If you took the signers of the U.S. Constitution and transported them to today's political climate, very few—if any—would identify as modern Republican conservatives. The ideological landscape has shifted dramatically since 1787, and many of their views would not align neatly with today's political parties. However, let's break it down:
Compiled with aid of ChatGPT
As of March 2025, with Donald Trump serving as the 47th President of the United States, his administration has implemented policies that significantly impacted taxation and damaged our government and our most necessary social programs like social security, a: U.S. Federal Safety Net for Retirement, Disability, and Survivor Benefits.
Or skip all this for another more sane direction...Timothy Snyder @TimothyDSnyder - "The Imperialism Has no Clothes: JD Vance in Greenland" His latest essay
One more...
‘Never been done’: Why Republicans might approve a budget whose numbers don’t match up
Extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts: The administration has prioritized extending the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) provisions from 2017. This extension is projected to decrease federal tax revenue by approximately $4.5 trillion from 2025 through 2034. While proponents argue this could lead to a 1.1% increase in long-run GDP, critics highlight concerns about escalating deficits and the disproportionate benefits accruing to the wealthiest Americans. Tax Foundation
Corporate Tax Rate Reduction: Proposals have been made to further reduce the corporate tax rate from the current 21% to potentially 20% or even 15%, aiming to stimulate economic growth. However, such reductions may exacerbate income inequality and increase the federal deficit. Doeren Mayhew
Impact on Social Programs:
Budget Cuts to Social Safety Nets: The administration's budget proposals have included significant cuts to programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These cuts are intended to offset revenue losses from tax reductions but have raised concerns about increased hardship for low-income individuals and families. The New Yorker
Social Security and Medicare: While President Trump has pledged to protect Social Security and Medicare, budgetary pressures from reduced tax revenues have led to discussions about potential reforms or cuts to these programs. Critics argue that the administration's involvement with initiatives like Project 2025, which aims at federal government reform, contradicts promises to safeguard these entitlements. The New Yorker
Economic Implications:
Deficit and Debt Concerns: The combination of tax cuts and increased spending has contributed to a significant rise in the federal deficit, which has increased by 248% since the implementation of the 2017 tax cuts. This trajectory raises concerns about the sustainability of fiscal policies and potential long-term economic consequences. Axios
Income Inequality: Analyses indicate that the benefits of the tax cuts have disproportionately favored the wealthiest individuals and corporations, potentially exacerbating income and wealth disparities in the United States.
President Trump's policies as of 2025 reflect a continuation and expansion of earlier tax reforms, emphasizing reductions that primarily benefit higher-income groups and corporations. These policies have significant implications for federal revenue, social programs, and economic inequality, prompting ongoing debate about their long-term impact on American society.
The toxic Christian right?
The Christian nationalist right has played a significant role in supporting Trump and shaping his policies, particularly those related to taxation, social programs, and government priorities. Their influence is rooted in a broader ideological goal of reshaping the U.S. government to align with their vision of a Christian-based nation.
Belief in Limited Government & Free Market Capitalism
Many Christian nationalists align with libertarian and conservative economic principles, advocating for lower taxes and deregulation.
They support Trump’s tax cuts and reductions in social welfare, believing government assistance should be replaced by church-based charity and private sector solutions.
Tying Capitalism to Christian Morality
Christian nationalist leaders often argue that wealth is a sign of divine blessing and that government redistribution (e.g., welfare, progressive taxation) is anti-Christian.
This belief justifies cutting social programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and housing assistance, while keeping tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.
Backing Project 2025 & Government Restructuring
The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a blueprint for a second Trump term, is heavily influenced by Christian nationalist ideology.
It includes gutting federal agencies, reducing the administrative state, and cutting safety nets, all while increasing executive power.
Many of its architects, like Russ Vought and Stephen Miller, are Christian nationalists who advocate for a government centered on their interpretation of Christian values.
