Crypto Industry's $40 Million Defeat of Pro-Worker Sherrod Brown Called 'Obscene'

The Ohio Democrat lost his seat because "the billionaire-backed crypto industry donated $40 million to his right-wing opponent," lamented one labor journalist.

Republican Sen.-elect Bernie Moreno arrives to address supporters on November 4, 2024 in Brecksville, Ohio.
Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Jake Johnson
Nov 07, 2024
COMMON DREAMS


The Republican Party's capture of the U.S. Senate this week was made possible in part by massive spending from the nascent but increasingly influential cryptocurrency industry, which pumped more than $40 million into a successful effort to topple pro-worker progressive Sen. Sherrod Brown in favor of luxury car dealer Bernie Moreno.

Crypto industry spending helped make Ohio's closely watched Senate race the most expensive in the state's history, with Moreno's campaign boosted by around $40.1 million from the super PAC Defend American Jobs—part of what OpenSecrets described as the "triad" of allied pro-crypto groups pouring cash into the 2024 election.

The Washington Postnoted that Moreno "founded a blockchain firm called Ownum in 2018" and "has long immersed himself in blockchain technology, a registry of ownership that essentially underpins all cryptocurrency."


A spokesman for Fairshake, another member of the crypto PAC triad, took credit for Moreno's victory in a statement after the election was called in the Republican's favor and condemned Brown's support for regulating the industry. Fairshake received tens of millions of dollars in donations from the cryptocurrency exchange giant Coinbase—some of which may have been illegal spending, according to the watchdog group Public Citizen, given that the company is a federal contractor.


"Sherrod Brown was a top opponent of cryptocurrency and thanks to our efforts, he will be leaving the Senate," said Fairshake's Josh Vlasto. "Senator-elect Moreno's come-from-behind win shows that Ohio voters want a leader who prioritizes innovation."

Crypto executive Tyler Winklevoss boasted in a social media post, "The crypto army is striking!"

"Sherrod Brown—crypto public enemy, Elizabeth Warren co-conspirator, and Gary Gensler crony—was just ousted by Bernie Moreno for Ohio Senate," wrote Winklevoss, the co-founder of Gemini.


Labor reporter Steven Greenhouse wrote Wednesday that it is "obscene" that Brown lost his seat because "the billionaire-backed crypto industry donated $40 million to his right-wing opponent."

"Sherrod Brown is one of the most pro-worker, pro-middle-class members of the U.S. Senate," Greenhouse added. "He truly fights for workers."

"The strategy was a brazen attempt to buy influence while keeping the public unaware of what they were supporting."

While the Ohio Senate contest was "the biggest single target of crypto money this cycle," as CNBCput it, the industry spread its money widely, backing both Republicans and Democrats in races across the country—underscoring its attempt to gain influence over future regulatory fights in Congress.

Overall, crypto groups spent more than $130 million in support of candidates for federal office this cycle. A tracker created by the Stand With Crypto Alliance estimates that 263 "pro-crypto candidates" were elected to the House and 18 to the Senate in Tuesday's contest.

Former President Donald Trump's victory over Vice President Kamala Harris was also seen as a win for the industry, with Bitcoin's price spiking to a new all-time high on Wednesday. During his campaign, Trump vowed to make the U.S. "the crypto capital of the planet."


"Tonight the crypto voter has spoken decisively—across party lines and in key races across the country," gushed Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase. "Americans disproportionately care about crypto and want clear rules of the road for digital assets. We look forward to working with the new Congress to deliver it."

But one critic, Better Markets president Dennis Kelleher, cast doubt on the industry's self-serving narrative that the 2024 results amounted to a ringing endorsement of cryptocurrency.

In an op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle on Thursday, Kelleher pointed out that pro-crypto PACs adopted "generic anodyne names" and bankrolled ads that didn't even mention cryptocurrency.

"It's as if Ford ran an ad campaign and never mentioned its cars," Kelleher wrote. "The strategy was a brazen attempt to buy influence while keeping the public unaware of what they were supporting. This way, the industry can claim the now-elected officials they backed have a mandate from the public to support crypto interests—even though they don't."

Trump's Chief of Staff Pick Worked as a Tobacco Lobbyist While Running 2024 Campaign

The president-elect previously vowed to "drain the swamp," but his chief of staff pick, Susie Wiles, co-chairs a firm that has lobbied for tobacco giant Swisher International, Tesla, Uber, AT&T, and other corporate giants.

Jake Johnson
Nov 08, 2024
COMMON DREAMS

President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday selected Susie Wiles, a longtime GOP strategist who has spearheaded the Republican leader's campaign operations since 2021, to serve as White House chief of staff, saying in a statement that she helped "achieve one of the greatest political victories in American history."

But Trump's team didn't mention in its announcement that Wiles worked as a lobbyist for the tobacco company Swisher International while running the former president's 2024 bid. Citing disclosure forms filed earlier this year, the investigative outlet Sludgereported Thursday that Wiles "worked to influence Congress on 'FDA regulations.'"


Susie Wiles speaks with President-elect Donald Trump at an election event in West Palm Beach, Florida on November 6, 2024.
(Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

"Wiles has not filed a termination report for her work with Swisher, but she has not reported lobbying for the company since the first quarter of the year, when the company paid her firm Mercury Public Affairs $30,000 in fees," Sludge noted.

The outlet pointed out that Mercury—which lists Wiles as a co-chair on its website—has "large lobbying contracts with several junk food companies that will be working to oppose" Trump's stated objective to "Make America Healthy Again" by, among other changes, working to remove processed foods from school meals.

Mercury "lobbies for sugar cereal company Kellogg's, high fructose corn syrup sauce maker Kraft-Heinz, and Nestlé SA, the Swiss company whose brands include KitKat, Hot Pockets, and Nestea," Sludge reported.

"Some of Mercury's other clients, highlighted on its website, include Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Tesla, Uber, Kaiser Permanente, AT&T, NBC Universal, Gavi: The Vaccine Alliance, and the nation of Qatar," the outlet added.

Kieran Mahoney, Mercury's CEO, said in a statement that Wiles' selection as Trump's chief of staff "is great news for the country," calling her "a valued colleague."




Despite his attempt during the campaign to posture as an ally of the working class and an enemy of Washington, D.C.'s pervasive corruption, Trump is expected to fill his Cabinet with billionaires and others with extensive corporate ties.

Two billionaires, Howard Lutnick and Linda McMahon, are leading the transition team tasked with staffing the incoming administration. Politicoreported that Lutnick—who donated more than $10 million to Trump's campaign—has "faced accusations from some Trump insiders that he has improperly mixed his business interests with his duties standing up a potential administration."

"Concerns about potential conflicts of interest for Lutnick include Cantor Fitzgerald and its relationship with one of the most controversial cryptocurrency companies in the world, Tether, which issues a digital token that is pegged to the value of the U.S. dollar and is reportedly under federal investigation," the outlet noted.

Reporting in recent days has indicated that the two top contenders to lead the Treasury Department in the second Trump administration are billionaires: hedge fund manager and Trump megadonor Scott Bessent and investor John Paulson, a vocal proponent of tax cuts and large-scale deregulation.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who pumped more than $118 million into efforts to elect the former president to a second White House term, is also expected to play a major role in shaping Trump's administration.

"Musk is helping staff the top ranks of the incoming White House and will run an unregulated entity to recommend ways to cut and reorganize government," Axiosreported Thursday. "This creates conflicts of interest at an epic scale. But it's hard to see the Trump White House caring, or Musk letting it slow him down."

The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen observed in a recent report that at least three of Musk's companies—Tesla, X, and SpaceX—are currently facing scrutiny from at least nine federal agencies "for alleged misconduct."

"Enforcement priorities can shift significantly when administrations change," the group said. "Musk's self-serving desire to thwart the numerous civil and criminal investigations into his businesses seems a likely reason for the billionaire’s increased involvement in electoral politics."

Despite Trump’s win, school vouchers were again rejected by majorities of voters

ProPublica
November 9, 2024 

Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

In 2018, Arizona voters overwhelmingly rejected school vouchers. On the ballot that year was a measure that would have allowed all parents — even the wealthiest ones — to receive taxpayer money to send their kids to private, typically religious schools.

Arizonans voted no, and it wasn’t close. Even in a right-leaning state, with powerful Republican leaders supporting the initiative, the vote against it was 65% to 35%.

Coming into this week’s election, Donald Trump and Republicans had hoped to reverse that sort of popular opposition to “school choice” with new voucher ballot measures in several states.

But despite Trump’s big win in the presidential race, vouchers were again soundly rejected by significant majorities of Americans. In Kentucky, a ballot initiative that would have allowed public money to go toward private schooling was defeated roughly 65% to 35% — the same margin as in Arizona in 2018 and the inverse of the margin by which Trump won Kentucky. In Nebraska, nearly all 93 counties voted to repeal an existing voucher program; even its reddest county, where 95% of voters supported Trump, said no to vouchers. And in Colorado, voters defeated an effort to add a “right to school choice” to the state constitution, language that might have allowed parents to send their kids to private schools on the public dime.

Expansions of school vouchers, despite backing from wealthy conservatives, have never won when put to voters. Instead, they lose by margins not often seen in such a polarized country.

Candidates of both parties would be wise “to make strong public education a big part of their political platforms, because vouchers just aren’t popular,” said Tim Royers, president of the Nebraska State Education Association, a teachers union. Royers pointed to an emerging coalition in his state and others, including both progressive Democrats and rural Republicans, that opposes these sweeping “school choice” efforts. (Small-town Trump voters oppose such measures because their local public school is often an important community institution, and also because there aren’t that many or any private schools around.)

Yet voucher efforts have been more successful when they aren’t put to a public vote. In recent years, nearly a dozen states have enacted or expanded major voucher or “education savings account” programs, which provide taxpayer money even to affluent families who were already able to afford private school.

That includes Arizona, where in 2022 the conservative Goldwater Institute teamed up with Republican Gov. Doug Ducey and the GOP majority in the Legislature to enact the very same “universal” education savings account initiative that had been so soundly repudiated by voters just a few years before.

Another way that Republican governors and interest groups have circumvented the popular will on this issue is by identifying anti-voucher members of their own party and supporting pro-voucher candidates who challenge those members in primary elections. This way, they can build legislative majorities to enact voucher laws no matter what conservative voters want.


In Iowa, several Republicans were standing in the way of a major new voucher program as of 2022. Gov. Kim Reynolds helped push them out of office — despite their being incumbents in her own party — for the purposes of securing a majority to pass the measure.

A similar dynamic has developed in Tennessee and in a dramatic way in Texas, the ultimate prize for voucher advocates. There, pro-voucher candidates for the state Legislature won enough seats this Tuesday to pass a voucher program during the legislative session that starts in January, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has said.

The day after the election, Abbott, who has made vouchers his top legislative priority, framed the result as a resounding signal that Texans have now shown a “tidal wave of support” for pro-voucher lawmakers. But in reality, the issue was conspicuously missing from the campaigns of many of the new Republicans whom he helped win, amid polling numbers that showed Texans hold complicated views on school choice. (A University of Houston poll taken this summer found that two-thirds of Texans supported voucher legislation, but that an equal number also believe that vouchers funnel money away from “already struggling public schools.”)


In the half dozen competitive Texas legislative races targeted in this election by Abbott and the pro-voucher American Federation for Children, backed by former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Republican candidates did not make vouchers a central plank of their platforms. Most left the issue off of their campaign websites, instead listing stances like “Standing with Public Schools” and “Increased Funding for Local Schools.”

Corpus Christi-area Republican Denise Villalobos pledged on her website that if elected she would “fight for increased funding for our teachers and local schools”; she did not emphasize her pro-voucher views. At least one ad paid for by the American Federation for Children’s affiliated PAC attacked her opponent, Democrat Solomon Ortiz Jr., not for his opposition to vouchers but for what it claimed were his “progressive open-border policies that flood our communities with violent crime and fentanyl.” (Villalobos defeated Ortiz by 10 points.)

Matthew Wilson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University, said that this strategy reflects a belief among voucher advocates that compared to the border and culture wars, vouchers are not in fact a “slam-dunk winning issue.”

In the wake of Tuesday’s results in the presidential election, NBC News chief political analyst Chuck Todd said that Democrats had overlooked school choice as a policy that might be popular among working-class people, including Latinos, in places like Texas. But the concrete results of ballot initiatives around the nation show that it is in fact Trump, DeVos and other voucher proponents who are out of step with the American people on this particular issue.

They continue to advocate for vouchers, though, for multiple reasons: a sense that public schools are places where children develop liberal values, an ideological belief that the free market and private institutions can do things better and more efficiently than public ones, and a long-term goal of more religious education in this country.

And they know that popular sentiment can be and has been overridden by the efforts of powerful governors and moneyed interest groups, said Josh Cowen, a senior fellow at the Education Law Center who recently published a history of billionaire-led voucher efforts nationwide.

The Supreme Court could also aid the voucher movement in coming years, he said.

“They’re not going to stop,” Cowen said, “just because voters have rejected this.”

'He's Not Kidding,' Advocates Warn as Trump Threatens to Defund Schools for Teaching US History

The Republican presidential nominee is threatening funding if teachers "don't teach what he wants," said one teachers union leader. "That's indoctrination and it's dangerous."


Julia Conley
Oct 18, 2024
COMMON DREAMS

Education advocates implored voters to take Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's latest comments on public schools on Friday after his appearance on the Fox News morning show "Fox & Friends," where he explained how he would punish schools that teach students accurate U.S. history, including about slavery and racism in the country.

Trump was asked by a viewer who called into the show how he would help students who don't want to attend their local public schools, and said he plans to "let the states run the schools" to allow for more "school choice."

"We're gonna take the Department of Education, we're gonna close it," said the former president, explaining that each state would govern educational policy without federal input—a promise of the right-wing policy agenda, Project 2025, that was co-authored by hundreds of former Trump administration staffers.

"Fox & Friends" co-host Brian Kilmeade said the plan was concerning only because it could allow a "liberal city" or state to decide that schools would teach that the country was "built off the backs of slaves on stolen land, and that curriculum comes in."

"Then we don't send them money," replied Trump.

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) warned, "He's not kidding," pointing to Project 2025, which calls to reduce the role the federal government to "that of a statistics-gathering agency that disseminates information to the states."

"It's in his Project 2025 plan: Trump wants to defund public schools," said the labor union.


The federal government provides public schools with about 13.6% of the funding for public K-12 education. The loss of federal funds could particularly affect schools in low-income communities, resulting in school closures, teacher layoffs, and fewer classroom resources.


Trump's comments touched on the "culture war" promoted by the Republican Party in recent years regarding what they have claimed is the teaching of "critical race theory" (CRT) in public schools. The concept holds that race is a social construct and racism is carried out by legal systems and institutions, through policies like redlining and harsh criminal sentencing laws.


The focus on CRT has resulted in attacks on all "culturally relevant teaching" that takes the experiences of people of color into account and all teachings about the history of the U.S.—particularly about the enslavement of Black people for hundreds of years, Jim Crow laws, the contributions made by racial minorities, and the civil rights movement.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), said educators' goal is to "teach students how to think, not what to think"—contrary to right-wing claims that the left aims to "indoctrinate" students.

Trump, she said, is "threatening funding if they don't teach what he wants. That's indoctrination and it's dangerous. Our kids deserve better."

Trump is not alone among Republicans in his calls to defund public education. As the Daily Montananreported this week, GOP Senate candidate Tim Sheehy, a multimillionaire who is running to unseat Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mt.) and is leading in recent polls, has spoken about throwing the Department of Education "in the trash can."

Federal funding accounts for 12% of per-student spending in Montana, where nearly 90% of children attend public schools. The state gets $40 million alone to support students with disabilities.

"Fairly significant harm would be implemented in Montana's public schools if we suddenly snapped our fingers and said, 'No more federal funding of education,'" Lance Melton, head of the Montana School Boards Association, told the Daily Montanan.

Lauren Miller, acting communications director for the AFL-CIO, said the former president's comments on Friday fit "a pattern" evident in numerous policies outlined by Trump and Project 2025.

"He'll defund public schools if they don't obey him," said Miller. "He'll fire government workers if they don't obey him. He'll gut the Department of Justice if they don't obey him. He'll deny FEMA funding to states if they don't obey him."

'Ready to Fight' for Climate, Students Walk Out Over Trum

"We won't stand by while Donald Trump's dangerous agenda threatens everything we believe in," said one student.


Students at Michigan State University joined nationwide walkouts organized by the Sunrise Movement on November 8, 2024.
(Photo: Lilli/Sunrise Movement)

Jessica Corbett
Nov 08, 2024
COMMON DREAMS


Students with the youth-led Sunrise Movement walked out of over 30 high schools and universities across the United States on Friday to stand against U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's "extreme agenda" and promote "the fight for climate justice, workers' rights, and democracy."

The protesters carried signs and banners with messages including "This Is a Climate Emergency," "Protect Our Futures," "People Not Profit," "Fuck Trump," "Together We Rise," and "The Dems Failed, The People Won't."

"Students from every corner of the country came together to send a powerful message of solidarity. We won't stand by while Donald Trump's dangerous agenda threatens everything we believe in," said Aster Chau, a 16-year-old from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. "This movement is about hope—hope that when we stand together, we can push our leaders to take bold action. We won't back down. This is our future, and we're taking it back."


Students in New York City joined nationwide walkouts on November 8, 2024. (Photo: Mahtab Khan/Sunrise Movement)

Trump's first presidential term featured a wide range of attacks on the Earth. This cycle, he pledged to "drill, baby, drill," provoking warnings about how his return to power would lead to a surge in planet-heating pollution, and vowed to roll back Biden-Harris administration climate policies if Big Oil poured just $1 billion into his campaign.

Since Trump beat Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris on Tuesday, critics including the Sunrise Movement have called out her party's leadership for failing to adequately prioritize the needs and demands of the working class.

"Millions of people are fed up after living through decades of a rigged economy and corrupt political system," the group said on social media Wednesday. "They are looking for someone to blame. It's critical the Dem Party takes that seriously."


Students at Bard College in New York state joined nationwide walkouts on November 8, 2024. (Photo: Sunrise Movement)

Sunrise said in a Friday statement that the "walkouts represent a call to action for both parties: If Democrats want to win, they need to stop pandering to big donors and corporations and instead focus on the bold policies that will ensure a livable future for all."

Manuel Ivan Guerrero, a student at the University of Central Florida, stressed that "today was just the beginning. We're angry and we're scared but we're ready to fight."

"We have the power to win and defeat Donald Trump, but our leaders need to be bold enough to fight for us," the 18-year-old added. "The time for empty promises is over. We are ready to do whatever it takes to win a better world."

The 10 Richest People’s Wealth Increased by $64 Billion the Day After Trump Win


Trump mega-donor Elon Musk saw the largest gains, receiving $26.5 billion the day after the election.

By Chris Walker ,

Truthout

PublishedNovember 8, 2024

Elon Musk on stage before Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump speaks at a rally at Madison Square Garden in New York, on October 27, 2024.Jabin Botford / The Washington Post via Getty Images

The 10 richest people in the world saw their wealth increase by a record margin just one day after former President Donald Trump won the 2024 election, a sign that already wide wealth disparities will likely grow even wider over the next four years due to Trump’s stated economic goals.

According to Bloomberg’s Billionaire Index, those 10 individuals saw their wealth rise by up to $64 billion on Wednesday. That’s the highest daily increase among the 10 wealthiest people in the world ever seen in a single day since Bloomberg started tracking those people’s worth in 2012.

For comparison, the $64 billion figure is equivalent to the annual wages earned by 800,000 American households making the U.S. median income of $80,000 per year.

Elon Musk, the world’s richest person (and someone who Trump suggested could play a significant role in his administration), saw the biggest increase in riches , receiving $26.5 billion the day after the election. Other tech business leaders, like Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos and others, also saw huge gains in their wealth.

Much of the increase was due to a surge in the U.S. stock market after Trump’s victory over Vice President Kamala Harris, a sign that investors expect his low-tax and deregulation policies to be quickly implemented when he enters office.

Related Story

Sanders Warns Trump Is a Fascist Who May Let Musk Control the Presidency
Sanders’s warning comes the same day as the Tesla CEO is scheduled to headline a Trump rally in Madison Square Garden.
By Olivia Rosane , CommonDreams

October 27, 2024

The stock market, of course, is not a proper indicator of how well the economy is doing, especially for the half of all households in the U.S. whose members do not own any stock, including 401K retirement plans, and are therefore not impacted by positive performances on Wall Street the same way the ultra-rich are.

Economists who understand that the gains by the top 10 wealthiest individuals on the planet do not translate well to the rest of the world were quick to point out that the widening of economic disparities were soon to become a regular feature of the incoming Trump administration.

“Make no mistake: the ultra-wealthy and Wall Street will make out like bandits during the second Trump term,” former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said on the social media site X.
“Everyone else will be left behind.”

University of Wisconsin sociology professor Jessica Calarco said it will be important to keep an eye on wealth disparities and how the Trump economy will largely benefit the uber wealthy.

“As we try to deduce how we got here, we shouldn’t forget the billionaires who’ve spent decades promoting myths to delude us into accepting inequality and to keep us divided by race, class, gender, religion & politics so we don’t challenge their power,” Calarco wrote on X.

What the Bible actually says about abortion may surprise you

The Conversation
November 9, 2024

Closeup of a young woman reading a Bible (Shutterstock)

In the days since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which had established the constitutional right to an abortion, some Christians have cited the Bible to argue why this decision should either be celebrated or lamented. But here’s the problem: This 2,000-year-old text says nothing about abortion.

As a university professor of biblical studies, I am familiar with faith-based arguments Christians use to back up views of abortion, whether for or against. Many people seem to assume the Bible discusses the topic head-on, which is not the case.
Ancient context

Abortions were known and practiced in biblical times, although the methods differed significantly from modern ones. The second-century Greek physician Soranus, for example, recommended fasting, bloodletting, vigorous jumping and carrying heavy loads as ways to end a pregnancy.

Soranus’ treatise on gynecology acknowledged different schools of thought on the topic. Some medical practitioners forbade the use of any abortive methods. Others permitted them, but not in cases in which they were intended to cover up an adulterous liaison or simply to preserve the mother’s good looks.

In other words, the Bible was written in a world in which abortion was practiced and viewed with nuance. Yet the Hebrew and Greek equivalents of the word “abortion” do not appear in either the Old or New Testament of the Bible. That is, the topic simply is not directly mentioned.
What the Bible says

The absence of an explicit reference to abortion, however, has not stopped its opponents or proponents from looking to the Bible for support of their positions.

Abortion opponents turn to several biblical texts that, taken together, seem to suggest that human life has value before birth. For example, the Bible opens by describing the creation of humans “in the image of God”: a way to explain the value of human life, presumably even before people are born. Likewise, the Bible describes several important figures, including the prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah and the Christian Apostle Paul, as having been called to their sacred tasks since their time in the womb. Psalm 139 asserts that God “knit me together in my mother’s womb.”

‘The Creation of Adam’ from the Sistine Chapel ceiling in the Vatican, painted by Michelangelo. GraphicaArtis/Getty Images

However, abortion opponents are not the only ones who can appeal to the Bible for support. Supporters can point to other biblical texts that would seem to count as evidence in their favor.

Exodus 21, for example, suggests that a pregnant woman’s life is more valuable than the fetus’s. This text describes a scenario in which men who are fighting strike a pregnant woman and cause her to miscarry. A monetary fine is imposed if the woman suffers no other harm beyond the miscarriage. However, if the woman suffers additional harm, the perpetrator’s punishment is to suffer reciprocal harm, up to life for life.

There are other biblical texts that seem to celebrate the choices that women make for their bodies, even in contexts in which such choices would have been socially shunned. The fifth chapter of the Gospel of Mark, for example, describes a woman with a gynecological ailment that has made her bleed continuously taking a great risk: She reaches out to touch Jesus’ cloak in hopes that it will heal her, even though the touch of a menstruating woman was believed to cause ritual contamination. However, Jesus commends her choice and praises her faith.

Similarly, in the Gospel of John, Jesus’ follower Mary seemingly wastes resources by pouring an entire container of costly ointment on his feet and using her own hair to wipe them – but he defends her decision to break the social taboo around touching an unrelated man so intimately.
Beyond the Bible

In the response to the Supreme Court’s decision, Christians on both sides of the partisan divide have appealed to any number of texts to assert that their particular brand of politics is biblically backed. However, if they claim the Bible specifically condemns or approves of abortion, they are skewing the textual evidence to fit their position.

Of course, Christians can develop their own faith-based arguments about modern political issues, whether or not the Bible speaks directly to them. But it is important to recognize that although the Bible was written at a time when abortion was practiced, it never directly addresses the issue.

Melanie A. Howard, Associate Professor of Biblical & Theological Studies, Fresno Pacific University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Evangelicals see Trump as God’s warrior in their battle to win America from satanic forces

The Conversation
November 9, 2024 7

Chris Straub, prays with the congregation during an ‘Election Eve Service of Prayer,’ in support of Republican Presidential nominee and former U.S. President Donald Trump at Suncoast Liberty Fellowship in Largo, Florida, U.S., November 4, 2024. REUTERS/Octavio Jones

A growing movement believes President-elect Donald Trump is fighting a spiritual war against demonic forces within the United States. Trump himself stated in his acceptance speech on Nov. 6, 2024, that the reason that “God spared my life” was to “restore America to greatness.”


I have studied various religious movements that seek to shape and control American society. One of these is the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR, whose followers believe that they are waging a spiritual battle for control of the United States. NAR is an offshoot of Protestant Christian evangelicalism.

NAR advocates claim they receive divine guidance in reconstructing modern society based on Christian spiritual beliefs. In 2015, an estimated 3 million adult Americans attended churches that were openly part of NAR. Some scholars estimate that the number of active NAR adherents may be larger, as the movement may include members of Protestant Christian churches that are not directly aligned with the NAR movement.
The beginning of the movement

NAR emerged in the late 1990s when theologian C. Peter Wagner popularized the term “New Apostolic Reformation.” Wagner argued that God was creating modern-day apostles and prophets who would lead Christianity in remaking American society.

The roots of the New Apostolic Reformation can be traced to the broader charismatic movement that sees spiritual forces as an active part of everyday life.

This view does not separate sacred experience from regular everyday life. For the much larger network of charismatic Christians and Pentecostal movements that emphasize a personal relationship with God, the world is full of the active presence of the Holy Spirit, spiritual gifts and direct divine experiences.
Core beliefs

Central to NAR is the belief that Christian religious leaders should be the main source of cultural and political authority in America.

NAR proponents argue that select leaders receive direct revelation from God, guiding the direction of churches and fighting spiritual warfare against demonic influences, which they believe corrupt the behavior of individuals and nations.

NAR advocates for a hierarchical structure in which religious leaders and their political allies hold authority in society.

They believe in “The Seven Mountains Mandate,” a way to represent Christian control of society through a strategy that Christians should infiltrate, influence and eventually control seven key areas in society – business, government, media, arts and entertainment, education, family, and religion – to bring about cultural transformation.

By doing so, NAR proponents believe they can establish a pure and true form of what they believe is a society ruled by divine guidance and strict adherence to biblical ideas.

Lance Wallnau, a prominent Christian author, speaker, social media influencer and consultant associated with NAR, has promoted the idea that such engagement where NAR Christian leaders hold authority through a government tied to divine will is essential for advancing societal transformation.

Wallnau has been a vocal supporter of Trump, viewing him as a significant figure in NAR’s vision.
Spiritual warfare

Followers of the NAR believe that they must engage in spiritual warfare, which includes prayers and actions aimed at combating perceived demonic influences in society. 

Evangelist Lance Wallnau speaks during a September 2022 rally for Republican gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano in Chambersburg, Pa. Doug Kapustin/For The Washington Post via Getty Images

This practice often involves identifying “strongholds” of evil, around cultural issues, such as gay marriage, transgender rights and LGBTQ+ activism, and working to dismantle them. An example of this is a recent series of religious-based political rallies led by NAR leaders known as “The Courage Tour” that advocated directly for Trump’s second election.

The NAR emphasizes that Christians should expect to see miraculous signs, where extraordinary events, such as Trump’s survival of an assassination attempt, are interpreted to be explained only by divine or spiritual intervention.

The movement’s adherents also believe in faith-based healing and supernatural experiences, such as prophetic utterances and speech.
Trump as divinely ordained

Many NAR leaders and followers support Trump, viewing him as a divinely appointed figure who would facilitate NAR’s goals for societal reconstruction, believing he was chosen by God to fulfill a prophetic destiny.

They position Trump as a warrior against a so-called demonically controlled – and therefore corrupted – “deep state,” aligning with NAR’s emphasis on spiritual warfare and cultural dominion as outlined in the “Seven Mountains” mandate. NAR leaders followed Trump’s understanding of a corrupt government.

The NAR led a “Million Women” worship rally on Oct. 12, 2024, to Washington, D.C., in which the organizers sought to encourage 1 million women NAR adherents to come to pray, protest and support Trump’s campaign. The event was promoted as a “last stand moment” to save the nation by helping Trump win the election as a champion against dark, satanic forces.

Several prominent politicians, legislators and members of the judiciary, such as House Speaker Mike Johnson and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, have flown the NAR-based “Appeal to Heaven” flag.

For NAR evangelicals, the presidential election is interpreted through a Christian apocalyptic rhetoric. In this rhetoric one candidate is a force for good, a warrior for God – Trump – and the other is led by demonic forces such as Harris. Trump’s 2024 win is seen as a critical moment of spiritual warfare where the forces of God defeat the forces of evil.
Criticism from many Christian denominations

Despite its growing popularity, NAR faces substantial criticism. Many mainstream Christian churches argue that the movement’s teachings deviate from traditional Christian orthodoxy.

Critics highlight abuse of authority by people who claim God is directing their actions and the potential for abuse of authority by those claiming apostolic roles. The embrace of Trump raises concerns about blending evangelical faith and political ambition.

Critics argue that the NAR’s support for Trump compromised the integrity of the gospel, prioritizing political power over spiritual integrity. The events surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol further complicated this relationship, exposing the potential dangers of conflating religious beliefs with partisan politics.

Moreover, the NAR’s emphasis on spiritual warfare and the idea of taking control over society has raised other Christian groups’ concerns about its potential to foster an “us versus them” mentality, leading to increased polarization within society.

The New Apostolic Reformation represents a significant development, blending charismatic practices with a strong emphasis on politics and cultural transformation.

However, a large majority of Americans disagree that society should be remade based on religious theology. Thus, for now, the NAR movement’s fundamental views about religion and government are starkly at odds with most Americans.

Art Jipson, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Dayton

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2024/11/time-to-read-mikhail-bakunin-god-and.html

WAIT, WHAT?!

AOC praises Johnson’s 'honesty' after he admits plan to repeal bill that created 115K jobs

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) in Buffalo, New York and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) speaking to MSNBC host Chris Hayes on November 1, 2024 (Image: Screengrabs via @lukeradel / X and MSNBC / YouTube)

Carl Gibson

November 02, 2024

ALTERNET

During a recent campaign stop in upstate New York, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) told a local reporter that he planned to repeal the CHIPS and Science Act, which is the law that strengthened the computer chip manufacturing industry in the United States. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) seized on that quote to stress the importance of voting in Tuesday's election.

Johnson was in New York's 22nd Congressional District to stump for Rep. Brandon Williams (R-New York), a freshman lawmaker running for a second term after winning by less than 3,000 total votes in 2022. While Johnson and Williams were standing together, Syracuse University student Luke Radel asked the speaker whether he planned to repeal the CHIPS Act given that former President Donald Trump has been campaigning against it.

"I expect that we probably will, but we haven't developed that part of the agenda yet," Johnson said.

Notably, Williams directly contradicted the speaker in front of the media, and vowed that he would not be in favor of repealing the CHIPS Act. Johnson then looked down and bit his lip as the New York Republican said he would remind Johnson "night and day how important the CHIPS Act is."The video player is currently playing an ad. You can skip the ad in 5 sec with a mouse or keyboard

During a Friday night appearance on MSNBC host Chris Hayes' "All In," both Ocasio-Cortez and United Auto Workers President Shawn Fain blasted Johnson's remarks on the CHIPS Act. Ocasio-Cortez said that Speaker Johnson's comments should be taken seriously and that voters who benefited directly from jobs created by the CHIPS Act should know what would happen if Republicans were victorious on Election Day.

"Some people may hear CHIPS Act, or some kind of vague policy, but people in Buffalo, people in upstate New York, people in Michigan, they hear about the plant they work at," she said. "And when you have the speaker of the House, the Republican speaker of the House roll up to Buffalo, New York and say, 'we are going to shut down the plants that give you all your jobs,' you better believe people know what he is talking about."

"And what I love about it, and what I would like to thank Speaker Johnson for, is his honesty and his forthrightness about what they plan to do with a Republican majority in the House of Representatives," she added. "And I want everyone in Buffalo to know: You heard it straight from the horses mouth. And we will see exactly what happens if we allow a Republican majority in the House and a Donald Trump presidency."

Johnson's comment about the CHIPS Act was eventually tweeted by Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign X (formerly Twitter) account, where it has been viewed more than 1.3 million times in less than three hours. Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Arizona) seized on Johnson's remarks and reminded his followers of the real impact that the potential repeal of the CHIPS Act would have on his constituents.

"First Donald Trump and now Speaker Johnson," Kelly tweeted. "Make no mistake: If they win, they are coming for the CHIPS Act — and tens of thousands of Arizona jobs."


President Joe Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act into law in 2022, which appropriated roughly $30 billion across 15 states to fund 23 projects for semiconductor manufacturing. According to the Department of Commerce, the CHIPS Act will have created approximately 115,000 jobs in both the construction and manufacturing industries by the time funds have all been allocated in December of this year.

Watch Ocasio-Cortez's segment below, or by clicking this link.

One of the biggest policy changes': A 'grave miscalculation' may have been fatal for Dems

Carl Gibson, 

AlterNet
November 9, 2024 

President Joe Biden (AFP)

Democrats and pundits have offered a multitude of explanations to try to explain Vice Presidet Kamala Harris' loss to President-elect Donald Trump this week. But one political data expert is offering a different take on why so many voters rejected Harris.

In a Saturday essay for the Guardian, Ben Davis — who worked on the data side of Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vermont) 2020 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination — argued that all of the current explanations for Trump's rout are incomplete. He noted that while the prevailing consensus is that Trump had the better economic message and Democrats were too focused on identity politics, Harris' campaign was actually laser-focused on kitchen-table issues while identity was rarely discussed.

Rather, Davis opined that President Joe Biden's decision to quietly sunset pandemic-era safety net programs may have been what stuck out the most in voters' memories of Biden's economic oversight. He wrote that when programs that helped prevent Americans from being evicted, provided them with direct financial assistance and granted them other emergency benefits colored voters' perceptions of the economy more than anything else. And when they were suddenly taken away, it paved the way to Trump's eventual victory.

"The massive, almost overnight expansion of the social safety net and its rapid, almost overnight rollback are materially one of the biggest policy changes in American history," Davis wrote. "For a brief period, and for the first time in history, Americans had a robust safety net: strong protections for workers and tenants, extremely generous unemployment benefits, rent control and direct cash transfers from the American government."

Davis went on to explain how, despite the ongoing mass death and isolation associated with the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, "Americans briefly experienced the freedom of social democracy." He noted that laid-off workers "had enough liquid money to plan long term and make spending decisions for their own pleasure rather than just to survive," and that pandemic-era safety nets allowed them "to look for the jobs they wanted rather than feel stuck in the jobs they had."

"At the end of Trump’s term, the American standard of living and the amount of economic security and freedom Americans had was higher than when it started, and, with the loss of this expanded welfare state, it was worse when Biden left office, despite his real policy wins for workers and unions," Davis wrote. "This is why voters view Trump as a better shepherd of the economy."

In the first weeks after Covid-19 was designated as a global pandemic, millions of American workers lost their jobs after businesses shut down due to the public health emergency. Congress passed several emergency measures aimed at helping workers like the eviction moratorium, extended unemployment assistance and an expansion of the child tax credit, among other things that Trump signed into law. But Davis observed that Biden had no "political pathway" to justify keeping these programs in place after ending the federal Covid-19 emergency, meaning many Americans were stripped of safety nets they had grown accustomed to.

"[T]he material reality is that when Trump left office, this safety net existed, and by the time of the 2024 election, it had evaporated," David wrote. "How could Democrats have countered this? One way was by making it a central issue, fighting publicly and openly to keep these protections and messaging heavily and constantly that Republicans were taking them away while Biden fought for them. An enormous body of research has established that social programs, when implemented, are difficult and highly unpopular to take away. These were universal programs, beneficial at all income levels."

"The political miscalculation the Biden administration made was that, lacking the political ability to implement these policies permanently, it was best to have them expire quietly and avoid the public backlash of gutting welfare programs and the black mark of taking a public political loss," he added. "This was a grave miscalculation."

Click here to read Davis' essay in full.

'Biggest change in our political world': Expert says 'key' election factor being ignored

David McAfee

RAW STORY
November 9, 2024 

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris (AFP)

Most people analyzing the 2024 election results are ignoring a "key factor," a news expert said on Saturday.

Steven Waldman, chair of the Rebuild Local News Coalition, wrote a piece for Politico over the weekend in which he argues that most post-election "post-mortems" are ignoring a "key factor" in how people vote.

"Latinos, young men, non-college-educated white people, suburban women. The exit polls and political analysis invariably focuses on the changing behavior of demographic groups," Waldman said.

The expert then continued:

"That ignores a big determinant of political behavior: where people get their news and information. It’s odd how little attention has been given to this, given that in the past decade we’ve had a revolution in how information flows."

Waldman went on to say, "The exit polls did not ask about media consumption, so we need to look for indirect clues."

"NBC asked the question in April when President Joe Biden was still in the race, and the results were dramatic. Among people who got their news from 'newspapers,' Biden was winning 70-21. Among people who got their news from 'YouTube/Google,' Trump led 55-39," he wrote in the news article. "The exit polls this week did show that some of the biggest shifts in voting patterns came among young people and Latinos, two groups whose media consumption differs from the national average."

Other evidence includes that "Biden won 18- to 21-year-olds by 60-36 percent; Harris won only 55-42 percent."

"There’s no group where the information consumption has changed more than young people. While 3 percent of seniors get their information from social media, 46 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds do," Waldman wrote.

Waldman shared the article on social media, saying, "My piece in politico points to the biggest change in our political world: how information flows."

"Latinos and young people, who shift led right, disproportionately get news from social media," Waldman added.

Read the report here.

Canada Post to launch chequing and savings account with Koho

By Ian Bickis and Rosa Saba, 

The Canadian Press

November 08, 2024

Two years after the failed launch of a lending program, Canada Post is making another foray into banking services.

The postal service confirmed Friday that it will be offering a chequing and savings account in partnership with Koho Financial Inc.

The accounts will be launched nationally next year, though Canada Post employees will be offered early access as the product is tested.

Canada Post spokeswoman Lisa Liu said in a statement that there are gaps in the banking and savings products available that the Crown corporation looks to fill.

“Canada Post is uniquely positioned to fill some of these demands. Many of our existing financial products help meet the needs of new Canadians and those living in rural, remote and Indigenous communities, but we believe more is required.”

The MyMoney offering will be a spending and savings account where customers will be able to choose between features like high interest rates, cashback rewards and credit-building tools.

A document briefly posted to the Canadian Union of Postal Workers website said it would use a prepaid, reloadable Mastercard that will use money from the account like a debit card but offer the features of a Mastercard.

It said there will be a range of account tiers, including no-fee accounts and paid accounts with more features.

The plans comes after Canada Post launched a lending program with TD Bank Group in late 2022, only to shut it down weeks later because of what it said were processing issues.

Liu said the postal service has since been exploring other possible financial service offerings.

“Utilizing what we’ve learned, we are making a strategic shift from loans toward products more aligned with our core financial service products.”

The new account will be delivered with financial technology company Koho. A few months ago the company paired with Canada Post to allow its customers to deposit cash into their account through post offices.

Koho is also working to secure a Canadian banking license to expand its services.

Koho chief executive Daniel Eberhard said in a statement that he was thrilled to be working with an institution that shares the company’s values and view of the future.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 8, 2024.