True Blue Progress

Truly strong men are not Intimidated by strong (& beautiful) women.

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said James Talarico, the young Texas Democratic nominee for Senate, is going to Hell because of his progressive interpretation of the Bible and Christian religion. 

“It’s James Talarico who decided to bring the Bible into this election. And let me tell you, that’s not a Bible I’ve ever read,” Patrick said at the Republican Party of Texas convention on Friday. “I’ve never seen so much blasphemy from anyone running for office. Let me tell you what, I’m going to pray for that guy, because when he loses the Senate race, if he campaigns against God as he’s been doing, he’s going to Hell for sure. That’s what we’re up against. That’s the darkness. That’s the light. That’s why we must be one.”

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick might want to re-read the New Testament before he speaks about Christianity. If anyone has risked his soul it is far-right "Christians" like Patrick, who have apparently sold their souls to Trump.

I love James Talarico, and given that the Roberts Court has put huge cracks in the wall separating church and state, Talarico seems to be a necessary counter to the far-right "Christian" nationalists who have taken over the GOP.

But I'd like to remind folks that THIS is why the Establishment Clause was written by our founders into the Constitution. Once one form of religion begins to be favored by the ruling class, fighting between and among religious groups will inevitably follow.

So suddenly we see conflict between the far-right "Christian" nationalists in the Trump administration and more moderate Christian leaders like Pope Leo XIV and Episcopal Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde.

So, of course, we now we have far-right "Christians" like Patrick attacking Talarico.

Source

Democrats and voting-rights groups have challenged the proposed rule as a harmful federal intrusion that could affect millions of voters who cast their ballots by mail.

The New York Times | Gift🎁link (no paywall) | By Adam Sella and Nick Corasaniti | June 11, 2026

The U.S. Postal Service has proposed a new rule that would allow it to refuse to deliver mail ballots in states that don’t turn over voter rolls to the federal government.

The rule.... calls on states to compile lists of mail voters that Postal Service employees would use to screen ballots for eligibility. If states refuse to comply, the agency could refuse to send their mail ballots.

Democrats and voting-rights groups say the proposed rule is clear evidence that the Trump administration is trying to unconstitutionally intrude on state-run elections.

Withholding some mail services... could affect millions of Americans. And most of those affected would likely be Democrats, who disproportionately vote by mail.... Screening mail ballots for voter eligibility, meanwhile, would amount to an unprecedented, and potentially unconstitutional, involvement of the federal government in the administration of elections. [....] The rule is consistent with an executive order Mr. Trump signed in March.... Postal experts said the order also threatens the service’s independence. Anton Hajjar... said his main concern is that Mr. Trump’s order amounts to “political interference with the U.S.P.S., which by law is supposed to be independent.” [....] At a gathering of Republican lawmakers in March, [Mr. Trump] framed support for legislation that would in part crack down on mail voting as a way to hold the G.O.P. majority in Congress.

“It’ll guarantee the midterms,” he told them, warning that failure would bring “big trouble.”

▪️▫️▪️▫️▪️▫️▪️▫️

Trump wants to interfere in the 2026 election by having his administration comb through state voter rolls and, according to CNN, use the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database--which is "prone to produce false positives"--in order to disproportionately "purge" potential Democrats (especially racial/ethnic minorities) from voter roles, like has often happened in the past by certain states.

Although Democrats went to court to try to stop Trump's executive order, according to the NY Times, "Judge Carl J. Nichols  ruled in late May that it was premature for the court to intervene" until the order was fully implemented, because no real "harm" had yet occurred. (It is not surprising that Judge Nichols is a Trump appointee.)

➡️[See below the cut about how one can comment about the USPS Proposed Rule: Ballot Mail for Federal Elections]