Donald Trump is not a popular leader as disapproval grows about how he mismanages the economy and immigration

Echo report published in Newsweek by Martha McHardy:

Donald Trump Finds His Approval Rating Sinking Once More

His approval rating on the economy is sinking,  meaning more people dissaprove, according to new polling. Pollster G. Elliott Morris' tracker shows that on the issue of the economy, Trump's approval rating is underwater by 15.75 points. That is down from -14.94 points on Monday.

When Morris' tracker first launched in January, Trump's approval rating on the economy was well above water, at +8.24 points.

On the issue of inflation, Trump's approval rating stands at -22.24 points. That is down from +1.99 points in January.
Why It Matters

While this downturn hasn't returned to the all-time low of -16.28 percent net approval recorded on May 8, the trend comes despite Trump's recent move to scale back the tariffs that saw his approval ratings plummet in April, amid economic anxiety.

That the numbers are falling again suggests voters remain unconvinced by the administration's course correction—and that concerns over rising prices, trade instability, and mixed signals from the White House continue to overshadow any efforts to reset the economic narrative.

What To Know: While Morris' tracker shows that Trump's approval rating on the economy is trending downward, pollster Nate Silver's tracker tells a somewhat different story.

Silver's tracker shows that in the past few days, Trump has been slightly trending upward on the economy, but still "under water", with his approval currently standing at -10 points, up from -11.3 points on June 1. Trump's approval is underwater on the economy, inflation and tariffs.

Nevertheless, similar to Morris' tracker, Silver's tracker shows that Trump's net approval rating on the economy has trended downwards dramatically since January, when it stood at +6 points.

The same trend occurs for Trump's net approval rating on inflation, which has trended upward in the past few days, from 19.7 on May 1 to 17.1 as of June 3, but has dropped from -6 points in January.

Individual polls show that Americans remain sharply divided over Trump's handling of the economy during his second term. While some surveys indicate modest approval, others reveal significant dissatisfaction—highlighting the ongoing polarization of public opinion on one of the administration's most critical issues.

Polling conducted between May 21 and June 2, 2025, indicates economic job approval ratings for Trump range from a low of 37 percent to a high of 47 percent, with disapproval rates consistently higher in most surveys.

The latest poll by AtlasIntel (May 21-27) shows Trump with just 42 percent approval on the economy and 54 percent disapproval, resulting in a net -12 percent rating. Similarly, RMG Research (May 28-29) recorded 44 percent approval and 55 percent disapproval, also yielding a net -11 percent score.

Other pollsters, like YouGov and John Zogby Strategies, reported a slightly narrower gap. Zogby's poll from May 28-29 showed a 46-50 percent split, or a net -4 percent, indicating a more divided sentiment among likely voters.

Only the Morning Consult poll a relatively neutral economic approval rating for the president, with 47 percent approving and 47 percent disapproving in its most recent surveys, conducted between May 30 and June 2. This suggests a degree of economic support stability, though not a clear advantage.

At the bottom end, the American Research Group poll (May 17-20) gave Trump just 37 percent approval compared to 60 percent disapproval, marking a net -23 percent—the steepest negative margin in the group.

Meanwhile, polls show that Trump continues to face strong headwinds on the issue of inflation, with net approval ratings on the topic deeply negative—despite attempts by his administration to scale back tariffs, having paused the majority of them.

Across national surveys conducted between May 1 and June 2, 2025, Trump's approval rating on inflation remains persistently low, ranging from just 31 percent to 44 percent. Disapproval consistently outpaces approval by double digits, with net ratings ranging from -7 percent (Harris/Harvard CAPS) to -32 percent (Verasight and Marquette Law School). In the most recent YouGov poll (May 30-June 2), just 39 percent approved of Trump's handling of inflation, while 54 percent disapproved—netting a -15 percent margin.

The latest data from Verasight and Marquette University underscore the depth of discontent: only 31 percent and 34 percent of respondents, respectively, approved of Trump's inflation policies, while roughly two-thirds disapproved. That puts Trump's net approval at -32 percent in both surveys, among the worst marks recorded in this cycle.

It comes after the pace of inflation slowed in April, the month that Trump introduced his tariffs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) said last month. The annual inflation rate was 2.3 percent in April, down from an annual rate of 2.4 percent March.

Meanwhile, consumer confidence saw a surprising increase in May. The Conference Board reported a rise to 98, much higher than both the expected 87.1 and April's 86 reading. It was the biggest one-month jump in more than a year.

Nonetheless, polls still show that voters don't trust Trump on the economy. In the latest Fox News poll from April, 72 percent said they were "very" or "extremely" worried about the economy entering a recession this year.

Republicans must reject Trump stupid tariffs and help restore confidence in the U.S. economy

Former Vice President Mike Pence, who served as vice president during Trump's first term, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, "The Trump Tariff Tax is the largest peacetime tax hike in U.S. history."

In facr, the tariffs were almost 10 times the size of those imposed during the Trump-Pence administration and would "cost American families over $3,500 per year."

'Bad Idea' 😕😢: Republicans Raise Alarm Over Donald Trump's Tariffs⚠️❗

#StupidTariffs harm middle class people and those who survive on fixed incomes because the increased taxes caused by tariffs outpace the financial ability for average Americans to keep sustainable revenue.  

