Pete Hegseth’s Un-American Religious Views

By dianeravitch
January 26, 2025 //
21

The Founding Fathers were unequivocally opposed to creating a theocracy. The Constitutuon they wrote provided that there would be no religious tests for any government office. The First Amendment guaranteed freedom of religion and asserted that Congress would make no law to establish any religion. They did not want the new United States of America to be a Christian nation.

Yet there has always been a vocal minority that does want the U.S. to be a Christian nation.The more diverse we are, the more these extremists want to impose their religion on everyone.

Pete Hegseth, Trump’s new Secretary of Defense, is apparently a Christian nationalist. He has Christian nationalist tattoos. Too bad for non-Christians and atheists. He will probably assume that every woman and person of color I a high-ranking position is a DEI hire. Only straight white men, he assumes, are qualified. Like him.

The Guardian reported:

In a series of newly unearthed podcasts, Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s pick for defense secretary, appears to endorse the theocratic and authoritarian doctrine of “sphere sovereignty”, a worldview derived from the extremist beliefs of Christian reconstructionism (CR) and espoused by churches aligned with far-right Idaho pastor Douglas Wilson.

In the recordings, Hegseth rails against “cultural Marxism”, feminism, “critical race theory”, and even democracy itself, which he says “our founders blatantly rejected as being completely dangerous”.

For much of the over five hours of recordings, which were published over February and March 2024, Hegseth also castigates public schools, which he characterizes as implementing an “egalitarian, dystopian LGBT nightmare”, and which the podcast host Joshua Haymes describes as “one of Satan’s greatest tools for excising Christ from not just our classrooms but our country”.

Elsewhere in the recordings, Hegseth expresses agreement with the principle of sphere sovereignty, which, in CR doctrine, envisions a subordination of “civil government” to Old Testament law, capital punishment for infringements of that law such as homosexuality, and rigidly patriarchal families and churches.

Julie Ingersoll, a professor and director of religious studies at the University of North Florida who has written extensively about Christian reconstructionism and Christian nationalism, told the Guardian: “When these guys say they believe in the separation of church and state, they’re being duplicitous. They do believe in separate spheres for church and state, but also in a theocratic authority that sits above both.”

Hegseth’s far-right beliefs have garnered attention as his nomination to lead the world’s largest military has proceeded. The former Fox News television star and US National Guard officer, decorated after deployments that included special operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, has also garnered negative attention over media reports on his allegedly excessive drinking and allegations of sexual assault.

On Hegseth’s probable assumption of a high-ranking cabinet position in the Trump administration, and how he might view his constitutional role, Ingersoll said: “These folks are not particularly committed to democracy. They’re committed to theocracy.”

She added: “If the democratic system brings that about, so be it. If a monarchy brings it about, that’s OK, too. And if a dictatorship does, that’s also OK. So their commitment is to theocracy: the government of civil society according to biblical law and biblical revelation.”

Logan Davis, a researcher, consultant and columnist from Colorado, grew up in a reformed Calvinist church similar to Pilgrim Hill Reformed Fellowship, which Hegseth now attends, and spent middle and high school in a classical Christian school affiliated to the one Hegseth’s children now attend.

In November he wrote a column entitled “Pete Hegseth and I know the same Christian Nationalists”.

Asked how Hegseth would understand his oath if sworn in as secretary of defense, Davis said: “Hegseth will be swearing to defend the constitution that he, to the extent he is aligned with Doug Wilson, does not believe includes the separation of church and state.”

Asked if Hegseth’s performance of his duties might be influenced by the belief that, as Wilson put it in a 2022 blogpost, “We want our nation to be a Christian nation because we want all the nations to be Christian nations,” Davis said: “I can tell you that the reformed leaders around him … are all sincerely hoping that that is how he will view his mandate.”

Open the link to finish reading the article.

Categories Democracy, Freedom, History, Religion, Separation of church and state, Trump

Joel Westheimer: The Gilded Age of Tech Plutocracy

By dianeravitch
January 26, 2025 //
10

Joel Westheimer is Professor of Education and Democracy at the University of Ottawa. He is also a columnist for CBC Radio in Ontario. His most recent book is What Kind of Citizen? Educating Our Children for the Common Good.

This column appeared in the Globe & Mail in Canada.

When Mark Zuckerberg declared that Meta would stop its fact-checking efforts on its social media platforms, he was conducting a master class in bowing to authoritarianism. The move has been viewed as an effort to placate U.S. president-elect Donald Trump, who has praised Meta’s decision. But while it’s easy to direct our outrage at Mr. Zuckerberg personally, his announcement reflects something much deeper and more troubling: the rarefied world of the modern plutocrat.

