There’s online speculation that the Senate is warning to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., despite his reputation as an opponent of vaccines. RFK thinks he knows more than scientists and physicians, but he is a crank and a crackpot with no medical or scientific training.
He is well established in the world of phony cures for COVID.
If this kook is confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services, many people will die.
Jeff Tiedrich proposes in his blog that President Biden should operate a “pardon factory” to protect everyone who has been threatened by Trump or Kash Patel.
One of the features of democracy is an assumption that parties will contend for power, accept their win or loss graciously, then prepare for next time. There will always be the next election to try again.
The threats by Trump and his toadies to prosecute his critics disrupts the comity on which a democratic system depends.
Trump thinks of his critics as “enemies,” not critics. He has made clear repeatedly that he will use his power as President to prosecute, imprison, and crush his enemies.
He said recently that the members of the January 6 Commission “should be in jail.” Why? Is it normal or acceptable that a mob summoned by the President descends on the U.S. Capitol as they meet to certify the election, smash through the windows and doors, beat up police officers, and rampage through the building? What was criminal? The summoning of the mob? The actions of the mob? Or the investigation of the events of the day?
Biden, writes Tiedrich, should issue pre-emptive pardons to all those whose lives and freedom might be endangered by Trump, Kash Patel, or Pam Bondi.
The next four years will be a trial for our democracy. Will the norms and institutions survive the reign of this bitter, vindictive old man?
Florida is one of 18 states that allow the children of undocumented immigrants to receive a lower tuition rate on state colleges. That law is under attack by Randy Fine, a state legislator who is running for Congress. Fine is an ardent supporter of Trump.
The Orlando Sentinel reported:
TALLAHASSEE — For a decade, children brought into the country illegally by their undocumented parents could enroll in a state college or university for the same fee as in-state residents, if they attended a Florida high school for three years.
But now, State Sen. Randy Fine, a Brevard County Republican who plans to resign mid-session to run for Congress, wants to repeal that law and end the educational benefit designed to help young immigrants known as “dreamers.”
Fine wants to end “sweetheart deals for college degrees to those who should not even be here,” he said in an email put out by his senate aide. “President Trump has made clear it is time to close the border and stop giving illegal immigrants rewards for breaking the law.”
His bill revives an effort to squelch the dreamers’ benefit that Gov. Ron DeSantis and some other Republicans tried — and failed — to make part of an immigration reform package in 2023.
Fine claimed the state spent $45 million to provide out-of-state tuition waivers to undocumented college and university students in 2021, but his staff did not respond to questions about the source of that figure.
Fine, a combative conservative who calls himself the “Hebrew Hammer,” filed a bill Monday that would repeal the waiver, which was signed into law in 2014 — two years before he was elected to the Legislature. The law was sponsored by Lt. Gov. Jeanette Nunez when she was a state senator. It was approved with bipartisan support and signed into law by then-Gov. Rick Scott, now the junior GOP senator from Florida.
Under the law, undocumented students who attended a Florida high school for three years and enrolled in a state college or university within 24 months of graduation would pay in-state tuition rates. But they are not eligible for state financial aid.
Without that waiver, they would pay out-of-state rates that are three to four times more. At the University of Central Florida, for example, the in-state rate is about $6,300 while out-of-state tuition is over $22,000…
More than 43,000 undocumented students are currently enrolled in Florida’s public colleges or universities, according to the American Immigration Council and the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration. They make up just a sliver of the more than 1 million enrolled.
The state university system said it issued 2,005 nonresident tuition waivers last year but does not track how many of them went to undocumented students. The state also doesn’t track of the number of undocumented students enrolled in its universities.
Florida has already invested millions of dollars into the K-12 education of these students, and the 2014 law was seen as an incentive to get them to stay in Florida and complete their postsecondary education, said Renata Bozzetto, deputy director of the Florida Immigrant Coalition.
The result is a “a higher educated population and individuals who can pursue a career while working on their immigration status,” Bozzetto said.
Florida’s undocumented workers contribute $1 billion in spending power and $113 million in state and local taxes, according to the American Immigration Council….
“It’s a publicity stunt,” Sen. Carlos Guillermo Smith, a Democrat from Orlando, said of Fine’s new bill. “I’d be surprised if my Republican colleagues in the Senate even give it a hearing. It’s a mean-spirited and petty attack on immigrants that really defines the MAGA base.”
All in-state residents pay a tuition rate lower than the cost of their education, so state taxpayers are subsidizing all of them, and there is not a limit on the number of students who can receive in-state tuition, he said.
“They are paying tuition like every other student ,” Smith said. “They are not taking something away from other Floridians.”
Elon Musk recently became the first person to post a net worth of $400 billion. Tax laws require foundations to give away 5% of their assets every year. Surely, a man with that kind of fabulous wealth must be a major donor to the arts, medical research, homelessness, or education? Not him.
The New York Times reported that Musk’s foundation has repeatedly failed to meet the 5% mark. It gives only in its own neighborhood and to the private school that Musk intends to create.
The Times reports:
For the third year in a row, Elon Musk’s charitable foundation did not give away enough of its money.
And it did not miss the mark by a small amount.
New tax filings show that the Musk Foundation fell $421 million short of the amount it was required to give away in 2023. Now, Mr. Musk has until the end of the year to distribute that money, or he will be required to pay a sizable penalty to the Internal Revenue Service.
Mr. Musk, in his new role as a leader of what President-elect Donald J. Trump is calling the Department of Government Efficiency, is promising to downsize and rearrange the entire federal government — including the I.R.S. But the tax records show he has struggled to meet a basic I.R.S. rule that is required of all charity leaders, no matter how small or big their foundations.
Mr. Musk’s is one of the biggest. His foundation has more than $9 billion in assets, including millions of shares in Tesla, his electric vehicle company. By law, all private foundations must give away 5 percent of those assets every year. The aim is to ensure that wealthy donors like Mr. Musk use these organizations to help the public instead of simply benefiting from the tax deductions they are afforded…
The I.R.S. appears to be among Mr. Musk’s early targets as a leader of Mr. Trump’s government efficiency initiative. The tax agency serves as the federal government’s charity regulator and thus oversees Mr. Musk’s foundation.
Mr. Musk, who on Wednesday became the first person with a net worth of over $400 billion, has been an unusual philanthropist. He has been critical of the effectiveness of large charitable gifts, and his foundation maintains a minimal, plain-text website that offers very little about its overarching philosophy. That is different from some other large foundations that seek to have national or even worldwide impact by making large gifts to causes like public health, education or the arts.
The Musk Foundation’s largess primarily stays closer to home. The tax filings show that last year the group gave at least $7 million combined to charities near a launch site in South Texas used by Mr. Musk’s company SpaceX.
Mr. Musk’s charity, which he founded in 2002, has never hired paid employees, according to tax filings.
Its three directors — Mr. Musk and two people who work for his family office — all work for free. The filings show they did not spend very much time on the foundation: just two hours and six minutes per week for the past three years.
By giving its foundation Tesla stock, Musk has saved about $2 billion in federal taxes.
Musk gives away as little as possible.
Do you think the IRS might investigate him in the next four years?
Peter Greene writes about the contradiction at the heart of Trump’s education goals. On the one hand, Trump says he will eliminate the Department of Education and turn federal funding over to the states, to use as they wish. At the same time, he says that he will punish schools if they persist in teaching liberal ideas that Trump dislikes, like diversity, equity and inclusion, or if they are insufficiently patriotic.
How will he punish schools if the federal funding has been relinquished to the states?
Greene writes:
It has been on the conservative To Do list for decades, and the incoming administration keeps insisting that this time it’s really going to happen. But will it? Over the weekend, Trump’s Ten Principles for Education video from Agenda 47 was circulating on line as a new “announcement” or “confirmation” of his education policy, despite the fact that the video was posted in September of 2023.
The list of goals may or may not be current, but it underlines a basic contradiction at the heart of Trump’s education plans. The various goals can be boiled down to two overall objectives:
1) To end all federal involvement and oversight of local schools.
2) To exert tight federal control over local schools
Trump has promised that schools will not teach “political indoctrination,” that they will teach students to “love their country,” that there will be school prayer, that students will “have access to” project-based learning, and that schools will expel students who harm teachers or other students.
He has also proposed stripping money from colleges and universities that indoctrinate students and using the money to set up a free of charge “world class education” system.
Above all, he has promised that he “will be closing up” the Department of Education. Of course, he said that in 2016 with control of both houses of Congress and it did not happen.
Are there obstacles? The Department of Education distributes over $18 billion to help support schools that educate high-poverty populations, providing benefits like extra staff to supplement reading instruction. The Project 2025 plan is to turn this into a block grant to be given to the states to use as they wish, then zeroed out. Every state in the country would feel that pinch; states that decide to use the money for some other purpose entirely, such as funding school vouchers, will feel the pinch much sooner. The department also handles over $15 billion in Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding, which helps cover the costs of special education; Project 2025 also calls for turning it into an unregulated block grant to states with no strings attached, meaning that parents would have to lobby their state government for special ed funding.
Cuts and repurposing of these funds will be felt immediately in classrooms across the country, particularly those that serve poor students and students with special needs. That kind of readily felt, easily understood impact is likely to fuel pushback in Congress, and it’s Congress that has the actual power to eliminate the department.
Beyond the resistance to changing major funding for states and the challenge of trying to move the trillion-plus-dollar funding system for higher education, the Trump administration would also face the question of how to exert control over school districts without a federal lever to push.
Previous administrations have used Title I funding as leverage to coax compliance from school districts. In 2013, Obama’s education secretary Arne Duncan threatened to withhold Title I funds if a California failed to adopt an “acceptable” standardized testing program. In 2020, Trump himself threatened to cut off funding to schools that did not re-open their buildings. And on the campaign trail this year, Trump vowed that he would defund schools that require vaccines. That will be hard to do if the federal government has given all control of funds to the states.
The Department of Education has limited power, but the temptation to use it seems hard to resist. Nobody wanted the department gone more than Trump’s education secretary Betsy DeVos, who was notably reluctant to use any power of her office. But by 2018, frustrated with Congressional inaction on the Higher Education Act, DeVos announced a plan to impose regulations on her own. In 2020, she imitated Duncan by requiring states to compete for relief money by implementing some of her preferred policies.
Too many folks on the Trump team have ideas about policies they want to enforce on American schools, and without a Department of Education that has control of a major funding stream, they’d have little hope of achieving their goals. Perhaps those who dream of dismantling the department will prevail, but they will still have to get past Congress. No matter how things fall out, some of Team Trump’s goals for education will not be realized.
Truth is stranger than fiction, once again. Trump announced that his daughter Tiffany’s father-in-law would be his advisor on Middle Eastern affairs. Trump described him as a successful businessman, a billionaire, a man of great importance.
But the New York Times revealed today that Massad Boulos is not a billionaire. He may not even be a millionaire. He seems like a nice guy, but he didn’t bother to correct Trump when the big guy promoted the myth that Tiffany’s father-in-law was a major mogul, a tycoon. He is not.
The Times reported:
President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming Middle East adviser, Massad Boulos, has enjoyed a reputation as a billionaire mogul at the helm of a business that bears his family name.
Mr. Boulos has been profiled as a tycoon by the world’s media, telling a reporter in October that his company is worth billions. Mr. Trump called him a “highly respected leader in the business world, with extensive experience on the international scene.”
The president-elect even lavished what may be his highest praise: a “dealmaker.”
In fact, records show that Mr. Boulos has spent the past two decades selling trucks and heavy machinery in Nigeria for a company his father-in-law controls. The company, SCOA Nigeria PLC, made a profit of less than $66,000 last year, corporate filings show.
There is no indication in corporate documents that Mr. Boulos, a Lebanese-American whose son is married to Mr. Trump’s daughter Tiffany, is a man of significant wealth as a result of his businesses. The truck dealership is valued at about $865,000 at its current share price. Mr. Boulos’s stake, according to securities filings, is worth $1.53.
