no room to listen to disagreement. (emphases added)

The obvious question is will there be a major backlash against djt by his voters, even when he hurts them badly? So far the answer is no, not yet at least. They rationalize their own pain and suffering from MAGA cruelty and illegality. They believe the mess is (1) the fault of anything or anyone but djt, and (2) unconsciously, the fault of their own bad vote for their own pain and suffering. Apparently, most djt voters are still willing to twist themselves in knots to avoid blaming djt and to avoid the awful cognitive dissonance of what they actually voted for and are still empowering.

That exemplifies how powerful the grip on supporters' minds that djt has. MAGA really is a personality cult with djt at the center. We're in very deep trouble.

 The following harrowing account of a Canadian woman's detention  by ICE provides an intimate and humanizing account of the system and a glimpse into a population of women who have been dehumanized and effectively tortured in detention centers and jails for minor technical mistakes such as overstaying work visas. Here is the first half or so, please click on the link to the Guardian to read this powerful first person account of being whisked off the streets and held secretively in abominable detention centers and jails.

I’m the Canadian who was detained by Ice for two weeks. It felt like I had been kidnapped 

I was stuck in a freezing cell without explanation despite eventually having lawyers and media attention. Yet, compared with others, I was lucky

s

by Jasmine Mooney

 There was no explanation, no warning. One minute, I was in an immigration office talking to an officer about my work visa, which had been approved months before and allowed me, a Canadian, to work in the US. The next, I was told to put my hands against the wall, and patted down like a criminal before being sent to an Ice detention center without the chance to talk to a lawyer.

I grew up in Whitehorse, Yukon, a small town in the northernmost part of Canada. I always knew I wanted to do something bigger with my life. I left home early and moved to Vancouver, British Columbia, where I built a career spanning multiple industries – acting in film and television, owning bars and restaurants, flipping condos and managing Airbnbs.

In my 30s, I found my true passion working in the health and wellness industry. I was given the opportunity to help launch an American brand of health tonics called Holy! Water – a job that would involve moving to the US.

I was granted my trade Nafta work visa, which allows Canadian and Mexican citizens to work in the US in specific professional occupations, on my second attempt. It goes without saying, then, that I have no criminal record. I also love the US and consider myself to be a kind, hard-working person.

I started working in California and travelled back and forth between Canada and the US multiple times without any complications – until one day, upon returning to the US, a border officer questioned me about my initial visa denial and subsequent visa approval. He asked why I had gone to the San Diego border the second time to apply. I explained that that was where my lawyer’s offices were, and that he had wanted to accompany me to ensure there were no issues.

After a long interrogation, the officer told me it seemed “shady” and that my visa hadn’t been properly processed. He claimed I also couldn’t work for a company in the US that made use of hemp – one of the beverage ingredients. He revoked my visa, and told me I could still work for the company from Canada, but if I wanted to return to the US, I would need to reapply.

I was devastated; I had just started building a life in California. I stayed in Canada for the next few months, and was eventually offered a similar position with a different health and wellness brand.

I restarted the visa process and returned to the same immigration office at the San Diego border, since they had processed my visa before and I was familiar with it. Hours passed, with many confused opinions about my case. The officer I spoke to was kind but told me that, due to my previous issues, I needed to apply for my visa through the consulate. I told her I hadn’t been aware I needed to apply that way, but had no problem doing it.

 

Then she said something strange: “You didn’t do anything wrong. You are not in trouble, you are not a criminal.”

 

I remember thinking: Why would she say that? Of course I’m not a criminal!

 

She then told me they had to send me back to Canada. That didn’t concern me; I assumed I would simply book a flight home. But as I sat searching for flights, a man approached me.

“Come with me,” he said.

There was no explanation, no warning. He led me to a room, took my belongings from my hands and ordered me to put my hands against the wall. A woman immediately began patting me down. The commands came rapid-fire, one after another, too fast to process.

They took my shoes and pulled out my shoelaces.

“What are you doing? What is happening?” I asked.

“You are being detained.”

“I don’t understand. What does that mean? For how long?”

“I don’t know.”

That would be the response to nearly every question I would ask over the next two weeks: “I don’t know.”

They brought me downstairs for a series of interviews and medical questions, searched my bags and told me I had to get rid of half my belongings because I couldn’t take everything with me.

“Take everything with me where?” I asked.