Americans will hold back spending because of economc uncertainty.

Echo news report published in Newsweek by Kahleda Rahman.
Several Republicans have raised alarm about Donald Trump's tariffs, warning they will raise prices and derail the economy.

On Wednesday—which he called "Liberation Day"—Trump announced that he would impose higher tariff rates on dozens of nations that run trade surpluses with the United States.

Speaking in the White House Rose Garden, Trump said he would impose a 10 percent baseline tariff on imports from almost all countries and "reciprocal" tariffs on others, unveiling a chart showing higher duties on some of the U.S.'s most significant trading partners.

Trump said the tariffs would boost domestic manufacturing, bring in revenue and restore fairness to global trade.

Nevertheless, many economists warned that the plan can push the economy into a recession and that American consumers would end up shouldering the burden of the tariffs, as importers passed on costs in the form of 💰 higher prices. 

Later on Wednesday, the Senate passed a resolution by a 51-48 vote that would end Trump's emergency declaration on fentanyl trafficking underpinning his tariffs on Canada. Four Republican senators—Susan Collins, Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski and Rand Paul—voted with Democrats, highlighting cracks in GOP support for Trump's economic plans.

Still, unfortunately,😖😰 the legislation has little chance of passing the Republican-controlled House and being signed by Trump.

#ResistanceNeeded

DonOLD Trump Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden shows people leaving in videos

Whatever happened to Lindsey Graham❓ . He said "whaaaaa❓"  Lindsey Graham urges voters to "reject" generals' critical views of Trump

Madison Square Garden in 1939

Ahead of Donald Trump's campaign rally at Madison Square Garden in New York one GOP strategist Doug Heye critiqued the former president for holding one in a state where he trails Vice President Kamala Harris by double digits, calling it "wasted time." (Published in Newsweek by Natalie Venegas) 

As Election Day quickly approaches, the race between Trump, the GOP nominee, and Harris, the Democratic nominee, remains extremely tight, with the outcome largely depending on swing states, as both candidates continue campaigning across the country.

While New York is a reliably blue state, and Democratic candidates typically win statewide easily because of massive margins in New York City, Trump has continued to campaign there as he has held several other campaign events including rallies in the Bronx and Nassau County on Long Island.

"Whether you're talking about Donald Trump or Kamala Harris, I'd say time spent out of the seven key states that are the swing states that could turn this election by and large is wasted time. 

Your time is better spent in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Nevada, Arizona et cetera than it is in Texas or in Washington, D.C. or in New York," Heye, a former communications director for the Republican National Committee (RNC), said on Sunday in an interview with CNN's Rahel Solomon.

Heye explained that while the rally will likely get coverage, it may fall short of reaching young male voters, a group Trump has recently aimed to reach.

"But with this Trump event yes, it's gonna get a lot of coverage––although a lot of people, especially young males, who Trump wants to win with big margins, will probably be watching football 🏉...Every political campaign that you're on, there's always some event that makes staff sort of scratch their heads 😖and say 'Why are we doing this in this way❓" and the answer is always to scratch that itch that a candidate has."

Donald Trump lost his legal team while he received a majority of GOP Iowa causus largely Evangelical votes

Donald's Iowa Victory with Evangelicals is Undermined

Donald Trump's niece, Mary Trump, has said his convincing win in the Iowa caucuses has been "undermined" by departures from his legal team.  Echo news reported by Mary Trump in Newsweek.

Joseph Tacopina withdrew as a lawyer for the former president ahead of representing him in two major cases in New York. This occurred on the same day Trump romped home with over 50 percent (but with only 56,000 caucus voters) of the vote among Republican supporters in Iowa.

Three lawyers from the firm Tacopina, Seigel & DeOreo are dropping out, which Mary Trump said on her Substack page could have a "devastating impact on a case."

In a blog post titled "Donald's Iowa Victory Undermined" she said: "There are a few reasons why the loss of counsel is a major set back for any defense. Typically, legal counsel develops a theory of the case in order to help guide preparation. This close to trial, lawyers will have spent hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours compiling evidence and gaining an understanding of the nuances of the case.

"New lawyers might not have to start from scratch, but catching up would be a difficult task."

There is no love lost between Mary Trump and her uncle. Her 2020 memoir, Too Much and Never Enough, was critical of Donald Trump.

A high turnover of lawyers for the former president is not unusual, and he is used to seeing his legal team grow and shrink.

He replaced his top defense lawyer Drew Findling with attorney Steve Sadow, only a matter of hours before he was arraigned in a separate criminal case in Georgia in August last year.

But Tacopina's withdrawal comes on the eve of one major civil case and two months before a criminal trial.

The attorney was set to argue on behalf of the 45th president in a criminal case in Manhattan regarding alleged hush money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. 

A request to withdraw their services was filed in court by Tacopina, Chad D. Seigel and Matthew G. DeOreo on January 15.

Trump is alleged to have attempted to hide Daniels' claims they had an affair and used false business records to cover up the payments. He pleaded not guilty in the case and says the 34 felony counts against him are politically motivated.

The second case will determine the amount💲 Trump must pay journalist E. Jean Carroll, who accused Trump of rape.

She was awarded 💲5 million last year by a jury that found Trump sexually assaulted and defamed her. 

Carroll is seeking $10 million in additional damages.