Social norms govern behaviour for most people, setting limits on what we deem acceptable. But those norms are no longer the same across different social and economic strata. We would like to believe that commonly held norms reflect ideals of fairness, decency and accountability. But Mr. Zuckerberg and his fellow plutocrats share their own set of norms that privilege shareholder value, political expediency and the maintenance of their unparalleled influence. These norms, values and perceptions of what is acceptable behaviour are shaped not by the needs of democracy or society, but by the insulated, self-reinforcing logic of their own milieu – a logic wherein bowing to a fascist seems reasonable, even admirable.

As former deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland pointed out more than a decade ago, plutocrats live entirely insulated from the rest of us. Their lives are global. They move from one Four Seasons hotel to another. They eat at the same restaurants. They see only each other. As much as we would like to believe otherwise, Mr. Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and their peers do not feel guilty at night. They sleep fine.

The chasm between their world and ours mirrors the grotesque wealth inequality that defines our era, an inequality not seen since the days of the robber barons. And like that earlier gilded age, this one is undermining democracy at its core.

The insulated world plutocrats live in also allows for dangerous indifference to the consequences of their decisions. While the rest of society grapples with misinformation, rising authoritarianism and the erosion of trust in public institutions, the tech elite shrug. Their wealth not only shields them from the effects of democratic decline but often ensures they benefit from it. After all, authoritarian regimes offer stable environments for market expansion and profit maximization – no pesky regulations or democratic checks to contend with.

The implications are chilling. Meta’s decision isn’t just a policy shift; it’s a reflection of a deeper decay in democratic accountability. In a world where billionaires and their companies wield extraordinary power, platforms such as Facebook and X have become the de facto public squares of our time. Yet these spaces are governed not by the public interest but by the profit margins of the ultra-wealthy. When this small handful of individuals decide what speech is amplified, suppressed or ignored, they fundamentally reshape the boundaries of democratic discourse.

What does it mean for democracy when the norms governing the lives of the wealthiest people on Earth are so utterly detached from the values of the societies their platforms claim to serve; when truth is sacrificed to political gain; when fascism is appeased to protect market share; and when those with unimaginable resources opt to placate authoritarianism rather than challenge it? These decisions do not occur in a vacuum. They emerge from a cultural context that prizes wealth and influence above all else – even the integrity of democratic systems.

Mr. Zuckerberg’s announcement is a reminder that democracy does not simply erode; it is eroded. The responsibility for this erosion lies not just with one, two or three men or companies, but with a broader culture of plutocratic complacency and complicity. The erosion is cumulative, each decision stacking upon the next to create a structure that serves the interests of the few at the expense of the many.

The rest of us, however, are not powerless. History demonstrates that when perverse norms of the wealthy are weaponized against democracy, people can and do fight back. From labour movements to civil-rights struggles, ordinary citizens have reclaimed power from elites before and can do so again. Norms can be reimagined and reclaimed. It’s time to insist that truth is not negotiable, that democracy is not a product to be monetized, and that the plutocrats of our age should not be above accountability.

The robber barons of old built railroads and monopolies; today’s tech barons shape reality itself. If we fail to hold them accountable, the price will be not just economic inequality, but the very fabric of democracy. And that is a cost we cannot afford to pay.

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Citizenship, Democracy, Inequality, Technology

Heather Cox Richardson: Trump Fired Inspectors General Illegally. Do Republicans Care?

By dianeravitch
January 26, 2025 //
12

When I worked in George H.W. Bush’s administration from 1991-92 as Assistant Secretary of Education, I quickly learned about the importance of the Department’s Inspector General. He or she is nonpolitical, a guardian of the Department’s integrity, a watchdog. The IG is a crucial safeguard against corruption. Trump fired a bunch of them Friday night.

He acts as though he is a king or a dictator and the laws do not apply to him.

Heather Cox Richardson explained that his firing of them was illegal:

We have all earned a break for this week, but as some of you have heard me say, I write these letters with an eye to what a graduate student will need to know in 150 years. Two things from last night belong in the record of this time, not least because they illustrate President Donald Trump’s deliberate demonstration of dominance over Republican lawmakers.

Last night the Senate confirmed former Fox News Channel weekend host Pete Hegseth as the defense secretary of the United States of America. As Tom Bowman of NPR notes, since Congress created the position in 1947, in the wake of World War II, every person who has held it has come from a senior position in elected office, industry, or the military. Hegseth has been accused of financial mismanagement at the small nonprofits he directed, has demonstrated alcohol abuse, and paid $50,000 to a woman who accused him of sexual assault as part of a nondisclosure agreement. He has experience primarily on the Fox News Channel, where his attacks on “woke” caught Trump’s eye.

The secretary of defense oversees an organization of almost 3 million people and a budget of more than $800 billion, as well as advising the president and working with both allies and rivals around the globe to prevent war. It should go without saying that a candidate like Hegseth could never have been nominated, let alone confirmed, under any other president. But Republicans caved, even on this most vital position for the American people’s safety.

The chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker (R-MS), tried to spin Hegseth’s lack of relevant experience as a plus: “We must not underestimate the importance of having a top-shelf communicator as secretary of defense. Other than the president, no official plays a larger role in telling the men and women in uniform, the Congress and the public about the threats we face and the need for a peace-through-strength defense policy.”

Vice President J.D. Vance had to break a 50–50 tie to confirm Hegseth, as Republican senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky joined all the Democrats and Independents in voting no. Hegseth was sworn in early this morning.

That timing mattered. As MSNBC host Rachel Maddow noted, as soon as Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA), whose “yes” was secured only through an intense pressure campaign, had voted in favor, President Trump informed at least 15 independent inspectors general of U.S. government departments that they were fired, including, as David Nakamura, Lisa Rein, and Matt Viser of the Washington Post noted, those from “the departments of Defense, State, Transportation, Labor, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Energy, Commerce, and Agriculture, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, Small Business Administration and the Social Security Administration.” Most were Trump’s own appointees from his first term, put in when he purged the inspectors general more gradually after his first impeachment.

Project 2025 called for the removal of the inspectors general. Just a week ago Ernst and her fellow Iowa Republican senator Chuck Grassley co-founded a bipartisan caucus—the Inspector General Caucus—to support those inspectors general. Grassley told Politico in November that he intends to defend the inspectors general.

Congress passed a law in 1978 to create inspectors general in 12 government departments. According to Jen Kirby, who explained inspectors general for Vox in 2020, a movement to combat waste in government had been building for a while, and the fraud and misuse of offices in the administration of President Richard M. Nixon made it clear that such protections were necessary. Essentially, inspectors general are watchdogs, keeping Congress informed of what’s going on within departments.

Kirby notes that when he took office in 1981, President Ronald Reagan promptly fired all the inspectors general, claiming he wanted to appoint his own people. Congress members of both parties pushed back, and Reagan rehired at least five of those he had fired. George H.W. Bush also tried to fire the inspectors general but backed down when Congress backed up their protests that they must be independent.

In 2008, Congress expanded the law by creating the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. By 2010 that council covered 68 offices.

During his first term, in the wake of his first impeachment, Trump fired at least five inspectors general he considered disloyal to him, and in 2022, Congress amended the law to require any president who sought to get rid of an inspector general to “communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.” Congress called the law the “Securing Inspector General Independence Act of 2022.”

The chair of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, Hannibal “Mike” Ware, responded immediately to the information that Trump wanted to fire inspectors general. Ware recommended that Director of Presidential Personnel Sergio Gor, who had sent the email firing the inspectors general, “reach out to White House Counsel to discuss your intended course of action. At this point, we do not believe the actions taken are legally sufficient to dismiss” the inspectors general, because of the requirements of the 2022 law.

This evening, Nakamura, Rein, and Viser reported in the Washington Post that Democrats are outraged at the illegal firings and even some Republicans are expressing concern and have asked the White House for an explanation. For his part, Trump said, incorrectly, that firing inspectors general is “a very standard thing to do.” Several of the inspectors general Trump tried to fire are standing firm on the illegality of the order and plan to show up to work on Monday.

The framers of the Constitution designed impeachment to enable Congress to remove a chief executive who deliberately breaks the law, believing that the determination of senators to hold onto their own power would keep them from allowing a president to seize more than the Constitution had assigned him.

In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton tried to reassure those nervous about the centralization of power in the new Constitution that no man could ever become a dictator because unlike a king, “The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”

But the framers did not anticipate the rise of political parties. Partisanship would push politicians to put party over country and eventually would induce even senators to bow to a rogue president. MAGA Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming told the Fox News Channel today that he is unconcerned about Trump’s breaking the law written just two years ago. “Well, sometimes inspector generals don’t do the job that they are supposed to do. Some of them deserve to be fired, and the president is gonna make wise decisions on those.”

Categories Accountability, Corruption, Democracy, Disruption, Ethics, Extremism, Failure, Injustice, Trump

Bridgeport Public Schools Defends Immigrant Students

By dianeravitch
January 25, 2025 //
18

Newsweek reports that school officials and students in Bridgeport are planning to stand up for their fellow students who are immigrants. Meanwhile, the students are protesting in the best way possible, holding posters that say: “WE ARE ALL ILLEGALS.” The kids are alright.

A school district in Connecticut is defying President Donald Trump‘s order to allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to go to sensitive locations.

Bridgeport Public Schools announced on Tuesday guidelines designed to protect students in the event of an attempted raid by ICE agents at any of its schools.

Newsweek has contacted the White House via email for comment outside of normal office hours.

Why It Matters

Trump has begun implementing sweeping immigration reforms and is preparing to target millions of undocumented immigrants. The school district’s stance signals the emergence of grassroots opposition to the administration’s plans to initiate the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history.

What To Know

Bridgeport Public Schools’ announcement came after the acting director of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a directive on January 21 ending the policy that ICE agents would not conduct actions in or near “sensitive” areas, such as churches, hospitals or schools.

Interim school superintendent Dr. Royce Avery reaffirmed that the school district’s immigration enforcement guidelines remain in place. Avery said that ICE agents and other government officials are prohibited from entering school buildings, boarding buses or attending school events without prior written approval from the superintendent.

“Every student in Bridgeport, regardless of their immigration status, has the right to feel secure and supported in our schools,” he said.

Avery did not say if any ICE raids were planned in Bridgeport. He added that Bridgeport Public Schools does not collect or store information about students’ immigration status, ensuring their privacy is protected….

What People Are Saying

Interim school superintendent Dr. Royce Avery said in a press release: “I became an educator to advocate for all students, and I will ensure their rights and privacy are upheld. Our schools will remain a safe space where all students can learn, grow, and succeed without fear or discrimination.”

Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Benjamine Huffman said in a statement: “This action empowers the brave men and women in CBP [Customs and Border Protection] and ICE to enforce our immigration laws and catch criminal aliens—including murders and rapists—who have illegally come into our country. Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest. The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement and instead trusts them to use common sense.”

Janet Murguía, president and CEO of Latino civil rights and advocacy organization UnidosUS, told Newsweek: “Many of the president’s proposed executive orders, however, are strictly punitive measures such as changing enforcement targets to include schools, churches and hospitals, and are designed to inflict pain on the most vulnerable—families, children and even the sick and injured.”

Categories Connecticut, Courage, Disruption, Immigration, Students

Scott Maxwell: How Did Matt Gaetz Escape Accountability?

By dianeravitch
January 25, 2025 //
26

Scott Maxwell, opinion writer for The Orlando Sentinel, points out a glaring example of double standards of justice: Matt Gaetz and anyone else charged with the same behavior. Matt Gaetz got away with behavior that would land anyone else in jail. It is astonishing that Trump thought he was the right person to hold the highest position in the Justice department.

Maxwell writes:

By now, most of you have probably heard about the U.S. House report on the behavior and actions of former Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz.

If you haven’t actually read the full report, I’d encourage you to do so.

The descriptions of drug- and sex-fueled parties seem like something you’d expect in a tabloid report about Charlie Sheen — not an American lawmaker recently nominated to be this country’s attorney general.

But the most important thing to know about this report is that House investigators concluded that Gaetz repeatedly broke the law.

The report mentioned “illicit drug use” a half-dozen times and said there was “substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz met with women who were paid for sex and/or drugs” on “at least 20 occasions.”

It cited testimony that “Victim A recalled receiving $400 in cash from Representative Gaetz … which she understood to be payment for sex. At the time, she had just completed her junior year of high school.”

The report’s conclusion: “… there was substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz violated House Rules, state and federal laws, and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, acceptance of impermissible gifts, the provision of special favors and privileges, and obstruction of Congress.”

Maybe none of this surprises you.

What should outrage you, though, is that virtually all of this behavior — including multiple accusations of law-breaking — was greeted with a collective shrug by Florida law enforcement.

I know it’s tempting to consider this story just another report about slimy behavior from another slimy politician. But I’d encourage you to look at this report in terms of how justice is generally doled out in this state and country — with powerful and connected people getting a pass while we throw the book at low-level offenders.

In fact, I’d like to juxtapose the Gaetz report to another Florida case I wrote about just two weeks ago in a column titled: “Prison for poor addicts. Deals for wealthy crooks. Twisted ‘justice’ ”

That piece featured a federal judge from Orlando who was incredulous that federal mandatory-minimum sentencing laws required him to send a homeless drug addict to prison for five years for taking $30 from a man who asked him to deliver a package of drugs.

Judge Roy “Skip” Dalton argued that this destitute man of the streets with no history of drug dealing needed treatment for his addiction, not five years in prison. Dalton said a lengthy prison sentence wouldn’t make the community any safer, wouldn’t help the man with his addiction and would cost taxpayers gobs of money.

The justification for tough sentences is supposedly that lawbreakers deserve no mercy or sympathy — unless you’re a member of Congress.

Or a fraud-committing CEO.

Or the kid whose parents cut big campaign checks.

The reality is that this country has two systems of “justice” — one for the powerful and privileged and one for everyone else.

Politicians and law enforcement love to talk about how they’re “tough on crime” — until they or their friends are involved.

Need proof? Consider the long list of lame excuses by Florida law enforcement agencies for why they didn’t pursue charges against Gaetz.

Remember: The House report said that Gaetz “Violated State Laws Related to Sexual Misconduct” and “Used Illegal Drugs” — with some of those alleged activities taking place in Seminole County at the home of former legislator-turned-lobbyist Chris Dorworth.

But when the Orlando Sentinel asked state and local law-enforcement agencies why they didn’t do anything, they merely made excuses and pointed fingers.

