Politics & Stuff

[Vesper 30,289]

46 minutes ago, Fernando said:

You need an AI to cycle all that stuff for you so that your are aware otherwise I can't know. 

no you do NOT

I do not use AI to research, or write

I search and post exactly the same as I did before the main AI wave hit and grew in size starting on November 30th, 2022 with the release of ChatGPT

[Fernando 6,595]

32 minutes ago, Vesper said:

no you do NOT

I do not use AI to research, or write

I search and post exactly the same as I did before the main AI wave hit and grew in size starting on November 30th, 2022 with the release of ChatGPT

But that is the point you search what others write. 

Have you taken the time to listen in context and without cuts? As you know how the journalist do with Chelsea that take things out of context and don't post the full information. 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Fernando

[Vesper 30,289]

56 minutes ago, Fernando said:

But that is the point you search what others write. 

Have you taken the time to listen in context and without cuts? As you know how the journalist do with Chelsea that take things out of context and don't post the full information. 

 

utter nonsense

you are quickly devolving into a pure bad faith poster like Cosmic was

the article was a list of KIRK'S OWN WORDS, with links to them

THAT is the context

[Fernando 6,595]

12 minutes ago, Vesper said:

utter nonsense

you are quickly devolving into a pure bad faith poster like Cosmic was

the article was a list of KIRK'S OWN WORDS, with links to them

THAT is the context

In which you don't bother going deep into context why he said that. You just take their word and that's it. It's superficial to me. 

In one of the link they just took one part of a long talk he had here:

https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-goes-unhinged-racist-rant-prowling-blacks-go-around-fun-go-target-white

[Vesper 30,289]

1 minute ago, Fernando said:

In which you don't bother going deep into context why he said that. You just take their word and that's it. It's superficial to me. 

In one of the link they just took one part of a long talk he had here:

https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-goes-unhinged-racist-rant-prowling-blacks-go-around-fun-go-target-white

Kirk, like the vast majority of right wing Christian nationalists, was a purveyor of hate, the antithesis of the core message of Christ (love).

He and his ilk are all about domination and power, all about eradicating anything they deem to not fit into their worldview.

Christian Nationalism: The Rising Tide

https://globalextremism.org/post/christian-nationalism-the-rising-tide/

America is confronting a rising tide of Christian nationalism, a political movement that imposes a narrow, exclusionary vision of Christian identity on the nation’s government, culture, and society as the term itself, Christian nationalism, has become a part of the nation’s vernacular.  Christian nationalism, described in broad strokes as the belief that America is divinely ordained for Christian rule, has stormed from the fringes into the heart of American power, poised to reshape the nation. The movement is backed by a bevy of Christian nationalist advisors, appointees, and organizations who have placed Donald Trump at the helm.

snip

The Pentagon’s New Prayer Warriors: How Christian Nationalists Planted a Church Blocks from the Capitol

The American flag hung upside down, a symbol of dire distress or danger, above Pastor Jared Longshore as he delivered his sermon on July 13. In the sweltering room just blocks from the U.S. Capitol, 120 worshippers packed into folding chairs listened intently. “We understand that worship is warfare,” the bearded pastor declared from behind the lectern. A pause. “We mean that.”

Children whispered excitedly when Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, a Christian nationalist, walked through the door. This was Christ Kirk D.C.’s inaugural service, and the defense secretary’s presence sent a clear message. By the time he left, supporters had mobbed him.

Behind this latest church plant stands Doug Wilson. The self-described Christian nationalist pastor operates from Moscow, Idaho, where he’s built something remarkable: an expanding network of institutions designed to challenge the separation of church and state. His Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches now spans more than 130 congregations worldwide. And his followers? They’re making serious inroads into American political power.

Hegseth’s attendance was no accident. The defense secretary has praised Wilson’s books, one of which defends slavery as “God-ordained.” He moved his family to Tennessee specifically to enroll his children in schools associated with Wilson’s Christian education movement. He joined a local CREC church. In May, he had Wilson lead a prayer service at the Pentagon.

