Thursday, February 06, 2025

A common thread between Trump's agency destruction, his absurd Gaza plan and Dems' silence


U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hands with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, after signing an executive order banning transgender girls and women from participating in women's sports, in the East Room at the White House in Washington, U.S., February 5, 2025.
REUTERS/Leah Millis

February 06, 2025
ALTERNET

There is one thread that ties together Trump’s destruction of American government agencies, his offer to take the Gaza crisis off Israel’s hands and dump it on our military, and senators’ and representatives’ failure to challenge him: This is how kingdoms operate. Rule by decree.

It proves that we’re asking the wrong question.

Plug “Can American democracy survive Trump?” into a search engine and you’ll find thousands of websites, blogs, articles, and podcasts devoted to that one, single question.

But American democracy was kneecapped by five Republicans on the Supreme Court years ago when they ruled that money was the same thing as “free speech”; that corporations are “persons” with rights under the Bill of [Human] Rights; and that political operatives can engage in virtually unlimited purges of voting rolls, accompanied by racial- and gender-targeted laws to make it harder to vote.

The correct question is: “Can the American system — now that it’s become flooded with dark money and the ‘right to vote’ has become a mere privilege in Red states — ever again represent the interests of average citizens? Can we ever return to democracy?”

In an open call on X yesterday with Republican Senators Joni Ernst and Mike Lee, apartheid billionaire Elon Musk — whose father says he was chauffeured to school in white-run South Africa in a Rolls Royce — lit into the regulations that created and protect the American middle class and our democracy:
“Regulations, basically, should be default gone. Not default there, default gone. And if it turns out that we missed the mark on a regulation, we can always add it back in.

In a child-like echo of Ayn Rand, Musk added:
“These regulations are added willy-nilly all the time. So, we’ve just got to do a wholesale, spring cleaning of regulation and get the government off the backs of everyday Americans so people can get things done. … If the government has millions of regulations holding everyone back, well, it’s not freedom. We’ve got to restore freedom.”


Both capitalism and democracy could be likened to a game — say, football — ideally played to benefit the largest number of people by creating and guaranteeing “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

But imagine if the NFL were to suspend their regulations just before this Sunday’s Super Bowl. And the Chiefs, like most elected Democrats, chose to continue playing by the old regulations, but the Eagles started gut-punching, facemask-pulling, and even threw five extra players onto the field.

The only team that would ever win would be the one most willing to play dirty or buy off the refs. And, increasingly, that’s where we are today, both with our democracy and our economy.

We know this is crazy: Every state in the union has put into place an agency to regulate insurance companies because that very industry has a long, horrible history of ripping people off and refusing to pay claims unless the power of the state is invoked against them.

We regulate banks and brokerages for the same reason; when we deregulated them in the 1920s and the late 1990s the result was huge rip-offs that produced the Republican Great Depression and the Bush Crash of 2008.

We regulate automobile manufacturers because they have a history of putting profits over the lives of their customers (Ford Pinto 900 dead, GM trucks 2000 dead, etc.); refineries because their emissions cause cancer and asthma; drugs because unscrupulous manufacturers killed people in previous eras; workplace safety after the Triangle Shirtwaist fire killed 146 young women; voting because corrupt politicians rigged elections.

We regulate traffic with signs and stoplights to keep order and reduce accidents; we regulate police to prevent them from abusing innocent people; we regulate building codes so peoples’ homes don’t collapse or catch on fire from faulty cheap wiring.

And there was a time in America when we regulated money in politics and guaranteed the right to vote.

Those two types of regulations were passed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries after multiple scandals, like in 1899 when William Clark — then the nation’s second-richest man — openly bribed Montana legislators by standing outside the legislative chamber passing out brand new $1000 bills to the men who voted his way. Or when state after state — most all former Confederate states — repeatedly refused to allow Black people to vote.

We passed regulations guaranteeing a minimum wage, unemployment insurance, and the right to unionize to create the world’s first large-scale middle class. And we regulated the morbidly rich with a 90% income tax rate to prevent them from amassing so much wealth that their financial power could become a threat to our democratic republic.

And, of course, it’s those regulations — money in politics, the right to vote, and preventing the accumulation of dangerous levels of wealth — to which today’s broligarchs most strenuously object.

In each case, it was five Republicans on the US Supreme Court who gutted our protective regulations and put America on a direct collision course with today’s oligarchic neofascist takeover.

— They ruled that billionaires can buy politicians because giving money in exchange for votes isn’t bribery, but merely an expression of First Amendment-protected “free speech.”
— They claimed that corporations aren’t soulless creations of the law but are “persons” with the same right to share their “free speech” with politicians who do their bidding.
— And they ruled that voting is not a right in America — in open defiance of US law — but a mere privilege, giving the green light to Republicans to purge or refuse to count over 4 million votes in the 2024 election.


The result of all this Republican corruption is that the will of the majority of American voters hasn’t been fulfilled in two generations. The last time our political system was truly responsive to the voters was in the 1960s, when Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps were created, and the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were passed. And in the early 1970s, when we outlawed big money in politics.

Then, in 1978, five Republicans on the Supreme Court ruled in the Bellotti decision (written by Lewis Powell himself) that corporations are persons and money is merely free speech. Two years later, Reagan floated into the White House on a river of oil money and systematically began gutting the protective regulations that had built the largest and most successful middle class the world had ever seen.

Since then, big money has frozen us like a mosquito in amber. Even Obama’s big effort to establish a national healthcare system with an option for Medicare had to kneel before the throne of rightwing billionaires and the insurance industry.

Every developed country in the world has some variation on a free or low-cost national healthcare system, and free or even subsidized higher education. In most developed countries homelessness is not a crisis, nobody goes bankrupt because somebody in their family got sick, and jobs pay well enough (and have union pensions) so people can retire after 30 or 40 years in the workforce and live comfortably for the rest of their lives.

But not in America. Since the Reagan Revolution, rightwing billionaires have blocked any of those things from happening because they’d be paid for with taxes, and there’s nothing rightwing billionaires hate more than paying taxes.

