Isaiah's latest THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "It's A Choice!" is hilarious.
But many of their examples of government waste are misleading, wrote Glenn Kessler for The Washington Post Fact-Checker — and worse, the simple math of their promises doesn't add up.
That's "almost impossible," wrote Kessler, if you take even a cursory look at where the government actually spends money.
The three biggest federal expenditures, he wrote, are Social Security ($1.45 trillion), the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs ($1.1 trillion), and Medicare ($900 billion). Interest payments on the national debt are another $900 billion. And while you could make small cuts in some of these programs, all four of these categories are expected to increase over the next decade as the population ages.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
In response to the news that President-elect Donald Trump has named Scott Bessent to serve as U.S. Secretary of Treasury, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) released the following statement:
“Wall Street may be breathing a sigh of relief at Scott Bessent’s nomination, but working people see no help coming their way. Mr. Bessent’s expertise is helping rich investors make more money, not cutting costs for families squeezed by corporate profiteering.
“A Treasury Secretary must safeguard our financial system, ensure the fairness of our tax system, and expand economic opportunities for the middle class, particularly around housing affordability. I have been a fierce critic of Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s extreme interest rate hikes and lack of transparency, but I have never questioned that it is his job to make those decisions. It would be a serious error for the Trump administration to interfere with the Fed’s independence, as Mr. Bessent has suggested.
“I do not know if Mr. Bessent will transfer his loyalty from Wall Street investors to America’s workers, but I am willing to work with anyone to advance the interests of working families. I look forward to reviewing the Treasury Secretary nominee’s record and meeting with him ahead of his confirmation hearing.”
###
Since being named President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for Director of National Intelligence, former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is facing new scrutiny for her ties to an alleged cult.
As The Daily Beast notes, Gabbard became the first practicing Hindu member of Congress when she was elected to represent Hawaii’s 2nd district in 2013. But she is also reportedly connected to a fringe off-shoot of the Hare Krishna movement known as the Science of Identity Foundation. As The New Yorker noted in a 2017 profile, Gabbard’s parents “joined the circle of disciples” surrounding the group’s founder, Chris Butler, when the family moved to Hawaii in the 1980s. As a child, Gabbard spent two years at “informal schools run by followers of Butler.” Gabbard has referred to Butler as her “guru dev” or spiritual master.
[. . .]
Gabbard’s aunt, Sinavaiana Gabbard, told The Independent in 2022, that her niece’s 2020 campaign was largely staffed by Science of Identity members and claimed that Gabbard’s presidential bid was directly related to Chris Butler’s pursuit of political influence.
In March 2024, Tulsi Gabbard, the former Democratic congresswoman and failed presidential candidate whom Donald Trump has tapped to be director of national intelligence, created a political action committee called Defend Freedom, Inc. The group posted a bare-bones website featuring photos of Gabbard and declared it “was organized to elect patriots who will fight to defend America’s Peace, Security, Prosperity, and Freedom.” It asked for donations of up to $5,000 to “make an impact across America.” Tens of thousands of people contributed to Gabbard’s PAC. Through mid-October it raised $1.9 million, including a $16,552 transfer from another Gabbard PAC called Team Tulsi.
Of all the money it pulled in, Defend Freedom, Inc. devoted only $20,000 to contributions for a small number of candidates, all far-right MAGA-ish Republicans: US Senate candidates Kari Lake and Tim Sheehy, and US House contenders Joe Kent, Brian Jack, and Mayra Flores. (Before running for a congressional seat in 2022, Flores published social media posts promoting QAnon.) Where did all the money go? Gabbard’s outfit spent $1.3 million on operating expenses—at least $1 million on fundraising and direct mail, according to its filings with the Federal Election Commission. Like many PACs, it acted mainly as a money-churning machine that generated donations that mostly profited vendors and consultants.
Defend Freedom, Inc. is one of a network of organizations Gabbard has assembled in recent years, and they warrant a thorough review as part of her Senate confirmation process.