Even the venue tells a story. The Christ Kirk DC congregation meets in a building owned by the Conservative Partnership Institute — a far-right think tank with serious connections. Former Senator Jim DeMint leads it. So does Trump’s former Chief of Staff  Mark Meadows. Partner organizations include the Center for Renewing America, created by Russell Vought, and America First Legal, co-founded by current White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.

Political symbols filled the worship space. Multiple American flags. Revolutionary-era banners like the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag. An “Appeal to Heaven” flag — which has become associated with Christian nationalism and the January 6 Capitol attack. Old newspaper clippings praising Ronald Reagan dotted the walls.

Nick Solheim sat among the worshippers. He heads American Moment, an organization founded with backing from then-Senator JD Vance. The group is listed among CPI’s partners.

Wilson’s rise reflects something bigger — a movement of Christian nationalists who reject democratic pluralism entirely. They want explicitly Christian governance instead. Unlike other evangelical leaders who supported Trump reluctantly, Wilson and his allies embrace him as divinely appointed – a disrupter chosen by God.

Over the years, Wilson has sparked serious controversies with anti-LGBTQ+ slurs and a book that downplayed the horrors of American slavery. These aren’t minor missteps — they reveal a worldview that many find deeply troubling.

Hegseth embodies this militant strain perfectly. His military tattoos tell the story: “Deus Vult” (God Wills It), a Crusader battle cry and a Jerusalem Cross. These symbols led to his removal from President Biden’s inauguration security detail in 2021. Officials cited concerns about extremism.

Pastor Longshore traveled from Wilson’s Idaho church to launch the DC congregation. He dismissed suggestions that the church was explicitly designed to influence politics. But he explained that the theology is clear. “We do believe that culture is religion externalized, always, whatever the religion. And politics is downstream from culture, and culture is downstream from worship.”

During his sermon, Longshore made bold claims. America has become a “fallen” or “lapsed” nation, he said. Why? Because it drifted from its Christian roots. He stressed that “Christendom” has “marked this land from its founding.”

Not everyone appreciated the message. Outside the building, two protesters jeered worshippers as they entered. One held a sign: “Christ Church Is not Welcome.” A protester who identified himself only as Jay spoke to reporters, saying that Christ Kirk espouses values that are “fundamentally un-American” and “un-Christian.”

Even inside the church, skepticism emerged. Nathan Krauss, a United Methodist member who works in the federal government, attended as part of his effort to understand Christian nationalism. Much of the service seemed inoffensive to him. But he questioned something crucial: the disconnect between Scripture and the movement’s political goals. “I just really want to know: is the creation of this church going to create more liberty for the oppressed or less liberty for the oppressed?” he wondered aloud.

Longshore relished the pushback. Wilson’s Idaho church faces regular protests too, he noted. As someone preparing for “spiritual warfare,” he welcomed the challenge. “What feels like crazy to you is actually normal stuff,” he told critics. Protest represents authentic American discourse outside “the secular bubble,” he argued.

The church has plans. It will evolve from a satellite service of Wilson’s Moscow congregation into an independent mission church. Local leadership will emerge. But with Christian nationalists now occupying key positions throughout the Trump administration, Christ Kirk D.C. represents something more significant than just another church plant. It’s a symbol. A movement that has successfully translated theological conviction into political power. And it’s operating just blocks from the Capitol.

David Barton: The Christian Nationalist Behind America’s Ten Commandments Takeover

Twenty-eight bills. Eighteen states. One source. Across America this year, nearly identical legislation requiring Ten Commandments displays in public school classrooms has surfaced with startling uniformity — the same language appearing word-for-word from Louisiana to Nebraska, a new investigation by The 74, an education news outlet, reports. The bills specify identical poster sizes, identical placement requirements, and even identical funding mechanisms.

The architect of this model legislation is David Barton, a 71-year-old Christian nationalist operating from Aledo, Texas — population 5,000. For four decades, Barton has methodically constructed what critics call a “bill mill,” designed to inject his brand of Christianity into American government.

The self-described historian has built a lucrative career propagating the myth that church-state separation is a lie used by nefarious forces to obscure America’s supposedly Christian origins. Barton, who considers homosexuality an “aberration,” is a frequent invited speaker at conferences hosted by Project 2025 supporter Turning Point USA, and has been an advisor to House Speaker and fellow Christian nationalist Mike Johnson. From his small-town base, he’s created an operation that cranks out model legislation with factory-like efficiency.

During an April hearing before the Texas House education committee, Barton’s influence became clear. There he stood, clutching a thick Bible with a dark brown cover worn smooth from years of handling. “This is actually printed by the official printer of Congress,” he announced, launching into a well-rehearsed performance.

One prop followed another. A second book, smaller but equally weathered. Then a third. A fourth. “The courts have pointed to the Ten Commandments as the reason we have all types of laws,” Barton testified, “So there’s a lot of history and tradition for that document.”

What didn’t lawmakers realize? Barton had delivered nearly identical testimony in Nebraska, Louisiana, and Arkansas. His words would echo in statehouses from coast to coast where 12 bills specify that displays must hang in “conspicuous” locations. Eleven demand they measure at least 11-by-14 inches. Twenty-five require the commandments to appear as a “poster or framed” display. This isn’t a coincidence — it’s the product of Project Blitz, Barton’s Christian “bill mill” operating through his organization, WallBuilders.

He founded WallBuilders in 1988, choosing a name referencing the Old Testament passage about rebuilding Jerusalem’s walls. The organization’s mission: “exert a direct and positive influence in government, education, and the family by educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country.”

After graduating from Oral Roberts University in 1976, Barton returned home to teach at a small Christian school. Basketball coach, then principal. But he discovered his true calling: rewriting America’s understanding of its own founding.

His central claim flips constitutional law on its head. The First Amendment’s establishment clause, Barton argues, was never meant to separate church and state — not really. The founders only wanted to prevent “one Christian denomination” from dominating others. In his interpretation, the wall between government and religion was built to protect Christianity, not limit it.

Professional historians have spent decades debunking these theories, accusing him of cherry-picking quotes and mischaracterizing documents. His 2012 book about Thomas Jefferson contained so many errors that its Christian publisher pulled it from the shelves. “Basic truths just were not there,” they explained.

The academic criticism hasn’t slowed him down. Barton has turned scholarly debunking into fundraising gold, portraying himself as a persecuted truth-teller. WallBuilders reported $5.5 million in revenue in 2021.

Every November, Barton hosts a conference at a four-star resort outside Dallas. State legislators arrive with scholarships and discounted hotel rates. They leave with model legislation and talking points memorized. Indiana Representative J.D. Prescott attended one gathering, then returned home to introduce a Ten Commandments bill matching Barton’s template. “I learned a lot of it at a WallBuilders conference,” Prescott acknowledged.

The bills reveal sophisticated planning. Most specify that displays should be donated by private groups rather than purchased with taxpayer dollars — creating a closed loop where the same organizations that write requirements also supply the posters.

Today, Barton’s influence reaches the highest levels. House Speaker and Christian nationalist Mike Johnson credits Barton as a “profound influence on me, and my work, and my life and everything I do.” One day after Johnson’s election, Barton appeared on his podcast to discuss staffing decisions. “We have some tools at our disposal now we haven’t had in a long time,” he announced.

Both men envision America as an explicitly Christian nation. Johnson previously worked for Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti-LGBTQ+ legal group that challenges church-state separation. Barton built the intellectual framework justifying such challenges.

Three states have passed laws requiring the Ten Commandments in public schools: Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas. All follow Barton’s template precisely. Federal courts have begun striking down the mandates, with the Fifth Circuit ruling Louisiana’s law “plainly unconstitutional.” But Barton remains confident, pointing to recent Supreme Court decisions that have weakened church-state barriers.

“The hostility is gone,” Barton testified in Nebraska. The court’s new standard focuses on whether religious displays reflect “longstanding practice” — exactly his argument for four decades.

The opposition has noticed. Constitutional attorney Andrew Seidel calls Barton “the granddaddy of Christian nationalist disinformation.” Parents have filed lawsuits alleging students will be “unconstitutionally coerced into religious observance.”

Texas Senator Mayes Middleton, who sponsored his state’s law, praised the coordination. “We just wanted uniformity in these displays,” he explained.

From a town of 5,000 people, a self-taught historian with no formal training has built something unprecedented: a factory for Christian nationalist legislation, operating with assembly-line efficiency.

 

 

[Vesper 30,289]

Hasan Piker on Charlie Kirk, Dangerous Rhetoric, and the Radical Power of Empathy

 

[Vesper 30,289]

No, Charlie Kirk Was Not Practicing Politics the Right Way

His assassination deserves full condemnation; his full impact should not be sidestepped.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/09/charlie-kirk-legacy-ezra-klein-2020-election-trump-turning-point/

Tragedy is a powerful shaper of narratives. In the aftermath of the horrific assassination of MAGA champion Charlie Kirk, a husband and father of two, it was natural that his allies, including President Trump, lionized him as a patriot, free-speech advocate, and activist. And political opponents somberly denounced the terrible killing, as they should, with some hailing Kirk’s devotion to public debate. There’s a tendency in such a moment to look for the best in people or, at least, to not dwell on the negatives. That can be a good thing. Yet as Kirk is quickly canonized by Trump and his movement—on Thursday Trump announced he would bestow upon Kirk a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom—a full depiction of his impact on American politics is largely being sidestepped.

In promoting a story on the murder of Kirk—headlined “Charlie Kirk killing deepens America’s violent spiral”—Axios described him as a “fierce champion of the right to free expression” whose “voice was silenced by an assassin’s bullet.” New York Times opinion columnist Ezra Klein, wrote, “You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.” Klein added that he “envied” the political movement Kirk built and praised “his moxie and fearlessness.”

Here’s the problem: Kirk built that movement with falsehoods. And his advocacy was laced with racist and bigoted statements. Recognizing this does not diminish the awfulness of this act of violence. Nor does it lessen our outrage or diminish our sympathy for his family, friends, and colleagues. Yet if this is an appropriate moment to assess Kirk and issue bold statements about his participation in America’s political life, there ought to be room for a true discussion.

Kirk, a right-wing provocateur who founded and led Turning Point USA, an organization of young conservatives, was a promoter of Trump’s destructive and baseless conspiracy theory that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Two days before the January 6 riot, Kirk boasted in a tweet that Students for Trump and Turning Point Action were “Sending 80+ buses full of patriots to DC to fight for this president.”

After the attack, Kirk deleted the tweet, and he claimed that the people his group transported to DC participated only in the rally that occurred before the assault on Congress—where Trump whipped up the crowd and encouraged it to march on the Capitol. The New York Times subsequently reported that Turning Point Action sent only seven buses to the event. Turning Point also paid the $60,000 speaking fee to Kimberly Guilfoyle, a MAGA personality, for the brief remarks she made at the rally. “We will not allow the liberals and the Democrats to steal our dream or steal our elections,” Guilfoyle told the crowd. (Kirk took the Fifth when he was deposed by the House January 6 committee.)

Even prior to the election, Kirk helped set the stage for Trump’s attempt to subvert the republic. In September 2020, the Washington Post reported that Turning Point Action was running a “sprawling yet secretive campaign” to disseminate pro-Trump propaganda “that experts say evades the guardrails put in place by social media companies to limit online disinformation of the sort used by Russia during the 2016 campaign.” The messages Turning Point generated spread the charge that Democrats were using mail balloting to steal the election and downplayed the threat from Covid. (Kirk’s group called the story a “gross mischaracterization.”)

Whatever Kirk’s group and supporters did on January 6, he was part of the MAGA crusade that largely broke US politics. Trump’s refusal to accept his 2020 loss, his conniving to stay in power, and his encouragement of a lie that led to massive political violence greatly undermined American democracy and exacerbated the already deep divide in the nation. Kirk was a part of that. Yet Klein overlooks that in praising Kirk. And a New York Times piece on Kirk’s political career made no mention of this, though it did report that he had been “accused” of “antisemitism, homophobia and racism, having blamed Jewish communities for fomenting hatred against white people, criticized gay rights on religious grounds and questioned the qualifications of Black airline pilots.”

Kirk’s advocacy of vigorous debate ought not be separated from what he said while jousting in the public square. He hosted white nationalists on his podcast. He posted racist comments on his X account, including this remark: “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.'” He endorsed the white “replacement” conspiracy theory. After the October 7 attack on Israel, he compared Black Lives Matter to Hamas. He called for preserving “white demographics in America.” He asserted that Islam was not compatible with Western culture. He derided women who supported Kamala Harris 2024 for wanting “careerism, consumerism, and loneliness.” Or, as he also put it, “Democratic women want to die alone without children.” When Paul Pelosi, the husband of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, was brutally attacked in 2022, Kirk spread a conspiracy theory about the crime and called for an “amazing patriot” to bail out the assailant. He routinely deployed extreme rhetoric to demonize his political foes.

Kirk did enjoy debating others. He visited campuses and held events in which he took on all comers, arguing over a variety of contentious issues. He was a showman, and his commitment to verbal duking was admirable. He appeared proud of the harsh opinions he robustly shared. Which means there’s no reason now to be shy about them while pondering his legacy.

Moreover, as a movement strategist, he relied upon and advanced lies and bigotry—including falsehoods that fueled violence and an assault on our national foundation. That was not a side gig for Kirk. It was a core component of his organizing. He did not practice politics the right way. He used deceit to develop his movement and to weaken the United States. His assassination is heinous and frightening and warrants widespread condemnation. It should prompt reflection on what is happening within the nation and what needs to be done to prevent further political violence. It should not protect him or others who engage in such politics of extremism from critical review.

[Vesper 30,289]

Charlie Kirk’s Legacy Deserves No Mourning

The white Christian nationalist provocateur wasn’t a promoter of civil discourse. He preached hate, bigotry, and division

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/charlie-kirk-assassination-maga/

 

Charles James Kirk, 31, died on Wednesday from a gunshot to the neck at a Utah Valley University campus event just as he was trying to deflect a question about mass shootings by suggesting they were largely a function of gang violence. He died with a net worth of $12 million, which he made by espousing horrific and bigoted views in the name of advancing Christian nationalism. The foundation of his empire was the group he cofounded and led, Turning Point USA, which is a key youth-recruitment arm of the MAGA movement. Kirk was able to launch Turning Point at the age of 18 because he received money from Tea Party member Bill Montgomery, right-wing donor Foster Feiss, and his own father, also a prolific right-wing donor. He was an unrepentant racist, transphobe, homophobe, and misogynist who often wrapped his bigotry in Bible verses because there was no other way to pretend that it was morally correct. He had children, as do many vile people.

It is rude of me to say all of this, because we live in a culture where manners are often valued more than truth. That is why a slew of pundits and politicians have raced to portray Kirk’s activities, which harmed many vulnerable people, in a positive light—and to give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not grant to anyone who wasn’t white, Christian, straight, and male. California Governor Gavin Newsom framed Kirk’s project as a healthy democratic exercise: “The best way to honor Charlie’s memory is to continue his work: engage with each other, across ideology, through spirited discourse. In a democracy, ideas are tested through words and good-faith debate.” This downwardly defines both “discourse” and “good-faith.”

There is no requirement to take part in this whitewashing campaign, and refusing to join in doesn’t make anyone a bad person. It’s a choice to write an obituary that begins “Joseph Goebbels was a gifted marketer and loving father to six children.”

Many of the facile defenses of Kirk and his legacy are predicated on the idea that it’s acceptable to spread hateful ideas advocating for the persecution of perceived enemies as long you dress them up in a posture of debate. This is just class privilege. The man who said, “Black women do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s slot” said it while wearing a nice shirt and a tie on a podcast instead of tattered overalls in the parking lot of a rural Walmart. That does not make it any less racist.

It’s true that we cannot know what was in Charlie Kirk’s heart because we are not telepathic. But we can make reasonable inferences based on the things he said and did publicly because we are also not colossally stupid. He built a large following, and acquired real political power saying these things—to young people, to the president and his minions, to deep-pocket right-wing donors—and there are far too many people who have been ready to suggest that he was able to do this through a combination of natural charisma and good old-fashioned hard work. Speaking about and addressing the late Texas Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, who is Black, he said, “It’s very obvious to us you are not smart enough to be able to get it on your own. ‘I could not make it on my own, so I needed to take opportunities from someone more deserving.’” Kirk was smart enough to ask his father for a check when wanted to found Turning Point, and had always been happy to curtail opportunities for more deserving people when they failed to conform to his own ideology.

It’s this that makes it particularly galling to see him cast by some as a free-speech warrior. He created a professor watchlist explicitly designed to get academics fired who dared talk about the right’s usual assortment of verboten topics—anything to do with race or gender, in particular. He also offered the standard right-wing plaint about left-wing indoctrination in American universities even as he went on campus tours trying to indoctrinate young people into his hard-right Christian nationalist worldview.

When we decline to speak ill of the dead, it’s because we have compassion for the living. In this respect, I am sorry for Kirk’s children. I don’t know if Kirk was a good father, but if he was, that does little to mitigate the damage he did to other people’s children. I can only hope for the sake of his kids that they have role models who will teach them that it is wrong to profit off the dehumanization of people because of who they are.

When asked about mass shootings he said, “I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the Second Amendment.” Perhaps Kirk did not believe that his own life would be cut short by gun violence, but, like the rest of us, he has witnessed countless school shootings. When he said “some gun deaths” are acceptable, he surely knew he lived in a country where the deaths he deemed acceptable included those of children, some of whom were the age of his own. There is no inherent virtue in caring about your own children; that is the bare minimum requirement for effective parenting. Virtue lies in caring about the safety and well-being of children you don’t know.

On that front, I’m fairly sure Kirk did not care about my child. My child lives in Brooklyn, in a progressive family. His mother works and does not have a marriage where she is considered inferior to her husband or required to obey him, as Kirk arrogantly told Taylor Swift she should do after learning of her engagement. (“Reject feminism,” he said. “You’re not in charge.”) We also live in a Haitian immigrant neighborhood, and if you only listened to Charlie Kirk, you might be under the impression that my neighbors eat pets. You would also be encouraged to believe that, simply by virtue of being non-white immigrants, they were “replacing” white people—and that, since they are also Black, they are dangerous. “Happening all the time in urban America,” he said, “prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact.”

I do not believe anyone should be murdered because of their views, but that is because I don’t believe people should be murdered generally, regardless of who they are or what they’ve done. I am against the death penalty, pro–gun control, and believe war is a failure of humanity, not a necessary byproduct of it. Kirk was fine with murder as long the right people were dying.

Some of the people valorizing Kirk insist that all of his toxicity was acceptable because at least he was open to debate—a bar so low, you’d have to dig into the Mariana Trench to get to it. And he certainly paid lip service to it. “We record all of it so that we put [it] on the Internet so people can see these ideas collide,” he said of his own streaming operation. “When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence. That’s when civil war happens, because you start to think the other side is so evil, and they lose their humanity.”

But Kirk’s actions undercut that notion every day. His entire business was saying the other side was evil and dehumanizing them. The debates were simply performances, and he could not have an entertaining public fight without opposition. Turning Point did not work to bring people together; it worked to bring about a country where anyone who wasn’t a white Christian nationalist wasn’t welcome. I won’t celebrate his death, but I’m not obligated to celebrate his life, either.

[DDA 9,984]

^^^^ What is that absolute nonsense im reading ^^^^