This is total white supremacy Christian nationalism and an attempt to both roll back all civil rights of minorities and project a fake white Christians were the only good people in the country mentality. Propaganda in other words to support fragile white men’s egos and prop up declining church attendance. This is driven by people who don’t want to share the country equally with others but want everything for their group only. They want to remove an entire group of people from society, the LGBTQ+ community and go back to the pre1960s civil rights for nonwhites. Hugs
An internal government database first reported, by the Washington Post and posted on two public on Monday revealed the scope of the Trump administration’s effort to revise or remove information on African-American history, LGBT rights, climate change and other topics at hundreds of national park sites.
“The narrative being advanced is false and these draft, deliberative internal documents are not a representation of final action taken by the department,” an Interior Department spokesperson said. The National Park Service is part of the Interior Department.
United States Department of the Interior logo and U.S. flag are seen in this illustration taken April 23, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration
The U.S. Interior Department said a database revealing how President Donald Trump’s administration planned to revise information on key phases of American history at national park sites was deliberative and the employees who released it “will be held accountable.”
An internal government database first reported, by the Washington Post and posted on two public on Monday revealed the scope of the Trump administration’s effort to revise or remove information on African-American history, LGBT rights, climate change and other topics at hundreds of national park sites.
“The narrative being advanced is false and these draft, deliberative internal documents are not a representation of final action taken by the department,” an Interior Department spokesperson said. The National Park Service is part of the Interior Department.
Trump has targeted cultural and historical institutions – from museums to monuments to national parks – to remove what he calls “anti-American” ideology.
His declarations and executive orders have led to the dismantling of exhibits on slavery, the restoration of Confederate statues and other moves that civil rights advocates say could reverse decades of progress.
The Interior Department spokesperson alleged the internal working documents were edited in a misrepresenting way before being released. The spokesperson also labeled the release as inappropriate and illegal, without specifying the law it allegedly violated.
“Employees who altered internal records and leaked in an effort to hurt the Trump administration will be held accountable,” the spokesperson added.
The Trump administration has sought to stifle internal dissent within government agencies and taken action against employees who have criticized its policies.
Last year, some employees at the Federal Emergency Management Agency were put on leave after they signed an open letter against the agency’s leadership, while some Environmental Protection Agency employees were fired after they signed a letter critical of the government’s actions.
Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Washington; Editing by Thomas Derpinghaus
There is a video at the site linked. How ever as you read through this remember that this is the group that wrote project 2025 and the main author of that Christian nationalist screed is Russell Vought who has a powerful position in the tRump administration. This is entirely about pushing a fundamentalist Christian lifestyle and worldview on the US public with heavy emphasis on quiverful which ishave as many children as possible for Christian families most of whom in that movement lived impoverished on one income. The idea is more kids butts in church pews now leads to more adult butts in those pews increasing tithes and money in the collection plates. Church attendance has decreased steadily and this is designed to increase it again. Plus it removes rights for women and LGBTQ+ families. The parents get the money only if women / the mothers marry young, forgo an advanced education, stay out of the work place, and have child after child after child like a breeding stock farm animal. It is only for the “right or correct types of families” and harms those who are not the “right” kinds of families. Plus it is totally racist with the poor people being cut out of the funds. The fact is minorities make on average far less than white families due to inherent racism and CRT, which is a real thing. Hugs
Last week, I wrote about the Heritage Foundation’s Saving America by Saving the American Family: A Plan for the Next 250 Years. The plan is, essentially, to make women drop out of school, marry young, have tons of babies, rely financially on their husbands, be unable to divorce, and wind up in the poor house if they don’t follow these rules. But I wanted to zero in specifically on the policy section of the piece, which comes at the very end and which I haven’t seen get the coverage it deserves. Because what the Heritage Foundation is proposing is a massive cash transfer from poor single mothers to better-off married couples. This really is the plan: Take from the poor to give to the “right” kind of families. Make poor mothers work, and pay better-off ones to stay home. Further impoverish single mothers to force them to marry.
