Month: August 2025

No really:

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy will announce expedited plans this week to build a nuclear reactor on the moon, the first major action by the former Fox News host as the interim NASA administrator.

NASA has discussed building a reactor on the lunar surface, but this would set a more definitive timeline — according to documents obtained by POLITICO — and come just as the agency faces a massive budget cut. The move also underscores how Duffy, who faced pushback from lawmakers about handling two jobs, wants to play a role in NASA policymaking. “It is about winning the second space race,” said a NASA senior official, granted anonymity to discuss the documents ahead of their wider release.

President Donald Trump named Duffy as interim administrator in July after abruptly withdrawing the nomination of billionaire Jared Isaacman amid a spat with the nominee’s ally, Elon Musk.

Duffy also offered a directive to more quickly replace the International Space Station, another NASA goal. The two moves could help accelerate U.S. efforts to reach the moon and Mars — a goal that China is also pursuing.

The plans align with the Trump administration’s focus on crewed spaceflight. The White House has proposed a budget that would increase human spaceflight funds for 2026, even as it advocates for major slashes to other programs — including a nearly 50 percent cut for science missions.

Who needs science for space programs? Just shoot people into space and build nuclear reactors on the moon. Winning!

Sometimes I feel that this is all some kind of simulation to make me feel like I’m losing my mind.

Scott Bessent is a true blue Republican

One of the most memorable lines of the Trump era has to be the one spoken by Iowa GOP Senator Joni Ernst when she snapped in response to a constituent lamenting that Medicaid cuts mean people are going to die: “we’re all going to die for heaven’s sakes folks.” It’s a somewhat crude example of the nihilistic attitude that permeates the Republican party these days, an apparent belief that nothing matters anymore. They aren’t even trying to hide it.

When Donald Trump came on the scene in 2015 he did something a little bit different than other Republicans had done in their campaigns. He promised that he would not touch Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. At the time the big so-called entitlement was Obamacare which he pledged to eliminate immediately (“It will be so easy!”) upon taking office and replace with something much cheaper and better. That seemed to appease the small government fanatics on the right, at least temporarily, many of whom had been scalded by the last failed attempt to cut Social Security in 2005 and the subsequent financial crisis in 2007-2008 which illustrated in living color the tremendous risk of putting Americans’ guaranteed retirement into the stock market.

Still, Trump was an outlier. At the time Trump made his bold promise, the front-runners for the nomination such as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Florida Sen Marco Rubio were both campaigning on plans to cut benefits and raise the retirement age, which was greeted, as usual, with delirious excitement by the beltway press which is forever lecturing the people about how they need to take their medicine and resign themselves to living in penury in their old age. After all, the man who had popularized the negative narrative about Social Security and Medicare bankrupting the country was the sainted Ronald Reagan who had built his political career on it.

Reagan was a consummate showman and in the days before Twitter and tik-tok, very adroitly used the technology of the early 1960s to spread the anti-government gospel. Social Security was a successful program that challenged fundamental assumptions of conservatism and they couldn’t have that. He produced a record album called “A Time For Choosing” in which he made a case that Social Security was a bad deal for the average American:

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary — his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he’s 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can’t put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they’re due — that the cupboard isn’t bare?

That “young man” would be 82 today and would very likely be immensely grateful for the guaranteed income social security provides. There’s no doubt that he’s happy his 21 year old self hadn’t been tasked with “investing” for his old age since he’d lived through the boom and bust cycles that probably would have forced him to start over completely more than once. That’s what happened to people before Social Security was created (and there were times in our history when more than 50% of elderly people were living in poverty.) Moreover, Social Security provided the safety net for spouses and children is someone died or they became disabled, something that can happen to anyone.

But despite the success of the programs, the Republicans have never given up on cutting the safety net programs, eliminating them if at all possible. In many ways it is their basic organizing principle even though it’s always been extremely unpopular. And they keep trying to do it even though they have now taken up Donald Trump’s tactic of simply lying and telling people they aren’t doing what they’re doing.

That’s part of the plan too. Back in 1980 Ronald Reagan proposed major cuts to Social Security. But the backlash was strong which led the libertarians at the Cato Institute to call for a “Leninist” strategy to be ready to pounce when the opportunity arises.

