Right-wing

Sarah Cooper Trump parody video

It’s Donald Trump‘s campaign promise to end democracy. “You won’t have to vote anymore! We’ll have it fixed so good.” This is why there is no “both sides” equivalency between one party — that openly promises to destroy our Constitutional republic — and the other, that strives authentically if sometimes naively towards a more perfect union.

Full quote

“If you want to save America get your friends, get your family, get everyone you know and vote. Vote early, vote absentee, vote on Election Day, I don’t care how — but you have to get out and vote. And again, Christians, get out and vote just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore! Four more years you know what — it’ll be fixed. It’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians — I love you, Christians. I’m a Christian. I love you. Get out — you got to get out and vote. In 4 years you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not going to have to vote.” — Donald J. Trump, the Republican candidate for president.

Sarah Cooper wore it best

The original receipts

And here’s footage of the actual speech:

We must stop this insanity. Here’s how to volunteer:

How to Volunteer: DO SOMETHING!
Read more

The war in Ukraine is less “surprising” to some who’ve seen it raging since 2014. Although it escalated greatly in 2022, the Ukraine war timeline ultimately dates back all the way to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

To understand the backstory — which is now inextricably intertwined with our own presidential history given the impeachment of Donald Trump over his phone calls with Zelensky to the Republican Party‘s current-day support of the aims of Vladimir Putin — we have to go back to a time when no one was stronger on anti-Russian policy than GOP darling Ronald Reagan.

  • 1991 — Ukraine declares independence and becomes an independent entity after the fall of the Soviet Union
  • 1994 — Ukraine agrees to give up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for a protection agreement with Russia, United States, Britain, and Ireland (Budapest Memorandum)
  • 2004 — Viktor Yanukovich “wins” election under dubious circumstances and is deposed for a do over election, which he loses to Viktor Yuschenko (Orange Revolution)
  • 2006 — Viktor Yanukovych begins working directly with Paul Manafort, in an effort to boost his image after his electoral loss. Manafort was known for his work helping the “Torturers’ Lobby” of brutal dictators around the world in the 1980s, with Roger Stone (another infamous dirty trickster best known for his role as a fixer for Richard Nixon).
  • 2007 — Yanukovych’s Party of Regions does well in the Ukranian parliamentary elections, gaining a large number of seats credited to Manafort’s strategic advice about Western-style campaigning.
  • 2010 — Yanukovych is elected President of Ukraine, again largely crediting Manafort’s strategies for his comeback.
  • Nov 2013 — Having promised a more European-style government in order to win the presidency in 2010, Yanukovych turned on his word and initiated more pro-Russian policies than the Ukranians had signed up for. Yanukovych is now beset by enormous public protests against the corruption of his regime, and his unilateral decision to abandon an association agreement with the EU in favor of a trade agreement with Russia (Maidan Revolution / Revolution of Dignity)
  • Feb 2014 — After a harrowing 93 days barricaded inside Kyiv’s Maidan Square, activists are victorious; Yanukovich is deposed and flees to Russia
  • Mar 2014 — Russian forces invade and annex the region of Crimea within Ukraine
  • Apr 2014 — Russian forces invade the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in eastern Ukraine, escalating a war that continues to this day and had already killed more than 14,000 people by the time the 2022 large scale invasion began
  • Apr 2014 — Hunter Biden and business partner Devon Archer join the board of Burisma
  • May 2014 — Candy magnate Petro Poroshenko succeeds Yanukovych as president of Ukraine
Continue reading Ukraine War Timeline
Read more

Right wing groups in America have long wielded disproportionate influence over political discourse, policy-making, and the judiciary — quietly but effectively steering the country toward a more authoritarian, corporate-driven agenda. Groups like the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation operate as power brokers in the conservative ecosystem, funneling money and influence to shape not just elections, but the ideological future of the nation.

The Federalist Society, for example, has become a judicial kingmaker, successfully installing justices on the Supreme Court who subscribe to its narrow view of constitutional “originalism”—leading to landmark decisions like Dobbs v. Jackson, which rolled back reproductive rights in America. Meanwhile, Heritage’s Project 2025 serves as a blueprint for a far-right authoritarian takeover of federal agencies, ready to gut progressive reforms and install Christian nationalist ideology in their place.

But these are just a few key players in an ever-expanding web of right-wing groups. The National Rifle Association (NRA) remains a force in stoking fears around gun rights to mobilize voters, while Fox News continues to manipulate public discourse with fear-mongering and disinformation to drive its viewers further into a reactionary worldview. Behind the scenes, the Council for National Policy (CNP) operates as a shadowy network of conservative elites pulling the strings, and groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Turning Point USA drive extremist policies at the state and grassroots levels.

Add to that the influence of organizations like the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and PragerU, and it becomes clear that right-wing power in America is deeply entrenched, feeding off the fear and division these groups systematically create. The stakes for democracy and the future of civil liberties couldn’t be higher.

