<Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo was blunt in confronting Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) about his campaign’s early struggles.

In an interview on Sunday Morning Futures, Bartiromo referenced a Politico Playbook item on Saturday titled “failure to launch” — which included an internal assessment from a leading DeSantis surrogate, who admitted “we are way behind” in the polls.

“What’s going on with your campaign?” Bartiromo said. “There was a lot of optimism about you running for president earlier in the year. … What happened?!”

DeSantis responded with something of a nervous laugh while dismissing the premise that his campaign is off to a bad start.

“Maria, These are narratives,” DeSantis said. “The media does not want me to be the nominee. I think that’s very, very clear. Why? Because they know I’ll beat [President Joe] Biden. But even more importantly, they know I will actually deliver on all these things,” the governor added — rattling off various policy initiatives.

The governor went on to say that he expected he would be in for a fight.

“I never expected to just snap fingers and all of a sudden, you know, you win seven months before anyone happens (sic),” he said. “You got to earn it and you got to work. And it requires a lot of toil and tears and sweat. And we’re going to do that.”

Bartiromo then cited a recent Fox News poll which showed DeSantis trailing former President Donald Trump by 34 points. She closed out the interview by asking whether he plans to participate in the Aug. 23 debate — an event for which the former president has signaled he may not show.

“Of course, I look forward to doing it,” DeSantis said. “I think really, Maria, that’s when people are really going to start paying attention to the primary. I think up to this point, a lot of that has been about some of these legal cases. And I think a lot of the voters concern about that and understandably so.”

DeSantis, though, believes the focus of the voters will shift to policy matters by the time the debate rolls around

“We’re going to be able to talk about the vision, and I look forward to doing it,” DeSantis said. “So I’m glad we’re going to get started.”>

<Clarence Thomas' elevation to the Supreme Court in 1991 immediately brought with it entry into another exclusive club where he has hobnobbed and been feted by an assortment of wealthy conservatives.

According to a report from the New York Times' Abbie Van Sickle and Steve Eder, the controversial jurist who is being scrutinized after being lavished with expensive gifts and trips by conservative billionaire Harlan Crow, became a member of the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans, with the Times report adding that he "entered a world whose defining ethos of meritocratic success."

As the report states, after being awarded membership, Thomas "... moved into the inner circle, a cluster of extraordinarily wealthy, largely conservative members who lionized him and all that he had achieved."

The report continued, "He has granted it unusual access to the Supreme Court, where every year he presides over the group’s signature event: a ceremony in the courtroom at which he places Horatio Alger medals around the necks of new lifetime members," before adding, "His friendships forged though Horatio Alger have brought him proximity to a lifestyle of unimaginable material privilege. Over the years, his Horatio Alger friends have welcomed him at their vacation retreats, arranged V.I.P. access to sporting events and invited him to their lavish parties."

With that in mind, the Times report adds, "a look at his tenure at the Horatio Alger Association, based on more than two dozen interviews and a review of public filings and internal documents, shows that Justice Thomas has received benefits — many of them previously unreported — from a broader cohort of wealthy and powerful friends. They have included major donors to conservative causes with broad policy and political interests and much at stake in Supreme Court decisions, even if they were not directly involved in the cases.">

<Democrats came 546 votes shy of knocking Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert out of Congress last November. A recount in December confirmed that she had won a second term against her Democratic challenger Adam Frisch.

He collected $2.6 million in the second quarter in pursuit of the goal of beating her. His campaign hauled in $1.7 million within his first month after declaring his bid for a rematch. Donations have poured into Frisch’s coffers from all 50 states.

“Here’s an infuriating idea: If Lauren Boebert wins again in 2024, she becomes eligible for a lifetime congressional pension – paid for by you, the taxpayer,” Frisch said on Twitter. “If that doesn’t make you want to give $10 right now to Adam Frisch’s campaign to defeat Boebert, we don’t know what will.”

Frisch wants payback and Democrats are convinced that they can beat her. He seeks to define her as an “extremist” who is out of touch with her district due to her radical rhetoric.

“Imagine being an elected leader and considering fellow Americans your enemy?! This is disgraceful and is everything that is wrong with how this obstructionist and extremist operates in Congress. Vote Lauren Boebert out,” Frisch tweeted last month.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) put Boebert on its list of targeted Republicans in April.

“Lauren Boebert is more obsessed with catching headlines and being the token MAGA extremist than actually working for everyday Coloradans,” DCCC Tommy Garcia spokesman said in an email. “Between her dangerous conspiracies and outright racist bigotry, CO-03 voters can see that Lauren Boebert is an unserious member of Congress, unwilling to go to bat for them on issues facing Colorado. Her time in Congress is ticking down.”

“Boebert continues to vote against the interests of her constituents while devoting her time to ‘angertainment’ antics that do nothing to help CO-3,” Frisch said in a statement. “We can do better than Boebert, and thanks to our generous supporters, we will defeat her in 2024.”

Boebert is one of the Democrats’ top targets to flip her seat in a 2024 rematch. Colorado’s Third Congressional District, covering the Western third of the state, is heavily weighted toward Republicans.

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report puts Boebert’s seat as a “Likely Republican” seat for 2024.

According to The Hill, Frisch’s second quarter haul set a record “for the largest quarterly fundraising for a U.S. House challenger in the year before an election, excluding special elections and self-funded campaigns.”

“These numbers far exceed expectations for a congressional candidate this early in the 2024 election cycle. Since launching his campaign in February, Frisch has raised a total of $4.4 million from nearly 85,000 different individuals,” the Colorado businessman’s campaign said.

Thus far Boebert’s fundraising trails that of Frisch by nearly $1 million. She only raised $763,000 in the first quarter of 2023.

“Demonstrating that he recognizes exactly the kind of MAGA psycho he's facing, Frisch correctly stated that Boebert regularly votes ‘against the interests of her constituents’ and wastes her time on ‘angertainment antics’ that do nothing to help the district,” Occupy Democrats tweeted. “Frisch can do this. Sanity can win. The days of MAGA are numbered.”>

<The group Moms for Liberty was started in 2021 by Tina Descovich, Tiffany Justice and Bridget Ziegler, three current or former school board members in Brevard County, Fla. Initially focused on mask mandates and other COVID-19 restrictions in schools, the organization is now “dedicated to fighting for the survival of America by unifying, educating, and empowering parents to defend their parental rights at all levels of government.”

In just two-and-a-half years, Moms for Liberty has grown to 285 chapters and well over 100,000 members in 45 states. In 2022, more than half of the 500 candidates endorsed by the organization were elected to school boards. In a nod to Moms for Liberty’s status as a major player in the war against so-called “woke” instruction related to gender identity, sexuality, race and racism, the leading contenders for the Republican presidential nomination spoke at its annual summit in Philadelphia last week.

In June, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) branded Moms for Liberty an “extremist” organization. The SPLC emphasizes that in contrast to the relatively mild agenda on its website, Moms for Liberty’s social media posts, policies and practices target teachers, school officials and the U.S. Department of Education; advance conspiracy theories; and spread “hateful imagery and rhetoric against the LGBTQ community.” The American Historical Association has condemned the group’s advocacy of censorship and legislation “that renders it impossible for historians to teach with professional integrity without risking job loss and other penalties.”

At the Philadelphia summit, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis applauded the organization’s efforts to help parents send their kids to school “to watch cartoons, be kids,” and focus on the basics, reading, writing, science and math, “without having some agenda shoved down their throats.”

