Democrat News

This post was originally published on this site

As soon as Trump finished his tour of the migrant concentration camp in Florida called the Alligator Alcatraz, it began to rain, which caused flooding.

A little rain has already compromised the prison camp.

The Miami Herald reports:

The water seeped into the site — the one that earlier in day the state’s top emergency chief had boasted was ready to withstand the winds of a “high-end” Category 2 hurricane — and streamed all over electrical cables on the floor. “For those people that don’t think we’re taking that into consideration.

This is Florida, by the way,” Kevin Guthrie, executive director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management, had told reporters earlier in the middle of Trump’s visit. “We have a hurricane plan.”

But perhaps not a plan for about an inch-and-a-half of rain, which is what fell over the site on Tuesday afternoon, according to estimates from the National Weather Service in Miami.

The storm was so loud it drowned out DeSantis’ voice as he talked to reporters. Let’s hope the entire camp sinks and is eaten by alligators without any detained migrants present.

This is a representation of what America DOES NOT stand for.

A good lil storm passed over us here at ‘Alligator Alcatraz.’

Here’s what it looks & sounds like inside one of these tents.

The state says the sites here are rated to withstand a category two hurricane (~120mph winds). pic.twitter.com/6SyY1hAvkK

— Jason Delgado (@JasonDelgadoX) July 1, 2025

This post was originally published on this site

A Bible study sanctioned by Senate Majority Leader John Thune and set for Tuesday morning on Capitol Hill included biblical arguments against government helping the poor, according to a study guide posted online. Via Jonathan Larsen’s Substack:

The same lesson will be (was) taught at the White House on Wednesday for cabinet secretaries and for House members on Thursday in the Longworth Building, just as Pres. Donald Trump and Republican congressional leaders try to persuade their party to vote for a bill that will devastate millions of needy people, causing death and suffering by depriving millions of health care and food.

[…] The lessons are led by Ralph Drollinger, the right-wing preacher whose June Bible classes — coming right after Israel began attacking Iran — included teaching that the Jews killed Jesus, a longtime antisemitic trope disavowed by major Christian denominations. Drollinger runs Capitol Ministries, which teaches his biblical views to political Bible studies in state capitols around the country and national capitols around the world.

This week’s is entitled, “God’s Design for a Societal1 Safety Net.” It makes the case that the New Testament never talks about governments helping people. Helping the truly needy, Drollinger will teach to his Senate students Tuesday morning, is for individuals. And then families. And then the church.

But not government.

He’s not teaching. He’s indoctrinating them in a religious cult.

We talk about military officers who sponsor Bible studies and what a dangerous infringement of rights that is. But maybe we need to think about the Senate majority leader sponsoring a right-wing preacher who molds the minds of members of Congress before an important vote. On the grounds of the Capitol, no less.

Oddly enough, these “Christians” are very fond of the same Old Testament that Jesus rebuked. Because with all those punitive laws, it’s relatively easy to find an infraction to rail against.

I had twelve years of Catholic school, but I’m no longer a Catholic. I don’t even call myself a Christian. But I know that Jesus told us to forget about the Old Testament. And he told us the only law we needed to worry about was to love God, and love our neighbors as ourselves. That’s it. The sum total of the law.

If you love your neighbor as yourself, wouldn’t you take care of them?

And it just disgusts me that some fundamentalist power junkie is molding the minds of our nation’s legislators with the typical fundie perversion of Christ’s words. Even if you’re not a Christian, or even if you find the very idea repellent, doesn’t it worry you that there’s a Christianist cult on Capitol Hill reassuring members, “Don’t worry, God doesn’t want government to help people”?

God just wants government to help giant corporations.

This post was originally published on this site

Earlier today during a debate on the rules, Rep. Josh Riley basted Hose Republicans for supporting the GOP Tax and Spending Cuts legislation by emphasizing how they are shitting on the entire middle class.

The Chair of the Committee had his fee-fees hurt over such colorful language so he admonished Rep. Riley.

RILEY: Where I come from, we make things.

Generations woke up before the crack of dawn, went off to the factory, punched a clock, worked their hands to the bone, came home and counted nickels to make sure they could keep a roof over the kids’ heads, keep food on the kids’ tables.