A woman asked me for the name of someone they could contact on my behalf. In moments like this, you realize you don’t actually know anyone’s phone number anymore. By some miracle, I had recently memorized my best friend Britt’s number because I had been putting my grocery points on her account.

I gave them her phone number.

---

They handed me a mat and a folded-up sheet of aluminum foil.

“What is this?”

“Your blanket.”

“I don’t understand.”

I was taken to a tiny, freezing cement cell with bright fluorescent lights and a toilet. There were five other women lying on their mats with the aluminum sheets wrapped over them, looking like dead bodies. The guard locked the door behind me.

For two days, we remained in that cell, only leaving briefly for food. The lights never turned off, we never knew what time it was and no one answered our questions. No one in the cell spoke English, so I either tried to sleep or meditate to keep from having a breakdown. I didn’t trust the food, so I fasted, assuming I wouldn’t be there long.

On the third day, I was finally allowed to make a phone call. I called Britt and told her that I didn’t understand what was happening, that no one would tell me when I was going home, and that she was my only contact.

They gave me a stack of paperwork to sign and told me I was being given a five-year ban unless I applied for re-entry through the consulate. The officer also said it didn’t matter whether I signed the papers or not; it was happening regardless.

I was so delirious that I just signed. I told them I would pay for my flight home and asked when I could leave.

No answer.

Then they moved me to another cell – this time with no mat or blanket. I sat on the freezing cement floor for hours. That’s when I realized they were processing me into real jail: the Otay Mesa Detention Center.

I was told to shower, given a jail uniform, fingerprinted and interviewed. I begged for information.

“How long will I be here?”

“I don’t know your case,” the man said. “Could be days. Could be weeks. But I’m telling you right now – you need to mentally prepare yourself for months.”

Months.

I felt like I was going to throw up.

I was taken to the nurse’s office for a medical check. She asked what had happened to me. She had never seen a Canadian there before. When I told her my story, she grabbed my hand and said: “Do you believe in God?”

I told her I had only recently found God, but that I now believed in God more than anything.

“I believe God brought you here for a reason,” she said. “I know it feels like your life is in a million pieces, but you will be OK. Through this, I think you are going to find a way to help others.”

At the time, I didn’t know what that meant. She asked if she could pray for me. I held her hands and wept.

I felt like I had been sent an angel.

I was then placed in a real jail unit: two levels of cells surrounding a common area, just like in the movies. I was put in a tiny cell alone with a bunk bed and a toilet.

The best part: there were blankets. After three days without one, I wrapped myself in mine and finally felt some comfort.

For the first day, I didn’t leave my cell. I continued fasting, terrified that the food might make me sick. The only available water came from the tap attached to the toilet in our cells or a sink in the common area, neither of which felt safe to drink.

Eventually, I forced myself to step out, meet the guards and learn the rules. One of them told me: “No fighting.”

“I’m a lover, not a fighter,” I joked. He laughed.

I asked if there had ever been a fight here.

“In this unit? No,” he said. “No one in this unit has a criminal record.”

That’s when I started meeting the other women.

That’s when I started hearing their stories.

Women sit on their beds in a privately run 1,000-bed detention center on 28 February 2006 in Otay Mesa, California. Photograph: Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images

And that’s when I made a decision: I would never allow myself to feel sorry for my situation again. No matter how hard this was, I had to be grateful. Because every woman I met was in an even more difficult position than mine.

 

There were around 140 of us in our unit. Many women had lived and worked in the US legally for years but had overstayed their visas – often after reapplying and being denied. They had all been detained without warning.

 

If someone is a criminal, I agree they should be taken off the streets. But not one of these women had a criminal record. These women acknowledged that they shouldn’t have overstayed and took responsibility for their actions. But their frustration wasn’t about being held accountable; it was about the endless, bureaucratic limbo they had been trapped in.

The real issue was how long it took to get out of the system, with no clear answers, no timeline and no way to move forward. Once deported, many have no choice but to abandon everything they own because the cost of shipping their belongings back is too high.

I met a woman who had been on a road trip with her husband. She said they had 10-year work visas. While driving near the San Diego border, they mistakenly got into a lane leading to Mexico. They stopped and told the agent they didn’t have their passports on them, expecting to be redirected. Instead, they were detained. They are both pastors.

I met a family of three who had been living in the US for 11 years with work authorizations. They paid taxes and were waiting for their green cards. Every year, the mother had to undergo a background check, but this time, she was told to bring her whole family. When they arrived, they were taken into custody and told their status would now be processed from within the detention center.