The Project on Social Security Privatization, was created to get the public ready to accept the idea of transitioning social security to private accounts in the markets. They finally got around to trying it in 2005 and it flamed out like a SpaceX rocket. And that was before the market crashed in 2008, making everyone realize just how risky such a scheme would be.

Apparently, it’s time to try again. Yes, the Republicans staged a full blown tantrum back in 2023 when President Joe Biden suggested in his State of the Union address that they wanted to cut the programs but nobody believed them since 75% of the Republicans in Congress had just endorsed the cuts the previous summer. They had even proposed work requirements for seniors, one of their favorite ploys to cuts benefits!

That didn’t go anywhere but it does show that no matter what they say or what their Dear Leader Donald Trump may ordain, this is not coming off the menu. In fact, we know that they’ve come up with yet another deceptive end run to get the job done. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent spilled the beans just the other day.

You’ll recall that within the idiotically named “One Big Beautiful Bill” they created another embarrassingly named policy called “Trump Accounts” which are a new retirement savings account for babies that supposedly will be opened with $1000 from the government. Speaking at an event hosted by Breitbart News, Bessent suggested the accounts would be so popular that the people will demand that the government replace social security with it. “In a way, it is a backdoor for privatizing Social Security,” Bessent said

Trump's Treasury Secretary says the Trump Accounts created by the budget bill are a "backdoor for privatizing Social Security" pic.twitter.com/1jpKHUtP85

— FactPost (@factpostnews) July 30, 2025

The White House quickly walked back his comments, saying that they have no intention of privatizing Social Security, yadda, yadda yadda. But they aren’t going to be around forever. and it’s clear the Republican party has not changed its goals one bit. As Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said about Bessent’s little truth bomb:

Between Bessent’s comments and the harm DOGE has already done to the agency, it’s clear Trump was lying all along about protecting Social Security. Like every Republican administration going back multiple generations, Trump and his billionaire cabinet want to privatize Social Security to give their Wall Street buddies a payday.”

The GOP will never give that up no matter what. The fight to protect the social safety net remains the essential mission of the Democratic Party.

Salon

Don’t back off

Donald Trump is floating the possibility of pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell or commuting her 20-year sentence for sex trafficking underage girls. No one in his administration is taking responsibility for moving Maxwell to a “Club Fed” prison. Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell victims are not having it.

New York Post:

Two victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking ring blasted the Trump administration over the notorious case Monday, with one accusing the Justice Department of prioritizing protection of the dead pedophile’s rich friends over the women he abused.

“I am not sure the highest priority here is the victims, justice for the victims or combating child exploitation,” read one of the two letters submitted in Manhattan federal court.

“… Rather, I feel like the DOJ’s and FBI’s priority is protecting the ‘third-party,’ the wealthy men by focusing on scrubbing their names off the files.”

Ya think? The two anonymous victims think.

Read the first letter here.

The second letter slammed the feds for meeting last month with Epstein’s convicted accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell — who was subsequently rewarded with a prison transfer one week after the shocking sitdown.

The second letter also asked District Judge Richard Berman that victims’ lawyers review any DOJ “‘suggested’ redactions” before making the documents public.

“[T]hey are the ones who also know the victims, their names, their truths and their stories unlike the United States Government who did not and does not even care to know our truth,” their letter read.

“They would rather ask a convicted imprisoned sex trafficker/abuser for information,” the victim added, referencing Maxwell.

The same victim described feeling “disdain, disgust and fear” at the administration’s response to the Epstein saga.

“I wish you would have handled and would handle the whole ‘Epstein Files’ with more respect towards and for the victims,” the letter reads. “I am not some pawn in your political warfare.

Donald Trump is now obsessed with the coverup and with a convicted sex trafficker. Enough is indeed enough.

* * * * *

Have you fought dicktatorship today?

50501
The Resistance Lab
Choose Democracy
Indivisible: A Guide to Democracy on the Brink
You Have Power
Chop Wood, Carry Water
Thirty lonely but beautiful actions
Attending a Protest Surveillance Self-Defense

A white nationalist power grab in Texas

Texas Republicans are doubling down on their corrupt drive to redraw state congressional districts mid-decade to rig 2026 congressional races in the GOP’s favor. They voted on Monday to issue arrest warrants for dozens of Texas Democrats who left the state to deny the legislature a quorum. As we saw over the weekend, Gov. Greg Abbott threatened to remove Texas House Democrats from office if they do not return for the redistricting vote.

Democrats replied, in effect, “Make our day.”

In MAGA’s World, Reality is what you make it. pic.twitter.com/MEgW5Ta8qO

— Trae Crowder (@traecrowder) August 4, 2025

The Hill:

Texas House Democratic Caucus Chair Gene Wu brushed off Gov. Greg Abbott’s (R) threat to remove Democrats from the Texas Legislature after they left the Lone Star State in protest of GOP redistricting efforts.

“Frankly, Democrats say, ‘Come and take it,’” Wu told CNN’s John Berman in an interview Monday, referring to threats against lawmakers’ seats.

Texas Democrats are accustomed to bluster from the right. Besides, they are safely out of Abbott’s jurisdiction in multiple states.

My Democratic colleagues and I just left the state of Texas to break quorum and stop Trump’s redistricting power grab.

Trump is trying to rig the midterm elections right before our eyes. But first he’ll have to come through us.

It’s time to fight back. pic.twitter.com/xOshwmy2eA

— James Talarico (@jamestalarico) August 3, 2025

The Washington Post:

Some legal scholars questioned whether courts would go along with any attempt to eject the absent lawmakers from office. The showdown over the past 24 hours was latest turn in an highly-charged partisan battle that has attracted national attention.

Democrats said Abbott’s warnings were bluster and said they were committed to staying away for two weeks, when the 30-day special session is expected to end. Republicans hold the upper hand because Abbott could call more special sessions, and Democrats have not said whether they have the wherewithal to repeatedly leave the state for months.

Abbott, who also launched a $750,000 digital ad campaign Sunday against Democrats, cited a 2021 opinion from state Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) in his letter to contend that courts could determine that Democrats had abandoned their duties and given up their jobs. That would allow Abbott to call special elections to replace them, he said.

Texas Democrats responded (The Guardian):

“We are not fighting for the Democratic party,” state representative James Tallarico said in a video message recorded at an airport. “We are fighting for the democratic process, and the stakes could not be higher. We have to take a stand.”

Most of the Democratic caucus absconded to Chicago, a city with a Democratic mayor and city council in a state with a Democratic governor and legislature.

Illinois governor JB Pritzker, who owns the Chicago Hyatt hotel, announced on Monday he would provide free rooms to the Texas Democrats for as long as they are out of state.

Princeton scholar and MSNBC contributor, Eddie Glaude, Monday afternoon called the GOP effort in Texas more than political corruption. It is “deeply racist” and a white nationalist power grab happening right before our eyes. Texas is 40% non-Hispanic white and 40% Hispanic, yet only 8 of 38 members of its congressional delegation are Hispanic.

Yet the Texas Tribune reports that in three of the five seats Republicans hope to flip, Republicans mean to make them more heavily Latino. “Texas Republicans are betting Latino voters will stick with them in 2026.” TBD.

Democrats get grief from their base for not doing enough to stop Trump in a 119th Congress when they lack significant leverage. Texas Democrats are doing what they can with what leverage they’ve got. Give them credit for it.

* * * * *

Have you fought dicktatorship today?

50501
The Resistance Lab
Choose Democracy
Indivisible: A Guide to Democracy on the Brink
You Have Power
Chop Wood, Carry Water
Thirty lonely but beautiful actions
Attending a Protest Surveillance Self-Defense

Who the hell does this guy think he is?

“One of the things that the new buyers of CBS have committed to is unbiased fact-based reporting. They’re going to report on a wide variety of political and ideological perspectives. They’re committing to getting rid of invidious forms of DEI discrimination, reinvest in local journalism. So I think it’s a great win for the American people.

“It’s great to have, you know, comedians out there. It’s great to have satire. It’s great to go after people that are in power. But one of the stories here is that, you know, Colbert and others went from being court jesters making fun of everybody to being court clerics. And they stopped going for joke lines and laugh lines and they started going for applause lines.

“And again, I think it’s a consequence that comes from Trump because he said that these elites in Hollywood and New York, they don’t get to decide anymore what works in this country from a media perspective. One of the things that President Trump did was he ran directly at the legacy national media, and he smashed the facade that they get to decide what we think and what we get to say.” – FCC chair and Project 2025 author Brendan Carr, today on Fox News.

Again, who the hell does he think he is? Chief Entertainment Commissar?

I wonder if Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss might have any thoughts on this? Elon? All the right wing free speech warriors are strangely silent.

