This Was In The News September 10th-

I saw a few headlines about it on Monday, and meant to post it but didn’t get it done, then Tuesday was what it was. So, it’s been a week, but here it is: there is universal childcare in New Mexico, and they are heroes for getting that done. -A

New Mexico will be the first state to make child care free

Chabeli Carrazana of The 19th. Meet Chabeli and read more of her reporting on gender, politics and policy.

In an unprecedented move, New Mexico is making child care free. 

Beginning in November, it will be the first state in the nation to provide child care to all residents regardless of income, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham announced this week. 

The state has been working to lower child care care costs since 2019, when it created the Early Childhood Education and Care Department and started to expand eligibility for universal child care. This latest change removes income eligibility requirements from the state’s child care assistance program altogether and waives all family copayments. 

The initiative is expected to save families $12,000 per child annually. 

“Child care is essential to family stability, workforce participation and New Mexico’s future prosperity,” Lujan Grisham said in her announcement. “By investing in universal child care, we are giving families financial relief, supporting our economy, and ensuring that every child has the opportunity to grow and thrive.”

The United States allocates some federal funding to states to lower the cost of child care for low-income kids, but eligibility for that funding is very limited and by and large, most families are paying an average of $13,000 on child care annually. It’s much higher in many states. 

In the absence of a federal universal child care system, some states have worked to build their own systems, and New Mexico has been a leader in that effort over the past several years. 

The state’s Early Childhood Education and Care Department got a budget increase of $113 million in the most recent legislative session, taking its total operating budget to nearly $1 billion. Half of that money goes specifically to child care payment support. 

The state also established a fund in 2020 with money earmarked for early childhood education. Thanks to tax collections from the oil and gas industries, the fund has grown from $320 million to $10 billion. Latinas in New Mexico led the charge in 2022 to help pass a constitutional amendment in 2022 that ensured a portion of that fund went specifically to universal child care. Funding for the new initiative will come at least in part from there, and Lujan Grisham will also be requesting an additional $120 million in state funding next year, a spokesperson for the governor said. 

The news also comes with improvements for child care facilities and, potentially, raises for their staff. As part of the rollout, the state will establish a $13 million loan fund to construct and expand facilities, launch a recruitment campaign for home-based providers and incentivize programs to pay staff a minimum of $18 an hour. 

The state hopes the initiative will lead to the creation of 55 new child care centers and 1,120 home-based child care options. 

Still, response to the initiative so far has been mixed. Republican state Rep. Rebecca Dow told the Albuquerque Journal that she believes child care vouchers should be reserved for children most at risk for child abuse and neglect. Since the state’s child care assistance program expanded eligibility over the past five years, fewer low-income families have participated in the program, the Journal reported. 

But Thora Walsh Padilla, the president of the Mescalero Apache Tribe, praised the initiative, saying during a press conference Monday that it addresses various challenges the tribe has struggled with, including raising wages for providers. There are only three child care facilities on the 463,000 acre reservation. 

“It is so timely and it answers so many needs,” she said. “A building? Oh my goodness, we’ll be one of the first to apply.”

MAGA Republicans Turn On Trump Over Epstein Cover-Ups

 

New Yorkers Are FED UP With Trump’s Secret Police

Trump Slump So Bad Fox Host Turns To Communism

 

Dem Leadership Can’t Stop Sabotaging Its Chances To Win

16-year-old Florida boy held in Israeli prison

Fun With Chelsea

He Still Did It, & He Still Owes

This is a succinct summary and discussion of the decision and its import.

Affirmed: E. Jean Carroll Case by Joyce Vance
Read on Substack

I asked Robbie Kaplan, the lawyer who tried the case, how she felt after learning that the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the $83.3 million verdict a jury awarded E. Jean Carroll in her defamation case against Donald Trump. This is what Kaplan told me: “Both the amazing and brave E. Jean Carroll and I could hardly be happier about today’s decision from the Second Circuit. It has been a long road to get here, and we are not at the end of the road yet, but as the opinion makes clear: ‘The starting point is the now-indisputable fact that a jury found in Carroll II that Trump sexually abused Carroll in 1996, and … that, based on the jury’s findings, Carroll did not lie and that Trump uttered falsehoods in his statements accusing her of lying and acting with improper motivations.’”

The Second Circuit affirmed the verdict against Trump on the same day that Trump’s birthday missive to Jeffrey Epstein became public. Trump says he didn’t send it, but the signature is extremely similar to verified Trump signatures on notes he wrote to both George Conway and Hillary Clinton. The birthday message is in the distinctive Sharpie marker scrawl Trump is known for. But Trump is insisting it isn’t his, a strange hill to die on since his friendship with Epstein is well documented. A jury believed E. Jean when she said Trump sexually assaulted her. The jury of public opinion may well believe Trump sent this incriminating note to Epstein.

This image shared by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee shows the birthday note to Jeffrey Epstein bearing Donald Trump's name. Trump has repeatedly denied writing the letter.

Trump will undoubtedly try to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. It will be up to the Court to decide whether to hear the case or let the Second Circuit’s opinion stand.

The 70-page opinion starts like this: “A jury found that then-President Trump acted with common law malice when he made defamatory statements about Carroll in June 2019 and awarded compensatory and punitive damages. Trump appeals, arguing that he is entitled to presidential immunity or, in the alternative, a new trial. Trump also contends that the jury’s damages award is excessive and must be remitted.” The court then writes one word, “AFFIRMED,” which means that the jury’s verdict stands. You can read the full opinion here.

