Archives for category: Republicans
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Jim Hightower: George Orwell Would Understand the Texas GOP: Mean and Crazy

By dianeravitch
April 27, 2024 //
6

Jim Hightower is an old-fashioned Texas liberal. He tries to understand what’s happened to his state in his blog. The GOP is just plain mean and crazy.

He writes:

If you think the GOP’s Congress of Clowns represents the fringiest, freakiest, pack of politicos that MAGA-world can hurl at us – you haven’t been to Texas.

It’s widely known, of course, that Ted Cruz, Greg Abbott, and most other top Republican officials here are obsequious Trump acolytes. Thus, Texas is infamously racing against Florida to be declared the stupidest, meanest, most-repressive state government in America, constantly making demonic attacks on women’s freedom, immigrants, voting rights, public schools, poor people, and so on. But I’m confident Texas will win this race to the bottom for one big reason: GOP crazy runs extraordinarily deep here.

We have a county-level layer of ultra-MAGA cultists constantly pressing the state’s far-right officials to march all the way to the farthest edge of extremism – then leap into absurdity. Therefore, the party officially supports abolishment of labor unions, elimination of the minimum wage, privatization of social security, legalization of machine guns, and… well, you get the drift. Now, though, local mad-dog Trumpistas are pushing their party straight into the abyss of autocracy by declaring war on H-E-B.

What’s that? H-E-B is a Texas chain of supermarkets beloved in communities throughout the state. “Beloved,” because the stores fully embrace the rich diversity of all people in our state, has affordable prices, values employees, and supports community needs.

Nonetheless, county Republican zealots screech that H-E-B violates their party ideology by accepting food stamps, opposing privatization of schools, and (horrors!) sponsoring some LBGTQ pride events. So, they’re demanding official condemnation of the grocery chain for – GET THIS – “advocating for policies contrary to the Republican Party of Texas platform.”

Yes, violating the party platform is to be criminalized. It’s the reincarnation of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four: Be MAGA… or else.

Categories BATS, Bigotry, Billionaires, Censorship, Civil Rights, Corruption, Cruelty, Democracy, Disruption, Elections, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, Freedom to Read, Guns, Ignorance, Insane, Privatization, Racism, Republicans, Stupid, Texas

Iowa Increases Funding for Vouchers, Expands Eligibility

By dianeravitch
April 25, 2024 //
7

Iowa was once respected for the quality of its public schools. Now the Republican elected officials are tearing down the state’s public schools. They launched a voucher program, and they are now expanding it, at the expense of public schools.

There are some things we know for sure about voucher programs after three decades of experience. First, the actual cost always outstrips the projected cost. Two, whatever the eligibility requirements are in the first year, they will be stripped away so that eventually all students will be eligible for vouchers. Third, vouchers may be initially targeted to needy groups, like students with disabilities, but there is no assurance that these children will be admitted to voucher schools. Fourth, most students who apply for and use vouchers are already enrolled in private and religious schools. Fifth, students who transfer from public schools to voucher schools will fall behind academically. Sixth, many voucher schools will discriminate on any grounds—keeping out children because of their religion or because they are LGBT or because they are simply “not what the school wants.”

In voucher schools, schools choose, not families or students.

Ty Harding of Iowa Starting Line reports on the growing program in Iowa.

Iowa has committed nearly $180 million in taxpayer funds to support private school tuition in the 2024-25 school year, which is almost $50 million more than the initial Iowa Legislative Service Agency (LSA) projections.

Initially, the LSA projected Iowa would spend $106.9 million in the first year of Gov. Kim Reynolds’ private school voucher program—called Students First Education Savings Accounts—and $132.3 million in the second year.

However, the first year of the program cost Iowa taxpayers nearly $128 million. The Iowa Legislature allocated $179.2 million to the program for the upcoming fiscal year, according to the state’s recently approved general fund.

These amounts are only expected to increase as restrictions on who can participate in the program are rolled back.

The first year restricted access to students with a household income at or below 300% of the federal poverty guideline, but that restriction will be raised to 400% ($124,800 for a family of four) in the 2024-25 school year, before being phased out entirely in the 2025-26 school year.

Each voucher recipient will receive $7,826 in taxpayer funds to help cover private school tuition in the 2024-25 school year (the amount changes each year based on the state’s per-pupil funding). Predicated on this year’s budgeted amount, the state expects at least 22,897 students to receive a voucher. 

Another big change for the upcoming 2024-25 year is that public school districts will directly lose money due to voucher program. 

State funding for public schools is primarily based on enrollment weighting and state cost per pupil. Before the voucher law, districts still received those funds from the state even for students who lived in the district but did not attend a public school. Going forward, districts will no longer receive those dollars.

Please open the link to finish reading.

