The right’s decades-long plot to destroy public education and replace it with right wing Christian indoctrination is coming to fruition
CNN reports on the latest assault on public education by the extreme right. They never quit.
Near the edge of the Phoenix metro’s urban sprawl, surrounded by a wide expanse of saguaro-studded scrubland, Dream City Christian School is in the midst of a major expansion.
The private school, which is affiliated with a local megachurch where former President Donald Trump held a campaign rally this month, recently broke ground on a new wing that will feature modern, airy classrooms and a pickleball court. It’s a sign of growth at a school that has partnered with a Trump-aligned advocacy group, and advertises to parents by vowing to fight “liberal ideology” such as “evolutionism” and “gender identification.”
Just a few miles away, the public Paradise Valley Unified School District is shrinking, not expanding. The district shuttered three of its schools last month amid falling enrollment, a cost-saving measure that has disrupted life for hundreds of families.
One of the factors behind Dream City’s success and Paradise Valley’s struggles: In Arizona, taxpayer dollars that previously went to public schools like the ones that closed are increasingly flowing to private schools – including those that adopt a right-wing philosophy.
Arizona was the first state in the country to enact a universal “education savings account” program – a form of voucher that allows any family to take tax dollars that would have gone to their child’s public education and spend the money instead on private schooling.
ACNN investigation found that the program has cost hundreds of millions of dollars more than anticipated, disproportionately benefited richer areas, and funneled taxpayer funds to unregulated private schools that don’t face the same educational standards and antidiscrimination protections that public schools do. Since Arizona’s expanded program took effect in 2022, according to state data, it has sent nearly $2 million to Dream City and likely sapped millions of dollars from Paradise Valley’s budget.
Louisiana just passed a law requiring the 10 Commandments to be posted in every classroom.
The desire to siphon off tax payer dollars to right wing Christian schools has been part of the conservative plane since at least the 1950s. They struggled for years but just kept at it. And now they are starting to succeed — with a majority on the high court that’s completely bought in on this idea.
"Here's the bad part: When you do testing to that extent, you're gonna find more people, you're gonna find more cases. So I said to my people, 'slow the testing down please!'" — Trump pic.twitter.com/m5MOV9je70
Trends are more important than individual polls. Since Donald Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts (with more cases pending), polling trend lines now favor Joe Biden in the 2024 presidential race. Polling immediately after Trump’s convictions was too soon to pick up the shift. Two-time Trump voters have had enough. Donald Trump is bleeding support.
“My guess is right now, this is gonna be a blip,” pollster Lee Carter told Fox News’ Fox & Friends this morning. “I don’t think this is something that’s long term.
Sure. Just a flesh wound.
Significantly, there has been a large swing since May among independent voters toward Biden. And since they are the largest bloc of registrants in many states, independent turnout could be determinative.
Simon Rosenberg tweets, “We’ve had lots of polling this year suggesting a Trump guilty conviction could weaken his coalition and cost him voters (as it should). We now have 6 national polls showing Biden gaining 2-4 pts since the conviction. Election appears to be changing, getting bluer.”
The Fox poll was among registered voters.
The Politico/Ipsos poll this week found a significant potential weakening of Trump with independents and Republicans post-felony verdict. 2/ pic.twitter.com/EVYnPzetvl
From the Fox poll: "President Joe Biden is the frontrunner in a hypothetical matchup against [Trump] for the first time since October, as positive views of the economy inch up – hitting their highest level in the Biden presidency." Ruh roh Donald!!!!!! 4/ pic.twitter.com/GNolnTE5FC
One of the states where independents don’t register that way is the key state of Wisconsin. After Trump’s “I Hate Milwaukee” declaration, it’s hard to know how that will play out in Trump-country counties where Republicans and R-leaners would like to carve heavily Black and Democrat Milwaukee out of the state.
Still, WisDems state chair Ben Wikler is making the most of his high profile to knock the hot air out of his Republican sparring partners while promoting how Joe Biden’s policies have delivered.
It’s a thing of beauty.
