DeSantis Targets Businesses, Companies ‘Imposing Woke Ideology On The Economy’

TAMPA, Fla. – Gov. Ron DeSantis on Wednesday announced actions against businesses and companies to limit the “politicization of the economy.”

The governor made the announcement during a news conference at a restaurant in Tampa.

[TRENDING: No one wins U.S. Mega Millions, jackpot now over $1B | 13-year-old Florida boy battles deadly brain-eating amoeba | Become a News 6 Insider (it’s free!)

DeSantis said “imposing woke ideology on the economy” has become prevalent among the “biggest economic actors” in the country. He listed examples of Wall Street, banks, major asset managers and big tech companies.

He said the investment of funds should be in the best interest of the state’s beneficiaries, not a vehicle to push “an ideological agenda” and “marginalize people that… have political disagreements.”

“And what you’ve seen is you’ve seen a rise of something called ESG — environmental, social, governance — where they will grade different companies based on how they’re performing on those metrics. And then even using that when they’re managing pension funds for people and we’ve got retired teachers, law enforcement, that rely on these pension funds, and they’re putting in all these other criteria rather than just what’s the best investment,” he said.

The governor said Florida would prohibit the State Board of Administration’s fund managers from investing the state’s money based on political factors.

“We want them to invest the state’s money for the best interest of the beneficiaries of those funds, which is again the people that are retired cops and teachers and other public employees. We also are going to require SBA fund managers to only consider maximizing the return on investment on behalf of Florida’s retirees. I think that’s what people want to see. They want to see a good pension system,” he said.

DeSantis also said Florida would prohibit Wall Street, banks, credit card companies and money transmitters, like PayPal, “from discriminating against customers for their religious, political or social beliefs.”

“But the thing about the politicization of the economy in this way, it benefits the largest most powerful corporations and it disadvantages the small- and medium-sized businesses. And so this is not something that is empowering kind of a little guy. This is something in many respects that is crushing the little guy and so we want to make sure that we’re standing on the side of average people,” he said.


Governor announces actions during news conference in Tampa

Trump Is Asking An Appeals Court To Give Him Immunity From Civil Lawsuits Linked To The January 6 Capitol Riot ..😂🤣😲🤦‍♂️






  • Donald Trump is trying again to get immunity from civil lawsuits related to the Capitol riot.
  • His team filed an application Wednesday to appeal an earlier court decision.
  • The February judgment ruled that Trump could be held liable in civil suits for any wrongdoing.

Trump is urging a federal appeals court to rule that immunity from his past office shields him from civil lawsuits alleging that he incited the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

In a 48-page filing, Trump’s lawyers asked the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to overturn a February decision in which a federal judge declined to dismiss civil lawsuits seeking to hold Trump accountable for his incendiary rhetoric ahead of the Capitol riot.

Trump’s lawyers asserted that Judge Amit Mehta, an Obama appointee confirmed in 2014, refused to dismiss the lawsuits out of a distaste for Trump’s speech on January 6, in which the then-president encouraged his supporters to “fight like hell.” But Trump’s lawyers said the immunity afforded to the former president cannot be “undercut if the presidential act in question is unpopular among the judiciary.”

“The underlying factual dispute regarding the January 6, 2021, violence at the Capitol arouses the passions of many Americans, including members of the bench and bar,” Trump’s lawyers contended. “Consequently, it is especially important to avoid allowing the judicial department to pass judgment on the political statements and discourse of the President of the United States.”

Trump’s lawyers raised those arguments as they sought to fend off lawsuits from House lawmakers and two Capitol police officers who were injured during the January 6 attack. The civil lawsuits are proceeding as a House committee and the Justice Department mount parallel investigations into the Capitol attack and the efforts of Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election.

In recent days, federal prosecutors have directly asked witnesses about Trump’s involvement in efforts to overturn the election, suggesting that the Justice Department is increasingly scrutinizing the former president.

Weeks earlier, federal agents seized the phone of John Eastman, a lawyer who helped advise Trump on how to overturn the 2020 election. On the same day last month, federal investigators searched the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who embraced Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud.

In his February ruling, Mehta indicated an appreciation of presidential immunity but found that Trump’s rhetoric on January 6 was “akin to telling an excited mob that corn-dealers starve the poor in front of the corn-dealer’s home.” Mehta said Trump later displayed a tacit agreement with the mob, minutes after rioters breached the Capitol, when he sent a tweet admonishing then-Vice President for lacking the “courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country.”