Another woman from Canada had been living in the US with her husband who was detained after a traffic stop. She admitted she had overstayed her visa and accepted that she would be deported. But she had been stuck in the system for almost six weeks because she hadn’t had her passport. Who runs casual errands with their passport?

One woman had a 10-year visa. When it expired, she moved back to her home country, Venezuela. She admitted she had overstayed by one month before leaving. Later, she returned for a vacation and entered the US without issue. But when she took a domestic flight from Miami to Los Angeles, she was picked up by Ice and detained. She couldn’t be deported because Venezuela wasn’t accepting deportees. She didn’t know when she was getting out.

There was a girl from India who had overstayed her student visa for three days before heading back home. She then came back to the US on a new, valid visa to finish her master’s degree and was handed over to Ice due to the three days she had overstayed on her previous visa.

There were women who had been picked up off the street, from outside their workplaces, from their homes. All of these women told me that they had been detained for time spans ranging from a few weeks to 10 months. One woman’s daughter was outside the detention center protesting for her release.

That night, the pastor invited me to a service she was holding. A girl who spoke English translated for me as the women took turns sharing their prayers – prayers for their sick parents, for the children they hadn’t seen in weeks, for the loved ones they had been torn away from.

Then, unexpectedly, they asked if they could pray for me. I was new here, and they wanted to welcome me. They formed a circle around me, took my hands and prayed. I had never felt so much love, energy and compassion from a group of strangers in my life. Everyone was crying.

---

At 3am the next day, I was woken up in my cell.

“Pack your bag. You’re leaving.”

I jolted upright. “I get to go home?”

The officer shrugged. “I don’t know where you’re going.”

Of course. No one ever knew anything.

I grabbed my things and went downstairs, where 10 other women stood in silence, tears streaming down their faces. But these weren’t happy tears. That was the moment I learned the term “transferred”.

For many of these women, detention centers had become a twisted version of home. They had formed bonds, established routines and found slivers of comfort in the friendships they had built. Now, without warning, they were being torn apart and sent somewhere new. Watching them say goodbye, clinging to each other, was gut-wrenching.

I had no idea what was waiting for me next. In hindsight, that was probably for the best.

Our next stop was Arizona, the San Luis Regional Detention Center. The transfer process lasted 24 hours, a sleepless, grueling ordeal. This time, men were transported with us. Roughly 50 of us were crammed into a prison bus for the next five hours, packed together – women in the front, men in the back. We were bound in chains that wrapped tightly around our waists, with our cuffed hands secured to our bodies and shackles restraining our feet, forcing every movement into a slow, clinking struggle.

When we arrived at our next destination, we were forced to go through the entire intake process all over again, with medical exams, fingerprinting – and pregnancy tests; they lined us up in a filthy cell, squatting over a communal toilet, holding Dixie cups of urine while the nurse dropped pregnancy tests in each of our cups. It was disgusting.We sat in freezing-cold jail cells for hours, waiting for everyone to be processed. Across the room, one of the women suddenly spotted her husband. They had both been detained and were now seeing each other for the first time in weeks.

The look on her face – pure love, relief and longing – was something I’ll never forget.

We were beyond exhausted. I felt like I was hallucinating.

The guard tossed us each a blanket: “Find a bed.”

There were no pillows. The room was ice cold, and one blanket wasn’t enough. Around me, women lay curled into themselves, heads covered, looking like a room full of corpses. This place made the last jail feel like the Four Seasons.

I kept telling myself: Do not let this break you.

Thirty of us shared one room. We were given one Styrofoam cup for water and one plastic spoon that we had to reuse for every meal. I eventually had to start trying to eat and, sure enough, I got sick. None of the uniforms fit, and everyone had men’s shoes on. The towels they gave us to shower were hand towels. They wouldn’t give us more blankets. The fluorescent lights shined on us 24/7.

Everything felt like it was meant to break you. Nothing was explained to us. I wasn’t given a phone call. We were locked in a room, no daylight, with no idea when we would get out.

I tried to stay calm as every fiber of my being raged towards panic mode. I didn’t know how I would tell Britt where I was. Then, as if sent from God, one of the women showed me a tablet attached to the wall where I could send emails. I only remembered my CEO’s email from memory. I typed out a message, praying he would see it.

He responded.