We’ve kept our heads down, we’ve kept our sleeves rolled up, we’ve kept our shoulder to the wheel, and all we’ve asked for is a fair shot and for this place to stop screwing us over.

But you can’t help yourselves. You got us into terrible trade deals that made Wall Street rich and shipped all of our jobs overseas. You bail out the banks while neglecting rural America. You’ve rigged the economy so the corporate PACs that are funding your campaigns make huge profits, jacking up costs on folks who can’t afford it.

And now this.

This bill will kill good blue-collar manufacturing jobs that we need to rebuild the economy in this country. It closes rural hospitals, it defunds health care, all to give trillions of dollars in tax cuts to your cronies. Don’t tell me you give a shit about the middle class when all you’re doing is shitting on the middle class. -.

CHAIR: Chair, we’d remind both sides of two things. Please direct your remarks to the chair.

That is a House rule, and to avoid vulgar speak, we do have families in the… Gentleman will not be recognized.

Republicans are destroying healthcare and food care for the middle class just to raise the federal deficit, destroy US jobs, and give billionaires tax cuts.

Rep. Riley, have you been reading C&L?

This post was originally published on this site

On Wednesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court released a finding that the 1849 abortion ban had been repealed by the various abortion laws passed since then.

The Court’s majority opinion, authored by Justice Rebecca Dallet and joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Jill Karofsky and Janet Protasiewicz, finds that the Legislature could not have passed laws regulating abortion access if the 1849 statute was believed to remain in effect.

“This case is about giving effect to 50 years’ worth of laws passed by the Legislature about virtually every aspect of abortion including where, when, and how health-care providers may lawfully perform abortions,” Dallet wrote. “The Legislature, as the peoples’ representatives, remains free to change the laws with respect to abortion in the future. But the only way to give effect to what the Legislature has actually done over the last 50 years is to conclude that it impliedly repealed the 19th century near-total ban on abortion, and that [the statute] therefore does not prohibit abortion in the State of Wisconsin.”

Dallet wrote that when the Legislature passed laws restricting abortion under narrower circumstances, guiding “where, when and how” health care providers could perform an abortion and outlining how public money could fund abortion providers, it was repealing the 1849 law.

There is no doubt that the Republicans, who see women only as property and breeding chattel, will try to put an abortion ban back on the books, but for now, let’s just celebrate the retoration off women’s reproductive health care rights. With our country being under attack by those elected to lead us, it’s good to know the bastards can still be beaten.

This post was originally published on this site

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to weigh in on the growing controversy over transgender athletes and decide if federal law bars transgender girls from women’s school sports teams.

“Biological boys should not compete on girls’ athletics teams,” West Virginia Atty. Gen. JB McCuskey said in an appeal the court voted to hear.

The appeal had the backing of 26 other Republican-led states as well as President Trump.

In recent weeks, Trump threatened to cut off education funds to California because a transgender athlete participated in a women’s track and field competition.

Four years ago, West Virginia adopted its Save Women’s Sports Act but the measure has been blocked as discriminatory by the 4th Circuit Court in 2-1 decision.

Idaho filed a similar appeal after its law was blocked by the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco. The court said it would hear that case together with the West Virginia case.

At issue is the meaning of Title IX, the federal education law that has been credited with opening the door for the vast expansion of women’s sports. Schools and colleges were told they must give girls equal opportunities in athletics by providing them with separate sports teams.

In the past decade, however, states and their schools divided on the question of who can participate on the girls team. Is it only those who were girls at birth or can it also include those whose gender identity is female?

West Virginia told the court its “legislature concluded that biological boys should compete on boys’ and co-ed teams but not girls’ teams. This separation made sense, the legislature found, because of the ‘inherent physical differences between biological males and biological females’.”

California and most Democratic states allow transgender girls to compete in sports competitions for women.

In 2013, the Legislature said a student “shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions…consistent with his or her gender identity.”

The Supreme Court had put off a decision on this issue while the divide among the states grew.