Wikler: I think the more people find out about Trump, the better it is for Biden. The more people find out about Biden has done and plans to do, the better it is for Biden… Those who are paying attention to the news are siding with Biden, pic.twitter.com/Vb6OoqvjX9
So they want the Ten Commandments displayed in classrooms?
The Pelican State is in the news again. No, it’s not for House Speaker Mike “18th-century values” Johnson, or for Rep. Clay “I’d drop any 10 of you where you stand” Higgins, or for Sen. John “Wanna buy my pig?”* Kennedy, all Republicans.
Gov. Jeff Landry on Wednesday signed into law a bill requiring display of the Ten Commandments in every public classroom in Louisiana. This makes Louisiana the only state with such a requirement. A similar bill proposed in Texas last year failed.
Someone recently suggested that if Christian legislators insist that the Ten Commandments be displayed in public schools, make them display The Beatitudes (the words of Jesus) right beside them. It’d likely be a deal-breaker.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom From Religion Foundation promise to make Landry’s day.
“Our public schools are not Sunday schools,” the groups said in a joint statement, “and students of all faiths, or no faith, should feel welcome in them.”
“If you want to respect the rule of law,” Landry said, “you’ve got to start from the original law giver, which was Moses.” **
Donald Trump is only out for himself. I'm fighting for the American people.
That’s ironic, since 34-times convicted Donald Trump has made disrespecting the rule of law a centerpiece of his reelection campaign and the rest of the GOP seems inclined to fall in line.
The legislation is part of a broader campaign by conservative Christian groups to amplify public expressions of faith, and provoke lawsuits that could reach the Supreme Court, where they expect a friendlier reception than in years past. That presumption is rooted in recent rulings, particularly one in 2022 in which the court sided with a high school football coach who argued that he had a constitutional right to pray at the 50-yard line after his team’s games.
“The climate is certainly better,” said Charles C. Haynes, a senior fellow at the Freedom Forum and a scholar with an expertise in religious liberty and civil discourse, referring to the viewpoint of those who support the legislation.
Still, Mr. Haynes said that he found the enthusiasm behind the Louisiana law and other efforts unwarranted. “I think they are overreaching,” he said, adding that “even this court will have a hard time justifying” what lawmakers have conceived.
But we’ve already been surprised by what SCOTUS can justify. Just wait until the rollback of child labor laws reaches the originalists on the Roberts court.
The measure in Louisiana requires that the commandments be displayed in each classroom of every public elementary, middle and high school, as well as public college classrooms. The posters must be no smaller than 11 by 14 inches and the commandments must be “the central focus of the poster” and “in a large, easily readable font.”
It will also include a three-paragraph statement asserting that the Ten Commandments were a “prominent part of American public education for almost three centuries.”
In March, a graduate of Bob Jones University, no less, condemned the notion promoted by “authoritarian Christians” that the Bible was a major influence on crafting US. law. One citation in particular spells out where they want to take the country:
In The Case for Christian Nationalism, Stephen Wolfe adds: “The issue here centers on whether a Christian minority can establish a political state over the whole without the positive consent of the whole. I affirm they can. … Non-Christians living among us … are not entitled to political equality, nor do they have a right to deny the people of God their right to order civil institutions to God and to their complete good. … The Christian’s posture toward the earth ought to be that it is ours, not theirs, for we are co-heirs in Christ.”
So we’re not sure what parts of Deuteronomy and the Israelite conquest these men plan to promote. They’re apparently debating these ideas amongst themselves. But what is clear is this: Either we vote against authoritarian Christians or we’ll have to trust them to politically order us toward their God and plunder us against our consent in a way that isn’t too dehumanizing.
Would you bet your freedoms on that? Get your butts and your friends’ and families to the polls this November.
* Not a Kennedy quote, but I hear Pat Buttram (Mr. Haney from Green Acres) any time Kennedy opens his mouth.
** I thought God was the lawgiver and Moses just the messenger. And neither of them appeared at the Constitutional Convention, no matter what Mike Johnson thinks.