This article in the Gazette shows the negative effects of vouchers on Iowa City, a school district with some 14,400 students. Property taxes are going up, the teaching staff will shrink by attrition, and an elementary school will be closed. The vast majority of students will be harmed by a program that subsidizes the few.

Categories Budget Cuts, Education Industry, Iowa, Privatization, Republicans, Vouchers

Tennessee: Legislators Pass Bill to Arm Teachers Despite Opposition by Teachers and Parents

By dianeravitch
April 24, 2024 //
15

America has had a large number of shootings over the past decades. Whenever there is a massacre of students, the public gets angry and mourns the horrific event. Politicians react along partisan lines. Democrats call for gun control; Republicans want to arm teachers and school staff.

Since the Supreme Court has decisively ruled against most gun restrictions, the Republicans have had the upper hand.

In Tennessee, the Republican-dominated legislature passed a bill yesterday to arm teachers and other school staff. This was a response to a deadly shooting at a private Christian school. Parents at that school gathered signatures against the bill, but the legislators didn’t listen.

The New York Times reported:

Tennessee lawmakers passed a bill on Tuesday to allow teachers and other school staff members to carry concealed handguns on school campuses. The measure, if it becomes law, would require those carrying guns to go through training and to have the approval of school officials, but parents and most other school employees would not be notified.

The bill is one of the most significant pieces of public safety legislation to advance in Tennessee after a shooting just over a year ago at a private Christian school in Nashville left three students and three staff members dead. The attack galvanized parents at the school and many others in Tennessee — including the state’s Republican governor — to demand action that could prevent similar violence.

But many of them believed that restricting access to guns was the solution, and critics of the legislation have argued that bringing more weapons onto school campuses would not improve safety and could even amplify the danger facing students.

Protesters opposed to the bill packed the House chamber and the corridors of the Capitol on Tuesday, carrying signs that said, “Kids Deserve More!” and “Have You Lost Your Ever-Loving Minds?”

The demonstrators echoed fears that have been raised since the legislation was proposed.

“I ask that you don’t put our children’s lives at risk by putting more and more guns in schools,” State Senator London Lamar, a Democrat from Memphis, said during a debate this month as she cradled her infant son. “It is really hard,” she added, “even as a new mom, to stand here and have to be composed on a piece of legislation that I know puts my son’s life at risk…”

The bill significantly expands the current law, which mostly limits the carrying of firearms to law enforcement officers employed at a public school or to school resource officers.

The new legislation would broaden that permission to school staff members who have an enhanced handgun carry permit and who have the approval of their principal, district director and leaders of relevant local law enforcement agencies. The measure also imposes confidentiality rules around the disclosure of who is carrying a concealed handgun.

The staff member must also complete 40 hours of school policing training, undergo a background check, submit fingerprints to state and federal authorities, and submit a psychological certification from a licensed health provider. The handgun cannot be carried in auditoriums or stadiums during school events; during disciplinary or tenure meetings; or in a clinic.

Roughly half of U.S. states allow teachers or other school employees with concealed carry permits to have firearms on campus, according to Giffords, the research group led by the former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was herself among 19 people shot during a meeting she was having with constituents in 2011. (Six people were killed.)

Categories Guns in Schools, Parents, Republicans, Tennessee

Thom Hartmann: Bill Barr, the Master Fixer of GOP Crimes

By dianeravitch
April 21, 2024 //
4

Thom Hartmann writes here about the nefarious role played by former Attorney General William Barr in his two different stints, first, when he worked as Attorney General for President George H.W. Bush, and later when he protected Trump from the damning findings of the Mueller Report about Russian interference in the election of 2016; Barr sat on it, summarized its conclusions inaccurately, and misled the public. Bill Barr was, Hartmann writes, “the master fixer” for “the old GOP.”

He writes:

Congressman Jim Jordan wanted revenge on behalf of Donald Trump against Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg for charging Trump with election interference in Manhattan. 

He threatened Bragg with “oversight”: dragging him before his committee, threatening him with contempt of Congress; putting a rightwing target on Bragg’s back by publicizing him to draw sharpshooters from as far away as Wyoming or Idaho; and facing the possibility of going to jail if he didn’t answer Jordan’s questions right. Jordan, James Comer, and Bryan Steil — three chairmen of three different committees — wrote to Bragg:

“By July 2019 … federal prosecutors determined that no additional people would be charged alongside [Michael] Cohen. … [Y]our apparent decision to pursue criminal charges where federal authorities declined to do so requires oversight….”

They were furious that Bragg would prosecute Trump for a crime that the federal Department of Justice had already decided in 2019 and announced that they weren’t going to pursue. 

But why didn’t Bill Barr’s Department of Justice proceed after they’d already put Michael Cohen in prison for a year for delivering the check to Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet at least until after the election, and then lying about it? Why didn’t they go after the guy who ordered the check written, the guy who’d had sex with Daniels, the guy whose run for the presidency was hanging in the balance?