McCuskey, West Virginia’s attorney general, said he was confident the court would uphold the state’s law. “It is time to return girls’ sports to the girls and stop this misguided gender ideology once and for all,” he said in a statement.

Lawyers for Lambda Legal and the ACLU said the court should not uphold exclusionary laws.

“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Sasha Buchert, director of Non-Binary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal.

“Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”

Two years ago, the justices turned down a fast-track appeal from West Virginia’s lawyers on a 7-2 vote and allowed a 12-year old transgender girl to run on the girls’ cross country team.

Becky Pepper-Jackson and her mother sued after the school principal said she was barred by the state’s law from competing on the girls’ teams at her middle school in Bridgeport, W. Va.

She “has lived as a girl in all aspects of her life for years and receives puberty-delaying treatment and estrogen hormone therapy, so has not experienced (and will not experience) endogenous puberty,” her mother said in support of their lawsuit.

ACLU lawyers said then the court should stand aside. They said B.P.J. was eager to participate in sports but was “too slow to compete in the track events” on the girls team.

Last year, West Virginia tried again and urged the Supreme Court to review the 4th Circuit’s decision and uphold its restrictions on transgender athletes.

The state attorneys also claimed the would-be middle school athlete had become a track star.

“This spring, B.P.J. placed top three in every track event B.P.J. competed in, winning most. B.P.J. beat over 100 girls, displacing them over 250 times while denying multiple girls spots and medals in the conference championship. B.P.J. won the shot put by more than three feet while placing second in discus,” they told the court.

Last year, the court opted to rule first in a Tennessee case to decide if states may prohibit puberty blockers, hormones and other medical treatments for young teens who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

On June 18, the court’s conservative majority said state lawmakers had the authority to restrict medical treatments for adolescents who were diagnosed with gender dysphoria, noting the ongoing debate over the long-term risks and benefits. The ruling turned aside the contention that law reflected unconstitutional sex discrimination.

On Thursday, the justices released their final orders list before their summer recess granting review of new cases to be heard in the fall. Included were the cases of West Virginia vs. BJP and Little vs. Hecox.

In response to the appeals, ACLU lawyers accused the state of seeking to “create a false sense of national emergency” based on a legal “challenge by one transgender girl.”

The lawsuit said the state measure was “part of a concerted nationwide effort to target transgender youth for unequal treatment.” The suit contended the law violated Title IX and was unconstitutional because it discriminated against student athletes based on their gender identity.

West Virginia’s lawyers saw a threat to Title IX and women’s sports.

They said the rulings upholding transgender rights “took a law designed to ensure meaningful competitive opportunities for women and girls—based on biological differences — and fashioned it into a lever for males to force their way onto girls’ sports teams based on identity, destroying the very opportunities Title IX was meant to protect.”

This post was originally published on this site

So here’s the game Republicans are playing now. They didn’t pass a PAYGO patch to their MAGA Murder Bill, which means that massive cuts to Medicare will begin without 60 Senate votes to fix it. They don’t have 60 votes without the Democrats. Via Kiplinger:

President Trump’s new tax bill, passed in the House and now headed to the Senate, could yield billions in mandatory cuts to Medicare. That’s because projected deficits in the tax bill could trigger the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (PAYGO), unless Congress acts to intervene.

The pending House reconciliation bill could lead to over $500 billion in Medicare cuts from 2026 to 2034, as projected by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The CBO estimates that the bill would increase the deficit by at least $2.3 trillion compared to current law. If enacted, this deficit increase would trigger mandatory sequestration cuts under PAYGO. Notably, unlike Social Security and low-income programs, Medicare is not exempt from these potential cuts.

They may have left the fix out of the legislation to get some Republicans on board, but they will inevitably find a way to use it to hurt Democrats. This exemption could have gotten 60 votes if Republicans tried to pass a clean bill — but they didn’t. And they won’t. This will probably become a deliberate strategy to force Democrats to vote for something really unpopular in order to preserve Medicare. We don’t know what that is yet, but it’s important that Democratic voters understand what’s going on.

PAYGO is a bullshit bill that was passed by the Democrats years ago, but it’s real and we can’t ignore it. But Democratic senators need to get significant Republican concessions before they vote for any fix.