Through him, I was able to connect with Britt. She told me that they were working around the clock trying to get me out. But no one had any answers; the system made it next to impossible. I told her about the conditions in this new place, and that was when we decided to go to the media.

She started working with a reporter and asked whether I would be able to call her so she could loop him in. The international phone account that Britt had previously tried to set up for me wasn’t working, so one of the other women offered to let me use her phone account to make the call.

We were all in this together.

---

With nothing to do in my cell but talk, I made new friends – women who had risked everything for the chance at a better life for themselves and their families.  

A border patrol agent watches as girls from Central America sleep under thermal blankets at a detention facility in McAllen, Texas, on 8 September 2014. Photograph: John Moore/Getty Image

One woman had been offered asylum in Mexico within two weeks but had been encouraged to keep going to the US. Now, she was stuck, living in a nightmare, separated from her young children for months. She sobbed, telling me how she felt like the worst mother in the world.

Many of these women were highly educated and spoke multiple languages. Yet, they had been advised to pretend they didn’t speak English because it would supposedly increase their chances of asylum.

Some believed they were being used as examples, as warnings to others not to try to come.

Women were starting to panic in this new facility, and knowing I was most likely the first person to get out, they wrote letters and messages for me to send to their families.

It felt like we had all been kidnapped, thrown into some sort of sick psychological experiment meant to strip us of every ounce of strength and dignity....

I got a message from Britt. My story had started to blow up in the media.

Almost immediately after, I was told I was being released.

My Ice agent, who had never spoken to me, told my lawyer I could have left sooner if I had signed a withdrawal form, and that they hadn’t known I would pay for my own flight home.

From the moment I arrived, I begged every officer I saw to let me pay for my own ticket home. Not a single one of them ever spoke to me about my case.

To put things into perspective: I had a Canadian passport, lawyers, resources, media attention, friends, family and even politicians advocating for me. Yet, I was still detained for nearly two weeks.

Imagine what this system is like for every other person in there.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

For the full, unedited, long-form story click link at top of page to The Guardian. I think this is a powerful piece of personal journalism. I believe this account points to a form of torture incompatible with our values and such documents as those enshrining universal human rights which we have signed at the UN. This is not some wonky analysis by an egghead at The Atlantic, this woman clearly saw the belly of the beast up close and personal after an admittedly privileged life. I hope this reaches more readers than it has so far. As far as wonky details go, however, it should be noted that: 

ACLU lists Detainees Rights as follows:

Your rights

• Most people who are detained while their case is underway are eligible to be released on bond or with other reporting conditions.
• You have the right to call a lawyer or your family if you are detained, and you have the right to be visited by a lawyer in detention.
• You have the right to have your attorney with you at any hearing before an immigration judge.

What to do if you are detained

• If you are denied release after being arrested for an immigration violation, ask for a bond hearing before an immigration judge. In many cases, an immigration judge can order that you be released or that your bond be lowered.  
  

 

 ---------------------------------------------------

 There are also international instruments and treaties--some we've signed and other's not --which stipulate human rights standards that are clearly unmet in the detention centers and jails described above. 

 

 

 

Trump’s Defiance of Court Orders Faces Judicial Pushback: Constitutional Crisis Looms

 

 

 Recent judicial actions against the Trump administration signal a potential turning point in its ongoing clash with the judiciary, spotlighting a growing confrontation over checks and balances. On March 15, 2025, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered a halt to the deportation of over 200 Venezuelans under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act, but the administration defiantly proceeded with the flights on March 16, landing deportees in El Salvador—prompting Boasberg to issue a stern ultimatum on March 19, demanding detailed answers by noon on March 20 about the flights’ timing, deportees’ legal statuses, and justifications for ignoring his order, with a warning of “possible consequences” (NBC News. ) Simultaneously, on March 19, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang ruled that Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) likely violated the Constitution by dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), ordering an immediate stop to cuts, reinstatement of employee access, and payment restoration, adding pressure on multiple fronts (AP News.) Chief Justice John Roberts also issued a rare rebuke on March 19, criticizing Trump and Musk for threatening to impeach Boasberg, emphasizing the judiciary’s role as the “only obstacle” to Trump’s agenda.