Bookmark this from the Brennan Center as we go into the next election season:

This resource offers the first chronicle of the Trump administration’s actions this year to undermine election integrity. They include:

• attempting to rewrite election rules to burden voters and usurp control of election systems;
• targeting or threatening to target election officials and others who keep elections free and fair;
• supporting people who undermine election administration; and
• retreating from the federal government’s role of protecting voters and the election process.

Why do we conclude this represents a concerted strategy? Among other things, President Trump tried to do this before. He was the first president to try to overturn the results of a presidential election and used federal power to do so. Institutions and key officials blocked him. These internal checks, however, are now gone, and many public officials will likely carry out the president’s will.

This campaign to undermine elections runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution. Only Congress and the states can set election rules. The executive branch, especially the Department of Justice (DOJ), is charged with enforcing federal laws. But neither the president nor the DOJ has the authority to set rules governing elections or to supervise the state and local officials who run them.

To be sure, previous elections were marred by rules and practices that hindered full participation. Restrictive voting laws (some of which had already been ruled unconstitutional), skewed maps, and bomb threats at polling places impeded the freedom to vote. Federal officials had an important role in countering disinformation and combatting racial discrimination. This federal protection for fair elections may no longer exist.

This unprecedented federal push will place new pressure on American elections and will require vigilance and actions from those determined to defend the integrity of the vote.

Yeah. Click the link for the details. All is not lost.But they aren’t going to make it easy.

Oh, right …

The Oval Office: How It Used to Look Compared to Now.

Everything is gold lmao pic.twitter.com/seic4NP4xg

— Volodymyr Tretyak 🇺🇦 (@VolodyaTretyak) July 17, 2025

“His legacy” is ruining the country:

Experts on historic preservation are raising concerns over the feasibility of President Trump’s plans to complete large-scale renovations to the White House by the end of his term, and whether the project can be done while respecting the historic nature of the building.

Mr. Trump unveiled plans on Thursday to construct a $200 million, 90,000-square-foot state ballroom off the East Wing to be completed “long before” the end of his term in 2029. The project would be one of the largest renovations to the iconic building in decades…

The White House, the Supreme Court building, the Capitol and all their “related buildings and grounds” are exempt from the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which requires federal agencies to assess and mitigate adverse effects to historic properties and seek consultation through a formal review process.

Instead, the White House has its own committee that provides advice on the “preservation and the interpretation of the museum character” of the building. The Committee for the Preservation of the White House — chaired by the director of the National Park Service — is made up of several federal officials and a number of members appointed by the president.

I can only imagine who’s on that committee. Too bad Hulk Hogan checked out. He would have been perfect. Roseanne Barr ‘s still available so that’s good.

This is how this works:

The prescription costs $100.

You go to the drug store to pick it up, and instead of paying the pharmacist, the pharmacist gives you the medicine AND $1,400!

Why didn’t any previous president think of this!? https://t.co/wA7oh5bw6y

— S.V. Dáte (@svdate) August 4, 2025

Typical. Remember this?

And how can we be surprised that he fired the head of the bureau of labor statistics when the agency released some negative jobs numbers? It’s his thing:

Four years later:

He only believes numbers that favor him. Always.

It was my general understanding growing up that the process of redistricting to choose representatives for state and national congressional seats was always done every ten years after the new census was produced. I knew that seats had often been drawn in the past to exclude representation for racial minorities, which was one of the motives for passing the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s but generally I assumed that these disparities were being addressed, however sporadically, and that the country was actually moving toward non-partisan redistricting in order to create fair, democratic representative districts that reflect the various characteristics and interests of a given state as accurately as possible.

I realized that was absurdly naive when it became clear that we were embarking on a period of electoral warfare back in 2003, Texas called a special session to enact a new districting plan just three years into the new decade. Under the leadership of the powerful Republican House whip Tom “The Hammer” Delay and GOP Gov. Rick Perry, the Texas GOP decided they would redraw the House maps after growing their majority in the 2002 mid-term elections. As Michael Li of the Brennan Center explains in this Q&A at Bolts. com, it was a shocking partisan power grab that gained national attention for its chutzpah, but it was at least somewhat justifiable due to the fact that through a series of legal and legislative flukes their maps were the same ones that had been drawn up in 1990, favoring what was then a Democratic Party majority which had since moved decisively Republican. Still, voluntarily redistricting within two years was pretty much unheard of and it signaled that the Republican party was changing the rules.

But that was child’s play compared to what they are doing now. And they’re using the Trump Justice Department’s favorite fatuous anti-DEI rationale — that white people’s civil rights are being violated by any policy that allows race to be a consideration. In this case, they say that the minority-majority districts that provide for Texans of color to have representation is a racist policy. (That’s a particularly rich contention considering that the state repeatedly insisted during its last redistricting in 2021, and the legal fights that followed, that its map was “race blind.” )

Consistency is not required in Republican legal battles so this will undoubtedly be swept aside as Texas will now likely create five more very red districts for the 2026 midterms, likely eliminating at least four seats that currently are held by racial minorities. As Li explains:

Under the current Texas congressional map, Republicans already win 25 of 38 congressional districts—two-thirds of seats.  That’s a sizable advantage in a state where Republicans don’t get nearly that share of the vote—Ted Cruz running for re-election in 2025 got just barely 53 percent of the vote. And none of the GOP seats were competitive in 2024. 

They will have 30 out of 38 seats — 80% of the Texas delegation.

However grotesque this current GOP attempt to hold on to power by any means necessary might be, partisan gerrymandering isn’t a new thing. As New America.org helpfully explains, it’s been part of the American system from the beginning. The very first Virginia congressional maps in 1788 were drawn to make the Federalist candidate James Madison have to face the anti-Federalist James Monroe so Madison would be denied a seat in the Congress. It didn’t work. Madison won.

In 1812 the term gerrymander was coined when the Democratic-Republican Party drew a salamander shaped state Senate district to benefit Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry. The Boston Gazette published an iconic cartoon called the “The Gerry-mander” and the rest is history.

So, there’s no point in pretending that this undemocratic practice wasn’t one many undemocratic design flaws by our vaunted founders. (In their defense, the whole concept of “districts” was brand new at the time and some states actually elected their representatives at large.) By the post-civil war reconstruction period from 1878 to 1896, states were electing their Representatives through single member districts and as New America points out, the Democrats and Republicans were polarized and partisan loyalties were strong making gerrymandering more effective and essential.

Does that sound familiar at all? Today, with the help of technology, these districts can be drawn with maximum efficiency, down to the last detail and the map that was produced for approval this week by the Texas Republicans is apparently a masterful example of how to do that without endangering their incumbents.

So yes, America has been dealing with these flagrantly political shenanigans from our very first election. But you’d think we could have found a way to make this system truly democratic and fair by now without such partisan maneuvering.

Some states have taken serious steps to do that, enacting laws that require commissions to redraw the lines after the decennial census or using computer models. Unfortunately, most of those states are run by Democrats leaving them at a disadvantage with Republicans using such hardball tactics. Also many Democratic states have some split legislatures which end up requiring courts or be involved and that cannot produce a partisan advantage like what the Texans are producing.

Nonetheless, the big blue states of California, New York, Illinois, Michigan and a few others are all talking about changing their systems in order to fight fire with fire. It’s not their choice necessarily but we are dealing with a crisis of democracy.

And it’s always possible that the Democrats can pull out a big enough win in the popular vote in these states that the GOP’s plans will be foiled. Data journalist G. Elliott Morris analyzed the polling and reports that Democrats currently lead in the generic ballot and would win 230 House seats today, taking the majority. The Texas gerrymander would reduce that to 225, but they would still win. It’s not impossible by any means.

And keep in mind that it’s very early days yet. Democratic voters are not yet done licking their wounds from 2024 and are just starting to come around. Morris points out that history shows even though voters may hate a party’s brand it doesn’t mean they won’t vote for it. After all, you always have to look at the alternative and the current GOP is appallingly extreme and cowardly at the same time, hardly a winning combination. If Democrats get their act together they can win despite these Republican gerrymanders.

Salon

Erasure by the letters

After my earlier post, readers may want a chaser that doesn’t burn going down.

Alexandra Petri is among those columnists who have recently abandoned the good ship Washington Post. She now writes for The Atlantic.

This morning Petri lampoons the Trumpian makeover of national parks that mark the experiences of Americans MAGA Republicans consider un-great:

Stonewall National Monument: One of the best places to admire the abundant natural beauty of New York City. The taxis, yellow. The skyscrapers, high! The luminous walk signs, with their flashing white gentleman composed of tiny stars, majestic! Here a community rose up in response to a police raid and sparked a revolution. We cannot say which community, but we hope there weren’t any LGBTQ people present. It seems unlikely; they did not exist before 1967, which was one of many things that made America Great at that time, and which we are trying our best to replicate today. We’ve been removing the movement’s patrons from the Stonewall website one letter at a time and seeing whether anyone notices.

Manzanar National Historic Site: This well-preserved internment-camp site from World War II is a chilling, gut-wrenching reminder of the stunning natural beauty of our flawless nation!

And who can forget The Gettysburg Address and why somebody gave it there?

Gettysburg National Military Park: It appears that lots of brave men fought and died here, but for what reason, we can’t exactly say. Not for us to take sides! We’ll refer you to President Donald Trump’s thoughts: “Gettysburg, what an unbelievable battle that was. It was so much and so interesting and so vicious and horrible and so beautiful in so many different ways; it represented such a big portion of the success of this country. Gettysburg, wow. I go to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, to look and to watch. And, uh, the statement of Robert E. Lee, who’s no longer in favor, did you ever notice that? No longer in favor. ‘Never fight uphill, me boys. Never fight uphill.’ They were fighting uphill. He said, ‘Wow, that was a big mistake.’ He lost his great general. And they were fighting. ‘Never fight uphill, me boys!’ But it was too late.”

This is what happened here, and we hope you have no further questions.

And that green lady in New York harbor?

Statue of Liberty: For years, people have made a big deal about how good she looks as you approach, but imagine how nice she’d look if you were leaving. Please disregard the poem; we are trying to remove it.

You get the idea.

That reminds me of the French request in March that she be repatriated, and why:

A French politician facetiously asked the U.S. to return the Statue of Liberty, suggesting the country no longer lives up to the values the green-hued gift represents.

Raphaël Glucksmann, a member of the European Parliament with the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, said at a party convention on Sunday that he had a message “to the Americans who have chosen to side with the tyrants … who fired researchers for demanding scientific freedom.”

“Give us back the Statue of Liberty,” he said with a smile as the crowd cheered. “We gave it to you as a gift, but apparently you despise it. So it will be just fine here at home.”

That story was by National Public Radio, also slated by Trump for erasure, only three letters at a time along with PBS.

Glucksmann tweeted an explanatory thread captured below.

“Dear Americans, Since the White House press secretary is attacking me today, I wanted to tell you this”:

1. Our two people are intimately linked by History, the blood we shed and the passion for freedom we share, a passion symbolized by this Statue that was offered to the United States by France to honor your glorious Revolution.

2. As the press secretary for this shameful Administration said: without your nation, France would have “spoken German.” In my case, it goes further: I would simply not be here if hundreds of thousands of young Americans had not landed on our beaches in Normandy.

3. Our gratitude to these heroes and their sacrifices is therefore eternal.

4. But the America of these heroes fought against tyrants, it did not flatter them. It was the enemy of fascism, not the friend of Putin. It helped the resistance and didn’t attack Zelensky.

5. It celebrated science and didn’t fire researchers for using banned words. It welcomed the persecuted and didn’t target them. It was far, so far from what your current President does, says, and embodies.

6. This America, faithful to the wonderful words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty, your America, is worth so much more than the betrayal of Ukraine and Europe, xenophobia, or obscurantism.

7. We all in Europe love this nation to which we know we owe so much. It will rise again. You will rise again. We are counting on you.

8. And it is precisely because I am petrified by Trumps betrayal that I said yesterday in a rally that we could symbolically take back the Statue of Liberty if your government despised everything it symbolizes in your eyes, ours, and those of the world. It was a wake up call.

9. No one, of course, will come and steal the Statue of Liberty. The statue is yours. But what it embodies belongs to everyone. And if the free world no longer interests your government, then we will take up the torch, here in Europe.

10. Until we meet again in the fight for freedom and dignity, we will be the continuators of our shared history and the protectors of our treasure: more than a statue of copper and steel, the freedom it symbolizes.

Don’t just sit there scrolling. Do something, even if it’s small.

* * * * *

Have you fought dicktatorship today?

50501
The Resistance Lab
Choose Democracy
Indivisible: A Guide to Democracy on the Brink
You Have Power
Chop Wood, Carry Water
Thirty lonely but beautiful actions
Attending a Protest Surveillance Self-Defense