#VA after fiscal

[artcalledoddities]

You See What! You see what, I have to work with My youtube my tumblr For view Adding Vudu Some one purchased me Avatar II You see what! I can hear all the cymbals that are playing this Christmas song sorry I have new physical gifts for making the money, not buying a life insurance that don’t applaud suicide, I would only give if I could My country told me Sign here Two fingered in deep without the figures For my ecstasy My country told me Singh the sling slithered fuck you You see what! No $$ signs soon Pay a way for others to strut stuff I do, I do, I do, I Do See what! Say what up next! Watch the news! I’ll add a picture for correlation, degrees of stupefied a right before Like thieves stealing presents left on your door Add some VA news A monthly refinement adding like $25 bucks To the whole year each month It falls after fiscal And never enough Did I pay Did I really pay for the copies and the postage!? You see what! What I see! For how many?

I wasn’t reading with my real eyes

Avatar was updated on VUDU by VUDU

The Extended. The regular Theatrical Add some deleted sums in the UHD

Thank you, Vudu

For a moment I thought I received a gift from another human in the Avatar II

Not an upset, I’ve been waiting for extended version not allowed by that class of people who like to condense rather make time seated smaller for a viewing of a picture of motion

Who classifies?

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Christopher Wiggins at The Advocate:

A public library in Virginia that successfully pushed back against book bans last year has been taken over by Republican elected officials despite objections from the local community. In a contentious move, the all-Republican Warren County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 early Wednesday morning to assert greater control over Samuels Public Library, the institution lauded as Virginia’s 2024 Library of the Year and beneficiary of a substantial $500,000 grant from the Mellon Foundation. The Washington Post reports that on Tuesday evening, nearly 100 residents from diverse backgrounds—including grandparents, home-schoolers, veterans, teachers, farmers, and students—attended a six-hour public hearing in Front Royal, about 50 miles from Washington, D.C. Their unified stance was to defend Samuels Public Library from what they believed was government overreach by the Warren County Board of Supervisors. Despite overwhelming public support for the library’s existing governance, the Republican supervisors advanced their plan to establish a new county-appointed library board with direct oversight over Samuels’ policies and budget.

Supervisor Richard Jamieson, who led the initiative with a comprehensive 58-page “2023 Library Debrief and Research” report, contended that the current 15-member nonprofit trustee structure of Samuels Public Library no longer aligns with taxpayer interests and lacks sufficient oversight. Joined by Supervisor Vicky Cook, who had previously supported the library’s inclusive stance on LGBTQ+ titles, Jamieson argued that a shift in governance was necessary to ensure fiscal responsibility and operational efficiency. The takeover threatens to displace Samuels as the primary library service provider by June, the end of the fiscal year. In response, the Post reports that Melody Hotek, president of Samuels’ board of trustees, announced that the library is exploring all possible options, including seeking private funding to achieve complete independence from county oversight.

The Advocate previously reported on the fierce 2023 showdown when the conservative group Clean Up Samuels launched a campaign to remove LGBTQ-themed books from the library’s youth collections. The initiative sparked heated public debates, led to the resignation of the library director, and imposed significant financial strain as the library sought legal and public relations support to navigate the crisis. Despite these formidable challenges, Samuels Public Library survived and thrived, earning accolades for its unwavering commitment to inclusive and diverse literature. Despite the supervisors’ assertions of fiscal prudence and enhanced oversight, the community’s support for Samuels Public Library remains unshaken. Chip Stewart, a resident and fervent supporter of the library’s independence, launched a Change.org petition to thwart the Board of Supervisors’ actions. “Things were looking good for the Library’s future,” Stewart told The Advocate in an email. “But now, the trouble is returning.”

The Warren County Board of Supervisors in Virginia voted 4-1 to take over the Samuels Public Library in Front Royal, VA. The library in the past had successfully fended off right-wing extremist requests to remove LGBTQ+-themed books from its library.

[beardedmrbean]

Conservative Bart De Wever was sworn in Monday as Belgium's new prime minister, after striking a hard-fought coalition deal that moves the country to the right.

Reached after seven months of tortuous negotiations, the agreement makes De Wever the first nationalist from Dutch-speaking Flanders to be named Belgian premier.

A law-and-order candidate whose coalition has already promised to crack down on irregular migration, De Wever's rise to power reinforces a marked right-wing shift in European politics.

The 54-year-old, who in recent years has backed off on calls for Flanders to become an independent country, took the oath of office before King Philippe at the royal palace in Brussels.

From there, he headed straight to a gathering of EU leaders a few blocks away, for talks on defence and transatlantic relations -- quipping to reporters that he was "jumping right in".

On the day's headline topic, De Wever said Belgium was committed to meeting NATO's longstanding defence spending target of two percent of GDP, up from 1.3 percent at present.

"Europe has been a bit lazy on the topic of defence," he said -- arguing that Russian President Vladimir "Putin has woken us up."

Faced with a twin challenge from President Donald Trump -- threatening trade tariffs as well as pressuring allies to ramp up defence spending -- De Wever said the EU needed to preserve its "relationship with the United States."

De Wever's N-VA party is part of the hard-right ECR group in the European Parliament, which also includes lawmakers from the parties of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Czech leader Petr Fiala. 

"Our ECR group now has three prime ministers at the European Council table and participates in the government of seven countries," French hard-right lawmaker Marion Marechal rejoiced on X.

Hard-right parties, often riding anti-immigrant sentiment, performed strongly in European Parliament elections last year, and have topped recent national and regional votes in Austria, Germany and the Netherlands.

60-hour marathon

Split between French- and Dutch-speaking communities and with a highly complex political system, Belgium has an unenviable record of painfully protracted coalition discussions -- reaching 541 days back in 2010-2011.

This time around, five groups sought to forge a coalition after June elections that failed to produce a clear majority -- with talks led by De Wever's N-VA which claimed the most seats. 

The new government brings together three parties from Dutch-speaking Flanders: the N-VA, the centrist Christian-Democrats and the leftist Vooruit (Onward).

And it includes two from French-speaking Wallonia: the centrist Les Engages and the centre-right Reformist Movement.

Together, they hold an 81-seat majority in Belgium's 150-seat parliament.