 

The administration’s defiance extends beyond these high-profile cases, revealing a pattern of flouting judicial authority. Consider the case of Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a Brown University assistant professor and kidney transplant specialist from Lebanon, a lawful permanent resident with a U.S. visa. On March 2025, she was detained at Boston Logan International Airport upon returning from Lebanon, where she attended a public event honoring a former Hezbollah leader, attended by 200,000 people, and had photos of Hezbollah figures on her phone, which she said were for religious, not political, reasons. Despite a federal judge’s order on March 15, 2025, allowing her return pending a hearing, Homeland Security deported her to Lebanon over the weekend, ignoring the ruling and stripping her status, sparking outrage among colleagues and students who rallied in Rhode Island, calling it “fascist state terror”( AP News). This mirrors the Venezuelan deportations, where Trump, Musk, and El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele mocked Boasberg’s order with a taunting “Oopsie, too late [laughing emoji]” tweet, and the administration’s silence on Chuang’s USAID ruling, suggesting continued non-compliance or delay.

 

The Trump administration’s responses to these judicial rebukes have been marked by resistance, silence, and rhetorical attacks, not compliance. The Justice Department (DOJ) pushed back against Boasberg on March 19, accusing him of “continuing to beat a dead horse” and invoking state secrets to delay providing deportation details, while offering no public statement on Chuang’s USAID order, indicating potential defiance. Trump and Musk have doubled down, dismissing Roberts’ critique (“He didn’t mention me by name,” Trump said in a statement today) and labeling Boasberg a “radical left-wing lunatic,” while publicizing their mockery of court orders, consistent with their history of ignoring rulings, like deporting Alawieh despite a judge’s directive. This pattern of behavior—ignoring Boasberg’s halt, deporting Alawieh, remaining silent on USAID, and mocking judges—demonstrates that Trump is already operating as a scofflaw, not merely testing judicial limits.

 

The looming deadlines—Boasberg’s March 20, 2025, ultimatum and Chuang’s ongoing USAID order—will likely force the Trump administration to either plainly state its defiance of these rulings or bring its actions into conformity with judicial authority. Based on their track record, including the Venezuelan deportations, Alawieh’s deportation, and judicial mockery, they appear poised to continue disregarding legal norms unless compelled otherwise yes hello I know I'm coming right down just give me a minute thank you. The judiciary’s robust pushback, combined with public and media scrutiny, suggests an imminent clarification is necessary, potentially echoing historical defiance like Andrew Jackson’s reputed rejection of judicial authority ("John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"), unless the administration pivots under pressure. Either way, we will soon learn whether or not Trump’s actions confirm an entrenched authoritarian drift—marked by his defiance of court orders, politicization of institutions, and likely unconstitutional dismantling of federal agencies subject to legislative oversight under Article I. These actions, alongside his rhetorical overreach, will clarify the extent to which this clearly authoritarian-leaning presidency can be reined in by checks and balances, or restrained by judicial and public pressure.

 

 

Insecurity: Tinkering with social security & and playing with Pxy

An article posted by The Hill discusses changes to the SSA, allegedly to improve security and decrease fraud:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) said Monday it will no longer allow individuals to verify their identity over the phone but instead require online authentication or in-person visits for those seeking benefit claims and direct deposit changes.

“SSA will permit individuals who do not or cannot use the agency’s online my  Social Security  services to start their claim for benefits on the telephone. However, the claim cannot be completed until the individual’s identity is verified in person,” a blog post on the SSA website reads.

As usual for MAGA actions, no data is provided. Therefore, also as usual, there are good reasons to think this is just a ruse to make Social Security hard to access. I asked my friend Pxy (Perplexity) for it's "thoughts"** on the matter.

** AI does not have thoughts. It is just hardware running a software program. Humans have thoughts.

Q: Is there strong evidence that the changes in social security discussed in this article, https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5202848-social-security-in-office-visits/ , would significantly improve security and decrease fraud?

A: While the SSA asserts these measures will improve security, the evidence supporting significant fraud reduction remains unclear, and critics highlight risks to vulnerable populations.

Criticisms and Lack of Robust Evidence
No Public Fraud Data: While the SSA references direct deposit fraud statistics, no independent or detailed reports are provided to validate claims of widespread phone-based fraud 4 7. A 2019 inspector general report identified ~20,000 online fraud cases but lacked comparable phone fraud data 4.

Contradictory Internal Assessments: An SSA memo acknowledged that fraud in phone claims is "extremely rare," as benefits aren’t disbursed until identity is verified via tax records, bank statements, or other methods 1.

Potential for Increased Harm: Advocacy groups warn that rural residents, seniors, and disabled individuals—who often lack internet access or mobility—may face delays or denial of benefits 6 7. The changes could also strain understaffed offices, with projected increases of 75,000–85,000 monthly visitors 8.

Broader Context
The SSA is simultaneously reducing staff and closing offices, raising concerns about capacity to handle in-person demands 6 8. Critics argue the policy prioritizes cost-cutting over evidence-based fraud prevention, noting that overpayment clawbacks (a separate $7 billion initiative) disproportionately harm low-income beneficiaries 4.

Conclusion
While the SSA frames these changes as necessary modernization, the lack of transparent fraud data and the potential for systemic disruption undermine claims of significant security improvements. The measures appear driven more by administrative efficiency goals than demonstrated fraud risks, with marginalized populations bearing the greatest burden 1 4 6.

Welp, in view of MAGA's constant, deep mendacity and shocking malice, one can reasonably believe this is MAGA's way to attack Social Security. And, also as usual, problems at the SSA are mostly due to MAGA efforts to break the SSA so they could claim it was broken and needed to be eliminated:

Q2: Were Republicans in congress mostly responsible for long-term underfunding the SSA?

A2: The long-term underfunding of the Social Security Administration (SSA) has been significantly influenced by Republican legislative priorities, particularly through budget cuts and staffing reductions. 

FY 2025 Budget Proposal: House Republicans advanced a $450 million cut to the SSA’s administrative budget, reducing it to $13.7 billion despite serving 7 million more beneficiaries than in 2015 9 10. Democrats warned this would force 3 million Americans to face closed/reduced field offices and worsen processing delays 9.

Staffing Reductions: The SSA’s workforce is projected to fall to a 50-year low (50,000 employees) under Republican budgets, down from 57,000 in 2024 9 11. Critics note this exacerbates backlogs in disability claims, retirement applications, and customer service wait times 9.

Contextual Factors
While demographic pressures (aging population, lower birth rates) strain Social Security, bipartisan inaction has compounded the issue 12. However, Republican policies since 2024 have actively accelerated underfunding through austerity measures, whereas Democratic efforts focus on expanding revenue and services.

Conclusion
Republican budgets since 2024 bear primary responsibility for the SSA’s operational crisis, prioritizing tax cuts and austerity over sustainable funding. Their policies have systematically reduced staffing, closed offices, and proposed benefit cuts—all while blocking revenue solutions favored by most Americans 12 13.

Q: Whadda ya think, is this an attack on Social Security or just patriotic cutting waste, fraud and abuse?

Toxic MAGA bits: Gutting the EPA; MAGA's anti-constitionalism; MAGA's collateral damage

The NYT reports (not paywalled) on MAGA thugs completely eliminating all EPA research functions:

Trump Administration Aims to Eliminate E.P.A.’s Scientific Research Arm

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to eliminate its scientific research arm, firing as many as 1,155 chemists, biologists, toxicologists and other scientists, according to documents reviewed by Democrats on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the EPA, has said he wants to eliminate 65 percent of the agency’s budget. That would be a drastic reduction — one that experts said could hamper clean water and wastewater improvements, air quality monitoring, the cleanup of toxic industrial sites, and other parts of the agency’s mission.

Molly Vaseliou, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., said in a statement that the agency “is taking exciting steps as we enter the next phase of organizational improvements .... We are committed to enhancing our ability to deliver clean air, water and land for all Americans. While no decisions have been made yet, we are actively listening to employees at all levels to gather ideas on how to increase efficiency and ensure the E.P.A. is as up to date and effective as ever.”  

The E.P.A.’s science office provides the independent research that undergirds virtually all of the agency’s environmental policies, from analyzing the risks of “forever chemicals” in drinking water to determining the best way to reduce fine particle pollution in the atmosphere. .... Its findings tend to support stronger regulations to protect against exposure to air pollution, hazardous chemicals and climate change. And that has made it a target of many industries.

That's sad, frightening and deeply insulting. 

Q: How is it possible to get rid of most of an agency, while ensuring the EPA is as effective as ever? 

A: If effective as ever means unable to stop or regulate pollution, then gutting the EPA is the way to do the job. Businesses that profit by pollution will love this. Consumers and workers can just live with more poison in their lives. And if they don't like the added poisons, they can just go pound sand.

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

A NYT opinion makes an interesting argument about MAGA's authoritarianism: Trump Has Gone From Unconstitutional to Anti-Constitutional -- But there are other ways to evaluate the actions of a government. You can ask a somewhat different question: not whether an action is constitutional, but whether it sits opposed to constitutionalism itself. You can ask, in other words, whether it is anti-constitutional. .... An anti-constitutional act is one that rejects the basic premises of constitutionalism. It rejects the premise that sovereignty lies with the people, that ours is a government of limited and enumerated powers and that the officers of that government are bound by law. The new president has, in just the first two months of his second term, performed a number of illegal and unconstitutional acts. But the defining attribute of his administration thus far is its anti-constitutional orientation.

Now that is an insightful way of describing what MAGA's authoritarianism is. It is anti-constitutional. In the end if MAGA wins and our democracy really gets killed, I continue to believe we will face a kleptocratic, three-headed monster, djt ruling as quasi-dictator, billionaires ruling as ruthless plutocrats, and Christian nationalist zealots ruling as bigoted theocrats. 

Sure, it is possible there will be a falling-out among the three main authoritarian wealth and power contenders, but I don't have a feel for how that war for wealth and power would play out. If that happens I suspect the Christian nationalists will lose out to the plutocrats maybe leaving djt as an even more powerful dictator-kleptocrat. Why might the plutocrats win? Maybe this logic: money talks, religion walks. Plutocrats already have money, Christianity just wants it.

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

The Independent reports about Fox News propagandist Jessie Watters, who wishes that MAGA glee over job losses from federal spending cuts could be “a little bit less callous.” The Independent writes:  MAGA superfan Jesse Watters once again laments DOGE cuts that impact him -- Johns Hopkins University announced staff layoffs as a result of massive funding cuts to federal aid programs – where Watters’s sister works. -- On Thursday evening’s episode of Jesse Watters Primetime, the host, once again, praised President Donald Trump, billionaire Elon Musk and the newly-formed Department of Government Efficiency for making massive cuts to federal programs to curtail what they believe is “waste, fraud and abuse.” But also lamented that it would be “a whole family thing” to deal with the fallout over the weekend. .... “She’s texting me. It’s going to be a whole family thing, so we’re going to have to deal with that over the weekend,” Watters said.

Poor Jessie. Apparently his mommy is ticked that her collaterally damaged daughter lost or might lose her job due to MAGA's mindless destruction machine. Jessie's reaction is that he wishes MAGA people would not gloat about people who lose their jobs due to MAGA's onslaught. What a kind, empathetic guy. /s

An outpouring of sympathy for Jessie

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

Bonus non-MAGA bit!!: The Guardian writes: Chuck Schumer clung to belief Republicans would ‘expel’ Trump, book says -- Even as 2024 election loomed, reporters say, Democratic Senate leader was sure GOP would ‘expel the turd of Trump’ -- The revelation comes .... amid serious Democratic backlash against Schumer for failing to provide stiff enough resistance to Trump’s actions. 

Good grief! The Dem leadership is worse than clueless. They are stupidly and/or cynically complicit, whether they know or believe it or not. How can they possibly be so stupid or ignorant as to afford any benefit of any doubt to any Republican in power in the federal government. What the hell is wrong with those people? Schumer actually believed that the GOP would return to its old self. That is idiotic.

Other Dems seem to be equally clueless or ignorant. Chris Murphy said that his vote for Marco Rubio for Secretary of State was "a mistake." He falsely thought Rubio would stand up to djt, particularly on issues like Russia's involvement in Ukraine, but he failed to do so. Similarly, Chris Van Hollen expressed regret, noting that Rubio had previously championed American values and acknowledged Russia as the aggressor in Ukraine. However, Van Hollen now sees that Rubio adopts Trump's positions. That should have been obvious before the confirmation vote in the Senate. Those Democratic Party US Senators grossly misunderstood djt's mindset. They just did not get the gigantic, well-known point about djt demanding loyalty to himself above everything else, including the rule of law, the US Constitution and inconvenient facts and truths, e.g., the 2020 election was stolen and his violent 1/6 coup attempt was just a pleasant "day of love." 

The Dem turds that really need to be expelled include Schumer, Murphy and Van Hollen. Are they fools, idiots, complicit, ignorant, childishly gullible or some combination? 

Q: Is it time for rank and file Dems to demand a house-cleaning to get rid of the party's worse than useless old politicians? Or, is everything mostly hunky-dory?