Former President Trump declared that Moms for Liberty “is no hate group … You’re the best thing that ever happened to America.” Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said, “When they mentioned this was a terrorist organization, I said ‘Well then, count me as a Mom for Liberty.’”

Despite (or because of) the overheated rhetoric, many Americans appear to have very little substantive knowledge about Moms for Liberty. Even Lucy Reyna, the treasurer of an Indiana chapter of Moms for Liberty, told reporters she wants to learn “What I am part of.” If the organization turns out to be too partisan, Reyna added, she will reconsider her participation....>

<.....Here are six reasons why Moms for Liberty is an extremist organization:

1. Featured speakers at the “Joyful Warriors Summit” included Katharine Gorka, an anti-Muslim activist, who has advocated “shutting down radical mosques” in the U.S.; North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, who believes teaching children about sexual orientation and gender identity is child abuse, homosexuality is “filth” and the transgender rights movement is “demonic” and “full of the Antichrist spirit”; and KrisAnne Hall, who compared the U.S. Capitol police to Nazi SS troops and claims the government of the United States “has no authority outside the PERMISSION of the sheriff” and “is just as much of a federal power as France or Texas within your state.”

2. Prominent members of Moms for Liberty have close ties to the Proud Boys, Three Percenters, QAnon and white Christian nationalists. Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio once boasted that Moms for Liberty is “the gestapo with vaginas.”

3. The front cover of “The Parent Brigade,” the newsletter of the Hamilton County, Ind., chapter of Moms for Liberty, recently carried a quote from Adolf Hitler: “He alone, who OWNS the youth, gains the future.” At a media training session at last week’s summit, Christian Ziegler, chair of Florida’s Republican Party (and Bridget Ziegler’s husband), questioned the decision of chapter leaders to apologize: “The media is not your friend … Never apologize. Apologizing makes you weak.”

4. Tiffany Justice’s confrontations with teachers were “so disruptive and disrespectful,” administrators threatened to bar her from the school. The chair of the Monroe County, Pa., chapter of Moms for Liberty was arrested for harassment; the head of communications for the Lenoke County [sic], Ark., chapter allegedly threatened librarians with gun violence; a restraining order was issued to the chair of the Livingston County, Mich., chapter after she reportedly told school board members, “We’re coming after you. Take it as a threat. Call the FBI. I don’t care.”

5. The chair of the El Paso County, Colo., chapter raised the hypothetical of a teacher telling a tomboy, “it might be time to transition. Let’s go talk to the school therapist. Let’s go talk to a physician. Let’s do this.” She believes “teachers, unions and the president” are engaged in a coordinated effort to make children trans and gay to “break down the family unit, conservative values,” and “slowly erode constitutional rights.” However, she does not know of anyone who transitioned because of social pressure.

6. The Williamson County, Tenn., chapter of Moms for Liberty alleged a book about Martin Luther King Jr. and the March on Washington promotes “anti-American, anti-White, anti-Mexican” instruction, singling out a photo of segregated water fountains and an image of firefighters hosing down Black children. The chapter also demanded the removal of “The Story of Ruby Bridges,” about a six-year old who integrated a school in Louisiana in 1960.

All Americans should welcome more active engagement of parents in their children’s schools. They should also agree that Moms for Liberty extremists are making our schools — and our democracy — worse.>

<Follow Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ campaign across Iowa, and you’re likely to see his “Great American Comeback” slogan plastered on everything from buses to bumper stickers. Now DeSantis is looking for a comeback of his own following months of tumbling poll numbers, weird encounters with the public and growing concerns from top supporters.

DeSantis certainly isn’t making things easy for himself. On Friday, NBC News reported that DeSantis had apparently deceived the public about his June 5 decision to send Florida emergency support personnel to assist with a building collapse in Davenport, Iowa.

At the time, DeSantis used the tragedy to frame himself as a governor willing to take decisive action to help struggling states. In reality, DeSantis’ team had known for nearly 10 hours that Iowa officials no longer needed Florida’s help. That inconvenient truth didn’t stop DeSantis from taking credit for his nonexistent emergency response — and billing Florida taxpayers nearly $500,000 to send three unneeded specialists to Davenport.

Once positioned by Republican strategists as the GOP’s most effective Trump alternative, the DeSantis campaign is revealing a candidate who has more in common with Mitt Romney than Ronald Reagan. And the Iowa stunt is just the latest in a string of embarrassing gaffes and bizarre strategy decisions that have humiliated DeSantis on the national stage.

But while Romney drew mockery for his hyperfixation on Michigan’s trees and an inability to spell “America,” the DeSantis campaign has added a healthy dose of bigotry to its agenda. Take a blisteringly anti-LGBTQ campaign ad reposted by the DeSantis campaign. The minute-long ad features DeSantis intercut with images of famous movie criminals and serial killers, including “American Psycho’s” Patrick Bateman, as well as a host of oiled-up, shirtless muscle men. The New Republic crowned the video as “the weirdest ad in American political history.”

The transparency of DeSantis' anti-gay bigotry outraged even some Republicans, who expressed confusion that the ad actually made Republican front-runner Donald Trump look better by comparison. Instead of backing away, DeSantis doubled down, ensuring the story stayed at the top of headlines, while former DeSantis allies took to the opinion pages to bash their ex-friend as an out-of-touch homophobe unfit for the presidency. Oops!

DeSantis is also dogged by an unavoidable awkwardness when meeting voters outside his Florida safe space. For Iowa voters, perceptions matter. Iowans are practiced experts at sniffing out candidates who don’t actually connect with people. And DeSantis’ foray into the Hawkeye State hasn’t gone well. Of course there’s the socially awkward screeching, which turned DeSantis into a punchline during an earlier visit. But his overall Iowa effort is also uniquely uninspiring.

The governor frequently touts Florida-specific issues, like the governor’s war on Disney, when many Iowans are expecting to hear national policy ideas. Even DeSantis’ big July 4 event ended in a mess, with the governor soaked by a rainstorm and playing to a crowd of only a few dozen die-hard supporters. It’s tough to ask for clearer symbolism.

It can feel as if the DeSantis campaign is just a slow reveal of every awkward habit the governor has developed over years cloistered in the GOP echo chamber. From former House colleagues lambasting DeSantis for his rudeness to the governor eating pudding with his fingers, voters can’t say they haven’t gotten to know Ron DeSantis. They just really dislike what they’ve come to see.

DeSantis now finds himself in an increasingly dire spot. His support has fallen by half from a peak of 39% in a March CNN/SSRS poll. Those glory days lasted literally days: by the end of March, DeSantis was scraping all-time lows. By June, DeSantis was in freefall: A Harvard University/Harris poll showed him drawing support from just 14% of Republican voters.

Good presidential primaries burn away all the artifice surrounding candidates and their carefully choreographed campaigns in favor of a simple question: Do I trust this person? DeSantis has proved effective at generating headlines — but for all the wrong reasons. As Republican voters solidify their opinions, DeSantis is running out of time to convince Americans that he’s actually worthy of their votes.

As DeSantis struggles forward in a primary field increasingly dominated by Trump, the governor can take solace in one thing: He hasn’t yet begged an audience to clap for him. I say give it a few more weeks.>

<Harvard University’s admissions policies are once again being challenged. A group called Lawyers for Civil Rights filed a complaint with the US Department of Education last week alleging that the children of wealthy donors and alumni, who it says are overwhelmingly White, receive an unfair “legacy preference” in admissions.