Why didn’t the Department of Justice at least investigate (they have a policy against prosecuting a sitting president) the then-president’s role in the crime they put Cohen in prison for but was directed by, paid for, and also committed by Donald Trump? 

Turns out, Geoffrey Berman — the lifelong Republican and U.S. Attorney appointed by Trump to run the prosecutor’s office at the Southern District of New York — wrote a book, Holding the Line, published in September, 2022, about his experiences during that era. 

In it, he came right out and accused his boss Bill Barr of killing the federal investigation into Trump’s role of directing and covering up that conspiracy to influence the 2016 election. Had Barr not done that, Trump could have been prosecuted in January of 2021, right after he left office. And Jim Jordan couldn’t complain that Alvin Bragg was pushing a case the feds had decided wasn’t worth it. 

As The Washington Post noted when the book came out:

“He [Berman] says Barr stifled campaign finance investigations emanating from the Cohen case and even floated seeking a reversal of Cohen’s conviction — just like Barr would later do with another Trump ally, Michael Flynn. (Barr also intervened in the case of another Trump ally, Roger Stone, to seek a lighter sentence than career prosecutors wanted.)”

Which is why Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg had to pick up the case, if the crime was to be exposed and prosecuted. 

After all, this crime literally turned the 2016 election to Trump. Without it, polling shows and political scientists argue, Hillary Clinton would have been our president for at least four years and Trump would have retired into real estate obscurity.

But Bill Barr put an end to Berman’s investigation, according to Berman. The DOJ pretended to be investigating Trump for another few months, then quietly announced they weren’t going to continue the investigation. The news media responded with a shrug of the shoulders and America forgot that Trump had been at the center of Cohen’s crime. 

In 2023, the New York Times picked up Bill Barr’s cover story and ran with it, ignoring Berman’s claims, even though he was the guy in charge of the Southern District of New York. The article essentially reported that Main Justice wouldn’t prosecute because Cohen wouldn’t testify to earlier crimes, Trump might’ve been ignorant of the law, and that the decision was made by prosecutors in New York and not by Barr. 

Incomplete testimony and ignorance of the law have rarely stopped prosecutors in the past from a clear case like this one appears to be (Trump signed the check and Cohen had a recording of their conversation, after all), but the story stuck and the Times ran with it.

In contrast, Berman wrote:

“While Cohen had pleaded guilty, our office continued to pursue investigations related to other possible campaign finance violations [including by Trump]. When Barr took over in February 2019, he not only tried to kill the ongoing investigations but—incredibly—suggested that Cohen’s conviction on campaign finance charges be reversed. Barr summoned Rob Khuzami in late February to challenge the basis of Cohen’s plea as well as the reasoning behind pursuing similar campaign finance charges against other individuals [including Trump]. …

“The directive Barr gave Khuzami, which was amplified that same day by a follow-up call from O’Callaghan, was explicit: not a single investigative step could be taken, not a single document in our possession could be reviewed, until the issue was resolved. …

“About six weeks later, Khuzami returned to DC for another meeting about Cohen. He was accompanied by Audrey Strauss, Russ Capone, and Edward “Ted” Diskant, Capone’s co-chief. Barr was in the room, along with Steven Engel, the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, and others from Main Justice.”

Summarizing the story, Berman wondered out loud exactly why Bill Barr had sabotaged extending their investigation that could lead to an indictment of Trump when he left office:

“But Barr’s posture here raises obvious questions. Did he think dropping the campaign finance charges would bolster Trump’s defense against impeachment charges? Was he trying to ensure that no other Trump associates or employees would be charged with making hush-money payments and perhaps flip on the president? Was the goal to ensure that the president could not be charged after leaving office? Or was it part of an effort to undo the entire series of investigations and prosecutions over the past two years of those in the president’s orbit (Cohen, Roger Stone, and Michael Flynn)?”

In retrospect, the answer appears to be, “All of the above.”

And that wasn’t Barr’s only time subverting justice while heading the Justice Department. Berman says he also ordered John Kerry investigated for possible prosecution for violating the Logan Act (like Trump is doing now!) by engaging in foreign policy when not in office. 

Barr even killed a federal investigation into Turkish bankers, after Turkish dictator Erdoğan complained to Trump. 

Most people know that when the Mueller investigation was completed — documenting ten prosecutable cases of Donald Trump personally engaging in criminal obstruction of justice and witness tampering to prevent the Mueller Report investigators from getting to the bottom of his 2016 connections to Russia — Barr buried the report for weeks. 

He lied about it to America and our news media for almost a full month, and then released a version so redacted it’s nearly meaningless. (Merrick Garland, Barr’s heir to the AG job, is still hiding large parts of the report from the American people, another reason President Biden should replace him.)

While shocking in its corruption, as I noted here last month, this was not Bill Barr‘s first time playing cover-up for a Republican president who’d committed crimes that could rise to the level of treason against America.

He’s the exemplar of the “old GOP” that helped Nixon cut a deal with South Vietnam to prolong the War so he could beat Humphrey in 1968; worked with Reagan in 1980 to sell weapons to Iran in exchange for holding the hostages to screw Jimmy Carter; and stole the 2000 election from Al Gore by purging 94,000 Black people from the voter rolls in Jeb Bush’s Florida.

Instead of today’s “new GOP,” exemplified by Nazi marches, alleged perverts like Matt Gaetz, and racist rhetoric against immigrants, Barr’s “old GOP” committed their crimes wearing $2000 tailored suits and manipulating the law to their advantage…and still are.

For example, back in 1992, the first time Bill Barr was U.S. Attorney General, iconic New York Times writer William Safire referred to him as “Coverup-General Barr” because of his role in burying evidence of then-President George H.W. Bush’s involvement in Reagan’s scheme to steal the 1980 election through what the media euphemistically called “Iron-Contra.”

On Christmas day of 1992, the New York Times featured a screaming all-caps headline across the top of its front page: Attorney General Bill Barr had covered up evidence of crimes by Reagan and Bush in the Iran-Contra “scandal.” (see the bottom of this article)

Earlier that week of Christmas, 1992, George H.W. Bush was on his way out of office. Bill Clinton had won the White House the month before, and in a few weeks would be sworn in as president.

But Bush Senior’s biggest concern wasn’t that he’d have to leave the White House to retire back to one of his million-dollar mansions in Connecticut, Maine, or Texas: instead, he was worried that he may face time in a federal prison after he left office, a concern nearly identical to what Richard Nixon faced when he decided to resign to avoid prosecution.

Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh was closing in fast on Bush and Reagan, and Bush’s private records, subpoenaed by the independent counsel’s office, were the key to it all.

Walsh had been appointed independent counsel in 1986 to investigate the Iran-Contra activities of the Reagan administration and determine if crimes had been committed.

Was the criminal Iran-Contra conspiracy limited, as Reagan and Bush insisted (and Reagan said on TV), to later years in the Reagan presidency, in response to an obscure hostage-taking in Lebanon?

Or had it started in the 1980 presidential campaign against Jimmy Carter with treasonous collusion with the Iranians, as the then-president of Iran asserted? Who knew what, and when? And what was George H.W. Bush’s role in it all?

In the years since then, the President of Iran in 1980, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, has gone on the record saying that the Reagan campaign reached out to Iran to hold the hostages in exchange for weapons.

“Ayatollah Khomeini and Ronald Reagan,” President Bani-Sadr told the Christian Science Monitor in 2013, “had organized a clandestine negotiation, later known as the ‘October Surprise,’ which prevented the attempts by myself and then-US President Jimmy Carter to free the hostages before the 1980 US presidential election took place. The fact that they were not released tipped the results of the election in favor of Reagan.”

That wouldn’t have been just an impeachable and imprisonable crime: it was every bit as much treason as when Richard Nixon blew up LBJ’s 1968 peace talks with North and South Vietnam to win that November’s election against Vice President Hubert Humphrey.

Please open the link to finish reading this fascinating article.

Categories Accountability, Corruption, Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Evil, Fraud, History, Justice, Lies, Politics, Republicans

Thom Hartmann: Will Democracy Survive?

By dianeravitch
April 19, 2024 //
34

Thom Hartmann reports on the growing numbers of nations that have rejected democracy and accepted authoritarian rule. The Republican Party, he notes, has pledged its loyalty to an authoritarian leader, accepted his lies about the 2020 elections, and is abandoning Ukraine to please him. Shockingly, very few elected Republicans have stood up to Trump; the few that did are no longer in office.

He writes:

Democracy is in trouble, and the Russian/Ukrainian conflict highlights how imperiled it is becoming in the 21st century. The real issue in Ukraine isn’t just land, any more than the real issue in the US is abortion: that’s all the activity on the surface. 

What’s grinding away below the surface, however, is the erosion or outright destruction of democracy itself, whether by invasion from without or corruption from within.

Ukraine and Taiwan represent possible tipping points for democracy internationally, while Republicans passing laws that allow politicians to ignore the results of elections — and Republicans in the US House have refused to stand up for a fellow democracy for 16 months now — could be a tipping point here.

Around the world, and in America today, there are nations and politicians who do believe that democracy — governance via the will of the majority, carried out by elected representatives — is the best form of government for a republic. 

At the same time, however, there are many who give lip service to democracy to accomplish their political ends but, in reality, believe that authoritarianism and oligarchy are better ways to rule a nation and keep peace around the world.

And that movement toward authoritarianism and away from democracy is growing.

