10Sep, 2025
    WHOA!!! What’s going on with the Events Calendar?!

    Updating Our Calendar: Iowa First, California Next

    We’re in the process of updating the events calendar with a new look and new categories. Right now, I’m working through the Iowa events and have October and November left to redo. Once that’s complete, I’ll build the categories for California.

    When Diane lets me know which counties she’ll be covering in Southwest California, I’ll begin adding California events to the calendar. This way, our calendar will grow step by step while staying organized.

    The site will always be a little “under construction” because I’m constantly adding and improving. Thank you for your patience and understanding as these updates roll out. My hope is that this new layout will make everything easier to read and more useful as we expand.

    Judy T.

    10Sep, 2025
    Violence Has No Place in Our Democracy

    I am appalled and deeply saddened by the killing of Charlie Kirk. This act of political violence shocks the conscience. More importantly, it should never have happened. Although I strongly disagree with his politics, I cannot ignore that a husband, a father, a son, and a friend was taken from his loved ones. Violence has no place in our democracy.

    What Happened in Utah

    On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk—a conservative activist and close ally of Donald Trump—was shot and killed during a Turning Point USA event in Utah. A single bullet struck him while he addressed a crowd, and he later died from his injuries. Because of the circumstances, the FBI and state officials launched an immediate investigation.

    Leaders from both major parties condemned the act within hours. Republicans and Democrats alike lowered flags, called for unity, and reminded the nation that political disagreements must never end in violence. Their swift response matters, because it reinforces that free speech is a right all Americans must protect.

    Rescue Our Democracy’s Position

    Rescue Our Democracy rejects political violence in every form. When bullets replace dialogue, democracy itself suffers. That is why we say without hesitation: violence has no place in our democracy.

    Charlie Kirk once claimed that empathy was “fake.” I see it differently. My Christian therapist has told me that I am an empath—not in the new-age sense, but as someone who feels other people’s emotions and pain deeply. Because of that, I grieve for Charlie Kirk’s wife, Erika, for their two children, and for the many family members and friends now in mourning. My empathy is real, and today it hurts for those left behind.

    A Time for Empathy and Unity

    This moment should shock every American. However, we cannot let violence harden our hearts or normalize political hatred. Instead, we must commit to listening, learning, and protecting each other’s right to speak freely.

    I grieve for Charlie Kirk’s family, and I pray they find comfort during this loss. His death is not only a personal tragedy—it also wounds the conscience of our nation. Therefore, we must use this moment to strengthen, not weaken, our shared democratic values.

    Moving Forward Without Violence

    We cannot build a stronger democracy if violence becomes our answer. Instead, let us recommit ourselves to compassion, to protecting free speech, and to rejecting hate in all its forms. Most of all, let us stand together and declare clearly: violence has no place in our democracy.

    I am appalled and deeply saddened by the killing of Charlie Kirk. This shocking act of political violence should never have happened. No matter how strongly I may disagree with his politics, I cannot ignore that a husband, a father, a son, and a friend was taken from his loved ones. Political violence has no place in our democracy.

    What Happened in Utah

    Charlie Kirk—a prominent conservative activist and close ally of Donald Trump—was shot and killed on September 10, 2025, during a Turning Point USA event in Utah. Authorities confirmed that he was struck by a single bullet while speaking to a crowd, and he later died from his injuries. The FBI and state officials are investigating.

    Leaders across the political spectrum, from Republicans to Democrats, immediately condemned this horrifying act. Their reactions remind us that no matter our ideology, free speech cannot be answered with violence.

    Rescue Our Democracy’s Position

    Rescue Our Democracy denounces political violence in every form. Free expression—whether we agree with the message or not—must be protected. When violence replaces dialogue, democracy itself suffers.

    Charlie Kirk once said that empathy was “fake.” I see it differently. My Christian therapist has told me that I am an empath—not in the new-age sense, but as someone who feels other people’s pain deeply and intuitively. And today, I feel sorrow for Charlie Kirk’s wife, Erika, for their two children, and for the family and friends mourning him. My empathy is real, and it breaks for those left behind.

    A Time for Empathy and Unity

    This moment should shock us all. We cannot allow violence to harden our hearts or normalize hatred in our politics. Whether Republican, Democrat, Independent, or otherwise, we share the responsibility of protecting life and defending democracy.

    I grieve for Charlie Kirk’s family, and I pray they find comfort in their time of loss. His death is not just a personal tragedy for those who loved him—it is a wound in the conscience of our nation.