— Dark money has destroyed the notion of one-person-one-vote.
— Monopoly — allowed because corporations can now buy politicians — has destroyed the small businesses that once filled America’s malls and downtowns.
— And voter suppression and voter list purges handed the 2024 election to Trump, as reporter Greg Palast documented in a recent, shocking report.

So, yeah, let’s do away with all the regulations like wannabe Kings Elon and Donald say. And make the United States look and operate more like Syria and its failed-state relatives than anything Americans would recognize.

After all, freedumb!

Government-funded landlord Trump hypocritically attacks government spending


By Gotfryd, Bernard, photographer - https://www.loc.gov/item/2020733783/, 
Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=130775287
Fred and his son Donald at Central Park's Wollman Ice Rink (c. 1986), which was renovated by their company between 1980 and 1986
February 05, 2025
ALTERNET

President Donald Trump is making good on his promised threat to “dismantle Government bureaucracy” and “cut wasteful expenditures,” issuing orders to choke off the funding pipeline for federal grants and assistance programs.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Because government spending, particularly the generous big-landlord benefits baked into U.S. law and tax policy, forms the very foundation of Trump’s own wealth. The Trump real estate fortune was built by hundreds of millions of dollars in government subsidies and huge tax breaks, none of which are available to the working people Trump is hurting with his current attacks.

Trump became wealthy the traditional American way: he was born into it. As most thoroughly described in Samuel Stein’s excellent 2019 book, Capital City: Gentrification and the Real Estate State, Donald’s father Fred’s real estate empire began with Brooklyn and Queens housing developments financed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). For some of those Trump developments, the path was literally cleared by government demolition of existing homes and buildings. Fred Trump’s appetite for government funding was so voracious that he was investigated by the Senate Banking Committee for defrauding post-World War II government housing programs by lying about the costs of his projects.

That was not the only investigation targeting Fred Trump’s government-funded properties. His Maryland buildings were so decrepit and his ignoring of the residents’ pleas for help and city orders to repair so blatant that the elder Trump was actually arrested in 1976 for operating a “slum property.” A U.S. Department of Justice discrimination lawsuit during the same era showed that the Trump properties systematically blocked Black prospective renters, using racist practices like attaching to their applications a paper bearing a big letter “C”—for Colored—so they could be rejected out of hand.

Fred Trump’s appetite for government funding was so voracious that he was investigated by the Senate Banking Committee for defrauding post-World War II government housing programs by lying about the costs of his projects.

That federal housing discrimination lawsuit, filed in 1973, did not just name Fred Trump. It also included the company’s president, his 27-year-old son Donald.

Donald Trump soon followed in his father’s footsteps by exploiting government programs to develop his buildings. The benefits included an unprecedented 40-year tax abatement, funding that was designed to support low-income neighborhoods, sweetheart deals to privatize public land, and government bonds used to finance his developments. “Donald Trump is probably worse than any other developer in his relentless pursuit of every single dime of taxpayer subsidies he can get his paws on,” a New York deputy mayor told the New York Times in 2016.

For example, the famous Trump Tower benefited from over $163 million in tax abatements provided by New York politicians whose campaigns Trump helped fund. That money was part of what the Timesestimated was nearly a billion dollars Trump received in government grants and tax breaks for his New York properties alone, not counting the government benefits for his properties in Florida, Nevada, and Atlantic City. "Donald Trump's business wouldn't be possible but for major government subsidies,” Timothy O'Brien, author of TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald, toldNPR.

Trump’s dependence on government funding is more than matched by the taxpayer dollars hoovered up by his designated government waste czar Elon Musk. As CNN has reported, the world’s richest person reached his status thanks to government loans and contracts that propped up Tesla and SpaceX in their vulnerable beginning stages. Musk still rakes in billions of dollars from government contracts and government-mandated payments to Tesla by other automakers.

“The foundation for Musk’s financial success has been the U.S. government,” tech analyst Daniel Ives told CNN.

We know that the Trump-Musk attacks on federal government programs are deeply harmful to vulnerable people, devoted civil servants, and communities and organizations trying to make the world a better place. Less well known is that Trump and Musk both owe their fortunes and careers to the very government spending they demonize now. They used government programs to climb to great heights, and now are intent on pulling up the ladder behind them.

Former Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson once said that a hypocrite politician is one who cuts down a redwood tree, then stands on its stump to deliver a speech about conservation. When the wealthy and powerful Donald Trump mounts his attacks on government programs, he does so while standing on a platform built by government largesse.
Robert Reich: This is no longer about Democrats versus Republicans


REUTERS/Brian Snyder/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President-elect Donald Trump greets Tesla CEO and X owner Elon Musk during a rally the day before Trump is scheduled to be inaugurated for a second term, in Washington, U.S., January 19, 2025.

February 06, 2025
ALTERNET

It’s a coup.


As Trump talks about taking over Gaza (“beautiful shoreline”), Greenland (“great minerals”), Panama (“very strategic”), and making Canada the 51st state, the media has gone ape-shite wild.

Meanwhile, Trump’s goons are taking over the federal government without congressional authority and very little public awareness.

They’re using two techniques.

The first is to physically take over an agency or department.

Consider USAID. Elon Musk (now a “special government employee”) calls it a “criminal organization” that needs to “die” and brags about feeding it “into the wood chipper.”

Which is what he and his tech goons have done — dismantling the work of the 10,000-person, $40 billion foreign-assistance agency, along with the thousands of people in nonprofits and other groups that work with it.

The irony of the richest man in the world almost single-handedly destroying an agency designed to help the world’s poor, so that the U.S. federal budget has more room for another giant tax cut for the richest man in the world and his pals, should not be lost on anyone.

Yesterday, all of USAID’s Washington facilities were closed. Nearly all USAID’s 10,000 employees have been put on administrative as of Saturday. Staff working around the world have been ordered to return home within 30 days.

“Thank you for your service,” is the last message on USAID’s website, which for days was offline.