Within weeks, the nation will deploy 9,000 people to begin restoring landscapes, erecting solar panels, and taking other steps to help guide the country toward a cleaner, greener future.
The first of those workers were inducted into the American Climate Corps on Tuesday during a virtual event from the White House. Their swearing-in marks another step forward for the Biden administration’s ambitious climate agenda. The program, which President Joe Biden announced within days of taking office in 2021, is a modern version of the Climate Conservation Corps, the New Deal-era project that put 3 million men to work planting trees and building national parks.
During the ceremony, the inaugural members of the corps promised to work “on behalf of our nation and planet, its people, and all its species, for the better future we hold within our sight.”
The American Climate Corps was among the first things Biden announced as president, but it took a while to secure funding and get started. More than 20,000 young people are expected to join during the program’s first year, according to the White House, with new openings appearing on the American Climate Corps job site in the months ahead. The pay varies depending on the location and experience required, with open positions ranging from around $11 to $28 an hour.
The administration is promoting the corps as a way for young people to jump-start green careers. In April, the White House announced a partnership with TradesFutures, a nonprofit construction company, a sign that the program might help fill the country’s shortage of skilled workers who can help electrify everything. The White House will also place members in so-called “energy communities” like former coal-mining towns to help with environmental remediation and other projects.
“Whether it’s managing forests in the Pacific Northwest, deploying clean energy across the Southwest, or promoting sustainable farming practices throughout the heartland, the president’s American Climate Corps is providing thousands of young Americans with the skills and experience to advance a more sustainable, just tomorrow,” White House climate advisor Ali Zaidi said in a press release on Tuesday.
This seems like something worth celebrating. Unfortunately it seems to be another great policy that nobody knows about.
I didn’t know this but it seems like it should be relevant. I hope the Biden debate prep people are on it. (It’s probably too much to ask that the moderators are.) Jonathan Chait explains:
One of the most underappreciated developments of Donald Trump’s presidency is that his strategy toward China was a total failure on its own terms. While Trump began his presidency as a snarling trade warrior, bent on ending Chinese manufacturing dominance, he ended his presidency as a whimpering apologist for Beijing.
The culmination of Trump’s standoff with China was a trade deal that supposedly committed China to purchasing $200 billion worth of American goods. Robert O’Brien, a former Trump national security adviser, admits that the Chinese never actually carried out their end of the deal. “I don’t think we’re going to see a deal like we saw in the first term,” he told Semafor’s Morgan Chalfant. “I think people were generally happy with phase one, but as it turned out, the Chinese didn’t honor it.”
You don’t say? Huh.
Recall that he demeaned China at every turn until they set of his deal at which time he said, “Terrific working with President Xi, a man who truly loves his country. Much more to come!”
Then COVID hit and Trump did everything he could to keep the deal going even though people were dropping dead and the world economy was shutting down. It led Trump to weeks of playing down the crisis to keep his precious deal on track.
Chait writes:
So O’Brien’s confession that the deal didn’t actually pay off is a pretty damning one. Of course, there are plenty of former Trump advisers who now admit Trump was an ignorant, lying criminal, but O’Brien is not some repentant former lackey. He is very much an ongoing lackey continuing to jostle for influence in a possible second term.
Chait reports that there are some people in Trump’s orbit who think there is another approach to limit China’s involvement in EVs. Even OBrien says they’s have to work with allies to make it happen which seems like a tough lift since Trump is saying he plans to enact at least a 10% tariff on ALL foreign goods, possible even more so that he can replace the income tax and party like it’s 1825. It’s unlikely our (probably former) allies will be working with the US on much of anything under those circumstances.
As he points out, Trump has been slagging American allies for years and he’s not likely to stop:
For nearly as long, Trump has also been drooling over the world’s autocracies. Russia, famously, is the apple of his eye, but he has room in his heart for more than one dictator. Trump praised the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1990. (“Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak.”) After becoming president, he continued to fawn over China’s very strong leadership, congratulating Xi Jinping for making himself president for life and touting his brilliance and toughness.