Last December, the Second Circuit affirmed the verdict in the case referred to as “Carroll II”—the second defamation case Carroll filed against Trump, which confusingly went to trial first (because Trump bogged down “Carroll I” in appeals). The jury in Carroll II returned a $5 million verdict against Trump.

In this case, Carroll I, Carroll’s lawyer, Robbie Kaplan, argued to the jury that if a $5 million verdict was insufficient to stop Trump’s defamation of Carroll, then they needed to return a larger verdict that they believed would stop his misconduct. That’s what they did. The verdict was for $83.3 million.

Trump asked the Court of Appeals to reverse for two reasons:

  • He argued that the Supreme Court’s decision about presidential immunity in criminal cases in Trump v. United States means the Second Circuit erred when it refused to afford him immunity in this civil case, even though it involves an assault that occurred decades before he became the president. Beyond that, while he defamed Carroll while he was in office the first time, his comments were about an entirely personal matter that had nothing to do with the office he held. The court declined to reverse on this ground. They held Trump had waived the immunity argument by not making it at the proper time before the lower court.
  • Trump also challenged the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Carroll and other procedural rulings. The trial court held that a jury had already found that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll in the first trial and that finding was binding in the second case. That decision reflects the well-known principle of collateral estoppel, and the Court ruled there was no reason to disturb it because the identical issue was decided in the prior action and Trump had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue during those proceedings.

Trump has frequently been able to twist courts and delays to his advantage. He did that here for a time. But that clock seems to have run out on him. The Supreme Court would have to up end its existing jurisprudence on basic procedural issues to rule for Trump here.

A jury believed E. Jean Carroll. That’s the bottom line. In our system, we leave decisions about disputed facts and what happened to juries. The jury here deliberated and found against Donald Trump. That decision should remain in place. In an era where so much damage is being done to women’s legal standing, it’s essential that we be believed when we have the courage to speak out about sexual assault. Carroll did that. She told friends about the attack at the time in occurred but had been too intimidated by threats she would lose her job and her livelihood if she spoke up to move forward then.

If we can do nothing else for women in an era where abortion rights, more properly understood as the right to receive lifesaving medical care, and other rights have been taken away, we can do this: we can believe them when they summon the courage to come forward and reveal a rape or a sexual assault. Maybe if our nation had done that sooner, we wouldn’t have had a Trump presidency at all.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

A set of clips from The Majority report that touch on politics of democrats, the racism of republicans, and the economic crash / lies of tRump.

Sam Seder and Emma Vigeland unpack Bernie Sanders’s high-energy “Fight Oligarchy” rally featuring Zohran Mamdani. They discuss the disconnect between this grassroots enthusiasm and the lack of support from mainstream Democratic leaders. The MR crew argues that this demonstrates a core ideological conflict within the Democratic Party itself. 

————————————————————————————————————————————-

Republican Josh Breecheen spews Islamophobic rhetoric at a recent town hall, connecting to a broader pattern of fear-mongering and political attacks against Muslims in America. Emma Vigeland and Francesca Fiorentini draw a direct line from the “Sharia law” conspiracies of the Bush and Obama eras to the current dehumanization of Muslim Americans and the use of technology from the war on terror against citizens at home.

——————————————————————————————————————————————–

The latest jobs report paints a grim picture, with job losses under Donald Trump’s administration mounting and key industries sliding into decline. While Trump’s team struggles to blame Biden while also promising explosive growth in the future, economists and analysts are sounding the alarm that a US recession, or worse, is near.


Billionaire hedge fund manager, Ray Dalio, is in the news for warning about the dangers of extreme wealth inequality. Sam Seder and Emma Vigeland highlight how Dalio’s comments, which are a major news story because of his status, echo what many others have been saying for years.

 


The U.S. government has acknowledged Donald Trump’s military strike on a boat in international waters, resulting in the deaths of 11 individuals. This action, targeting Venezuelans en route to Trinidad, has raised significant questions about Trump’s legal authority behind such a strike, particularly given the lack of clear evidence of the individuals’ involvement in drug trafficking or any threat to U.S. interests. Despite the gravity of the situation, the incident has reportedly garnered minimal attention in mainstream news, with some segments of the media appearing to endorse the action.


 

Trump was asked about a bizarre video showing someone throwing bags out of a second-floor White House window by Peter Doocy of Fox News. Trump insisted that the video was “AI-generated” because, according to him, the windows of the White House are “heavily armored and bulletproof,” sealed shut, and each one weighs 600 pounds. Trump also added that if anything “really bad” were to happen, he could simply “blame AI.”


 

A Moms for Liberty Leader Claims To Be a Nurse. Is She?

Hey if these people can outright lie about the LGBTQ+ community, willing to let LGBTQ+ kids die or be pushed via violence into the closet hiding who they really were, what is faking your expertise.  I already posted about a sexologist who had no experience with trans kids testifying to red state legislatures enabling his bigotry to further the harm to trans kids by giving an excuse for theirs.   These people are on a mission that is far from pure but one driven by hate and bigotry to make all kids pretend to be straight and cis in the hope that they can force all adults to pretend to be straight and cis also.  If they can’t force the adults to pretend to be straight or cis at least they can stop the trans adults from looking like the gender they identify with in hopes of stopping those that are passing as the gender they identify as.   This they hope will mark those people in ways that make their life harder.   Again their lies are OK for them because either they think their god approves or their hate is that great so nothing but the mission matters.   Hugs


https://www.unclosetedmedia.com/p/a-moms-for-liberty-leader-claims

Uncloseted Media has obtained documents that suggest a prominent member of Moms for Liberty may be falsely presenting as a nurse.