The Heritage Foundation wants to eventually end cash welfare as we know it (“Credits designed specifically to benefit poor single mothers may be well intended, but they have proven to incentivize single motherhood in poor communities,” Heritage laments). They don’t propose totally doing away with welfare benefits here, I suspect because they realize that would be a nonstarter. But they do propose taking resources that currently mostly benefit poorer families and redirecting them to wealthier ones, so long as those wealthier families have married parents. The Heritage proposal would only give its proposed benefits to married couples (policies should “privilege marriage as directly and explicitly as possible,” Heritage writes, emphasis theirs). It would only give benefits to married couples in which one partner works and makes above a certain income. And it would incentivize women dropping out of the workforce… unless they’re poor or single.
Here are the specifics.
Child tax credits only for married couples who are the child’s biological parents, who are working, and who make at least $30,500. The Heritage proposal would get rid of the Earned Income Tax Credit, because that credit gives more money to struggling single parents than better-off married ones, as well as the Child Tax Credit, and replace them with what they call a Family and Marriage (FAM) tax credit of $4,418 per child per year for four years. But this credit would phase in for families once they’re earning $30,500 per year — in other words, poor families wouldn’t qualify. It would only go to married parents — single parents wouldn’t qualify. It would only go to biological parents — step parents wouldn’t qualify. A person could be working full-time, but even if they’re earning above minimum wage, they may not qualify for this tax credit.
Bonuses for larger families — but only for married couples, only for biological parents, and not for the poor. Additionally, Heritage proposes a 25% per-child bonus to their FAM tax credit for third children and beyond. But, again, poor families are out of luck, as only couples with at least one working spouse qualify, and that spouse has to make at least $30,500.
More money for higher earners, none for the lowest. The FAM credit phases in at $30,500, and goes up from there relative to income. That’s right: This is government family support that gives more money to families that already have more money. And it gives the most money to families that are the most stable: Those with two married parents who make more than six figures. The credit doesn’t begin to scale down until a family makes $110,000, and even then, the wind-down is small (beginning at just 5%). Why set up a program that gives people more money as they make more money? Because “the FAM credit’s phase-in would incentivize work.” All of this means that a married couple with three children making $400,000 a year would get $14,000 additional dollars from the US taxpayer — while a single mom making $20,000 a year would get nada.
No help after a child’s fourth birthday. As it stands, parents can claim the Child Tax Credit until a child’s 17th birthday. The Heritage plan cuts parents off when their kid turns four. They claim that these early years are when parents need the most help. But children don’t stop needing food and a roof over their heads once they’re kindergarten age. The Heritage Foundation is clear that the purpose of this plan isn’t to support children, but to incentivize parents to have more of them: “The FAM credit is designed specifically for families with newborns or young children. Lawmakers interested in family policy may be inclined simply to expand the CTC. However, this approach would be inefficient as a family formation incentive. Only a small fraction of the benefit would go toward new parents, while most of it would go to families that are already formed.” They continue: “many other family benefits, such as the CTC, are backloaded to later in life when many parents are on more solid financial footing and may be past their prime child-bearing years.” Emphasis mine, because this is truly stunning: The Heritage Foundation only wants to give parents tax credits for their (expensive) children if those parents (mothers) are in their “prime child-bearing years” and might make more babies. Eggs too old? No child tax credits for you.
Pay women to stay home. The Heritage Foundation could have proposed a generous paid leave program, which would allow parents of newborns to stay home and care for them in that crucial first year. But their aim is not to make sure that young children receive the best possible care. Their aim seems to be to get women out of the workforce. And so they’ve instead offered a $2,000 per-child credit for one parent (almost always the mother) to stay home and care full-time for her child — but again, this only applies to married couples where one spouse (almost always the husband) is working and makes more than $30,500 per year. You’re a single mom who wants to stay home with your child? Tough luck, get to work. You’re a low-income married parent who wants to stay home with your child? Tough luck, get to work. If the concern really were for children — if the view really was that young children are best off being cared for at home by a parent — then this policy would apply to all parents of young children. But that’s not the concern. The concern is that women aren’t living their lives in the way Heritage deems acceptable.