This post was originally published on this site

A federal judge in Washington just ruled yesterday that the Trump administration cannot categorically deny entry to people crossing the southern border to claim asylum, striking down a change made on Lumpy’s first day in office. Via the New York Times:

The ruling rejected the idea, repeatedly put forth by the president, that such extraordinary powers were justified to curtail what Mr. Trump has called an invasion of the United States by immigrants crossing the southern border.

In a hefty 128-page opinion, Judge Randolph D. Moss of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia wrote that the Constitution and federal immigration law did not afford Mr. Trump the expansive authorities he claimed.

“The court recognizes that the executive branch faces enormous challenges in preventing and deterring unlawful entry into the United States and in adjudicating the overwhelming backlog of asylum claims of those who have entered the country,” he wrote.

But neither the Constitution nor the current law governing asylum seekers, Judge Moss wrote, could “be read to grant the president or his delegees authority to adopt an alternative immigration system.”

This post was originally published on this site

Friends, Donald Trump isn’t interested in foreign policy, unless you mean his foreign policy of scouting Eastern European singles on questionable websites. He’s interested in foreign payoffs, though. Which is where Bibi Netanyahu comes in. Bibi’s willing to do whatever it takes to stay in office, b/c he has a small, nuisance-y issue similar to that of Trump. The whole criminal indictment thing. Bribery! Fraud! Yatzee!

So Trump and Bibi–if you connect the dots–have a corrupt bargain. Trump goes back on his word to bomb Iran, Bibi does everything but kiss Trump on the lips to make him seem presidential. They both keep each other out of prison by keeping each other in office. Knowing Trump, there’s likely bribery too. (We’re discussing corrupt autocrats who could as easily be Orban or Erdogan. Please miss me w/ anti-Semitism).

Something’s up, as neither of these men do anything except outta self-interest. Trump’s even threatening to withhold Israeli aid if the courts don’t dismiss all charges against Bibi…

Watch the video! And if you don’t know about it, Blue Amp Substack has set up The Soundcheck Fund, which we’ve seeded with five figures out of our own pockets. We are tired of waiting for billionaires, we aim to to help create fully viable independent media. We hope you’ll support our efforts with a paid subscription, so we can grow and turn the fund into a part of the solution to these perilous times.

This post was originally published on this site

While doing a photo op with Barbie Fife and some other lackeys at his brand new gator gulag, the Orange Felon was asked about worker programs for immigrants who work on farms or in hotels. As usual, his answer raised more questions and more than a few eyebrows:

I want to take care of our farmers and hotel workers and various other people and we’re working on it right now and Ron’s going to be involved and you’re involved already. So we have a case, a lot of cases, where ICE will go into a farm and there’s a guy working there for 10, 15 years, no problem. The farmers know them. We’re going to put what is called farmer responsibility or owner responsibility, where they’re going to be largely responsible for these people and they know these people.

They’ve worked on the farms for 15 years and all of a sudden… So, I have a great…. Ron does, Christie does, we have a great feeling for the farmer and for others in the same position. And we’re going to give them responsibility for people and we’re going to have a system of signing them up, so they don’t have to go. They can be here legally. They can pay taxes and everything and they’re not getting citizenship, but they get other things and the farmers need them to do the work. Without those people, you’re not going to be able to run your farm.

Owner responsibility? That sure sounds like he meant slavery. And slavery was abolished almost two centuries ago. Now, slavery might be one of Oberfuhrer Stephen Miller’s fantasies, that would cross the line for most people. Not that whomever is in charge seems to be what’s acceptable or not anymore.

This post was originally published on this site

For months, CBS News has been roiled with trepidation that parent company Paramount Global would write a big check to make President Trump’s $20-billion lawsuit go away.

On Tuesday night, those fears came true.

Paramount Global agreed to pay $16 million to settle Trump’s legal salvo against “60 Minutes” over the editing of an interview with his 2024 opponent, then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

Within the news organization, there was anger over what is widely seen as a capitulation to Trump in order to clear a path for Paramount’s $8-billion merger with David Ellison’s Skydance Media. The case was labeled as frivolous by 1st Amendment experts.