One way to address the threat is to become familiar with it. Here is a cheatsheet to some of the most influential and notable right wing groups in operation today.

The Federalist Society

The Federalist Society is a powerful, right-wing legal organization that seeks to reshape the U.S. judiciary by advocating for originalism and textualism—the interpretation of the Constitution based on its supposedly “original” meaning (as interpreted by conservative judges, of course). Founded in 1982, this group has steadily gained influence by grooming conservative legal talent, promoting judges who share their philosophy, and challenging progressive legislation, with many of its members appointed to federal courts, including the Supreme Court.

Their ultimate goal is to roll back decades of civil rights protections, environmental regulations, and reproductive freedoms in favor of limited government (even ultra-limited government) and deregulated markets. Now led by conservative activist Leonard Leo, The Federalist Society’s growing clout can be seen in the success of getting their chosen justices onto the Supreme Court, paving the way for decisions like Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe v. Wade and set back reproductive rights in America by half a century. The organization’s influence has been particularly notable during Republican administrations, especially under former President Donald Trump, who appointed 3 of the Court’s 9 straight from the Federalist list.

A full two thirds of the current U.S. Supreme Court justices have been affiliated with or supported by The Federalist Society. These justices share the Society’s commitment to originalism and textualism, and many were recommended or championed by the organization during the judicial nomination process. The following 6 justices have ties to The Federalist Society:

  1. John Roberts (Chief Justice) – Although not a formal member, Roberts has participated in Federalist Society events and has been described as ideologically aligned with the group’s principles.
  2. Clarence Thomas – An advocate of originalism, Thomas has long been associated with the judicial philosophy promoted by The Federalist Society. He has spoken at their events and is widely seen as one of their intellectual leaders on the bench.
  3. Samuel Alito – Like Roberts, Alito is not a formal member but has participated in Federalist Society activities and shares their conservative judicial outlook.
  4. Neil Gorsuch – A formal member of The Federalist Society before his nomination, Gorsuch was strongly backed by the organization when he was selected to replace Antonin Scalia in 2017.
  5. Brett Kavanaugh – Kavanaugh was supported by The Federalist Society throughout his career, and his nomination to the Supreme Court in 2018 was actively promoted by the group.
  6. Amy Coney Barrett – A former member of The Federalist Society, Barrett was a professor at Notre Dame Law School, where she worked closely with the organization. She was nominated to the Supreme Court in 2020 to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation, founded in 1973, has long been a key architect of conservative policy in the United States. The Foundation’s efforts consistently push for policies that prioritize corporate interests, deregulation, and concentrated executive power, even at the expense of democratic institutions and processes.

Over the decades, The Heritage Foundation has become a significant force in shaping Republican legislative agendas, providing policy proposals to GOP lawmakers and conservative administrations since Ronald Reagan. However, this institutional influence has often facilitated the entrenchment of an authoritarian strain of right-wing ideology that has now metasticized into the body politic.

Continue reading Right Wing Groups
Read more

This is one of those stats that’s sure to be both repeated and disbelieved, courtesy of Bill Clinton’s speech at the phenomenal DNC 2024 last night: since the end of the Cold War in 1989, the cumulative tally of job creation between the two parties is not even close: 50 to 1. Out of the 51 million jobs that have been created since then, about 50 million of them can be attributed to Democrats (under Clinton, Obama, and Biden who account for 97.4% of the total), and only 1 million to Republicans.

That is a pretty stark objective review of right-wing economic ideology. Which is billed, by the way, as “job creating” policy. Trickle down economics, supply side, Reaganomics, libertarian theory, Mudsill Theory — by whatever name you call it, the policy of giving massive tax cuts to the rich while cutting spending on the middle class is supposed to magically create great prosperity for all. Instead, the numbers show the exact opposite — prosperity is not trickling down. It is in fact being hoovered up.

DNC 2024: Fierce middle class energy

I hope to write more about the overall amazing, vibrant, and joyful atmosphere of the DNC this year — delivering not just the strongest support for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz possible, but bringing back the sense of hope and optimism from the Obama years in the most refreshing and much-needed way. But for now I’ll just say that the Democrats are driving home this economic message that has already been wildly successful under Joe Biden: when we invest in the middle class, the economy truly does grow for everybody.

When the middle class is strong, America is strong. It’s a lesson we learned in the post-war era of the 1950s but have drifted away from since the 1970s when corporate leaders and big business interests mounted a concerted effort to turn the tide against the New Deal value system that lifted us out of the Great Depression and the economic policy that ushered in that broad distribution of wealth in the U.S.

It feels like the fever is finally breaking. The decades of epic gaslighting fomented by the merchants of doubt may have reached the peak disinformation tolerance of the American people. Here’s hoping the real economic stories will now get told — and that Americans will go to the polls this November and cast their ballots accordingly.

