Archives for category: Extremism
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Trump’s “One Big Ugly Bill” Will Devastate Rural Hospitals

By dianeravitch
June 20, 2025 //
7

Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthiest will be funded in large part by draconian cuts to Medicare, which provides insurance to poor people. The massive cuts to Medicaid will lead to closure of many rural hospitals, which rely on Medicaid payments. The Senate knows this, and so-called “moderates” are working on adding a fund for rural hospitals. The bill, which Trump insists must pass by July 4, will add trillions to the nation’s debt.

So for all the cuts and firings imposed by Elon Musk and his DOGS, the federal deficit will grow under Trump.

David Dayen of The American Prospect reports:

As we at the Prospect have reported, while the Senate’s version of the Republican budget reconciliation bill was widely expected to be more moderate than the House one, when it comes to health care it is more extreme. This came as a surprise to many Republicans, some of whom now want changes. And they all are highlighting the same area of concern. It would be “potentially really bad for rural hospitals,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) told The Wall Street Journal. It’s “going to hurt our rural hospitals and hurt them in a big way,” said Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV). Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) expressed “concerns about the effect on rural hospitals in her state.”

This is all certainly true. Senate cuts to the provider tax, a way for states to get more federal funding for their Medicaid programs, along with the House cuts that have been analyzed as leading to at least 11 million fewer people on the Medicaid rolls, will deeply harm the 700-plus rural hospitals already at risk of closure.

But that’s too narrow a frame. The entire health care provider network would come under heavy strain, and possibly collapse.

That’s because each node of the system is interdependent. If the 190 rural hospitals estimated in a recent Center for American Progress report as collateral damage of the Republican cuts close, all of their patients must find treatment at the remaining health care providers. Many of these new-arrival patients are likely to be uninsured (many thrown off Medicaid or Obamacare by Republicans), crushing hospital finances and potentially adding more closures on top.

This means overcrowded hospitals and overburdened staff, in addition to the serious hardships for patients traveling long distances for care. “The Republican Senate budget accelerates the rural hospital collapse that is under way, like jet fuel on a fire,” said Alex Lawson of Social Security Works, who works directly on health care issues in Washington. “Hospitals that don’t close will be the ones people drive four hours to access. The quality of everybody’s health care in this country will plummet.”

HOSPITALS HAVE LURCHED FROM ONE CRISIS to the next for years. Between the 2020 COVID pandemic and 2024, 36 rural hospitals closed, on the heels of 136 closures in the previous decade. Another 16 have closed this year, suggesting an acceleration of the trend, and hundreds more are at risk.

If the entire hospital doesn’t close, unprofitable business lines are often shuttered first. “I’ve talked to a lot of hospitals worried about having to close maternity wards,” said Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, who ran the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in the Biden administration. In California alone, 56 hospitals have ended maternity care since 2012, and the crisis of maternity deserts is acute.

The situation is worse, Brooks-LaSure said, in states that haven’t expanded Medicaid, suggesting that the program is a lifeline for hospitals, supplying a steady stream of paid claims for insured patients. Indeed, Medicaid is often the biggest line item in the accounts receivable budgets for nursing homes, rural hospitals, and maternity wards, as Families USA’s Anthony Wright pointed out to The Bulwark. A letter to the Republican leadership citing data from the Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina notes that 213 rural hospitals serve a disproportionately high share of Medicaid patients.

While hospitals sometimes complain about low Medicaid reimbursement rates, the government has in the past compensated for that with “state-directed payment” arrangements that boost levels to what commercial insurance pays. That is being attacked in the Senate Finance Committee version of the bill, cutting those reimbursement top-ups to Medicare levels.

Hospitals are legally required to take care of patients in an emergency, regardless of their ability to pay. And more emergencies occur when more people are uninsured and put off care until they absolutely need it, which are made worse still if patients have to travel for hours to get care. Uncompensated care builds up in states with larger proportions of their populations who are uninsured, severely damaging hospital budgets.

Taking nearly $1 trillion out of the health system will magnify that problem across the country. And Medicaid cuts that create more uninsured patients, along with the creation of potentially millions of uninsured through Affordable Care Act changes, are terrible for hospitals. According to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, uncompensated care would increase by $204 billion over the next decade if the House version of the bill passed; remember, the Senate bill is even worse. Much of that burden would be thrown onto already shaky hospitals.

To those who argue that the cuts are really to state Medicaid programs and not hospitals, the ways states will deal with those cuts is not likely to be through simply providing more money that they don’t have. They will either change enrollment rules, so fewer people stay on the program, or cut reimbursement payments to hospitals and other providers. Both of these options would directly harm hospital finances.

“These cuts will strain emergency departments as they become the family doctor to millions of newly uninsured people,” said Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association, in a statement, adding that “the proposal will force hospitals to reconsider services or potentially close, particularly in rural areas.”

Please open the link to see the full scope of the threat this Big Ugly Bill poses to rural Americans, most of whom voted for Trump.

Categories Budget Cuts, Cruelty, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Funding, Health, Trump

Glenn Kessler Fact-Checks Rubio-Vance Lies About Foreign Aid

By dianeravitch
June 19, 2025 //
0

Glenn Kessler is the fact-checker for The Washington Post.

He wrote:

“There are all these humanitarian programs, where we sent money to people for medicine, for food, okay? What I thought, before I got into government, what most Americans think is, okay, so we sent $100,000 to this group to buy food, for like poor kids in Africa, okay? And what actually happens is it’s not $100,000 that goes to the poor kids in Africa. The NGO, the nongovernmental organization, that gets that money, contracts that out to somebody else, … there are like three or four middlemen. What Marco Rubio told me … his best estimate, after having his team look at it, is that 88 cents of every dollar is actually being collected by middlemen. So every dollar we were spending on humanitarian assistance, 12 cents was making it to the people who actually needed it. That’s crazy. There’s a lot of waste.”


— Vice President JD Vance, remarks during interview with Theo Von, June 7


We thought it would be helpful to display Vance’s full quote, because a social media post that received about 4 million views incorrectly attributed the 12-cents statistic to the U.S. DOGE Service. Instead, Vance said this number was the “best estimate” of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Indeed, Rubio has used this statistic on Capitol Hill, decrying what he called the “foreign aid industrial complex.”