It is not immediately clear why Tacopina has dropped out of Trump's legal team. Newsweek approached him and a spokesperson for Trump via email for comment.

Former federal prosecutor Michael McAuliffe told Newsweek there could be a "number of reasons" behind the decision by Tacopina, Seigel & DeOreo.

"The attorney-client relationship might have suffered a fundamental breach of confidence, running in either or both directions," he said. "A strong-willed client who thinks he or she is more of a lawyer than the actual lawyer can create an untenable scenario for that lawyer to continue representing the client's interests."

He added that a failure of payment could also be the reason, but there is no current evidence for this and Tacopina did not cite a reason behind his decision.

Rolling Stone reported in April last year that Tacopina had irritated other members of the Republican presidential candidate's legal team.

A source close to Trump called him a "loudmouth" and "dumb."

A difference of opinion could also have been behind the split. Under advice from his lawyers, including Tacopina, Trump did not testify in the previous civil trial brought by Carroll.

In December last year, Trump said on his Truth Social media platform that choosing not to testify was "not good advice."

(HELLO?  Can Trump spell "perjury"- i.e., willfully telling an untruth while under oath?  Oh, right, 😕😢Trump is delusional believes he is "above the law". OMG❗)

Antisemitism is the Hamas terrorist obsession

Essay echo by Menachem Z. Rosensaft published in Newsweek 

Hamas Terrorists Have Genocide In Their Hearts. They Say So Themselves | Opinion

Even in the dumbed down age of social media sound bites, certain realities should serve as a wakeup call to anyone with an IQ in the triple digits who has not imbibed the Kool Aid of the immutably anti-Israel, anti-Zionist extreme political left. 

One of these fundamental truths is that Hamas is, has always been, and will always be a genocidal terrorist organization.

And yet, as inevitably as morning following the night, perceived political correctness far too often overrides not just common sense but fundamental decency. This explains why the Harvard students who wrote a public letter blaming Israel for Hamas' Oct. 7 barbaric slaughter of more than 1,200 Israeli—read Jewish—men, women, and children epitomize the antisemitic quagmire prevalent at far too many universities and colleges.

"We, the undersigned student organizations," they wrote, "hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence."

Not a single mention of the Hamas terrorists who rained down thousands of rockets on innocent civilians and who hunted down and literally slaughtered entire families sheltering in their homes. 

Not an iota of compassion for infants butchered together with their mothers or for the teenagers machine-gunned to death at a music festival. Not even a hesitation that raping and sexually abusing women and girls might not be in accordance with Harvard's vaunted code of conduct. Not a moment of self-doubt that violently taking hostages, including an elderly Holocaust survivor in a wheelchair, and threatening to execute them violates every norm of civilized behavior. The only concern of these Harvard would-be savants is for what they call "the Palestinian ordeal." Their perverse world view does not include even an afterthought for the ordeal of murdered, kidnapped, and terrorized Jews. This is antisemitism on steroids.

Blaming the victims while ignoring the crimes of the perpetrators follows the much overused playbook of a host of anti-semites and genocide deniers, following the lead of the German ultranationalist historian and politician Heinrich von Treitschke who first used the phrase "The Jews are our calamity" (Die Juden sind unser Unglück) in an 1879 essay. It is a technique perfected by Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels who justified the persecution, oppression, and mass murder of Jews by attacking Jews as archenemies of, and threats to, Germany.

And then there is Harvard University President Claudine Gay, who waited three days to distance the university from the student groups' statement without, however, condemning or even affirmatively rebuking its authors. Gay wrote that "while our students have the right to speak for themselves, no student group—not even 30 student groups—speaks for Harvard University or its leadership." I am confident that her language would have been considerably less mealy-mouthed had she been confronted with student groups endorsing the Ku Klux Klan or espousing misogynistic sentiments. But bashing Jews and Israel does not warrant more than a slap on the wrist, and a weak one at that.

Contrast Gay's namby-pamby (for lack of a better phrase) reaction to that of former Harvard President Lawrence Summers. "In nearly 50 years of @Harvard affiliation, I have never been as disillusioned and alienated as I am today," he wrote on Monday on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, adding, "I am sickened. I cannot fathom the administration's failure to disassociate the university and condemn this statement."

Or, for that matter, contrast Gay's reticence with Jens Ohlin, the dean of Cornell Law School (where I teach) who wrote that the Hamas "terrorist attacks were egregious and shocking violations of human dignity and cannot be justified in any context." These are the very sentiments that needed to be expressed and heard.

The Harvard students hardly stand alone in their abhorrent willingness to cast Hamas as freedom fighters rather than bloodthirsty terrorists. Equally offensive statements blaming Israel and effectively applauding Hamas abound at other universities and colleges too numerous to list. Take Ryna Workman, the president of the NYU Law Student Bar Association who sent a message to "y'all" expressing "my unwavering and absolute solidarity with Palestinians in their resistance against oppression toward liberation and self-determination. Israel bears full responsibility for this tremendous loss of life. . .. I will not condemn Palestinian resistance."

Is that what cutting the throats of babies is? Resistance? Really?

Columbia University's Students for Justice in Palestine, meanwhile, saw fit to sanitize Hamas' onslaught as nothing more than a "counter-offensive against their settler-colonial oppressor," crassly implying a moral equivalency between the killers and their victims. And the University of Virginia chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine considers the atrocities perpetrated by Hamas to be nothing more than "a step towards a free Palestine.... We stand in solidarity with Palestinian resistance fighters...."

I do not mean to suggest that praise or support of Hamas is limited to academia. "I grieve the Palestinian and Israeli lives lost yesterday, today, and every day," declared Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), ascribing responsibility for Saturday's carnage exclusively to Israel without bothering to acknowledge that the Israeli "lives lost" were innocent men, women, and children while the Palestinians in question were genocidal killers.

These are only a very few examples of a pervasive mindset rooted in either deep-rooted ignorance or a willingness to condone genocidal actions and other crimes against humanity as acceptable means to an end.

To quote Charles Schulz's immortal Charlie Brown, "Aargh!"

Lost in the sophistry of disingenuous attempts at evenhandedness is the self-evident truth that Hamas has never wavered from its determination to perpetrate the genocide of Jews living in Israel.

I am not making this up.

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it," reads the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, more commonly known as the Hamas Covenant, adopted on Aug. 18, 1988. Replete with antisemitic tropes, the Covenant asserts as a premise that "Israel, Judaism, and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people." Quoting from the Quran, it warns "those who believe not, Ye shall be overcome, and thrown together into hell." The Charter makes abundantly clear that Hamas is determined not just to obliterate the State of Israel but to ravage and kill the Jews living there as it did on Oct. 7.

Hamas leaders have reiterated this non-negotiable intention repeatedly over the years. "Palestine is Islamic, and not an Islamic emirate, from the river to the sea, that unites the Palestinians," declared Khalil al-Hayya, a member of Hamas' politburo, in 2010. "Jews have no right in it, with the exception of those who lived on the land of Palestine before World War I." Two years later, Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, a co-founder of Hamas who was killed in 2004, reiterated the organization's genocidal goals. "By God," he said, "we will not leave one Jew in Palestine. We will fight them with all the strength we have. This is our land, not the Jews' ..."

This year marks the 75th anniversary of the adoption of the Genocide Convention by the United Nations General Assembly. It defines the crime of genocide as any of a number of delineated acts (including murder) "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." There can be no doubt whatsoever that Hamas intends to destroy–that is, kill or forcibly evict–virtually all if not all Jews living in the State of Israel. This falls four-square into the Convention's definition of genocide.

I write these words as a lifelong Zionist (I am a past national president of the Labor Zionist Alliance) and as someone who has been an active and outspoken supporter of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process for more than 35 years. I categorically support the right of the Palestinians to a state of their own alongside Israel, which I firmly believe to be the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I also know from countless discussions with Palestinians over the years that Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people as a whole any more than the Bosnian Serbs who perpetrated a genocide against Bosnian Muslims in July 1995 represent the Bosnian Serb people as a whole.

I stand in awe of Israeli Arabs such as journalist Lucy Aharish who has declared unambiguously that "we," including first and foremost herself, "are under an attack of a brutal, barbaric, inhumane terror organization—not an entity, not a government, not a leadership, but a terror organization. Hamas murdered and slaughtered in cold blood innocent babies, children, elderly, women, and men. In their homes, in their beds."

Hamas must also not be lumped together with the Palestinian Authority which seeks to arrive at a political compromise with Israel. Despite the raw emotions in the aftermath of the Hamas carnage, we should not lose sight of the fact that in the long run, eventually, a negotiated solution, which will inevitably have to be a two-state solution, will have to be reached with those Palestinians who do not identify with Hamas.

But all this does not change the fact that Hamas is a genocidal terrorist organization that must now be eradicated or at least rendered permanently powerless if there is to be any hope for peace in the Middle East.

With a wartime "unity" cabinet that includes former Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff and Defense Minister Benny Gantz in place, Israel is about to embark on an existentialist war against what President Biden unequivocally and accurately termed the "pure, unadulterated evil" embodied by Hamas. As this war, which will inevitably cost thousands of lives, is waged, it is critical for us bear in mind at all times, to quote from Winston Churchill's first speech as Britain's prime minister on May 13, 1940, that Israel's goal, and civilization's goal, for that matter, is and must be "victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."

Menachem Z. Rosensaft is adjunct professor of law at Cornell Law School, lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School, and general counsel emeritus of the World Jewish Congress. He is the author of Poems Born in Bergen-Belsen (Kelsay Books, 2021).

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has a lot of ERCOT electric capaciy etxplaining to do

ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas 😕😆 ) said there was "high potential" for emergency operations, which in a worst-case scenario, involves the implementation of rolling power outages.  

(Maine Writer- to summarize what's wrong with the Abbott-ERCOT political bond, think monopoly. ERCOT has a monopoly on its customers (although El Paso is exempt) and Abbott thinks the failed electric utility is keeping the government regulators out of Texas.  Monopolies typically lead to corruption driven by greed and blocking US government oversight of the ERCOT failed electric grid is causing harm to average Texans, who have nowhere to go for their energy needs. The citizens are stuck with what Abbott has given to ERCOT. Oddly enough, because Texas is anti-government regulators, the freedom from oversight  allowed alternative energy generators to prosper! Of course, that outcome was never Abbott's intention, so he doesn't talk much about this alternative.)

Published on August 25, 2023, in RawStory by Sky Palma:

People in Texas are once again being told to prepare for rolling blackouts, prompting criticism of the state's governor, Greg Abbott, Newsweek reported.