Read more

In an age where history is often twisted into a pretzel to fit the political narrative du jour, Heather Cox Richardson stands out as a truth-teller. She’s not just another academic tucked away in an ivory tower; she’s a historian with her boots on the ground (often literally, as she travels the country speaking about what she sees), dissecting the American past with surgical precision and connecting it directly to the chaos we’re living through today. Heather Cox Richardson books are like tours through the deep history behind the seemingly recent developments in US politics.

Richardson isn’t content to let history gather dust in old textbooks. No, she’s dragging it kicking and screaming into the present, showing us that the battles we’re fighting now—over democracy, race, and who gets to call the shots—are just the latest skirmishes in a war that’s been raging since the country’s inception. She doesn’t just recount the past; she wields it like a spotlight, illuminating the dark corners of our current political mess.

Historian Heather Cox Richardson interviews President Joe Biden

Her “Letters from an American” newsletter has become a lifeline for many who feel lost in the swamp of today’s political discourse. With each entry, she lays out the facts, cutting through the noise and reminding us that the problems we face aren’t new—they’re the bitter fruit of seeds planted long ago. But Richardson isn’t just about doom and gloom. She’s also about hope, about understanding the past so we can navigate our way out of the storm.

Why does her work matter so much right now? Because as we teeter on the edge of what sometimes feels like the unraveling of our democracy, Richardson offers us a lifeline: context. She shows us that the currents pulling us under have been swirling for centuries and that understanding them is the first step to changing the tide.

Richardson’s books are more than just historical accounts; they’re roadmaps that guide us through the muck of the present by showing us where we’ve been. Whether she’s unpacking the economic machinations of the Civil War, tracing the GOP’s evolution from Lincoln’s party to today’s fractured entity, or exposing how Southern oligarchy seeped into the national bloodstream, she’s always making one thing clear: history is not a straight line. It’s a loop, and if we’re not careful, we’ll find ourselves back where we started.

In a time when facts are up for debate and democracy is under siege, Heather Cox Richardson’s voice is not just important—it’s essential. She’s not just telling us what happened; she’s showing us what’s at stake. I look forward to immersing myself in the first three, but I’ve read the last 3 and wholeheartedly recommend them to anyone seeking to understand this current political moment and what’s at stake.

1. “The Greatest Nation of the Earth: Republican Economic Policies during the Civil War” (1997)

  • Summary: The book examines how the Republican Party’s economic policies during the Civil War shaped the United States’ economy and political landscape. Richardson argues that these policies, including the establishment of a national banking system and the introduction of a national currency, laid the groundwork for the modern American economy and solidified the Republicans’ control over the national government.

2. “The Death of Reconstruction: Race, Labor, and Politics in the Post-Civil War North, 1865-1901” (2001)

  • Summary: Richardson explores the Northern perspective on the Reconstruction era, focusing on how Northern attitudes toward race, labor, and politics contributed to the failure of Reconstruction. She argues that the North’s retreat from Reconstruction was driven by concerns about class and labor rather than race alone, leading to the abandonment of African Americans in the South.

3. “West from Appomattox: The Reconstruction of America after the Civil War” (2007)

  • Summary: This book extends the traditional narrative of Reconstruction beyond the South, exploring how the Civil War and its aftermath reshaped the entire nation. Richardson connects the experiences of people across the country, showing how the Reconstruction era led to the creation of a new American identity and a modern national government.

4. “To Make Men Free: A History of the Republican Party” (2014)

  • Summary: Richardson provides a comprehensive history of the Republican Party from its founding in the 1850s through the early 21st century. She traces the party’s evolution from a force for emancipation and national unity to its modern incarnation, examining the ideological shifts and internal conflicts that have shaped its trajectory.

5. “How the South Won the Civil War: Oligarchy, Democracy, and the Continuing Fight for the Soul of America” (2020)

  • Summary: In this book, Richardson argues that although the South lost the Civil War militarily, its ideology of oligarchy and white supremacy continued to shape American politics and society. She traces the spread of this Lost Cause ideology from the post-war South to the West and its eventual influence on national politics, culminating in the rise of modern conservative movements.

6. “Democracy Awakening: Notes on the State of America” (2023)

  • Summary: Richardson reflects on the current state of American democracy, drawing on her expertise in history and her popular “Letters from an American” newsletter. She examines the challenges facing the country in the era of Trumpism, including political polarization, disinformation and misinformation, conspiracy theories, and the erosion of democratic norms, while also offering hope and a path forward based on historical lessons.
Read more

Evangelicals in church raising their hands high for Christian nationalism

Christian nationalism, a belief system that intertwines national identity with Christian faith, has been a significant force in American history — and the Christian nationalism timeline may go back further than you think. It erroneously asserts that the United States is fundamentally a Christian nation and should be governed by biblical principles.

This flawed ideology has influenced various aspects of American life, from politics to education, and continues to shape the discourse around national identity and public policy. Understanding the evolution of Christian nationalism provides critical insights into its current manifestations and implications for the future.

In recent years, the resurgence of Christian nationalism has become more visible and influential in American politics. The events of January 6, 2021, and the Big Lie rhetoric surrounding the 2020 presidential election highlighted the power and reach of this movement. With key figures like Russell Vought and organizations like Project 2025 advocating for policies that align with their interpretation of Christian values, it is essential to examine the timeline of Christian nationalism to grasp its roots, growth, and contemporary relevance.

Vote them out, while we still can

Then, get to the polls and take everyone you know with you. Do not allow the right-wing to establish a theocracy in this country — no matter what your faith (or lack thereof), we have common interest in preventing any one faith from informing the US government.

A line of diverse and young-looking voters forms at the polling place -- the right-wing's worst nightmare

Just because they say the words “Christian nation” does not alter the actual history in which the founders were deists who were adamant about keeping the political and religious spheres separate — having seen the ills it can cause to entwine them. Is America a Christian nation? No. We rejected the divine right of kings, very consciously and loudly so at the time. It is easy to pick up this sentiment in the writings of the founders both inside and outside of the founding documents.

Christian nationalism timeline

  • 1607 — The Jamestown Colony is established in Virginia. Early settlers bring a mix of Christian beliefs that will influence American culture.
  • 1620 — The Pilgrims arrive on the Mayflower, establishing the Plymouth Colony. They seek religious freedom after being persecuted for their lack of conformity to the Anglican church in England, and establish a community based on their Puritan beliefs.
  • 1630 — John Winthrop delivers his sermon “A Model of Christian Charity,” articulating the vision of America as a “city upon a hill,” influencing the concept of a Christian nation.
  • 1730-1740s — The First Great Awakening, a series of religious revivals, sweeps through the American colonies, strengthening evangelicalism.
  • 1776 — The Declaration of Independence is signed. The Founding Fathers, while influenced primarily by Enlightenment ideas, also incorporate some Christian principles.
  • 1787 — The U.S. Constitution is drafted, establishing a secular government with the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion.
Continue reading Christian Nationalism Timeline
Read more

Project 2025 mind map of entities

Project 2025, led by former Trump official Paul Dans and key conservative figures within The Heritage Foundation, sets forth an ambitious conservative and Christian nationalist vision aimed at fundamentally transforming the role of the federal government. Leonard Leo, a prominent conservative known for his influence on the U.S. Supreme Court‘s composition, is among the project’s leading fundraisers.

The initiative seeks to undo over a century of progressive reforms, tracing back to the establishment of a federal administrative framework by Woodrow Wilson, through the New Deal by Roosevelt, to Johnson’s Great Society. It proposes a significant reduction in the federal workforce, which stands at about 2.25 million people.

Project 2025 plans

Essential measures include reducing funding for, or even abolishing, key agencies such as the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Departments of Education and Commerce. Additionally, Project 2025 intends to bring semi-independent agencies like the Federal Communications Commission under closer presidential control.

At its heart, Project 2025 aims to secure a durable conservative dominance within the federal government, aligning it closely with the principles of the MAGA movement and ensuring it operates under the direct oversight of the White House. The project is inspired by the “unitary executive theory” of the Constitution, which argues for sweeping presidential authority over the federal administrative apparatus — in direct contradiction with the delicate system of checks and balances architected by the Founders.

It is also inspired by religious fervor (and the cynical exploitation thereof) — and Project 2025 has brought together a pantheon of Christian nationalist organizations and groups to draft policy that could be implemented with alacrity, select potential appointees for the administration, build networks with GOP at the state and local levels — and with right wing groups and networks around the world.

Project 2025 goals

To realize their extremist, authoritarian goal, Dans is actively recruiting what he terms “conservative warriors” from legal and government networks, including bar associations and offices of state attorneys general. The aim is to embed these individuals in key legal roles throughout the government, thereby embedding the conservative vision deeply within the federal bureaucracy to shape policy and governance for the foreseeable future.

Continue reading What is Project 2025: The GOP’s plan for taking power
Read more

Jesus healing the sick as a foil to Christian nationalism

Jesus commanded us to love our enemies. The vitriol of our politics — the violent rhetoric, the animosity, the refusal to engage in democratic deliberation — is not loving our enemies. It seems to me that Christian nationalism isn’t very Christian, in word or deed.

Jesus hated fame, loathed fortune, and eschewed power. So many of these fake Christians and Christian nationalist groups fundraising for the profane idol of Trumpism are drunk on all three.

They’ve tied capitalism and Christianity together in a way that is both wholly unsupported by the Bible and wholly antithetical to the foundational idea of growing the size of your market, not shrinking it. Jesus threw the moneylenders out of the temple, condemning the commercialization of religious practice. And yet the commercialization of religious practice is alive and well in the American version of Christian nationalism.

Jesus loved the poor, and frequently warned about the dangers of wealth and greed. He told the parable of the Good Samaritan, who stops to help a total stranger in need, expecting no help in return — and said “go and do likewise.” He was very much an original Social Justice Warrior.

Jesus with a group of poor children, as a foil to the Christian nationalist movement

Politics and spirituality are opposites

Jesus also said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s — indicating that he believed politics and spirituality were not a good mix. God’s realm is not like this one, and he does not care about our petty political trifles. He cares that we love our neighbors as ourselves.

Which is a value I believe in and agree on, even though I’m a Buddhist. There is much wisdom from pretty much all the religious doctrines worth listening to and adopting, even if one does not adopt the symbolism of the identity tropes of a chosen religious practice. Morality does not depend on being a member of the Christian faith or any other particular faith — despite the claims of some in the right-wing. There are moral people everywhere, getting up every day and doing their best to be good humans, good citizens, good neighbors, good parents, friends, volunteers, and so on.

Humans first, tribes second

We have to put our humanity ahead of our group identities if we have a chance of surviving the coming wars — the climate war, the food and water wars, the new cold war, lawfare, and new escalations of the information warfare and psychological warfare around the globe. We are all more alike than we are different — a deep truth that Jesus knew and shared strongly, asking us to live and share that message ourselves, even when it’s sometimes hard.

Continue reading Christian nationalism isn’t very Christian
Read more

Biden gave a fiery speech in Detroit today and pitched his plan for his second term’s first 100 days, if given a Democratic Congress. Which would mean that by around May of 2025 we could have the following nice things:

It sure sounds like a far cry from whatever fiery white supremacist death zone backed by ravenous billionaires would be unleashed upon us in Trump‘s first 100 days (only 1 of which, we are led to believe, would be as a dictator… sure, Jan). It is the opposite direction of the literal End Times hellscape vision of Project 2025 and its Christofascist propagandists who have abused the American Evangelical church to the point of being unrecognizably distant from anything Christ himself taught.

Vote blue no matter who

I’m bored with the obsession over Biden’s age. He’s 81, he’s not 101. He certainly still passes the Turing Test to me — others apparently see something different. Superagers can go a long time these days — Charles Koch is 88 and leads both an oil empire and a conservative dark money juggernaut. Rupert Murdoch is 93 and only last year stepped down from leading one of the world’s largest media empires.

I don’t think there’s anyone in the world who can match Joe Biden’s foreign policy experience, having been at the table on major world events for decades now. He knows everybody — and has warm relationships with our allies. Unlike Trump, who has spurned everyone America has cherished and cozied up to (other) two-bit dictators with tiny hands syndrome. Biden is holding up the Western order against a revanchist Russia seeking to erode the post-Cold War consensus and spread the forces of authoritarianism widely around the globe — Trump would simply hand Ukraine to Putin and welcome the wave of illiberalism to wash over his slavering Project 2025 belligerents.

I think we urgently need Joe Biden’s unparalleled experience at this moment in history — no one else can match it. Although now Kamala Harris is no slouch in that regard either, given her 4 years of jetting around the globe as VP, years in the Senate before that, years as California AG, and a decade as the District Attorney of San Francisco before that. If Biden decides at some point in the next 4 years to stand down and hand the reins to Harris, that would be a fantastic outcome. In the meantime, why don’t we give the man some respect for his own self-assessment?

Read more

banned books burning books

Expecting this banned books list will be ongoing, unfortunately…

Book bans represent a significant threat to the First Amendment by restricting access to diverse ideas and viewpoints, which are essential to a free and democratic society. These bans orchestrated by right wing groups often target literature that addresses complex and sometimes controversial themes such as race, sexuality, and political ideologies, under the guise of protecting young readers.

However, this form of censorship undermines intellectual freedom and the right to read, leading to a homogenized culture that stifles critical thinking and open dialogue. The American Library Association (ALA) and PEN America have documented thousands of instances where books have been removed from school and public libraries, reflecting a concerted effort by certain groups to impose their moral or political standards on the wider community, thus eroding the foundational principles of free expression enshrined in the First Amendment​.

Most Banned Books (2023-2024)

  1. “Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe
  2. “All Boys Aren’t Blue” by George M. Johnson
  3. “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison
  4. “Out of Darkness” by Ashley Hope Pérez
  5. “The Hate U Give” by Angie Thomas
  6. “Beyond Magenta” by Susan Kuklin
  7. “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian” by Sherman Alexie
  8. “Melissa” (previously published as “George”) by Alex Gino
  9. “Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You” by Jason Reynolds and Ibram X. Kendi
  10. “Drama” by Raina Telgemeier
Continue reading Banned Books List: What the right-wing considers dangerous literature
Read more

Trump tax cuts right-wing economics

At least, not according to what Republicans promised when they passed them. The Trump tax cuts didn’t work to grow the economy, increase revenues, alleviate the debt, or benefit ordinary Americans as alleged.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was introduced by then-Speaker of the House (and fiscal hawk) Paul Ryan and signed into law by then-President Donald Trump on December 22, 2017. It permanently reduced the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, and lowered the overall tax for all brackets — seems fair, right? Except the wealthy walked away with 50 times the amount of tax benefit as the lower brackets.