When asked for the source of this number, Vance’s spokesman did not respond to repeated queries and the State Department provided a nonresponsive statement that the “United States is no longer going to blindly dole out money with no return for the American people.”

Despite the stonewalling, we figured out where this 12-cents figure comes from. It’s a misunderstanding of a number in a U.S. Agency for International Development report issued before the Trump administration took office. That report recorded the percentage of funds that go directly to local entities, bypassing nongovernmental and international organizations. It’s not a new or undiscovered issue, as Vance framed it. In 2023, Samantha Power, USAID administrator in the Biden administration, had decried the “industrial aid complex” and set a goal of directing 25 percent of aid to local entities by 2025, more than doubling the level when she announced the goal.

As is often the case, the Trump administration is reinventing the wheel while misinterpreting the data.

The Facts

We’re not sure how much Vance knows about business, but it’s simpleminded to believe $100,000 in humanitarian assistance would end up in Africa intact. People who deliver the aid must get paid, for instance, even if they work for nonprofit organizations. These organizations need accountants, lawyers and managers, too. The aid — say, food — may need to be delivered on ships. That also adds to the expenses. Moreover, some contractors who deliver aid are profit-making enterprises, so that’s an extra cut off the top.

A similar thing happens in the opposite direction. A doll might get made for $5 in an African country, but then another $2 is needed for export and shipping costs, and $3 for storage, logistics and profit for the importer. The America retailer then doubles the price — to $20 — to cover store operations, staff, rent and profit. You can’t expect, as Vance apparently does, a cost-free transfer across oceans.

In the case of foreign aid, Congress has set rules that further increase expenses. For instance, food aid must be purchased in the United States and by law must be shipped on U.S. carriers, according to the Congressional Research Service.
For years, foreign-policy experts have argued for more aid to be handled at the local level, thereby saving on overhead. (Washington, D.C., for example, is more expensive than most cities in developing countries in Africa, South America, the Caribbean and Asia.) The Share Trust, which pushes for more local funding, estimated last year that local intermediaries in the Middle East could deliver programming that is 32 percent more cost efficient than international organizations.

Steve Gloyd, a global health expert at the University of Washington, had decried what he calls “phantom aid,” in which he said 30 to 60 percent of the total budget of some global health aid projects never even leave the headquarters of the nongovernmental organization hired to manage the program. International NGOs also can inflate the salaries of local staff, draining health ministries of expertise and raising in-country costs.

Not every country, however, has organizations in place that can take on the job. So, for-profit contractors such as Chemonics ($1.6 billion in 2024) and DAI Global ($500 million) win contracts from USAID to, among other tasks, reduce Ukrainian corruption, create a Famine Early Warning System Network and support democracy in El Salvador, according to Pub K Group, which surveys government contracts.
More than 20 years ago, President George W. Bush set up Millennium Challenge Corp. as a way to get individual countries more invested in using the funds wisely — and building sustainable programs to take on the task after the American contract has ended. (DOGE attempted to shutter MCC, but it appears to have gotten a reprieve.)

This brings us to the 12-cent statistic. We scoured for estimates of how much aid money is lost to fees and expenses. There’s no overall number, and the amount varies from program to program, with some highly efficient. But it’s not an 88 percent loss overall. Instead, Vance and Rubio are referring to a report issued under Power assessing progress on her goal of delivering 25 percent of funds to local aid organizations.

In the 2024 fiscal year, “USAID provided $2.1 billion directly to local nongovernmental, private sector and government partners, or 12.1 percent of USAID’s acquisitions and assistance (A & A) and government-to-government (G2G) funding,” the report said. Additional aid given to regional partners brought the percentage to 12.6. The Trump administration deleted the report, which noted that USAID for 15 years has sought to direct more aid to local entities, but it can still be found on the Wayback Machine internet archive.

Publish What You Fund, a group advocating for greater transparency in aid funding, disputed USAID’s methodology, saying the figure is just 5.1 percent, though no major donor country does well. (The Netherlands tops the list at 6.9 percent.)

But, again, this is not what Vance said — “Every dollar we were spending on humanitarian assistance, 12 cents was making it to the people who actually needed it.”

The misunderstanding may have started, as these things do, with a tweet by billionaire Elon Musk. On Feb. 1, as Musk led DOGE’s dismantling of USAID, he elevated a quote from a PBS interview with Walter Kerr, co-executive director of Unlock Aid, a D.C.-based nonprofit that aims to improve American aid effectiveness. “The level of corruption and waste is unreal!” Musk posted.

Kerr was quoted as saying: “It’s actually less than 10 percent of our foreign assistance dollars flowing through USAID is actually reaching those communities.” Kerr told The Fact Checker he had been interviewed in August, and he was referring to a previous report issued by USAID on the percentage of funds going to local aid organizations. His organization issued a statement saying the quote had been taken out of context — a graphic in the PBS segment made clear what he meant — but the genie was out of the bottle.

When Rubio testified before the Senate on May 20, asserting that “at USAID, 12 cents of every dollar was reaching the recipient,” some Democratic lawmakers called him out.

“It would certainly shock Americans to hear that only 12 percent of our foreign aid reaches recipients, needy recipients on the ground, the people who need the help,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (Connecticut). “That is not actually an accurate number. That is the amount of aid that goes directly to local groups on the ground. But as you know, most of our aid runs through bigger international organizations like Save the Children. Those entities are getting somewhere around 80, 85 percent of the aid we give them directly to recipients on the ground.”
Rubio did not respond.

Then Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii) followed up.
“It is just not true that only 12 percent of the aid reaches recipients. … That is excluding the World Food Program, that is excluding Catholic Relief Services,” he said. “I will just say if there’s an enterprise to reduce overhead, count me in, but it is not 88 percent overhead. That’s not what’s happening.”

This time, Rubio answered. “That number, just to clarify, was actually Samantha Power’s number,” he said, without admitting error. “And she regretted that one of the things she was unable to do at USAID is improve upon that number.”
Rubio may have trouble improving on that number as well.