Culture War as a Distraction from Economic Policy
While pushing tax cuts for the rich and budget cuts for social programs, Christian nationalist leaders focus public attention on issues like abortion bans, LGBTQ+ rights, and "anti-woke" policies.
This strategy diverts working-class and middle-class conservatives from noticing policies that economically harm them.
Strong Ties to Megachurches & Prosperity Gospel
Many evangelical megachurch pastors, such as Paula White and Franklin Graham, support Trump’s economic policies because they align with prosperity gospel teachings—the idea that wealth and success are signs of God's favor.
They push their followers to support Trump, portraying government assistance as a hindrance to self-reliance and faith-based solutions.
Christian nationalists view Trump as a vehicle to reshape the U.S. government into one that favors Christian dominance, enforces conservative social policies, and limits federal intervention in economic inequality. Their support helps justify tax cuts for the rich, reduced social programs, and deregulation, under the guise of religious and moral principles.
Doesn't it really come down to political priorities, power dynamics, and how narratives are shaped in public discourse?
Corporate Influence & Lobbying – Wealthy individuals and corporations spend vast amounts of money lobbying politicians and funding campaigns to ensure tax policies favor them. They have a direct hand in shaping laws that keep their tax rates low while cutting public benefits.
Trickle-Down Economics Myth – Since the Reagan era, there's been a persistent belief that lowering taxes on corporations and the wealthy leads to economic growth that benefits everyone. Despite repeated failures, this idea keeps being pushed to justify tax cuts for the rich and austerity for the rest.
Deficit Scaremongering – When it comes to social programs like Social Security, Medicare, or infrastructure, politicians (usually on the right) suddenly become fiscal hawks, warning that the government can’t afford them. Yet, they have no problem with tax cuts for the wealthy, which also increase deficits.
Media Framing – Corporate-owned media often downplays wealth inequality and shifts blame for economic problems onto the poor, immigrants, or government inefficiency—rather than on tax loopholes and corporate welfare.
Historical Context – During the mid-20th century, when tax rates on the wealthy were much higher (up to 90% under Eisenhower), the U.S. experienced economic stability, a thriving middle class, and major infrastructure projects. But since the neoliberal shift in the 1980s, tax cuts for the rich have contributed to skyrocketing inequality.
Manufactured Resentment – Some political forces work to pit middle-class and working-class Americans against each other, making them think that their tax dollars are being wasted on “undeserving” people rather than questioning why billionaires and corporations are dodging taxes.
Ultimately, the struggle isn’t just about taxation—it’s about power. The wealthy and corporations have the influence to shape policies that benefit them, while everyday people are told they need to sacrifice. But history shows that when the rich paid their fair share, society was much more stable
Right now, the imbalance in tax policy and spending priorities is a result of both political parties, though in different ways. Here’s a breakdown of who holds power and who enables this system:
The GOP has long pushed for tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, arguing that it spurs economic growth (the trickle-down economics argument).
Under Trump (2017), Republicans passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which slashed corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%—a massive giveaway to the wealthy while ballooning the deficit.
Republicans also frequently call for cutting Social Security, Medicare, and other social safety nets, claiming that the country can’t afford them—yet they never say the same about tax cuts for the rich or military spending.
Project 2025 (pushed by the Heritage Foundation) outlines an extreme agenda that includes privatizing Social Security, gutting social programs, and expanding corporate power even further.
Democrats typically oppose direct cuts to Social Security and Medicare, but not all of them are willing to push for higher taxes on the wealthy.
Under Biden, there have been proposals to raise taxes on billionaires and corporations, but corporate-friendly Democrats like Senator Joe Manchin (WV) and Senator Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) helped block major tax hikes.
Many establishment Democrats take corporate donations and don’t push hard enough for reforms. They sometimes offer compromises rather than fighting aggressively for economic justice.
Big corporations (Amazon, Google, Exxon, etc.) and billionaires (Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Charles Koch, etc.) fund political campaigns and lobby against tax increases.
The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision (2010) allowed unlimited corporate spending in elections, meaning politicians are often more accountable to their donors than voters.