Trump tax cuts add $1.5 trillion to the deficit

Not only did the tax cuts not raise revenue as promised — they became a liability on the balance sheet when almost immediately going into the red. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated the TCJA would add approximately $1.5 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years, after accounting for any temporary growth effects. The national debt will rise to accommodate as we borrow money to make up the shortfall between earnings and expenditures.

The Trump tax cuts reduced federal tax revenue, with significant declines in corporate tax receipts (surprise, surprise!). They did the exact opposite of what they promised to do — leaving our economy in a more precarious position even before the pandemic hit.

Who benefited from Trump’s tax cuts?

Conservatives and right-wing economists claim that tax cuts will help ordinary people by raising wages. In reality, however, corporations instead used their tax windfalls to do other things: stock buybacks, dividends, and executive pay. In fact, this happens over and over again each cycle of empty promises from so-called “fiscal conservatives” who in large part know exactly what they do.

Billionaires love Trump tax cuts!

They seem to believe they are entitled to the lion’s share of America’s money (as they have been since at least Mudsill Theory in 1858 and even before) and by gum, nothing is going to stop them — not democracy, not a sense of decency, not a sense of institutional preservation as used to be the very core pillar of Conservatism. No longer. Now it’s a will to power and to plunder. It’s not so much trickle down as it is hoover up.

Reaganomics, Trickle down, Laffer curve, Supply-side economics — it’s all the same

The magical revenue-generating power of tax cuts has been long promised and never delivered by right-wing Republicans. Since the 1980s edition, Reaganomics — the economic “theory” drafted on the back of a cocktail napkin dubbed the Laffer Curve for the slightly drunken man who scribbled it — has moved immense amounts of wealth upwards into the hands and coffers of the 1% and 0.1% at the expense of the masses.

The argument is that rich people will take the extra billions in returned tax money and use it to innovate and grow the economy — except that never happens. And why would they? They don’t have to earn revenue the old-fashioned way, through free market competition — they can just sit back on their laurels, buy a Senator or two, and rake in a huge windfall every few years that a GOP officeholder is in the White House. It is rock solid orthodoxy for the right-wing now, that tax cuts are almost the only policy initiative they care about — along with a side of deregulation and the slashing of the social safety net.

We’ve seen this movie before. The rich guys take the money and run — in many ways literally, into the arms of tax-free havens like the Cayman Islands or Seychelles. They do not return it to the American economy — although they do inject it into American politics, to skew the playing field even further in their favor despite already extracting extraordinary privileges and benefits to themselves from all aspects of their coziness with the political elite and their direct capture of various institutions.

As LBJ once said:

“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

President Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1960

The economic elites are dividing us over race and religion, in order to pick our pockets. This is why we can’t have nice things. We should boot them out and have nice things.

Related Reading:

Trickle Down Economics
Dark money
The GOP is 3 Cults in a Trenchcoat
Property vs. People, all the way down
Oligarchy and the Creep of Fascism
Read more

A historic day on Thursday, May 30, 2024 as the first former President in US history became a convicted felon. Found guilty on all 34 counts, Donald Trump finally faces the music for the first of his election-related criminal trials. Already the Trump trial disinformation machine is spinning up on the right, making wild claims about a politicized process.

The investigation into Trump’s fraudulent payments to Stormy Daniels actually began with Michael Cohen on July 18, 2017, when his bank First Republic Bank tipped off the FBI to some suspicious activity from the Trump’s fixer’s accounts. That investigation led to a 3-year sentence for Cohen for the same exact crime. Way back in 2018, we knew that “Co-conspirator 1” was Donald Trump — and now he has been convicted of that crime.

The federal case inspired an investigation into Cohen’s finances by the state of New York, where both he and the business were located. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg inherited the case from former prosecutor Cy Vance, who began investigating Trump way back in 2018 after Cohen’s guilty plea, when Cohen admitted in court to making the hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during Trump’s 2016 campaign. Vance ultimately declined to make a decision on the case before leaving office in 2021, leaving it open for his successor Alvin Bragg.

The Trump investigation: Multiple convictions

Vance did end up charging former Trump Organization CFO Alan Weisselberg with tax fraud, conspiracy, grand larceny, and falsifying business records. He pled guilty in 2022 and testified against the Trump Org, resulting in a conviction of criminal tax fraud against the company and a fine of $1.6 million.

Vance also worked with the Southern District of New York to prosecute the Michael Cohen case and 3-year sentence.

From hush money to election corruption

When new DA Bragg inherited the case that later came to be known as the “hush money” case in 2021, he was reportedly reluctant to make charges, causing 2 longtime prosecutors to leave. He did however end up charging Donald Trump in April 2023, on 34 counts of felony falsification of business records.