Freedom House reported in 2021 that:

“[T]he share of countries designated Not Free has reached its highest level since the deterioration of democracy began in 2006, and countries with declines in political rights and civil liberties outnumbered those with gains by the largest margin recorded during the 15-year period. The report downgraded the freedom scores of 73 countries, representing 75 percent of the global population.”

One of those countries they identified as a place where democracy itself is under assault is the USA, where virtually the entire Republican Party has rejected supporting democracy at home and supporting democratic governments abroad. 

While this may seem like it’s just a conflict between Russia and the US/Europe, what’s really at stake here is a much, much larger issue.  

The real question at the core of the Ukraine conflict, as well as the geopolitical and domestic political positions taken by Fox “News” and many in the GOP, is simple and straightforward: 

“What’s the best way for humans to govern themselves?”

The real issue in the Russia-Ukraine and the China-Taiwan (among others) conflicts is that core question of what form of government is best.  

Both Ukraine and Taiwan are asserting that democracy is the best way for humans to govern themselves; Russia and China (and about half the other countries of the world) believe they know better — and that history is on their side.

Who’s right?

Is democracy viable and natural, the “best” form of human governance, or is it a weak attempt to accomplish do-gooder goals that simply aren’t realistic or, even worse, are violations of natural law and/or human nature? 

Strongman authoritarian regimes, theocracies, and dynastic empires run by ruling families or landowning cliques have been the “norm” for most of the last 7000 years of “modern” human history. 

Is that proof, as many on the hard right argue, that the “experiment” of democracy is unnatural and therefore doomed to failure?  Should we let Trump overthrow democracy and establish authoritarian rule here in the US? Has the “American experiment” run its course?…

Virtually the entire Republican Party is now committed to authoritarianism instead of democracy.  Not even one single Republican senator was willing to vote to guarantee free and fair elections when the We, the People legislation was before Congress, and the party is using Trump’s “stolen election” lie to undermine and ultimately end democracy at the state level. 

Right now they are embracing Vladimir Putin instead of Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the president of our Democratic ally. The Putin Caucus in the House is willing to overturn Mike Johnson‘s speakership in service of Putin.

The few former Republican holdouts, like Kinzinger and Cheney, are the exceptions that prove this rule: the GOP is no longer a political party that holds what most of the world has always thought to be “American values.”  

They’ve joined the side of Russia and China in this debate, openly asserting that political power should flow from the top down; in our country’s case, they’ve embraced a ruling class of morbidly rich American oligarchs.

A “hot” war across greater Europe may be on the way if Ukraine falls, perhaps followed by China seizing Taiwan once the precedent of “reclaiming former territories” has been set.  

This debate about how humans should govern themselves is the real battle of our time, both metaphorically and literally, both internationally and right here at home. 

It’s being fought across social media, battled in the billions spent on elections, and even in state and local governments across the US as authoritarian politicians work to keep minorities, young people, women, and LGBTQ+ people “in their place” and away from the voting booth.

No matter how the crisis in Ukraine works out, the underlying dispute will remain: should humans govern themselves democratically from the ground up, or with oligarchy from the top down? 

The future of democracy is hanging in the balance, not just in Ukraine and Taiwan but here in the US, as well.

Please open the link to read this article in full.

Categories Corruption, Cruelty, Democracy, Elections, Extremism, Fascism, Republicans, Trump

Arizona: Republican Legislators Refuse to Consider Repealing 1864 Abortion Ban

By dianeravitch
April 17, 2024 //
2

Republican leaders, including Trump and gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, were appalled when Arizona’s Supreme Court overturned the state’s 15-week abortion and upheld an 1864 abortion ban.

Democrats wanted to introduce a bill to repeal the 1864 law. But today Republicans refused to consider their motion.

CNN reported:

The Republican-controlled Arizona House of Representatives once again failed to advance a repeal of the state’s 160-year-old abortion banWednesday, days after the state Supreme Court roiled state politics by reviving the law.

The vote is a blow to reproductive rights as well as GOP candidates in competitive races, who have been scrambling to distance themselves from the court’s decision. Republicans facing competitive races in the state, including former President Donald Trump and US Senate candidate Kari Lake, called on the GOP-controlled legislature to work with Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs to take a more moderate path.

On Wednesday, following two attempts to discuss a bill that would repeal Arizona’s 1864 ban on abortions, lawmakers voted not to discuss the measure on the House floor.

The representatives’ votes were evenly split, with the chair making the tie-breaking decision. The bill itself was not brought up for a vote.

“The last thing we should be doing today is rushing a bill through the legislative process to repeal a law that has been enacted and affirmed by the legislature several times,” House Speaker Ben Toma said during debate.

If the 1864 law were repealed, Arizona would revert back to a 15-week abortion restriction signed into law in 2022 by then-Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican. The state court delayed enforcement of the ban for at least 14 days to allow plaintiffs to challenge it, meaning abortions are still allowed in the state.