Texans were asked on Thursday to cut down on their energy usage as experts said the high demand for power in the extreme heat could cause problem with the state's power grid.

"Avoiding the reach of federal regulators, Texas has long operated on a lone grid that is separated from the rest of the country," Newsweek's report stated. "Although the state has been able to remain exempt from federal rules, its power grid has run into issues being disconnected from the nation's other grids, meaning Texas cannot access power from other states, even in times of emergency."

Texans took to social media to slam Abbott.

"Greg Abbott has turned Texas into a developing country, routinely worried about rolling blackouts," Karthik Soora, a candidate for Texas' state Senate, wrote on X.

"Texas Republicans have been too busy banning abortions, attacking trans kids, and banning books by Black authors in schools to fix the electric grid," wrote Rebecca Marques, who runs the progressive media company Texas Signal.

While the extreme weather becomes a more frequent occurrence, the Texas grid has repeatedly become strained by heat and storms. Each time, Abbott has drawn outrage from residents who have urged him to act to prevent chaos over future energy problems.

Attorney Sara Spector posted on X: "Breaking: just got alert in TX that our energy grid is failing ! Great job Greg Abbott on fixing that grid!" alongside a caption of the ERCOT warning.

Alphabetical list of Democratic unity principles

Echo report published in Newsweek by James Bickerton:

A video of Rep. Hakeem Jeffries handing the post of House Speaker to Kevin McCarthy has gone viral on social media, being viewed more than 2.4 million times.  YouTube video at this site here.

On Friday the Republican McCarthy was elected speaker on the 15th ballot, following four days of gridlock in the lower chamber.

In the end 216 Republicans voted for McCarthy versus 212 Democrats for Jeffries, while six Republicans voted "present."

Previously McCarthy had been blocked by a group of around 20 right-wing Republicans, making this the longest election for speaker since 1859, when 44 ballots were required.

Conceding the election Jeffries extended "our hand of partnership" to McCarthy, adding: "We extend, and intend, to try and find common ground, whenever and wherever possible, on behalf of the American people."

However, Jeffries warned the Democrats will "never compromise our principles," and proceeded to list those principles with one offered for each of the 26 letters in the alphabet.

He began: "We'll always put American values over autocracy, benevolence over bigotry, the constitution over the cult, democracy over demagogues, economic opportunity over extremism, freedom over fascism."

Continuing in this style until the letter z he said: "Reason over racism, substance over slander, triumph over tyranny, understanding over ugliness, voting rights over voter suppression, working families over the well-connected, xenial (hospitable, especially to visiting strangers or foreigners) over xenophobia, "yes we can" over "you can't do it" and zealous representation over zero sum confrontation."

A clip of the speech was posted on Twitter by user 'BrooklynDad_Defiant,' a self-described Democrat supporter.

He wrote: "HOLY S***, my man Rep. Hakeem Jeffries actually schooled these fools alphabetically!"

The video received more than 1.7 million views, along with 19,500 retweets and 86,000 likes.

Another clip of the speech was tweeted out by Huffington Post journalist Philip Lewis, who wrote: "Hakeem Jeffries just went from A thru Z in his speech."

This clip was viewed more than 500,000 times, receiving over 23,000 likes.

Reacting to his election on Friday, Speaker McCarthy joked: "That was easy, huh?" (❗)

He continued: "My father always told me, it's not how you start, it's how you finish. Now, the hard work begins."

Speaking to reporters McCarthy singled out former president Donald Trump for praise, who had endorsed him in the race.

He said: "But I do want to especially thank President Trump.

"I don't think you should doubt–anybody should doubt his influence. He was with me from the beginning... And he was all in. He would call me and he would call others."

Oh Paaaaleeeeze!

Speaking to Newsweek Professor Sarah Binder, who teaches at George Washington University's Columbian College of Arts and Science, predicted McCarthy will have a difficult time as speaker.

She said: "This was going to be a rocky Congress for McCarthy, even if he had been elected on the first ballot. It's a slim, fractured GOP majority that will have a tough time when 'must pass' measures come to the floor."

Christian nationalism is NOT Christian

It's becoming increasingly obvious:
Christian nationalists sound uncannily like the Ku Klux Klan.

Opinion echo published in Newsweek by Tom Van Denburgh

Christian Nationalism is hypocrisy!

In a video compilation, The Daily Show spotlighted the nearly identical language and views of Marjorie Taylor Greene -ugh! (R-GA), Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Tucker Carlson, and former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke. America, they believe, is a Christian nation that must stop "white replacement."

And today's white Christian nationalism is just like yesterday's. Rachel Maddow recently shined a light on America First Party founder Gerald K. Smith, specifically his 1950s statement, "When a Christian is nationalist, he becomes necessarily a Christian nationalist." Similarly, in July of this year, Greene rallied Republicans, "We need to be the party of nationalism. And I'm a Christian, and I say it proudly. We should be Christian nationalists."

Maddow then revealed Smith's claims of a "highly organized campaign to substitute Jewish tradition for Christian tradition," and about secretive forces trying to "enslave the white man" and "mongrelize our race" through "the intermixture of the black and white races."

Despite being informed about Smith's hate, Greene has only further embraced the "Christian nationalist" label.