The complaint came just days after the US Supreme Court ruled against Harvard in a landmark case ending decades of affirmative action at American colleges and universities. And it ensures that the contentious debate over who gets admitted to the nation’s most elite schools will continue to roil institutions of higher learning in the United States.

A Harvard spokesperson said that the school will not comment on the lawsuit and that “the university will determine how to preserve our essential values, consistent with the Court’s new precedent.”

As elite colleges and universities rethink their admission criteria in response to the ruling, one Supreme Court justice cited evidence showing they can come close to achieving diversity by other means.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that evidence submitted by Students for Fair Admissions demonstrated “that Harvard could nearly replicate the current racial composition of its student body without resorting to race-based practices” if it “eliminated tips for the children of donors, alumni, and faculty” and “provided socioeconomically disadvantaged applicants just half the tip it gives recruited athletes … who as a group are much weaker academically than non-athletes.”

Although Gorsuch specifically mentions it, athletic recruitment has received very little scrutiny, which is surprising since the admission advantage for recruited athletes has historically been significantly greater than for any other group and also represents a large-scale, though indirect, form of legacy preference. As elite schools consider ways to make the admission process fairer, athletic recruitment should be first on the chopping block.

At national powerhouse college athletic programs — mostly the large public schools whose football and basketball games are seen widely on TV — athletes make up such a small fraction of the student body (generally around 2% to 3%, according to data from the US Department of Education) that the preference given to recruited athletes has only a minuscule effect on the total number of slots available for admission.

Similarly, at hundreds of smaller, less selective schools, athletic recruitment is a highly effective strategy to attract students who would otherwise not enroll in the school without taking a sizable number of slots away from others, since these schools are not generally oversubscribed.

However, at highly selective, private institutions, athletic recruitment greatly distorts the admissions process. Although many of these schools are small — with undergraduate student bodies of just a few thousand students — they have the financial resources to field an over full complement of sports teams. For example, as of 2021, Harvard had 37 varsity teams with 1,191 athletes, compared with “only” 27 teams with 886 athletes at the University of Michigan, according to data from the US Department of Education.

In fact, at elite colleges in the Ivy League and the New England Small College Athletic Conference, or NESCAC, for example, athletes represent an average of 20% of the student body, according to the same US Department of Education data. And at Harvard, the admission advantage enjoyed by recruited athletes dwarfs that of legacies or any other group....>

<....An analysis by Nobel Prize-winning economist David Card (which was submitted as part of what became the Supreme Court ruling) demonstrated that athletes with lower academic qualifications got a bump of 1,000 times —from 0.07% to 70% — in their chance of admission to Harvard. It also showed that Asian American applicants were most disadvantaged vis-à-vis White applicants when the criterion by which they were assessed was athletics. All this raises issues of fairness and equity.

Athletic recruitment is also an explicit, group-based quota system that goes against the spirit of the Supreme Court’s decision, which argues that each applicant should be judged on individual merits and not as a member of a group that the institution wants represented on campus.

Would-be recruits are not competing for admission on their individual merits. They are not even competing based on their individual athletic achievements. They are competing for a given team’s fixed number of recruiting slots — which are a de facto quota since they virtually guarantee admission.

Most troubling, as Bill Bowen, the former president of Princeton University, argued in the book “Reclaiming the Game: College Sports and Educational Values,” elite institutions have entered into an athletic arms race that has pulled them from their core educational missions.

Yet whenever these schools have tried to discontinue some teams or move them to “club” status, the alumni from those (often niche) sports have balked, and in many cases the schools have backed down. So while the actual recruits may not be the children of alumni, the very existence of the recruiting slots is a form of legacy preference for applicants who happen to have the interest, time and money to play alumni-favored sports.

Harvard has rightly argued that advancing its mission — to educate the citizen and citizen leaders for our society — requires a diverse student body, but its leaders cannot honestly believe that it requires a winning squash, fencing or ski team.

Given the Supreme Court’s ruling, every admissions spot matters — so Ivy League, NESCAC and other highly selective private institutions should take the opportunity to withdraw from the athletics arms race by fielding sports teams composed of walk-ons who have been admitted and happen to play the sport — not recruits who have been admitted for purpose.

Athletic interest and achievement would remain an important part of the admissions process but would be given no more or less consideration than other extracurriculars such as playing the violin or community service, for which there are no explicit recruiting slots or de facto quotas. The few elite private schools that offer athletic scholarships could use the funds to improve the diversity of their admissions in more equitable ways.

This approach could be piloted in mainstream sports such as soccer and tennis, where both the men’s and women’s rosters could easily be filled from the regular admission pool at even the smallest schools and where competing even against vastly better opponents does not pose the risk of bodily injury.

For other teams, the number of recruits could be reduced to a bare minimum over time and allocated across the teams or even the athletic conference to maintain parity. Teams for which there proved to be insufficient demand from normally admitted students without unnatural acts of recruiting — most likely niche sports such as squash, fencing or sailing — would be discontinued, while other teams might be started, given naturally occurring student interest.

The Supreme Court decision is a terrible mistake, but it may have a silver lining. Elite private institutions have tried but failed to reign in the athletics arms race. The high court has now given them the motivation and opportunity to do it.

As Rahm Emanuel, the former White House chief of staff under President Barack Obama, once famously said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”>

<A group of Republican lawmakers aims to balance the federal budget and slash government spending by targeting programs like Social Security — and some seniors could see a major reduction in lifetime benefits if the plan makes it into law.

The proposal was unveiled June 14 by U.S. House conservatives, Bloomberg reported. One of its main features is to raise the full retirement age (FRA) at which seniors are entitled to the full benefits they are due.

The 176-member House Republican Study Committee (RSC) approved a fiscal blueprint that would gradually increase the FRA to 69 years old for seniors who turn 62 in 2033. The current full retirement age is 66 or 67, depending on your birth year. For all Americans born in 1960 or later, the FRA is 67.

As Bloomberg noted, workers expecting an earlier retirement benefit will see lifetime payouts reduced if the full retirement age is raised. Those payouts could be drastically reduced for seniors who claim benefits at age 62, when you are first eligible.

Lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle have been working to come up with a fix for Social Security before the program’s Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund runs out of money. That could happen within the next decade or so. When it does, Social Security will be solely reliant on payroll taxes for funding — and those taxes only cover about 77% of current benefits.

While most Democrats want to boost Social Security through higher payroll taxes or reductions to benefits for wealthy Americans, the GOP has largely focused on paring down or privatizing the program.

As previously reported by GOBankingRates, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) recently told Fox News that this month’s debt limit bill was only “the first step” in a broader Republican agenda that includes further cuts.

“This isn’t the end,” McCarthy said. “This doesn’t solve all the problems. We only got to look at 11% of the budget to find these cuts. We have to look at the entire budget. … The majority driver of the budget is mandatory spending. It’s Medicare, Social Security, interest on the debt.”

As Bloomberg noted, Republicans argue that failing to change Social Security could lead to a 23% benefit cut once the trust fund is depleted. Raising the retirement age is a way to soften the immediate impact. The RSC said its proposal would balance the federal budget in seven years by cutting some $16 trillion in spending and $5 trillion in taxes.