Bragg, a graduate of Harvard Law School, focused on fraud and money laundering cases during his tenure as a prosecutor at the Southern District of New York. He also led the team at the NY Attorney General’s office that secured a $2 million judgment and the dissolution of the Trump Foundation in 2019 for misuse of Trump’s charitable foundation. After looking at the facts of the hush money case, he ultimately decided that it was much bigger than simply paying off a porn star: “it’s about conspiring to corrupt a presidential election.”

Continue reading Trump Trial Disinformation: How the right is trying to discredit the felony conviction
Read more

The Heartland Institute is a conservative and libertarian public policy think tank that was founded in 1984. Based in Arlington Heights, Illinois, its stated mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. However, it is perhaps most widely known for its controversial stance on climate change and its efforts to question the scientific consensus on the matter.

Early years and focus areas

Initially, the Heartland Institute focused on a broad range of issues, including education reform, health care, tax policy, and environmental regulation. It positioned itself as a proponent of free-market policies, arguing that such policies lead to more efficient and effective solutions than those proposed by government intervention. Later, it would begin to pivot towards advocacy around a singular issue: climate change denialism.

Climate change and environmental policy

The Heartland Institute’s engagement with climate change began to intensify in the late 1990s and early 2000s. During this period, the Institute increasingly questioned the prevailing scientific consensus on climate change, which holds that global warming is largely driven by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

The Institute has been accused of being a key player in the campaign to spread doubt about climate change science — following the disinformation playbook first established by Big Tobacco in the 1950s to fight against public awareness of the lethal dangers of smoking. Critics argue that Heartland has worked to undermine public understanding and acceptance of global warming through various means, including:

  1. Publication of Skeptical Research and Reports: Heartland has funded and published reports and papers that challenge mainstream climate science. Notably, it has produced and promoted its own reports, such as the “NIPCC” (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) reports, which purport to review the same scientific evidence as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) but often arrive at starkly different conclusions.
  2. Conferences and Workshops: The Institute has organized and hosted numerous conferences that have brought together climate change skeptics, scientists, and policymakers. These events have served as platforms for presenting and discussing views that are at odds with the mainstream scientific understanding of climate change.
  3. Public Relations and Media Campaigns: Through press releases, op-eds, and social media, the Heartland Institute has actively worked to disseminate its views on climate change to the wider public. It has also attempted to influence policymakers and educators, at times by distributing educational materials that question the consensus on global warming.

Funding and controversy

The funding sources of the Heartland Institute have been a subject of controversy. The organization has received financial support from various foundations, individuals, and corporations, including those with interests in fossil fuels — including the Koch network and the Joseph Coors Foundation. Critics argue that this funding may influence the Institute’s stance on climate change and its efforts to challenge the scientific consensus.

In 2012, the Heartland Institute faced significant backlash following the leak of internal documents that revealed details about its funding and strategy for challenging climate change science. These documents shed light on the Institute’s plans to develop a K-12 curriculum that would cast doubt on climate science, among other strategies aimed at influencing public opinion and education.

Lies, Incorporated

The Heartland Institute’s role in the climate change debate is a highly polarizing one. Proponents view it as a bastion of free speech and skepticism, vital for challenging what they (ironically) claim to see as the politicization of science. Critics, however, argue that its activities have contributed to misinformation, public confusion, and policy paralysis on one of the most pressing issues facing humanity — as well as playing a role in fomenting a broader shift towards science denialism in American culture.

By questioning the scientific consensus on climate change and promoting “alternative facts,” the Heartland Institute has played a significant role in shaping the public discourse on global warming. Its actions and the broader debate around climate science underscore the complex interplay between science, policy, and public opinion in addressing environmental challenges.

Read more

Stochastic terrorism is a term that has emerged in the lexicon of political and social analysis to describe a method of inciting violence indirectly through the use of mass communication. This concept is predicated on the principle that while not everyone in an audience will act on violent rhetoric, a small percentage might.

The term “stochastic” refers to a process that is randomly determined; it implies that the specific outcomes are unpredictable, yet the overall distribution of these outcomes follows a pattern that can be statistically analyzed. In the context of stochastic terrorism, it means that while it is uncertain who will act on incendiary messages and violent political rhetoric, it is almost certain that someone will.

The nature of stochastic terrorism

Stochastic terrorism involves the dissemination of public statements, whether through speeches, social media, or traditional media, that incite violence. The individuals or entities spreading such rhetoric may not directly call for political violence. Instead, they create an atmosphere charged with tension and hostility, suggesting that action must be taken against a perceived threat or enemy. This indirect incitement provides plausible deniability, as those who broadcast the messages can claim they never explicitly advocated for violence.