The ban prohibits the procedure except to save the life of the pregnant person and threatens providers with prison sentences between two and five years.

If the 1864 law goes into effect, Arizona would join 14 states that have passed near total abortion bans, some with no exceptions for victims of rape or incest…

A March Wall Street Journal poll, conducted before the state Supreme Court ruling, found that 59% of registered voters in Arizona believe abortion should be legal in all cases or most cases with some restrictions. Another 27% said they believe abortion should be illegal with exceptions for rape, incest or when the pregnant person’s life is endangered. Nine percent said the procedure should be illegal in all cases.

Categories Arizona, Democrats, Elections, Gender, Health, Republicans

Texas: The Gilead Wives Club Who Sell Out Women’s Freedom and Rights

By dianeravitch
April 15, 2024 //
4

Michelle H. Davis writes a lively blog about Texas politics, called LoneStarLeft.

In this post, she writes about the claque of Republican women in the legislature who regularly step forward to sell out the freedom and rights of women. Michelle compares them to the wives of Gilead in Margaret Atwood’s prophetic The Handmaid’s Tale. She names them and names the Democrat who is running against them.

She writes:

The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood, both in its book form and TV adaptation, narrates the plight of women in a dystopian world that eerily mirrors potential realities. Set in Gilead, a nation born from the collapse of America due to the rise of far-right extremists, the society is a strict patriarchy, stripping women of any rights. Women are categorized into distinct roles within this regime.

Handmaids, identified for their fertility, are allocated to Commanders and their spouses for forced impregnation and childbirth, with their offspring subsequently removed from their care. Marthas serve as domestic workers and laborers. Aunts enforce discipline among the Handmaids. As for the wives, they actively participate by holding the Handmaids down during the acts of rape by their husbands.

Republican women in the Texas House play similar roles to the wives of Gilead. These are the women who author and push bills to strip the women in Texas of bodily autonomy. This is why they are the Gilead Wives Club because if it were Gilead, they undoubtedly would hold other women down as they were raped, similarly to how they use their time in the Legislature to oppress and violate the women of Texas. 

The Gilead Wives Club is the woman responsible for getting abortions banned in Texas. 

The Gilead Wives Club is the woman responsible for the high maternal mortality in Texas. 

The Gilead Wives Club is the woman responsible for blocking insurance access to women in Texas. 

Republican men in the Texas House use these women to push all the bills that harm women. 

That’s how it’s been for the last two legislative sessions. I believe it’s an optics thing. Perhaps the Republican men feel as if oppression against women should come from other women to make the debates easier as they make it through the House. And the women of the Gilead Wives Club happily comply…

Valoree Swanson – the HBIC. 

Representative Valoree Swanson (HD150-Harris County) is the puppet master of these ladies. She’s the Regina George, the Tony Soprano, the Cersei Lannister of these women. She should be the number one target to vote because the entire club would fall apart without her. 

Most women who follow her around like little puppy dogs do so because they aren’t smart enough to handle the legislative process independently. Swanson directs them on legislation and what to say during debates. 

Taking out Valoree Swanson would completely cripple Republican women in the Texas House. 

Running against Swanson is Democrat Marisela “MJ” Jimenez. 

Jimenez became a US citizen in 2005 after pledging to support and defend the Constitution. She’s received endorsements from the Texas Gulf Coast Area Labor Federation and the Climate Cabinet. 

You can find out more about MJ Jimenez on her website or Twitter.

Michelle goes on to describe the other members of the Gilead Wives’ Club and the Democrats running against them.

Categories Accountability, Democracy, Elections, Extremism, Gender, Republicans, Texas

Ruth Ben-Ghiat: The Phony GOP Claim that Biden is Authoritarian

By dianeravitch
April 13, 2024 //
7

Ruth Ben-Ghiat is a professor of history at New York University, who specializes in Italian history and the history of authoritarianism. She frequently appears on network television and writes a blog called Lucid. This article was written in 2021 but remains timely. Both Trump and the Republican Party project their intentions on the other side.

She wrote:

“Biden is an authoritarian,” warned Fox News on Sept. 11, responding to President Joe Biden’s announcement that vaccinations or weekly Covid-19 testing would be required for employees of large businesses.

No matter that Fox News has had a similar policy in place for months. Propaganda isn’t about logic, but about evoking emotions. And in 2021 America, the Republican charge that Democrats are out to take away our liberty is just too effective at triggering anger and fear.

That’s why Republicans and their allies are investing massive time and energy in circulating this political fiction. The alleged threat posed by “left-wing authoritarianism,” and by Biden as a dictator in the making, are now central talking points for the GOP and its media, religious, and political allies.