The foreign-aid cuts under President Donald Trump have significantly tilted the percentage of foreign-aid awards toward U.S.-based institutions, according to an analysis by the Center for Global Development, a think tank.

“Given how scandalous members of the administration appeared to find the fact that only about ten percent of USAID awards went to prime awardees based in recipient countries, it is surely disappointing their ‘reform’ efforts have further decreased that percentage,” the analysis said.

The Pinocchio Test

There’s a good case that too many foreign-aid dollars get spent inside the Beltway, and that more funds should be directed to organizations on the ground in recipient countries. After years of debate, the Biden administration set a goal for improvement.

But Vance and Rubio are undermining the case for reform when they twist statistics and make outlandish claims in interviews and in congressional testimony. Rubio, in his testimony, appeared to acknowledge that he was citing a number generated by the Biden administration — but he failed to admit error. And apparently he failed to tell the vice president that “his best estimate” was false.


Four Pinocchios

Categories Accountability, Ethics, Extremism, International, Lies

Heather Cox Richardson: Under Our Mafia Boss, Everything Is For Sale

By dianeravitch
June 19, 2025 //
2

Heather Cox Richardson describes the legal corruption that is now out in the open.

Yesterday at the meeting of the leaders of the Group of Seven (G7), a forum of democracies with advanced economies, President Donald Trump told reporters: “The UK is very well protected. You know why? Because I like them, that’s why. That’s the ultimate protection.”

Commenters often note that Trump talks like a mob boss, but rarely has his organized-crime style of governance been clearer than in yesterday’s statement.

Also yesterday, Ana Swanson and Lauren Hirsch of the New York Times reported that Trump has taken unprecedented control over U.S. Steel. Japan’s Nippon Steel has been trying to take over U.S. Steel since 2023, but the Biden administration blocked the deal for security reasons. In order to move it forward, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick demanded an agreement that gives to the president and his successors, or a person the president designates, a single share of preferred stock, known as class G, or “gold.” The deal gives the president permanent veto power over nearly a dozen actions the company might want to take, as well as power over its board of directors.

Swanson and Hirsch note that the U.S. government historically takes a stake in companies only when they are in financial trouble or when they play a significant role in the economy. “We have a golden share, which I control, or the president controls,” Mr. Trump told reporters on Thursday. “Now I’m a little concerned whoever the president might be, but that gives you total control.”

This kind of deal echoes those of the authoritarians Trump appears to admire. His ongoing support for Russian president Vladimir Putin was on display at the G7, when he echoed Russian talking points that blamed European countries and the United States for Putin’s war against Ukraine, rather than acknowledging that it was Russia that attacked Ukraine after giving assurances that it would respect Ukrainian sovereignty in exchange for Ukraine’s giving up the Soviet nuclear weapons stored there.

Also yesterday, Rene Marsh and Ella Nilsen of CNN reported that officials from the Environmental Protection Agency under Trump have been telling staff in the Midwest—which the authors note has a legacy of industrial pollution—to “stop enforcing violations against fossil fuel companies.” At the same time, the Department of Justice has cut its environmental division significantly, leaving “no one to do the work.”

Trump vowed that if he were reelected he would slash the oil and gas regulations he claims are “burdensome.” Now, one EPA enforcement staffer told Marsh and Nilsen, “The companies are scoffing at the cops. EPA enforcement doesn’t have the leverage they once had.”

Also yesterday, outdoor journalist Wes Siler reported in Wes Siler’s Newsletter that while language inserted in the Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill requires the sale of up to 3.3 million acres of publicly owned land, an amendment authorizes the sale of 258 million acres more over the next five years. The amendment comes from the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and was written by Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Steve Daines (R-MT).

It includes Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service lands in 11 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. As Siler notes, while the measure does not currently include national monument lands, the Department of Justice under Trump is arguing that the president can revoke national monument protections. If it did so, that would make another 13.5 million acres available for purchase.

Siler notes the process for selling those lands calls for an enormous rush on sales, “all without hearings, debate, or public input opportunities.”

Today, Eliot Brown of the Wall Street Journal reported that Mukesh Ambani, the richest man in India, is now one of the many wealthy foreign real estate developers “pouring money” into the Trump Organization. Brown noted that the Trump family is aggressively developing its businesses while Trump is in the White House, reaching past real estate into cryptocurrency and other sectors.

The growing power of international oligarchs to use the resources of the government for their own benefit recalls a speech Robert Mueller, then director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, gave in New York City in 2011. In it, he explained that globalization and modern technology had changed the nature of organized crime. No longer regional networks with a clear structure, he said, organized crime had become international, fluid, and sophisticated, with multibillion-dollar stakes. Its operators were cross-pollinating across countries, religions, and political affiliations, sharing only their greed. They did not care about ideology; they cared about money. They would do anything for a price.

These criminals “may be former members of nation-state governments, security services, or the military,” he said. “They are capitalists and entrepreneurs. But they are also master criminals who move easily between the licit and illicit worlds. And in some cases, these organizations are as forward-leaning as Fortune 500 companies.”

These criminal enterprises, he noted, were working to corner the market on oil, gas, and precious metals. And to do so, Mueller explained, they “may infiltrate our businesses. They may provide logistical support to hostile foreign powers. They may try to manipulate those at the highest levels of government. Indeed, these so-called ‘iron triangles’ of organized criminals, corrupt government officials, and business leaders pose a significant national security threat.”

The FBI’s increasing focus on organized crime and national security is what prompted its interest in the connections between the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016.

The willingness of Republicans to enable Trump’s behavior is especially striking today, since June 17 is the anniversary of the 1972 Watergate break-in. On that day, operatives associated with President Richard M. Nixon’s team tried to tap the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington’s Watergate complex. Early in the morning of June 17, 1972, Frank Wills, a 24-year-old security guard, noticed that a door lock had been taped open. He ripped off the tape and closed the door, but on his next round, he found the door taped open again. He called the police, who found five burglars in the Democratic National Committee headquarters located in the building.

The story played out over the next two years with Nixon insisting he was not involved in the affair, but in early August 1974 a tape recorded just days after the break-in revealed Nixon and an aide plotting to invoke national security to protect the president. Republican senators who had not wanted to convict their president of the charges of impeachment being considered in the House knew the game was over. A delegation of them went to the White House to tell Nixon they would vote to convict him.