The known methods for foreign countries to woo Trump involve a combination of payoffs and flattery. Authoritarian states have natural advantages at this game. They have weak or nonexistent laws against corruption, and their leaders can engage in nauseating displays of friendship with a hated figure like Trump without fear of alienating domestic constituencies.
Trump’s instincts tell him that allies are enemies and enemies are allies because the latter can do just that — woo and flatter and tell him how great he is. It’s pathetic but that’s how it is. Anything that requires America to rely on our historic alliances will be blown to smithereens in a second Trump presidency. And our adversaries will be pleased as punch.
I hope you all have a chance to see at least one the various interviews with Dr. Anthony Fauci as he makes the rounds for his book tour. I particularly like the one with Rachel Maddow, above.
For some reason the hatred aimed at him makes me see red in a way that goes way beyond my usual ire at right wing hostility and that says something. Watching that ignorant harpy Marjorie Taylor Greene insult him at that congressional hearing last week had me screaming at the TV.
Anyway, his book sounds super interesting and I admire his grit in standing up to these miscreants. And bouy does he explode the myth that people over 80 are non compos mentis.
Time will tell but there are some signs that she might not be quite as nuts as the other nuts.
We are probably stuck with this 6 vote lunatic Supreme Court majority for some time so it’s more important than ever to keep our eyes on the potentially small changes that might be relevant, whether it’s signs of concern about politics playing a role or actual disagreement among the majority about their judicial philosophies.
This article in Politico suggests that there might be a developing schism on the right that could prove to be at least a little bit helpful depending on who joins what side:
A rift is emerging among the Supreme Court’s conservatives — and it could thwart the court’s recent march to expand gun rights.
On one side is the court’s oldest and most conservative justice, Clarence Thomas. On the other is its youngest member, Amy Coney Barrett.
The question at the center of the spat may seem abstract: How should the court use “history and tradition” to decide modern-day legal issues? But the answer may determine how the court resolves some of the biggest cases set to be released in the coming days, particularly its latest foray into the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
If the court adheres to a strict history-centric approach, as Thomas favors, it will likely strike down a federal law denying firearms to people under domestic violence restraining orders.
But Barrett recently foreshadowed that she is distancing herself from that approach. If she breaks with Thomas in the gun case, known as United States v. Rahimi, and if she can persuade at least one other conservative justice to join her, they could align with the court’s three liberals to uphold the gun control law.
That outcome would avoid the certain political backlash that would result from a high court declaration that alleged domestic abusers have a constitutional right to carry a gun. Thomas, famous for his intransigence, might not care about such backlash, but the more pragmatically minded Barrett is surely aware of it.
“It does seem to me that there’s a fight going on, and Rahimi played an important role in provoking it,” said Reva Siegel, a professor at Yale Law School who is an expert on legal history.
This fight is breaking down to Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch vs Barret while Roberts and Kavanaugh are being “cagey.”
Apparently the divide shows itself in that weird trademark case last week ov =er a t-shirt that said “Trump so small.”
Despite the trivial subject matter, Barrett squared off with Thomas in such a confrontational manner that they seemed to be really fighting about something else.
“I don’t think this is about T-shirts at all,” Tyler said.
Thomas wrote the majority opinion rejecting the trademark applicant’s claim. Barrett (and all the other justices) agreed with that bottom-line result. The quarrel came down to methodology.
In a concurring opinion, Barrett used unusually blunt terms to skewer Thomas’ history-based rationale for denying the trademark. She described his approach as “wrong twice over,” and she made clear that her gripes went far beyond this case alone.
“I feel like this is a really stark break,” said Sarah Isgur, a former Justice Department spokesperson during the Trump administration who’s now a prominent Supreme Court analyst.
Barrett complained in her 15-page concurrence that her conservative colleagues have become so enamored of history that they’re now employing it even when the record is ambiguous and the purpose of embracing a retrospective approach is unclear.
“The views of preceding generations can persuade, and, in the realm of stare decisis, even bind,” Barrett wrote, using the Latin term for the principle that courts should adhere to past rulings. “But tradition is not an end in itself — and I fear that the Court uses it that way here.”
Barrett, a Trump appointee, added what could be interpreted as a jab at the very premise of originalism, which has been a hallmark of the conservative legal movement for decades.
“It presents tradition itself as the constitutional argument. … Yet what is the theoretical justification for using tradition that way?” she wrote.
Barrett’s next critique amounts to fighting words among legal conservatives: She compared Thomas’ approach to the kind of amorphous, multi-pronged legal tests that conservatives frequently accuse liberal judges of concocting.
“Relying exclusively on history and tradition may seem like a way of avoiding judge-made tests. But a rule rendering tradition dispositive is itself a judge-made test,” she asserted.
Oh baby. That’s quite a diss.
Barret used to be all-in on “originalism” but she seems to have changed her mind. (It would have been nice if she could have done that before Dobbs…)
Barrett joined both those opinions in their entirety, but now she’s sending an unmistakable signal that there are limits to the utility of history in resolving today’s hard constitutional questions.
She’s hardly alone in voicing skepticism. The court’s use of history in Dobbs and Bruen set off a furious debate among legal scholars, historians and judicial gatherings about whether the justices got the history right — and about the overall wisdom of the effort. Even Saturday Night Live weighed in on the shortcomings of turning to the 17th and 18th centuries to resolve 21st century disputes over issues like abortion.
In her concurrence in the trademark case, Barrett joined in some of those critiques, accusing her fellow conservatives of taking too narrow a view of what sort of past regulation qualifies as relevant enough to justify a government practice in the present.
“In my view, the Court’s laser-like focus on the history of this single restriction misses the forest for the trees,” she added. “I see no reason to proceed based on pedigree rather than principle.”
Huh. So citing 16th century inquisitors isn’t such a great way to judge law in the 21st century? Who knew?
[…]
Last week’s trademark case wasn’t the first time Barrett has unfurled the yellow caution flag as the court turned to history to resolve a case. Almost a year ago, in a case involving the admissibility of confessions by co-conspirators, Barrett again accused Thomas of making too much of a very limited historical record.
“The Court overclaims. That is unfortunate,” Barrett wrote in a solo concurrence, referring to Thomas’ majority opinion. “While history is often important and sometimes dispositive, we should be discriminating in its use. Otherwise, we risk undermining the force of historical arguments when they matter most,” she declared.
And in a speech last year at Catholic University, Barrett reiterated the point. “We have to be very, very careful in the way that we use history,” she said, adding that deploying historical evidence to advance a legal conclusion can be like “looking over a crowd and picking out your friends.”
No kidding.
“It does seem to me that Justice Barrett is trying to lay down a marker of at least some limitation or clarity in terms of where she and the others on the court see ‘history and tradition’ moving in the future,” said Catholic University law professor Jennifer Mascott, who clerked for Thomas at the Supreme Court and Kavanaugh when he was an appeals court judge. “Justice Barrett is basically raising questions that could really shift and perhaps limit the impact of the way specific [historical] examples are used.”
Barrett’s step away from hard-core originalism comes in the wake of Trump giving a less-than-stellar review to his three Supreme Court nominees: Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. It has contributed to grumbling from some conservatives that she isn’t proving to be as doctrinaire across the board as they’d have liked.
“You see justices after three or more years on the court coming into their own,” said Adam Feldman, founder of Empirical SCOTUS, a blog that publishes statistical analysis of the Supreme Court. “She’s developing a jurisprudence at this point that isn’t extremely parallel to any other justice’s. I’ve heard from a fair number of conservatives right now who are not thrilled with any of the Trump picks, that they’re not Alito or Thomas, and Barrett has been kind of soft on some of these issues.”
You just can’t count on a woman, amirite?
But what about Roberts and Kavanaugh?
So far, those two justices have not publicly revealed where they stand in the current dispute. Notably, in the trademark case, they did not sign onto Barrett’s concurrence — but they also did not sign the portion of Thomas’ opinion that most directly responded to Barrett’s critiques.
Instead, they issued a terse, one-paragraph opinion that said Barrett “might well” be right, but the question she raised could be left for another case and another day.
Isgur, the former DOJ spokesperson turned Supreme Court analyst, said she reads the opinions to suggest that Roberts and Kavanaugh are closer to Barrett’s view on the utility of history than they are to the strict originalism of Thomas and Alito.
Isgur argues that the court is really a 3-3-3 split rather than a 6-3 split which just means the center of the court is now what we used to call the right and the right is what can only be called batshit crazy.
There also may be another split emerging:
Though Roberts and Kavanaugh did not join Barrett’s concurrence, the court’s three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — each signed on to all or parts of it. (Kagan, the court’s leading dealmaker on the left, endorsed Barrett’s opinion in its entirety.)
It also appears to be the first opinion ever issued by the court in which four female justices all joined an opinion without any male justice also signing on. (The court never had as many as four women justices until Jackson, a nominee of President Joe Biden, was confirmed in 2022.)
That gender divide may be another clue that Barrett’s opinion presages her joining with the court’s liberals in the pending case about denying guns to domestic abusers.
“Rahimi is, in part, about gender,” Tyler said. “It’s about domestic violence.”
Keep in mind that if Trump wins Thomas and Alito are almost certainly planning to retire so he can replace them with two more batshit crazy young MAGA acolytes. I seriously doubt it will be a woman. They clearly aren’t reliable.
Barret is very, very conservative. I have no idea if any of this will make much of a difference. After all, even if she votes with the liberal justices it takes one more and you really can’t count on Roberts and Kavanaugh. But it’s nice to see someone on the righty fighting back even a little.
A few days ago Donald Trump floated a truly terrible, indeed unworkable economic proposal. I’m aware that many readers will say, “So what else is new?” But in so doing, you’re letting Trump benefit from the soft bigotry of rock-bottom expectations, not holding him to the standards that should apply to any presidential candidate. A politician shouldn’t be given a pass on nonsense because he talks nonsense all the time.
But in a way the most interesting thing about Trump’s latest awful policy idea is the way his party responded, with the kind of obsequiousness and paranoia you normally expect in places like North Korea.
What Trump reportedly proposed was an “all tariff policy” in which taxes on imports replace income taxes. Why is that a bad idea?
First, the math doesn’t work. Annual income tax receipts are around $2.4 trillion; imports are around $3.9 trillion. On the face of it, this might seem to suggest that Trump’s idea would require an average tariff rate of around 60 percent. But high tariffs would reduce imports, so tariff rates would have to go even higher to realize the same amount of revenue, which would reduce imports even more, and so on. How high would tariffs have to go in the end? I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation using highly Trump-favorable assumptions and came up with a tariff rate of 133 percent; in reality, there’s probably no tariff rate high enough to replace the income tax.
And to the extent that we did replace income taxes with tariffs, we’d in effect sharply raise taxes on working-class Americans while giving the rich a big tax cut — because the income tax is fairly progressive, falling most heavily on affluent taxpayers, while tariffs are de facto a kind of sales tax that falls most heavily on the working class.
So this is a really bad idea that would be highly unpopular if voters knew about it.
But here’s the kicker: How did the Republican National Committee respond when asked about it? By having its representative declare, “The notion that tariffs are a tax on U.S. consumers is a lie pushed by outsourcers and the Chinese Communist Party.”
Now, economists have been saying that tariffs are a tax on domestic consumers for the past two centuries or so; I guess they’ve been working for China all along. Yes, there are exceptions and qualifications, but if you imagine that Trump is thinking about optimal tariff theory, I have a degree from Trump University you might want to buy.
Anyway, look at how the R.N.C. responded to a substantive policy question: by insisting not just that Dear Leader’s nonsense is true, but that anyone who disagrees is part of a sinister conspiracy.
Don’t brush this off. It’s one more piece of evidence that MAGA has become a dangerous cult.
It barely got a mention in the press.
This is how Trump wins. He says ridiculous things, his cult lieutenants all chime in that the emperors clothes are beautifully tailored and the press moves on. No other politician in the world could get away with this.