    Moving Forward Without Violence

    We cannot build a stronger future for democracy if violence is the path we choose. Instead, let us recommit ourselves to compassion, to protecting free speech, and to rejecting hate in all its forms. Violence has no place in our democracy, and it never will.

    I’m actually crying as I put this together, right now.

    Judy T.

    8Sep, 2025
    Supreme Court Ruling on Racial Profiling

    What It Means for Our Communities

    How We Got Here

    For years, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Los Angeles were known to stop people who looked Latino, spoke Spanish, or worked low-wage jobs. A federal judge stepped in and blocked those tactics, saying they amounted to racial profiling and violated constitutional protections. During that block, ICE was forced to change how it operated, and the number of arrests dropped significantly.

    The federal government fought back. Their argument was simple: those restrictions made it too difficult to enforce immigration law. That fight made its way to the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority sided with ICE. The ruling lifted the lower court’s ban and gave agents the green light to return to old practices.

    What the Supreme Court Said

    Six justices formed the majority. Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained that it is “common sense” for officers to look at language, type of job, or location when deciding if someone might be undocumented. He claimed that if someone is here legally, a quick stop would prove it, and then they would be free to go.

    Three justices disagreed sharply. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote a fiery dissent. She warned that this ruling allows the government to stop people just because they look Latino, sound like they speak Spanish, or work in certain jobs. Her words were clear: this undermines the Fourth Amendment, which protects all of us from unreasonable searches and seizures.

    What This Means Right Now

    Because of this decision, ICE agents can once again stage sweeps in places like parking lots, car washes, and neighborhoods where many Latino residents live. Even U.S. citizens and legal residents may get stopped if an officer thinks they “look suspicious.” For immigrant families, that means living in constant fear of being pulled aside and questioned for no reason other than appearance or language.

    Civil rights groups responded quickly. The ACLU of Southern California called the ruling dangerous, saying it forces Latino communities into a “papers-please” world. MALDEF added that Justice Kavanaugh’s reasoning relies on stereotypes and opens the door for widespread discrimination. Their warnings echo what many families already feel: that safety and dignity are now at risk.

    What Happens Next

    This case is not finished. It will go back to lower courts, and new arguments will be heard. But while the case moves forward, ICE has free rein to use these tactics in Los Angeles. That means the fear and uncertainty begin now, not later.

    Congress could, in theory, pass laws to stop racial profiling. Unfortunately, the current political climate makes that unlikely. Until then, communities will need to rely on local organizing, legal support, and watchdog groups to track abuses.

    Summary Graphic: Please download and share with ALL people of color, so they understand what can and will happen.

    Moving Forward Together

    So what can people do? First, know your rights. You do not have to answer questions about where you were born. You do not have to show immigration papers unless you are driving. Second, stay connected. Organizations like the ACLU, MALDEF, and immigrant rights groups provide updates, resources, and legal support. Third, document and report abuses. If you are stopped unfairly, record what happened and seek help right away.

    The Supreme Court ruling on racial profiling is a setback for justice, but it is not the end of the story. Courts will hear more arguments. Communities will resist. Allies will step forward. The fight is not over, because our democracy depends on ensuring that no one is judged—or stopped—based on race, language, or where they work.

    Judy T.

    5Sep, 2025
    Week of Sept 1

    Executive actions & nominations (Sept 1 → Sept 5, 2025)

    Quick summary (at a glance)

    • The administration issued an executive order implementing the U.S.–Japan framework (15% baseline tariff; sector exceptions; retroactive to Aug 7). The White House
    • Japan is said to have committed ~$550 billion in investment; details and enforceability remain vague and disputed in reporting. ReutersCSIS
    • Several presidential nominations (and a few withdrawals) were formally sent to the Senate this week — including the BLS nominee E.J. “Erwin/E.J.” Antoni and multiple maritime, commerce, Treasury, and State nominees. The White House
    • The Western District of Virginia U.S. Attorney nomination/appointment situation remains messy after a sudden resignation — raising oversight questions. Department of Justice
    • The Department of Defense has been renamed to the Department of War — raising questions of why we seem to be going on the offensive and a precursor of what is to come. The Guardian

    Below I’ve laid this out day-by-day (Sept 1 → today), each entry short, clear, and with: (1) what happened, (2) why it matters, and (3) red flags / what to watch. I triple-checked the main facts against primary sources (White House / EO text), major news coverage, and official agency pages; links are at the end.