Attorney General Ashley Moody’s office said local police or FDLE should’ve handled things.

The FDLE wouldn’t answer questions.

And the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office said that no one came to them with allegations and that they thought the feds were on the case.

I’ve seen less buck-passing at the U.S. Mint.

Imagine how ridiculous it would sound if you heard that chorus of excuses from authorities for some street-level criminal:

We thought the other guys were handling this. This isn’t our job. Nobody directly complained to us about these activities (that were widely documented in the media). 

Also, it’s worth noting that none of these investigative agencies said they didn’t think crimes were committed — just that they didn’t think they were the ones who should be doling out justice.

For his part, Gaetz, who comes from an extremely wealthy family in Florida’s panhandle, has denied any legal wrongdoing.

“My 30’s were an era of working very hard — and playing hard too,” he said. “It’s embarrassing, though not criminal, that I probably partied, womanized, drank and smoked more than I should have earlier in life. I live a different life now.”

Way back in his 30s. Gaetz is 42.

Most Floridians would be quaking in their flip-flops if Congress released a report that said they had broken all kinds of laws. Not Gaetz. He’s already back on Twitter (X), promoting Bitcoin and fuming about immigration proposals.

Why? Because Gaetz knows how justice in this country works.

If you’re poor and lacking connections, you’ll be sent to prison for small-time crimes. But if you’re powerful and connected, you’ll get a pass — and maybe a talk-show deal or Cabinet nomination.

smaxwell@orlandosentinel.com

Categories Accountability, Bias, Character, Corruption, Ethics, Failure, Florida, Justice

U.S. Supreme Court Will Decide Case of Oklahoma Religious Charter School: CODE RED!

By dianeravitch
January 25, 2025 //
40

The U.S. Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will rule on whether Oklahoma taxpayers should pay for a religious charter school. The Court has been inching closer to shattering the wall of separation beteeen church and state. Its 6-3 rightwing majority seems to be eager to find a case where they can rule that states that refuse to pay tuition at religious schools are denying freedom of religion.

Is this the case?

If the Court does decide that Oklahoma must pay tuition for students at religious schools, the majority will have to stop claiming that they are Originalists, bound by the original intent of those who wrote the Constitution. It has never been the policy of any state to pay tuition at any religious school. The Supreme Court has issued a long line of decisions that rule against taxpayer responsibility for religious school tuition.

The effects of such a ruling would be to reduce funding for public schools, which enroll 85-90 percent of all students, to promote racial and religious segregation, and to endorse discrimination since religious and private schools are exempt from federal laws requiring the admission of students without regard to race, religion, gender, or disability.

Troy Closson of The New York Times reported:

The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to consider a high-profile case that could open the door to allowing public dollars to directly fund religious schools.

The widely watched case out of Oklahoma could transform the line between church and state in education, and it will come before a court whose conservative majority has broadly embraced the role of religion in public life.

The case centers on a proposal for the nation’s first religious charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. The school would be online, and its curriculum would embed religious teachings throughout lessons, including in math and reading classes.

As a charter school, it would be run independently from traditional public schools. But public taxpayer dollars would pay for the school, and it would be free for students to attend.

The question of whether the government can fully finance a religious school has proved especially divisive within the school choice movement and across Oklahoma. Some conservative Christian leaders, including Gov. Kevin Stitt and Ryan Walters, the firebrand state superintendent who has sought to require teaching from the Bible in public schools, have backed St. Isidore’s creation.

They urged the Supreme Court to take up the case, believing the conservative-leaning court would decide in the school’s favor.

A coalition of religious leaders, advocates of public schools and some other state Republicans say the proposal is unconstitutional. Oklahoma’s Republican attorney general, Gentner Drummond, argued it would “open the floodgates and force taxpayers to fund all manner of religious indoctrination, including radical Islam or even the Church of Satan.”

After St. Isidore was approved by a state board in June 2023 in a narrow 3-to-2 vote, the Oklahoma Supreme Court blocked its creation. The justices wrote in a majority opinion that the school would “create a slippery slope” that could lead to “the destruction of Oklahomans’ freedom to practice religion without fear of governmental intervention.”

Still, as more Republican state legislatures move to support school vouchers and other options for parents to use public money to educate their children in private schools, including religious schools, some legal experts believe that charter schools would become another major arena in the debate.

Justin Driver, a professor at Yale Law School, said that a Supreme Court decision that allows religious charter schools “would represent nothing less than a sea change in constitutional law.”

“It is difficult to overstate the significance of this opinion for our constitutional order and the larger American society,” Mr. Driver said.

The case will present new education questions for the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-to-3 conservative majority, which has shown an openness to religion in the public sphere. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a member of the conservative bloc, recused herself from the case but did not explain why.

In a 2022 ruling, the court ruled that a high school football coach had the right to pray on the field after his team’s games.

