Our faith in Johnson grows with every twirling, spewing despicable post that tries to skewer his reputation.

It's what they tried with Kavanaugh.
And failed.

It's what they've tried with Trump.
And failed. So far.

It's what they've tried with Trump supporters.
And failed.

The one silver lining in all this is that they've been forced to abandon their moral high ground.
It's very hard, you see, to bloviate about a man's marriage and his lack of wealth when they support a pedophile like Brandon and a Crook like Nancy Antoinette.

 

One thing the founders knew is religion is Pandora's Box. And they damn sure knew that from practical experience. they knew the very long history of religious wars. They knew the first colonists came here to escape religious persecution which was Christians against Christians. And they were having to deal with religious colonies that were causing all kinds of trouble with the other colonies. So they avoided opening Pandora's Box by writing God and religion out of the Constitutions. And it was genius. You could believe and practice any religion you wanted. But you could not try to bring your religious beliefs into the government which under the Constitutions was secular. They created the separation of church and state. Which again was just genius. Christians couldn't even get along with each other. And the country already had Jews and Muslims. So to treat everyone equal they wrote all religions out of the Constitutions and declared there would be no state religion.

But now treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans and the Supreme Court has thrown Pandora's Box wide open and are trying to force religion into government. Which has only created a quagmire. All of them tend to favor the Christian religion and are trying to create Sharia Law For Christians enforce by the American Taliban on the nation. Which is strictly forbidden by the Constitution which dictates all religions are equal and inherent in freedom of religion is freedom from religion. And states and the Supreme Court already sinking in that quagmire with their "freedom of religion" scam because they write laws favoring Christians only to have other religions use those same laws against them.

So what is the Supreme Court going to do now. Uphold the Constitution or change our democracy to a theocracy governed by Sharia Law For Christians enforced by the American Taliban?



Texas activist who wants to end the separation of church and state has Mike Johnson's ear

Robert Downen, Texas Tribune
November 3, 2023 6:30AM ET



Delegates Tina Benkison from Houston, Texas and David Barton from Aledo, Texas listen to the U.S. the Pledge of Allegiance as the 2004 Republican National Convention begins August 30, 2004 at Madison Square Garden in New York City. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)


For nearly four decades, Texas activist David Barton has barnstormed statehouses and pulpits across the nation, arguing that the separation between church and state is a myth and that America should be run as a Christian nation.
Now, he’s closer to power than perhaps ever before.

One day after little-known Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana was elected as the new House speaker last week, Barton said on a podcast that he was already discussing staffing with Johnson, his longtime ally in deeply conservative, Christian causes.

"We have some tools at our disposal now (that) we haven't had in a long time," Barton added.

Johnson recently spoke at an event hosted by Barton’s nonprofit, WallBuilders; he’s praised Barton and his “profound influence on me, and my work, and my life and everything I do”; and, before his career as a lawmaker, Johnson worked for Alliance Defending Freedom — a legal advocacy group that has helped infuse more Christianity into public schools and government, a key goal of Barton’s movement.

Barton, who lives in Aledo, has been a staple of Texas’ own Christian conservative movement, offering crucial public support to politicians and frequently being cited or called on to testify in favor of bills that critics say would erode church-state separations — including in front of the Texas Legislature this year.

Johnson’s election — and his proximity to Barton — is a massive victory for a growing Christian nationalist movement that claims the United States’ foundation was ordained by God, and therefore its laws and institutions should favor their brand of Christianity.

“Johnson's rise means that Barton and his fellow Christian nationalists now have unprecedented access to the levers of power on the national stage, paralleling the access they already have here in Texas and some other states,” said David Brockman, a non-resident scholar in religion and public policy at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy.

Barton has spent nearly all of his life in North Texas, save for the few years he spent at Oral Roberts University, an evangelical school in Tulsa, Oklahoma. After graduating with a degree in religious education, he returned to Aledo and worked as a math and science teacher, basketball coach and, later, principal at a K-12 school that grew out of his parent’s Bible study group, according to a 2006 Texas Monthly profile of him.

In 1988, Barton founded his group, WallBuilders, to “exert a direct and positive influence in government, education, and the family by educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country” and “providing information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies which reflect Biblical values,” according to the group’s website.

Since then, Barton has been arguably the most influential figure in a growing movement to undermine the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Barton claims the clause has been misunderstood. He argues that most of the Founding Fathers were “orthodox, evangelical” Christians, and that it would thus be more accurate to read the establishment clause’s use of the word “religion” as a stand-in for “Christian denomination.”

“We would best understand the actual context of the First Amendment by saying, ‘Congress shall make no law establishing one Christian denomination as the national denomination,’” he has said.

Barton also argues that the country's founders "never intended the First Amendment to become a vehicle to promote a pluralism of other religions.”

In his mind, the wall separating church and state was only meant to extend one way, protecting religion — specifically, Christianity — from the government, but not vice versa.

“‘Separation of church and state’ currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant,” his group’s website claims.

And he argues that most of what he considers society’s ills — from school shootings, low standardized test scores and drug use to divorce, crime and LGBTQ+ people — are the natural consequences of abandoning the Judeo-Christian virtues, as articulated in his form of Christianity, that he says are the bedrock of the nation’s founding. Sometimes, he’s drawn fire for those views — such as when he said the lack of cure for AIDS was God’s vengeance for homosexuality or when he compared the Third Reich’s “evils'' to the “homosexual lifestyle” in 2017.

Barton, a self-styled “amateur historian,” has for years been debunked and ridiculed by actual historians and scholars, who note that he has no formal training and that his work is filled with selective quotes, mischaracterizations and inaccuracies — critiques that Barton has claimed are mere attacks on his faith. He has been accused of whitewashing the Founding Fathers — particularly, their slave owning — to fit his narrative of a God-ordained nation. He has acknowledged using unconfirmed quotes from historical figures. And Barton’s 2012 book, “The Jefferson Lies,” was so widely panned by Christian academics that it prompted a separate book to debunk all of his inaccuracies, and was later pulled by its Christian publisher because “the basic truths just were not there.”

Despite that, Barton has remained a fixture in conservative Christian circles and Republican Party politics. He served as vice chair of the Republican Party of Texas from 1997 to 2006 and, in 2004, was tapped for clergy outreach by President George W. Bush’s reelection campaign. In 2010, his fellow Texan and prominent conservative personality Glenn Beck praised him as “the most important man in America right now.” Barton was an early and important endorser of Sen. Ted Cruz’s unexpected first win in 2012. And in 2016, Barton ran one of multiple super PACs that were crucial to Cruz’s reelection.

“Having David Barton running the super PAC gives it a lot of validity for evangelicals and pastors,” Mike Gonzalez, the South Carolina evangelical chair for the Cruz for President campaign, told the Daily Beast at the time.

In Texas, Barton has become increasingly instrumental among GOP politicians. He and WallBuilders currently work closely with Rick Green, a former state representative and current leader of Patriot Academy, a Dripping Springs-based group that trains young adults, churches and others how to “influence government policy with a Biblical worldview” and borrows heavily from Barton’s teachings.

Barton has also railed against the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits tax-exempt groups, including churches, from direct political advocacy. And he is frequently called on to support laws that would infuse more Christianity into public life — including in public schools. In May, he and his son, Timothy Barton, testified in favor of a bill — which later failed — that would have required all Texas public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments.

During the hearing, Barton’s work was praised as “great” by Sen. Donna Campbell, R-New Braunfels. His theories were echoed by Sen. Mayes Middleton, R-Galveston, who said that church-state separation is “not a real doctrine.” And the bill's sponsor, Sen. Phil King, R-Weatherford, extolled Barton and his son as "esteemed witnesses."

Other prominent Texas Republicans have similarly echoed Barton's views, including Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who has called the United States “a Christian nation” and said “there is no separation of church and state. It was not in the Constitution.”

“We were a nation founded upon not the words of our founders, but the words of God because he wrote the Constitution,” Patrick said last year.

The mainstreaming of Barton’s views has corresponded with a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have allowed for a greater infusion of Christianity into the public sphere, and a burgeoning Christian nationalist movement on the right that was turbocharged by former President Donald Trump and his promise to white evangelicals that “Christianity will have power” should they support him.

February polling from the Public Religion Research Institute found that more than half of Republicans adhere to or sympathize with foundational aspects of Christian nationalism, including beliefs that the U.S. should be a strictly Christian nation. Of those respondents, PRRI found, roughly half supported having an authoritarian leader who maintains Christian dominance in society. Experts have also found strong correlations between Christian nationalist beliefs and opposition to immigration, racial justice and religious diversity.

Johnson’s election to House Speaker shows how normalized such beliefs have become, said Amanda Tyler, the executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, a Washington, D.C.-based group that advocates for a strong wall between government and religion. She noted that some Republicans — including U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, have embraced the title of Christian nationalist in recent years.

Tyler said that Johnson’s views are particularly concerning because of his background as both a Southern Baptist and as a constitutional lawyer. Baptists, she noted, have a long history of advocacy for strong church-state separations because of the persecution they faced during the country’s founding — a stance that she said Johnson has betrayed throughout his legal and political career.

“He has worked actively for these principles that further Christian nationalism,” Tyler said. “I am also a Baptist, and to see someone who is a Baptist really reject foundational concepts of religious freedom for all — concepts which are really core to what it means to be a Baptist — is also very disheartening.”

Johnson played a central role in attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election by crafting a legal brief that was signed by more than 100 U.S. House Republicans in support of a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton that sought to have election results thrown out in four swing states by President Joe Biden.

At the same time that he was aiding the legal charge to overturn the 2020 election, Johnson was also cultivating closer ties to figures in the New Apolostolic Reformation, a fast-growing movement of ultraconservative preachers, televangelists, self-described prophets and faith healers who abide by the “Seven Mountains Mandate” — a Christian nationalist-adjacent theology that says Christians must fulfill a divine mandate to rule over all seven aspects of society (family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business, and government) in order to usher in the "end times."

Driven by that theology, New Apolostic Reformation figures played major roles in the lead up to the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, combining Trump’s lies about a stolen election with claims that they were engaged in “spiritual warfare” with their political enemies and, thus, extreme and anti-democratic measures were not only necessary, but God-ordained.

https://www.rawstory.com/david-barton/

 

We think its very revealing that only the despicable American haters are twirling about Johnson's religion.
And we're pretty sure we know why.

 

And that's what I just don't understand about today's press. The press needs to press him about his attempts to overturn a free and fair election and on his opinion of January 6th.

Booing and yelling at the press for asking these questions is irrelevant.

 

I actually know a lot about the press. Including prior to 1980 it was the press' job to make the call. There are at least to sides to every story. So which one is true? And that's what the press did. Take the two sides. figure out which one was telling the truth and make the call.

And then watched as two things started happening at once. One was conservatives constantly falsely attacking the press as liberal. And two conservatives started buying most the presses. And all of a sudden instead of finding and reporting the truth the "press" started treating all opinions as equally valid. Even when one opinion was based on truth facts and logic. And the other opinion was based on lies, false propaganda,, fear, hate, and anger.

Which is when I quit the newspaper business and went back to Roughneckin on drilling rigs. You know, to be around honest people.

 

Might be the funniest and most dishonest post the American hater has made yet.

Evalute the stories and find the truth, then make the call?

You mean like the story you posted about the nebraska abortion queen, Burgess?

Just for you know, starters.

 

Now its very important to understand what is really going on here. First treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans used gerrymandering and voter suppression to ensue their minority rule in state legislatures. But they had a problem. When the whole state voted they lost. So there was a massive push for the "independent state legislature" theory. Which is actually really simple because it basically says state legislatures are all powerful when it comes to elections and don't have to honor the will of the people or majority rule. If they don't like the outcome of an election they can just ignore the voters and name whoever they want as the winner. That is how much they hate the Constitution, our democracy, and the United States of America.

And we now have a house speaker that pushed that theory all the way to the Supreme Court wick soundly rejected it. But that will not stop Johnson and treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans from trying to end democracy in the US sop they can create a theocracy governed by Sharia Law For Christians enforced by the American Taliban.

The whole country needs to wake up to the fact of just how treasonous seditious and determined they are.


The Supreme Court Shot Down Mike Johnson’s Argument Against Certifying The 2020 Election
Paul Blumenthal
Sat, November 4, 2023 at 6:00 AM MDT·7 min read
755

• 
  

Ahead of then-President

’s effort to steal the 2020 election, Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) played the role of providing a constitutional rationale for Republican House members to justify voting against certifying the electors from a handful of states.

Johnson argued in favor of an idea known as the independent state legislature theory, which holds that the Constitution grants the power to set election rules to state legislatures alone. And since changes to election rules during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure ballot access were made by various other state government officials and bodies, including state and federal courts, Johnson argued that those rules violated the Constitution and, therefore, the submission of electors under those rules was also unconstitutional.

“If you are convinced the Constitution was violated in the process, I am not sure how the set of electors could then be deemed acceptable,” Johnson told The New York Times in 2022.

The problem for Johnson ― who is now speaker of the House ― is that this theory is bunk. It is such bunk that the Supreme Court has ruled against it, in a 6-3 opinion written by conservative

and joined by Trump-appointed conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and
, Johnson’s longtime friend.

In the case, 2023’s Moore v. Harper, North Carolina Republicans challenged the state Supreme Court’s decision invalidating a congressional district map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander under the North Carolina Constitution. Republicans argued that the state courts were barred from questioning decisions by the state legislature regarding election law under the independent state legislature theory. But the Supreme Court rejected this argument.

“The Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections,” Roberts wrote in his opinion.

Since the court ruled in Moore, Johnson has not commented on the rejection of his constitutional interpretation. Johnson’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The outcome in Moore ― and what Johnson thinks about it ― matters ahead of a possible 2024 rematch between Trump and President Joe Biden. While the election will likely not be conducted under pandemic conditions, every election features legal challenges over election rules where the independent state legislature theory could theoretically be raised.

With Trump still running on the lie that he rightfully won in 2020, he is bound to seek legal (or extralegal) recourse if he loses again. If Republicans hold the House, Johnson would likely oversee Jan. 6, 2025, as speaker.


Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) speaks during the House debate on ratifying the 2020 presidential election at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) speaks during the House debate on ratifying the 2020 presidential election at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Johnson’s supposed constitutional excuse for Republicans to reject the lawfully appointed electors of Arizona and Pennsylvania on Jan. 6 emerged in the midst of Trump’s effort to steal the 2020 election. Trump has since been indicted in federal and state courts on charges related to this effort.

While Johnson at first echoed the most ludicrous election conspiracies, including that Venezuela was involved in flipping votes through electronic voting machines, he ultimately switched to an argument at least notionally grounded in the Constitution. In a brief joined by 125 House Republicans that he wrote and filed in support of Texas’ December 2020 lawsuit that aimed to invalidate Pennsylvania’s election, Johnson relied entirely on the independent state legislature theory, as Texas did in its lawsuit, to make his case.

“This amicus brief defends the constitutional authority of state legislatures as the only bodies duly authorized to establish the manner by which presidential electors are appointed,” Johnson wrote.

He went on to write that state legislatures’ sole power to set “the rules for appointing electors” was “usurped at various times by governors, secretaries of state, election officials, state courts, federal courts, and private parties.”

These arguments were firmly rebutted by the Supreme Court in Moore, when it ruled that existing court precedent “rejected the contention that the Elections Clause vests state legislatures with exclusive and independent authority when setting the rules governing federal elections.”

There are some subtle, but relevant, legal differences between the Moore case and Johnson’s argument. The Moore case revolved around the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which governs regulation of elections. Johnson’s argument centered on the Constitution’s Electors Clause, and specifically the ability of local officials to alter state election laws that lead to the appointment of presidential electors. But these differences are largely cosmetic, and the substance of the Moore decision still applies to Johnson’s argument.

“The Supreme Court has always said that the Electors and Elections clause should be read [together] coextensively,” said Eliza Sweren-Becker, an elections lawyer with the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonprofit that advocates for voting rights.

As for the role of officials other than state courts, the Supreme Court’s decision in Moore explicitly cited precedents that upheld the role of governors and other official bodies, like independent redistricting commissions, to veto and determine election rules.

The court did so by rejecting the definition of “Legislature” in the Constitution offered by both North Carolina’s Republicans and Johnson in his brief in the Texas case. Both had defined the term as referring to the state legislature and the state legislature alone.

“The word ‘Legislature’ means the lawmaking power as construed by that state and the state’s constitution,” Sweren-Becker said.

In his decision in Moore, Roberts noted that the court had said as much in its 2015 precedent upholding Arizona’s independent redistricting commission, when it ruled that “although the Elections Clause expressly refers to the ‘Legislature,’ it does not preclude a State from vesting congressional redistricting authority in a body other than the elected group of officials who ordinarily exercise lawmaking power.”


Chief Justice John Roberts (center) wrote an opinion joined by Justices Amy Coney Barrett (left) and Brett Kavanaugh (right) rejecting the independent state legislature theory in the case of Moore v. Harper.
Chief Justice John Roberts (center) wrote an opinion joined by Justices Amy Coney Barrett (left) and Brett Kavanaugh (right) rejecting the independent state legislature theory in the case of Moore v. Harper.

And since state law had given officials the legal authority to execute those COVID-era election changes, they were under the control of each state’s constitution and state judicial review. During the 2020 election, state courts reviewed various election changes directed by governors, secretaries of state and election boards. Therefore, state courts, as provided by Moore, had the ultimate power to affirm or deny election law changes under their respective state constitutions.

The reality of Johnson’s constitutional justification for Republicans to reject the electors of Arizona and Pennsylvania becomes clearer with this retrospective: It was an excuse that permitted Republicans to follow Trump, even after the insurrection he inspired on Jan. 6.

“We had entered a period of time where people were advancing theories purely for political advantage,” said Tom Wolf, an elections lawyer with the Brennan Center.

This becomes apparent when looking at what Republicans did not reject: their own elections. Almost every state, including those run by Republicans, altered election rules in 2020 to accommodate voting during the COVID-19 pandemic. These steps ranged from legislative changes to executive orders from governors to rule changes by secretaries of state and state election boards.

In Johnson’s Louisiana, for example, the state’s primary elections were conducted under emergency rules set out by state Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin, a Republican, that eased access to absentee voting. Ardoin tried to limit absentee voting in the general election through another order, but he was rebuffed by a federal court, which kept his rules for the primary elections in place.

If the Constitution says ― as Johnson argues ― that elections conducted under rules not explicitly set by a state legislature are unconstitutional, then House members from states whose elections were conducted under such conditions should not have taken the oath of office. But they did.

“It’s a really contorted argument to try to say, ‘Hey, we have to throw out this election in this jurisdiction but not for other offices,’” said Aaron Scherb, director of legislative affairs for Common Cause, a nonprofit involved in the arguments before the Supreme Court in Moore.

Similarly, House Republicans only objected to the seating of a handful of states ― enough to steal the election for Trump ― and Senate Republicans only joined them in objecting to two.

If changes to election rules not done by state legislatures were such an affront to the Constitution, then why did Johnson not support objecting to every state that did so?

“It underscores how ludicrous it was for these folks to be trying to use the independent state legislature theory,” Sweren-Becker said. “And it reveals that it really was just a partisan political act and had no basis in actual law or principle.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-shot-down-mike-120012939.html

 

Now you talk about being made in the mold of Trump pious Mike only cost millions he was also the dean of a law school that did not exist.


House Speaker Mike Johnson was once the dean of a Christian law school. It never opened its doors
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/...law-school-it-never-opened-its-doors/3257182/


So Johnson is a very smooth talker in the minor leagues.

But you don't get much more major league than House Speaker. Actually the world kind of hangs on what the US House Speaker , second in line to the presidency says.


So the Speaker has to choose his words very carefully. And never EVER get aught accidentally telling the truth,



Whoops! Mike Johnson Tells Supporters, ‘I Refuse To Put People Over Politics’
Michael LucianoNov 3rd, 2023, 6:13 pm
441 comments




A fundraising email from Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) contained either a crucial typo or said the quiet part out loud, depending on one’s point of view.

The backbencher’s unlikely ascent to the House’s highest position has prompted a flurry of research into Johnson’s views, including homophobic remarks. He claimed same-sex marriage could lead to people marrying their pets.

“Experts project that homosexual marriage is the dark harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy that could doom even the strongest republic,” he said in another instance.


In an interview with Sean Hannity last week, Johnson said to “go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it – that’s my worldview.”

That prompted the Fox host to add a qualifier on Johnson’s behalf. “That’s your personal worldview,” Hannity said.

On Friday, Johnson fired off an email that began, “The liberal media is out to destroy me.”

What followed was standard fundraising email fare, but one that led to an unfortunate declaration.

The woke, liberal agenda puts Americans last. I want to put Americans FIRST.

I refuse to put people over politics.

Johnson drew heat this week for tacking on a provision to defund the Internal Revenue Service to a $14 billion aid package for Israel amid its war against Hamas. Republicans say the roughly $14 billion in cuts will offset the aid to Israel. However, a Congressional Budget Office analysis found that this is not the case.

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/w...porters-i-refuse-to-put-people-over-politics/

 

Yep.
This Johnson fellow has the despicables running like headless chickens.
We know this because they've pulled out all the stops to try and discredit him and anything he does.

And of course, if a despicable is against it, that usually means Americans who love their country should probably be for it.
You know, for example Civil rights. That there is a good example of what the despicables opposed, the deplorables supported, and in the end it proved to be on the right side of history.

 

It won't take the majority of Americans to get to know Johnson and be repulsed by him. President Biden and the Democrats will make sure of that because they have the vast majority of Americans are on their side.



Almost No One Knows Who Speaker Mike Johnson Is, But Many Disagree With His Views: Poll
Christopher Wiggins
Sat, November 4, 2023 at 3:24 AM MDT·3 min read
251



Newly Elected House Speaker Mike Johnson Awkward Public Interview


Newly elected House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana faces a significant name recognition problem. Most voters have yet to form an opinion about the ultra-conservative Republican lawmaker because they just don't know who he is. However, a substantial number disapprove of his conservative policy stances.

Johnson’s traditional ethos was solidified long before his 2015 political tenure, traced back to his time as a private attorney, where he notably opposed the expansion of LGBTQ+ rights. One such case saw him attempting to prevent a woman from adopting her wife’s biological son, an act reflective of Johnson’s earlier legal endeavors.

Before his political tenure beginning in 2015, Johnson was associated with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a group identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group.


Despite his vehement conservative stance on issues like reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and his loyalty to former President Donald Trump, the public seems largely uninformed about Johnson’s persona or policy positions.

Recent polling by Data for Progress revealed this name recognition issue, with 56 percent of voters stating they haven’t heard enough to form an opinion about Johnson.

Only 21 percent have a favorable view, while 23 percent view him unfavorably. The lack of awareness extends to his new role as Speaker, with merely 21 percent of voters having significant knowledge about his election to the position.

“Mike Johnson kind of came out of nowhere,” Danielle Deiseroth, executive director for Data for Progress, told The Advocate, emphasizing the “blank canvas” that currently exists for Johnson’s reputation.

She noted his record on LGBTQ+ issues and other policy stances as “largely out of step with what the average American voter believes,” especially concerning marriage equality and abortion.

When asked about allowing states to imprison individuals for gay sex, a mere 12 percent of respondents in the poll support the policy, while a whopping 78 percent oppose it. Similarly, an approach to imprison doctors providing abortions is supported by only 26 percent but opposed by 66 percent. The severity increases slightly with a policy proposition to punish such doctors with 1 to 10 years of hard labor, supported by only 24 percent and opposed by 67 percent. Lastly, repealing many of the Affordable Care Act’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions finds only 24 percent support and 58 percent opposition. All of these are positions in which Johnson is in the minority.

Discussing Democrats’ strategy, Deiseroth suggested that with the 2024 elections on the horizon, there’s a substantial opportunity to define Johnson’s character. She drew a parallel to how Republicans depicted Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi as a villain throughout her tenure.

This discussion comes against the backdrop of a contentious socio-political landscape, where over 80 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been enacted in 2023, predominantly targeting transgender and nonbinary individuals. Amidst the upcoming 2024 presidential race, Republican contenders continue to rally behind anti-LGBTQ+ agendas, like a federal prohibition on gender-affirming medical care.

In another poll from Data for Progress, data showed the link between personal acquaintance with LGBTQ+ individuals and support for the community. Fewer than one-third of likely voters personally know a transgender individual, and about one-fifth know someone who identifies as nonbinary. This contrasts with the higher proportions of voters knowing someone who is gay, 69 percent or 62 percent who know a lesbian, and sets up an opportunity for progressives to stand on the side of expanding rights for marginalized communities.

“The Democrats are seeking to retake the House of Representatives, and there’s going to be a record amount of money spent in the 2024 elections,” Deiseroth said.

She anticipates a slew of advertisements from Democrats, highlighting Johnson’s extreme policy stances to expose the chasm between the Republican party and mainstream American values.

“I think we’ll see a lot of paid media advertisements from Democrats next year using Mike Johnson’s vote history and his policy stances as yet another example of why extreme Republicans want to restrict Americans’ freedom and personal economic freedom, social freedom, all freedom really,” she said.





https://www.yahoo.com/news/almost-no-one-knows-speaker-092402240.html

 

Now that's telling.

"Almost no one knows Johnson, but they disagree with his views."
​

Is it shooter or does that not surprise anyone, knowing it comes from despicables?
You can't get much dumber than that, can you?

 

​

We know that Johnson is a trumptard. Johnson tried to help Trump overturn the results of a free election. A traitorous sitting president and now a traitorous speaker of the house.

Did anyone say banana republic! eh

 

So delusional, so self centered, so narcistic they don't even realize their spew proves the point against them.

 

Spew? So on what evidence did Mike Johnson try to help Trump to overturn the results in 4 states? And on what grounds did Mike Johnson repeat Trump's election fraud allegations?

Well, lets here some trumptard fact in evidence.

Surely Johnson provided factual basis, surely eh?

 

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

 

And I'm still trying to find out what evidence Mike Johnson gave when supporting Trump's attempts to overturn the election results in 4 states.

Well?

 

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

 

And still no evidence given, eh

 

Snickers
Silty is nuttier than a can of peanuts.