A few days after the Maddow segment aired, Greene released a "Proud Christian Nationalist" T-shirt. The accompanying ad shows her clenching her fists, eager to inflict violence—just as the Christian nationalist insurrectionists did on Jan. 6, 2021.

That same month, another self-proclaimed Christian nationalist, Andrew Torba (CEO of Gab and a former consultant for Republican gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano) said Jews aren't welcome in the GOP: "This is an explicitly Christian movement because this is an explicitly Christian country."

At its very core, Christian nationalism is a hateful, exclusionary ideology. It posits that America was, is, and must remain a Christian conservative nation, even if that means subjugating Jews, progressive Christians, atheists, Muslims, polytheists, and other groups white Christian nationalists place low in their hierarchy: people of color, LGBTQ people, women, and immigrants.

Torba, Greene, and Boebert are constantly saying this quiet part out loud, as they revel in their hate. 

Following a "white replacement" theory-inspired mass murder of 10 Black victims, Greene downplayed white supremacy as a problem. She even attended a white supremacist conference and, when challenged on it, doubled down. Boebert, for her part, engages in casual anti-Muslim and antisemitic bigotry, among other racist rhetoric. "Yes, there is definitely a replacement theory that's going on right now," she has said.

Meanwhile, the more secretive flank of the movement is panicking. They want to keep their immorality under wraps and are attempting damage control. On Oct. 12, the Christian nationalist Family Research Council (FRC) held a conference centered around the term "Christian nationalism" and how it's making them look bad. Because that's what they care about: optics.

"Over the last year, for the first time, Christians have started coming out and embracing the label of 'Christian nationalist'—Marjorie Taylor Greene for one. We should not embrace it," George Fox University professor Mark David Hall said at the event. "We should just simply identify ourselves as Christians. We are Christians. We are followers of Christ.

It's unsurprising that FRC (Family Research Council?- OMG!) wants to avoid the expression, "Christian nationalist." This hate group constantly traffics in coded language; to them, the word "family" means anti-LGBTQ and "life" means anti-abortion. Tony Perkins, FRC's president, no longer associates—at least openly—with David Duke and the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens, which inspired shooter Dylann Roof to kill nine Black churchgoers. Recently, Perkins' secretive organization declared itself a church to hide its finances and extremist donors from the public eye. They want to turn America into a theocracy from behind the scenes.

Just like FRC, disgraced Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, founder of a Christian nationalist militia camp, has bristled at the label. "A lot of people hear your rhetoric, and they say you are a Christian nationalist. Are you?" he was asked during an interview. "What is that? I'm an Irish Catholic. I'm a follower of Jesus," he responded, channeling Hall's words.

This isn't the first time white Christian nationalists have tried to rebrand everyday Christians as being normal. 

In 2018, extremist bills flooded state legislatures. Activists were wondering what was going on. That year, journalist Frederick Clarkson uncovered the Christian nationalist campaign Project Blitz and its model-bill guide on the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation's website. Immediately understanding this campaign's importance, he published his findings.

Just like Greene and Boebert, the masterminds of Project Blitz delight in white supremacist imagery. The Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation, David Barton's Wallbuilders, and the National Legal Foundation were clearly thinking of Nazi Germany's Blitzkrieg when they came up with the campaign name. And, indeed, Project Blitz's goal has been to pump out as many state bills as possible at breakneck speed, preventing lawmakers and activists from opposing them all.

Project Blitz's guide instructs Christian nationalist lawmakers to ramp up in three phases:

1. Pass "religious heritage" bills—including mandatory "In God We Trust" school displays—which are expected to receive the least opposition;

2. Pass "religious history and freedom" bills—"Year of the Bible" and "Christian Heritage Week"—which purport that America was, is, and will always be a Christian nation;

3. Build off the momentum from the previous stages to pass bills that greenlight discrimination in the name of religion.

To fight Project Blitz's legislative playbook, a collection of secular, religious, LGBTQ, and reproductive rights organizations joined forces and formed the BlitzWatch Coalition.* So much bad press kept following the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation that the organization scrubbed the campaign from its website and went underground. There was even an attempt at a rebranding to "Freedom for All," but this failed miserably; investigative journalists, organizations, and activists would not let it off the hook.

During the midterms, Project Blitz has found new relevance. Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake (R) tried to directly benefit from an "In God We Trust" bill. In 2018, Katie Hobbs (D) voted against SB 1289, which encourages schools to teach and post the Christian nationalist mottos "In God We Trust" and "Ditat Deus"("God Enriches"). One would have expected Lake to portray her opponent as "anti-religion," as Christian nationalist politicians have done in the past. But unfortunately for her, she misread the law and falsely claimed on social media, "[Hobbs] wants to purge the Pledge, Anthem & Constitution from our schools."

Even the conservative Washington Examiner called her out.
A campaign like Project Blitz provides white Christian nationalists the opportunity to paint their opponents as "anti-faith"—without most people understanding the source of these bills and their intention: build momentum to eliminate church-state separation and overturn laws protecting equality for women, religious minorities, people of color, and LGBTQ people.

What do Project Blitz and the FRC (Family Research Council) have in common? These are two of many shadowy groups pushing policies to erect a Christian state. They want to continue to operate under cover of darkness because that is the only way they can enact their deeply unpopular agenda.

Investigative journalists like Frederick Clarkson, Katherine Stewart, and Anne Nelson continue to monitor and report on these secretive groups. But the media as a whole must shine a brighter spotlight on this coordinated Christian nationalist network.

Sure, Greene might be more in your face. But these groups, left unaddressed, may prove even deadlier to our democracy. They're the ones pulling the strings in the background. As Clarkson has put it, "[S]unlight remains the best disinfectant."

Tom Van Denburgh is the communications director for American Atheists and a regular contributor to the LGBTQ publication, Out In Jersey.

Texas taxpayers are funding Governor Abbott's obsession with border security

Maine Writer - This opinion letter published in the Austin American Statesman, a Texas newspaper, raises the salient issue in my mind, being, "where does all this money for border security come from"? Ahhhh! Let me guess. Maybe, it comes from taxpayers?

(But wait, wait! Did anybody tell Governor Abbott about the promise #TFG made?  Mexico was going to pay for the wall!)

Texas finds big money for border, but can't adequately fund services.

Re: May 2 article, "Troopers at border make big money."

I was appalled upon reading the details of the Texas Department of Public Safety's engagement at the southern border.

It troubles me that our elected officials seem to find the means for nefarious enterprises at the border that the governor, et al., champion, but can’t adequately fund more essential services such as education, health services or child care.

Delving deeper into the details, in addition to 10,000 Texas National Guard troops, Texas has committed 1,600 out of 4,200 officers to the border detail. What about the neglect due to the absence of these same officers around the rest of the state? What about the rationality of having troopers working 12 to 14 hours on 9-day shifts? 

This seems inhuman and calculated to increase errant behavior.

(Check this Newsweek headline:  Texas Dedicates Nearly One Billion $$$ To Secure It's Border With Mexico.)

And as to the overtime pay: $164,000 in overtime for a 6-figure salaried captain! What agency director can sanction close to $200 million in DPS overtime from March 2021, through February 2022, without incurring the wrath of the taxpayers?

Peter Ellis, Austin, Texas

Physician Assisted Suicide- Unenforceable criteria takes lives

There is no need for physician assisted suicide when dying patients are provided access to quality hospice care.

Legalizing physician assisted suicide during the COVID pandemic is ludicrous.  Americans are already dying in record numbers because of infectious diseases and adding physician assisted suicide into the mortality statistics is baffling!

Published in Newsweek, this opinion was written by Matt Valliere*

In the midst of the Coronavirus pandemic, the New Mexico state legislature ignored the needs of its constituents—many of whom lack basics like reliable electricity and running water, never mind basic medical care—in favor of passing a dangerous and discriminatory assisted suicide law. This and similar policies in other states have proven the failure of proponents to safeguard the people most susceptible to abuse, mistakes and coercion.

Beyond the fact that every supposed "safeguard" in the New Mexico law and others like it is unenforceable and circumventable, legislators in the state have allowed medical professionals with less training to facilitate patients' suicide. 

Doctors themselves are not always accurate in their prognostications, and patients could throw away good months, years or even decades over a best-guess mistake. Patients like Jeannette Hall, who would have killed herself with assisted suicide but is, thankfully, still alive decades later.

New Mexico legislators have endangered vulnerable patients by allowing even physician assistants and nurse practitioners to determine that a requesting patient has six months or less to live and provide them with suicide drugs. Medicare clearly prohibits nurse practitioners and physician assistants from certifying a terminal prognosis of six months when it comes to hospice eligibility. Suicide cannot be undone, and no matter who is determining eligibility, medical professionals make mistakes.

The New Mexico physician assisted suicide law also includes a sleight of hand that may prove disastrous. It defines "adult" as "a resident of the state who is eighteen years of age or older," but repeatedly uses the term "individual" rather than "adult" to delineate who is eligible for assisted suicide. Notably, the term "individual" is not defined, meaning that assisted suicide could be made available to non-residents and even children, potentially making New Mexico not only a destination for irresponsible suicide "tourism," but also the abuse of minors.

Defenders of this law claim it provides patients with greater autonomy. This is a gross distortion, especially since there is no universal right to care. People with disabilities and people of color face a myriad of health challenges—and now amid a pandemic, they experience even greater disadvantages due to lack of access to health care. It is no wonder that groups like the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Diné (Navajo) Hataałii Association, the Navajo Nation and most disability rights organizations oppose this dangerous public policy based on their concerns over inequities in health care.

---- Whether they be poor, people with disabilities, indigenous or people of color. Many in New Mexico don't have access to top-quality medical care, and with societal and financial pressures and elder abuse on the rise, vulnerable people could be pressured to choose assisted suicide rather than getting the care they deserve.

Assisted suicide laws invite elder and disability abuse while granting immunity to all those participating. For example, Michael Freeland, who had experienced acute depression and attempted suicide multiple times over several decades, received the lethal prescription and was left at home with the suicide drugs, even though medical professionals had previously removed all other means of his taking his own life from his home. So too, an elderly dementia patient, Kate Cheney, was referred for the non-required psychiatric evaluation and denied the lethal dose. Then, her daughter shopped around for a doctor until she found one who would say Ms. Cheney had "capacity" to make this life-and-death decision; that same doctor wrote in the report that Ms. Cheney's "choices may be influenced by her family's wishes and her daughter, Erika, may be somewhat coercive."