In fact, as the Times put it, Mr. Boulos is “a small-time truck salesman.” Doubtless he is a “dealmaker,” as he agrees with customers on the price of the truck he is selling.
As for Boulos Enterprises, the company that has been called his family business in The Financial Times and elsewhere, a company officer there said it is owned by an unrelated Boulos family.
Mr. Boulos will advise on one of the world’s most complicated and conflict-wracked regions — a region that Mr. Boulos said this week that he has not visited in years. The advisory position does not require Senate approval….
Mr. Boulos, a Christian from northern Lebanon who emigrated to Texas as a teenager, has risen in prominence since 2018, when his son Michael began dating Tiffany Trump.
This year, Massad Boulos helped Mr. Trump woo Arab-American voters, and in the fall served as a go-between for Mr. Trump and the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas.
In October, The Times asked him about his wealth and business dealings.
“Your company is described as a multibillion-dollar enterprise,” a reporter said. “Are you yourself a billionaire?”
Mr. Boulos said he did not like to describe himself that way, but that journalists had picked up on the label.
“It’s accurate to describe the company as a multibillion-dollar—?” the reporter followed up.
“Yeah,” Mr. Boulos replied. “It’s a big company. Long history.”
Versions of this history have been recounted in The New York Times, The Economist, CNNand The Wall Street Journal.
But in a subsequent interview on Tuesday, Mr. Boulos said that he had only meant to confirm that other news outlets had written — incorrectly — that he runs such a company.
Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa is a combat veteran. She retired from the army as a Lieutenant Colonel. She is also a sexual assault survivor. She is also hyper-conservative.
You would expect that she would have some problems with Pete Hegseth, Trump’s choice to lead the Department of Defense. Hegseth has been accused of assaulting women, of public drunkenness, of mismanaging two very small conservative veterans’ group. And he opposes women in combat.
Hegseth is not the kind of guy you would expect Ernst to support.
At first, on hearing of his nomination, she expressed her doubts. But then MAGA began to apply pressure. She comes up for re-election in 2026; it’s hard to imagine anyone running to her right, but who knows?
And she folded.
Todd Gorman of the Cedar Rapids Gazette wrote:
It’s remarkable how fast you can go from guest to entree at the big MAGA buffet.
Iowa U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst certainly knows.
Last week, she committed the grave offense of being a voice of reason. She told Real Clear Politics she had not made up her mind on Pete Hegseth’s nomination to become secretary of defense.
Ernst said she didn’t plan to campaign against Hegseth and wanted to see the confirmation process unfold. How unreasonable, a senator wanting to follow the Senate process before making a final decision. She’s a pivotal vote on the Armed Services Committee, which will be handling Hegseth’s confirmation.
But then, the MAGA warning light flashed, and all hell broke loose.
Fox News showed a series of X posts aimed at Ernst.
Donald Trump Jr pointed out Ernst had voted to confirm Joe Biden’s pick for defense secretary, Lloyd Austin. He suggested Ernst may be “in the wrong political party.”
Somebody called Wall Street Mav called Ernst a “neocon.” Gasp. And suggested she face a conservative primary opponent in 2026. Right-wing radio host Steve Deace bragged he could be the one to topple Ernst in that primary. Or maybe double Arizona failure Kari Lake could return to her Iowa roots. Sure.
Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA (his turn signal blinking toward the abyss) accused Ernst of “leading the charge” against Hegseth.
Ernst is the first woman combat veteran elected to the U.S. Senate. Pete Hegseth is a Fox News personality who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s also been overserved many times. He’s vowed to quit drinking if confirmed.
A woman has accused Hegseth of sexual assault. This, alongside multiple reports of sexual misconduct and mismanagement of veterans’ groups he led.
But MAGA has decided he’s the sort of strong, rugged, take-no-prisoners guy we need to make America tough again. He’ll fix the “woke” military, whatever that means.
Hegseth said women don’t belong in combat. Ernst is a combat veteran. He’s accused of sexual assault. Ernst is a sexual assault survivor. So, Ernst was supposed embrace this guy’s nomination? Be impressed by his raw manliness? Suddenly I could use a drink.
But by Monday, after a weekend of MAGA bludgeoning, Ernst took a step back. She met again with Hegseth, was encouraged and said the allegations against him won’t count unless victims step forward.
“As I support Pete through this process, I look forward to a fair hearing based on truth, not anonymous sources,” Ernst said.
But after that process, will you vote for him? She didn’t really go there. But it’s likely she’ll vote to confirm.
It’s disappointing, but not unexpected. I wish she would have said, “Pete Hegseth? I wouldn’t put that guy in charge of latrines. I wouldn’t hand him the keys to the nation’s military if he was the last man on earth. And that last man thing sounds pretty good right now.”
What Ernst said last week was spot on. If this guy wants to become secretary of defense, he’s going to have to show he’s capable. That’s what the confirmation process is for. Ernst wanting to wait and see the show makes sense.
Only one top Iowa Republican defended her, Rep. Ashely Hinson. But Hinson also had to do her duty and say Hegseth is a “strong pick.”
Yes, I know. Ernst played her own role in creating the MAGA monster. Now she got a glimpse of what happens when it turns on you. No loyalty and genuflecting before the dear leader can save you. Toe the MAGA line, or else. This is the party of freedom.
(319) 398-8262; todd.dorman@thegazette.com
The “party of freedom”? Yes, you are free to agree with Trump and free to praise him.
Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire publisher of the Los Angeles Times, recently revealed that the newspaper would employ a technology that will tell “both sides” of every story. Journalists are outraged by the implication that their stories are biased. After the publisher’s decision to prohibit an endorsement in the Presidential race, the chief editor of the editorial board resigned, followed by others.
At that time, the published defended
The New York Times reported:
Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire owner of The Los Angeles Times, said on Thursday that he planned to introduce a “bias meter” next to the paper’s news and opinion coverage as part of his campaign to overhaul the publication.
Dr. Soon-Shiong, who in October quashed a planned presidential endorsement for Vice President Kamala Harris from The Los Angeles Times’s editorial board, said in an interview that aired on Scott Jennings’s podcast “Flyover Country” that he had begun to see his newspaper as “an echo chamber and not a trusted source.”
He previously said he planned to remake the paper’s editorial board and add more conservative voices. He has asked Mr. Jennings, a CNN political commentator and a Republican strategist, to join it.
Dr. Soon-Shiong, who bought The Times in 2018, said on the podcast that he had been working with a team to create the so-called bias meter using technology he had been building in his health care businesses.
On news and opinion articles, “you have a bias meter so somebody could understand, as a reader, that the source of the article has some level of bias,” he explained in the interview. “And what we need to do is not have what we call confirmation bias, and then that story automatically — the reader can press a button and get both sides of that exact same story based on that story, and then give comments.”
He said he planned to introduce the tool in January.
Dr. Soon-Shiong’s latest comments set off immediate pushback from the L.A. Times Guild, which represents journalists at the paper.
“Recently, the newspaper’s owner has publicly suggested his staff harbors bias, without offering evidence or examples,” the union’s leadership said in a statement on Thursday. The union said all Times staff members abided by ethics guidelines that call for “fairness, precision, transparency, vigilance against bias and an earnest search to understand all sides of an issue.”
In the comments that followed the article, many ridiculed the idea of the “bias meter.” One imagined an article that reported on an earthquake rated 9.5, which said that people feared that the earthquake would cause massive destruction of lives and property; those seeking a different perspective would press the bias meter to read an article saying that most people were not afraid of a 9.5 earthquake and say it’s no big deal.
During the campaign, Democrats continually drew attention to the radical proposals of Project 2025 as the agenda for a second Trump term. Trump distanced himself from Project 2025 and pretended to know nothing about it or anyone who wrote it. Now that he is President-elect, Project 2025 is indeed Trump’s agenda.
Someone on social media asked, “If Trump disavowed Project 2025 when campaigning, isn’t I clear that he has no “mandate” to act on it?
The LA Times reports:
Russell Vought, one of the chief architects of Project 2025 — a conservative blueprint for the next presidency — is no fan of the federal government that President-elect Donald Trump will soon lead.