Think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and Americans for Prosperity (backed by the Koch network) push for corporate-friendly policies and dismantling social programs.
Right-wing media (Fox News, The Daily Wire, etc.) convinces working-class people that tax cuts for the rich are good and that social programs are bad.
Corporate-owned mainstream media (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) rarely challenges the status quo because their owners benefit from the system.
Republicans push for tax cuts and social program cuts directly.
Corporate Democrats don’t fight hard enough to reverse it.
Lobbyists and billionaires buy influence to keep tax policies in their favor.
Media distracts people from the real issue.
Elect leaders who support taxing the wealthy and corporations fairly.
Push for campaign finance reform (to reduce billionaire influence).
Demand protecting and expanding Social Security, Medicare, and safety nets.
Fight against corporate-controlled think tanks and misinformation.
The good news? When people push back (like with recent strikes, protests, and voter initiatives), change can happen. The real question is: will enough people wake up to it before more damage is done?
Getting back to this mire of Church and State and who are the problematic individuals skewing America towards foolish beliefs and actions. Here are some key Christian nationalist leaders who have influenced Trump’s policies, particularly in taxation, social programs, and government restructuring:
Former Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Trump
Played a major role in cutting social programs like Medicaid, food stamps (SNAP), and housing assistance
Now leads The Center for Renewing America, which pushes Christian nationalist policies, including shrinking the federal government and cutting safety nets
Influence on Trump: Helped write Project 2025, which includes mass firings of civil servants and replacing them with Christian nationalist loyalists
Trump’s top policy advisor, known for shaping immigration and economic policies
Pushed to reduce government spending on “entitlements” (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) while expanding tax cuts for corporations
Helped craft policies that redirected government resources toward Christian nationalist priorities, like religious freedom exemptions for businesses
Trump’s spiritual advisor, led White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative
Promotes Prosperity Gospel, which teaches that wealth is a sign of God’s favor, justifying tax cuts for the rich
Preached that government aid weakens faith, aligning with Trump’s efforts to cut social welfare
Her influence helped Trump push policies that benefit corporate donors and megachurches, like tax breaks for religious institutions
Runs Capitol Ministries, a Christian nationalist Bible study attended by Trump officials like Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, and Betsy DeVos
Advocates for eliminating social programs, arguing that the Bible opposes welfare
Encourages Republican lawmakers to replace government safety nets with faith-based charity, helping justify Trump’s economic policies
Trump’s Secretary of Education, known for trying to defund public education in favor of private Christian schools
Part of Christian nationalist efforts to redirect government funds to religious institutions
Worked to weaken worker protections and unions, aligning with Trump’s pro-corporate tax policies
Leader of Family Research Council, a major Christian nationalist lobbying group
Pushed for tax benefits for religious groups, aligning with Trump’s tax cuts
Supports cutting social programs, arguing that government aid promotes “dependency” instead of Christian charity
Think tank behind Project 2025, which outlines drastic changes to government under Trump
Advocates for cutting taxes on the wealthy and eliminating social safety nets
Supports Christian nationalist policies like mandatory Bible classes in schools and limiting LGBTQ+ rights
Tax Cuts for the Wealthy → Justified by Prosperity Gospel & free-market Christian ideology
Cutting Social Programs → Based on belief that churches should provide charity, not government
Deregulation & Corporate Favoritism → Backed by megachurches and religious groups benefiting from tax breaks
Expanding Religious Influence in Government → Using tax policy and executive power to redirect public funds toward Christian institutions
Stephen Miller, however, is not a Christian nationalist in the religious sense, but works closely with them and advances their policies because they align with his broader authoritarian, nationalist agenda.
Miller is a hardline far-right nationalist, known primarily for anti-immigration policies like the Muslim ban and family separations.
He collaborates with Christian nationalist groups because their vision of a hierarchical, theocratic government aligns with his goal of consolidating power.
He supports cutting social safety nets because a weaker government benefits authoritarian control—fewer government services mean more economic desperation, which can be manipulated for political gain.
While not religious himself, he weaponizes religious rhetoric (e.g., “protecting Christian values”) to push policies that benefit the wealthy and corporate elites.
So, while Miller isn't a true Christian nationalist, he's one of their most effective enablers, helping implement their agenda through economic and governmental restructuring.
Stephen Miller has long been associated with far-right, white nationalist, and eugenics-adjacent beliefs, though he avoids openly embracing the term "eugenics." His policies and rhetoric reflect a worldview that prioritizes racial hierarchy, demographic control, and exclusionary nationalism, often aligning with historical eugenics movements.
Miller designed Trump’s immigration policies to heavily restrict non-white immigration, reflecting beliefs similar to early 20th-century eugenics laws.
He was the architect of the Muslim ban, family separation policies, and the push to end birthright citizenship—all of which disproportionately targeted people of color.
His policies echo the 1924 Immigration Act, which was influenced by eugenicists and sought to preserve the racial makeup of the U.S. by limiting immigration from non-Northern European countries.
Leaked emails (2019) show Miller regularly cited and promoted white nationalist sources like VDARE and American Renaissance, which advocate for white racial superiority and demographic control.
He pushed “great replacement” conspiracy theories, warning that immigration would “replace” white Americans—a claim often linked to eugenics-based fears of racial decline.
Promoted The Camp of the Saints, a racist novel that portrays non-white immigrants as an invading force, mirroring eugenics-era fears of racial dilution.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Miller’s faction opposed protections for marginalized communities, reinforcing a survival-of-the-fittest mentality.
He supported policies that let the virus disproportionately kill disabled people, the elderly, and minorities, which aligns with past eugenicist views on “weeding out the weak.”
Trump’s administration sabotaged asylum-seekers' medical screenings and proposed denying visas based on medical conditions, echoing past eugenics-based immigration policies.
While not religious himself, Miller works with Christian nationalists who advocate for higher birth rates among white Christians and restrictions on abortion and contraception.
This aligns with historical eugenics movements that sought to increase white birthrates while limiting non-white reproduction.
Groups like the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 promote these demographic goals, which Miller supports through policy implementation.
Stephen Miller isn’t a scientist pushing for sterilization programs, but his actions, rhetoric, and policy decisions align with historical eugenicist and white nationalist goals. He frames his policies in terms of national security and economic interests, but their impact is clear: restricting non-white populations, promoting racial purity, and reinforcing social hierarchies.
Let's be clear.
Isn't this all Donald Trump's doing.
In considering the abolition of capital punishment, it is essential to recognize that, while generally prohibited, there may exist exceptional cases where its use is justified as a necessary, last-resort measure for safeguarding society.
Abstract:
This paper proposes a new framework for the ethical and highly restricted use of capital punishment, shifting it away from the traditional justice system and into a globally supervised, depoliticized safeguard mechanism. The goal is to eliminate only those individuals whose continued existence presents an unavoidable and ongoing danger, even under maximum security incarceration, while ensuring that capital punishment does not become a normalized practice.
1. Introduction
Current capital punishment systems, particularly in the United States, suffer from systemic flaws, including wrongful convictions, racial and economic bias, and the use of execution as a punitive measure rather than a last resort. This paper explores an alternative approach that maintains the principle that the state should not execute its citizens, except in the most extreme and unquestionable cases where neutralization is necessary for societal and institutional safety.
2. Core Principles
Absolute Exceptionality: The default stance is against state-sanctioned execution, with only singular and extreme cases considered.
Depoliticization: The decision-making process is removed from national justice and penal systems to prevent bias, corruption, or overreach.
Global Ethical Oversight: The process is governed by a rotating panel that includes experts from allied nations that do not practice conventional capital punishment.
Non-Punitive Purpose: The goal is not retribution but the elimination of unavoidable, ongoing threats to the safety of others.
3. Structural Framework
3.1. Selection Process for Review
Prisons and justice systems cannot nominate individuals for execution.
An independent, neutral pre-panel assesses the most extreme cases based on clear criteria of ongoing and unavoidable danger.
This initial review narrows the pool to a manageable number for final panel evaluation.
3.2. Composition of the Evaluation Panel
Panelists are chosen from a rotating pool of experts from multiple allied nations.
Members serve limited, staggered terms to ensure fresh perspectives.
The panel operates in complete secrecy to prevent public and political interference.
3.3. AI as an Advisory Tool
AI assists in analyzing behavioral patterns and assessing future risks.
AI is not an equal decision-making entity but serves as a supplementary analysis tool.
Future evaluations may expand AI’s role if proven reliable.
4. Safeguards & Ethical Considerations
Transparency in Process, Not Identities: While panel deliberations remain secret, procedural transparency ensures ethical oversight.
Permanent Limits on Scope: Built-in safeguards prevent system expansion beyond the most extreme and rare cases.
Continuous Review & Adaptation: The methodology and execution process are subject to periodic ethical review.
While the process must remain highly restricted and limited to extreme cases, examples of extreme individuals can help clarify the need for a framework of careful evaluation. Below are a few examples of inmates who may represent the type of danger we aim to assess under this methodology:
The Unrepentant Serial Killer:
Inmates like Ted Bundy, who committed a series of brutal murders and showed no remorse, continued to manipulate others even while incarcerated. Such individuals, given their clear and ongoing dangerous nature, could be considered for extreme evaluation under the proposed framework.
The Prison Kingpin:
Inmates who maintain control over criminal enterprises while incarcerated, like Richard Ramirez, may continue to pose a substantial threat to public safety even after their imprisonment. Their ability to exert influence from within prison walls needs to be a factor in the evaluation process.
The Political or Ideological Extremist:
Inmates who promote radical ideologies, such as Timothy McVeigh, may have lasting influence on others, even from prison. These individuals may continue to inspire violence and contribute to a broader societal threat, justifying their further evaluation.
The Serial Rapist Who Continues to Engage in Manipulation:
Dangerous offenders like Ed Kemper, who demonstrate a continuing ability to manipulate others and pose threats, even while incarcerated, could be candidates for further assessment under this ethical framework.
The Mentally Deranged and Irredeemable Offender:
Inmates suffering from severe psychological disorders who show no potential for rehabilitation, such as individuals with disorganized, severe psychosis, could also be considered for inclusion in this type of extreme evaluation, if their ongoing threat is clear.
The Extremely Dangerous and Uncontainable Offender:
Those individuals who not only fit one or more of the above categories but are also extremely difficult to contain in a secure environment—continuing to escape, harm others, or otherwise undermine the safety of the institution—would be considered as well. Their continued ability to evade containment and perpetrate violence, despite being incarcerated, adds an additional layer of justification for further evaluation under this framework.
The objective of this proposal is not to justify or expand capital punishment but to provide a model that acknowledges its inherent dangers while addressing the rare instances where complete neutralization is ethically and practically necessary. Further discussion and refinement are required to develop specific implementation protocols while maintaining the framework’s core principles.
6. Discussion & Future Considerations
This paper aims to generate discussion and input from experts in ethics, law, and international human rights. The next step is to convene panels to refine selection criteria, oversight mechanisms, and safeguards to ensure the system remains strictly limited in scope and ethically sound.
For more on this...
In many countries, capital punishment remains a contentious issue. Traditional systems often fail to account for biases and errors in the justice system. By exploring this new ethical framework, we can potentially shift how the state deals with irreversible dangers. While not advocating for widespread execution, this framework offers a way to address extreme cases where dangerous individuals, who pose a continuous threat, might need to be neutralized. This would not be a step toward a return to widespread executions but an acknowledgment of rare, extreme cases that require specialized ethical oversight.
Questions for readers:
How do you feel about the possibility of reviving capital punishment in an ethical, highly restricted manner?
Do you think there’s a way to reconcile safety with the fundamental rights of individuals?
The issue of capital punishment often sparks intense debates between those who believe in its deterrent effect and those who view it as morally indefensible. This framework challenges the traditional approach by introducing a system focused on neutralization rather than punishment. It’s an attempt to bring fairness and reasoning to what is often an emotional and polarized debate.
By removing political bias and integrating international perspectives, the hope is to prevent capital punishment from becoming a political tool or an emotionally-driven response to crime.
Questions for readers:
Does the idea of external oversight make this framework more palatable?
How much influence should the public have in decisions regarding life and death in the justice system?
This framework suggests that the decision-making process could be informed by international experts, particularly from countries that do not practice capital punishment. These countries, having rejected the death penalty, bring an important ethical perspective, ensuring that the framework is guided by human rights principles.
Additionally, the rotating nature of the panel provides diversity of thought and avoids the potential for entrenched biases. This system could foster global collaboration on criminal justice reform, blending international ethics with localized safety concerns.
Questions for readers:
What role should international bodies play in determining justice policies in sovereign nations?
Can countries with no capital punishment experience still contribute meaningfully to the debate?
While this framework doesn't advocate for the widespread use of capital punishment, it offers a potential middle ground. It challenges the assumption that the death penalty must either be abolished entirely or widely enforced. Instead, it emphasizes extreme cases where neutralization is necessary.
This model could serve as a critical test case to determine whether such a framework could reduce capital punishment to an absolute last resort, or if it should be phased out entirely.
Questions for readers:
Do you think this kind of framework could signal the end of capital punishment in practice?
Could it be a temporary solution while society moves toward alternatives?
The framework outlined here is just the beginning of what could be an ongoing conversation. The ethical implications of executing someone—even under the strictest conditions—are far-reaching. It’s important to continue discussing the moral complexities involved, including the potential for mistakes, corruption, and bias.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this framework—whether you agree, disagree, or have suggestions for improvement.
Questions for readers:
What parts of this framework do you agree with or challenge?
How would you personally define "irreversible danger," and should it ever justify execution?
There are several real-world examples of extreme cases where individuals have continued to harm society despite being incarcerated. For instance, Ted Bundy, a notorious serial killer, continued to manipulate and deceive others even while imprisoned. Similarly, Richard Ramirez, the "Night Stalker," retained significant influence, with ongoing communication with fans and potential followers even from behind bars.
These examples highlight the ongoing danger that some inmates represent, even when locked away from society. It’s these types of individuals that this framework seeks to evaluate, not as a means of revenge, but to prevent further harm.
Questions for readers:
Do you think cases like Bundy or Ramirez warrant a closer look under this new framework?
How do we balance public safety with the potential for rehabilitation?
One of the most important aspects of this framework is its inherent ethical tension. Even the most dangerous individuals have rights, and the decision to take a life cannot be taken lightly.
There are also challenges in ensuring fairness and avoiding biases. While the global oversight panel is designed to remove national political influences, there’s always the risk that subjective views, such as those based on race, class, or public sentiment, could creep into evaluations.
Artificial intelligence could help mitigate some of these biases by offering objective data about an inmate’s behavior and risks, but even AI must be carefully monitored to ensure it doesn’t inadvertently introduce bias.
Questions for readers:
What safeguards would you suggest to prevent bias from creeping into the panel’s decisions?
How do we ensure AI’s role remains ethical in evaluating individuals for this extreme process?
Ultimately, this proposal is just the start of an important and ongoing ethical conversation. It’s crucial that we open this dialogue to lawyers, ethicists, psychologists, and the broader public to ensure this framework is thoroughly examined. Feedback and public input are key to making sure this system doesn’t devolve into a dangerous precedent for widespread executions.
Call to Action:
I encourage you to share your thoughts, challenge the ideas presented, or suggest ways in which this framework could evolve. Together, we can create a more balanced and just system for addressing the rarest, most dangerous criminals.
Compiled with aid of ChatGPT