Make no mistake: The takeover and dismantling of USAID is a test case for whether Musk and the Trump regime can destroy a part of government without legal or political resistance.

So far, the answer seems to be yes.

Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune says he “doesn’t believe” the Trump administration is closing an agency without congressional approval, but that it is rather reviewing how the agency is spending money.

Thune is either a fool or a knave.

The second technique being used by Musk and his tech goons is to gain access to the Treasury Department’s payments system, responsible for nearly all payments made by the U.S. government, and alter it — writing new code for programs that control more than 20 percent of the U.S. economy, including Social Security benefits and veterans’ pay.

Musk says he’ll be shutting down some Treasury payments in an effort to root out “corruption and waste.” That is, whatever Musk considers corruption and waste.

What’s next? Will Trump, Musk, and Musk’s tech goons take over, or stop funding, the Labor Department? (My sources there tell me Department of Labor workers have been ordered to give Musk’s DOGE access to anything they want — or risk termination.)

I don’t know, but I do know that nothing right now seems to be stopping them.

The Republican-controlled Congress has essentially surrendered Congress’s powers, including the power of the purse (it has already surrendered its powers over tariffs and foreign policy). There’s not much of a role for Congress left.

This afternoon, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee tried to subpoena Musk, but Republicans called a procedural vote without notice so the Dems wouldn’t get there on time. Here’s Congressman Ro Khanna’s account, followed by Musk’s response.




substackcdn.com



My friends, this is no longer about Democrats versus Republicans, left versus right, liberals versus conservatives.

The choice right now is democracy or dictatorship (or if you’d rather use the term fascism, go right ahead). And we are sliding faster than I ever thought possible into the latter

Everyone must choose which side they’re on. Now.

More on this to come.
Trump team heard him talk Gaza takeover for months and made no plan


'like 25 percent tariffs on Canada':

February 06, 2025
ALTERNET

President Donald Trump has been discussing his idea for the United States to takeover the Gaza Strip "for months," MAGA aides told Politico Wednesday.

Per the report, "It was clear Wednesday that they did little to prepare the rest of the world for Trump’s pitch to relocate nearly 2 million Palestinians from their homeland in Gaza so the U.S. could assert ownership of the area and turn it into 'the Riviera of the Middle East."

One person granted anonymity told the news outlet, "This was a 'get your ass to the negotiating table’ message."

READ MORE: ‘He does not want war’: Fox News host downplays Trump’s plan to take over Gaza

Drawing a comparison to Trump's tariff plan that he discussed for months ahead of his election win, the person added, "It was just like 25 percent tariffs on Canada."

Politico reports, "Another senior administration official given anonymity to discuss internal thinking said that Trump’s blunt statement that the U.S. would 'own and be responsible' for a Gaza Strip that has been reduced to rubble by 15 months of Israeli bombing should be read more broadly as an expression of his determination to lead a rebuilding process that achieves a lasting peace."

'Life or death consequences for millions': NGOs stunned by U.S. aid freeze

THIS HAS BEEN GOP POLICY SINCE JOHN BIRCH

Agence France-Presse
February 6, 2025 10:45AM ET


The measures against USAID have been hugely controversial (Mandel NGAN/AFP)

by Joris Fioriti with Cecil Morella in Manila and Joe Jackson in London

The freeze in aid funding by Donald Trump's new U.S. administration has left humanitarian workers seeing a large proportion of their budget cut off and fearing millions will be affected as programs are suspended.

On January 24, four days after Trump returned to power, NGOs linked to the US Agency for International Development (USAID) received a first letter asking them to cease all activities funded by the agency.

A week later, a second letter, seen by AFP, authorized them to resume certain missions intended for "life-saving humanitarian assistance".

But the terms used are vague and the NGOs say they feel lost.

The new administration has launched stinging attacks on USAID -- which Trump claimed was "run by radical lunatics" and his ally and advisor, the world's richest person Elon Musk, has described as a "criminal organization".


US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is now its acting director, vowing to put an end to its "insubordination".

Global and regional NGOs told AFP in interviews that the effect to their work has been immediate and warned the move could also erode US influence worldwide.
- Solidarites International -


Kevin Goldberg, director of French NGO Solidarites International, said that the move has already forced the pausing of certain aid operations in countries including Mozambique, Syria and Yemen.

"Today, the United States is debating the future of its development agency. But this subject concerns the entire planet," he said.

"We know that this is a sector that, in any case, must innovate," he said.


"But to stop everything overnight, to not take into account at all the fact that we are talking about millions of human lives, that's crazy."

He said the unclear instructions from the U.S. administration could prevent some charities from risking going ahead with programs in case they then had to foot their costs themselves.

"It's like trying to drive with a massive spoke in the wheel," he said.

- Oxfam America -

Daryl Grisgraber, humanitarian policy lead for Oxfam America, said that change was likely to be drastic.

"It really will have a potentially life or death consequences for millions of people.


"At the end of those 90 days, it's very likely there are going to be huge cuts on what aid can continue to move.

"So there is effectively a pause on all future funding as well," he said.

"We have been looking at it as really basically a cynical power play. This is going to put lives in danger and it's unacceptable as a representation of United States values and interest in the world."

- Balay Rehabilitation Center -

The centre, which provides psycho-social counseling and other help for survivors of torture in the conflict-plagued southern Philippines, said it was already feeling the effects of Trump's policy.

"We are still in limbo as to whether this project will continue or not," said executive director Josephine Lascano.

She said she had already been forced to suspend a program that was helping "about 20" victims of violence.


The Philippines received close to $190 million in USAID funding in 2023.
- MSI Reproductive Choices -

Beth Schlachter, senior director of US external relations at sexual and reproductive healthcare provider MSI Reproductive Choices, said it was fully aware that nearly 10 percent of its budget from the US government could disappear.


"There's a lot of chaos that's going to play out, or starting to play out already, at the country level," she said.

"Our... colleagues who are running these programs in the countries are already feeling just the fear and the chaos of not knowing what will be supported and what will go away.

"Money is power... You can't just wield this kind of destruction and then expect to still have a seat at the table and to have the kind of influence that you want to have."

- InterAction -

Tom Hart, CEO of InterAction, an alliance of NGOs and partners in the United States, said bringing life-saving programs to a halt was "counterproductive to this administration's own stated goals".

"Where we stand today is children going without education and mothers not receiving prenatal care," he added.

© Agence France-Presse
TRUMP MINI ME

Five ways in which Argentina's Milei has mirrored Trump

Agence France-Presse
February 6, 2025 


Argentine President Javier Milei called COVID-19 lockdowns 'one of the most bizarre crimes against humanity' (FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP)

by Sonia AVALOS with Clare BYRNE in Bogota

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, as the saying goes, and Argentina's President Javier Milei has made clear his admiration for Donald Trump by liberally borrowing from the US president's playbook.

On Wednesday, Argentina announced it would follow the United States out of the World Health Organization, echoing Trump's repeated complaints about what he called the body's mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Andrea Oelsner, professor of international relations at the University of San Andres in Buenos Aires, called Argentina's WHO exit "another sign" of the country's return to the policy pioneered by post-dictatorship president Carlos Menem in the 1990s of "automatic alignment" with Washington.


She added that Milei's claim that the WHO impinged on Argentina's sovereignty "serves to get closer to Trump."

Here are five other issues on which Argentina's self-declared "anarcho-capitalist" leader has followed his US counterpart's lead:

- Climate scepticism -

Like Trump -- who has vowed to "drill, baby, drill" -- Milei is a climate skeptic, who declared during campaigning for president that "policies that blame humans for climate change are wrong."

After Trump's re-election in November, Argentina abruptly pulled out of UN climate talks in Azerbaijan, raising fears Milei could imitate Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on curbing carbon emissions.

Argentina said it was "reevaluating" its participation in the deal.

The talks snub coincided with a visit by Milei to Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate, the first foreign leader to visit the Republican after his election win.

But Milei nonetheless went on to sign a declaration by G20 leaders at a summit in Rio recognizing the need for "substantially scaling up climate finance."

- War on 'woke' -


Like Trump, Milei has repeatedly railed against what he calls "woke ideology", most recently at the World Economic Forum in Davos where he described it as a "cancer."

On Wednesday, his spokesman announced he would ban gender reassignment surgery and hormone therapy for transgender children, days after Trump announced restrictions on gender transition procedures for minors.

Milei's government added that minors would also not be allowed to make any changes to their ID documents, including their gender, until they had reached adulthood.


- Mad about Musk -

Milei and Trump share a deep admiration for brash billionaire Elon Musk, with Milei lavishing praise on Trump's budget-slashing consigliere as the "Thomas Edison of the 21st century."

Trump for his part has given the Tesla and SpaceX boss, who has turned his X platform into an echo chamber for the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement, extraordinary powers as the head of a new department in charge of slashing federal spending.

Musk, in turn, has championed Milei's "chainsaw" economics and declared Argentina to be "experiencing a giant improvement" since Milei took over.


- Social media attacks -


Both leaders have been accused of stoking hate speech and intolerance by copiously insulting critics and political opponents on social media.

Milei has labeled economists who question his policies "econochantas" ("eco-phonies"), trade unionists "garcas" ("crooks") and political opponents are "mandrills" (a type of monkey), "rats" and "parasites."

Like Trump, he and his online shock troops have also repeatedly attacked the media and critics as "corrupt" -- language reminiscent of Trump's 2017 promise to "drain the swamp" of Washington insiders and influence-peddlers.


- Iron-clad Israel support -



Milei, who has professed a deep interest in Judaism and studied Jewish scripture, is one of Israel's staunchest defenders.

During a visit to Israel last year he announced plans to move Argentina's embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem -- a controversial move that echoed Trump's shock 2017 decision to unilaterally recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

He also likened the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel to the Holocaust.


© Agence France-Presse

President Milei's homophobic Davos speech spark protests across Argentina


Copyright Rodrigo Abd/Copyright 2025 The AP. All rights reserved

By Euronews with AP
Published on 02/02/2025

Thousands of Argentinians protested after Milei compared homosexuality to paedophilia and announced that femicide would be removed from the penal code.


Thousands of protesters took to the streets of the capital Buenos Aires and other major cities to protest President Javier Milei’s speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos in Switzerland last week.

In it he sharply criticised “sick wokeism,” social welfare, feminism, identity politics and the fight against climate change, adding that “in its most extreme versions gender ideology constitutes plain and simple child abuse.”

Milei also compared homosexuality to paedophilia, and he announced plans to remove the concept of femicide from the penal code.

Soon after assuming office, Milei's government dismantled the Ministry of Women's Affairs, leaving many victims of gender-based violence without institutional support and leaving about 500 workers unemployed.

He also cut funding for historical memory initiatives, a move that will likely delay trials for crimes against humanity committed during Argentina’s military dictatorship.

Protesters in Buenos Aires were clad in rainbow-coloured flags and bore banners that read “rights are not negotiable.” Dubbed the “Federal March of Anti-Fascist and Anti-Racist Pride,” the LGBTQ+ community called the protest after the speech on Jan. 23 to combat “the economic violence, political persecution and sexual repression of Javier Milei’s government.”

Rights’ groups, unions and political parties also joined the protest.

Protester Germán Paladino, an industrial engineer, said Milei’s government was not taking care of public issues such as healthcare and education and was instead lashing out at people’s private life.

“I don’t know if this march can change anything, but if it could put a break on Javier Milei’s remarks which were rather aggressive,” Paladino said.

“I am here to defend our rights, those which we have won and those that are currently under attack,” said Milagros, a 33-year-old visual artist.

In recent decades, Argentina has enshrined progressive laws consecrating sexual diversity and equal marriage rights, among others.


Trump's defense department backs down after trans soldier sues: report

Sarah K. Burris
February 6, 2025
RAW STORY


Donald Trump's efforts to target transgender people working in government, including the military, took a hit late Wednesday when the Defense Department backed down and allowed a transgender woman soldier to return to the women's barracks. The woman had initially been isolated in a one-person room.

Judge Ana Reyes didn't issue a Temporary Restraining order, but according to legal analyst Chris Geidner, the judge ordered the government to notify the plaintiffs of any changes while she considered the order. Geidner called it "a TRO-in-waiting."

"So, the DOD stood down for now," he wrote on Blue Sky.

ALSO READ: 'Driven to self-loathing': Inside the extremist website believed to 'groom' teen attackers

In the argument, Trump's new Justice Department claimed that even if the effort "was motivated by animus," Trump should still be able to target transgender military members.

At the same time that the Justice Department defends the Trump White House in the courts, it is also purging lawyers from its staff who were affiliated with special counsel Jack Smith and fishing for resignations from other civil servants.

Trump also signed an order banning transgender people from sports and ordered that all transgender prisoners be remanded to prisons for their gender assigned at birth. There are pending lawsuits for both.

Read about the full details of the case here.


Trump will sanction the International Criminal Court in new executive order: report

Sarah K. Burris
February 6, 2025 

U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hold a joint press conference in the East Room at the White House in Washington, U.S., February 4, 2025. REUTERS/Leah Millis TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

President Donald Trump intends to approve an executive order sanctioning the International Criminal Court (ICC), NBC News reported Thursday.

The order will accuse the ICC of "improperly targeting the United States and Israel," the fact sheet says.

The U.S. will issue not only financial sanctions but will "issue visa restrictions against unspecified ICC officials and their family members found to have assisted in ICC investigations of U.S. citizens or allies," said NBC.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in Washington this week to meet with Trump and other leaders. The ICC issued a warrant for his arrest last November as well as a number of Hamas leaders for the conflict in Gaza.

The Trump order will reportedly call the arrest warrant a “shameful moral equivalency.”


The U.S. and Israel aren't part of the ICC, though it "participated in the negotiations that led to the creation of the court," the court history website says.

The court was founded to serve as an "independent permanent tribunal" for the world, the site continues.

Over 80 groups signed onto a letter asking that this order not be approved.



Elon Musk's Doge boys think this is a video game as Trump plots his 2nd coup

Sabrina Haake
February 5, 2025 
ALTERNET



Trump has given Ketamine-addled Elon Musk and six boys, ages 19-24, control over the US Treasury Department’s data and financial transfers.

Musk’s kids at DOGE, still hooked on video games, have moved cots into federal offices for pizza-and-drunk-power-fueled sleepovers. They have already accessed Americans’ private data, worth billions to Musk and his friends controlling Russia and China. Equally dangerous, their trigger-happy fingers can stop all federal money going to any person, corporation, or organization Trump dislikes. Ditto, to any competitor they’d like to see hobbled, and there are hundreds. As Kara Swisher said on CNN, Musk is “very into videogames, and so (thinks) he’s sort of ‘Ready Player One.”

If DOGE can control the movement of treasury funds and tax refunds, it’s a logical inference that they can access tax returns that support them. They can open competitors’ schedules and study any corporate expenditures and strategies that interest Musk; they can open their neighbors,’ their in-laws,’ their professors’ and their x-girlfriend’s tax returns. They can open the return of anyone who insults them on the news or social media. They can also wreak havoc on tax refunds, deductions, social security payments or any other federally funded transaction, and with the press of a button, wipe out all funding for any organization that displeases them, like USAID.

American heroes are fighting back


Musk, emotionally stunted and apparently stuck on 16, bragged about his new “powers” on X like the X-box bully he wants to be. He is a younger and richer version of Trump; which man is crueler or more insane remains to be seen.

Last week when Musk and his testosterone-jacked youth posse tried to access Americans’ private personal data, Treasury Department officials pushed back. The Department’s longtime Fiscal Assistant, Secretary David Lebryk, rebuffed Musk’s and DOGE’s request for “source code information,” specifically relating to the technical ability to stop federal payments.

Lebryk and his colleagues stood up to protect Americans. They were placed on leave, then quit, but the drama is only beginning. Call it intuition shaped through too many years of litigation, but I predict that Trump and Musk will cause maximal damage, then implode in spectacular fashion. Respectable organizations and elected officials will sue, as will most of the 2.6 million federal workers locked out of their offices, blocked from their computers and forced off the job. Everyone who loses a family member because Trump has cut air traffic controllers, regulators and inspectors will sue, as will farmers in central California with no water for crops this year because the moron-in-chief released the reserve for a photo op to prove his idiotic rant about a “giant spigot the democrats refuse to turn.”

Have faith that the courts will hold

The firehose of absurdity has been so extreme it took a minute, but people are slapping back. Over a dozen major lawsuits have been filed to challenge Trump’s illegal power grabs, including a class action just filed by FBI agents facing Trump’s shakedown. Many cases are headed to the Supreme Court, where even conservative justices will preserve a balance of power, if reshuffled, if for no other reason than to keep their own.

Here are the groups suing Musk and his band of children who need to be in school, AFTER they get a spanking: American Public Health Association, American Federation of Teachers, Minority Veterans of America, Vote Vets Action Fund, the Center for Auto Safety, Inc., and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

They are suing DOGE for lack of public transparency, among other claims, including violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The claims will only grow. You can read the pleadings and DOGE case filings online, pending in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. It’s still public information because Musk hasn’t taken over the judiciary’s database. Yet.

Keep it in perspective, find peace, and laugh when you can


Have courage. Speak out. When it gets to be too much, read Eckhart Tolle’s Power of Now. Slowly. Then go for a device-free walk in nature. When you’re ready to laugh, watch Colbert and Kimmel, they’re snot-worthy funny and deliver the response Trump hates most: laughter. Another fun thing to do is to go on TruthSocial, follow Trump’s account, and tell Trump every day, every minute if you want, what a narcissistic idiot he is. Try it- it’s cathartic. He goes under @realDonaldTrump. (“@lord and savior” wasn’t available.)