On August 9, 1974, Nixon became the first president in U.S. history to resign.

Chris Geidner of LawDork notes that despite the lawmakers in our own era who are unwilling to stop Trump, “the pushback…is very real.” Geidner notes not just the No Kings Day protests of the weekend, but also a lawsuit by the American Bar Association (ABA) suing Trump for his attacks on law firms and lawyers, calling Trump’s actions “unprecedented and uniquely dangerous to the rule of law.”

Geidner also notes that lower court judges are upholding the Constitution, and he points especially to U.S. District Judge William Young, an appointee of Republican president Ronald Reagan. In a hearing yesterday, Young insisted on holding the government accountable “for both Trump’s actions and the follow-up actions from those Trump has empowered to act.”

Young called cuts to funding for National Institutes of Health research grants “illegal” and “void” and ordered the NIH to restore the funds immediately. “I am hesitant to draw this conclusion—but I have an unflinching obligation to draw it—that this represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community. That’s what this is. I would be blind not to call it out. My duty is to call it out.”

“I’ve never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable,” Young said during the hearing. “I’ve sat on this bench now for 40 years. I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this.” He added: “You are bearing down on people of color because of their color. The Constitution will not permit that.… Have we fallen so low? Have we no shame?”

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Billionaires, Budget Cuts, Character, Civil Rights, Corruption, Cruelty, Democracy, Economy, Environment, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, For-Profit, Funding, Trump

Did the Tech Bros Rig the 2024 Election?

By dianeravitch
June 19, 2025 //
14

I have always thought there was something fishy about Trump’s win last November. When Elon Musk broke up with Trump, he said boldly that Trump would have not won the election without his help, and the Democrats would now control the House. What kind of help did he refer to? I wondered if this was an unintended admission. Of course, he can’t say more because it’s illegal to interfere to change the outcome of an election.

But then I read this analysis on Substack, and it opened up the issue. There’s a lawsuit right now in Rockland County, New York, based on claims by voters that their votes were not counted. How do we know? In some districts, hundreds of votes were counted for Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, but zero votes for Kamala Harris. To call this a statistical anomaly is an understatement.

Snopes reviewed the case and came down on the side of more evidence is needed. Maybe there were districts where no one voted for Harris, because they were orthodox Jewish districts and everyone followed their rabbi’s endorsement. Maybe not, because there were districts that were not Hasidic where she got zero votes.

Please open the link to read additional stories tied to this one. Also, look up the meaning of the term “Dark Enlightenment.” It refers to the reactionary ideology of Curtis Yarvin, whose admirers include billionaire Peter Thiel and his protege JD Vance.

The Dark Enlightenment Coup

The missing votes uncovered in Smart Elections’ legal case in Rockland County, New York, are just the tip of the iceberg—an iceberg that extends across the swing states and into Texas.

On Monday, an investigator’s story finally hit the news cycle: Pro V&V, one of only two federally accredited testing labs, approved sweeping last-minute updates to ES&S voting machines in the months leading up to the 2024 election—without independent testing, public disclosure, or full certification review.

These changes were labeled “de minimis”—a term meant for trivial tweaks. But they touched ballot scanners, altered reporting software, and modified audit files—yet were all rubber-stamped with no oversight.

That revelation is a shock to the public.
But for those who’ve been digging into the bizarre election data since November, this isn’t the headline—it’s the final piece to the puzzle. While Pro V&V was quietly updating equipment in plain sight, a parallel operation was unfolding behind the curtain—between tech giants and Donald Trump.

And it started with a long forgotten sale.

A Power Cord Becomes a Backdoor

In March 2021, Leonard Leo—the judicial kingmaker behind the modern conservative legal machine—sold a quiet Chicago company by the name of Tripp Lite for $1.65 billion. The buyer: Eaton Corporation, a global power infrastructure conglomerate that just happened to have a partnership with Peter Thiel’s Palantir.

To most, Tripp Lite was just a hardware brand—battery backups, surge protectors, power strips. But in America’s elections, Tripp Lite devices were something else entirely.

They are physically connected to ES&S central tabulators and Electionware servers, and Dominion tabulators and central servers across the country. And they aren’t dumb devices. They are smart UPS units—programmable, updatable, and capable of communicating directly with the election system via USB, serial port, or Ethernet.

ES&S systems, including central tabulators and Electionware servers, rely on Tripp Lite UPS devices. ES&S’s Electionware suite runs on Windows OS, which automatically trusts connected UPS hardware.

If Eaton pushed an update to those UPS units, it could have gained root-level access to the host tabulation environment—without ever modifying certified election software.

In Dominion’s Democracy Suite 5.17, the drivers for these UPS units are listed as “optional”—meaning they can be updated remotely without triggering certification requirements or oversight. Optional means unregulated. Unregulated means invisible. And invisible means perfect for infiltration.

A New Purpose for the Partnership

After the Tripp Lite acquisition, Eaton stayed under the radar. But in May 2024, it resurfaced with an announcement that escaped most headlines: Eaton was deepening its partnership with Palantir Technologies.

Let’s be clear, Palantir wasn’t brought in for customer service. It was brought in to do what it does best: manage, shape, and secure vast streams of data—quietly. According to Eaton’s own release, Palantir’s role would include:

  • AI-driven oversight of connected infrastructure
  • Automated analysis of large datasets
  • And—most critically—“secure erasure of digital footprints”

The Digital Janitor: also known as forensic sanitization, it was now being embedded into Eaton-managed hardware connected directly to voting systems. Palantir didn’t change the votes. It helped ensure you’d never prove it if someone else did.

BallotProof: The Front-End for Scrubbing Democracy

Enter the ballot scrubbing platform BallotProof. Co-created by Ethan Shaotran, a longtime employee of Elon Musk and current DOGE employee, BallotProof was pitched as a transparency solution—an app to “verify” scanned ballot images and support election integrity.

With Palantir’s AI controlling the backend, and BallotProof cleaning the front, only one thing was missing: the signal to go live.