“The RSC budget would implement common-sense policies to prevent the impending debt disaster, tame inflation, grow the economy, protect our national security, and defund [President Joe] Biden’s woke priorities,” U.S. Rep. Ben Cline (R-Va.), chairman of the group’s Budget and Spending Task Force, told Roll Call.

Democrats were quick to push back against the proposal.

“Budget Committee Democrats will make sure every American family knows that House Republicans want to force Americans to work longer for less, raise families’ costs, weaken our nation, and shrink our economy — all while wasting billions of dollars on more favors to special interests and handouts to the ultra-wealthy,” U.S. Rep. Brendan Boyle, (D-Pa.), the Budget Committee’s top Democrat, said in a statement.

Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre issued a statement saying the RSC budget “amounts to a devastating attack on Medicare, Social Security, and Americans’ access to health coverage and prescription drugs.”

Although the proposal might make it through the GOP-led House, it’s unlikely to become law – at least while Biden is still president. Even if a bill somehow got approved by the Democrat-controlled Senate, Biden would almost certainly veto it.>

<Sociopaths, a term often used to describe those living with

antisocial personality disorder

, operate within their daily lives without a “conscience,” can be characterized as acting without feelings of guilt, remorse, or shame coupled with a tendency to reject the concept of responsibility. Antisocial people will intentionally make others angry or upset and use harsh and cruel indifference as they manipulate or attack others. Clinically speaking, there is no defined difference between a sociopath and a psychopath although some have drawn this line at acting with low moral conscience (S) and no moral conscience (P) or having no regard for someone else’s rights or feelings (S) and taking pleasure in robbing another of their rights, freedom, or well-being (P). My colleagues and I have discussed

psychopathy in the previous President

elsewhere as an example. Recognizing these nuanced differences exist, I will use the term sociopath and sociopathy here for brevity’s sake. There appear to be at least three forms of this public political/governmental sociopathy present today. The first are those individuals for whom sociopathic tendencies are deep-seated and a core feature of who they are – the

former President being a prime example.

A second form includes the scores of Republicans and right-wingers who have decided to play the role or act sociopathic for their own personal gain. This includes hard-line MAGA members such as Marjorie Taylor-Greene, Lauren Boebert, Kari Lake, Matt Gaetz who decided to infect themselves with contagious sociopathy. Look at the case of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis whose impressive on-paper resume includes graduation from Yale University (where he served as captain of the baseball team) and Harvard law school (with Honors), distinguished service in the United States Navy including a legal role with Seal Team One and a deployment to Iraq. On paper, he is highly accomplished and embodied what we as Americans tend to hold in high regard…until he acquired contagious sociopathy.Coincident with his departure from active military service and rise to Congress and the Florida governorship, he apparently chose to include antisocial tendencies in his political and public persona. He believes in unregulated gun ownership (despite brutal killings in his state’s own schools), he attacks the rights of women with his restrictive abortion laws, he suppresses legislation that would support the LBGTQ+ community, and he seeks to diminish the plight of historically maltreated groups (like African Americans) with his attempts to bury the past.

In another high-profile example, the United States Supreme Court was constitutionally designed as a third arm of our democratic republic that was supposed to serve independently from the other Branches in an apolitical manner…now its majority is infested with contagious sociopathy. In just the last year (and weeks), they sociopathically overturned Roe v. Wade and severely undercut women’s healthcare rights, ruled in favor of discrimination, and ruled against students struggling under the mountain of student debt…all while facing accusations of improper gifts, hypocrisy, and politicization…in other words, with contagious sociopathy.

The third group with contagious sociopathy are the passive enablers of widespread acts of manipulation and cruelty ranging from long-serving, establishment leaders like Senator Mitch McConnell all the way to the throngs of people clad in Confederate flags and MAGA idolatry whose inaction and permissiveness serves as a large-scale perti dish by which contagious sociopathy can flourish. It cannot go without mentioning that the processes of cultism are at play here as well....>

<....It should be noted that the term I have been using – contagious sociopathy – is not mutually exclusive from what we have been observing with the perversion of Christian thought to suit sociopathic behaviors and the rise of fascism in the U.S. (Ruth Ben-Ghiat has written extensively on the latter). In addition, and in no way trying to simplify or underestimate the factors underlying American racism, the racist platforms of the far Right and GOP, have provided a type of currency by which contagious sociopathy can spread – many have argued that the ascension of Donald Trump allowed closeted racists to become public racists. Racism includes the antisocial tendencies of demeaning, manipulating and harming others without remorse as a key feature.

One cannot talk about contagious sociopathy without considering righteousness – a term describing the phenomenon by which malicious acts – including harming and killing others – are justified as long as the bad actor can consider the ‘victims’ to be an enemy. This is a bedrock of the Trump and MAGA attacks on the Left and any that criticize or oppose them.

I have written and said it before and I will do so again: The contagious spread of sociopathy has provided us with potential and actual leaders who embody the worst that humanity has to offer according to moral, legal, religious/spiritual, and societal norms…and they continue to run on this platform.>

<By any fair measure, Justice Clarence Thomas was already one of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most controversial members, even before this year got underway. But in recent months, the far-right jurist has faced a series of ethics questions that he and his allies have struggled to answer.

Over the last three months, ProPublica has taken the lead on exposing Thomas’ unusual and previously undisclosed ties to a Republican megadonor. Over the weekend, The New York Times took the story considerably further.

At the heart of the story is an organization with a name that’s probably unfamiliar to most Americans, but which counts among its members an exclusive group of powerful and wealthy elites.

According to the Times’ account, which has not been independently verified by MSNBC or NBC News, it was quite a pairing, as the Supreme Court justice found a home alongside “a cluster of extraordinarily wealthy, largely conservative members who lionized him.”

The non-profit organization, which awards scholarships and promotes members’ “economic opportunity” ideals, has benefited from the association with Thomas. From the article:

Just so we’re clear, when the Times mentioned “the courtroom,” it was referring specifically to the Supreme Court’s interior chamber where justices sit and hear oral arguments.

“The association has used access to the court ceremony and related events in the annual gathering to raise money for scholarships and other programming, according to fund-raising records reviewed by The Times,” the article added.

As for Thomas, he’s received benefits of his own, beyond simply enjoying the camaraderie of likeminded allies who were eager to celebrate him. The Times’ account highlighted the degree to which the justices’ associations with the association’s members “brought him proximity to a lifestyle of unimaginable material privilege.”

The result was relationships in which Thomas’ Horatio Alger friends “have welcomed him at their vacation retreats, arranged V.I.P. access to sporting events and invited him to their lavish parties.”

Remember, over the last few months, the Supreme Court justices’ principal problem was his relationship with Texas billionaire Harlan Crow, and the generosity the GOP megadonor has shown Thomas. But what the Times appears to have uncovered is a similar problem multiplied several times: Thomas “has received benefits — many of them previously unreported — from a broader cohort of wealthy and powerful friends,” thanks to his connections established through the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans.

Among the benefits: In 2016, an HBO film brought Anita Hill’s allegations against Thomas back to the fore. Soon after, a documentary titled “Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words,” designed to defend the justice, was released.

It was financed in part by Thomas’ Horatio Alger pals.

The justice has not yet responded to the allegations raised by the Times.>

<Special counsel Jack Smith is reportedly looking into former President Donald Trump's interest in seizing voting machines as part of his effort to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Investigators want to know whether the former president chose to buy into baseless claims by Sidney Powell and Michael Flynn that alleged problems with the voting machines as a pretext to send the election back to Republican-controlled state governments, reported CBS News correspondent Robert Costa.