    Sept 1, 2025 — (week-opening notes)

    No single White House “presidential actions” item dated Sept 1 on the official feed. This week’s actions cluster on Sept 2–5.

    Sept 2, 2025 — Nominations (selected)

    What happened

    • The White House sent a batch of nominations to the Senate (examples reported earlier this week include Tammy Bruce to be Deputy Representative to the U.N., plus other ambassadorial and judicial nominations). The White House

    Why it matters (left-leaning lens)

    • Filling diplomatic and judicial slots shapes U.S. policy and how laws get applied for years. Ambassador picks affect trade, human rights enforcement, and global coordination on climate and labor standards.

    Red flags / What to watch

    • Check nominees’ records for corporate ties or past advocacy against labor or environmental rules. Senate hearings are the moment to demand documents, voting records, and recusals where conflicts exist.

    Sept 3, 2025 — Nominations (large, high-turnover batch)

    What happened (core items drawn from the White House list)

    • Erwin (E.J.) Antoni — to be Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 4-year term (replacing Erika McEntarfer). Reuters
    • Laura DiBella and Robert A. Harvey — to be Federal Maritime Commissioners (two FMC vacancies). The White House Lloyd’s List
    • Steven Haines — Assistant Secretary of Commerce (replacing Grant T. Harris, resigned). The White House
    • Trent Morse — Board member, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (5-year term). The White House
    • Joshua Simmons — General Counsel, CIA (replace Kate Heinzelman, resigned). The White House
    • Christopher Yeaw — Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Stability (replace Mallory Stewart, resigned). The White House Hudson Institute
    • Withdrawals sent to Senate (documents show a few withdrawals were formally transmitted) — including Terrence Gorman (Veterans’ Appeals), Penny Schwinn (Deputy Sec. of Education), and Christopher Gilbert (U.S. Attorney, Western District of Virginia). The White House

    Why it matters

    • The BLS commissioner is central to trust in labor and inflation data. A politicized BLS can distort economic policy debates and hurt working people. Reuters
    • FMC appointees shape port rules and shipping costs — important for supply-chain resilience and import/export fairness. Lloyd’s List
    • Appointing a State Arms Control lead with a strong defense/industrial background matters for treaty posture and arms-control diplomacy. Hudson Institute

    Non-MAGA critique & red flags

    • E.J. Antoni (BLS) — He comes from the Heritage Foundation; critics warn this could politicize federal statistics. The BLS needs technical independence. Senators should press for traceable evidence that nominees will not change data collection or revision processes for political ends. Reuters
    • FMC slate (DiBella / Harvey) — Both tied to Florida economic-development networks; the pattern looks like regional patronage. Watch for business or port-industry conflicts of interest. Public benefit must trump private port contracts. Lloyd’s List
    • CIA General Counsel (Joshua Simmons) — He’s a career legal adviser in State; the GC role requires both independence and a record on civil-liberties protections. Senators should probe his positions on surveillance, targeting, and whistleblower protections. The White House International Court of Justice
    • High turnover — Several positions are “vice X resigned.” Replacing many career or long-tenured officials quickly reduces institutional memory and weakens checks on power. That invites policy instability and potential cover-ups.

    What to watch in confirmation process

    • Demand full financial disclosures and recusal agreements.
    • For BLS: technical briefings showing no political interference with sampling methodology, seasonal adjustment rules, or revision policy.
    • For FMC: disclosure of port contracts, grants, and any ties to private investors who will benefit from tariff or regulatory changes.

    Sept 4, 2025 — Executive Order: Implementing the United States–Japan Agreement

    What happened (straight fact)

    • The President issued an executive order implementing the U.S.–Japan framework agreement. It: (a) sets a baseline 15% tariff on most Japanese imports (with sector-specific treatment for autos, aerospace, generics, and certain natural resources); (b) makes many aerospace products duty-free; and (c) applies retroactively to entries on or after 12:01 a.m. EDT on August 7, 2025. The EO text is posted on the White House site. The White House

    Public reporting & the investment pledge

    • The administration and press report that Japan agreed to $550 billion in U.S. investment commitments as part of the deal; reporting describes that figure as a mix of equity, loans, and guarantees, but details on legal commitments, timelines, and enforcement mechanisms remain thin in official documents. Reuters The White House

    Non-MAGA critique (what concerns should people have?)

    • Transparency & enforcement: The EO says Japan will “provide” investments selected by the U.S. government, but the EO itself does not include binding enforcement language, timelines, or independent audits. That leaves open the question: What counts as deliverable capital and who verifies it? The WhiteHouse Reuters
    • Retrospective tariff changes: Making the tariff change retroactive to Aug 7 could trigger refunds or complex customs reconciliations. Retroactivity can quietly shift who benefits (importers, large corporations) and who bears short-term costs (workers facing supply shifts). The White House
    • Delegation power: The EO delegates broad authority to Commerce and DHS to implement and to define “products of Japan.” That gives agency officials latitude — which can be necessary — but also raises risk of opaque rule-making without adequate public oversight. The White House
    • $550B — real or aspirational? Media reporting indicates the $550B figure has been repeatedly touted by administration officials, but independent analysts urge skepticism until commitments are legally documented. Watch for any “investment committee” structures, profit-sharing arrangements, or conditionality clauses that could hide giveaways to corporations or leave public oversight weak. Reuters CSI S

    What to watch next

    • The Commerce Department notice(s) to the Federal Register (they’re required within days under the EO). Those notices will show details — exclusions, HTS modifications, and timelines. The White House
    • Treasury / Commerce briefings or Japan government releases spelling out the $550B mechanics. Insist on documentation: who signs, what legal form the commitments take, and how compliance will be verified. Reuters

    Sept 5, 2025 — Notes & continuing developments

    • Press coverage and fact-checking are ongoing. Several outlets flagged the $550B number as a headline figure with sketchy public back-up and urged caution. Independent watchdogs will need to follow the Federal Register and any intergovernmental memoranda of understanding. Reuters CSIS
    • While this was being completed for posting, there was a news flash, Trump has changed the name from Department of Defense to Department of War. The Guardian

    Red flags across the week — grouped (short checklist)

    1. Data agencies at risk of politicization — BLS nominee comes from a partisan think tank; confirmers must protect statistical independence. Reuters
    2. Big trade deal with thin public enforcement language — $550B headline needs legal documents to be meaningful. Demand more than press statements. The White House Reuters
    3. Rapid turnover & withdrawals — multiple resignations and withdrawals reduce continuity and increase opportunities for back-channel deals. The White House Department of Justice
    4. Potential cronyism in nominations — regional and industry ties for FMC nominees warrant careful vetting. Lloyd’s List
    5. Delegated, fast rulemaking — the EO authorizes quick HTSUS modifications that could be implemented with limited notice. Watch the Federal Register for the rule text. The White House
    6. Potentially antagonizing the world — Changing the name of the Dept. of Defense to Dept. of War is peek at the hand of Trump’s plans.

    How to push for accountability (practical next steps)

    • Demand the Federal Register notices tied to the EO and bookmark them. The notice will show the exact tariff changes and any exclusions. The White House
    • Ask the Senate to hold thorough confirmation hearings that dig into conflicts, data-methodology protections (for BLS), and nominees’ ties to industry. Use the hearing record to request documents. The White House
    • Watch the Commerce Department for the investment documentation — e.g., MOUs, formal guarantees, or project lists. If nothing public appears, press for FOIA and independent audits. Reuters
    • Civil-society monitoring — labor, environmental, and procurement transparency groups should monitor how investments are selected and whether they create jobs with good wages and protections. CSIS

    Final notes — verification & sources

    I verified the EO text and tariff rules directly from the White House presidential actions page (executive order text). I cross-checked major facts about the Japan package and the $550B headlines against Reuters and independent policy analysts, and I used the White House nominations posting plus Department of Justice and reputable trade/port trade outlets for nominee backgrounds and the U.S. Attorney developments. Key supporting documents and reporting are below.

    Primary sources used (top references cited inline above)

    Additional reporting/background consulted

    All sources referenced above / used to triple-check facts

    4Sep, 2025
    Discrimination Disguised as Policy: The Attack on Trans Gun Owners
    Original Art by Shade B.

    The Justice Department under Trump is openly threatening to strip transgender Americans of their Second Amendment rights under the pretext of “mental health.” This is outrageous, dangerous, and transparently prejudicial. If the policy response is to single out transgender people because some bureaucrat decides — without due process or individualized proof — that they have a mental condition, then this administration is not protecting rights; they are weaponizing the law against a marginalized group.

    The Second Amendment is short, but its meaning and limits have been litigated and debated for centuries. At its core it establishes an individual right that courts have said must be treated with respect even as reasonable regulations are allowed. The U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) recognized the individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home. The Constitution, the Heller ruling, and basic principles of equal protection all demand that gun laws be applied in neutral, non-discriminatory ways — not used as a cudgel to exclude people because of who they are.

    There is a narrow, legally recognized way to restrict firearm access based on mental health: laws already prohibit possession by people who have been involuntarily committed or adjudicated as mentally defective. That statutory language (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4)) exists because the law tied limits to concrete legal findings — not to broad, subjective judgments about identity. What’s being proposed now, looks nothing like a careful, narrowly tailored law. It appears to be a shortcut to discrimination: brand a population as “mentally unfit” and deprive them of a constitutional right without individualized process or transparent criteria.

    History shows this exact pattern: laws and policies that outwardly appear neutral have often been applied in highly discriminatory ways. From post-Reconstruction “Black Codes” and Southern pistol ordinances designed to disarm Black communities, to discriminatory enforcement today, gun restrictions have too often tracked and enforced social hierarchies rather than neutral safety goals. Weaponizing “mental health” as a cover for targeting a vulnerable minority is not new — it is simply the latest permutation of an ugly playbook.

    If the government truly believes a mental-fitness standard should decide who may own firearms, then either adopt a neutral, universal policy applied to everyone — or don’t do it at all. Their suggestion is blunt but morally coherent: if mental fitness is a precondition for a constitutional right, apply that test equally to every citizen. Preferentially stripping a right from one group is not regulation — it is discrimination.

    That said, let’s be frank about the practical and civil-liberties problems with a blanket “mental test” for gun ownership: mental health assessments are complex, time-varying, subject to cultural bias, and can be weaponized by coercive or discriminatory officials; any such test would require ironclad due process, clear and narrow criteria, appeal rights, robust privacy protections, and an independent evidentiary standard. If your aim is public safety rather than exclusion, the smarter approach is to strengthen due process around existing mental-health-based prohibitions, expand access to mental health care, and invest in community-based violence prevention — not to create a blunt instrument that will almost certainly be used against those already marginalized.

    We should also be clear about where responsibility lies: this is not a debate about principles only; it’s a political decision being executed by an administration that has chosen to focus enforcement tools on people who are not wealthy, not white, and not politically powerful. That’s why civil-rights organizations, constitutional lawyers, and everyday Americans should be alarmed. The pattern is deeply familiar: limit the rights of the vulnerable today, and the erosion spreads tomorrow.

    If you want to push back, here are immediate, concrete steps people can take:

    • Contact your congressional representatives and demand hearings explaining the legal basis for any policy that targets transgender people for gun restrictions.
    • File or support legal challenges: encourage civil-rights groups (ACLU, Lambda Legal, Human Rights Campaign) to monitor and, if necessary, sue to protect due process and equal protection.
    • Support organizations providing legal help and rapid response for trans communities.
    • Amplify the story — factual pressure from voters and media can force transparency.
    • Use this precise, non-emotionally loaded message when contacting officials: “I oppose any rule that strips firearm rights from a group based on identity. If mental health standards are used, they must be narrowly defined, applied equally, and accompanied by due process and appeal.”

    In short: this is not safety policy — it’s a discriminatory shortcut. If the administration truly cares about public safety, it will stop scapegoating and start building policies that are evidence-based, neutral, and respectful of constitutional rights.

    “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” If we allow the government to single out one group for rights-removal under the guise of mental health, nobody’s rights are safe.

    Judy T.

    References (URLs only; I did not insert links into the body as requested):

    https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/04/politics/transgender-firearms-justice-department-second-amendment
    https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
    https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 (District of Columbia v. Heller)
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922 (18 U.S.C. § 922)
    https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics (FBI — NICS background checks)
    https://giffords.org/ (Giffords Law Center — gun-policy research/history)
    https://www.aclu.org/issues/lgbtq-rights (ACLU — LGBTQ & trans rights resources)
    https://www.hrc.org/ (Human Rights Campaign — trans rights resources)
    https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/black-codes (historical context on discriminatory laws)

    4Sep, 2025
    America First: A Path Toward Handmaid’s Tale Politics?

    Women’s Rights Under Threat

    When people hear “America First,” they often think of strong borders, patriotic slogans, or economic protectionism. But beneath that surface lies a much more dangerous current—one that threatens women’s autonomy. Framed under “pro-family” or “traditional values” slogans, the real goal is often to roll back reproductive rights, restrict access to healthcare, and send the message that a woman’s place is at home, raising children. This narrow vision erases a woman’s identity beyond motherhood. Many see echoes of The Handmaid’s Tale—a chilling dystopia where women lose control over their own lives, all for the sake of order and tradition.

    Where “America First” Began

    The slogan “America First” traces back to the 1940s, when the America First Committee, led by aviator Charles Lindbergh, urged isolationism and opposed U.S. entry into World War II. But Lindbergh’s remarks blaming Jewish influence for encouraging war stained the movement with antisemitism—a dangerous precedent, showing how even patriotic ideals can slip into bigotry.

    America First in Modern Politics

    Donald Trump brought “America First” back in 2016, using it to push policies prioritizing U.S. interests—immigration restrictions, tariffs, reduced global engagement, and expanded national security enforcement. The America First Policy Institute continues promoting these ideas under the pretext of defending families, jobs, and sovereignty. But reading between the lines reveals a deeper, more troubling aim.

    Stephen Miller—America First’s Architect

    The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    Stephen Miller is one of the key architects of this movement:

    1. America First Legal (AFL): Miller founded and leads America First Legal, a hardline group backing legal battles over immigration, anti-LGBTQ, and educational issues. It served as an adviser to Project 2025, a blueprint to reshape government power. Miller later asked to remove AFL’s name amid public scrutiny.
    2. Project 2025 & Heritage Network:
      • Center for Renewing America (CRA), founded by Russell Vought, appears on Project 2025’s advisory board—promoting a Christian nationalist mission to reorganize government around “God, country, and community.”
      • Project 2025 calls for consolidating executive power, dismantling civil service protections, and reversing reproductive and healthcare gains while embedding Christian values into federal policy.
    3. Policy Powerhouse: Miller serves as Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Adviser—driving hardline immigration reforms, agency purges, and sweeping executive power grabs.
    4. On Women’s Issues—A Stark Record:
      Miller once wrote that women earn less because they choose low-paying, low-risk jobs and don’t work as many hours as men. He stated: “In modern-day America, there is a place for gender roles. I simply wouldn’t feel comfortable hiring a full-time male babysitter…”
      He argued against paid maternity leave, calling it a burden on businesses. This is the man advising on family policy.
    5. Education & Gender Identity:
      Miller recently said schools must teach children to “love America” to receive federal funds and attacked gender identity education as “communist, woke culture.” He went as far as calling gender-affirming care for minors “child abuse.” This aligns tightly with Christian nationalist social norms.

    Behind the Movement—Key Allies

    Stephen Miller isn’t alone. Others deeply embedded in the conservative infrastructure include:

    • Russell Vought, founder of CRA, pushing Christian nationalist visions through Project 2025 and other conservative networks.
    • Conservative Partnership Institute (CPI), founded by Jim DeMint, serves as a hub connecting figures like Miller, Vought, and other hardline allies preparing for the next administration—readying staffing and policy shifts that echo “America First” with religious overtones.
    • Project 2025 Contributors: Include far-right figures like Ben Carson, Ken Cuccinelli, Peter Navarro, who have played major roles in Trump’s past administrations.

    Candidates Running on America First – CA & IA

    (If you want to see your state represented, join our staff and please help us cover your state!)

    This isn’t just ideology—it’s shaping real campaigns:

    • Iowa: Representative Ashley Hinson is running for Senate, pledging to be Trump’s “top ally” and carry forward the America First agenda. Her House seat now opens to successors aligned with this platform.
    • California: Sheriff Chad Bianco is vying for governor in 2026, backed by conservative voters drawn to America First values. While trailing in polls, his candidacy shows how widespread this ideology is becoming.

    Reading in Between the Lines

    On the surface, America First claims to defend families and sovereignty. But its policies push Christian nationalist ideals by:

    • Restricting women’s rights and autonomy.
    • Minimizing LGBTQ and religious freedoms.
    • Narrowing definitions of American identity to favor one religion.
    • Expanding executive power at the expense of democratic checks and balances.

    Our Constitution promises religious freedom—not governance by any single religious viewpoint. America First blurs that line, edging us toward authoritarianism.

    Margaret Atwood once warned that The Handmaid’s Tale was a dystopian story based on germinating truths. If we continue down this path—disempowering women, excluding minority voices, and eroding democratic institutions—Atwood’s vision may come alive.

    References

    Login