September 2024: Eaton and Musk Make It Official

Then came the final public breadcrumb:
In September 2024, Eaton formally partnered with Elon Musk.

The stated purpose? A vague, forward-looking collaboration focused on “grid resilience” and “next-generation communications.”

But buried in the partnership documents was this line:

“Exploring integration with Starlink’s emerging low-orbit DTC infrastructure for secure operational continuity.”

The Activation: Starlink Goes Direct-to-Cell

That signal came on October 30, 2024—just days before the election, Musk activated 265 brand new low Earth orbit (LEO) V2 Mini satellites, each equipped with Direct-to-Cell (DTC) technology capable of processing, routing, and manipulating real-time data, including voting data, through his satellite network.

DTC doesn’t require routers, towers, or a traditional SIM. It connects directly from satellite to any compatible device—including embedded modems in “air-gapped” voting systems, smart UPS units, or unsecured auxiliary hardware.

From that moment on:

  • Commands could be sent from orbit
  • Patch delivery became invisible to domestic monitors
  • Compromised devices could be triggered remotely
  • This groundbreaking project that should have taken two-plus years to build, was completed in just under ten months.
    Elon Musk boasts endlessly about everything he’s launching, building, buying—or even just thinking about—whether it’s real or not. But he pulls off one of the largest and fastest technological feats in modern day history… and says nothing? One might think that was kind of… “weird.”

Lasers From Space

According to New York Times reporting, on October 5—just before Starlink’s DTC activation—Musk texted a confidant:

“I’m feeling more optimistic after tonight. Tomorrow we unleash the anomaly in the matrix.”
Then, an hour later:

“This isn’t something on the chessboard, so they’ll be quite surprised. ‘Lasers’ from space.”

It read like a riddle. In hindsight, it was a blueprint.

Let’s review what was in place:

This wasn’t a theory. It was a full-scale operation. A systemic digital occupation—clean, credentialed, and remote-controlled.

The Outcome

Data that makes no statistical sense. A clean sweep in all seven swing states.

The fall of the Blue Wall. Eighty-eight counties flipped red—not one flipped blue.

Every victory landed just under the threshold that would trigger an automatic recount. Donald Trump outperformed expectations in down-ballot races with margins never before seen—while Kamala Harris simultaneously underperformed in those exact same areas.

If one were to accept these results at face value—Donald Trump, a 34-count convicted felon, supposedly outperformed Ronald Reagan. According to the co-founder of the Election Truth Alliance:

“These anomalies didn’t happen nationwide. They didn’t even happen across all voting methods—this just doesn’t reflect human voting behavior.”

They were concentrated.

Targeted.

Specific to swing states and Texas—and specific to Election Day voting.

And the supposed explanation? “Her policies were unpopular.”

Let’s think this through logically. We’re supposed to believe that in all the battleground states, Democratic voters were so disillusioned by Vice President Harris’s platform that they voted blue down ballot—but flipped to Trump at the top of the ticket?

Not in early voting.

Not by mail.

With exception to Nevada, only on Election Day.

And only after a certain threshold of ballots had been cast—where VP Harris’s numbers begin to diverge from her own party, and Trump’s suddenly begin to surge. As President Biden would say, “C’mon, man.”

In the world of election data analysis, there’s a term for that: vote-flipping algorithm.

Billionaires and Tech Giants Pulled Off the Crime of the Century

Why? There wasn’t just one reason—there were many.

Elon Musk himself hinted at the stakes: he faced the real possibility of a prison sentence if Trump lost. He launched his bid for Twitter—at $20 billion over market value—just 49 days after Putin invaded Ukraine. That alone should have raised every red flag. But when the ROI is $15 trillion in mineral rights tied to Ukraine losing the war and geopolitical deals Trump could green light, it wasn’t a loss—it was leverage.

It’s no secret Musk was in communication with Putin for over two years. He even granted Starlink access to Russian forces. That’s not just profiteering. That’s treason.

Then there’s Peter Thiel and the so-called “broligarchs”—tech billionaires who worship at the altar of shower-avoidant blogger Curtis Yarvin. They casually joke about “humane genocide for non-producers” and have long viewed democracy as a nuisance—an obstacle to their vision of hypercapitalism and themselves as the permanent ruling elite.

Well, what is the elimination of Medicaid if not “humane genocide”—and does anyone really wonder why his 40-year-old protégé and political rookie, JD Vance, is Vice President? With this technology in place, if the third-term legislation were to pass, it would hand Vance a minimum of twelve years at the helm of Thiel’s regime.

And of course, Donald Trump himself:
He spent a year telling his followers he didn’t need their votes—at one point stating,

“…in four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote.”

Trump was facing eighty-eight felony indictments—he was desperate to avoid conviction and locked in a decades-long alliance with Vladimir Putin. An alliance that’s now impossible to ignore—look no further than his policy trail.

He froze aid to Ukraine and has threatened to place sanctions on them, while planning to lift sanctions off Russia. He openly campaigned for anti-EU candidates, and sided with Russia in multiple key United Nations votes related to the Ukraine conflict.

Let’s be clear:

Donald Trump pledges allegiance to a red, white, and blue flag—
It’s just not the American one.

What Happens Now?

We don’t need permission to enforce the Constitution. We need courage. While state attorneys general begin their investigations, it only takes one U.S. senator to initiate the disqualification proceedings against the unelected and unfit occupant of the Oval Office.
State Attorneys General and Investigators:

  • Conduct independent audits of UPS firmware on Dominion and ES&S machines
  • Subpoena communications between Eaton, Palantir, Starlink employees, and Pro V&V
  • Audit Starlink satellite logs for the week of the election
  • Freeze uncertified infrastructure updates
  • Recount physical ballots—by hand
    Now they’re rolling out the same technological toolkit abroad—forcing countries into Starlink contracts in exchange for tariff relief.
    The U.S. election wasn’t their endgame. It was their litmus test.

Want the truth they’re not telling you? For fearless reporting and expert-backed research, read The Common Coalition Report. And if you believe in funding real, independent work—support our all volunteer team here.