"I care about getting these machines," Trump said, according to Costa's previous reporting for the book Peril. "I want to get these machines and I have a right to do so under [the National Emergencies Act]."

The special counsel is examining how Rudy Giuliani, who has recently been interviewed by federal prosecutors and despised Powell and her allies, tried to pressure states to refuse to certify President Joe Biden's election win as Powell and Flynn were pressing Trump to seize voting machines.

"As [the special counsel] explores whether there was provable criminal intent, it's becoming, at the least, a wide-ranging probe exploring how plots to overturn election developed, the sources said," Costa reported. "Whereas Rudy wanted to push states to have special sessions, the Powell group wanted [federal] power."

Smith's team is asking witnesses whether Trump allies knew at the time that the alternate electors scheme was fraudulent and that there were no problems with voting machines, and prosecutors want to know how these efforts fit into the scheme to pressure then-vice president Mike Pence to interfere with the certification of Biden's win at the Jan. 6, 2021, joint session of Congress.

"So while [the] 'use Pence' scheme is certainly also key part of probe, [the special counsel's] team clearly asking questions about WHAT ELSE was considered, how, and WHEN did Trump mention it and why, and how did he respond to [attorneys]?" Costa reported. "[Alternate] electors, seizing voting machines, pressuring state officials, etc."

Several individuals who were present for an infamous Dec. 18, 2020, meeting in the Oval Office have been cooperating with the Jan. 6 probe and have reportedly said they knew that Powell's suggestions were not true or legal, and investigators are examining Trump's response to that guidance from his attorneys to show his motivations and conduct.

Costa reported that none of his sources with knowledge of the investigation can say with confidence whether Smith will seek indictments or write up a report on that evidence, but they all agree the probe appears to be "serious.">

<The whirlwind weekend in late April that saw the country's biggest bank take over its most troubled regional lender marked the end of one wave of problems — and the start of another.

After emerging with the winning bid for First Republic, a lender to rich coastal families that had $229 billion in assets, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon delivered the soothing words craved by investors after weeks of stomach-churning volatility: "This part of the crisis is over."

But even as the dust settles from a string of government seizures of failed midsized banks, the forces that sparked the regional banking crisis in March are still at play.

Rising interest rates will deepen losses on securities held by banks and motivate savers to pull cash from accounts, squeezing the main way these companies make money. Losses on commercial real estate and other loans have just begun to register for banks, further shrinking their bottom lines. Regulators will turn their sights on midsized institutions after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank exposed supervisory lapses.

What is coming will likely be the most significant shift in the American banking landscape since the 2008 financial crisis. Many of the country's 4,672 lenders will be forced into the arms of stronger banks over the next few years, either by market forces or regulators, according to a dozen executives, advisors and investment bankers who spoke with CNBC.

"You're going to have a massive wave of M&A among smaller banks because they need to get bigger," said the co-president of a top six U.S. bank who declined to be identified speaking candidly about industry consolidation. "We're the only country in the world that has this many banks."

How'd we get here?

To understand the roots of the regional bank crisis, it helps to look back to the turmoil of 2008, caused by irresponsible lending that fueled a housing bubble whose collapse nearly toppled the global economy.

The aftermath of that earlier crisis brought scrutiny on the world's biggest banks, which needed bailouts to avert disaster. As a result, it was ultimately institutions with $250 billion or more in assets that saw the most changes, including annual stress tests and stiffer rules governing how much loss-absorbing capital they had to keep on their balance sheets.

Non-giant banks, meanwhile, were viewed as safer and skirted by with less federal oversight. In the years after 2008, regional and small banks often traded for a premium to their bigger peers, and banks that showed steady growth by catering to wealthy homeowners or startup investors, like First Republic and SVB, were rewarded with rising stock prices. But while they were less complex than the giant banks, they were not necessarily less risky.

The sudden collapse of SVB in March showed how quickly a bank could unravel, dispelling one of the core assumptions of the industry: the so-called stickiness of deposits. Low interest rates and bond-purchasing programs that defined the post-2008 years flooded banks with a cheap source of funding and lulled depositors into leaving cash parked at accounts that paid negligible rates.

"For at least 15 years, banks have been awash in deposits and with low rates, it cost them nothing," said Brian Graham, a banking veteran and co-founder of advisory firm Klaros Group. "That's clearly changed."

'Under stress'

After 10 straight rate hikes and with banks making headline news again this year, depositors have moved funds in search of higher yields or greater perceived safety. Now it's the too-big to-fail-banks, with their implicit government backstop, that are seen as the safest places to park money. Big bank stocks have outperformed regionals. JPMorgan shares are up 7.6% this year, while the KBW Regional Banking Index is down more than 20%.

That illustrates one of the lessons of March's tumult. Online tools have made moving money easier, and social media platforms have led to coordinated fears over lenders. Deposits that in the past were considered "sticky," or unlikely to move, have suddenly become slippery. The industry's funding is more expensive as a result, especially for smaller banks with a higher percentage of uninsured deposits. But even the megabanks have been forced to pay higher rates to retain deposits.

Some of those pressures will be visible as regional banks disclose second-quarter results this month. Banks including Zions and KeyCorp told investors last month that interest revenue was coming in lower than expected, and Deutsche Bank analyst Matt O'Connor warned that regional banks may begin slashing dividend payouts.

JPMorgan kicks off bank earnings Friday.

"The fundamental issue with the regional banking system is the underlying business model is under stress," said incoming Lazard CEO.....>

<...."Some of these banks will survive by being the buyer rather than the target. We could see over time fewer, larger regionals."

Walking wounded

Compounding the industry's dilemma is the expectation that regulators will tighten oversight of banks, particularly those in the $100 billion to $250 billion asset range, which is where First Republic and SVB slotted.

"There's going to be a lot more costs coming down the pipe that's going to depress returns and pressure earnings," said Chris Wolfe, a Fitch banking analyst who previously worked at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

"Higher fixed costs require greater scale, whether you're in steel manufacturing or banking," he said. "The incentives for banks to get bigger have just gone up materially."

Half of the country's banks will likely be swallowed by competitors in the next decade, said Wolfe.

While SVB and First Republic saw the greatest exodus of deposits in March, other banks were wounded in that chaotic period, according to a top investment banker who advises financial institutions. Most banks saw a drop in first-quarter deposits below about 10%, but those that lost more than that may be troubled, the banker said.

"If you happen to be one of the banks that lost 10% to 20% of deposits, you've got problems," said the banker, who declined to be identified speaking about potential clients. "You've got to either go raise capital and bleed your balance sheet or you've got to sell yourself" to alleviate the pressure.

A third option is to simply wait until the bonds that are underwater eventually mature and roll off banks' balance sheets – or until falling interest rates ease the losses.

But that could take years to play out, and it exposes banks to the risk that something else goes wrong, such as rising defaults on office loans. That could put some banks into a precarious position of not having enough capital.

'False calm'

In the meantime, banks are already seeking to unload assets and businesses to boost capital, according to another veteran financials banker and former Goldman Sachs partner. They are weighing sales of payments, asset management and fintech operations, this banker said.

"A fair number of them are looking at their balance sheet and trying to figure out, `What do I have that I can sell and get an attractive price for'?" the banker said.