Other recent cases have barred Maine and Montana from excluding religious schools from state tuition programs or scholarships to students in private schools. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in both cases that states are not required to support religious education, but that those that opt to subsidize private schools cannot discriminate against religious ones.

Supporters of St. Isidore argue that blocking a religious charter school from receiving funding violates the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom. Jim Campbell, the chief legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal group representing the Oklahoma state charter board, praised the court’s decision to hear the case.

“Oklahoma parents and children are better off with more educational choices, not fewer,” Mr. Campbell said in a statement. “There’s great irony in state officials who claim to be in favor of religious liberty discriminating against St. Isidore because of its Catholic beliefs.”

The school was initially set to open in August and would be managed by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa. Leaders of the school say it would accept students of all faiths.

But opponents say that it would run into conflict with the constitutional prohibition on government establishment of religion, infringing on religious freedom. “Converting public schools into Sunday schools would be a dangerous sea change for our democracy,” several organizations, including Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said in a joint statement on Friday.

For decades, the hybrid nature of charter schools — sharing features of both public schools and private institutions — has made it difficult for courts to determine how different education issues should apply to them, according to Preston Green, a professor at the University of Connecticut who studies educational law.

Still, Mr. Green said he believes St. Isidore’s argument “could be very attractive” to the conservative justices — and that if the court ultimately sides with the charter school, “the implications are potentially huge.”

In the movement to remove barriers to funding religious education, “charter schools are really the next frontier,” Mr. Green said. “And it doesn’t end here.”

Categories Disruption, Extremism, Religion, Segregation, Separation of church and state

A Very Important Letter to Pete Hegseth

By dianeravitch
January 24, 2025 //
8

The following letter appeared on the blog of Steve Nelson. I think you can guess who sent it. He calls himself “the Prince of Peace.” He also signed the letter, but used only his first name. Steve is a retired headmaster of the Calhoun School.


Dear Pete,

I watched your confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Forces Committee with great interest, Don’t feel either singled out or special. I watch everything on Earth with great interest.

It was somewhat disappointing to hear your regular references to me. First, I have no place in the secular proceedings of Congress, as my inclusion contradicts the 1st Amendment of your Constitution. The fact that such contradictions are increasingly commonplace makes them more, not less, problematic.

Two aspects of your testimony were particularly troubling. 

As you know, perhaps, the Bible refers to me as the Prince of Peace. I’m actually not a biblical literalist, as it gets many things wrong, but that part is essentially accurate. It is, therefore, deeply troubling that you uttered the words “warrior” and “lethal” throughout your answers. While justifications for war are seldom convincing, your posture and rhetoric were those of a man spoiling for a fight; your right, I suppose, but not a personal or professional quality with which I wish to be associated. 

If you know your Bible, this may be familiar:

“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;

   And the government will rest on His shoulders;

   And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,

   Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.”

I am that son. 

While, God forbid, the government does not rest on My shoulders, it may partially rest on yours. I fear your inclinations seem more belligerent than peaceful. 

Also, about that tattoo you’re so proud of that got you kicked off the security detail:

Leviticus 19:28 (YLT)- “`And a cutting for the soul ye do not put in your flesh; and a writing, a cross-mark, ye do not put on you; I [am] Jehovah.” 

The other thing that troubled me deeply was your apparent belief that I have offered or could offer you redemption. 

“I have failed in things in my life, and thankfully I’m redeemed by my lord and savior Jesus.”

I might offer the retort,”Who says so?” Your public assertion, reverting to my original faith, takes a lot of chutzpah.

But let us stipulate that I can offer redemption. Given that redemption, whether through good works, 12-step programs or profound honesty and remorse, is possible, you have not earned such grace. (By the way, the claim that I could turn water to wine was metaphorical, not a suggestion to drink wine like water.)

In response to questions about your serial infidelities, sexual assault and many episodes of public and private drunkenness, you could only say, “Anonymous smear.” While that might have served as cover for your MAGA enablers, the so-called “smears” are not anonymous. Inconveniently for you, at least as redemption goes, I remind you that I’ve seen it all – and I don’t mean that in the, “Well, now I’ve seen it all!” sense. I’ve actually seen it all.

The victims of your aggressions, assaults and indecency were absent in the testimony, both by affidavit or by any acknowledgment or statement of remorse on your part. And to think that you dodged those issues in part by alluding to a child born of your affair with a mistress while married! Chutzpah on steroids….

To finish reading this stern reprimand of Pete Hegseth, open the link.

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Corruption, Cruelty, Ethics, Extremism, Failure, Fraud, Lies, Religion

“Dear Mr. Trump: I Love Your Plan for the United States of Canada!”

By dianeravitch
January 24, 2025 //
37

John Manley was a deputy prime minister and minister of finance in Jean Chrétien’s government in Canada.

He loves Trump’s idea of uniting Canada and the United States. Democrats should love it too. Republicans would never again win the presidency!

“I am so excited about this, Mr. Trump – I can already see the 60 little maple leaves on the flag with 13 stripes!”

His article appeared in The Globe & Mail, a major newspaper in Canada.

Dear Donald Trump,

My mentor and former boss, prime minister Jean Chrétien, has dismissed your suggestion that Canada and the U.S. merge.

Don’t despair. My point of view differs somewhat from his (sorry, Boss). I think we may be able to make this work if Canadians fully understand your proposal.

Imagine what the “United States of Canada” could be. We would marry American ingenuity and entrepreneurship to Canada’s natural resources, underdog toughness and culture of self-effacing politeness to create a powerful, world-dominating country.

We would be the largest land mass in the world. We would be self-reliant in every respect (food, energy, minerals, water). We would attract the world’s most talented people. We would truly be “the best country in the world,” to use Mr. Chrétien’s words, and would dominate international hockey competitions. Your idea is truly brilliant.

As you know from your corporate experience, for any successful merger, the devil is in the details, but I have some suggestions.

First, Canada could never simply be the 51st state. Canada consists of 10 states (we call them “provinces”) and three territories. Each of our provinces exists for historical reasons and citizens feel a deep loyalty to their province.

So we would need to be the 51st to 60th states. With two senators for each state, of course. Our 20 senators will no doubt bring fresh ideas to the institution that will help make the United States of Canada truly great!

Some issues that cause division and frustration in your country are considered settled by political parties of all stripes in Canada, so I suggest adopting Canadian consensus in the interest of making this deal work.

For example, there is no argument in Canada over women’s reproductive rights. There! That hot-button issue is resolved for you! (You can thank me later.)

All Canadian politicians support our single-payer health care system because no one is refused treatment for their inability to pay and no one goes broke because they suffer a catastrophic illness. In effect, all of our citizens have lifetime critical illness insurance provided by the government. And while it’s expensive, our system costs considerably less than yours, with 100 per cent of the population covered! Your citizens will love it, I promise.

I would also observe that Canadians have long preferred to live with many fewer firearms than are tolerated in the United States. The result is a drastically lower rate of deaths and injuries caused by gun violence in Canada. Our gun laws would make the country safer than it is, and safer is definitely greater!

We have some other innovations that you may wish to consider. Our Canada Pension Plan, equivalent to your Social Security, is fully funded and actuarially sound. This requires higher contributions, but it pays off with solvency. I believe your Social Security runs out of money in the near future. (That’s not great, is it?)

Lower personal income taxes paid in the U.S. are a great attraction. But our programs to support both seniors and young families to reduce the worst cases of poverty among them help make society more cohesive and fair. That’s one of the reasons our taxes have been higher.

Oh, and we must consider how we fund government expenses. We’re struggling to bring our deficit back down, but it wasn’t that long ago (2015) that our budget was effectively balanced. In fact, for more than a decade prior to the global financial crisis, Canada ran surplus budgets. In addition to spending discipline, our national value-added tax, the GST, was key. You definitely want to adopt that! In fact, you will love it! (Canadians don’t love it, but their governments do. And it beats borrowing money from the Chinese.)

There are many smaller details that I am sure we can work out. You will enjoy the simplicity of the metric system for weights and measures, for example. Oh, but we’re not crazy, you can keep yards for football! And you will love that sport even more when you play it on a bigger field with only three downs.

I am so excited about this, Mr. Trump. You are truly a visionary leader to have come up with this idea. I can already see the 60 little maple leaves on the flag with 13 stripes! I am ready to throw myself into this great project of making the United States of Canada great again! (Oh, that’s too long. Let’s just call our new country “Canada.”)

Respectfully, as I dislodge my tongue from my cheek,

John Manley

Categories Democracy, Humor, Innovation, International, Trump

The Most Terrifying Article You Will Read This Week or Month

By dianeravitch
January 24, 2025 //
31

This is the story of the takeover of a city and a political party and a state by the farthest right fringe of the Idaho Republican Party. These extremists want to defund education. They want to control everything, not just education.

The article focuses on one community college that they targeted, North Idaho College, which may lose its accreditation, not because of academic or financial problems but because its board is in chaos.

The extremists target all public education. They think education is indoctrination. They think it’s dangerous, even vocational and technical education.

Here are a few illustrative paragraphs:

The charter violations that kicked off this accreditation scandal four years ago never had anything to do with academics. The two-year community college offers a solid education and features the top nursing program in the state. Their finances are stable too. No, NIC might go under because the Board of Trustees has existed in a state of toxicity, chaos, and dysfunction ever since the far right gained a board majority four years ago.

It is difficult to overstate how catastrophic disaccreditation would be for the people of North Idaho. With a price tag 65 percent lower on average than four-year state institutions, community colleges place higher education within reach of the least advantaged Americans; over a third of their students make less than $20,000 per year. At NIC, 57 percent of students
receive financial aid. Local businesses depend on the college for employee training on everything from office software to forklift operation. High school students can enroll in dual credit programs, which let students get a head start on their first year of college and allow homeschoolers to obtain official transcripts….