The New Mexico legislature had a critical chance to address the glaring issues in our health care system that the pandemic exposed. They could have increased access and education for patients, training in palliative and hospice care for medical professionals, expanded home health and personal care aid or family caregiver relief. Equal access to the gold standard of care should be top priority in both policy and medicine. Giving medical professionals immunity to assist in their patients' suicide not only fails to address any of the system's problems, but exacerbates the current disparities. The rest of us can avoid making the same mistake in other states, by rejecting dangerous and discriminatory physician assisted suicide laws.

*Matt Valliere, executive director of Patients Rights Action Fund.

Senator Mitch McConnell tries mia culpa during Electoral College count

https://www.newsweek.com/full-text-mitch-mcconnells-speech-before-most-important-vote-his-career-1559426

Echo opinion by Jenni Fink in Newsweek:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell came out guns blazing as the Senate debated objections to certifying Joe Biden's electoral college win, criticizing fellow Republicans and saying the Senate doesn't have the power to declare itself a "national board of elections on steroids."

McConnell stood by President Donald Trump for weeks after the election, but officially recognized Joe Biden as president-elect when the Electoral College voted to certify his win on Wednesday. 

Although disappointed with the election results, McConnell said voting to object to the results would set a dangerous precedent that would "damage our republic forever."

The Senate majority leader noted that the election between Trump and Biden wasn't "unusually close" and overturning the election by "mere allegations from the losing side" would send America's democracy into a "death spiral." If an objection holds, McConnell noted that the effects would be seen every four years when legislators "scramble for power at any cost," effectively killing the Electoral College that "most of us on this side have been defending for years."

Since the objection to Arizona's electoral votes was signed by both a member of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Vice President Mike Pence allowed the two chambers to vote on it, as it met the requirements of the law. However, it's unlikely the effort will receive the majority vote needed in the Democrat-led House or even the Republican-controlled Senate to stand.

We're debating a step that has never been taken in American history, whether congress should overrule the voters and overturn a presidential election. I've served 36 years in the Senate. This will be the most important vote I've ever cast. President Trump claims the election was stolen. The assertions range from specific local allegations to constitutional arguments to sweeping conspiracy theories.

I supported the president's right to use the legal system. Dozens of lawsuits received hearings in courtrooms all across our country, but over and over, the courts rejected these claims, including all-star judges whom the president himself has nominated.

Every election we know features some illegality and irregularity, and of course that's unacceptable. I support strong state-led voting reforms. Last year's bizarre pandemic procedures must not become the new norm, but my colleagues nothing before us proves illegality anywhere near the massive scale, the massive scale that would have tipped the entire election nor can public doubt alone justify a radical break when the doubt itself was incited without any evidence.

The Constitution gives us here in Congress a limited role. We cannot simply declare ourselves a national board of elections on steroids. The voters, the courts, and the states have all spoken. They've all spoken. If we overrule them, it would damage our republic forever. This election actually was not unusually close.

Just in recent history, 1976, 2000, and 2004 were all closer than this one. The Electoral College margin is almost identical to what it was in 2016. If this election were overturned by mere allegations from the losing side, our democracy would enter a death spiral. We would never see the whole nation accept an election again. Every four years would be a scramble for power at any cost.

The Electoral College, which most of us on this side have been defending for years, would cease to exist, leaving many of our states with no real say at all in choosing a president. The effects would go even beyond the elections themselves. Self-government, my colleagues, requires a shared commitment to the truth and a shared respect for the ground rules of our system.

We cannot keep drifting apart into two separate tribes with a separate set of facts and separate realities. with nothing in common except our hostility towards each other and mistrust for the few national institutions that we all still share.

Every time, every time in the last 30 years that democrats have lost a presidential race, they have tried to challenge just like this. 

After 2000, after 2004, after 2016. After 2004, a senator joined and forced the same debate, and believe it or not, democrats like Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Hillary Clinton praised, praised and applauded the stunt. Republicans condemned those baseless efforts back then, and we just spent four years condemning democrats' shameful attacks on the validity of President Trump's own election.

So look, there can be no double standard. The media that is outraged today spent four years aiding and abetting democrats' attacks on our institutions after they lost. but we must not imitate and escalate what we repudiate. Our duty is to govern for the public good. The United States Senate has a higher calling than an endless spiral of partisan vengeance. 

Congress will either override the voters, overrule them, the voters, the states, and the courts for the first time ever, or honor the people's decision.

Constitutional Rights Foundation

We'll either guarantee democrats' delegitimizing efforts after 2016 become a permanent new routine for both sides or declare that our nation deserves a lot better than this.

We'll either hasten down a poisonous path where only the winners of an election actually accept the results or show we can still muster the patriotic courage that our forebears showed not only in victory but in defeat.

The framers built the senate to stop short-term passions from boiling over and melting the foundations of our republic. So I believe protecting our constitutional order requires respecting the limits of our own power. It would be unfair and wrong to disenfranchise American voters and overrule the courts and the states on this extraordinarily thin basis. And I will not pretend such a vote would be a harmless protest gesture while relying on others to do the right thing. I will vote to respect the people's decision and defend our system of government as we know it.

Maine Writer - If Senator McConnell really believes what he said in his speech, then he will lead a motion to remove Donald Trump from the White House.  #TrumpBelongsInFederalPrison