Coalition talks hit a wall during the summer over the issue of plugging the country's budget deficit -- estimated at 4.6 percent of gross domestic product in 2024, one of the highest in the European Union.

Belgium is one of seven EU countries facing disciplinary action for running a deficit above three percent of GDP, in violation of the bloc's fiscal rules.

De Wever, the mayor of Antwerp since 2013, has pushed for cuts in social benefits and pension reforms that have already sparked opposition from labour unions. 

He had threatened to throw in the towel if no coalition deal was reached Friday. 

An agreement was struck with just hours to go after a 60-hour marathon session to iron out differences over an 800-page programme.  

But the gender makeup of the new government has raised some eyebrows, with 11 men and just four women. 

De Wever's N-VA was already part of a right-leaning ruling coalition between 2014 and 2018.

He takes over from outgoing prime minister Alexander De Croo, whose seven-party coalition took an arduous 493 days to emerge back in 2019-2020. 

De Croo had stayed on as caretaker leader after the June elections.

[usafphantom2]

Congress moves to save F-22s from the boneyard, once again

The compromise defense policy bill sets the USAF’s minimum fighter inventory at 1,112 planes.

Audrey DeckerDecember 7, 2023

F-22 Raptors assigned to the 1st Fighter Wing, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va. arrives at Royal Air Force Lakenheath, England Oct. 5, 2018.

Lawmakers are set to block the Air Force’s request to retire older F-22 Raptors, despite pleas from the service that it would cost too much money to get them battle-ready.

This is the second straight year Congress has denied the entreaty. Service officials have argued that Block 20 F-22s lack crucial modern weapons and would require billions of dollars to get them up to speed. Officials wanted to put the money toward the Next Generation Air Dominance program, its new, secretive fighter jet.

Congress released its $886 billion compromise defense policy bill late Wednesday night after weeks of negotiations between House and Senate lawmakers.

The F-22 retirements were part of a larger Air Force proposal to shed more than 300 of its aircraft in fiscal 2024 and use the money for higher-end technology. The bill greenlights at least some of the other retirements, including of A-10 Warthogs and F-15C and -D fighters.

The defense policy bill also puts limits on several other Air Force divestment plans, including F-15Es, and requires the service maintain a total fighter inventory of at least 1,112 aircraft.

Congress is requiring a number of updates on the Air Force’s effort to build drone wingmen, known as collaborative combat aircraft, or CCAs. The bill requires Air Force and Navy secretaries to provide specific information on the key milestones and cost estimates for the program.

Lawmakers also included several provisions on the Air Force’s troubled tanker program, the KC-46 Pegasus, in an attempt to keep the various fixes for the program on track.

As the Air Force waits for its tankers to be fixed, Israel, which ordered four KC-46s from Boeing, is also waiting for its tankers to arrive. The bill asks for the Pentagon to look at any ways it can expedite the delivery to Israel and requires the Defense Secretary to consider deploying U.S. KC-46 aircraft to Israel.

The bill text puts a hold on the Air Force’s final acquisition strategy for its next purchase of tankers until it gives lawmakers “an updated tanker roadmap timeline to include procurement of the Next Generation Air Refueling System; the business case analysis of the Air Force; for the KC-135 recapitalization program; validated requirements from the joint staff for the contract competition under the KC-135 recapitalization program,” according to bill text.

Lawmakers also included a provision to keep the Lockheed Martin production line going for the HH-60W combat rescue helicopter—a program the Air Force has truncated. The service has argued that these helicopters are “not particularly helpful in the Chinese” area of responsibility.

@GuyPlopski via X

A vote on the defense policy bill is expected soon, first by the Senate and then the House, in hopes President Biden will sign it before the end of the year.

[darkmaga-returns]

Mexican Cartel Open Fire on US Agents. Trump’s Ukraine Peace Plan Leaked. Trump may consider rejoining WHO. Russian lab touts MRNA cancer vaccine. Bill Gates/ Epstein rebranding happening in REAL TIME

Lioness of Judah Ministry

Jan 28, 2025Ko-Fi:

Mexican Cartel Terrorists Open Fire on U.S. Agents in Texas near Border

Several Border Patrol agents conducting surveillance and enforcement activities in Texas came under fire from suspected Mexican drug cartel operatives early Monday afternoon.

Rio Grande Valley Sector Border Patrol agents exchanged gunfire with the cartel members and sought cover as reinforcements were summoned. The agents did not sustain injuries during the initial exchange of gunfire. However, the incident is still unfolding. UPDATE: 9:15 p.m. 01/27/25: DPS officials report that state law enforcement resources have withdrawn from the scene. Mexican sources also report that Army and State Guard troops withdrew from the south side of the river. Officials indicate no arrests have been made. Border Patrol officials had no comment regarding their current status on the matter. UPDATE: 8:45 p.m. 01/27/25: Photos provided by Texas DPS show heavily armed Mexican Army trucks patrol the south side of the Rio Grande.

SURPRISE! Number of Attempted Illegal Border Crossings PLUNGES in First Week of President Trump’s Second Term

It turns out that it is possible to protect the U.S. southern border from invasion.

Trump has been president for one week, and the number of people attempting to cross the border is way down. What a difference it makes when the person in charge allows the members of the Border Patrol to do their jobs instead of acting like the Welcome Wagon. The Biden administration could have done this, they just didn’t want to. Isn’t that already completely clear?

Trump Says He May Reassign Armed IRS Agents To The Border

“I think we’re going to move them to the border where they are allowed to carry guns...”

Speaking at his first rally since taking office again, President Trump mulled a proposal to relocate thousands of newly hired Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employees to the southern border in order to assist with security. The armed agents were scheduled to be hired as part of the Biden Administration’s infamous ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ in 2022, and were slated to go after high-wealth individuals, complex partnerships, and large corporations that are allegedly avoiding taxes.

House Republicans divided over how to pay for Trump’s tax cuts

WASHINGTON, Jan 26 (Reuters) - Republicans who control the U.S. House of Representatives are trying to overcome internal differences on how to pay for President Donald Trump's sweeping tax cuts, with hardline conservatives determined to reduce an annual federal deficit approaching $2 trillion.

With a narrow 218-215 House majority, they need near-total unity as they prepare to vote within weeks on a fiscal 2025 budget resolution that will be a critical step toward passing Trump's sprawling agenda of tax cuts, border and immigration reform, energy deregulation and increased military spending.

[shadowfaxnews]

Shadowfax Technologies swings to profit in FY24 with adjusted PAT at Rs 2 crore

Third-party logistics provider Shadowfax Technologies on Tuesday said it has recorded an adjusted profit after tax (PAT) of Rs 2 crore in FY24, against a loss of Rs 123.8 crore in the preceding fiscal. Adjusted PAT includes costs related to employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs).

Revenue grew 33% from Rs 1,415 crore in FY23 to Rs 1,885 crore in FY24, according to a company statement.

The Bengaluru-headquartered firm said it has “significantly diversified” its revenue streams and major contributions now come from value-added services (VAS).

These services include Prime solutions (same day and next day delivery), reverse logistics, hand-to-hand exchange, and the rapidly expanding quick commerce (10-minute delivery). Shadowfax holds a leadership position or controls upwards of 50% market share in each of these services, establishing itself as one of the most diversified third-party logistics players in the market today,” the statement said.

It further said Shadowfax has accelerated its outlay in the middle-mile network over the past few years, with investments of over Rs 200 crore to automate its 40 sort centers. Last year, Shadowfax launched Prime Delivery, which provides same-day and next-day delivery services to more than 200 companies across the nation’s top 50 metro areas.

The Prime category now accounts for about 10% of the company’s total orders, the statement said.

“The company recently crossed 250K daily orders in this segment and has experienced more than a five-fold growth here in the past year,” it said.

[standardquip]

Relationship with my parents

This is about me rationalizing my relationship with my parents, who voted trump. They are (sincerely) nice people.

(quote from below) "It's been really hard to rationalize my relationship with my parents (and their relationship with trump) when I'm largely in far left echo chambers who loudly proclaim that anyone who supports trump is a racist, fascist, asshole, nazi, etc. When that's blatantly false, simply put.

But I also don't want to make some wide sweep about how they're uneducated morons who don't fully understand what they're voting for, or are victims of propaganda, because I don't think that's true either. At least not for my dad, anyway."

---- cw suicide mentions, transphobia

My relationship with my parents has not been great. For most of my life, I hated them and was actively trying to get away. My life got better once I finally did. I ex-communicated them after they refused to accept me as their son (I am AFAB).

To illustrate how bad it got, I was in the US Navy and I tried to kill myself and was separated due to those actions. I got one phone call and I didn't call my parents. They had to figure out I was no longer in the Navy from someone else. How awful for them.

After only a few months of them finally leaving me the fuck alone (honestly probably due to the shock of the Navy thing), they started trying to have a relationship with me again, and the only reason we ended up reconnecting was because I gave up trying to fight them. Also they used the correct pronouns finally. Our relationship was pretty transactional from then on. They wanted a relationship and I needed money. I mostly forgave them (or at least accepted that they did the best with the knowledge they had at the time) and after a lot of therapy, I didn't hate them anymore. I don't know if I have ever loved them, but I reached a point where interacting with them didn't ruin my mood so there was a mostly peaceful co-existence.

By the time I finally got financial independence (which involved getting VA disability and buying my own house), I wasn't treating my parents like ATMs anymore but I wouldn't say my view of our relationship was anything more than platonic.

All of the relationship effort came from their end. They wanted to visit me, I never volunteered to visit them. They want to call me, I almost never call them, etc., etc. I'm a loner, the only reason I talk to anybody really is if they call me.

Anyway. I had a breakdown in 2018 which involved getting real with my mom about my mental health, something I'd never really done before. Ever since that day, my mom called me every friday and my dad called me every monday. I saw it as they were just making sure I was still alive and maybe it was partly that but I think they mostly just wanted a reason to talk to me more often.

They also started visiting me every year and we would do big house construction projects. My house would probably still be unlivable if it were not for their help.

It should also be stated that they live about 1000 miles away from me and they drove to visit. So visiting me, to work, involves considerable time (and energy) on their parts. And they did it every year.

They also volunteer a lot in their home state. So they are, genuinely, good people.

They are not racist. But they are christian, (mostly) white, and affluent (probably the lowest tier above "upper middle class" ), so basically insulated from most of the world's problems.

They both had troubled childhoods with families that were poor. They both worked their asses off to get what they have now. They both worked full-time for basically their entire lives, even while they had kids (me and my brother).

So, naturally, they are fiscally conservative.

They're both retired now. My mom is now basically a tradwife and she doesn't really think for herself, politically. She says sometimes she doesn't vote at all but when she does, she votes for whoever my dad tells her to vote for.

She was a nurse, but she's against universal healthcare. She believes abortion "shouldn't be used as birth control" so that makes her pro-life somehow. They believe being queer is fine as long as you don't "participate in the lifestyle" so they don't believe in gay marriage.

They love sinners such as myself, but they don't want to participate in a system that enables those sinners, essentially.

My dad's views boil down to fiscal conservatism only; he's basically a single-issue voter. He believes that the rich will always find a way out of paying taxes so we should give up on the whole thing. The middle class (him) always ends up paying so he needs to look out for himself now and he'll vote for whoever will lower taxes and whoever makes his stock market portfolio look good.

He doesn't understand why people get so heated about political topics. Why can't we just have a rational discussion? Why does everyone get so angry?

He didn't outright say it, but I think he believes that all of the identity politics (if it even goes into law) simply won't be enforced. So it shouldn't be such a high priority to think about.

My dad is constantly watching the news and trying to get "both sides" of the issues. He actually does watch both sides of the news, too. That being said, I don't think he's ever voted for a democrat in his lifetime? So I'm not sure what kind of things he's actually learning.

Either way, I would consider my dad "well informed" on politics.

They both voted early for trump this year. They've been voting for him since 2016.

With all this background in mind, it's hard to say I should disown my parents over politics.

It's been really hard to rationalize my relationship with my parents (and their relationship with trump) when I'm largely in far left echo chambers who loudly proclaim that anyone who supports trump is a racist, fascist, asshole, nazi, etc. When that's blatantly false, simply put.

But I also don't want to make some wide sweep about how they're uneducated morons who don't fully understand what they're voting for, or are victims of propaganda, because I don't think that's true either. At least not for my dad, anyway.

It is completely understandable why two people who got shitty hands and worked their lives to get out of those situations would be bitter that their incomes are going to people who did not work as hard.

It's not morally right, but it's understandable.

Earlier this year, as the red states were ramping up the efforts to make all the leftists move out, my dad asked me if I would visit them in their home state of georgia. (For reference, I live in a northeastern blue state.)

I said no, because in case he had forgotten, I am transgender. And I don't want to go where I am unwanted.

And he said "So what? Ignore them."

This was over a phone call. That pissed me off royally but I am not very verbally "with it" so I didn't response directly until later, via text.

Where I wrote:

(begin quote) Regarding the anti lgbt laws It doesn't matter if they're 'not that bad' or 'won't be enforced'

It doesn't matter that they may not arrest me because I don't look trans or have all my legal documents matching.

What matters is that red states have made it their mission to pass (or try to pass) laws and policies that actively hurt lgbt people, OF WHICH I AM ONE, making it clear they do not want those people in their state(s).

And it would be one thing if you guys did not actively vote for the party pushing those views (I still would be reluctant to visit but maybe I would anyway) but you don't. You vote republican. You are probably voting for trump. You actively disproved of my entire transition and you said you thought it was a mistake and my scars made you sick.

To this day I don't know if you actually think of me as your son or if you're just paying lip service to your kid's mental illness to avoid drama so I'd talk and have a relationship with you again. This goes for both you specifically and mom.

So no, I'm sorry, I never plan on visiting you in georgia. I never plan on going to georgia again for any reason (even the [anime] conventions) unless the political landscape totally changes.

I'm not going somewhere where "my kind" isn't wanted and I'm CERTAINLY not going there to visit parents that support (either directly or indirectly) the laws that actively hurt lgbt people, which, again, I need to remind you I AM AN LGBT PERSON WHO IS ACTIVELY BEING HURT BY THESE POLICIES and was and currently am being hurt by the culture these policies represent.

"So what? ignore them" is MASSIVELY IGNORANT and it pissed me the fuck off.

As a side note, this is the thing I was talking about with Florida [on the phone]. License can be revoked and you can be charged with fraud. Partway down the article it does say that if taken at face value it could also apply to tourists. https://www.newsweek.com/transgender-people-florida-face-drivers-licenses-revoked-1865187 And again Georgia is definitely nowhere near as bad as what desantis has been doing in florida but the public sentiment down there about trans people certainly seems the same to me right now

This is a blog but it's more clearly written. Where the news article mostly focuses on people attempting to newly change their license, this blog talks more about what it means for trans people in general who could be charged with "misrepresenting" their identity (by having a license that says their sex is not their birth sex -- this is me. I am a person who has M on their license and wasn't born male.) https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/florida-misrepresenting-gender-on

Same person also made a risk assessment map, which is useful if you want to read more context about what states have been doing in relation to anti-trans bills (I do not use this map to influence where I travel; I found it today to help illustrate the current state of affairs.) https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/erins-anti-trans-risk-map-early-legislative

This article is to ground my comments about public sentiment and the "political situation down there." Even if this is just one extremist saying this, it's not like the republican party is doing anything to separate themselves from this guy's opinions. It just adds fuel to the fire and the growing anti-trans public sentiment. The article does a pretty good job explaining how those comments have impacted society. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cpac-speaker-transgender-people-eradicated-1234690924/

You might be wondering why I have suddenly come out of nowhere about this stuff. The answer is because all of this crap only started happening in the last 2 years! Yeah there was some arguing about bathrooms and sports once in a blue moon years back, but nobody really cared that much. Then suddenly in 2023 there were 589!!! anti-trans bills crafted.

The worst part is, I don't even actively seek out this information! The florida memo was something I accidentally found! I actually try to stay away from the news because (especially for trans people) it is SO BLEAK.

Here's an article that illustrates the rise in the crafting of these bills: https://translegislation.com/learn

And, I'm not even touching on whether you personally agree with the bills. That's not a debate I want to have. I don't really care if you personally agree the bills should be passed or if the wording in them seems logical (I feel like it should go without saying, but just to be clear: I don't agree with any of these bills, including the ones about preventing medical care for trans kids).

What I AM trying to impart on you is that the mere fact the bills exist, the mere fact there are SO MANY of them, especially so suddenly, is cause to believe that there is anti-trans sentiment and is very clearly indicative that the states making those bills, by extensions republicans, by extension YOU, MY PARENTS, would prefer that trans people do not exist (I AM A TRANS PERSON), and I do not feel safe in a state that holds a majority of people who who hold those views. I also do not feel safe in a state that borders florida, THE WORST state for these bills and sentiments.

Anyway I don't expect any sort of response from you so don't feel pressured to come up with something. But at least now I can say you have been informed.

(end quote)

He never responded or directly referred to these texts in future conversations, which I expected. These texts were sent in early April. Since then, my parents visited me twice this year, where we decidedly did not talk about politics at all.

However, my relationship with my dad was pretty much gone after these texts. I really did not see a future for our relationship. We were never that close anyway, had never reconciled as much as my mom and I had, and since this conversation (and knowing their voting pattern) I had mostly written off any future relationship with him.

But I resolved to not ACTUALLY do anything about it until the election. I was (perhaps foolishly) thinking they either would vote Harris, or not vote at all, or Harris would win and I could just keep ignoring political discourse with them.

I really did try to see it from their point of view. Did trump have decent economic policies? Maybe there was too much bloat and some branches of government could be drained.

But the people who spoke badly of Trump were vast and kept coming out. Trump's ideas come off as "I'm 14 and this is deep" and while on the surface some of the ideas seemed ok, the people he was appointing to "replace the swamp" seemed, on the whole, absolutely the wrong picks and would definitely make things worse. Not to mention how pretty much the entire world's country leaders ALSO spoke out against Trump, too.

I certainly was no fan of Harris, I thought some of her plans were BS (I consider myself fiscally conservative too, for the record!) but I thought she was certainly better than Trump so I voted for her anyway.

Trump really felt like he had no redeeming factors and all of his cabinet picks that I know about seem just as bad, if not worse, than him. I don't understand what my dad was seeing in them (or hoping for). He said he didn't like trump as a person but he thought Trump would be better than Biden/Harris.

I was hoping that, if trump's policies really weren't that great anyway, maybe... just maybe... he wouldn't vote for trump for me. Because he supposedly loved me. A person who happens to be lgbtq. And his child.

[insert Red Hood monologue about Joker here (specifically 1:53 - 2:09)]

While I do mostly live in a left bubble online, I am in a very red area of a blue state and the lefties I personally interact with are more centrist imo. So I had no illusion about this election. I knew it was going to be very close.

Still heart-breaking to see Trump win, though. Now I actually had to deal with what I'd been putting off for so long: my relationship with my parents.

Emotionally, it would hurt them far more than me. But in every other aspect, it would hurt me more than them.

After 2 days of essentially shock, I decided to ask for my uncle's opinion. My entire family is left except for my parents.

I said (heavily summarized) I'm thinking about excommunicating my parents. Do you have any opinions or advice? He said (heavily summarized) my dad is a lost cause but my mom (his sister) is all he has left and he wants to have a relationship with her. He is angry they voted the way they did but he doesn't think politics are worth sacrificing that relationship. They will continue to have a relationship and continue to not talk about politics with each other.

I said, but how do you expect people to learn if there aren't any consequences specifically to those people? He didn't have a good answer.

My mom calls me every friday. Today is friday. After the talk with my uncle, I decided to just split it up. Compromise.

I texted my mom:

(quote) I'm really upset with the election and your part in it and I'd prefer you didn't call me for a while. If you need to come up for your dad I'll still let you stay here but otherwise I need space. (end quote) [Her dad (who I don't have a relationship with) is currently in the hospital.]

And then, an hour later, I texted my dad: (quote) I'm not going to go out of my way to avoid you in person if you visit again, but I'm not interested in having a relationship with you at all.

I've taken you off my schwab accounts as POA (might not go through until tuesday) and I won't answer any future calls from you.

The only reason mom is not being cut off is because unlike you, I don't think she fully understood what she was voting for. (end quote) Today has hurt a lot, actually. More than I expected. I guess I had reconciled with them a lot more than I thought I Had previously.

I hope I made the right choice.

----

This entry is about me rationalizing my relationship with my parents. Realistically, I personally will likely be unaffected by a Trump presidency. But as I stated in my long text to my dad, it's really not about that. It's about the sentiment that it's acceptable to believe people like me shouldn't exist.

That being said, Trump's policies are absolutely horrid anyway. More specifically I am not looking forward to distrusting my food quality even more than I do currently, nor whatever they're doing with the EPA. Can't wait for our water and air quality to go to shit. Fun times! /s

I think that anti-lgbtq policies are pretty low on the priority list and I'm hoping we'll be mostly forgotten about while they dismantle everything else.

I will personally be insulated from a lot of harm, being in a blue state, passing, post-transition, and a military veteran. At this point I can really only worry about myself, because if I try to worry about other people now I'll lose it.

For everyone else, try to take it one day at a time. Trump doesn't get into office until late January, so you still have time to figure out what you want to do.

Hugs for everyone.

[arpov-blog-blog]

..."House Republicans unveiled their proposal for emergency aid to Israel Monday evening. It’s an immediate infusion of $14.3 billion in exchange for $14.3 billion in cuts from the Internal Revenue Service. 

Republicans touted this as an “offset” to save the deficit from spiking, as did some in the press who are often quick to parrot the talking points they’re given. But here’s the reality: The Republican proposal would not offset spending at all. Rather, it would likely add to the federal deficit because cuts to the IRS almost always result in dried-up tax collection, thus adding to the debt.

What the proposal does succeed in doing is create a political trap for Democrats. Vote against it and you’re “not standing with Israel”; plus, you’re refusing to protect Joe Sixpack from the mean IRS. Never mind that the proposed IRS cuts would be in areas of the Inflation Reduction Act that supported tax enforcement, courts, and operations support—tools that the agency uses to go after the wealthiest tax evaders. The cuts would also nix a new program to create a free online tax filing system à la TurboTax.1

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) called bullshit on the Republican plan. To disarm the political trap, he hinted he could end up voting for it knowing full well that it is unlikely to become law. 

Most Democrats in the Senate are not playing 3-D chess on the issue, and they are instead either immediately opposed or highly skeptical of the proposal.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) told me, “It’s a foolish proposal and there is no risk” for Democrats to hold firm in opposition.

It’s fiscally unwise because if you did that then you would also—the math doesn’t work because those IRS cuts would both inconvenience taxpayers and reduce tax collection. They think that that’s an offset but they would be compounding our budgetary challenges.

“If you’re not going to do any harm to the IRS, yes, it’s legitimate,” said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.). “If it’d harm the technology that’s been planned out for the next five to 10 years, it would be very, very hard for me to support.”

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has pleaded with his fellow Republicans to keep aid to Israel linked to aid to Ukraine, making the case that both advance American interests.

Yair Rosenberg, a staff writer at the Atlantic, summed it up best he could:

“This is not what you do if you care about the safety of Jews,” he wrote on X (Twitter). “This is what you do when you care about other things and are willing to hold the safety of Jews hostage until you get them.”

[treatnow]

BRAIN WOUND UPDATE #16: More Evidence: Untreated TBI ties to Cardiovascular, Endocrine, Neurological, and Psychiatric Disorders

BRINGING YOU CURRENT INFORMATION ABOUT HOW TO HELP TREAT AND HEAL BRAIN WOUNDS: CONCUSSIONS, TBI, PTSD "There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they're falling in."                                           Bishop Desmond Tutu At some point, DoD, the VA, and medicine in general will hear the drumbeat of data in peer-reviewed science attesting to the damage done by untreated brain wounds. Fortunately for those lucky few, the role of Hyperbaric Oxygenation to help treat and heal their brain wounds has given them new lives. But the practitioners of conventional medicine are not ready to accept facts and evidence. The DOD and the VA claim that the suicide epidemic is their #1 clinical priority, yet they drag their feet, avoiding using HBO therapy that virtually eliminates suicidal ideation. And they seem not to have read recent science about symptoms and "mental health" diagnoses that mask undiagnosed brain wounds. While the suicide epidemic continues to escalate, DOD and the VA spend more and more on strategies to think harder, collaborate more, pay attention, fund more Call Centers, and get the word out: precious little on healing brain wounds. Consider these recent reports. This report in JAMA, Association of Traumatic Brain Injury With the Risk of Developing Chronic Cardiovascular, Endocrine, Neurological, and Psychiatric Disorders, found that patients with mTBI and msTBI were at increased risk of developing long-term cardiovascular, endocrine, psychiatric, and neurological comorbidities. The risk of post-TBI comorbidities was higher in all age groups compared with an age-, sex-, and race-frequency–matched unexposed group, and notably so in patients younger than 40 years. Comorbidities after TBI were associated with higher mortality. Another JAMA study, Neuropathologic and Clinical Findings in Young Contact Sport Athletes Exposed to Repetitive Head Impacts, found that young contact sport athletes may be at risk for long-term neuropathologic disorders, including chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). This one bears reading by parents. A third study in the New England Journal of Medicine, Neuro-degenerative Disease Mortality among Former Professional Soccer Players, found that mortality from neurodegenerative disease was higher and mortality from other common diseases lower among former Scottish professional soccer players than among matched controls. Dementia-related medications were prescribed more frequently to former players than to controls. And an ironic report from Front Office Sports, the NFL court drama shows how little we've progressed from science-scepticism. In a bid to avoid reimbursing the NFL for payouts to brain wounded players, major insurers deployed medical experts to argue that there’s no scientific evidence linking head injuries with neurocognitive disorders, such as Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s, covered in the settlement. They further suggested that up to 40% of the now 1,663 former players who have received payments may have overstated and even feigned their symptoms. This tactic is mirrored in the behavior of DOD components that continue to discard combat veterans with the National Guard with Other Than Honorable Discharges and claims that the petitioners either weren't on active duty when they were injured, can't document injuries they were encouraged to not report to stay in the fight, or are faking their injuries. Of the five Defense Department service branches, only two met their active-duty enlisted recruiting goals for fiscal 2023 -- the Marine Corps and the Space Force, by far the smallest services and with the lightest recruiting burden. The others, the Army, Air Force and Navy, fell short. Coincidence? ########## The TreatNOW Mission is ending service member suicides. Along the way, we have learned that we can help heal the symptoms and effects of acute concussion/TBI/PTSD by helping heal brain wounds. Heal Brains. Stop Suicides. Restore Lives. TreatNOW Information provided by TreatNOW.org does not constitute a medical recommendation. It is intended for informational purposes only, and no claims, either real or implied, are being made. Read the full article

[koreaunderground]

(eff.org)(2021/03/08) The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption and Tell Congress About All the Encrypted Phones It’s Already Hacking Into

[eff.org][1]

  [1]: <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/fbi-should-stop-attacking-encryption-and-tell-congress-about-all-encrypted-phones>

# The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption and Tell Congress About All the Encrypted Phones It’s Already Hacking Into

Joe Mullin

10-13 minutes

Federal law enforcement has been [asking for a backdoor][2] to read Americans’ encrypted communications for years now. FBI Director Christopher Wray did it again last week [in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee][3]. As usual, the FBI’s complaints involved end-to-end encryption employed by popular messaging platforms, as well as the at-rest encryption of digital devices, which Wray described as offering [“user-only access.”][4]

  [2]: <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/07/doj-and-fbi-show-no-signs-correcting-past-untruths-their-new-attacks-encryption>   [3]: <https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SJC%20Oversight%20Hearing%20-%20FBI%20Director%20Wray%20SFR%20-%203.2.2021.pdf>   [4]: <https://twitter.com/ericgeller/status/1366804541451157504?s=21>

The FBI wants these terms to sound scary, but [they actually describe security best practices][5]. End-to-end encryption is what allows users to exchange messages without having them intercepted and read by repressive governments, corporations, and other bad actors. And “user-only access” is actually a perfect encapsulation of how device encryption should work; otherwise, anyone who got their hands on your phone or laptop—a thief, an abusive partner, or an employer—could access its most sensitive data. When you intentionally weaken these systems, it hurts our security and privacy, because there’s no magical kind of access that only works for the good guys. If Wray gets his special pass to listen in on our conversations and access our devices, corporations, criminals, and authoritarians will be able to get the same access.

  [5]: <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/02/incoming-biden-administration-officials-should-change-course-encryption>

It’s remarkable that Wray keeps getting invited to Congress to [sing the same song][6]. Notably, Wray was invited there to talk, in part, about the January 6th insurrection, a serious domestic attack in which the attackers—far from being concerned about secrecy—proudly broadcast many of their crimes, resulting in hundreds of arrests.

  [6]: <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/fancy-new-terms-same-old-backdoors-encryption-debate-2019>

It’s also remarkable what Wray, once more, chose to leave out of this narrative. While Wray continues to express frustration about what his agents can’t get access to, he fails to brief Senators about the shocking frequency with which his agency _already_ accesses Americans’ smartphones. Nevertheless, the scope of police snooping on Americans’ mobile phones is becoming clear, and it’s not just the FBI who is doing it. Instead of inviting Wray up to Capitol Hill to ask for special ways to invade our privacy and security, Senators should be asking Wray about the private data his agents are already trawling through.

### **Police Have An Incredible Number of Ways to Break Into Encrypted Phones**

In all 50 states, police are breaking into phones on a vast scale. An October report from the non-profit Upturn, “[Mass Extraction][7],” has revealed details of how invasive and widespread police hacking of our phones has become. Police can easily purchase forensic tools that extract data from nearly every popular phone. In March 2016, Cellebrite, a popular forensic tool company, supported “logical extractions” for 8,393 different devices, and “physical extractions,” which involves copying all the data on a phone bit-by-bit, for 4,254 devices. Cellebrite can bypass lock screens on about 1,500 different devices.

  [7]: <https://www.upturn.org/reports/2020/mass-extraction/>

How do they bypass encryption? Often, they just guess the password. In 2018, Prof. Matthew Green [estimated][8] it would take no more than 22 hours for forensic tools to break into some older iPhones with a 6-digit passcode simply by continuously guessing passwords (i.e. “brute-force” entry). A 4-digit passcode would fail in about 13 minutes.