But among some CBS News veterans, tempers were calmed by a sobering reality: that the outcome could have been worse.

The biggest concern inside the news division since Trump’s complaint was that the media company would be strong-armed into making an apology or statement of regret over a case that they believed had no merit. Amid the internal anger over the settlement, there is relief that that did not happen.

“Everybody knew that was a line in the sand,” said a relieved CBS News veteran not authorized to comment publicly on the matter.

Another journalist at the network, speaking on the same condition, said the thinking among many was that any financial payment of less than $20 million without an apology would count as a partial win.

As the negotiations to end the suit lingered, it became more apparent that corporate interests overrode any concerns about the appearance of caving to Trump’s demands.

Trump filed suit in October, claiming “60 Minutes” edited an interview with Harris to make her look better and bolster her chances in the election, which Trump won decisively. CBS denied the claims, saying the edits were routine.

“If there wasn’t a merger pending and they took this to court they would have won,” the journalist said of Trump’s case. “I think they understood that if they made an apology they would have an internal rebellion and they would have because there was nothing to apologize for.”

Some say that the departures of former “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens and CBS News and stations head Wendy McMahon were enough to satisfy the Trump camp’s desire for an apology. Both executives were adamant that CBS News did nothing improper in the handling of the Harris of interview.

Trump’s legal team claimed victory.

“President Donald J. Trump delivers another win for the American people as he, once again, holds the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit,” a spokesman said in a statement.

But while “60 Minutes” avoided the humiliation that would have come with a statement of contrition, the program that is the foundation of the news division now has to move forward in an era of media mistrust on the political right and disappointment on the left by those who believe courage is in short supply.

“CBS Evening News” anchor John Dickerson raised those challenges Wednesday on his streaming program.

“The Paramount settlement poses a new obstacle,” Dickerson said. “Can you hold power to account after paying it millions? Can an audience trust you when it thinks you’ve traded away that trust? The audience will decide that.”

According to several CBS News insiders who spoke to The Times, no one is expected to depart “60 Minutes” in protest of the settlement decision.

Andrew Heyward, a former CBS News president who is now a consultant, said it will be up to the new owners of CBS to maintain the program’s journalistic independence.

“If that’s jeopardized in the future, that would be unfortunate for CBS News and the country,” he said.

Though there is anger, many feared a bleak future for the news organization and the rest of the network if Paramount Global couldn’t close the Skydance deal. The lawsuit was seen as an obstacle to the deal, which needs approval from the Federal Communications Commission, run by Trump appointee Brendan Carr.

“We can get outraged all we want, but the fact is we were in a really precarious situation,” said one of the journalists not authorized to speak publicly. “If that merger went dead, I don’t know if anyone would have come along and bought the whole company.”

While ownership change usually generates fear and uncertainty through media organizations, insiders at CBS News say they will be happy to see Paramount Global’s controlling shareholder Shari Redstone in their rearview mirror once the Skydance deal is done.

The feelings inside the news division regarding Skydance range from hope for new investment from deep-pocketed Ellison to resignation that “it can’t get any worse.”

As for any damage to its reputation, CBS News is taking some comfort in the fact that ABC News hasn’t noticeably suffered from its own $16-million settlement over anchor George Stephanopoulos mistakenly saying Trump was convicted of rape rather than sexual abuse in the civil suit brought by E. Jean Carroll. Stephanopoulos signed a new contract at the network amid the controversy, and his program “Good Morning America” hasn’t suffered a ratings loss since.

Viewers have high expectations for “60 Minutes,” which after 57 seasons still ranks as the most-watched news program on television (it’s also the most profitable show on CBS). If the program is allowed to maintain the same standard of deep reporting it’s known for, the audience will get past a bad corporate decision, according to Heyward.

“People on the right will say it’s another example of mainstream media getting what it deserves,” Heyward said. “People on the left will say it’s another example of a corporation caving to President Trump for its own selfish interests. And most people will go back to watching ’60 Minutes’ and expect strong independent reporting without fear or favor — that’s what really matters.”