Categories Accountability, Cheating, Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Fraud, Trump

Joyce Vance: The Kids Are Alright Despite Trump’s Efforts to Kill Public Education and Academic Freedom

By dianeravitch
June 17, 2025 //
5

Joyce Vance is a former federal prosecutor for North Alabama. She writes an important blog called Civil Discourse, where she usually explains court decisions and legal issues. Today she turns to education.

Today I’m recovering from the graduation tour, one in Boulder and one in Boston in the last two weeks, and getting back into the groove of writing as I continue to work on my book (which I hope you’ll preorder if you haven’t already). The graduations came at a good moment. 

Watching my kids graduate, one from college and one with a master’s in science, was an emotional experience—the culmination of their years of hard work, sacrifice, and growth, all captured in a single walk across the stage. They, like their friends, my law students, and amazing students across the county, now enter society as adults. Even beyond the individual stories of hardships overcome and perseverance, witnessing these rites of passage makes me feel profoundly hopeful. The intelligence and commitment of the students—many of whom are already tackling big problems and imagining new, bold solutions—gives me a level of confidence about what comes next for our country. In a time when it’s easy to get discouraged, their commitment and idealism stands as a powerful reminder that they are ready to take on the mess we have left them. 

The kids are alright, even though they shouldn’t have to be. Talking with them makes me think they will find a way, even if it’s unfair to ask it of them and despite the fact that their path will be more difficult than it should be. Courage is contagious, and they seem to have caught it. Their educations have prepared them for the future we all find ourselves in now.

As students across the country prepared to graduate this year, Trump released his so-called “skinny budget.” If that’s how they want to frame it, then education has been put on a starvation diet—at least the kind of education that develops independent thinkers who thrive in an environment where questions are asked and answered. Trump pitches the budget as “gut[ting] a weaponized deep state while providing historic increases for defense and border security.” Defense spending would increase by 13% under his proposal.

The plan for education is titled, “Streamline K-12 Education Funding and Promote Parental Choice.”Among its provisions, the announcement focuses on the following items:

  • “The Budget continues the process of shutting down the Department of Education.” 
  • “The Budget also invests $500 million, a $60 million increase, to expand the number of high-quality charter schools, that have a proven track record of improving students’ academic achievement and giving parents more choice in the education of their children.”

As we discussed in March, none of this is a surprise. Trump is implementing the Project 2025 plan. In December of 2024, I wrote about how essential it is to dumb down the electorate if you’re someone like Donald Trump and you want to succeed. A rich discussion in our forums followed. At the time I wrote, “Voters who lack the backbone of a solid education in civics can be manipulated. That takes us to Trump’s plans for the Department of Education.” But it’s really true for the entirety of democracy.

Explaining the expanded funding for charter schools, a newly written section of the Department of Education website reads more like political propaganda than education information: “The U.S. Department of Education announced today that it has reigned [Ed: Note the word “”reigned” is misspelled] in the federal government’s influence over state Charter School Program (CSP) grant awards. The Department removed a requirement set by the Biden Administration that the U.S. Secretary of Education review information on how states approve select entities’ (e.g., private colleges and universities) authorization of charter schools in states where they are already lawful authorizers. This action returns educational authority to the states, reduces burdensome red tape, and expands school choice options for students and families.”

There are already 37 lawsuits related to Trump’s changes to education. Uncertainty is no way to educate America’s children. Cutting funding for research because you want to score political points about DEI or climate change is no way to ensure we nurture future scientists and other thinkers and doers…

I am reminded again of George Orwell’s words: “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” The historians among us, and those who delve into history, will play a key role in getting us through this. Our love and understanding of history can help us stay grounded, understanding who we are, who we don’t want to become, and why the rule of law matters so damn much to all of it….

Thanks for being here with me and for supporting Civil Discourse by reading and subscribing. Your paid subscriptions make it possible for me to devote the time and resources necessary to do this work, and I am deeply grateful for them.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

Categories Academic Freedom, Budget Cuts, Censorship, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Ethics, Extremism, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Learn, Freedom to Read, Funding, Trump

Musk Is Gone But His DOGS Live On, Embedded in Agencies

By dianeravitch
June 17, 2025 //
8

Elon Musk left Washington, where he enjoyed the exalted status of being Trump’s brain. He returned to Texas, his new home. Where he launched into a Twitter tirade against Trump.

But he left behind a still large contingent of DOGS (Department of Governmental Subsistence).

Who are they?

ProPublica has been tracking them.

In an effort launched shortly after DOGE’s creation, ProPublica has now identified more than 100 private-sector executives, engineers and investors from Silicon Valley, big American banks and tech startups enlisted to help President Donald Trump dramatically downsize the U.S. government.

While Elon Musk has departed the Department of Government Efficiency, the world’s richest man is leaving a network of acolytes embedded inside nearly every federal agency.

At least 38 DOGE members currently work or have worked for businesses run by Musk, ProPublica found in an examination of their resumes and other records. At least nine have invested in Musk companies or own stock in them, a review of available financial disclosure forms shows.

ProPublica found that at least 23 DOGE officials are making cuts at federal agencies that regulate the industries that employed them, potentially posing significant conflicts of interest. One DOGE member tasked with overseeing mass layoffs at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for instance, did so while owning stock in companies the agency regulated.

At least 12 remain, on paper, employees or advisers of the companies they worked at before DOGE, a review of financial disclosure forms shows. And at least nine continue to receive corporate benefits from their private-sector employers, including health insurance, stock vesting plans or retirement savings programs. These employment agreements could create a situation in which a DOGE staffer would be shaping federal policies that affect their employer.

The people behind DOGE are largely men in their 20s and 30s, most of whom bring no government experience to the task. Many of them previously worked in finance.

ProPublica’s list — the largest of its kind by any news organization — allows readers to gain a comprehensive understanding of the backgrounds of the people assigned to one of the Trump administration’s signature efforts. It comes at a crucial moment, as some of the first-generation DOGE members are leaving the government and a new crop is joining.

“Even though Elon Musk and some of his top officials are shifting their attention to other issues, I see no indication that the DOGE team members who remain will slow down their work to test the legal and ethical boundaries of using technology in the name of improving government services,” said Elizabeth Laird, a director at the nonprofit Center for Democracy & Technology.