It may be tempting to dismiss such rhetoric. Biden is hardly a man of the left, and he has made the defense of democracy against autocracy a theme of his foreign policy speeches. Yet we need to take this phony argument seriously. It is designed to take polarization to the next level, by peddling the idea that Commies/Radical Lefties are out to destroy free will, spiritual life, and civilization as we know it. It is designed to depict Biden as an existential threat and foster survivalist thinking. And what do you do to survive? Anything necessary.

Unlike Democrats, Republicans have a formidable media machine that dispenses disinformation such as this to hundreds of millions every day. They know that propaganda works through repetition, but for maximum impact different sectors of society should deliver the same message, with small variations that cater to the tastes of their constituencies. That’s what’s happening right now with the “Biden as authoritarian” line.

Fox News hammers home the threat of socialism almost daily, providing a frame for its audience to interpret every Biden action. The president’s public welfare measures, like subsidies to mitigate the pandemic’s economic effects, become socialist handouts. And mask and vaccine mandates, which follow best public health practices, are evidence for millions that Biden is the Adolf Hitler of our times.

Fox also trots out survivors of state socialism in Eastern Europe, like Rebekah Koffler, to warn that political correctness, intolerance of religious feeling, and education in schools about “sex-related garbage” (presumably sexual diversity and the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals) portend the development of socialism in America. 

Meanwhile, right-wing ideologues like Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin provide intellectual cover with books like The Authoritarian Moment and American Marxism, the latter of which debuted at the No.1 slot for non-fiction hardcover on the New York Times bestseller list, selling 400,000 in its first week of release.

Faith leaders who support Donald Trump’s sham “stolen election” claims give their twist on the Biden-as-Duce talking point. Evangelical and nondenominational Christians preach the necessity of a spiritual crusade against a Marxist materialist who has seized power. And GOP politicians like Rep. Madison Cawthorn use a term associated with dictatorship to refer to individuals who were arrested for participating in the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol: “political prisoners.”

The message that Biden is an authoritarian could lead to more armed actions à la Jan. 6. This is the solution alluded to in a May open letter by 124 retired military and national security officials. It urged Americans to act to “save the nation” from the danger represented by “a hard left turn toward Socialism and a Marxist form of tyranny” –that being their characterization of Biden’s administration. Shutting down democracy to supposedly save democracy is in the best tradition of authoritarian takeovers and coups.

This talking point will escalate in 2021-2022. The more authoritarian the GOP becomes —criminalizing protest, suppressing voting, LBGTQ+ and reproductive rights, discarding the rule of law, and embracing violence— the more it will have to label Democrats as the freedom-wreckers.

Democrats must address this head-on, exposing the idea that Biden is an authoritarian as a phony talking point in their public declarations. Unified messaging on this point is key. Because the specter of an imminent left-wing takeover will be haunting American politics, threatening our democracy.

Categories Biden, Democracy, Elections, Lies, Republicans, Trump

Federal Judge: J6 Convicts Are Criminals, Not “Hostages”

By dianeravitch
April 10, 2024 //
2

Federal Judge Royce Lamberth in D.C. has sentenced those convicted of committing crimes during the January 6 insurrection, most of them for violently assaulting police officers. He objects to those (like Trump) who insist on calling them “hostages” and “patriots.” Almost as shocking is the fact that Republican members of Congress who ran for their lives on January 6 sit silently as Trump praises their attackers. Trump has treated them as heroes and promised to pardon all of them.

Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post wrote:

D.C. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth delivered a tongue-lashing last week during the sentencing of a participant in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot convicted of multiple crimes. He railed against downplaying the insurrection and specifically condemned the effort to elevate convicted criminals to the status of “hostages.”

It was not the first time Lamberth tried switching off MAGA’s national gaslighting exercise. In a January sentencing memo for another Jan. 6 participant convicted of serious felonies, he declared:

“I have been shocked to watch some public figures try to rewrite history, claiming rioters behaved “in an orderly fashion” like ordinary tourists, or martyrizing convicted January 6 defendants as “political prisoners” or even, incredibly, “hostages.” …

“Protestors” would have simply shared their views on the election — as did thousands that day who did not approach the Capitol. But those who breached and occupied the Capitol building and grounds halted the counting of the electoral college votes required by the Twelfth Amendment.

He continued, “This was not a protest that got out of hand. It was a riot; in many respects a coordinated riot, as is clear from cases before me. … Although the rioters failed in their ultimate goal, their actions nonetheless resulted in the deaths of multiple people, injury to over 140 members of law enforcement, and lasting trauma for our entire nation.” He concluded, “This was not patriotism; it was the antithesis of patriotism.”