Prominent stochastic terrorism examples

The following are just a few notable illustrative examples of stochastic terrorism:

  1. The Oklahoma City Bombing (1995): Timothy McVeigh, influenced by extremist anti-government rhetoric, the 1992 Ruby Ridge standoff, and the 1993 siege at Waco, Texas, detonated a truck bomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people. This act was fueled by ideologies that demonized the federal government, highlighting how extremism and extremist propaganda can inspire individuals to commit acts of terror.
  2. The Oslo and Utøya Attacks (2011): Anders Behring Breivik, driven by anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant beliefs, bombed government buildings in Oslo, Norway, then shot and killed 69 people at a youth camp on the island of Utøya. Breivik’s manifesto cited many sources that painted Islam and multiculturalism as existential threats to Europe, showing the deadly impact of extremist online echo chambers and the pathology of right-wing ideologies such as Great Replacement Theory.
  3. The Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting (2018): Robert Bowers, influenced by white supremacist ideologies and conspiracy theories about migrant caravans, killed 11 worshippers in a synagogue. His actions were preceded by social media posts that echoed hate speech and conspiracy theories rampant in certain online communities, demonstrating the lethal consequences of unmoderated hateful rhetoric.
  4. The El Paso Shooting (2019): Patrick Crusius targeted a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, killing 23 people, motivated by anti-immigrant sentiment and rhetoric about a “Hispanic invasion” of Texas. His manifesto mirrored language used in certain media and political discourse, underscoring the danger of using dehumanizing language against minority groups.
  5. Christchurch Mosque Shootings (2019): Brenton Tarrant live-streamed his attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, killing 51 people, influenced by white supremacist beliefs and online forums that amplified Islamophobic rhetoric. The attacker’s manifesto and online activity were steeped in extremist content, illustrating the role of internet subcultures in radicalizing individuals.

Stochastic terrorism in right-wing politics in the US

In the United States, the concept of stochastic terrorism has become increasingly relevant in analyzing the tactics employed by certain right-wing entities and individuals. While the phenomenon is not exclusive to any single political spectrum, recent years have seen notable instances where right-wing rhetoric has been linked to acts of violence.

The January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol serves as a stark example of stochastic terrorism. The event was preceded by months of unfounded claims of electoral fraud and calls to “stop the steal,” amplified by right-wing media outlets and figures — including then-President Trump who had extraordinary motivation to portray his 2020 election loss as a victory in order to stay in power. This rhetoric created a charged environment, leading some individuals to believe that violent action was a justified response to defend democracy.

The role of media and technology

Right-wing media platforms have played a significant role in amplifying messages that could potentially incite stochastic terrorism. Through the strategic use of incendiary language, disinformation, misinformation, and conspiracy theories, these platforms have the power to reach vast audiences and influence susceptible individuals to commit acts of violence.

The advent of social media has further complicated the landscape, enabling the rapid spread of extremist rhetoric. The decentralized nature of these platforms allows for the creation of echo chambers where inflammatory messages are not only amplified but also go unchallenged, increasing the risk of radicalization.

Challenges and implications

Stochastic terrorism presents significant legal and societal challenges. The indirect nature of incitement complicates efforts to hold individuals accountable for the violence that their rhetoric may inspire. Moreover, the phenomenon raises critical questions about the balance between free speech and the prevention of violence, challenging societies to find ways to protect democratic values while preventing harm.

Moving forward

Addressing stochastic terrorism requires a multifaceted approach. This includes promoting responsible speech among public figures, enhancing critical thinking and media literacy among the public, and developing legal and regulatory frameworks that can effectively address the unique challenges posed by this form of terrorism. Ultimately, combating stochastic terrorism is not just about preventing violence; it’s about preserving the integrity of democratic societies and ensuring that public discourse does not become a catalyst for harm.

Understanding and mitigating the effects of stochastic terrorism is crucial in today’s increasingly polarized world. By recognizing the patterns and mechanisms through which violence is indirectly incited, societies can work towards more cohesive and peaceful discourse, ensuring that democracy is protected from the forces that seek to undermine it through fear and division.

Read more

Fundamentalism starves the mind. It reduces and narrows a universe of dazzlingly fascinating complexity available for infinite exploration — and deprives millions of people throughout the ages of the limitless gifts of curiosity.

The faux finality of fundamentalism is a kind of death wish — a closing off of pathways to possibility that are lost to those human minds forever. It’s a closing of the doors of perception and a welding shut of the very openings that give life its deepest meaning.

It is tragic — a truly heartbreaking process of grooming and indoctrination into a poisonous worldview; the trapping of untold minds in airless, sunless rooms of inert stagnation for an eternity. What’s worse — those claustrophobic minds aim to drag others in with them — perhaps to ease the unbearable loneliness of being surrounded only by similitude.

They are threatened by the appearance of others outside the totalist system that entraps them — and cannot countenance the evidence of roiling change that everywhere acts as a foil to their mass-induced delusions of finality. It gnaws at the edges of the certainty that functions to prop them up against a miraculous yet sometimes terrifying world of ultimate unknowability.

Continue reading Fundamentalism starves the mind
Read more