He believes “woke” civil servants and “so-called expert authorities” wield illegitimate power to block conservative White House directives from deep within federal agencies, and wants Trump to “bend or break” that bureaucracy to his will, he wrote in the second chapter of the Project 2025 playbook.
Vought is a vocal proponent of a plan known as Schedule F, under which Trump would fire thousands of career civil servants with extensive experience in their fields and replace them with his own political loyalists, and of Christian nationalism, which would see American governance aligned with Christian teachings. Both are core tenets of Project 2025.
Throughout his campaign, Trump adamantly disavowed Project 2025, even though its policies overlapped with his and some of its authors worked in his first administration. He castigated anyone who suggested the blueprint, which polls showed was deeply unpopular among voters, represented his aims for the presidency.
But last week, the president-elect nominated Vought to lead the Office of Management and Budget, which oversees the White House budget and its policy agenda across the federal government.
Trump called Vought, who held the same role during his first term, an “aggressive cost cutter and deregulator” who “knows exactly how to dismantle the Deep State and end Weaponized Government.”
The nomination was one of several Trump has made since his election that have called into question his claims on the campaign trail that Project 2025 was not his playbook and held no sway over him or his plans for a second term.
He selected Tom Homan, a Project 2025 contributor and former visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the conservative organization behind the blueprint, as his “border czar.” Trump named Stephen Miller, an immigration hard-liner also linked to Project 2025, as his deputy chief of staff for policy. Both also served in the first Trump administration.
He also named Brendan Carr to serve on the Federal Communications Commission. Carr wrote a chapter of Project 2025 on the FCC, which regulates U.S. internet access and TV and radio networks, and has echoed Trump’s claimsthat news broadcasters have engaged in political bias against Trump.
Trump named John Ratcliffe as his pick for CIA director and Pete Hoekstra as ambassador to Canada. Both are Project 2025 contributors. It has also been reported that the Trump transition team is filling lower-level government spots using a Project 2025 database of conservative candidates.
During the campaign Trump said that he knew “nothing about” Project 2025 and that he found some of its ideas “absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.” In response to news in July that Project 2025’s director, Paul Dans, was leaving his post, Trump campaign managers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles — whom the president-elect has since named his chief of staff — issued a statement saying that “reports of Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed.”
Asked about Trump’s selection of several people with Project 2025 connections to serve in his administration, Trump transition spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt responded with a statement, saying Trump “never had anything to do with Project 2025.”
“This has always been a lie pushed by the Democrats and the legacy media, but clearly the American people did not buy it because they overwhelmingly voted for President Trump to implement the promises that he made on the campaign trail,” Leavitt wrote. “All of President Trump’s cabinet nominees and appointments are whole-heartedly committed to President Trump’s agenda, not the agenda of outside groups.”
Leavitt too has ties to Project 2025, having appeared in a training video for it.
In addition to calling for much greater power in the hands of the president, Project 2025 calls for less federal intervention in certain areas — including through the elimination of the Department of Education. It calls for much stricter immigration enforcement and mass deportations — a policy priority of Trump’s as well — and rails against environmental protections, calling for the demolition of key environmental agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service.
It calls for tougher restrictions on abortion and for the federal government to collect data on women who seek an abortion, and backs a slew of measures that would strip rights from LGBTQ+ people.
For Trump’s critics, his selections make it clear that his disavowal of the conservative playbook was nothing more than a campaign ploy to pacify voters who viewed the plan as too far to the right. It’s an argument many were making before the election as well.
The Republican supermajority in the state’s General Assembly is shameless. They used their numbers to pass a bill that strips the newly elected Democratic Governor, State Attorney General, and State Superintendent of Schools of many of their powers.
Outgoing Democratic Governor Roy Cooper vetoed the bill, but Republicans overturned his veto.
The Republican power grab was embedded in a bill that shortchanged the victims of Hurricane Helene.
When will voters in North Carolina wise up and start voting for Democratic legislators? The ones they have now are not working on behalf of their constituents.
They are using their power to protect their power and perks. The public be damned! Vote them out!
Diane Ravitch's blog 