Trump Is Met With Silence From GOP Audience After Complaining About Being The Most ‘Persecuted’ Person In American History

Jul 23, 2022

  • Trump’s statement came at the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit in Florida.
  • “Certainly, there’s been no politician or president treated like I’ve been treated,” he said.
  • On Friday, the former president spoke at a rally in Arizona where he was met with boos.

Former President Donald Trump says no one in American history has been as persecuted as he has.

“A friend of mine once said that I was the most persecuted person in the history of our country,” he said at the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit in Tampa, Florida, on Saturday. “I never thought of it that way. I never had time. I was always fighting these people that were trying to persecute me.”

He doubled down: “I didn’t have time to think about getting persecuted because I was fighting persecution,” continuing to add, “Certainly, there’s been no politician or president treated like I’ve been treated.”



Arizona’s MAGA Candidate For Governor Pulls A Trump And Alleges Fraud Days Before Vote



Donald Trump lackey and Republican candidate for Arizona governor Kari Lake claims she is “detecting some stealing” in the upcoming election—a week before the actual vote. The Arizona Republic reports that Lake made allegations of fraud at least four times in a speech to the right-wing North Valley Constitutional Republicans this week. “I’m telling you right now, anybody trying to steal this, first of all, we’re already detecting some stealing going on, but you guys know I’m a fighter, right?” she was quoted telling the conservative crowd. “We’re not gonna let them steal an election,” she said. The comments by the former Fox 10 news anchor, which echo the election fraud claims made by Trump ahead of the 2020 election, were not backed up by any evidence whatsoever, and they come as the race between Lake and her main opponent, Karrin Taylor Robson, has tightened. Robson called Lake’s comments “dangerous” and described the fraud claims as a “calculated narrative” that lays the framework for Lake to dispute election results if she loses.

Read it at Arizona Republic

Jonathan Bernstein…. Trump Is Plotting to Blow Up the Constitution


Contempt for the rule of law appears to be emerging as the main qualification for a job in a second Trump administration. 

The must-read reporting over the weekend was Jonathan Swan’s series at Axios exploring the efforts of former President Donald Trump’s supporters and other Trump-friendly Republicans to prepare to staff a potential Trump second term.

During the presidential nomination competition in 2015-2016, Republican party actors generally opposed Trump, in part because they considered him a risky general election candidate and in part because they were not convinced he would be reliable on matters of public policy.

When push came to shove, however, the elected officials, party professionals, interest group activists, party-aligned media figures and others who might have prevented his nomination chose not to challenge him, mainly because by the time of the Republican National Convention in July they were convinced he was willing to abide by party preferences in most policy areas. Notably, Trump had shown that he was willing to add conventional Republicans to his campaign, and the pattern continued into the presidency.

Trump’s White House was always a disorganized mess, and he had quite a number of White House staffers and executive branch choices who wouldn’t have been part of a Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio presidency. But there were plenty of conventional choices, and most of the unusual ones were Republicans on the fringes of the party, not (in most cases, at least) Trump’s personal loyalists.

Four years of a Trump presidency, however, have turned the fringes into the party mainstream, and the fringes have evolved in Trump’s direction.

Swan describes efforts already underway for staffing a second Trump administration along with criteria for selecting personnel. Trump himself is described as obsessed with the 2020 election, and what he mainly cares about is finding people who affirm his false accounts of fraud; anyone unwilling to falsely claim that Trump won the election need not apply for any position.

But as the hearings of the House Select Committee investigating the attack on the US Capitol of Jan. 6, 2021 have demonstrated, practically no one from the Trump campaign, nor anyone in the administration who knew anything about elections, believed Trump’s lies, which is why he wound up bringing in outsiders to make his case. That means that anyone eligible for a future Trump administration job is either a sycophant willing to pretend to believe dangerous nonsense, or a fool who believes dangerous nonsense after it’s been revealed that those who propagated it didn’t even believe it.

The second, overlapping qualification for a job appears to be true belief in the Trump agenda. In some cases, that means the narrow set of issues on which Trump seems to have impulses (someone who knows so little about public policy can’t be said to hold actual positions): Against overseas alliances, against traditional allies and for foreign authoritarian governments, against immigration and immigrants, against international trade. But it also means embracing the lawlessness that Trump embodies and thus wanting to dismantle the Justice Department and undermine loyalty to the rule of law. As Swan reports, what Trump and his allies most want is to eliminate anyone who resisted Trump’s requests on the grounds that they were illegal.