How could this happen? The problem goes far beyond a three-person majority on the trustee board of a small community college. NIC and many other institutions are in danger because, over the last decade and a half, a core group of extremists has slowly taken over the Idaho Republican Party in the same way that a parasitic wasp slowly takes over its host. This required no astroturfing or Koch-fueled cash infusions, just a regular, everyday indifference to hyperlocal politics. The tactic is underway elsewhere, but Idaho got a head start. This crisis is what happens when insurgency bears fruit….

The consequences of that agenda go far beyond NIC’s accreditation crisis. Idaho’s abortion laws are among the strictest in the country; citing difficulty recruiting doctors given the risk of criminalization, two hospitals have already closed their labor and delivery departments, leaving many rural Idahoans hours from maternal care. Armed militia members have shown up in the children’s section of libraries looking for pornography, and libraries are limiting service due to legislation that holds librarians criminally liable for books deemed inappropriate. Idaho’s primary and secondary schools are literally falling apart; it spends less per student than any other state and ranks 43rd in education quality.

This “parasitic wasp” is at work in other red states.

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Censorship, Cruelty, Curriculum, Democracy, Disruption, Elections, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Read, Funding, Higher Education, Idaho, Ignorance

TIME: Fossil Fuel Billionaires Strike It Rich!

By dianeravitch
January 23, 2025 //
5

Since the beginning of the year, the fortunes of America’s fossil fuel billionaires have surged. Even though the U.S. is pumping more oil and gas than ever, Trump plans to pump more. That’s been great news for the fossil fuel industry.

Rebecca Schneid of TIME magazine reports:

President Donald Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20 in Washington D.C. brought the world’s wealthiest people together to celebrate his return to the presidency, including Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg, who have a combined net worth of nearly $900 billion, according to Forbes.

As Trump was inaugurated, longtime Trump supporter Harold Hamm—known for fracking and considered “America’s richest oil man” with over $18.5 billion in wealth running Continental Resources— hosted an exclusive inauguration watch party. Invitees included Trump’s pick to run the Interior Department, former Governor of North Dakota Doug Burnam. 

The connection between Trump’s rise and policy choices and American business leaders is especially true for the top fossil fuel billionaires, says the Climate Accountability Research Project (CARP). The group has been tracking the impact of Trump’s latest presidential campaign and election win on the wealth of 15 individual billionaires involved in the fossil fuel industry.

In just one day after Trump’s inauguration, CARP says these 15 billionaires saw their combined wealth increase $3.31 billion, from $317.86 billion to $321.17 billion. And since the new year began, these individuals have made $17 billion, according to a CARP analysis using Bloomberg Data.

This list of top U.S. fossil fuel billionaires includes David Koch’s widow Julia Flesher Koch, Charles Koch, the current chairman and CEO of Koch Inc., Hamm, as well as many other owners of oil and gas companies like Kinder Morgan, Enterprise Products, and Hunt Consolidated.

“A good return on investment,” Chuck Collins, co-founder of CARP tells TIME of the billionaires’ wealth increase since Trump’s election. Collins co-authored a report released this month by CARP tracking connections between Trump’s second run for office and U.S. oil and gas giants.

According to Yale Climate Connections, nearly $23 million in oil and gas industry funds went directly to candidate Trump and the PACs supporting him during his recent election campaign.

At an April 2024 dinner organized with Hamm and attended by oil executives from places including Exxon and Chevron at Mar-a-Lago, Trump asked attendees to donate $1 billion to his campaign. He told these executives they would save that much money and more after he repealed environmental regulations and fast track drilling permits, the Washington Post reported.

CARP’s analysis comes as Trump declares a “national energy emergency,” begins the process of pulling out of the Paris Agreement, and promises to speed fossil fuel project approvals. In his declaration of a “National Energy Emergency,” Trump cited the need to lower energy costs and to boost oil and natural gas production across the country, in line with his mantra throughout his campaign: “drill, baby, drill.”

Trump stayed the same course in his inauguration day address: “We have something that no other manufacturing nation will ever have—the largest amount of oil and gas of any country on Earth, and we are going to use it. We’re going to use it.” His remarks received a standing ovation at Hamm’s inauguration watch party at Hay-Adams hotel in downtown Washington, the New York Times reported.

Collins says Trump’s election and his immediate executive orders are a “dream” for oil and gas executives—a dream they can only expect to get better.

“It’s a huge windfall for the industry, and it’s kind of a beginning,” Collins said. “This is the payback for investing millions and millions of dollars to get Trump elected, and clearing the way for members of Congress who are pro industry and climate deniers. This is what they paid for.”

Categories Billionaires, Environment, Trump
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »