Tag: americans
Pope Leo XIV

MAGA Meltdown Over Pope Leo's Remarks On Abortion, Death Penalty

In a rare moment of direct commentary on American politics, Pope Leo XIV ignited a firestorm among conservative Catholics and MAGA-aligned figures after defending Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich’s decision to honor longtime Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) — a pro-choice Democrat — for his decades of public service.

Speaking to reporters at the Vatican on Tuesday night, Pope Leo XIV called for a broader, more consistent interpretation of Catholic social teaching, particularly around what it means to be "pro-life."

“I think that is very important to look at the overall work that this Senator has done during, if I'm not mistaken, 40 years of service in the United States Senate,” the pope said.

“I understand the difficulty and the tensions, but I think, as I myself have spoken in the past, it’s important to look at many issues that are related to what is the teaching of the Church," the pontiff said. "Someone who says 'I'm against abortion but I'm in favor of the death penalty' is not really pro-life. So someone who says 'I'm against abortion but I'm in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants who are in the United States' — I don't know if that's pro-life.”

The remarks came just days after Cardinal Cupich announced that Durbin would receive the Archbishop Bernardin Award for Public Witness, praising the Illinois Democrat’s “lifelong commitment to human dignity, social justice and the common good.” The reaction from the MAGA wing of the American Catholic community to Pope Leo XIV's remarks was swift and vitriolic.

Conservative influencers, commentators, and clergy accused both Cupich and Pope Leo XIV of "selling out" the pro-life cause and elevating politics over doctrine.

MAGA filmmaker and anti-DEI advocate Robby Statbuck wrote: “Pope after Pope has been a disappointing profile in cowardice who I just can’t look to as a leader. If Robert Sarah was Pope, this would not happen. Many would come back to the church then. Leo sounds like another Francis.”

Joe Rigney, an associate pastor, wrote: “I know that Protestants are supposed to be sheepish in the face of Catholic social teaching (‘deep in history,’ layers of tradition, antiquity, etc), but when the ‘Vicar’ of Christ and the successor of Peter morally equates abortion, deportations, and the death penalty for heinous crimes, and then proceeds to bless a block of ice in order to save the planet from climate change, I admit to being decidedly unimpressed with the ‘seamless garment.’”

Far-right podcaster and self-described traditional Catholic Matt Walsh wrote: “Really terrible answer from Pope Leo. God Himself prescribes the death penalty in the Bible. Is the Pope saying that God is ‘not pro-life’? And who exactly is advocating for ‘inhumane treatment of immigrants’? What sort of inhumane treatment is he referring to? Deportations? Also, how can he say that ‘nobody has all the truth’ on any of these issues? We know the truth on abortion. It isn't complicated. Awful stuff from the Pope. Truly horrendous on about five different levels.”

He continued: “Even if you disagree with the death penalty, to draw a moral equivalence between executing convicted murders after a fair trial and dismembering children in the womb is moral madness. Reddit-tier nonsense coming from the Pope. Very disturbing.”

Michael Heinlein, a Catholic commentator, wrote: “A terribly unclear question made this all the worse. As Cardinal George used to say ‘don’t tell me how you feel, tell me what you think!’”

Christopher Hale, a former Democratic nominee for Congress, mocked the MAGA backlash and wrote: “Maybe if he said it in Latin while wearing the papal tiara, MAGA would listen to him.”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Pete Hegseth

Flag Officers Unmoved By Hegseth's Loud 'Cringey' Speech

On Tuesday morning, September 30, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a speech before U.S. military generals. The far-right MAGA Republican and former Fox News host emphasized culture-war themes during the speech, claiming that a push for diversity and "woke" policies have been hurting the military.

"For too long," Hegseth told attendees, "we've promoted too many uniformed leaders for the wrong reasons. Based on their race, based on gender quotas. Based on historic so-called firsts. We've pretended that combat arms and non-combat arms are the same thing…. We became the woke department."

Hegseth also remarked that it is "unacceptable" for the military to have "fat generals."

Hegseth's speech is drawing plenty of responses on X, formerly Twitter.

The progressive group Call to Activism tweeted, "Breaking: Pete Hegseth’s speech to the Generals literally sounds like a speech from 40s Germany: 'For too long we've promoted uniformed leaders for the wrong reasons - based on their race, gender quotas…But not anymore.' Absolutely disgraceful."

Media Matters' Matt Gertz commented, "I think my takeaway from this speech is that Pete Hegseth is going to challenge JD Vance for the GOP nomination in 2028, and my takeaway from recent anonymous leaks about Hegseth is that Vance knows it."

X user Aurelio Muaca posted, "Alcoholic ex-Fox News host Pete Hegseth — booted [for] drunkenness, sexism, and total incompetence — has the nerve to lecture top generals about military matters. The same guy who can barely keep a job thinks he knows better? Good luck with that trainwreck!!"

Finnish X user Joni Askola posted, "During his speech, Hegseth is announcing plans that will shrink the US military. He's pushing sudden physical standards, even for generals, applying male standards to women, and making the force more toxic by 'not walking on egg shells anymore.' Russia and China must be happy."

Comics writer Charles Scaggs wrote, "Short version of Pete Hegseth's Patton-wannabe speech to military officers this morning: 'Anyone who isn't a straight, white male' shouldn't be promoted in the military.'"

Democratic strategist DJ Koessler remarked, "I can't explain it but Hegseth's speech is giving washed-up, annoying senior lecturing the chapter about standards during fraternity rush."

X user The Tennessee Holler noted a lack of applause during the speech.

Holler tweeted, "To our enemies: FAFO [f—— around and find out]” (holds for applause that doesn’t come) Cringey awkward moment as Hegseth summons all generals to hear him do a one-man show about how strong we are

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Polls: Trump's Attacks On Democracy Alienate Normal Americans

Polls: Trump's Attacks On Democracy Alienate Normal Americans

Two very important things are concurrently ongoing in the U.S. One is fast-moving, headline-generating, relentlessly shocking, and existentially threatening to our nation’s long democratic project. The other is a slow burn, prosaically plodding along in the background, though it is equally important, perhaps even more so, than the first thing. I've written about here, but it is largely crowded out in the media by much newsier and scarier developments.

Readers know what thing one is, but just to be explicit, I’m of course talking about Trump’s attack on democracy, from sweeping tariffs, to deportations, to mass firings (including of those who produce accurate data which he doesn’t like), to weaponizing the Justice Department to go after his enemies.

But what’s thing two? It’s Trump’s fading popularity on the issues that matter most to people. It’s the fact that he’s underwater on every important issue.

This is born of the fact that he continues to exploit his extremely and uniquely concentrated power to double down on actions that turn regular, non-MAGA people off. When it comes to the economy, most people are most worried about affordability. Yet he continues to double down on big tariffs, most recently on prescription drugs, kitchen cabinets, furniture, and heavy trucks.

He and his minions are now putting themselves between you and the late-night TV you watch. I grant that a tiny share of Americans watch Jimmy Kimmel, but that’s not the point. The way this works is that people who reasonably choose to block out politics—“it’s just a bunch of rich, old men making DC noise”1—find themselves impinged upon by something close to home, as in choosing to watch what they want. That may not sound like as big a deal as weaponizing the DoJ, but there are many Americans for whom the free-speech intrusion into their everyday life feels like a bigger intrusion than the new Comey indictment.

It’s even worse, and considerably more dangerous, when they intrude in your medicine cabinet, the fact that when you open the drawer to get a Tylenol, you have to hear in your head the president warning you, against all evidence, to not go there.

I predict—and these are measurable predictions; I could, of course, be shown to be wrong—that the administration continues to double and triple down on these and many more such negative intrusions into the lives of regular people, and that as they do so, their popularity will continue to erode.

My predictions stem from my view that the two forces I’m elevating in this note are closely linked. Force one amplifies force two. The administration is increasingly drunk on its sweeping powers, unblocked by Congress and—in the part that scares me most—unleashed by what is arguably the most dangerous Supreme Court in our history.

But not unlike a drunk person endangering you on the streets, or just—and this may be a better analogy given my intrusion theory of the case—ruining your evening by shouting dumb sh— and over-laughing such that you can’t enjoy a simple meal out with the family, the further out they go from existing norms in ways—this part is critical—that show up in your everyday life, the more large shares of Americans are going to want them gone. If I’m right, then the voters that put them over-the-top will be like: “I thought I was voting for lower prices, lower interest rates, more affordable housing. I’m getting higher prices, cracks in job market such that my college-grad kid can’t find work, and a bunch of bullsh— about Tylenol.”

One objection to my rap is “they don’t care what people think about them.” Clearly true. If they did, force one would cease proliferating. But it’s not my point. My point is that they’re increasingly unpopular, and not just with the Democrats, the left, the folks reading this post. But with the large, swing share of the electorate wherein resides the precious “median voter.”

Another objection is thus, “Okay, but what if there isn’t another election?” That is a very potent challenge indeed, and should it become anything close to reality, we must fight like our lives and those of our progeny depend on it. Because they do.

Jared Bernstein is a former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Joe Biden. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Budget and Policy Priorities. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Econjared.

Congressional Budget Office

CBO Report: Trump's Big Ugly Bill Robs The Poor To Grease The Rich

House Republicans are using their August recess to promote the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but a new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) suggests things are far bleaker than they say.

The report projects that the poorest 10% of Americans will lose about $1,200 a year under the law, while the wealthiest 10% will gain roughly $13,600 a year.

In other words, the law is a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

“Republicans are adding trillions to the debt, raising costs on struggling families, and kicking millions off their health care—all to enrich billionaires,” Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA) wrote on X. “It’s Robin Hood in reverse.”

The loss of wealth for poorer Americans is primarily driven by cuts to Medicaid, which 89 million people depend on for health insurance, and SNAP, which provides food assistance to nearly 42 million people.

The CBO previously estimated that 13.7 million people would lose health insurance because of the law’s cuts to Medicaid and changes to Obamacare subsidies. The new report digs into the effect of SNAP cuts, which are expected to leave 2.4 million people ineligible for the program.

“The recently passed budget reconciliation bill has shifted additional SNAP costs onto states, forcing agencies to scramble to implement complex and harmful provisions,” Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center, said in a statement. “States cannot afford the red tape, costly system upgrades, and staff training that these restrictions require.”

The gains for wealthy Americans are largely the result of tax cuts that are funded through cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and other federal programs. While most Americans will receive some form of a tax cut under the law, the vast majority of cuts—66%—will benefit households earning more than $500,000 a year.

Polling suggests that the law is largely out of step with what most Americans want. A KFF poll found that 64% of voters have an unfavorable view of it. A Pew poll from March found that 55% of Americans support raising taxes for the wealthy, not cutting them.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed the House and Senate with only Republican votes. It was signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 4.

Reprinted with permission from American Journal News.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World