Banks are in a bind, however, because the market isn't open for fresh sales of lenders' stock, despite their depressed valuations, according to Lazard's Orszag. Institutional investors are staying away because further rate increases could cause another leg down for the sector, he said.

Orszag referred to the last few weeks as a "false calm" that could be shattered when banks post second-quarter results. The industry still faces the risk that the negative feedback loop of falling stock prices and deposit runs could return, he said.

"All you need is one or two banks to say, 'Deposits are down another 20%' and all of a sudden, you will be back to similar scenarios," Orszag said. "Pounding on equity prices, which then feeds into deposit flight, which then feeds back on the equity prices."....>

<....Deals on the horizon

It will take perhaps a year or longer for mergers to ramp up, multiple bankers said. That's because acquirers would absorb hits to their own capital when taking over competitors with underwater bonds. Executives are also looking for the "all clear" signal from regulators on consolidation after several deals have been scuttled in recent years.

While Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has signaled an openness to bank mergers, recent remarks from the Justice Department indicate greater deal scrutiny on antitrust concerns, and influential lawmakers including Sen. Elizabeth Warren oppose more banking consolidation.

When the logjam does break, deals will likely cluster in several brackets as banks seek to optimize their size in the new regime.

Banks that once benefited from being below $250 billion in assets may find those advantages gone, leading to more deals among midsized lenders. Other deals will create bulked-up entities below the $100 billion and $10 billion asset levels, which are likely regulatory thresholds, according to Klaros co-founder Graham.

Bigger banks have more resources to adhere to coming regulations and consumers' technology demands, advantages that have helped financial giants including JPMorgan steadily grow earnings despite higher capital requirements. Still, the process isn't likely to be a comfortable one for sellers.

But distress for one bank means opportunity for another. Amalgamated Bank, a New York-based institution with $7.8 billion in assets that caters to unions and nonprofits, will consider acquisitions after its stock price recovers, according to CFO Jason Darby.

"Once our currency returns to a place where we feel it's more appropriate, we'll take a look at our ability to roll up," Darby said. "I do think you'll see more and more banks raising their hands and saying, `We're looking for strategic partners' as the future unfolds.">

<Government censorship is anathema to our democratic principles, regardless of party affiliation or belief.

The attorneys general of two conservative-run states are accusing the Biden administration of just that in a lawsuit with potentially major repercussions for Americans’ free speech rights. And last week, a federal judge handed them a significant, if temporary, win.

US District Judge Terry Doughty, in a preliminary injunction that was as sweeping as it was vexing, barred the Biden administration and other government officials on Tuesday from communicating with social media and tech companies about taking down certain “content containing protected free speech.”

The lawsuit, filed by attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana, accused the administration of attempting to silence a raft of conservative speakers by leaning on social media platforms such as Meta, Twitter, YouTube/Google, TikTok and others to take down content on hot-button issues.

Most of the social media posts had to do with combating Covid-19, including posts challenging the efficacy of vaccines and raising questions about mask mandates.

A White House official defended the administration last week, saying that “social media platforms have a critical responsibility to take account of the effects their platforms are having on the American people, but make independent choices about the information they present.”

Last week’s court order noted that the government can still communicate with the companies as part of efforts to curb illegal activity and address national security threats.

The order, representing the plaintiffs’ most significant victory to date in the year-old lawsuit, is intended to prevent the government from “censoring” speakers with whom it disagrees. Invoking the “c” word, however, requires more of a showing than we have seen thus far.

Although the censorship issue understandably grabs our attention, the opinion failed to address several other constitutional and legal questions regarding issues of standing — whether the plaintiffs or the states should be eligible to litigate — and whether anyone suffered tangible harm.

Meanwhile, Doughty’s 155-page memorandum in support of the injunction — lengthy and laden with hyperbole — framed the issue as “arguably … the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.” But it fell short of some key specifics regarding whether the government’s actions as alleged would have violated the plaintiffs’ free speech rights.

Since the case was filed in May 2022, the plaintiffs asserted a broad definition of what constitutes censorship. Strictly speaking, censorship requires government action to remove content from the public or otherwise silence a speaker.

History is replete with examples of unconstitutional acts of government censorship, including book and film bans, and prosecutions based on political or dissident speech. Over the years, courts have intervened in some cases and turned a blind eye to censorship in others.

In Missouri v. Biden, the plaintiffs argued that government officials’ actions — which included challenging false and questionable content directly or meeting with social media companies to encourage them to take down such content — constituted both outright censorship or unreasonable government coercion. They argued that the government strong-armed the private tech companies to take down content or deplatform speakers.

Despite voluminous court filings and last week’s lengthy decision, it is far from clear that the administration’s conduct amounted to censorship.

The preliminary evidence filed in the case details some meetings and critical exchanges, as well as criticism levied by government officials, that appeared reasonable in questioning misstatements involving public health, Covid-19 policies and other issues.

The Republican state attorneys general argue that the Biden administration ran afoul of the First Amendment by threatening legal action against the tech companies amid disputes over speech on the platforms.

But criticism by government officials and gentle requests to take down content — absent concrete administrative or prosecutorial action — goes far short of censorship.

And it’s worth noting for argument’s sake that even if the communications between government officials were acts of censorship, the Supreme Court has never held that First Amendment prohibitions on government censorship are absolute.

In two of the Supreme Court’s most vociferous declarations against censorship, Near v. Minnesota (1931) and New York Times v. United States (1971), the court held that prior restraints or censorship, while presumed to be unconstitutional, can be instituted in narrow and rare situations as long as the government has a proven compelling interest to justify its actions....>

<.....Those narrow settings tend to involve national security, contemporaneous military movements or specific threats to public safety. Asking that misinformation about public health be taken down, especially during a national emergency, could be one of those narrow scenarios.

Doughty’s injunction is just the latest in the battle over online speech. In the past two months, the Supreme Court issued two significant decisions on social media, refusing to hold social media companies liable for content posted on their platform by users that aided terrorism and other violence perpetrated by platform users.

In doing so, the court reaffirmed the relatively hands-off legal and regulatory framework that has facilitated the commercialization and mainstreaming of the internet for nearly three decades.

The controversy surrounding the court injunction comes against the backdrop of bipartisan displeasure with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a measure that immunizes digital platforms from liability for users’ postings.

The complaint cites occasions when the Biden administration threatened to take antitrust action against the companies over misinformation about Covid-19, vaccines and elections or undo Section 230, a legal shield that protects tech giants from lawsuits. This also falls short of actual censorship.

(During the 2020 presidential campaign, both Biden and then-President Donald Trump called for repealing Section 230, although for different reasons.)

Conservatives are dissatisfied with Section 230 because they feel it empowers social media platforms to discriminate against speakers based on their views, while liberals complain that it facilitates hate speech, speech inciting violence and other offensive content.

But the very existence of Section 230 underscores why this case against the Biden administration was lodged in the first place.

Without the government playing a heavy regulatory role, as it does with other forms of pervasive media such as broadcast television or radio, internet-based entities are free to make their own decisions about what they will or won’t publish.

The entire discussion underscores how important speech, debate and pushback against pronouncements we disagree with are to our democracy — and why it’s essential that this keystone of democracy is reinforced and protected by the First Amendment.

However this case plays out, it is sure to have far-reaching implications for how the government, and society at large, deals with content — particularly misinformation or disinformation.

The Department of Justice filed a notice of appeal to the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, so last week’s ruling won’t be the last word on this case — not in court, and most likely not in the court of public opinion either.>

<Larry Elder, the tough-on-crime conservative talk radio host and longshot Republican candidate for president, blew past a federal deadline for filing a personal financial disclosure report, Raw Story has learned.

The violation could result in a fine. But it’s unlikely Elder will pay much — if anything — because of notoriously weak enforcement of federal laws governing lawmakers’ mandatory personal financial disclosures.

In a letter to the Federal Election Commission dated July 7, Elder for President 24 treasurer David Satterfield acknowledged that Elder, who entered the race in April, should have filed the personal financial disclosure report by May 20. By the campaign’s own math, Elder is nearly two months late.

Elder’s letter pleads for leniency based on two novel arguments.

First, Elder didn’t know about the federal deadline, Satterfield said, or that he had the legal right to request two filing extensions.

“Had Mr. Elder been aware of this obligation and the ability to request extensions, the extensions would have been filed timely,” Satterfield said.

Therefore, Satterfield argued, the FEC should grant Elder the first of two 45-day extensions retroactively, then grant him a second extension that would ultimately give the candidate until Aug. 18 to compile his financial information.

The FEC obliged, granting the Elder campaign’s request.

Lisa J. Stevenson, FEC acting general counsel, wrote in a letter emailed to Satterfield on Monday that “based on good cause set forth in your letter,” the FEC will give Elder until Aug. 18 to file.

“The campaign applied for and was granted two 45-day extensions,” Elder campaign spokesperson Matt Ciepielowski confirmed to Raw Story.

Under federal law, presidential candidates must file signed, certified personal financial disclosure reports — detailing certain assets, income, debts and professional agreements for themselves and their spouses — within 30 days of becoming a candidate or by May 15 of a given calendar year, whichever comes later.

Elder’s late personal financial disclosures underscore the weak enforcement of federal candidate financial disclosure law, which is intended to defend against potential conflicts of interest and enhance transparency for the benefit of American voters.

While Elder could still face a $200 late-filing fine, particularly if federal regulators received a complaint about the candidate’s untimely disclosure, the financial pain would be minimal, and he’s unlikely to face any additional legal fallout.

During his presidential run, Elder has blasted “soft-on-crime” district attorneys and floated a crime-fighting proposal dubbed “Enforce the Law”.

Several other Republican presidential candidates, including Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis, asked for and received personal financial disclosure extensions around the May 15 deadline. Earlier this year, Trump himself was about a month late submitting an earlier financial disclosure — a footnote on the litany of legal troubles facing the former president, who’s leading all 2024 GOP presidential polls.

And although Elder says he was unaware of his personal financial disclosure requirements, the issue has been routinely making news for years. Hundreds of executive branch officials, dozens of members of Congress and Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have recently found themselves in varying degrees of trouble for personal financial disclosure failures of their own.

This is not the first time Elder has run into issues with disclosure of his personal finances related to a political campaign.

In September 2021, Elder failed to disclose that he held a stake in a company that bears his name as part of a statement of economic interests he was required to file with the state of California during his candidacy to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom during a failed recall campaign, according to the Los Angeles Times. At the time, a spokesperson responded by suggesting the campaign had made an oversight and that the filings would be quickly amended.

The newspaper also reported that Elder was initially excluded from the recall ballot because he failed to disclose five years of tax returns, but sued because he argued that the provision did not apply to recall elections. A judge sided with Elder, and waived the requirement for all candidates.>

<Farmers Insurance has limited new homeowners [sic] insurance policies in California, joining other major national insurance providers.

Farmers, the second-largest provider of homeowners insurance in the state, said it placed the cap on the number of policies in California effective July 3. The company cited high costs and wildfire risks.

“With record-breaking inflation, severe weather events, and reconstruction costs continuing to climb, we are focused on serving our customers while effectively managing our business,” Farmers Insurance said in a statement, adding it will limit the new policies “to a level consistent with the volume we projected to write each month before recent market changes.”

It’s getting harder and harder to find homeowners insurance in the states that are the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

Farmers’ shift follows decisions by State Farm and Allstate, two of America’s largest insurers. The companies said they will no longer write new homeowners [sic] policies in the state. Both cited wildfire risk as a reason for the move and blamed limits placed on insurance premiums in states like California. Insurance companies also say rising costs for labor and building costs make replacing homes costly.

“The cost to insure new home customers in California is far higher than the price they would pay for policies due to wildfires, higher costs for repairing homes, and higher reinsurance premiums,” said a statement from Allstate explaining its decision to stop writing new policies last fall.

Rising temperatures could increase the risk of extreme wildfires worldwide in the coming years, according to an analysis by the UN Environment Programme.>

<Rudy Giuliani is at it again with yet another wild rant, this time focused on what he considers a widespread endorsement of child sex trafficking from the left.

These wacky claims came from Giuliani’s appearance on the Monday edition of Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast. A clip from the interaction began circulating on Twitter via Patriot Takes.

During their interview, Giuliani mentioned that he finally got to see the new film Sound of Freedom. The faith-based film covers the topic of child sex trafficking and follows a federal agent on a quest to rescue children trapped in an abusive environment.

Although the movie has had mixed reactions, it’s raked in an impressive $40 million since its release a week ago.

The movie has been labeled “a box office triumph for QAnon believers,” by Rolling Stone magazine. And the film’s star, Jim Caviezel, has been linked to the movement.

But regardless of what kind of movies you prefer to watch, Giuliani suggested on Monday that if you have criticisms about this film, you’re part of the child trafficking problem.

“Everybody has to see that movie. And the left’s reaction to it is very, very telling that this goes a lot deeper than we realize. This whole perversion of our children. This is a sick thing that’s going on. When you attack a movie like this, there’s a motive for it,” Giuliani said.

“Amen,” Bannon replied.>

<Field trips in elementary school always had a particular kind of special sheen about them. On the days you were released from the jail cell of a classroom, everything seemed to feel different. Maybe you put on a sassy outfit. Perhaps you planned out with your friends where on the bus you would all sit. And if you were lucky, extra snacks made their way into the lunch box.

Sometimes, parents were equally as excited about the temporary break from the average day. That's how Megan felt about the time she chaperoned her son's second grade field trip to the zoo. She goes by @nagemlynn on TikTok, which is where Megan uploaded a video revealing a pretty big secret about that day. Let's file onto this bus two-by-two so we can head over to the whole story.

This mom thought they were going to a regular zoo, but she was wrong.

Megan really knows how to tell a story. Her son is now a junior in high school, so this tale is about eight years old back when he was in second grade. His class was going on a field trip to a zoo that was one state over, and about a 90-minute drive from the school. Both Megan and her mom were joining the class.

"When we get to this zoo, red flags start going up almost immediately because I start noticing there is creationist information in the lobby," Megan said. People who describe themselves as creationists believe the Earth was born from divine events versus evolution. This is why there are posters at this zoo "talking about how the Earth is 6,000 years old and the Bible is an accurate depiction of our history," she continued.

Megan was deeply upset by this because not only had she already paid for the field trip, but she was never told the zoo was a creationist zoo. She would have "never willingly done that." This wasn't the only forced religious hoopla to happen at her son's school.

Earlier that year, Megan's son was chosen to read the morning announcements over the school's intercom. It was random, but still felt like an honor. When her son came home with a script he needed to practice, Megan saw that the school "underlined and highlighted 'under God' and said that he must recite every single word in order to read the announcements."

Enough was enough, so Megan reached out to the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Megan suspected that what the school was doing was not OK, so she reached out to the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). According to their website, they "promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism." Guess what, the school was being very theistic.

After she explained what happened at the zoo, along with the bizarre emphasis on God in Pledge of Allegiance during morning announcements, the FFRF took action. "They ended up writing a letter to the school telling them it was illegal what they were doing," explained Megan. "They had to immediately stop going to that zoo, and they couldn't send out announcement paperwork like that."

Megan chose to remain anonymous but the gossip gears were turning!

Megan didn't want her identity known because she lived in a small town located in the Bible Belt, and was worried about her son's safety. "Our little town has a Facebook group called The Grapevine where everybody just posts what's happening around town," she said. "It ends up just really being s--- talking."

From this moment on, Megan was the s--- talk of the town, though no one knew it was her. The letter from the FFRF was posted in the group and, as Megan said, "People were upset." Sending out thoughts and prayers to those people.

Megan never told her mother about what she did, though it was mentioned at a family gathering. "They were all complaining about how dare the atheists ruin everything," Megan said with a coy smile. "I just sat there in silence because it was me and I was too scared to say anything to my own family." Thankfully Megan has since moved out of that town and into a place were people have actually evolved. We love evolution!>

<House Republicans on Monday unveiled voting legislation they say will make elections more secure, fulfilling a campaign promise that Democrats immediately criticized as rooted in former President Donald Trump's denial.

The House Administration Committee, which has jurisdiction over federal elections, chose the city of Atlanta as a backdrop to introduce the bill and hold a hearing, as they weigh in on a battle over access to the polls that has largely been playing out at a state level in recent years.

The committee chose Atlanta as a nod to Georgia’s 2021 voting law that added additional ID requirements for mail-in ballots, limited ballot drop boxes and barred people from bringing food and water to voters waiting in lines, among other changes. The bill drew a lawsuit from the Justice Department and national controversy, including a decision by Major League Baseball to pull the All-Star game out of Atlanta.

Critics said the Georgia law would make it harder to vote and disproportionately disenfranchise people of color. On Monday, the sponsor of the new House Republican bill, Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wisc., said that was a false narrative because voter turnout increased between 2020 and 2022. An analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice found that while overall voter turnout increased, so did the gap between white and nonwhite turnout. Nonwhite voter turnout declined between the 2018 and 2022 midterm elections, the Brennan Center found.

The House GOP bill makes certain federal changes to assist states with election administration, including by mandating that the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration give states access to voter data, free of charge, so they can remove non-citizens and dead people from voter rolls. It would also reform the REAL ID Act to require that people’s citizenship status be printed on identification documents like driver's licenses for the purposes of checking citizenship status at the polls. The bill also seeks to disincentivize states from allowing non-citizens to vote in local and state elections, by reducing their eligibility for grants under the Help America Vote Act.

“This legislation is the most substantive and conservative election integrity legislation that will come before the House in over a generation,” Steil said.

Lawmakers also took advantage of Congress’ control over Washington, D.C., to propose a host of changes in the bill to the city’s elections, seeking to make it an example of effective election administration. The new legislation would establish photo ID requirements, signature verification for mail ballots, a ban on same-day voter registration and on mailing ballots to anyone other than those who request them in the nation's capital. The bill would also repeal the city’s new law that allows non-citizens to vote in local elections.

New York Rep. Joe Morelle, the top Democrat on the committee, criticized Republicans for holding up Georgia’s SB 202 voting law as a model, saying it was only enacted because former President Trump lost the state of Georgia in 2020.

“The Big Lie origins of SB 202 mirror the Big Lie origins of the majority’s ACE Act. And the damaging effects of SB 202 on Georgia voters will be imposed upon all Americans if the ACE Act is enacted nationally,” he said.

Other sections of the bill make it easier for non-profit organizations engaged in politics to keep their donor lists private and remove some campaign finance regulations.

Even if it passes the House, the GOP elections legislation is all but certain to go nowhere in the Democratically-controlled Senate.

Democrats have also struggled to pass their own version of voting rights legislation that they say would expand voter access in the face of a filibuster by Senate Republicans.>

<There's no rhyme or reason to the given reasons for why the House Freedom Caucus ousted Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., last week. She should be right at home in a group established to draw the House GOP to the right. After all, she's one of the nuttiest members in historical memory, an avid fan of both right-wing conspiracy theories and nakedly fascist rhetoric. The claim that she's "too close" to Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., also doesn't make sense. As Politico's Rachel Bade told ABC News over the weekend, fellow Freedom Caucus member Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is one of McCarthy's "best friends." Plus, most of the 49 members of the caucus in January voted for McCarthy as speaker on the first ballot. Nor does it follow that she was booted for calling Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., a "little b*tch." Freedom Caucus members all worship at the altar of Donald "Grab 'Em By The P*ssy" Trump, and are neither offended by profanity nor misogyny.

No, there's a much simpler explanation for why this hyper-right congressional club kicked someone out for the very first time: Plain old sexism.

Greene's celebrity and ambition clearly alienate the mostly-male membership that still views women either as helpmeets or sex objects, not as equals. This resentment of Greene for trying to rise above her station isn't far from the surface in most coverage of the controversy. One member whined to CNN that Greene is "bigger than the group," while excusing Jordan's similar fame because "nobody has done more for the cause." Considering how Greene is a fundraising powerhouse for the GOP, this explanation for differential treatment falls apart.

Greene, like most Republican women, is deaf to the clear lesson here: Complicity will not protect you.

Sure, Republican men will make some space for someone like Boebert, but that's only because she's not a real threat. Boebert likes to get a lot of attention but doesn't have serious leadership ambitions. Greene has designs on being a real power player. She is swiftly discovering that Republican men like the glass ceiling exactly where it is.

Greene's celebrity and ambition clearly alienate the mostly-male membership that still views women either as helpmeets or sex objects, not as equals.

Recent years have borne witness to an increasingly shrill Republican panic over changing gender norms. It really took off under Trump, a proud sexual predator who even fantasizes out loud about sex with his own daughter. Yet many Republican women seemed shocked when the far-right Supreme Court actually made good on the threat to overturn Roe v. Wade. The subsequent wave of abortion bans has been politically unsettling for the party because it seems like it lost them a small but significant number of female voters who have had enough of the misogyny.

Sadly, however, most Republican women have stayed put, telling themselves that abortion bans won't affect them. Now even post-menopausal women are finding they aren't safe from the surge of overtly anti-woman policies embraced by the GOP.

Late last month, Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., signed a bill dramatically curtailing access to alimony and, in particular, ending permanent alimony. In doing so, he's siding with "men's rights" activists against the traditional conservative concerns about disincentivizing divorce and adultery. Notably, the people who will be most harmed by this are not feminist women who embrace "modern" lifestyle choices, such as getting an education and having a job outside the home. Typically, permanent alimony is awarded to women who tried to live a "traditional" lifestyle: Older women who spent decades as housewives and who have no marketable skills.

"I'm really disappointed because I'm a Republican who voted for Gov. Desantis," Camille Malone Fiveash told ABC Action News. She had been married for over 30 years before, she says, her husband cheated on her. "My ex-husband wanted me to stay home. He wanted to pursue his career and me to take care of the kids and keep the household and everything just perfect for him."

"I held up to my end of the bargain," she argued. Of course, the "bargain" was always a lie sold to women to get them to comply with an unfair system.....>