Fund this whole scheme by getting rid of Head Start. Head Start is an incredible program that has had vast positive impacts, increasing high school and college graduation rates, adult incomes, health outcomes, and overall wellbeing. Studies have found it even decreases child abuse and neglect. This proposal would effectively end it, and use the money saved to give tax breaks to wealthy married couples with children.
Pay people to marry young. The final Heritage policy is a $2,500 deposit into a savings account for every new baby born in the US — but the only way to get the full benefit of that money as an adult is to marry well before the age of 30. That is, when an American is born, the government will deposit $2,500 into a savings account for them, which they cannot touch until they either marry or turn 30. At either marriage or age 30, they can start to withdraw from the account, but only over three years — so about a third of the original value per year. They get the full withdrawal amount each year (roughly one-third of the total account value) if, in each year, they are married but not yet 30. If they’re over 30, whether they’re married or not, they pay a tax penalty. In other words, to get the full benefit, you have to marry by 27 — below the average age of first marriage for women (28.6) and men (30.2) alike. Again, the point is not to incentivize marriage; it’s to incentivize women especially marrying as young as possible, despite early marriage being tied to higher divorce rates.
xx Jill
Subscribe to Throughline by Jill Filipovic
Hundreds of paid subscribers
Connecting the dots. Politics, culture, women’s rights, foreign affairs, law, and more.
In 2018, an elite group of academics and scientists planned to gather for an exclusive retreat at a luxury farm in the woods of Connecticut. The guests had been hand-picked by prominent New York literary agent John Brockman, who frequently hosted similar salons for luminaries in science, technology and media.
The problem? Brockman had included two women on the list, and his staunch supporter and biggest funder wanted them out.
“John, the old conferences did not care about diversity. I suggest you not either,” Jeffrey Epstein wrote in response to an email about the programming. “The women are all weak, and a distraction sorry.”
In reply, Brockman justified the women’s inclusion, and says they’d been a part of a related book about AI, which needed to be inclusive to sell. “Today, it’s impossible to get a publisher to buy such a book with essays by 25 men and no women,” he wrote.
Brockman concludes the email by citing #MeToo and mentioning the news of another scientist, whose book he had tried to publish, coming under fire for sexual harassment allegations. He wonders whether it might be best for optics if the disgraced financier — the biggest financial backer to Brockman’s nonprofit Edge Foundation — didn’t attend after all.
“Me-Too is not going away; it’s growing, it’s all-pervasive and we’re now in a McCarthy-ism moment on steroids.”
Brockman did not respond to a request for comment.
The 2018 exchange, which was revealed as part of a trove of files released by the Department of Justice, illuminates Epstein’s deep interest and entrenchment in the scientific community. He was well connected to scientists at top universities who continued to associate with him after a 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. But the files also underscore how he used his power and money in ways that kept women out of places where they might succeed.
“I think we all had a sense that the system wasn’t super fair, right?” said Nicole Baran, a member of 500 Women Scientists, a grassroots organization that started in 2016 to combat racism and misogyny in STEM — or science, technology, engineering and mathematics. “Seeing some of these emails — and peering behind the curtains of the rooms that we were never invited into, I think has really laid bare, I don’t know, just truly how broken and corrupt the system is.”
The emails are a reminder to women like Baran that the profession, at its highest levels, still operates under the gaze of men. And in a field where funding is scarce — and climbing the career ladder is often only possible through a combination of luck, mentorship and networking — the files reveal the ways sexism and misogyny still hold women back.