The third qualification appears to favor people preparing to carry out extreme conservative policies — not things Trump cares about at all, but goals that movement conservatives such as former Senator Jim DeMint, whom Swan reports is involved in one of the groups vetting names, have tried and failed to accomplish in Republican administrations from at least Ronald Reagan through Trump.

A lot of those policies don’t get implemented because they’re unpopular, and even very conservative presidents shy away from them; others don’t happen because they can’t pass Congress and enacting them without legislation would probably be blocked by the courts. Advocates of these policies know that Trump doesn’t pay any attention to what goes on unless it’s on TV, can be easily manipulated because he doesn’t bother to learn much, and doesn’t care if something his people try to do is said to be illegal.

It’s fine for a presidential candidate to make preparations to fight for policies he or she supports. Indeed, it’s generally a good sign if a candidate takes the possible transition and subsequent governing seriously, beginning with intense demands for staffing the White House and the executive branch. That includes recognizing that the bureaucracy can have a strong status quo bias that makes presidential initiatives hard to implement.

The Justice Department Plans To Prosecute Anyone Who Was “Criminally Responsible For Interfering With The Peaceful Transfer Of Power From One Administration To Another”

In an interview with NBC News’ Lester Holt, Garland suggested that the federal criminal investigation has moved far beyond the rioters who attacked the Capitol.


The Justice Department plans to prosecute anyone who was “criminally responsible for interfering with the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to another,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said Tuesday, speaking more expansively than he has previously about a federal criminal investigation that appears to have moved far beyond the rioters who attacked the Capitol.

In an exclusive interview with NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt, Garland said that the televised hearings by the House Jan. 6 committee highlighted “the truth of what happened…and what a risk it meant for our democracy.”  And he acknowledged that Justice Department investigators learned things from the congressional testimony.


“Look, the Justice Department has been doing the most wide ranging investigation in its history,” he said. “And the committee is doing an enormously wide ranging investigation as well. It is inevitable that there will be things that they find before we have found them. And it’s inevitable that there will be things we find that they haven’t found. That’s what happens when you have two wide ranging investigations going on at the same time.”


A day after news broke that the chief of staff to former Vice President Mike Pence had been called before a federal grand jury investigating Jan. 6, Holt pressed Garland on whether the Justice Department would indict former President Donald Trump if the evidence supported such an action.

“The indictment of a former president, and perhaps a candidate for president, would arguably tear the country apart,” Holt said. “Is that your concern as you make your decision down the road here, do you have to think about things like that?”

Garland replied: “We intend to hold everyone, anyone who was criminally responsible for the events surrounding Jan. 6, for any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another, accountable. That’s what we do. We don’t pay any attention to other issues with respect to that.”

Holt followed up, asking whether, if Trump were to become a candidate for president again, “that would not change your schedule or how you move forward or don’t move forward?”

Garland responded: “I’ll, say again, that we will hold accountable anyone who was criminally responsible for attempting to interfere with the transfer, legitimate, lawful transfer of power from one administration to the next.”

Garland has previously spoken about the peaceful transfer of power, but in the context of the attack on the Capitol. In a speech on Jan. 5, Garland described the assault as “interfering with a fundamental element of American democracy: the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next.” 

But Garland’s language in the Tuesday interview appeared to hint at a broader focus — any criminal interference with the transfer of power, not just actions connected to the attack. Some experts have argued that many of Trump’s actions, including his attempt to use the Justice Department to advance bogus claims of fraud and his effort to pressure Pence prior to Jan. 6, are part of a criminal scheme to halt the transfer of power.

Garland has previously spoken about the peaceful transfer of power, but in the context of the attack on the Capitol. In a speech on Jan. 5, Garland described the assault as “interfering with a fundamental element of American democracy: the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next.” 

But Garland’s language in the Tuesday interview appeared to hint at a broader focus — any criminal interference with the transfer of power, not just actions connected to the attack. Some experts have argued that many of Trump’s actions, including his attempt to use the Justice Department to advance bogus claims of fraud and his effort to pressure Pence prior to Jan. 6, are part of a criminal scheme to halt the transfer of power.

DeSantis Uses Federal COVID-19 Relief Funds To Send Nearly 60,000 Florida Families A $450-Per-Child Check To ‘Offset The Costs Of Rising Inflation’



  • Thousands of Florida families will receive one-time checks for $450 a child starting this week.
  • Gov. Ron DeSantis announced he set aside $35.5 million of COVID-19 relief funds for the checks.
  • The stimulus is directed at offsetting the costs of inflation, according to state officials.

Thousands of low-income Florida families are expected to receive relief checks to help offset inflation costs.

Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration on Thursday announced he’s reallocating some COVID-19 relief funds and sending $450 a child directly to struggling families in the state.

“This one-time payment assists families who are being affected by rising inflation and preparing to send their children back-to-school,” Laura Walthall, a spokesperson for the Florida Department of Children and Families, said in a statement to Insider.

To fund the checks, the governor has set aside $35.5 million from the $1 billion the state received from the American Rescue Plan Act, according to an announcement from Casey DeSantis, Florida’s first lady.

Eligible recipients include foster parents, relative and nonrelative caregivers, and families receiving funds from the Florida Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program or Guardianship Assistance Program, Walthall said.

The Florida Department of Children and Families said it expected about 59,000 families to receive at least one check, and, like other COVID-19 relief funds, there’s no application.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Around Half Of Older Americans Can’t Afford Essential Expenses: Report


The COVID-19 pandemic and inflation have taken a toll on older Americans’ financial security.

  • Data from the University of Massachusetts-Boston show more than half of older American women don’t have enough income to afford essential expenses.

  • Less than half of older American men fall into this category. 

  • The report takes several factors into account, including cost of health care, food, housing and transportation.

Rising inflation coupled with higher costs of living have put strains on many Americans’ pursestrings. But estimates from the University of Massachusetts-Boston’s Elder Index detail the toll of the cost of aging on the nation’s elderly residents. 

More than half of older women who live alone are classified as poor under federal poverty standards or have insufficient incomes to pay for essential expenses, while 45 percent of men share the same financial situations. 

The index takes several factors into account, including cost of health care, food, housing and transportation, and can be adjusted based on seniors’ health status. In 2020, data from the index showed more than 2 million older couples were considered financially insecure based on their yearly incomes, according to figures obtained by Kaiser Health News.


Missouri Attorney General Sues St. Louis To Stop Abortions Using Taxpayer Funds

By  Brandon Drey


Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed a lawsuit against the City of St. Louis on Thursday that would stop city officials from using taxpayer-funded resources — like the American Rescue Plan Act — to pay for abortions, including travel expenses and other costs to terminate pregnancies in other states.

“My Office today filed suit to put a stop to Mayor Jones and the City of St. Louis Board of Aldermen’s blatantly illegal move to spend Missourians’ hard-earned tax dollars on out-of-state abortions,” Schmitt said in a statement.

Schmitt’s attempt to sue St. Louis comes off the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic overturning of Roe v. Wade last month, which fundamentally changed the abortion landscape across the nation. Since then, at least eight states have outlawed abortions with little to no exceptions — including Missouri.

The decision has left women who choose to end their child’s life in such states forced to have the operation done elsewhere. However, Missouri’s AG has vowed to ensure Missouri taxpayers wouldn’t spend a dime on the terminations.

Schmitt, who unapologetically fights to uphold the sanctity of life, filed the lawsuit after St. Louis city officials passed the “Reproductive Equity Fund” bill, which authorizes $1.5 million in federal American Rescue Plan Act dollars to fund “logistical support” for abortion.

While signing the bill, CNN reports St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones said, “abortion bans hurt the working people who can’t afford child care, a hotel or time off from work because they need access to abortion care.”

However, Schmitt said the bill “clearly” violates Missouri law.

According to the lawsuit, $1 million from the so-called equity fund would cover the costs of childcare, transportation, and other needs for women who seek an abortion. At the same time, Schmitt added that the remaining $500,000 would aid “reproductive healthcare access,” which also evidently includes abortion.

Schmitt argues the bill violates state law which reads, “it shall be unlawful for any public funds to be expended for the purpose of performing or assisting an abortion, not necessary to save the life of the mother, or for the purpose of encouraging or counseling a woman to have an abortion not necessary to save her life.”

The lawsuit argues that state law prohibited public employees such as doctors, nurses, or other health care personnel like social workers or counselors from encouraging or counseling women to abort their unborn child.

“The Missouri General Assembly’s determination ‘that the state and all of its political subdivisions are a ‘sanctuary of life’ that protects pregnant women and their unborn children,’” Schmitt said.


Schmitt warned city officials before signing the bill he would file a lawsuit against the move, but the city’s mayor has stood her ground in using taxpayer money for elective abortions.

“I will not back down when our opponents threaten, bully or demean our city,” the mayor said, according to CNN. “Especially the attorney general, who is more concerned about chasing clout than care.”

Just the News reports, Mayor Jones, said 70 percent of Missourians oppose political interference in abortion access, and legal threats would not stop their fight to protect reproductive health care rights for St. Louis families.