Rubin points out that

Trump has not only reimagined Jan. 6 as a glorious event but promised to pardon those involved. Just Security compiled a list of the criminals who would be let out of jail if he spared convicts and those incarcerated awaiting trial. Tom Joscelyn, Fred Wertheimer and Norman L. Eisen calculated that, as of March 23 (the day after Trump reportedly vowed to set “these guys free”), there were 29 inmates in custody related to Jan. 6, “including defendants who are either awaiting trial or post-conviction.”

These include 27 “charged with assaulting law enforcement officers in the U.S. Capitol or on its grounds,” of which 20 have either been convicted or pleaded guilty. The violence involved should shock Americans:

One convicted felon helped lead the assault on police guarding the Capitol’s external security perimeter, an “attack [that] paved the way for thousands of rioters to storm the Capitol grounds.” Another inmate allegedly threw “an explosive device that detonated upon at least 25 officers,” causing some of the officers to temporarily lose their hearing. “For many other officers that were interviewed,” an FBI Special Agent’s statement of facts reads, “it was the most memorable event that day.”

Other January 6th inmates held in D.C.: “viciously ripped off” an Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officer’s mask; assaulted officers “with an electro-shock device;” allegedly sprayed multiple police officers with a pepper spray; “struck an MPD officer with a long wooden pole multiple times;” and allegedly used a “crutch and a metal pole” as “bludgeoning weapons or projectiles against” a “line of law enforcement officers.”

At its most basic level, Trump’s support of Jan. 6 criminals should demolish the notion that Trump and MAGA followers “stand with the blue” or represent the “law and order” party. Trump called these people to the Capitol, fired them up and urged them on to the Capitol. Facing trial himself for the events of Jan. 6, he wants to let out of jail the foot soldiers he enlisted to attack democracy.

Trump admires criminals who attacked officers of the law. They are not hostages. They are criminals.

Categories Accountability, Corruption, Cruelty, Democracy, Disruption, Elections, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, Lies, Republicans, Trump

Frank G. Splitt Reviews Liz Cheney’s “Oath and Honor”

By dianeravitch
April 8, 2024 //
5

Frank G. Splitt is a regular reader of the blog and a retired engineer of great distinction. He sent me his Amazon review of Liz Cheney’s best-selling book about the Congressional hearings conducted by the January 6 Select Committee. I have been meaning to review the book myself but put it off and am glad to print Frank’s review, as I agree with him.

I found the book to be absorbing, revealing what Congressional leaders said to one another on the day of the insurrection, as well as the inner workings of the January 6 Committee. Cheney doesn’t pull her punches. She was appalled by Trump’s disrespect for the Constitution and his egregious lying. She is contemptuous of Congressionals leaders like Kevin McCarthy who first condemned the violent attack, then turned on a dime to bend his knee to Trump.

Liz Cheney gave up her leadership role because of strong principles. Chief among these was her oath to the Constitution. She refused to betray it, and by doing so, she gave up the likelihood that she would one day be Speaker of the House. Very few Republicans were willing to follow her lead. I have immense respect for her.

Frank G. Splitt writes:

Liz Cheney wrote the book with purpose in mind: to assure that the January 6 Select Committee’s work that revealed the culpability of former president Donald Trump in the January 6.2021, attack on the U.S. Capital would not only be thoroughly documented for posterity, but would also illuminate in detail his criminal behavior backed by solid evidence via trustworthy testimony, mostly from members of his own administration.


The book is fact-based and well organized—providing the author’s first-hand beginning-to-end account of the January 6th, 2021, insurrection from outside and inside the halls of the Capital. She tells in consummate detail how, in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, Donald Trump ignored the rulings of dozens of courts, plotted to overturn a lawful election, and provoked a violently egregious attack on our Capitol. Cheney goes on to tell how Trump and his congressional enablers broke their oaths of office— betraying the American people and the Constitution in their attempt to prevent the counting of electoral votes and so keep Trump in office.


Liz Cheney helped organize and lead the Congressional Select Committee investigation into how it happened. In her book she tells the story of this perilous moment in our history—exposing those who helped Trump spread his stolen-election lie while forsaking her promising political career in the process.


In the end, I am disappointed not only with the gullibility of so many American citizens who buy into Trump‘s lies, but even more so with craven politicians who keep silent for fear of losing their positions in Congress. No doubt, Cheney would have been near the top of the list of courageous U. S, Senators in John Kennedy’s 1956 book Profiles in Courage.


I am also somewhat disappointed that Trump did not respond to the Select Committee’s subpoena to testify before the committee. By not appearing, Cheney was denied the opportunity to emulate Senate lawyer Joseph Welch’s admonition of lying Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy at the 1953 Army-McCarthy hearing by saying: Mr. Former President, you’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?


This should be a must-read book for every American voter as Cheney’s warning concerning the likely consequences of Trump’s return to office is indeed chilling.

Categories Accountability, Character, Cheating, Corruption, Courage, Democracy, Disruption, Elections, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, History, Lies, Republicans, Shame, Trump
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »