#trump exclusionary policies

[baldwinheights]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Qasim Rashid at Let's Address This:

I still recall running legal triage at airports when Trump enacted his first Muslim ban—a racist policy designed only to create fear and discord. Now, as Trump returns to the White House, he enacts a Muslim Ban 2.0, one that is even more sophisticated in its hate and fascism. That’s just one of the 200+ Executive Orders Trump has already signed. Most all of them are regressive, discriminatory, and harmful to the safety and security of Americans. None of them bring down the price of eggs. [...]

Repeal Joe Biden’s Executive Orders

Trump’s presidency began with a sweeping Executive Order to rescind every single one of Biden’s Executive Orders, with no consideration for their individual merit or the impact of their repeal. In this action, there was no assessment of whether these policies were beneficial or effective—only the presumption that they were inherently flawed simply because they bore Biden’s signature. This is not the mark of thoughtful governance or collaborative leadership; it is the act of someone wielding power unilaterally, a stark reminder that Trump’s presidency is not about serving as a leader for all but about imposing his will as an autocrat.

Muslim Ban 2.0

I’m an American Muslim, an immigrant, a person of color, and a human rights lawyer. I’m likely not Trump’s favorite person, and I’m also not sitting idle as he attempts to dismantle our Republic. Trump’s new Muslim Ban revives his original discriminatory policy with even greater reach. While this time it avoids naming specific countries, in a pathetic attempt to pretend it is neutral, it uses virtually the same language. Moreover, it is retroactive and targets potentially anyone who immigrated since January 2021. The order demands immigrants “assimilate” and respect a “unified American identity” but provides no definitions, granting the administration unchecked power to enforce a narrow, exclusionary view of American culture. This deliberate vagueness enables sweeping persecution, forcing marginalized communities to conform or face removal. This could mean labeling someone peacefully protesting for justice for Palestine as a terrorist, and slot them for removal. This is not about national security—it’s about control. By invoking these undefined standards, Trump’s administration has crafted a policy to target anyone it deems undesirable, providing a pretext for mass deportations and the suppression of immigrant communities. This is a blueprint for systemic persecution under the guise of national security and patriotism. [...]

Banning DEI and Trans People

Trump issued an executive order banning all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives within the White House, while simultaneously declaring that "there are only two genders." This action is not only a blatant rejection of established scientific understanding but also a cruel and targeted attack on the rights and dignity of the trans individuals. The order starkly contrasts with Trump's rhetoric of promoting "merit," as it makes no mention of addressing legacy admissions—a system that disproportionately benefits unqualified white applicants—as I’ve detailed before. This hypocrisy underscores an agenda less about fairness and more about perpetuating systemic inequalities while marginalizing already vulnerable communities. [...]

Pardoning Violent Insurrectionists

The only real reason a President would pardon hundreds of violent murderous insurrectionists—who killed numerous police officers, injured hundreds more, and tried to kill the second and third in line to the Presidency—is in case he needed them to act again while again claiming plausible deniability. And that’s exactly what Trump just did. In a deeply alarming display of authoritarian favoritism, Trump issued full pardons to all 1,500 white supremacist insurrectionists involved in the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. Among those pardoned were individuals convicted of heinous acts of violence, including the brutal assaults on law enforcement officers tasked with defending the heart of American democracy. These assaults led to at least six eventual deaths and left hundreds more injured, some with life-altering physical and psychological wounds. The pardons extend to those who wielded weapons, used flagpoles as spears, deployed chemical irritants against officers, and constructed makeshift gallows as they chanted threats of execution against elected leaders. They include individuals like the attacker who beat Officer Michael Fanone unconscious with a stun gun, and others who trampled fellow rioters in their frenzied attempt to breach the Capitol. By granting clemency to these violent extremists, Trump has not only undermined the rule of law but also sent a chilling message: that acts of domestic terrorism committed in allegiance to his cause will face no accountability. These pardons embolden future violence, erode trust in the justice system, and mark a dark chapter in the fight for equality and democratic governance.

Qasim Rashid, Esq. has a breakdown on Tyrant 47’s executive orders issued to harm America.

[mariacallous]

Like so many of us, I was dispirited to wake up a few weeks ago to learn that Donald Trump will be back in the White House. This time he was aided by the world’s richest man and professional spaceship-crasher, Elon Musk. Among the many charming aspects of their partnership is a fondness for some highly unsavoury views on genetics. Trump is an enthusiastic advocate of “racehorse theory”, which he shares with white supremacists; the belief that he is personally superior and that this is rooted in his “good genes”. It’s a vapid idea, but it directly informs his toxic views on immigration, where he argues the country needs to be shielded from the “bad genes”of outsiders.

Meanwhile, Musk has his own equally baffling take on genetics, infused with a characteristic messiah complex. Like some of his fellow tech moguls, he is determined to “save humanity” by producing as many offspring as possible, convinced that our future depends on it. This might all be laughable were it not for the fact that Trump and Musk now wield more power than they ever have before. The shared thread running through their rhetoric is genetic determinism: the idea that who you are, and what you can achieve, is all down to your DNA. Nothing else matters.

The problem is that genetic determinism, with its odd fixation on the “master molecule”, is annoyingly pervasive. When James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA in 1953, they hailed it as the “secret of life”. In 2000, President Bill Clinton declared that sequencing the human genome was like learning “the language in which God created life”. Of course, science always carries the potential to be this thrilling; I don’t want to kill anyone’s science buzz. But I worry that in all the excitement, we can forget that DNA does not define us.

This language has leaked far outside the world of science, to marketing that raves about cars “with adventure in their DNA”, or a discussion of a football club’s “DNA” – it has become a synonym for everything from “characteristics” to “values”. The ubiquity of rhetoric that conflates DNA and identity risks propping up some insidious ideas. This is the language Musk and Trump thrive on, making exclusionary policies look like rational decisions grounded in science. Because, if genes are everything, why bother with policies aimed at tackling inequality? Why waste time and resources addressing social problems when we’re all just products of our genetic code?

In debates surrounding genetics and social policy, it is easy for the language of genetic determinism to lure you into an ill-advised “nature v nurture” debate. You know this debate: maybe she’s born with it; maybe it’s the pervasive conditions of social inequality? But this debate misses the bigger picture entirely: it should not be seen as a binary choice. The truth is, humans are born with genes that require a good environment to thrive. It’s not either/or, but a complex interaction between the two that determines who someone becomes. We have a nature that requires nurture. Good science accounts for this complexity, rather than reducing it to a simplistic binary.

Along with making it harder to argue for progressive social policies, genetic determinism also has a long history of being used to justify violence, particularly by the far right. In 2022, a gunman in Buffalo, New York, cited genetics as part of his rationale for a racially motivated mass shooting. The gunman took various scientific ideas, most notably from genetics, but also environmentalism, and blended these with white supremacist conspiracies such as the “great replacement theory”.

The prospect that real-world violence might once again emerge from a warped interpretation of genetic science isn’t just a theoretical concern; it’s a dangerous reality. So how do we stop genetics from being weaponised? It’s not just about calling out dodgy interpretations of the science: in some ways, that’s the easy part. The harder question involves emotions. Why are people – often driven by anger or fear – liable to co-opt genetics to justify their reactionary political ideologies?

In trying to answer this question, one important thing to note is that science is not just a selection of facts, but also a form of culture. As such, it is subject to “cultural poaching”, as the sociologist Michel de Certeau put it – an unauthorised borrowing and re-contextualising of ideas. Take “survival of the fittest”, for example. When Charles Darwin and other evolutionary scientists used that phrase, they had a specific idea of what they meant by “fittest”, and were referring to how well-adapted an organism is to its environment. But in wider culture, the idea has taken on a life of its own, whereby “fittest” is just a synonym for “best”, or “strongest” – the phrase is often deployed to give bigoted ideas a scientific veneer.

There is evidence that some on the far right are tracking particular academic fields and broadcasting flawed interpretations of scholarly research papers as soon as they are available. Rightly wary of this kind of activity, some scientists are now publishing journal articles discussing how to stop genetics being co-opted by extremists, while science ethics organisations such as Cera provide resources to the same end.

With figures such as Trump and Musk wielding huge power, and the “alt-right” keyboard warriors helping them spread disinformation, genetic science has been forced to the frontline. As uncomfortable as it might be, it is more urgent than ever for people working in the field to ask: “How might my work be poached, and what can I do to stop it?”

[eugenedebs1920]

MAGA: Make America Great Again. America first. America for Americans. These are all renditions of a movement that occurred in the early 20th century. A movement coattailed on the temperance movement. An incognito chance to practice discrimination and racism, masked in the guise of nationalism.

Nationalism, or nativism, has long been steeped into American history, its roots going back to the founding colonies. Ironically, and with astounding hypocrisy, this ideology excluded the actual native inhabitants of North America, proclaiming that only those of Anglo Saxon European descent were truly entitled to this land.

The slogan was popularized generally in Woodrow Wilson’s attempts to justify the stance of neutrality during the First World War but was quickly adopted by the second iteration of Klu Klux Klan at the start of the 1920’s. The Klan used prohibition as a vehicle for anti-immigrant, xenophobic and antisemitism activity, targeting taverns which acted as places of refuge, serving the meals of, speaking the languages, and evoking nostalgia for the ethnic community it served.

Although not a campaign tool of the Nazi party in the late 1920’s and 30’s, references of “make Germany great again” are littered throughout speeches made by Adolf Hitler. The phrase, “everything for Germany”, once etched into the knives of SS officers, are echoed in the rising neofascist right wing AfD party in their current “Germany first” campaign that mega billionaire Elon Musk endorsed a few weeks ago.

The isolationist of the America first party believed in a culture of white supremacy, with a hardline stance on immigration and a tendency toward antisemitism. This group was the legitimate face of the KKK. In 1924 U.S. representative, and America first enthusiast, Albert Johnson would introduce the Immigration Act of 1924, a highly exclusionary and xenophobic policy restricting immigration from nearly all Asian countries, and basing naturalization primarily upon ethnicity in the context of “racial homogeny” due to concerns of rapidly changing demographics. This was supported by the KKK and would be the primary immigration law until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

The embodiment of the maga perspective is held by Donald Trump. A man who’s documentation of bias and discrimination can be first seen on the public docket in 1973, and again in 1978, when he was found in violation of the Civil Rights Act on fair housing in a set of stings, offering better costs and incentives to white lease seekers than those of color seeking housing in his New York City properties.

The election of Americas First President of African descent brought forward certain aspects of American culture perceived to have been relinquished in the decades prior. Due to the strange and foreign sounding name, in tandem with the pigmentation of Barack Obama’s skin, a request was petitioned that no other president had been questioned about prior. The existence and legitimacy of his birth certificate, and in turn his citizenship all together. It would be known as birtherism.

As a white American, in 2008 it wasn’t a good look to directly express your disdain that a black man was the leader of the nation purely for the bigoted views one possessed, much like the America First movement was in the 1920’s, the TEA Party was spawned as the public face of white supremacy.

The pitch of the TEA party dog whistle wasn’t as incognito as they imagined it was. Racism was vehement in the signage, slogans and language expressed in their dislike, some read, ‘‘A Village in Kenya Is Missing Its Idiot: Deport Obama!’’ and, ‘‘Congress = Slave Owner; Taxpayer = N**gar,’’ also, ‘‘Imam Obama Wants to Ban Pork: Don’t Let Him Steal Your Meat,’’ this accompanied by endless accusations regarding whether or not he was Muslim despite his Christian upbringing and continued participation in the faith.

A big contributor to the race bating was a man who’s poor management skills and rampant corruption would cause six companies he owned to fail and file bankruptcy, staring in a role made for TV, cosplay successful businessman and known slumlord Donald Trump. It was on Good Morning America, in 2011, via telephone that Donald Trump would first question the origins and legitimacy of Obama’s citizenship, an inquiry he had not posed to any previous holder of the presidency in his lifetime.

Fast forward a bit, and that same reality tv personality would come down the guilded stairs in a building that bore his name yet he held no capital in, Trump would announce his bid for president.

Much like his future campaigns, the 2016 run was riddled with gaffs and buffoonery. The once revered GOP was shocked when he would win the primaries and lead the ticket. Tethered to Trump and the immature and unpresidential antics he routinely displayed, Republicans were at odds.

After a bizarre, divisive, controversial and particularly hostile campaign Trump would go on to defeat Hillary Clinton, although losing the popular vote by over 3 million votes.

Trumps quasi overt racist and sexist rhetoric would lead to a nearly 20% increase in hate crimes from the start of his term in 2016, according to a report from November 2020 by the FBI. The report goes on to show that racially motivated homicide reached it highest levels in three decades by the end of 2019.

The amount of hate murders committed by white supremacists ticked ever larger throughout the duration of Trumps term from just 3 in 2016, to 12 in 2017, then 17 in 2018, followed by a staggering 51 in 2019.

To protest the removal of statues dedicated to confederate military figures who fought against their own countrymen as to keep Africans stolen from their country of origin and forced to work as slaves for wealthy plantation owners in the south, Charlottesville Virginia would host the “Unite the Right” gathering on August 11-12 of 2017.

This march would showcase hundreds of white supremest , neo-Nazis, neo-confederates, far right militias, klansmen and the alt-right, walking through the streets of Charlottesville brandishing swastica flags, valknut, and confederate flags, carrying torches and chanting “You will not replace us. Jews will not replace us. You will not replace us.”.

The next day a counter protest of significant proportion halted this display of jubilant hatred. The Virginia governor would declare a state of emergency as the protesters and counter protestors clashed. At roughly 1:45 pm on Aug 12th, self proclaimed white supremest Alex Fields Jr. would intentionally ram his vehicle into a crowd of counter protestors injuring 35 and killing a young woman named Heather Heyer.

When pressed for comment Trump would respond by condemning the "display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides". When the death of Heather Heyer again was asked about and what Trump thought of the murder Trump would respond “There were very fine people on both sides”. (As MTG would screech, say her name!)

In the 2020 presidential debates this event would come up. As Chris Wallace attempted to coax a condemnation out of Trump the best he could get was trump saying to the proud boys (a white supremest group) “proud boys, stand back and stand by”. Never condemning the ideology or violence perpetrated that day or generally.

Trump lost the 2020 election. After the loss his rampant malignant narcissism prevented the acceptance of this loss. For months he lied to the American people, claiming that the election had been rigged or stolen. Scheming and creating slates of fake electors to cheat and in turn subvert the American democratic process. When this didn’t work he gathered his supporters to Washington DC.

January 6th, 2021 was a dark day for America. A mob, incited by the lies and propaganda Trump had been spewing, attacked the capital. It would lead to hundreds of injured police officers, with 2 police casualties and one civilian.

Of the groups that defiled our capital that day were none other than the proud boys, and the oath keepers.

Over 1,500 people would be charged for their actions that day. Of those people the man who instigated the entire thing, Donald Trump, would not be one of them.

Four years later, with the help of a compromised Supreme Court, Trump installed judges, a traditionalist attorney general, an influx of money from billionaires and corporations thanks to the Citizens United decision, Joe Biden, and the willful ignorance of the American people, this disgraced, twice impeached, adjudicated rapist, felon, convicted fraudster, seditionist, and insurrectionist, with no shame for his transgressions, would weasel his way back in office.

In his first day as president the second time around he would pardon ALL the criminals that had been charged for their role in the Jan 6th attack. Sending a clear message.

This message is, and will be heard loud and clear by these hate groups. That Trump’s America condones racism. That the white race is the superior race. That if you commit crimes in favor of Donald Trump you will be let off for your actions.

All this occurred after his primary campaign donor, who spent $240 million getting him elected, would end a speech by giving not one, but two separate Nazi solutes, then joke about it on the platform he repurchased, X, on the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

Donald Trump , on day one of term two would end all federal DEI programs. He would nullify LBJ’s Equal Opportunity Act. He would make a dictatorial decree that trans people are not seen by the government. He would begin an operation of terror for all migrants looking for a better life in America and initiate a campaign of mass deportations.

More and more neo-Nazis and white supremest groups become ever emboldened by the stance their great leader takes. More and more they peer their ugliness from the shadows and into the public sphere.

This is America. This is the country I love. Every day I am ashamed. I didn’t, never have and never would, support that failure of a human. Yet every day I am represented through his deeds. It pains me to the core. I hope it gets better but the first week hasn’t even lapsed yet.

For the sake of Americas future, for our children and their children, in the name of decency and democracy, Never obey in advance. Never surrender your sense of honor or your stance on equality. And resist!

I’m going to end this with some words from scholar, historian and author Timothy Snyder:

Don’t obey in advance. Anticipatory obedience is one of the greatest constraints on the degrees of freedoms.

Much of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do. – Timothy Snyder

[allegraforchrist]

Hi, my (middle) name is Allegra, and it means jovial and lively- as the Italian musical term “Allegro”.

♡ I’m 18

♡ female

♡ favorite verses is Lamentations 3:25-27.

♡ Favorite colors are pink, red, black and white.

♡ BLESS and FREE ISRAEL 🇮🇱

♡ God bless America! 🇺🇸

This is my blog, and I’m very excited to be on here and share God’s gospel and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I want to make a note that, if you do not like my blog, you can ignore it and scroll on. There’s no need to be hateful or aggressive.

My blog is a non-judgemental, safe space for all Christians, youth and older, tall or shorter, all ethnicities and cultural backgrounds, all persons and those who are newer followers of Christ.

My blogs purpose is not to:

-> ‘indoctrinate’ or force opinions

-> be exclusionary or bigoted

-> express hateful or ‘guilt-trippy’ beliefs

-> suppress or oppress any minorities or marginalized communities/religions/cultures

💕 I’m sharing my love of God on a platform, and will not exercise hypocritical judgement on those who aren’t followers of Christ, and I hope the same attitude and respect can be shown towards me. I value all with respect, humility, and kindness.

🙏 Curiosity, questions, and all topics are welcome, however arrogance, and prejudice are not. I will stand strongly for my faith but I do not need to validate it to those who do not share it.

🩰 I post scriptures, Bible Study Notes, songs, art, podcasts and vents about Jesus and God, to elevate, praise and worship them. None of what I talk about is to be taken as criticism for whomever’s lifestyle choices, beliefs or practices- it is not about you.

🌸 A lot of what I post about comes from personal struggles with my sexuality, my connection to the Church, my mental health, religious affliction, and all ways that Jesus saved me. I don’t identify as bisexual or use they/them pronouns anymore, as my identity is in Christ, and I’m a woman of God. However, that doesn’t mean my page is welcome to homophobia, transphobia, queerphobia; or xenophobia, antisemitism, Islamophobia, or hate toward other Christian denominations. Nor will I tolerate allegations of hatefulness towards other communities.

🪖 Edit: I don’t politically identify as conservative, liberal nor democratic. My politics are biblical-based. I do say I support MAGA and Trump’s party based on their policies, not their personality. I’m also open to the failures and weaknesses of every political party, MAGA included. However, my blog is not a space to discuss wokeness, MAGA support, MAGA hate, and any political rhetoric. I don’t support hate, or virtue-signaling. If such is commented under my posts, I will give one warning. Done again, I will block you. Because I will not be guilted, or threatened nor tolerate political violence or discrimination against myself, or demographics of voting people.

🤍 Lastly, I do not aimed to be liked or respected by the masses, as I live for the approval and wisdom of God. If you don’t like that, please, as much as any opinion is valued, keep your condescension to yourself. Christian or not, there are boundaries I have.

🪽 Please Note: I cannot make any monetary donations, online or internationally via PayPal or such apps. I do not reside in the US, and I do not have independent access to funds that I could give. I want to donate and assist the best I can, however I can only petition, reblog and pray for you- as far as my current liberty goes.

Thank you so much.

Jesus loves you!!!

[altamont498]

Welcome!

Welcome to my Tumblr blog. My name is Red, my pronouns are he/him and this is where I like to put all sorts of nonsense.

Do not interact 🚫:

LGBTQ+phobes (incl. TERFs/Gender Critical, exclusionaries, etc.)

Pro//shippers (incl. anti-antis, comshippers, etc.)

MAPs/PEARs/etc.

Nazis, far-right, Donald Trump supporters, etc.

People here to cause drama or discourse

E-Begging asks or DMs will not be responded to.

This blog operates a scorched earth, zero-tolerance policy on abusive/hurtful behaviour. Perpetrators will be blocked on-sight.

For my self shipping sideblog, please see @reds-self-ships

Other places I hang out on the internet:

Bluesky: Adam J Taylor (@altamont498.bsky.social)

Instagram: Adam J Taylor @altamont498)

[enolabar]

President Donald Trump bans Transgender Athletes from competing in women’s sports. The order, named "Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports," aims to prevent what Trump and his administration describe as an unfair advantage in female athletic competitions. This decision has sparked intense debate across the political spectrum, with strong reactions from supporters and opponents alike. What Does the Executive Order Say? The order states that federally funded schools and universities must align with biological sex when determining eligibility for women’s sports teams. Institutions that allow transgender women (assigned male at birth) to compete in female categories risk losing federal funding. This measure affects both high school and collegiate sports, reinforcing the administration’s stance on maintaining "fairness and integrity" in women's competitions. Trump’s decision follows a broader conservative movement pushing for legislation at state and federal levels that restricts transgender participation in gendered sports teams. Similar laws have already been passed in multiple states, and now, with this federal order, the policy is expanding nationwide. Why Did Trump Ban Transgender Athletes from Women’s Sports? Supporters of the ban argue that transgender women, due to biological differences, have an unfair advantage over cisgender women in terms of muscle mass, bone density, and overall athletic ability. Advocates of the executive order claim that allowing transgender women to compete in female sports undermines decades of progress in women’s athletics. Key Arguments Supporting the Ban: Preserving fair competition in women’s sports Addressing biological differences that could create competitive imbalances Protecting female athletes’ opportunities for scholarships and professional careers On the other hand, LGBTQ+ activists and human rights organizations argue that this decision is discriminatory and could lead to further marginalization of transgender individuals. They emphasize that gender identity should be respected and that sports organizations should implement inclusive policies rather than outright bans. Reactions and Legal Challenges The executive order has ignited a wave of reactions from different groups. Conservative leaders and parents of female athletes have largely supported the move, seeing it as a way to uphold fairness in women’s sports. LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, civil rights organizations, and Democratic politicians have condemned the order, calling it an attack on transgender rights. Sports organizations and professional athletes are divided, with some defending the measure while others criticize it as exclusionary. Legal experts predict that the executive order will face court challenges on the basis of discrimination. Some states may refuse to comply, leading to potential conflicts between federal and state governments. The Biden administration had previously supported policies that allowed transgender athletes to compete according to their gender identity, and if political power shifts again, this order could be reversed in the future. What Happens Next? For now, schools and universities must adjust their policies to comply with the executive order or risk losing funding. The debate over transgender athletes in sports is far from over, as legal battles and public discourse will likely continue for years. Whether this decision will withstand legal scrutiny or be overturned in the future remains to be seen. Regardless, it has reignited conversations about fairness, inclusivity, and the intersection of politics with sports regulations in the United States.

[yetisidelblog]

On January 7, Meta announced a series of reckless policy changes, including eliminating fact-checking programs and rewriting their Hateful Conduct Policy to openly permit hate speech.

That means derogatory remarks, exclusionary rhetoric, and dangerous bigotry are now fair game on Facebook and Instagram. This blatant disregard for marginalized groups is nothing short of horrifying.

Meta claims these changes are about “free speech.” But what about the safety of the women, LGBTQ+ people, and Black and Brown communities who face daily harassment and threats? The right to free speech does not include the right to endanger others. Hate speech isn’t harmless, it fuels real-world violence, discrimination, and exclusion.

Every hateful post that goes unchecked sends a message that bigotry is acceptable. We can’t let that stand. UltraViolet is delivering this petition to Meta’s headquarters next week, and we need your voice to show the world that people are watching and demanding accountability.

Leaked training materials from Meta expose just how bad it is. Employees were explicitly told that content calling for the exclusion of women from workplaces, misgendering trans people, and even racist remarks against Black and immigrant communities are no longer violations of their policies.

Zuckerberg’s decision to abandon protections is a betrayal of the very people Meta’s platforms claim to connect and it is part of Meta’s rightward shift: scrapping diversity programs, cozying up to Trump, and amplifying divisive political content.

When one of the largest platforms in the world signals that hate is acceptable, it emboldens bullies and bigots everywhere. If Meta is allowed to set this dangerous precedent, other platforms will follow. Hate speech will proliferate, and those already at risk will face greater threats, both online and in their daily lives.

We’ve fought this fight before — and won. In the past, massive public pressure forced Facebook to take responsibility for its role in enabling discrimination and disinformation. We can do it again. But only if we speak out now before these disastrous changes become the norm.

Don’t let Meta off the hook. Demand that they reinstate their fact-checking programs, restore hate speech protections, and prioritize the safety of all users especially those who are most vulnerable.

@upontheshelfreviews

@greenwingspino

@one-time-i-dreamt

@tenaflyviper

@akron-squirrel

@ifihadaworldofmyown

@justice-for-jacob-marley

@voicetalentbrendan

@thebigdeepcheatsy

@what-is-my-aesthetic

@ravenlynclemens

@thegreatallie

@writerofweird

@anon-lephant

@bogleech

@mentally-quiet-spycrab

[voidami]

Protecting Native American Rights: The Threat of Exclusion and What You Can Do

In recent days, there has been a disturbing trend of attempts to undermine the citizenship and civil rights of Native Americans. During the Trump administration, the Justice Department argued that Native Americans should not be entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, citing outdated and discriminatory 19th-century laws. These arguments are not just historical footnotes—they reflect a broader effort to roll back the rights of Native Americans and other marginalized groups.

What makes this moment even more alarming is the terrifying speed at which executive orders and policy changes are being introduced. On January 20, 2025, alone, a sweeping array of executive actions were announced, targeting everything from immigration and border security to energy policy, gender identity, and federal workforce protections. These changes are happening so quickly that it’s nearly impossible to keep up, let alone mount an effective response.

For Native Americans, the stakes are particularly high. Tribal sovereignty, treaty rights, and access to federal programs are all under threat. The rapid pace of these changes leaves little time for communities to organize, advocate, or mount legal challenges. It’s a deliberate strategy to overwhelm opposition and push through policies that could have devastating long-term consequences.

The Threat to Native American Rights

The Trump administration’s arguments against birthright citizenship relied on a dangerous reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Specifically, the Justice Department cited a clause in the 1866 Act that excluded “Indians not taxed” from citizenship and argued that this exclusion should still apply today. They also referenced the 1884 Supreme Court case Elk v. Wilkins, which denied citizenship to Native Americans on the grounds that they owed “immediate allegiance” to their tribes and were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

These arguments are not only legally flawed but also morally reprehensible. Here’s why:

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 Native Americans are U.S. citizens by law. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 explicitly granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S., rendering the Trump administration’s arguments based on 19th-century laws irrelevant.

The 14th Amendment The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Native Americans are unequivocally subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and their citizenship is firmly established under both the 14th Amendment and subsequent laws.

Tribal Sovereignty and Dual Citizenship Native Americans are citizens of both their tribal nations and the United States. Tribal sovereignty does not negate their U.S. citizenship—it complements it. The Trump administration’s arguments dangerously conflate tribal allegiance with foreign allegiance, ignoring the unique political status of Native American tribes.

Historical Context of Exclusion Native Americans have faced centuries of systemic discrimination, forced assimilation, and broken treaties. The Trump administration’s arguments echo the same racist and exclusionary policies that sought to deny Native Americans their rights in the past.

What You Can Do

The potential exclusion or marginalization of Native Americans is unacceptable. Here are concrete steps you can take to stand up for their rights and ensure justice prevails:

1. Raise Awareness

Share Information: Use social media, blogs, and community forums to spread the word about the risks posed by these arguments. Highlight the historical and legal context of Native American citizenship.

Educate Others: Many people are unaware of the unique legal and political status of Native Americans. Share resources about tribal sovereignty, treaties, and civil rights protections.

2. Advocate for Native American Rights

Contact Elected Officials: Reach out to your representatives in Congress and demand that they protect Native American rights. Urge them to pass legislation explicitly safeguarding tribal sovereignty and civil rights.

Support Tribal Leaders: Tribal governments are on the front lines of this fight. Amplify their voices and support their efforts to advocate for their communities.

3. Partner with Advocacy Organizations

Native American Rights Fund (NARF): NARF provides legal assistance to Native Americans and works to protect tribal sovereignty and resources.

National Congress of American Indians (NCAI): NCAI advocates for federal policies that support tribal nations and their citizens.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): The ACLU works to defend civil rights and can help challenge discriminatory policies in court.

4. Take Legal Action

Monitor Implementation: Watch for any policies or executive actions that threaten Native American rights and document their effects.

File Lawsuits: If these arguments lead to violations of civil rights or treaty obligations, affected individuals or tribes can file lawsuits to challenge their legality.

5. Support Native-Led Initiatives

Donate to Tribal Programs: Many tribes run programs to address education, healthcare, and environmental issues. Your support can help strengthen their resilience.

Buy from Native-Owned Businesses: Economic empowerment is a powerful tool for preserving cultural heritage and self-determination.

6. Engage with Federal Agencies

Department of the Interior (DOI): The DOI, particularly the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), has a trust responsibility to protect Native American rights. Demand that they uphold this responsibility.

Department of Justice (DOJ): The DOJ enforces civil rights laws. Pressure them to investigate and address any discrimination resulting from these arguments.

7. International Advocacy

United Nations: Native American tribes can bring attention to potential violations of their rights through international bodies like the United Nations, particularly under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

Why This Matters

Native Americans have endured centuries of systemic injustice, yet they continue to fight for their rights, their lands, and their cultures. The Trump administration’s arguments against birthright citizenship are a stark reminder that these rights are still under threat. By standing together, we can ensure that Native Americans are not excluded or forgotten. Their rights are our rights, and their fight is our fight.

Key Resources

Native American Rights Fund (NARF): www.narf.org

National Congress of American Indians (NCAI): www.ncai.org

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): www.aclu.org

Indian Citizenship Act of 1924: Read the Text

Civil Rights Act of 1964: Read the Text

Targeting Native Americans is not just a violation of their rights—it’s an attack on the principles of justice and equality that define our nation. The policies enacted on January 20, 2025, represent a profound threat not only to Native Americans but to all marginalized communities. By standing together and taking action, we can resist these changes and protect the rights of all.

But this fight cannot be won in isolation. It requires international solidarity, intersectional organizing, and the building of local power structures to ensure we are stronger together than we are divided. Here’s how you can contribute to a broader movement for justice:

Call to Action

Build Intersectional Solidarity

Recognize that the struggles of Native Americans are interconnected with those of other marginalized groups, including Black, Latino, LGBTQ+, and immigrant communities.

Support movements that fight for racial justice, environmental justice, workers’ rights, and gender equality.

Join or Form Local Organizations and Unions

Organize within your community to create networks of mutual aid, advocacy, and resistance.

Join labor unions or workers’ collectives to strengthen collective bargaining power and protect workers’ rights.

Foster Dual Power Structures

Learn from historical movements like the Black Panther Party (BPP), which built community programs (e.g., free breakfast programs, health clinics) while advocating for systemic change.

Create local initiatives that meet immediate needs—such as food distribution, healthcare access, or legal aid—while challenging oppressive systems.

Stay Connected and Communicate

Build and maintain communication networks with other activists, organizers, and communities.

Use social media, community forums, and local meetings to share information, resources, and strategies.

Engage in International Solidarity

Connect with Indigenous and marginalized communities worldwide to share knowledge, resources, and support.

Advocate for global human rights and environmental protections through international organizations and campaigns.

Educate and Mobilize

Host workshops, teach-ins, and discussions to educate others about the issues facing Native Americans and other marginalized groups.

Mobilize your community to participate in protests, rallies, and direct actions.

Support Legal and Political Advocacy

Push for legislation that protects Native American rights, tribal sovereignty, and civil rights for all.

Support candidates and organizations that align with these values at the local, state, and national levels.

Explore Revolutionary Theory

Study revolutionary theories, including communism, that emphasize collective ownership, equity, and the dismantling of oppressive systems.

Understand how these principles can inform our fight for justice and help us build a society that prioritizes people over profit.

Engage in discussions about how to apply these theories in practical, community-centered ways to address the root causes of inequality and exploitation.

Learn more here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HVm0-wE6fJH0OZ3Ri-WQ5Rmit0IwpDzVX5a8lyIeEfw/edit

Final Thoughts

The fight for justice is not just about resisting harmful policies—it’s about building a world where everyone can thrive. By standing in solidarity with Native Americans and other marginalized communities, we can create a future rooted in equality, dignity, and respect. Share this article, take action, and join the fight for justice. Together, we are stronger.

[eton75]

The Revival of South African Apartheid in the United States by Elon Musk and Peter Thiel

In recent years, the influence of tech magnates Elon Musk and Peter Thiel on American politics has sparked discussions about the resurgence of ideologies reminiscent of South Africa’s apartheid era. Both Musk and Thiel spent formative years in South Africa during apartheid, a period marked by institutionalized racial segregation and economic disparity. Their subsequent political and business endeavors in the United States have led some to draw parallels between their actions and the oppressive systems they witnessed in their youth.

Background

Elon Musk, born in Pretoria in 1971, and Peter Thiel, who spent part of his childhood in South Africa and Namibia, were exposed to the stark inequalities of apartheid. Musk left South Africa at 17, partly to avoid mandatory military service under the apartheid regime. Thiel’s family was involved in uranium mining, a sector intertwined with the apartheid government’s ambitions. These early experiences have been scrutinized for their potential impact on their later worldviews and business practices.

Political Engagement

Both Musk and Thiel have become prominent figures in American politics, notably aligning with conservative movements. Thiel, a self-described conservative libertarian, has been a significant supporter of Donald Trump, contributing to his campaigns and endorsing his policies. Musk, initially known for his technological ventures, has also shown support for Trump, including substantial financial contributions to his campaigns. Their involvement has raised concerns about the infusion of authoritarian and anti-democratic ideologies into the American political landscape.

Corporate Practices

Critics argue that Musk and Thiel’s corporate strategies reflect a disregard for regulatory frameworks and a preference for hierarchical, top-down management styles. Musk’s tenure at companies like Tesla and SpaceX has been marked by allegations of labor violations and a hostile stance toward unions. Thiel’s ventures, including PayPal and Palantir, have faced scrutiny over privacy concerns and collaboration with government surveillance programs. These practices are seen by some as echoing the exploitative labor systems and authoritarian governance characteristic of apartheid-era South Africa.

Cultural and Social Influence

Beyond politics and business, Musk and Thiel have been influential in shaping cultural and social narratives. Musk’s acquisition of the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) has been criticized for fostering an environment where hate speech and misinformation proliferate. Thiel’s funding of media outlets and think tanks has promoted conservative ideologies, including opposition to multiculturalism and affirmative action. These actions contribute to a societal climate that some perceive as regressive and exclusionary.

Conclusion

The involvement of Elon Musk and Peter Thiel in American politics, business, and culture has ignited debates about the resurgence of ideologies akin to those of apartheid-era South Africa. Their backgrounds and current actions raise critical questions about the influence of powerful individuals on democratic institutions and social progress. As their impact continues to unfold, it is essential to scrutinize the implications of their contributions to the fabric of American society.

#ElonMusk #PeterThiel #Apartheid #AmericanPolitics #TechIndustry #SocialJustice #CorporateEthics #Democracy

[erebusvincent]

In sum, Harris and Trump are offering mostly terrible housing policies. Their main virtue is the difficulty of implementing them.

There are, in fact, steps the federal government can take to ease housing shortages. Most restrictions on new housing are enacted by state and local governments, which limits the potential of federal intervention. But Congress could enact legislation requiring state and local governments that receive federal economic development grants to enact "YIMBY" legislation loosening zoning rules. Perhaps a stronger version of the YIMBY Act proposed by Republican Senator Todd Young and Democratic Rep. Derek Kilmer (their version could be a useful start, but does not have enough teeth). Those who object to such legislation on grounds of protecting local autonomy should recall that YIMBYism is actually the ultimate localism.

The federal Justice Department could also support litigation aimed at persuading courts to rule that exclusionary zoning violates the Takings Clause (which it does!). Such litigation could do much to break down barriers to new housing construction. Federal government support wouldn't guarantee victory. But it could help by giving the argument instant additional credibility with judges.

Finally, the feds could help pursuing the opposite of Trump's immigration policies, and instead make legal migration easier. That would increase the construction workforce, and make housing construction cheaper and faster.

Sadly, neither major-party candidate is proposing to do any of these things. Instead, they mostly sell claptrap that is likely to make the housing crisis even worse.

[dertaglichedan]

German Publisher Stops All Printing of JD Vance’s Book Hillbilly Elegy

JD Vance is a marked man. After accepting the nomination for vice president, Vance has been the subject of endless media attacks. Recently, Vice President Kamala Harris even questioned his “loyalty” to the country despite his serving as a Marine in the Iraq War. Yet, one of the most chilling attacks came from Germany where the publishing house Ullstein Buchverlage has stopped printing the sold-out German translation of Hillbilly Elegy, his 2016 autobiography.

As we have discussed previously in this country, it is the modern left’s equivalent of book burning. After all, why burn books when you can simply prevent their being printed under blacklisting campaigns?

In this country, we have seen the left successfully force book bans for writers and even justices who espouse opposing viewpoints.  We have seen actual calls for book burning recently (here and here).

Ullstein is facing a high demand for Vance’s best-selling book Hillbilly Elegy, but has refused to print more copies due to his political viewpoints (unrelated to the book).

First published in 2016 and made into a movie in 2020, the book returned to the top position on The New York Times‘ bestseller list after Trump chose Vance as his running mate.

HarperCollins is rushing to print more books to meet the demand.

Some in the United States are already balking at the selling of any book by Vance. Seven Stories Press wrote, “Seven Stories Press is extremely thrilled to have never published JD Vance.”

Ullstein published the German translation of Hillbilly Elegy in 2017 and held the rights to reprints.

The company cited Vance’s allegiance with Trump and his politics as the reason in a statement to German media:

“At the time of its publication, the book made a valuable contribution to understanding the drifting apart of US society…In the meantime, he is officially acting alongside him and advocating an aggressively demagogic, exclusionary policy.”

German author Gerd Buurmann posted a mocking response that we should be happy that Ullstein had just thrown Vance’s book out of its catalogue and not into the fire – a reference to the notorious Nazi book burnings of the 1930s.

Other Germans have raised the same objections and referenced the painful history of book bans and burnings in Germany under the Nazis.

German readers want to read the book, which Ullstein acknowledged is one of the most influential works of this generation. However, because the company disagrees with his political viewpoints, it moved to block others from reading the book.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Aja Romero at Vox:

With mere days left on the 2024 political campaign trail, you might have noticed the Trump camp has increasingly turned to scapegoating familiar targets, including immigrants, the press, and women. It has also increasingly doubled down on attacks on trans people.

A recent report by ABC News revealed that nearly a third of recent campaign funds — or $21 million, per ABC’s report — for television advertising has been spent on transphobic messaging from the Trump campaign and various conservative political groups. The independent journalist collective the Bulwark pushed the total even higher, to $40 million poured into transphobic advertising within the last five weeks. The ads, paid for by the Trump campaign, use a litany of transphobic coding, including photoshopping Kamala Harris to appear as though she’s posing beside a nonbinary person in a mustache and a dress, despite plenty of evidence that this strategy is a turn-off for voters. “Kamala even supports letting biological men compete against our girls in their sports,” one ad declares. All three ads attack Harris for supporting gender-affirmative care for trans prisoners, including surgery where medically necessary. “Kamala is for they/them,” each ad concludes. “President Trump is for you.”

Given that trans people make up barely half of 1 percent of the US adult population and that trans-related issues are low on the priority list of most voters, many might find it baffling that Trump has focused so much of his attention on singling out trans people. Indeed, two different media research groups, the left-leaning Data for Progress and video marketing firm Ground Media, working in partnership with GLAAD, each released studies last week finding that the ads had no real impact on voter decision-making and instead alienated many viewers, even among Republicans, who felt they were “mean-spirited.” So then why do them? Well, there’s “winning” in terms of appealing to voters, and then there’s “winning” in terms of determining the conversation. Keeping the focus on trans people — Harris’s actual policy proposals do almost nothing to advance the status of trans citizens — fires up a certain base and crowds out other discussion.

[...]

In other words, these ads help to reinforce the idea of a common enemy. They are continuing — which is to say winning, in a very real sense — the larger ongoing culture war against queer and trans people. The willingness of Trump and his supporters to invest in these ads arguably indicates that even if Harris wins the election, marginalized communities in red states will still be under threat from Trump supporters and from growing legal restrictions on those regions. But trans people aren’t isolated targets. They are scapegoats in the historical sense — canaries in the coal mine for the growing march of fascism in the US. That puts all of us in danger. Trump centering transphobia in his campaign strategy is not new. It’s the culmination of a decade-long conservative political strategy of weaponizing anti-trans messaging to undermine and reverse what was a broad cultural shift toward LGBTQ equality.

[...]

As the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision to legalize same-sex marriage took effect, conservative groups turned away from targeting queer people to instead target trans people in a “divide and conquer” strategy, as a conservative organizer named Meg Kilgannon summarized in a 2017 Family Research Council panel: “For all of its recent success, the LGBT alliance is actually fragile,” she told the assembly. “If you separate the T from the alphabet soup, we’ll have more success.”

To do this, conservatives joined forces with unlikely allies, including “trans-exclusionary radical feminists,” to drum up antagonistic sentiments against trans people. Right-wingers spread alarmism, rolling out dozens of anti-trans bathroom laws across the nation, then using them to introduce other transphobic ideas into local conservative platforms, all of them coming straight out of the moral panic playbook. These tactics didn’t directly address the sociocultural progress that trans people were making; instead, they cultivated a new wave of unfounded fear and alarmism about trans people themselves.

And the propaganda has only gotten more effective over time. Where transphobic bathroom bills mostly failed a decade ago, they’re now coming back into fashion; last week, Odessa, Texas, passed a bathroom bill that offers a $10,000 bounty paid to anyone who spies a trans person using the “wrong” bathroom.

The core elements we see used to attack and oppress trans people in the US in 2024 aren’t really about trans people; we’ve seen these same fearmongering tropes weaponized against numerous marginalized groups throughout history. They serve a greater political purpose — not just to demonize one specific group of people but to reinforce an in-group mentality that can then be deployed against all enemies. These attacks are a political cudgel.

Donald Trump’s anti-Kamala Harris ads bashing trans people are all about demonizing trans people.

[knuckle]

actual analysis of this by legal experts shows that biden valued an exclusionary lengthy administrative application process to weed out the people he thought really deserved it when he could have just blanket forgiven everyone. the federal government knows who pell grant recipients are. student loan forgiveness was hotly debated in the supreme court, with coney barrett and kavanaugh even questioning the plaintiff's standing.

if biden had forgiven student loans in a single order instead of announcing the opening of an application process that would qualify people months later, this would not have happened. reinstating debt vs. preventing its forgiveness is much harder and more unpopular both legally and socially. biden then just rolled over and decided not to try any workarounds or reworded policies, e.g. like trump did with the muslim ban etc. that may very well have worked-- he did not do any of this because he is a simpering coward uncommitted to us

joe biden's campaign emailed me asking for money as if I've forgotten this old bitch still owes every american the $600 that he lied about.

[leviathangourmet]

A new think tank report shows how liberal New York suburbs use restrictive zoning laws to drive up housing prices and prevent poor minorities from moving into their neighborhoods.

The Century Foundation released a study about zoning laws and educational opportunities in Scarsdale and Port Chester, liberal suburban areas in Westchester County, New York, located north of New York City. The study compares zoning laws, demographics and public school performance in the neighboring towns as a case study for how liberal suburbs prevent low-income people and racial minorities from moving in.

“Today, among the most important government policies and practices driving segregation include (1) decisions about where to place public housing; and (2) flagrant income discrimination through exclusionary zoning (which disproportionately hurts people of color),” the study reads.

Scarsdale has a median household income of $250,000 and its population is 71.2% white, with 90.7% of adults having attained a bachelor’s degree or more of education, according to data from New York University’s (NYU) Furman Center. Port Chester has an $88,093 median income and its population is 64.2% Hispanic, with 31.1% of adults attaining at least a bachelor’s degree.

Public schools in Scarsdale have higher expenditures per pupil, lower student-to-teacher ratios and more experienced teachers. Students in Scarsdale schools graduate in four years at a higher rate and perform better in English and math than students in Port Chester.

The study explains how Scarsdale fought public housing developments and uses single family zoning to restrict development. As a result, minorities and poor Americans are unable to move to Scarsdale, despite the town’s liberal leanings. In contrast, Port Chester allows for multi-family homes to be built on its land.

“In addition to discriminatory government judgements about where to place public housing, zoning has been a prime driver of residential segregation. Government-sponsored zoning restrictions that forbid multifamily housing, or even single-family homes on modest-sized plots of land, are pervasive in American communities,” the study asserts.

“Recent growth in Scarsdale and Port Chester reflect their very different zoning regimes. In Port Chester, 41 percent of units (24 of 58 units) authorized to be built between 2014 and 2021 were for multifamily housing. In Scarsdale, none (0 of 218 units) were for multifamily homes. Although real estate developers typically make more money building multifamily housing than single-family homes in wealthy areas, Scarsdale essentially forbids it,” the study adds.

Scarsdale’s median single family housing price is $1.65 million and all of its new units from 2014-21 were single family homes. Port Chester’s median single-family housing price is $592,242 and 59% of its new units were built for single families. A majority of Port Chester’s housing is occupied by renters and its population density is much higher than Scarsdale, according to NYU Furman Center data.

Scarsdale and Port Chester are located in New York’s 16th Congressional district, represented by Democratic New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman, an outspoken progressive with ties to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). President Joe Biden won Westchester County in the 2020 presidential election, with 67% of the vote.

Left-wing policy analyst Richard Kahlenberg used the study’s results to describe how liberal suburbs “have their own border wall” in an article for the Atlantic, a liberal magazine.

“One can safely presume that few Scarsdale residents are ardent backers of Trump’s wall on the Mexican border. But many of them support a less visible kind of wall, erected by zoning regulations that ban multifamily housing and keep non-wealthy people, many of them people of color, out of their community.”

[mariacallous]

In 2014, the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice jointly released guidance to public schools on how to avoid racial discrimination in the administration of school discipline. The Obama-era school discipline guidelines were motivated in part by large and persistent racial disparities in suspensions (see Figure 1), as well as a vast body of research linking exclusionary school discipline to deleterious downstream effects.

The 2014 guidelines stressed that racial disparities in discipline rates, in and of themselves, could constitute evidence of unlawful discrimination. The 2014 guidance was rescinded by the Trump administration in 2018, though the Biden administration has signaled that revised guidance on avoiding racially discriminatory school discipline may be forthcoming. If future guidelines are anything like the Obama-era guidance, administrators and educators might soon be asking themselves how they can work to reduce racial discipline disparities. 

What does research suggest is the best approach? 

Unfortunately, the answer to that question isn’t straightforward. Some interventions have shown promise in reducing the use of exclusionary discipline practices overall. However, few have succeeded in reducing large racial disparities in discipline. (For a more comprehensive discussion on this point, see recent research reviews by Welsh and Little and Cruz, Firestone, and Rodl.) 

Here, I draw on two decades of school discipline research to summarize what we’ve learned about how to reduce racial discipline disparities. It is important to note that school discipline reforms often aim to meet multiple goals (e.g., reducing the use of exclusionary discipline overall, reducing racially disparate outcomes, and improving school climate), and can have intended and unintended consequences for a school community. For clarity and brevity, I focus this discussion specifically on whether interventions reduce racial disparities in school discipline outcomes by lowering discipline rates for students of color.