While the Trump administration asserts it is the most transparent in history, DOGE operates shrouded by the shadows of bureaucracy.

Many of its staffers have deleted their public profiles, have wiped the internet of their professional backgrounds or were encouraged by leadership not to discuss their work with friends. At the behest of the Trump administration, the Supreme Court halted a court order Friday that would have required DOGE to turn over information to a government watchdog — challenging whether the group will ever be subject to public records requests. The Trump administration has banned DOGE staffers from speaking publicly without approval.

To cast a light on this secretive group, ProPublica began reporting in February on Musk’s influence inside the Trump administration, cataloging who was part of DOGE and how associates of the billionaire tech mogul were taking up senior posts across agencies. Our DOGE tracker, the first such list published by media outlets, is the culmination of hundreds of conversations with sources across government.

Today, we are adding 23 staffers to our tracker, taking the total to 109. They are spread throughout the government, from the Department of Defense to the General Services Administration to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Open the link to see the list of DOGGIES.

By any measure, Musk failed.

First, he said he would cut $2 trillion from the federal budget. Then, he said he would cut $1 trillion.

Then, he dropped his target to $165 billion.

Even that number is disputed because federal courts keep ruling that DOGS firings should be nullified and workers should return to their jobs. Other “savings” were canceled out by the costs of benefits. By some measures, the DOGS game may have cost money, not saved it.

One thing is certain: the federal deficit will grow after Trump’s first year in office, thanks to tax cuts for the top 1%.

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, Data, Disruption, Extremism, Funding, Musk, Elon, Privatization, Stupid, Trump

Jennifer Rubin: Trump’s Ugly Bill Will Hurt His Supporters

By dianeravitch
June 16, 2025 //
2

Jennifer Rubin was a star columnist at The Washington Post, but resigned after Jeff Bezos tried to exert control over the opinion pages to makts writers less antagonistic to Trump. Ironically, Rubin was originally hired by The Post to be its conservative columnist. But the extremism of the MAGA movement repelled her. After she resigned from The Post, she started a blog called The Contrarian, where she has gathered a stellar lineup of other journalists.

She writes about Trump’s One Big Ugly Bill:

The horrifying assassination of Minnesota state legislator Mellisa Hortman and her husband Mark, and the attempted assassination of state senator John Hoffman and his wife on Saturday followed a week in which the full magnitude of Donald Trump’s violence, cruelty, chaos, and insatiable quest to destroy American democracy as we knew it were on full view. At a time when the country is in dire need of empathy, unity, and healing, MAGA Republicans will return to D.C. this week to pick up where they left off in their reconciliation debate wrangling: seeking to pass a bill that includes the most monstrous transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the uber-rich in recent history.

The Congressional Budget Office determined that if the House bill gets enacted, the bottom decile of Americans by income would lose about $1600 while the top 10 decile would gain more than $12,000. Meanwhile, the debt would balloon to 134% of GDP by 2034.

The MAGA reverse-Robin-Hood scheme would, among other things, remove 11 Million people from Medicaid, 5 Million from the Affordable Care Act exchanges, slash SNAP by more than $700M, “strip 4.5 million children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents of eligibility for the Child Tax Credit,” and eliminate or reduce energy credits and subsidies, sending energy costs soaring, particularly in red states.

The bill targets certain categories of legal immigrants (e.g., TPS holders or asylum seekers) by removing them from access to ACA exchanges and stripping them of Medicare benefits (after they have paid into the system).

The party that once stood for federalism would bludgeon states to eliminate Medicaid benefits for these people, provoking the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ assessment that:

“This policy is a direct affront to state sovereignty, placing enormous pressure on states to reduce or terminate coverage programs that their lawmakers have adopted and that they have a legal right to provide or face devastating cuts to Medicaid expansion funding…It goes beyond coercion by imposing a direct, virtually unavoidable penalty on some states.”

Consider the monstrous tradeoffs the bill entails. Former car czar Steven Rattner found that “just the tax cuts for people earning over $500,000 a year would cost $1.1 trillion, very close to the $715 billion that would be saved by cutting Medicaid and SNAP.”

Especially hard-hit would be rural residents in Red states who disproportionately rely on Medicaid. Moreover, their hospitals, which are dependent on Medicaid reimbursement, would go under in dozens of communities. Shuttering hospitals not only deprives residents of access to health services, but in many cases it would mean eliminating the area’s main employer.

Voters have gleaned how this is going to work. The latest Kaiser Family Foundation poll shows “seven in ten adults (72%) are worried that a significant reduction in federal funding for Medicaid would lead to an increase in the share of uninsured children and adults in the U.S., including nearly half (46%) who are ‘very worried’ and one in four (25%) who are ‘somewhat worried.’” In addition, 71% think the bill will negatively impact hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care providers in their communities (71%).

The most heinous aspect of all: Due to the massive cuts in healthcare coverage, Yale and the University of Pennsylvania estimate an additional 51,000 Americans would die each year.

Former president Joe Biden used to say, “Don’t tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value.” Apparently, MAGA Republicans value savaging the poor to stuff more money in their (and their donors’) pockets, turn America into an anti-legal immigration country, and rob people of healthcare and other vital programs. 

The bill’s damage does not stop there. With the huge increase in debt, borrowing costs for individuals and businesses would go up. “A spike in the national debt can be enough to boost inflation on its own,” the Washington Post reports. The government’s rising borrowing costs would yield painful results for families. “A 1 percent increase in the ratio would amount to extra annual interest costs of $60 for car loans, $600 on the typical mortgage and $1,000 for small business loans after five years, the Budget Lab found. After 30 years, the premium is even higher — adding $2,300 per year to the typical mortgage, for example.

All of that comes on top of the Trump tariffs, another regressive tax that falls disproportionately on lower-income Americans.

No wonder the MAGA bill is so unpopular. The latest Quinnipiac poll found voters oppose the plan by a margin of 53% (including 57% of independents). MAGA Republicans who rubber stamp this bill would therefore be inflicting monstrous pain on Americans, growing the debt, and taking perhaps the worst political vote of their careers.