Gabbard is a highly unconventional candidate for the DNI job, which entails overseeing all 18 agencies in the US intelligence community (including the CIA and the NSA). She has espoused fringe views often in sync with Moscow talking points. She provided a preemptive defense of Vladimir Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine and afterward boosted the conspiracy theory advanced by Russia that the United States had been collaborating with Ukraine to develop biological weapons to deploy against Russia. Her fondness for Putin has earned her favorable coverage from Russia’s propaganda outlets, and her appointment, if she is confirmed, will likely spook intelligence services throughout the world and make them hesitant to collaborate with US intelligence. She also has no experience managing or holding a senior position within a large organization, let alone an agency with the task of safeguarding the nation. Consequently, an extensive vetting of Gabbard ought to focus on her own political operation.
In February, Gabbard established a Super PAC called For Love of Country, Inc. Its name echoed the title of a book she would release in April with the subtitle “Leave the Democrat Party Behind.” Gabbard had quit the Democratic Party in 2022, proclaiming herself an independent, and she went on to become a highly partisan commentator, hurling harsh rhetoric at her former party. The promotional material for this book claimed that the Democrats were now “controlled by an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by woke ideology and racializing everything.” It slammed the Democratic Party as “a clear and present threat to the God‑given freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.”
In the summer of 2015, three Syrian girls who had narrowly survived an airstrike some weeks earlier stood before Tulsi Gabbard with horrific burns all over their bodies.
Gabbard, then a US congresswoman on a visit to the Syria-Turkey border as part of her duties for the foreign affairs committee, had a question for them.
Larry Pfeiffer, the director of George Mason University’s Hayden Center for Intelligence, Policy, and International Security, said Gabbard’s apparent susceptibility to foreign disinformation and her affinity for strongmen will give pause to American allies with whom the US routinely shares intelligence on common threats.
Intelligence services, he explained, are notoriously territorial and tight-lipped on sources and methods – particularly when it comes to so-called human intelligence, or Humint, which refers to information collected by and from spies and sources within hostile governments.
Pfeiffer said foreign allies are likely already concerned about how a second Trump administration will handle intelligence, given the president-elect’s record. He also predicted that Gabbard’s confirmation as DNI would cause even more problems among skittish partners.
“I think they wouldn’t feel like they’ve got an American confidant that they can deal with on a mature level,” he said. “I can guarantee you that the foreign intelligence services of Europe, including the Brits, are all having little side conversations right now about … what is this going to mean, and how are we going to operate, and what are we going to do now.”
In a full hour interview with Democracy Now's Amy Goodman, which aired on hundreds of stations throughout the country several months ago, Larry Flynt was briefly questioned about the exploitation of women in his work. Flynt's response was that, 'most of the criticism comes from the radical feminist movement, who really [sic] only claim to fame is to urge a bunch of ugly women to march behind.' This is the same group of women who screamed in the margins in the days leading to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, yet on hundreds of popular left stations, Flynt's words went unchallenged. Goodman did not include another guest to confront Flynt. Instead, she read a dated quote in which Gloria Steinem voiced her opposition to Flynt and compared his use of the First Amendment to racist and fascist publications that similarly serve to degrade people. Flynt's response was short and easy: that Steinem's work was useful in the 1960s, that she is out of touch today, and that if she is offended by his magazine, she should not read it. Goodman's questions quickly moved on to another topic. Before the interview ended, Flynt adds that '[T]here are only a handful of us that are lobbing grenades into the Bush camp. It's me, Michael Moore, Howard Stern, Molly Ivins, D.H. Hatfield, Greg Palast, you know, you can count them all on both hands.'
Flynt's myopic view of the world makes him blind to the work that so many others do. And, because he controls a tremendous amount of capital, he is able to dodge criticisms against his degradation of women while legitimizing himself to the popular left by publishing progressive journalists. Flynt has become sophisticated at amplifying his voice through his enormous means of production to avoid any real concerns about his product.
In the days that followed, the program was flooded with comments condemning Flynt and the broadcast. Democracy Now's response was to have two feminists, Susie Bright and Susan Brison, debate the merits of pornography, centered around the Flynt interview. Democracy Now attempted to have these women argue over the issue of pornography- while two weeks earlier the program featured a longer interview with a pornographer, unchallenged.
i was on the phone with t and we were talking about the racists on the left who worked to defeat kamala harris. it was a long list. but we both agreed the most disgusting was amy goodman.
you know her, the new york busybody who always pretends to care about racism. but really doesn't. and who used her program to attack kamala day after day during the general election.
that bitch knew what she was doing.
that's what hurt kamala - goodman and the other left racists. and we need to stop giving them donations and we need to make sure that they go away. shut down their nonsense because they'll do it again.
they worked for trump this time and we should never forget it and we should never forgive it.
The expectation that parties should earn our votes originates from and reproduces this marketized, elitist, and privatized model of politics. When we expect businesses to earn our dollars, we accept that our only role is to pay, while they decide how to produce. To speak of parties earning our votes is to apply this same idea to politics: it means accepting that our only role is to vote, while political elites decide how to rule.
However, the consent involved in competitive democracy is even more limited than consumer choice. The exclusion of the people from any role in decision-making means their consent is not sought for whether or how elites will govern, only which elites will govern — voters don’t choose the product, only the producer. Since our only role is to vote, not to decide, once it’s determined that we have consented to government (even tacitly), all decisions about what we have consented to are no longer up to us.
Ultimately, this disempowering model of politics stems from the heart of liberal political philosophy: the idea that democracy is consent to government. We can’t consent to our own actions, only what is done to us by others, so all discussions of consent presuppose that one side acts and the other is acted upon. Thus, the liberal idea of consent to government rules out the republican idea of self-government by the people and implies instead that a passive people is governed by an active elite.
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
After the election, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy
In multiple states this election year, voters signaled an overall shift away from “parents’ rights” issues, fear mongering, and partisan politics, including the rejection of anti-trans candidate for North Carolina governor Mark Robinson as well as other state and local educational posts.
North Carolina voters also rejected Moms for Liberty-endorsed Superintendent of Public Instruction candidate Michele Morrow, whose campaign and record was nearly equally as disturbing as Robinson’s
Morrow’s anti-LGBTQ record included a defamatory rant against opponent Mo Green, who received the endorsement of state LGBTQ organization Equality North Carolina. Morrow falsely and dangerously misrepresented the plus symbol in LGBTQ+ in a post on Twitter/X: “NEWSFLASH…the ‘+’ includes PEDOPH*L*A!!” The American Psychological Association notes that the plus is often added “to recognize those not captured within or represented by the acronym LGBTQ,” including asexual, intersex, and nonbinary people.
In a recorded clip on her website and YouTube, Morrow addressed a school board, laying bare her values under the guise of “protecting our children.”
“We are talking about trying to figure out how to make our children be as successful as possible, and I am sure that that is your goal. And what we have been called tonight is what they’re claiming we’re saying to children. We’re having an adult conversation,” Morrow said. “There are not children in this room. We aren’t going into the schools and calling them names. They call us Marxist, and hateful, and bigots, and everything else under the sun. Well, let me tell ‘ya: Less than five percent of the entire population of North Carolina identifies as LGBTQ. You guys all claim you want democracy. You know what democracy is? It’s the majority plus one! It’s 50 plus one! You know what? More than 50 percent of the people in this state claim that they believe in God – almighty God, who made us male and female. God who made marriage between a man and a woman. God who said that we must protect our children.”
Morrow had also falsely labeled the public schools she wanted to lead as “indoctrination centers,” while her record included participation in the January 6 insurrection, and called for the execution of former President Barack Obama. Political comedy channel The Good Liars held Morrow accountable for her actions.
In a viral clip, Jason Selvig approached Morrow with printed copies of her threatening tweets under the guise of requesting an autograph. After stroking her ego, he read the now-deleted social media posts back to her, word for word, before making a hasty escape.
Morrow ultimately lost the race to Mo Green, who captured just over 51 percent of the vote.
Green served as superintendent to North Carolina’s third-largest school district, Guilford County Schools, and was Executive Director of Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, which “has invested more than $691 million into North Carolina” to “address the impact of racism ingrained in state institutions — including schools — and support ideas aimed at mitigating hate’s effect on policy and people.”
Green’s platform includes a promise to “celebrate the good in public education” and “ensure safe, secure learning environments,” and opposes The Parental Bill of Rights, which bans discussion about gender identity and sexuality in K-4 classrooms, and requires that schools out students to their parents if they request a change to their name or pronouns.
“Every child deserves to learn, and every staff member deserves to work, in an environment that is safe, welcoming, and inclusive,” Green said.
State’s Most Populous County Wakes up, Rejects Several Anti-Trans Candidates
Also in North Carolina, three of four Moms for Liberty-endorsed candidates were defeated in races for Wake County Board of Education:
- District 5: Incumbent Lynn Edmonds “soundly” defeated Ted Hills. During her first term, Edmonds “voted, alongside the board’s six other Democrats, to bring the school system into compliance with new, federally-mandated protections for LGBTQ students.” Hills opposed the Title IX updates.
- District 6: Sam Hershey, an anti-book book ban advocate, beat challenger Josh Points “by a 40-point margin.” Hershey voiced support for compliance with federally-mandated Title IX updates.
- District 8: Lindsay Mahaffey, who was endorsed by the Equality North Carolina PAC, was elected to her fifth term. Her opponent Elizabeth McDuffie rejected Title IX protections for transgender students and campaigned alongside Michele Morrow.
District 3 incumbent Wing Ng was the only anti-LGBTQ candidate elected, but his victory was narrow. INDY Week reports that Equality North Carolina PAC-endorsed Jordyn Blaise lost “by a razor-thin margin of just about one point.” Lastly, Toshiba Rice won her bid for reelection to District 4. Rice voted to support compliance with the Biden-Harris Administration’s federal Title IX updates.
Equality Victories in the Sunshine State
While Florida’s 60 percent supermajority requirement led to narrow losses for abortion rights (57.2 percent voted in favor of expanding access to abortion) and legalized recreational marijuana (55.9 were in favor), a GOP-supported proposed constitutional amendment that would have led to partisan school board races also lost. In their rejection of this amendment, the League of Women Voters of Florida and other opponents said, “schools should not be politicized and everyone should be welcome at schools regardless of party affiliation.”
Moms for Liberty- and Ron DeSantis-affiliated candidates faced significant losses in the 2024 election. As GLAAD previously reported, 11 out of 23 DeSantis-endorsed candidates, and six out of 14 M4L picks lost their races outright during the August primary. The November runoff further cemented their losses:
- Katie Blaxberg defeated DeSantis and M4L-endorsed Stacy Geier for Pinellas County School Board by over four percentage points (52.06% to 47.94%).
- Michelle Bonczek bested Mark Cioffi, who was endorsed by DeSantis, by nearly 10 percent (54.99% to 45.01%).
Meanwhile, Equality Florida (EQFL) saw significant growth in their political representation. With the organization’s leadership on the ground, they doubled the number of LGBTQ legislators in the statehouse, one of their explicit goals for the election. But they didn’t only make gains in the statehouse. All told, more than 85 EQFL-endorsed candidates, including eight members of the LGBTQ community, were elected to office.
“In the fight against extremist takeovers of Florida school boards, voters rejected DeSantis’s culture wars and divisive agenda,” Equality Florida said. “This year, we delivered DeSantis and Moms for Liberty a string of humiliating school board defeats. Nearly two-thirds of DeSantis-backed school board candidates lost their races this year. Meanwhile, over 72% of Equality Florida Action PAC endorsed school board candidates won their elections. This progress is proof of the power of resistance. We are turning the tide, even when it feels like everything is stacked against us.”
Propelling the “Relentless Flow of Acceptance”
Journalist and transgender rights activist Erin Reed has been tracking the results of down-ballot races throughout the country.
“Even in affirming states, school boards can make life difficult for LGBTQ+ students,” Reed wrote in her newsletter, “or, in states with anti-trans and anti-queer legislation, they can push back against restrictive policies.”
Reed’s reports on social media include LGBTQ news with an emphasis on transgender rights. In a post-election message of support to her trans and queer readers, she drew parallels between the 2024 election and the fight for marriage equality in the early 2000s that pushed on despite setbacks.
After former President George W. Bush was reelected in 2004, “he delivered a State of the Union speech where he said, for instance, that he will enshrine a constitutional ban on gay marriage into United States law,” Reed said. “And I could stop there. I could say that there are people that likely did stop there, that saw this and said that there was no future, but you cannot stop the relentless flow of time. You cannot stop the relentless flow of acceptance.”
-
-
-
-
-
Roxane Gay8 hours ago
-
Racist Amy Goodman9 hours ago
-
-
-
-
No lesson was learned9 hours ago
-
-
The failure Elon Musk9 hours ago
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment