Some quotes:

ā€œThe Mandate for Leadershipā€ is a 920-page document that details how the next Republican administration will implement radical and sweeping changes to the entirety of government. This blueprint assumes that the next president will be able to rule by fiat under the unitary executive theory (which posits that the president has the power to control the entire federal executive branch). It is also based on the premise that the next president will implement Schedule F, which allows the president to fire any federal employee who has policy-making authority, and replace them with a presidential appointee who is not voted on in the Senate.

So theyā€™re gonna take over the executive branch.

And businesses will support and fund this effort because:

The business wish list calls for eliminating federal agencies, stripping those that remain of regulatory power, and deregulating industries. The president would directly manage and influence Department of Justice and FBI cases, which would allow him to pursue criminal cases against political enemies. Environmental law would be gutted, and states would be prevented from enforcing their own environmental laws.

And what about the social wish list?

The social conservative wish list calls for ending abortion, diversity and inclusion efforts, protections for LGBTQ people, and most importantly, banning any and all LGBTQ content. In fact, ā€œThe Mandate for Leadershipā€ makes eradicating LGBTQ people from public life its top priority. Its No. 1 promise is to ā€œrestore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.ā€ They are explicit in how they plan to do so, as youā€™ll see in the paragraph below. They plan to proceed by declaring any and all LGBTQ content to be pornographic in nature.

ā€œPornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.ā€

When they talk about pornography, this includes any content discussing or portraying LGBTQ figures from the childrenā€™s books I Am Jazz and And Tango Makes Three to the Trevor Projectā€™s suicide hotline. We know this by looking at how ā€œdonā€™t say gayā€ laws have been implemented in Florida: This is literally their model. Itā€™s been tried in Virginia. Itā€™s also arguable that LGBTQ parents would be subject to arrest, imprisonment, and being put on sex-offender registries for ā€œexposing children to pornographyā€ simply by being LGBTQ and having children.

It would also likely criminalize any therapist, doctor, or counselor who provided affirming therapy to trans youth. Indeed, the document makes it explicitly clear they want nationwide bans on abortion and access to affirming care for trans youth, while calling for conversion therapies to be the only available treatments. It could be argued as well that people who are visibly trans in public are pornographic or obscene, because they might be seen by a minor. This understanding of intent is in line with the call to ā€œeradicate transgenderism from public life.ā€

Thereā€™s also the matter of the internet: Any Internet Service Provider (ISP) that transmits or receives data about transgender people could potentially be liable if conservatives have their way. When you read the final sentence of the excerpted paragraph, the clear intent is that the same would apply to any social media company that allows any (positive) discussion or depiction of transgender individuals, as it would be considered pornographic and contributing to harming a minor.

And how will they do this shit?

The organizations that drafted ā€œThe Mandate for Leadershipā€ understand that blue states, which have sanctuary laws for transgender people, are unlikely to comply. Itā€™s difficult to imagine California arresting and prosecuting teachers, librarians, doctors, therapists, bookstores (virtual or physical), LGBTQ parents, and especially LGBTQ people merely for existing in public. This is why they included the following paragraph:

ā€œWhere warranted and proper under federal law, initiate legal action against local officialsā€”including District Attorneysā€”who deny American citizens the ā€œequal protection of the lawsā€ by refusing to prosecute criminal offenses in their jurisdictions. This holds true particularly for jurisdictions that refuse to enforce the law against criminals based on the Leftā€™s favored defining characteristics of the would-be offender (race, so-called gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.) or other political considerations (e.g., immigration status).ā€

This is calling for the executive branch to use the Department of Justice to threaten prosecution of any local or state officials if they do not charge LGBTQ people and their allies with crimes under the pretense that they are breaking federal and state laws against exposing minors to pornography. If people at the Department of Justice refuse to go along with this, then they can simply be replaced under Schedule F. While the excerpted paragraph above includes references to immigration, the fact that it explicitly includes gender identity, and fits in with the previous calls to designate anything trans-related as pornographic, clearly telegraphs their intent.

The result of these actions will be perhaps the biggest power play against states rights in American history, and the threat is clear. If blue states refuse to turn on their own transgender citizens, then the federal government will do everything in its power to decapitate the leadership of those states using the Department of Justice. Conservatives are making the bet that individual district attorneys will not risk prosecution, and prison, on behalf of a tiny, despised minority. Theyā€™re betting that state governors will not be willing to risk both prosecution and a constitutional crisis over transgender people.

Well, fuck!

In addition to voting, what should we do about this?

  • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    31
    Ā·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    there is zero hope for Americaā€™s future that doesnā€™t involve civil war

    You are threatening violence

    I donā€™t this is a very effective argument. Of course some of those voters will want this or be okay with this. It brings me hope when I read the stats and see fewer and fewer of them are on board with these insane policies.

    • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      Ā·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Conservatives are posturing for genocide and openly calling for violence on national broadcasts. Nearly every act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history has been committed by conservatives. Preparing for violence is not calling for violence. Your gaslighting will not work here.

      Now, run along back to Truth Social or NAMBLA or where ever conservatives like to cower these days. Ā”Ciao, Franzia!

      • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        Ā·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Let them fire the first shot, then. Youā€™ll find the Sherman in me yet, and thatā€™s right that preparation for violence isnā€™t a call for it.

        I love your awareness of Pedocon theory, but fortunately youā€™re mistaken about my politics.

        • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          Ā·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Looking at your post history, it seems we are on the same side. My apologies. When you take a position that appears to be in defense of fascists, itā€™s very easy to mistake you for fascist.

          We may be at odds regarding the use of violence to address what appears to me to be an imminent threat of genocide. I am old and will not change my views, so I donā€™t expect you to either.

          I probably have less to lose than you, so I wonā€™t judge your pacifism in the face of conflict. If stochastic terrorism becomes a way of life here, I encourage you to consider resisting the conservatives in whatever way you are most able to be effective, though, even if that does not involve violence. Whatever you do, just remember that showing kindness to an enemy that does not see you as fully human can quickly result in death.

          I wish you well.

          • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            Ā·
            1 year ago

            just remember that showing kindness to an enemy that does not see you as fully human can quickly result in death.

            This is the takeaway that allows me to see an error in my ways.

            Youā€™re so very well-spoken!