Remember, Trump is an imbecile surrounded by zealots, children and empty-heads from Fox News. Also remember that he was elected by a hair, not a mandate. I’m going to start posting these numbers all the time to remind everyone that when Trump, Johnson and Fox News keep calling the election a landslide, they are lying, just to demoralize the rest of us:

Trump won 49% of the vote compared to Harris’ 48%, a difference of 1%. More importantly, 90 million eligible voters didn’t vote at all, a number that exceeds the number of voters for either Trump or Harris. In short, out of 245 million eligible US voters, nearly 70% of Americans did not vote for Trump. (75m Harris voters + 90m non-voters= 165 million, or 67% of 245 million eligible voters.) Only a math moron would present this as a mandate.

Don’t be afraid, and don’t be silent. Trump/Musk can’t round up 165 million of us for criticizing them, so do your part in making sure all 165 million of us speak up. Do it on social media, in your meet up groups, at church. Call your elected officials. Your Senator’s phone number is listed here. The Clerk of the House maintains phone numbers of all House members, call (202) 224-3121. Resist also with your wallet. Google Open Secrets to see which companies and people support Trump, and refuse to spend a dime there. Money speaks louder than words.

Mostly, don’t cave to exhaustion, that’s what Trump wants. Hitler only happened because Germans were too tired to stop him in the beginning. They didn’t know how far he’d go until they did know, and then it was too late.

Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25 year litigator specializing in 1st and 14th Amendment defense. Her Substack, the Haake Take, is free.



How religion’s brand became unpopular in Canada



Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

February 04, 2025

In 1961, less than one per cent of Canadians identified as having no religion. In 2021, 43 per cent of those between 15 and 35 considered themselves religiously unaffiliated.

Organized religion — and especially Christianity — is in decline. Secularization is advancing apace. Most sociologists of religion agree on this. What they disagree about, however, is why.

In an article published in the journal Sociology of Religion, my co-author, sociology professor Sam Reimer, and I try to provide an answer to this question. We argue that secularization is sensitive to what we call the “religious imaginary” — how religion is viewed in a society.
The standard account of secularization

The prevailing account of secularization focuses on rationalization (the rising authority of science and reason), individualization (increased individualism and materialism) and pluralism (diversity is believed to weaken religious authority), as well as what are called the three B’s — belief, behaviour and belonging.

From this perspective, religion has declined in Canada because religious beliefs have been supplanted by secular beliefs and practices. Religious behaviours like praying or reading scripture have been replaced with secular behaviours like spending time with friends or exercising. In addition, religious identities rooted in tradition have been replaced by secular identities grounded in personal choices.

The standard account of secularization has a lot going for it. However, it also misses something important: the fact that the meaning of “religion” and what it means to be “religious” has changed over time.

As a result, it struggles to explain why Canada went from being a more religious country than the United States in terms of behaviour and belonging prior to 1960, to being, by 2023, much more secular.

It’s simply not the case that Canada has experienced more rationalization, individualization or pluralism than the U.S. — so the answer must lie elsewhere.
The religious imaginary

By religious imaginary we mean the shared assumptions people have about what religion is and does. We argue that countries have distinct religious imaginaries, which play a critical role in shaping the population’s relationship to religion. In essence, to understand religious change, we should also bear in mind a fourth B: branding.

To understand branding’s role in shaping views of “religion” we drew from recent survey data on young Canadians’ shifting sentiments toward the term, as well as our own interview data with 50 Anglo-Canadians born between 1980-2000 who identify as “spiritual but not religious” — a phrase claimed by around 40 per cent of Canadians.

Our findings indicate that the decline of organized religion in Canada is caused by a significant shift in the country’s religious imaginary: while “religion” was once widely seen by Canadians in positive terms, among younger people especially, it is increasingly seen in a negative light.

Many of the Canadian millennials we spoke to tended to view the word “religion” as:

(1) anti-modern;

(2) conservative;

(3) American; and

(4) colonial.

 
Countries have distinct religious imaginaries, which play a critical role in shaping the population’s relationship to religion. (Shutterstock)

Religion is anti-modern

Among our interviewees, “religion” was generally seen as a holdover of a primitive pre-modern past. Terms commonly invoked were “anti-intellectual,” “cultish,” “ignorant” and “superstition.” For many young Canadians, then, “religious” and “modern” are seen as antithetical.

The notion that “religion” is anti-modern can be traced back to the Enlightenment, and is of longstanding provenance. However, it is only until recently that it became widespread in Canadian society.

We argue this discourse is most prevalent in the secular university, and that the ubiquity of this discourse in Canada is closely related to the post-1960s expansion of higher education. Canadians aged 25-34 are the most educated generational cohort across Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, and for many of them, religion feels at odds with the modern world.

Religion is conservative


It was common for interviewees to tell us they viewed the word “religion” as conservative, illiberal or at odds with social progress. Terms regularly invoked were, “repressive,” “conformist,” “dogmatic” and “intolerant.” Likewise, these young Canadians tended to view “religion” as a threat to individual freedom and personal authenticity.

This idea can be traced back to the 1960s, and was popularized by movements like second-wave feminism and gay liberation, which were motivated by ideals of freedom and authenticity. Crucially, the real social progress achieved by these movements was discursively dependent upon the symbolic pollution of the word “religion.” In other words, religious dogma was coded by progressive and liberal activists in the 1960s as the “bad guy” against which they were fighting.

It can be argued there is nothing inherently conservative about religion, and historically, faith communities have been at the forefront of fights for social justice. However, since the 1960s progressive Christians have found it increasingly difficult to reconcile their “religious” and “progressive” identities, because the symbolic association between “religion” and “conservativism” has become widely taken-for-granted.

Religion is American


Many of the young Canadians we interviewed associated “religion” with the United States, and with the American Christian Right, specifically. Terms regularly invoked were “Westboro Baptists,” “the South,” and “the Republican Party.”

This discourse has its origins in the 1970s and 80s. Whereas the U.S. saw the rise of an assertive and politically engaged Christian Right in this period, Canada began forging its identity as a multicultural nation.

So, while Americans today remain divided over whether the U.S. should be a Christian nation, a majority of Canadians today embrace a “post-Christian” multicultural national identity.

Interestingly, because of its association with the U.S., rejecting “religion” was understood by some as a form of patriotism. By identifying as “spiritual but not religious,” interviewees contrasted themselves with the “un-Canadian” and “religious” U.S. Christian Right.

Religion is colonial

Although less common than the other three, references to Canada’s residential school system were reliably invoked in interviews. In these instances, feelings of shame and regret were on display, along with visceral anger at Christian churches for maintaining the colonial system.

This discourse became prominent in the wake of the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The TRC’s final report publicized the hideous conditions and crimes against Indigenous students at residential schools. Few other events have been as damaging to the Christian brand in Canada.

In 1950, being religious was widely considered an essential part of being Canadian. Of course, there are many religious affiliates in Canada, and it would be a mistake to assume the religious imaginary we’ve sketched is the only one. However, our findings lend support to sociologist Joel Thiessen’s observation that being “religious” in Canada is increasingly socially unacceptable, especially among the young.

Galen Watts, Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology and Legal Studies, University of Waterloo

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

Christian columnist raises alarm over Trump and Musk defunding evangelical ministries

RAW STORY
February 6, 2025 

A TWO HEADED BEAST

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President-elect Donald Trump walks by Elon Musk during the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., November 14, 2024. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/File Photo

Elon Musk's destruction of USAID, with the approval of Donald Trump, is leading to evangelical charitable organizations questioning their viability as they are caught up in the DOGE purge of government officials and programs.

Appearing on MSNBC on Thursday morning, New York Times columnist David French, who writes from a Christian perspective, stated that evangelicals who helped propel Donald Trump back to the Oval Office may be unaware of what is happening on his watch.

Speaking with host Joe Scarborough, French was asked about Elon Musk's efforts to dismantle government programs and the unforeseen collateral damage.


"Look, a lot of Americans do not realize that this Elon Musk effort at USAID and other parts of the government has explicitly targeted evangelical ministries," he told the "Morning Joe" host. "These are evangelical ministries who fought for years to have the ability to have equal access to funding, to help serve the poor, to help serve some of the most vulnerable people in the world."

"And so you're seeing what you're seeing is a targeting of some of the best things America has ever done, including, you know, as you're talking about PEPFAR [President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief], you're talking about targeting evangelical ministries who serve refugees. This is a comprehensive attack on America's moral and humanitarian standing in the world."

"I'm sorry to say, Joe, an awful lot of Americans are standing and cheering every element of this," he lamented.


- YouTubeyoutu.be
Attitudes toward Christian nationalism don’t just boil down to views on race, religion and history


Photo by Rod Long on Unsplash

February 04, 2025

The concept of Christian nationalism has taken center stage in many Americans’ minds as either the greatest threat to democracy or its only savior.

Political scientist Eric McDaniel defines Christian nationalism as the belief that the United States was founded to be a Christian nation. “In this view,” according to McDaniel, “America can be governed only by Christians, and the country’s mission is directed by a divine hand.” Why does the idea resonate with some but alarm others?

Scholars often portray Christian nationalism as rooted in a deep-seated desire to exclude non-Christians and people of color from American society. Historians point to a persistent link between racism and Christian nationalism among white Americans throughout U.S. history.

White Christians, however, are not the only ones sympathetic to Christian nationalist ideas. Nearly 40% of Black Protestants and 55% of Hispanic Protestants agree with statements such as “being Christian is an important part of being truly American.” Interestingly, over one-third of Muslims agree that the U.S. government should promote Christian moral values but not make it the official religion.

Many who reject Christian nationalism do so because it seems to privilege those white Christian Americans who would like to make conservative Christianity the United States’ official religion. Conversely, supporters argue that the future of the U.S. depends upon loyalty to God and to staying true to the country’s Christian past. They contend that since the nation’s founding, a Christian influence in government and societal institutions such as education and health care has been and remains essential to sustaining religious, political and economic stability.

While racial, religious and political tribalism appear to influence who supports and who rejects Christian nationalism, our own research suggests there are other factors at play, specifically moral differences. We set out to understand the role that different moral values play in shaping support for and opposition to Christian nationalism.

Our study drew on the most influential social science approach to understanding moral values: moral foundations theory.


Moral differences

Moral foundations theory states that humans evolved to possess six primary moral intuitions that shape moral judgments – care for the vulnerable, fairness in how people are treated, loyalty to in-groups, respect for authority, reverence for the sacred, and the safeguarding of individual liberty.

A vast amount of research finds that liberals endorse the first two foundations, care and fairness, but score lower on the rest.

Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to score equally on all six foundations. This suggests their moral judgments often involve balancing a desire to be compassionate with a desire to safeguard the stability of the social order.

Moral foundations theory has been used extensively by social scientists to study hot-button issues such as crime control, policing, vaccine resistance, immigration, same-sex marriage, abortion and more.

For example, research finds that prioritizing care for the vulnerable, which is most pronounced among liberals, is linked to reduced acceptance of police use of force. Conservatives, who also value respect for authority, often favor “law and order” even when it involves use of force.

What our research found

Researchers found that support for Christian nationalism was strongly associated with the moral foundations of loyalty, sanctity and liberty. selimaksan/E+ via Getty images.

With moral foundations theory as our guide, we analyzed Christian nationalism using a 2021 national survey of 1,125 U.S. adults conducted by YouGov, a global opinion research organization. We measured respondents’ moral foundations with the moral foundations questionnaire, which has been used extensively by researchers across numerous academic disciplines.

To measure Christian nationalism, we asked respondents whether they agreed with six questions, such as whether the federal government should declare the United States a Christian nation, advocate Christian values, allow prayer in public schools and allow religious symbols in public spaces, to list a few.

What we found surprised us.

Support for Christian nationalism was most strongly linked to the moral foundations of loyalty, sanctity and liberty, but not to the authority foundation. We expected Christian nationalism to appeal to individuals who are enamored of authority, providing a rationale to their support for authoritarian leaders. But in our study, respect for authority did not distinguish those who supported Christian nationalism from those who opposed it.

We also found that support for Christian nationalism was linked to having a weaker fairness foundation. But it was not related to the strength of one’s care foundation.

We conclude that differences over Christian nationalism emerge not because some people care about the harm Christian nationalism could bring to non-Christian Americans, while others don’t. Rather, our findings suggest that those who support Christian nationalism do so because they are more sensitive to violations of loyalty, sanctity and liberty, and less sensitive to violations of fairness.

Our findings also revealed that support for Christian nationalism isn’t merely about racism or being ultrareligious, as critics often suggest. We accounted for endorsements of anti-Black stereotypes and religiosity. Yet, moral foundations remained the best predictors of Christian nationalist beliefs, even after taking into account these critical variables.

2 moral approaches to Christianity in the US

The Christian nationalism scale we and others have used combines several different beliefs about Christianity’s role in society. So we also examined how each of the six items in our Christian nationalism scale related to each of the six moral foundations. We found two important patterns.

 
Researchers found different moral values playing a role in shaping support or opposition for Christian nationalism.
Joe Sohm/Visions of America/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

First, we found that the Christian nationalist desire to bring church and state closer together was most prominent among those with strong loyalty and sanctity foundations and a weak fairness foundation. This means that people who advocate for a Christian state largely do so out of loyalty – specifically, loyalty to God – and out of a desire to adhere to God’s requirements for society, as they understand them.

In line with this, support is also linked to a desire to protect the sanctity of the nation’s Christian heritage. Those who oppose bringing church and state closer together do so out of a sense that such a union would be unfair.

Second, we found that the desire to allow prayer in schools and religious symbols in public spaces was strongest among those with pronounced liberty and sanctity moral foundations. This likely means that people who favor public religious expression, but not a union of church and state, do so because they see individual religious expression as a sacred national ideal.

All in all, our study shows that support for or opposition to Christian nationalism is not merely due to religious, political or racial identities and prejudices, as many believe, but is rather due to entrenched moral differences between the two camps.
Building solidarity through diverse moral concerns

Moral divides are not necessarily impassable. It’s possible that understanding these diverging moral concerns may help build bridges between those who are sympathetic to and those who are skeptical toward Christian nationalism.

America’s founders conceived of fairness and liberty as central to a democratic society. And these values have fueled loyalty to a robust national identity ever since.

Our research suggests that the controversy surrounding Christian nationalism is driven not by a lack of moral concern by sympathizers or critics but by their different moral priorities. We believe that understanding such differences as morally rooted can open the door for mutual understanding and productive debate.

Kerby Goff, Associate Director of Research at the Boniuk Institute for the Study and Advancement of Religious Tolerance, Rice University; Eric Silver, Professor of Sociology & Criminology, Penn State, and John Iceland, Professor of Sociology and Demography, Penn State

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

'Christian Nationalism, y'all': Internet mocks Trump's 'heresies at prayer breakfast'


Travis Gettys
February 6, 2025 
RAW STORY

Donald Trump openly mused again about running for a third term during his remarks at a National Prayer Breakfast event.



The recently inaugurated president floated the idea Thursday morning of seeking another term, which is expressly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution's 22nd Amendment, in remarks that occasionally veered wildly off script.

“I want to be here with you, and I have to be here with you, and I do that despite the fact that they say I can’t run again," Trump told the audience at the Washington Hilton, who laughed at the suggestion.

Trump promised to be a "peacemaker" and "unifier," but he also mocked Joe Biden and other Democrats and claimed they "oppose religion" and "oppose God," and the crowd cheered when he pledged to sign an executive order putting attorney general Pam Bondi in charge of a task force “to eradicate anti-Christian bias.”


Social media users reacted to those statements and others.

"At the second National Prayer Breakfast (yes, there are two this year--Christian Nationalism, y'all) Trump opens by suggesting the constitutional restraints on him running for a third time don't apply to him," posted attorney and author Andrew L. Seidel. "This will be a fight in the near future folks."

"Why, MSNBC, why are you going live to Trump's heresies at the prayer breakfast," said media critic Jeff Jarvis. "You're not Fox."

"Trump the Antichrist is lying his way through his national prayer breakfast speech," added the popular CoffeyTimeNews account. "Apparently American 'spirit' is UP 49%. Whatever the f*ck that means."

"At Capitol, Trump refers to the House Minority Leader as 'Congressman Jeffries,' rather than 'Leader Jeffries,'" posted John T. Bennett, White House correspondent and editor-at-large for CQ Roll Call. "Not very subtle."

"At National Prayer Breakfast, President Trump compares odds of a helicopter and plane colliding to golfballs," said Matt Viser, White House bureau chief for the Washington Post. "It's like, did you ever see you go to a driving range in golf and you're hitting balls, hundreds of balls, thousands of hours? I never see a ball hit another ball.'"

"Trump invoking Thomas Jefferson for his claim that 'we have to bring religion back,' that's the same Thomas Jefferson who famously took a razor to the New Testament and sliced out all the supernatural parts," noted Cambridge historian Nicholas Guyatt.


"The best estimates we have for the 1770s and 80s put church membership rates in Revolutionary America at about 17%," added Seth Cotlar, a U.S. history professor at Willamette University. "In the election of 1800, the main criticism of and most widespread fear about Jefferson was that he didn’t believe in God."

"Trump on air traffic control: 'We're gonna sit down & do a great computerized system for our control towers. Brand new...let's spend less money & build a great system done by 2 or 3 companies...when I land in my plane, privately, I use a system from another country...I won't tell you what country,'" reported journalist Aaron Rupar.

"The ‘injecting bleach’ approach to landing aircraft," replied cartoonist Mark Thompson.

"TRUMP SAYS HIS PRIVATE PLANE USES AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY, WON'T NAME IT," added Martin Baccardax, senior editor for TheStreet. "I'm sure this is fine..