  [8]: <https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/985885001542782978>

That brute force guessing was enabled by a hardware flaw that has been fixed since 2018, and the rate of password guessing is much more limited now. But even as smartphone companies like Apple improve their security, device hacking remains very much a cat-and-mouse game. As recently as September 2020, [Cellebrite marketing materials][9] boasted its tools can break into iPhone devices up to “the latest iPhone 11/ 11 Pro / Max running the latest iOS versions up to the latest 13.4.1”

  [9]: <https://cf-media.cellebrite.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/SolutionOverview_CAS_2020.pdf>

Even when passwords can’t be broken, vendors like Cellebrite offer “advanced services” that can unlock even the newest iOS and Samsung devices. Upturn research suggests the base price on such services is $1,950, but it can be cheaper in bulk.

Buying electronic break-in technology on a wholesale basis represents the best deal for police departments around the U.S., and they avail themselves of these bargains regularly. In 2018, the Seattle Police Department [purchased 20 such “actions”][10] from Cellebrite for $33,000, allowing them to extract phone data within weeks or even days. Law enforcement agencies that want to unlock phones en masse can bring Cellebrite’s “advanced unlocking” in-house, for prices that range from $75,000 to $150,000.

  [10]: <https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20394507-installment_101>

That means for most police departments, breaking into phones isn’t just convenient, it’s relatively inexpensive. Even a mid-sized police department like Virginia Beach, VA [has a police budget of more than $100 million][11]; New York City’s police budget is over $5 billion. The FBI’s 2020 budget request is [about $9 billion][12].

  [11]: <https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/06/26/how-much-money-goes-to-police-departments-in-americas-largest-cities/112004904/>   [12]: <https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/fbi-budget-request-for-fiscal-year-2020>

When the FBI says it’s “going dark” because it can’t beat encryption, what it’s really asking for is a method of breaking in that’s cheaper, easier, and more reliable than the methods they already have. The only way to fully meet the FBI’s demands would be to require a backdoor in all platforms, applications, and devices. Especially at a time when police abuses nationwide have come into new focus, this type of complaint should be a non-starter with elected officials. Instead, they should be questioning how and why police are already dodging encryption. These techniques aren’t just being used against criminals.

### **Phone Searches By Police Are Widespread and Commonplace**

Upturn has documented more than 2,000 agencies across the U.S. that have purchased products or services from mobile device forensic tool vendors, including every one of the 50 largest police departments, and at least 25 of the 50 largest sheriffs’ offices.

Law enforcement officials like Wray want to convince us that encryption needs to be bypassed or broken for threats like terrorism or crimes against children, but in fact, Upturn’s public records requests show that police use forensic tools to search phones for everyday low-level crimes. Even when police don't need to bypass encryption—such as when they convince someone to "consent" to the search of a phone and unlock it—these invasive police phone searches are used “as an all-purpose investigative tool, for an astonishingly broad array of offenses, often without a warrant,” as Upturn put it.

The 44 law enforcement agencies who provided records to Upturn revealed at least 50,000 extractions of cell phones between 2015 and 2019\. And there’s no question that this number is a “severe undercount,” counting only 44 agencies, when at least 2,000 agencies have the tools. Many of the largest police departments, including New York, Chicago, Washington D.C., Baltimore, and Boston, either denied Upturn’s record requests or did not respond.

“Law enforcement… use these tools to investigate cases involving graffiti, shoplifting, marijuana possession, prostitution, vandalism, car crashes, parole violations, petty theft, public intoxication, and the full gamut of drug-related offenses,” Upturn reports. In Suffolk County, NY, 20 percent of the phones searched by police were for narcotics cases. Authorities in Santa Clara County, CA, San Bernardino County, CA, and Fort Worth, TX all reported that drug crimes were among the most common reasons for cell phone data extractions. Here are just a few examples of the everyday offenses in which Upturn found police searched phones:

 * In [one case][13], police officers sought to search two phones for evidence of drug sales after a $220 undercover marijuana bust.  * Police stopped a vehicle for a “left lane violation,” then “due to nervousness and inconsistent stories, a free air sniff was conducted by a … K9 with positive alert to narcotics.” The officers found bags of marijuana in the car, then seized eight phones from the car’s occupants, and [sought to extract data from them][14] for “evidence of drug transactions.”  * Officers looking for a juvenile who allegedly violated terms of his electronic monitoring found him after a “short foot pursuit” in which the youngster threw his phone to the ground. Officers [sought to search the phone][15] for evidence of “escape in the second degree.”

  [13]: <https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20394694-sw_38982>   [14]: <https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20394714-st1700494a170155-search-warrant>   [15]: <https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20394724-affidavit-19-5271>

And these searches often take place without judicial warrants, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s clear ruling in [_Riley v. California_][16] that a warrant is required to search a cell phone. That’s because police frequently abuse rules around so-called consent searches. These types of searches are widespread, but they’re hardly consensual. In January, we wrote about how these [so-called “consent searches” are extraordinary violations][17] of our privacy.

  [16]: <https://www.eff.org/cases/supreme-court-cases-cell-phone-searches>   [17]: <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/so-called-consent-searches-harm-our-digital-rights>

Forensic searches of cell phones are increasingly common. The Las Vegas police, for instance, examined 260% more cell phones in 2018-2019 compared with 2015-2016.

The searches are often overbroad, as well. It’s not uncommon for data unrelated to the initial suspicions to be copied, kept, and used for other purposes later. For instance, police can deem unrelated data to be “gang related,” and keep it in a “gang database,” which have often vague standards. Being placed in such a database can easily affect peoples’ future employment options. Many police departments don’t have any policies in place about when forensic phone-searching tools can be used.

### **It’s Time for Oversight On Police Phone Searches**

Rather than listening to a litany of requests for special access to personal data from federal agencies like the FBI, Congress should assert oversight over the inappropriate types of access that are already taking place.

The first step is to start keeping track of what’s happening. Congress should require that federal law enforcement agencies create detailed audit logs and screen recordings of digital searches. And we agree with Upturn that agencies nationwide should collect and publish aggregated information about how many phones were searched, and whether those searches involved warrants (with published warrant numbers), or so-called consent searches. Agencies should also disclose what tools were used for data extraction and analysis.

Congress should also consider placing sharp limits on when consent searches can take place at all. In our [January blog post][18], we suggest that such searches be banned entirely in high-coercion settings like traffic stops, and suggest some specific limits that should be set in less-coercive settings.

  [18]: <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/so-called-consent-searches-harm-our-digital-rights>

[beardedmrbean]

MEPs approved new fiscal rules for the EU during a plenary session on Tuesday despite an ongoing campaign by trade unions to prevent "austerity 2.0" from passing through.

"This reform constitutes a fresh start and a return to fiscal responsibility," said co-rapporteur Makrus Ferber (EPP – Germany). "The new framework will be simpler, more predictable and more pragmatic. However, the new rules can only become a success if properly implemented by the Commission."

The regulation passed with 359 votes in favour, 166 against and 61 abstentions, with conservatives, liberals and socialist groups helping to get the text over the line.

Advocates of the reform say it heralds a return to fiscal control after a more lax approach during the Covid-19 pandemic. Member States will now be required to keep budget deficits at less than 3% of national GDP. In addition, countries with excessive debt will be required to reduce it on average by 1% per year if their debt is above 90% of GDP, and by 0.5% per year on average if it is between 60% and 90%.

'Straitjacket'

European and Belgian trade unions have led a long campaign denouncing the reforms as a "Europe-wide return to austerity".

According to ETUC General Secretary Esther Lynch, 18 Member States including Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland would be unable to meet the required minimum level of investment in housing, healthcare and education under the new rules. In addition, only three Member States – Sweden, Ireland and Denmark – will be able to meet the social and climate investments required of them.

"This agreement, forced by the austerity approach of some European capitals, will require member states to reduce their debts rapidly and in ways that are economically and socially unsustainable," ETUC stated on the eve of the vote. "This will mark a return to austerity. At the same time, the new rules will also act as a disincentive to invest towards the social and climate objectives EU member states have agreed upon, by limiting the marge of manoeuvre of public deficit."

Similarly, Belgian MEP and President of the European Greens/EFA group Philippe Lamberts (Ecolo) drew attention to the social and environmental cost of tighter economic measures. "These new budgetary rules will impose a straitjacket on all EU Member States," he said on Monday. "It will deprive governments of the financial resources needed to guarantee a thriving economy, social services and climate action."

Other political groups in the European Parliament acknowledge that the reforms are imperfect, but necessary nonetheless. "There is no doubt that this deal is much better than no deal and going back to the old rules or having no rules at all," said co-rapporteur Margarida Marques (S&D – Portugal).

Right-wing and far-right political groups welcome a more stringent approach to EU budgetary rules. "There are a number of Member States who have gone too far in debt financing and this is a potential danger which can't be justified nationally or EU-wide," said MEP Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR/N-VA – Belgium). This echoes positions of "frugal" countries such as Germany, who fear another bail-out in the worst-case scenario.

Tax the rich

Tuesday's vote has not stopped the opposition campaign in its tracks. ETUC, the trade union leading the fight, has now emphasised the need to "tax the rich" as a solution to the EU's budgetary difficulties.

"Working people who have suffered a historic drop in living standards as a result of the pandemic and cost-of-living crisis simply don’t have anything left for politicians to take," stated Lynch in a press release published in the wake of the vote. "Instead politicians who supported these fiscal rules should have the decency to meet them through taxes on the corporations which registered record breaking profits which fueled inflation."

The vote on the budgetary reforms is one of almost 90 to take place during the Strasbourg plenary this week. This is the last time MEPs will convene before the end of the mandate and there is a palpable sense of urgency to deliver to voters before European elections on 9 June.

[arpov-blog-blog]

Interesting the proposals don't include raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires. They don't include raising the Social Security tax ceiling to the first $400.000 of income for wealthy people..."The bill released on Wednesday — dubbed the Limit, Save, Grow Act — aims to raise the debt limit by $1.5 trillion or through March 31, 2024, whichever comes first. 

It proposes reverting discretionary spending caps to fiscal 2022 levels while limiting growth to 1 percent annually over the next decade. While Republicans have long said the discretionary spending cuts would not target defense spending, nothing in the bill explicitly protects defense spending, leaving that spending up to appropriators.

The move to release a debt limit increase bill comes as President Biden has refused to negotiate with McCarthy on the matter, calling for a “clean” debt limit increase not paired with any other policy points.

“Now that we’ve introduced a clear plan for responsible debt limit increase, they have no more excuse and refuse to negotiate,” McCarthy said in a House floor speech.

The bill is expected to get a floor vote next week. But with just a four-vote majority, McCarthy will have to work to ensure it reaches majority support.

McCarthy told reporters on Wednesday that he’s confident about the bill’s chances of passage. 

While Republicans originally sought to use the debt limit as a way to ensure concessions on spending, leaders added in some policy suggestions after McCarthy detailed the plan to the conference on Tuesday, helping to build support from hardline conservatives who clamored for more cuts. 

“With the discussions that I’ve been in, I think that we can get 218,” said Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus who was involved with discussions on Tuesday. “I think we’re going to come up with something good out of the conference that cuts spending, makes significant reforms and puts us a step closer towards fiscal stability as a country.”

Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.), chair of the Main Street Caucus, expressed confidence in the plan notching “widespread support throughout the conference.” But he also said there are “a few details to be worked out,” while also taking aim at Biden over the current rate of progress in debt limit talks.  

“The stew is not done cooking,” he said shortly before the text of the bill was released. “But I gotta tell you, the Speaker has brought us a long way in the last couple of months, which is remarkable given the fact that the president refuses to negotiate — and that’s normally how you see the contours of a deal come together.”

McCarthy said that the bill will be led by House Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), whose relationship with the Speaker recently came under scrutiny after The New York Times reported tensions between the two leaders as Arrington’s committee is crafting a long-term budget resolution.

The $4.5 trillion in “savings” for taxpayers that Republicans say are in the bill also come from a slew of proposals that have already been met with opposition from Democrats, including measures clawing back coronavirus funding previously allocated by Congress that they say has gone unspent and targeting the Biden administration’s student loans forgiveness decision and ongoing repayment pause."