For the boys in the club, the arrangement worked to their benefit. Epstein donated millions of dollars to their research, hosted them at networking dinners at his home, invited them to visit his island or his ranch in Santa Fe, and connected them to potential funders to further their work.
As a result, these men were able to establish their own well-funded labs to pursue their work, land lucrative book deals and make connections to other prominent men, particularly those in Silicon Valley who were working on technological advancements like AI.
But as the emails reveal, these same men did not see women as intellectual equals.
Take Roger Schank, an AI researcher and theorist who died in 2023. He suggested in one email that “intelligence comes about in part from real focus” and that it is rare for a woman to not be “first and foremost focused on what others are thinking and feeling about her.”
“Hard to be brilliant if you are worrying if you look fat or why another woman hates you or why you don’t own a kelly bag,” he wrote. To which Epstein responded: “It’s the tail of distribution , no really smart women – none.”
(Epstein’s emails and those of his correspondents often contained typos; The 19th is reproducing the text as it appears in the files released by the Justice Department.)
Larry Summers, the former president of Harvard University, who emailed with Epstein hundreds of times, made a joke in one email about how “half the IQ In world was possessed by women without mentioning they are more than 51 percent of population.”
The email was sent in 2017, more than a decade after Summers came under fire for a speech he gave at a conference for women and underrepresented groups in STEM, where he suggested that there weren’t as many women smart enough to be in these professions due to higher variability in men’s intelligence. During his time as president he was also scrutinized for the lack of women in tenured positions. The Guardian reported that under his reign the share of tenured positions offered to women fell from 36 percent to 13 percent.
In another exchange, Epstein and Jeremy Rubin, a bitcoin developer and MIT researcher, went back and forth over whether there are any games that women are actually better at than men. It would be “interesting to attempt to make an intellectually stimulating game where women outperform men,” Rubin wrote in 2016. “Unless women are inherently inferior to the maximally talented man at all tasks ;).”
For women like Lauren Aulet, a neuroscientist and assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts, the files revealed conversations that were more brash than she expected. “I think what was most shocking was simply how blatant and explicit the misogyny was.”
“We have this narrative that explicit misogyny is something from the ’50s and ’60s, and what we have now is like implicit bias and microaggressions,” she said, adding: “I think this made clear that explicit misogyny is still out there in science and in academia, it’s just perhaps behind closed doors.”
Importantly, she says, the ways in which women are talked about, and also excluded from the connections these men had, have professional repercussions
“Women scientists aren’t necessarily the people that come to mind for certain men when they’re thinking about who they’re inviting to dinner or who they’re inviting to a conference,” she said.
Not having that visibility can matter when it comes to achievements like being offered a tenured position — the height of stability in academia. “Often the tenure board will reach out for letters of recommendation from other people at other institutions in the field. Certainly, the more you’re known broadly, the better it is for your career in terms of tenure.”
Other scientists, like Alison Twelvetrees, a neurobiologist based in the United Kingdom, said she was not as surprised by the contents of the emails. “You just feel that it’s happening, even if you’re not privy to the exact contents of the conversations.”
In her career, she said she’s often been the only woman in the room. “You become very aware of the — I mean a very British way of putting this — blokey banter that you’re not a part of and you kind of feel that exclusion.”
For Twelvetrees, the emails also showed how these scientists would let things slide in their interactions with Epstein. “A lot of men who get to the top, they’re cowards,” she said. “So even if they’re aware that they’re not supposed to condone the way people are speaking, or they shouldn’t be that way in those environments, they will condone it,” she said. “It’s that sort of cowardice to [not] be an active bystander and not call it out. It’s still the majority.”
She sees a connection between the ways women are talked about in the files and the response to a recent push to strip Elon Musk of his fellow title at the Royal Society, the U.K.’s premier scientific institution, after his AI tool, Grok, was given the capability to undress women and girls.
So far, the head of the institute has said the only reasons to strip fellows of their titles is if they’ve conducted scientific misconduct, things like falsifying data, Twelvetrees said. “[Elon’s] used the products of science to make his personal AI assistant Grok a mass engine of misogyny and white supremacy. I don’t understand how that isn’t scientific misconduct.”
In January, X, formerly known as Twitter, announced it had limited image generation to paid users and added additional safety guardrails. However, reporting has shown Grok can still generate explicit images despite these changes.
For her, it’s just another example of men not being allies to women. “It’s these people at the top just sort of being pretty casual about stuff they should be standing up to,” she said.
Outside of quipping about women’s intelligence, some of the emails show men talking about young women in their profession in ways that are degrading. David Gelernter, a computer scientist at Yale University who corresponded with Epstein many times, recommending an undergrad student for a possible job, describing her to Epstein as a “v small good-looking blonde.” Yale has since placed Gelernter on leave, while they review his conduct.
In another series of exchanges, Epstein and Summers discuss a woman whom Summers said he was mentoring, but who he implied he wanted to sleep with. He has since clarified to the Harvard Crimson the woman was not a student. In November, he told the student newspaper that he was deeply ashamed of his actions and takes full responsibility “for my misguided decision to continue communicating with Mr. Epstein.” He has stepped down from public positions including at the Center for American Progress and on the board of OpenAI.
The interactions revealed in the files are “very dehumanizing” for women, according to Baran, an assistant professor of biology at Davidson College. “I think especially when you think about like, these are men who had colleagues [and] mentees that were women,” she said. “And I think what was so clear is the way in which women in particular were just not spoken about as people with equal intellectual capacity and power.”
The revelations also made her question some of the work produced by some of the men scientists connected to Epstein, including researchers she teaches in her own classes. “It’s really hard to separate the science that these people created from the theories that are considered sort of foundational,” she said. “Especially in this area of psychology and evolution in particular, where I’m finding it just really hard to disentangle [from their] behavior in their personal life that seems so egregious and horrific.”
As an assistant professor of biology, it’s made her think of the young women she sees going into the sciences today. “Will their ideas be taken seriously?” she wonders. “Will their creativity, brilliance or ingenuity be taken seriously? Or will it be dismissed or ignored?”
As I said if they pass this I an a ton of other married people cannot vote. There is no time to get a passport, and there is no provision in either law for a maded marriage license acceptance so you can vote. Well unlike the federal bill this one allows a driver’s license as proof, and as I have one of those I might still get to vote. But if they strip it out to mirror the federal bill I lose the right to vote again. It is republicans showing how desperate they are to win when they are so unpopular that they need to rig and steal the elections. However there was voter fraud in Florida in the 2024 election, all citizens republicans who voted more than once for tRump, stole mail in ballots to vote for tRump, or ass one mail man did he threw away mail in voting from known democratic areas. Hugs
The Florida vote comes two weeks after the U.S. House of Representatives passed the SAVE America Act, a landmark bill that would require Americans to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote and photo ID to cast their vote. If adopted, the bill would likely prevent millions of Americans from voting.
“What this legislation actually does is to prevent eligible U.S. citizens from voting,” Kanter Cohen said, “and that’s really the key issue.”
a current Florida driver’s license
In lockstep with the Trump administration, Florida Republicans say they are pushing the legislation to crack down on voting by noncitizens – despite the fact that election audits have repeatedly shown that illegal noncitizen voting is extremely rare. But the party continues to ignore those findings, using the myth of noncitizen voting as a tool to pass restrictive legislation aimed at creating more barriers to voting.
In other states, similar proof of citizenship laws have prevented tens of thousands of citizens from voting. But in Florida, with 13 million voters on the rolls, the scale could turn out to be even greater.
The Florida House of Representatives voted 83-31 Wednesday to move forward with a sweeping voter suppression bill that could disenfranchise tens of thousands of Floridians, at least, by creating new requirements for citizenship checks.
The alarming legislation represents the state-level component of a national Republican effort to make voting more difficult for American citizens.
Under the Florida House bill, residents wouldn’t be able to register to vote unless the state Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles database can verify their citizenship, or until the applicant provides proof of citizenship. The bill would also require the state to verify the citizenship status of all existing registered voters whose legal status has not already been verified.
State Rep. RaShon Young (D) said the legislation would have serious consequences for Floridians.
“This is fearmongering and disenfranchisement and voter suppression dressed up as security,” he said. “This is modern day gatekeeping and bureaucratic obstruction, administrative overreach and poll tax by paperwork.”
The Florida vote comes two weeks after the U.S. House of Representatives passed the SAVE America Act, a landmark bill that would require Americans to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote and photo ID to cast their vote. If adopted, the bill would likely prevent millions of Americans from voting.
But the SAVE America Act is expected to face an uphill battle in the Senate, leading some state legislatures to attempt to pass their own versions.
Florida could be the latest to join other GOP-controlled states that have enacted similar state-level proof of citizenship laws like Arizona, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Wyoming, Indiana and Ohio. More states are currently considering similar legislation, including Utah, South Dakota and Missouri.
But the bills haven’t been successful everywhere. Texas failed to pass a proof of citizenship bill last year.
The Florida legislation closely mirrors the federal measure, according to Michelle Kanter Cohen, policy director and senior counsel for the national voting rights group Fair Elections Center.
“This would do a lot of the same things, in terms of preventing American citizens from voting who don’t have access to documentary proof of citizenship documents,” Kanter Cohen said.
The Florida House version of the bill would only go into effect in January 2027. But under a similar bill set for consideration in the Florida Senate, the new rules would take effect this July, before the November midterm elections. A House committee already gave preliminary approval to the bill earlier this month.
“What this legislation actually does is to prevent eligible U.S. citizens from voting,” Kanter Cohen said, “and that’s really the key issue.”
The timing of the proposal – as Congress considers a similar federal measure – is no coincidence. The Florida bill could be an effort to align state policies with the proposed federal restrictions to provide consistent rules for running elections, she said.
Under the bill approved by the House, Floridians whose citizenship status cannot be verified by the state would need to provide evidence of U.S. citizenship, including: a current U.S. passport, a U.S. birth certificate, a consular report of birth abroad, a current Florida driver’s license or Florida identification card that indicates U.S. citizenship, a naturalization certificate, a current photo identification issued by the federal or state government that indicates U.S. citizenship, or a federal court order granting U.S. citizenship.
In lockstep with the Trump administration, Florida Republicans say they are pushing the legislation to crack down on voting by noncitizens – despite the fact that election audits have repeatedly shown that illegal noncitizen voting is extremely rare. But the party continues to ignore those findings, using the myth of noncitizen voting as a tool to pass restrictive legislation aimed at creating more barriers to voting.
“The last thing someone who is on a path to citizenship would want to do is to jeopardize their naturalization by voting illegally,” Kanter Cohen said. “And so people don’t do that. That’s not something that’s happening because it has such dire consequences.”
Florida already has systems in place for investigating and prosecuting the small number of noncitizens who register to vote in the state. Last year, Florida found 198 “likely noncitizens who illegally registered and/or voted in Florida” out of the more than 13 million people on its voter rolls, according to a report from the state’s Office of Election Crimes and Security. The office referred 170 of them to law enforcement.
The Florida measure could disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters — including Republicans — to combat these miniscule amounts of possible illegal voting.
Married women of all political affiliations who have changed their last names could be among the most impacted by the legislation. If the voter’s legal name is different from the name on their citizenship document – such as their birth certificate – then the voter would need to provide official documentation providing proof of a legal name change.
The bill also would eliminate some identification documents voters can use to verify their identity at the polls. Floridians would no longer be able to use a debit or credit card, student identification, or retirement center, neighborhood association or public assistance identification.
In other states, similar proof of citizenship laws have prevented tens of thousands of citizens from voting. But in Florida, with 13 million voters on the rolls, the scale could turn out to be even greater.
A recent article from Jesse Singal in the New York Times seemed to indicate the organization might be quietly retreating from supporting trans youth care.
Yesterday, anti-transgender activist and columnist Jesse Singal published a piece claiming there were “cracks in the wall” around gender-affirming care (which you can find fully fact-checked here). To make that case, he relied heavily on a statement from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons that bypassed the organization’s normal scientific review process and was advanced under pressure from leadership aligned with the Trump administration, including a president who is a major Republican donor. Singal also invoked the American Psychological Association, suggesting the organization was retreating from its 2024 position supporting transgender care and rejecting claims that gender identity is “caused” by external factors. But a representative for the APA tells Erin In The Morning that the organization stands firmly by its 2024 guidelines supporting transgender youth care and provided documentation indicating Singal mischaracterized its position.
“No, APA’s position has not changed,” says a representative speaking for the APA, attaching a link to their 2024 policy statement which provided broad support for gender-affirming care. “APA continues to support unobstructed access to evidence-based care for transgender and gender-diverse individuals of all ages.”
The 2024 policy statement is to date one of the most significant supportive stances of any medical organization for gender-affirming care. It states that gender-affirming medical care is medically necessary, opposes bans on gender-affirming care, declares that being transgender is not caused by autism or post-traumatic stress, establishes the organization’s support for combatting disinformation on transgender healthcare, and finds that rejection of a trans youth’s gender identity can increase their risk of suicide and harm their psychological wellbeing. The policy was passed overwhelmingly, 153-9, with each voter representing a large subset of the organization’s 157,000 members. Now, the organization says that it is not accurate to claim that there is any regression on support for transgender youth care from the organization.
The organization also disputes Singal’s portrayal of a 2025 letter written by Katherine McGuire to the Federal Trade Commission. In his piece, Singal claims the APA “cautioned that gender dysphoria diagnoses could be the result of ‘trauma-related presentations’ rather than a trans identity,” and noted that “co-occurring mental health or neurodevelopmental conditions (e.g., depression, anxiety, autism spectrum disorder) … may complicate or be mistaken for gender dysphoria,” framing this as evidence that the organization is retreating from its 2024 policy supporting transgender youth care. That interpretation is incorrect, according to an APA representative, who says the letter does not contradict the organization’s 2024 position and does not represent a regression in its support for evidence-based transgender care. (snip-MORE)
And again with the big-money outsiders meddling in state lawmaking:
The ballot initiative is bankrolled by billionaire anti-trans donor, Richard Uihlein, and represents a new line of attack against transgender people in blue states.
Anti-trans organization “Protect Girls Sports in Maine” has announced that it has collected enough signatures to get a combination transgender sports ban and school bathroom ban onto the November 2026 ballot, making Maine the second state this year to announce a ballot initiative targeting transgender people in a blue state after a similar effort in Washington. This comes after Maine Gov. Janet Mills fiercely rejected Trump administration attempts to strongarm the state into enacting such restrictions on its own, under threat of losing school lunch money and more. Now, voters may directly determine the fate of transgender youth in schools across the state after a massive signature drive bankrolled by billionaire Republican megadonor Richard Uihlein, the latest in an attempt by ultra-wealthy conservative donors to export anti-trans discrimination across the United States through direct ballot measures.
“Not only will our initiative become the only citizen-led issue to appear on the 2026 Maine ballot, but we will likely be the first state where voters can protect female sports at the ballot box this November. We will pave the way for the rest of this nation,” said Leyland Streiff, the lead petitioner, about the ballot initiative turn-in. Notably, he remained cagey about bathrooms, which the ballot initiative will also heavily impact, in a possibly strategic angle to hide that the bill is much more expansive than he gives credit for.
The initiative would, according to the summary page, define a person’s sex for school purposes as “a person’s biological status as male or female recorded at birth on the person’s original birth certificate.” It would “require schools to maintain separate restrooms, locker rooms, shower rooms, and other private spaces for each sex,” going beyond sports. It would also create a “private right of action” for a student who “suffers direct injury because of a violation of a provision of the initiated bill,” allowing students to sue if they encounter transgender students in bathrooms at schools or in sports. Lastly, it specifically carves out transgender students in bathrooms and sports from the Maine Human Rights Act.
Maine LGBTQ+ organizations fiercely condemned the bill. David Farmer, speaking on behalf of an opponent coalition of LGBTQ+ organizations across the state, called the referendum a “one-size fits all approach to sports participation and bathrooms that will increase bullying and harassment and cost local schools millions of dollars for construction and litigation.” He also called out the billionaire backing of the bill, stating, “This is a cynical attempt by one of the richest people in the world to manipulate voters in hopes of influencing the U.S. Senate race, the race for governor and the races for Congress.” (snip-MORE)
By: Start TV Staff Posted: January 14, 2026, 1:17PM
Start TV is set to premiere the award-winning documentary, Who in the Hell is Regina Jones?, on Monday, February 16 at 8P | 7C with a special encore immediately after at 10P | 9C.
The stellar production from Weigel Productions Corp. shines a light on legendary journalist Regina Jones. The documentary, which won the Outstanding Documentary Feature Award at the Greater Cleveland Urban Film Festival, turns a lens on Jones’ historical journey – the invisible labor, turmoil, struggle, and joy of a modern-day Black woman, who emerged as publisher and founder of the groundbreaking SOUL newspaper. On this nationwide platform, Black artists could get coverage long before other publications entered the arena.
Pregnant and married at 15, Regina Jones experienced the Watts Rebellion of 1965, raised five children, stepped into places where she was not wanted, and navigated a world that offered her no favors. SOUL was the first publication devoted specifically to Black musicians and perspectives in music, published from 1966 to 1982. During its run, the publication profiled some of the era’s most prominent Black artists, including Aretha Franklin, James Brown, Diana Ross, Gladys Knight, and Stevie Wonder.
Who in the Hell is Regina Jones? was produced by Weigel Productions Corp and directed by Soraya Sélène and Billy Miossi, edited by Nancy Novack A.C.E., co-edited by Alisa Selman, produced by Alissa Shapiro, and executive produced by Academy Award nominee Sam Pollard.
I have put the videos I found below. Notice that the governor and the attorney general blame the kids and claim the schools have taught them radical left wing extremism. The kids see the news media about what ICE is doing and have friends who are not white. They are angry and they are future voters. That is what scares the republican leadership in Texas so much they are demanding schools push a hard right Republican bigoted racist agenda onto schoolchildren in the hopes of raising a new bunch of maga. They don’t blame te adult man who got out of his truck and walked into a group of minors with the intention to force his angry racist maga views on them. Note he shoved a girl. In his mind how dare she talk back to a male? That is who maga thugs have degenerated into. Hugs
The DOJ is making it as difficult as possible for the congress people to see the files. Only 4 computers are set up for hundreds of congress people. Plus they are still redacted not of the victims but of the names of the abusers. Hugs
Trigger warning. This is difficult to watch. ICE threatens a woman who stands up to them and threatens her. Lots of yelling and swearing.
An immigration attorney goes after ICE gang Gestapo thugs who pretend they know the laws and make claims that the lawyer shoots down with ease. However at the start one of the gang thugs reacts angrily and shoves her, then gets in her face to threaten her claiming she shoved him. She told him she was an attorney which seemed to give him pause even though he ran his mouth at her making threats to detain her or take her down, which is a euphemism for a beating. Hugs
Florida State Capitol building
Scottie's Playtime 