Trump came to office promising to reduce inflation, lower costs, clamp down on energy prices, and even balance the budget. Instead, if MAGA Republicans allow him, he will continue to increase inflation, raise costs, ignite higher energy prices, and bust the budget. When voters go to the polls in 2026 and beyond, they are not likely to forget who betrayed them.

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, Cruelty, Disruption, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Funding, Health, Republicans, Trump

Study: In States with Lax Gun Laws, More Children Are Killed by Guns

By dianeravitch
June 16, 2025 //
3

Guns are the leading cause of death among children. A new study concludes that states that have eliminated gun restrictions have higher death rates among children than states that have retained restrictions. The National Rifle Association, which opposes any restrictions on access to guns, dissented.

The NRA, the Supreme Court, and the gun-loving Republican Party can take credit for the deaths of thousands of children. Their extremist interpretation of the Second Amendment is lethal to children.

The New York Times reported:

Firearm deaths of children and teenagers rose significantly in states that enacted more permissive gun laws after the Supreme Court in 2010 limited local governments’ ability to restrict gun ownership, a new study has found.

In states that maintained stricter laws, firearm deaths were stable after the ruling, the researchers reported, and in some, they even declined.

Guns are the leading cause of death in the United States for people ages 1 through 17, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Jeremy Faust, an emergency room doctor at Massachusetts General Brigham Hospital in Boston, who was the study’s lead author, said he was dismayed to find that most of the children’s deaths were homicides and suicides.

“It’s surprising how few of these are accidents,” Dr. Faust said. “I always thought that a lot of pediatric mortality from guns is that somebody got into the wrong place, and I still think safe storage is important, but it’s mostly homicides and suicides.”

John Commerford, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, called the study “political propaganda masquerading as scientific research.”

The study, published Monday in JAMA Pediatrics, examined the 13-year period after the June 2010 Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment, which protects the right to bear arms, applies to state and local gun-control laws. The decision effectively limited the ability of state and local governments to regulate firearms.

The researchers classified states into three categories based on their gun laws: most permissive, permissive and strict. They used a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention database to analyze firearm mortality trends from 1999 to 2010 — before the Supreme Court ruling — and compared them with the 13-year period afterward.

Nationally, they found that the number of people under 18 who died from firearm injuries in the period after the ruling exceeded the projected figure for that time by about 7,400, with a total of about 23,000 fatalities.

But in the nine states with the strictest gun laws, youth firearm deaths did not increase. In four — California, Maryland, New York and Rhode Island — they dropped significantly.

The average age of those killed was 14, according to the study, which was coauthored by researchers from Yale New Haven Hospital, the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine and the schools of public health at University of Pittsburgh and Brown University.

Advocates for stricter gun laws praised the study, saying it expanded the evidence that gun safety laws save lives.

“We have shown in the past that states that have the strongest laws when it comes to gun policy have a gun violence rate that’s 2.5 times less than the states with the weakest,” said Nick Suplina, senior vice president for law and policy at Everytown for Gun Safety. “Lawmakers that refuse to take action or further loosen laws are putting kids’ lives at risk.

He also said that gun safety laws had multiple benefits, reducing accidental shootings, while also preventing youth suicides and school shootings. “Three of four school shootings are committed with a weapon taken from the home of the family or a close relative,” Mr. Suplina said.

Categories Accountability, Cruelty, Extremism, Guns, Republicans

Trump is Incoherent on ICE Raids of Farm Workers

By dianeravitch
June 15, 2025 //
6

Last week, ICE was rounding up immigrant workers in agriculture, swooping them up in the fields where they were picking berries and radishes, trimming the vines in vineyards, and preparing the soil for planting. This is backbreaking work. The videos I’ve seen were taken in California, so this must be part of Trump’s focus on crippling the big Blue state.

The slogan of the farm workers’ union, United Farmworkers, is “We feed you.” If they are all detained and deported, who will do the hard work they do?

Farmers in California are typically pro-Trump; some of them must have called Trump to plead that he stop arresting their loyal workers. That would explain why, on Friday, Trump directed ICE to stop arresting agricultural workers, as well as immigrants employed in hotels and the restaurant industry.

Trump heard them and posted this incoherent response on Truth Social:

“Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace. In many cases the Criminals allowed into our Country by the VERY Stupid Biden Open Borders Policy are applying for those jobs. This is not good. We must protect our Farmers, but get the CRIMINALS OUT OF THE USA. Changes are coming!”

Does Trump really believe criminals are slipping across the border to take jobs as farm workers?

Maybe Trump could launch a campaign to persuade MAGA patriots to pick the crops, not only in California but in Florida, Texas, the Deep South, Midwest and other states that voted for him. How many applicants would he get?

Categories Economy, Extremism, Immigration, Trump

Congressional Budget Office: Trump Tax Plan Will Enrich the Rich, Reduce Income for the Poor

By dianeravitch
June 13, 2025 //
11

Democratic leaders asked the nonpartisan, highly respected Congressional Budget Office to evaluate the consequences of the Trump tax plan. In brief, the bill would widen the gap between haves and have nots and would increase the number in poverty.

The Financial Times reported:

Donald Trump’s landmark tax bill would make the most prosperous Americans $12,000 richer each year, while wiping $1,600 off the disposable income of the nation’s poorest, Congress’s fiscal watchdog said on Thursday. 

Trump’s “one big beautiful bill” narrowly passed the House of Representatives last month, extending tax cuts introduced during the US president’s first term in the White House in 2017. 

The Congressional Budget Office said in a letter that the top 10 per cent of Americans by income would, on average, see their resources rise by $12,000 a year, or 2.3 per cent of their projected income, should Trump’s “one big beautiful bill” pass the Senate in broadly the same form that it passed the House. 

“The changes would not be evenly distributed among households,” said CBO director Phillip Swagel in the letter addressed to Democrat lawmakers Brendan Boyle and Hakeem Jeffries, who had requested the analysis. 

“The agency estimates that, in general, resources would decrease for households towards the bottom of the income distribution, whereas resources would increase for households in the middle and the top of the income distribution.” 

Categories Billionaires, Budget Cuts, Cruelty, Economy, Ethics, Extremism, Funding, Poverty
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »